The Seeds of a New Kind of Energy

by Erik Vance

category: Science

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.

Read More »

What Will Global Warming Look Like on the Ground?

by Katherine Gustafson

category: Science

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.

Read More »

Rays of hope amidst the frustration

by Mike Gaworecki

category: Science

Published November 18, 2009 @ 09:56AM PT

It has not been an entirely encouraging week of climate news, but there are still reasons to be hopeful.

As Katherine wrote the other day, President Obama is certainly in a tight spot when it comes to global warming policy. In his inaugural address he vowed to “restore science to its rightful place,” but he has many other major policy initiatives on his plate. And given the extremely well-funded opposition, passing strong climate change legislation will require heaps of political capital.

Many folks in the environmental community became understandably frustrated with his lack of follow-through on his commitment to restore science to prominence in the climate debate when he seemed to sit back and watch a House bill get rewritten by the coal industry and their friends in Congress.

Making matters worse, it’s now official: the Senate won’t even be considering their own version of climate legislation until 2010. Of course there was also the announcement, made while Obama was meeting with (some) other world leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting this past weekend, that they would punt on establishing a legally binding climate treaty in Copenhagen this December. Some time next year, perhaps, is the new timeline for dealing with the most urgent environmental crisis of our times. The lack of a domestic policy was apparently being used to set Obama’s foreign policy, or at least used as a scapegoat for why his administration is actively stalling a global climate deal.

This is obviously unacceptable given that we are already experiencing the effects of global warming, and they’re only going to continue to get worse. The news that global emissions actually rose by 2% last year, mostly led by China, makes the need for ambitious and binding emissions targets and other measures to combat global warming painfully clear.

So it’s a tiny ray of hope that while meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao this week, President Obama apparently established a “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine” deal on emissions:

Buried in the text of Tuesday's joint declaration between President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao was a hopeful clause about climate talks: The Obama administration is likely to offer emission-reduction targets at next month's climate summit, as long as the Chinese offer a proposal of their own.

U.S. reluctance to set a short-term emissions goal has been a sticking point in the U.N.-sponsored talks for nearly a year. Almost all industrialized nations, and many developing countries, have announced plans to curb their greenhouse-gas output by 2020. Neither the United States nor China -- which is not obligated to do so under the U.N. framework, even though it ranks as the world's biggest emitter -- has done so, thereby hampering the prospects of an agreement.

So perhaps Obama has heard the criticism of him not restoring science to its proper place. Perhaps he is sensitive to the criticisms that he is letting Congress set foreign policy, and is attempting to address the issue. One thing is certainly clear: At this point, the only thing that will get results is massive popular demand for climate solutions.

That’s why I was so heartened by a recent episode in Indonesia, where Greenpeace has set up a Climate Defenders Camp in the heart of the threatened rainforest to highlight deforestation’s role in global warming. When the Indonesian authorities came to close down the camp, over 300 local Indonesians showed up to protest and the police relented. Seriously, this was just an amazing display of non-violent resistance and civic activism. It shows how desperately the people of the world want solutions to the climate crisis we’re facing.

If we keep pushing them, our leaders will have to listen.

Photo courtesy of Elsie esq. via Flickr.

Developing World Stands Up To Developed Nations

by Mike Gaworecki

category: Science

Published October 16, 2009 @ 11:00AM PT

I'm currently on the Greenpeace ship Esperanza in the South Pacific. We're on the Defending Our Pacific tour, which is a campaign to establish a global network of marine reserves, stop overfishing of Pacific fisheries, and support Pacific island nations efforts to stop Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing in their waters.

Crewman aboard the Japanese vessel Koyu Maru 3, fishing in Cook Islands waters illegally, haul a tuna onboard. Like climate change, overfishing of the world's fisheries is threatening the livelihood of developing countries who are not contributing significantly to the source of the problem. Image © Paul Hilton/Greenpeace

Last week, we caught the Japanese ship Koyu Maru 3 fishing in Cook Islands waters without a license, which is obviously illegal. When I blogged a bout it on the Greenpeace website, I made the point that this was not just illegal but also immoral. So why is it immoral?

Last week, a new study was released by The Commonwealth that underscores the drastic need for government action on overfishing and climate change in order to stave off a collapse of global fisheries. The report warns that the oceans could soon become “deserts” and goes on to say:

The study reveals that those least responsible for the state of the oceans are most likely to suffer the consequences of poor management and climate change. Small island states in particular are vulnerable to illegal and unfair fishing by foreign fleets and to migration of fish away from warming seas.

The Esperanza has been in the Pacific region since May to support Pacific Island countries on issues ranging from climate change to fisheries collapse and marine conservation. But of course Greenpeace’s history in the Pacific Ocean goes back much further than that — all the way back to the early 1970s when we were protesting the French nuclear blasts at Moruroa. The fallout from these blasts also disproportionately affected those Pacific islanders living downwind from the blast sites — another instance of those not responsible for a problem suffering the most. While there was nothing technically illegal about these blasts, the total disregard for human health and welfare is egregious.

The industrialized commercial fishing vessels that are literally stealing fish from Pacific island nations' waters is just another example of the developed world doing as they please and disregarding the well-being of the people affected by their actions. That's why it’s very encouraging that eight Pacific island nations have come together and are standing up for their rights against these invading international commercial fishing fleets.

Pacific island states are not the only developing nations that are banding together to force the developed world to live up to their other moral obligations: “Africa will demand billions of dollars in compensation from rich polluting nations at a UN climate summit for the harm caused by global warming on the continent, African officials said Sunday.”

Lest we doubt that there is any need for this stand by African nations, even the World Bank, generally no friend to the developing world, is warning of the threats those nations are facing as the climate crisis looms: “The World Bank estimates that the developing world will suffer about 80 percent of the damage of climate change despite accounting for only around one third of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

So the real question we must be asking ourselves is: Will the developed world stand up and do the right thing in regard to these moral obligations?

Obama Establishes Enviro, Energy Targets for Federal Government

by Emily Gertz

category: Science

Published October 05, 2009 @ 05:48PM PT

The Obama administration today ordered federal agencies to aim for aggressive targets to reduce energy use, and incorporate environmental sustainability in federal government operations.

The executive order "Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance," signed today by President Obama, builds off an executive order signed by President Bush in 2007, as well as momentum created by clean energy and energy-efficiency measures funded by the stimulus act.

Under this new mandate, federal agencies must set 10-year energy reduction and environmental sustainability goals within the next 90 days. Clearly identified targets in the order include:

• 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;
• 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020;
• 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015;
• 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements;
• Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement;
• Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and
• Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

• Comments (1)