Most Popular Global Warming Posts
Should We Make People's Carbon Footprints Public?
Published November 21, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
It's a fact that public condemnation will discourage people from doing certain things. Once all your friends stop smoking and you're seen as a troglodyte for lighting up, it gets that much harder to breezily carry on puffing. It's hard to quit, all right, but somehow a lot of smokers managed it, right?
This is the same principle a new article in the New Scientist called "How reputation could save the Earth" suggests we apply to our environmental problem. Let's shame people into embracing greener habits, write David Rand and Martin Nowak, by publicizing their carbon footprints.
"Cars could be forced to display large stickers indicating average distance traveled, with inefficient cars labeled similarly to cigarettes," they write. The cars' bumper stickers, they suggest, could say something like "Environmentalist's warning: this car is highly inefficient. Its emissions contribute to climate change and cause lung cancer and other diseases." Another of their brilliant ideas? Energy companies could publicize people's energy usage in searchable databases, so we could all condemn each other for being too gluttonous about our heat and lighting.
Developed nations reveal emissions targets
Published November 20, 2009 @ 05:19PM PT
Ahead of next month’s UN climate talks in Copenhagen, most of the world’s industralized countries have announced emissions targets that they will bring to the negotiating table. I say most, not all. Guess who’s lagging?
If you guessed the good ol’ US of A is the laggard, you were right.
Now, it’s true that not all of the emissions targets being proposed are terribly ambitious. South Korea, for instance, has proposed a 30% reduction from “business as usual” by 2020, which sounds great. But that actually works out to be only about 4% below 2005 levels, whereas scientists tell us that we need to reduce global emissions to about 25% below 1990 levels to be on track to avert the worst impacts of global warming.
Russia, on the other hand, has signaled that it’s prepared to cut emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and even willing to go up to 25% given a favorable outcome in Copenhagen.
This issue of which so-called “baseline year” to use – 1990 or 2005 – is extremely important. The climate bill passed by the House, for instance, uses the 2005 baseline, as does the bill currently before the Senate.
The year 1990 is the preferred baseline because that was when the IPCC issued its First Assessment Report and the world began to get serious about dealing with global warming. I don’t honestly know why 2005 is the alternative baseline year, but I do know that it happens to be the year that US emissions were the highest they’ve ever been.
So when you hear that the Kerry-Boxer bill before the Senate shoots for 20% reductions relative to 2005, that’s not the same as a 20% reduction pledge relative to 1990 made by the EU. The Kerry-Boxer bill’s target works out to about 7% below 1990 levels – which is a bit better than what the House bill calls for (17% below 2005 levels, which is about 4% below 1990 levels).
So while the US hasn’t put its own emissions targets on the table yet, that might actually be a good thing, given the low-ball numbers both Houses of Congress are working with. The US needs to lead the world in Copenhagen, not cover for other low-ballers like South Korea and drag down the efforts of developed countries like Russia and those in the EU who are discussing ambitious emissions reductions targets.
Image by [JP] Corrêa Carvalho via Flickr.
The Seeds of a New Kind of Energy
Published November 20, 2009 @ 11:52AM PT
First, a confession.
Last week, in my introductory blog entry I lied to you, the reader. What’s worse, I did it knowing full well that I was lying through my dirty little teeth.
In that entry I said that the highest wind densities in the country are above North Dakota. That was a lie. Well, okay, lie is a strong word. North Dakota does have the strongest wind you can feel when you lick your finger and stick it in the air.
But it’s not the strongest in the country.
Failing On Tar Sands and Climate Leadership, Canada Has Lost All Credibility
Published November 20, 2009 @ 07:54AM PT
Why is Canada going to Copenhagen with no real plan to combat climate change, no money on the table, and severely lagging behind the rest of the world? Being responsible for producing some of the world's dirtiest oil may have something to do with it. Agit Pop have created an awesome video (below) that explains how Canada's tar sands project is the largest and most destructive project on earth with a "toxic sacrifice zone" the size of England. A video explains how destructive the project is to wildlife, to the environment, to native people, and to Canada's reputation around the world.
Exploiting the world's dirtiest oil, and causing so much environmental damage, must not stand whilst countries around the globe are trying to unite to fight climate change. As if that wasn't enough to damage Canada's reputation, it's "You First" stance is further eroding its credibility. As an op-ed in the Winnipeg Free Press notes, "On climate change we have no moral authority at all." Not only has Canada reneged on its Kyoto promises but its lack of leadership sees Canada burying it's head deep in the tar sands, not prepared to take action on climate change.
Pope: Global Warming Will Not Starve the World
Published November 20, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Monday, on the opening day of the World Summit on Food Security, Pope Benedict XVI tried to put the panic about global-warming-induced food crises to rest.
According to the UK's Times Online, the Pope said that the Earth can produce enough for everyone despite the ravages climate change might inflict. It is greed, he said, that has driven up prices and increased hunger in the world.
His remarks emphasized that food should not be treated like any other commodity, especially because "there is no cause and effect relationship between population growth and hunger." Nobel Prize-winning economic Amartya Sen has long commented that hunger is not a problem of production but one of access.
Angry Mermaid Award Nominates Worst Climate Lobbyists
Published November 19, 2009 @ 04:11PM PT
The Angry Mermaid Awards is highlighting and promoting the worst company or business lobby who have done the most to prevent real change taking place by promoting false solutions to climate change. So who exactly is sabotaging effective action on climate change?There's everyone from American Petroleum Institute's (API) astroturfing campaign, faking a grassroots campaign against the US Climate Bills to Monsanto and the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) who claim soy to be climate-friendly when in fact it has severe social and environmental impacts. And let's not forget Royal Dutch Shell who the Angry Mermaid Awards explain are "actively investing in the energy-intensive tar sands, at the same time as pushing unproven Carbon, Capture and Storage." Having spent $2.4 million lobbying politicians, they're working to weaken climate legislation and are worthy nominees for the Angry Mermaid. They are exactly the people it's worth getting angry about at Copenhagen.
We'll have two bloggers from Change.org covering COP15, the UN Climate Change Conference, keeping you up to date on the policy decision being made (or not being made) and all the activism happening on the ground, as it happens. There are a lot of people trying to derail a global deal, but we'll continue to fight for a comprehensive and effective Copenhagen Protocol.
Photo: Jazonz
What Will Global Warming Look Like on the Ground?
Published November 19, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
It's easy to talk about global warming on grandiose terms (the word "global" is in the title, after all). But it's sometimes harder to imagine what the concept really means for our daily lives. Some of us want to know what will happen when all the analysts and number-crunchers have gone home and the climatic disturbances start appearing one by one.
The UK's Telegraph recently published an article detailing some of the changes those of us not exposed to the extremes of a drowning island or a melting Himalaya might experience as the climate warms. What can we expect? Here's a run-down of some of the possibilities in Europe.
