Politics
China, U.S. Pledge Cooperation on Climate, Energy Initiatives
Published July 28, 2009 @ 05:25PM PT
"Is it possible that the long performance of the “You first, sir,” vaudeville routine by the Alphonse and Gaston of the global greenhouse is drawing toward a close?" asks New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin.
Could be: In a public ceremony today at the State Department, China and the U.S. -- the world's two greatest greenhouse gas polluters -- signed a memorandum of understanding to collaborate on climate and energy projects. [Here's a PDF of the original signed document, in Chinese and English.]
In the memo the two nations pledge to:
...strengthen and coordinate our respective efforts to combat global climate change, promote clean and efficient energy, protect the environment and natural resources, and support environmentally sustainable and low-carbon economic growth.
Both countries commit to respond vigorously to the challenges of energy security, climate change and environmental protection through ambitious domestic action and international cooperation.
Toward this end, both countries intend to transition to a low-carbon economy, carry out policy dialogue and cooperate on capacity building and research, development and deployment of climate-friendly technology.
Both countries resolve to pursue areas of cooperation where joint expertise, resources, research capacity and combined market size can accelerate progress towards mutual goals. These include, but are not limited to:
1) Energy conservation and energy efficiency
2) Renewable energy
3) Cleaner uses of coal, and carbon capture and storage
4) Sustainable transportation, including electric vehicles
5) Modernization of the electrical grid
6) Joint research and development of clean energy technologies
7) Clean air
8) Clean water
9) Natural resource conservation, e.g. protection of wetlands and nature reserves
10) Combating climate change and promoting low-carbon economic growth
It's a framework document, lacking specifics on funding, as well as trade issues dear to both nations, such as protection of intellectual property, and loosening up technology transfer.
But for all that, it's a significant move that's likely to have an impact in the hallways during international climate meetings in advance of December's "Son of Kyoto" talks in Copenhagen. Are the U.S. and China moving out of the way of a stronger international global warming accord? Are they getting on board? Or are they breaking away from the UN treaty process, to forge their own agreement? Hard to tell at this point.
Closer to home, the joint understanding may finally suck the air out of a classic justification of Congressional climate foot-draggers: that the U.S. dare not take action on greenhouse gas emissions while China, our major global economic rival, holds back.
Today the two nations took one small step, side by side.
Declassified Images Reveal Extreme Arctic Ice Melt
Published July 26, 2009 @ 08:05PM PT
Above: Beaufort Sea images, showing retreat of sea ice between 2001 and 2006. More info below.
Just hours after a mid-month request from the National Research Council, the Department of Interior released over one thousand spy images of the Arctic and other locations in the US. The Bush administration had classified the images and kept them from the public and federal scientists.
The newly declassified images document such a startling retreat of Arctic sea ice, that the UK's Guardian newspaper calls them "the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide":
The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week. President Barack Obama is currently trying to galvanise Congress and the American public to take action to halt catastrophic climate change caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
One particularly striking set of images - selected from the 1,000 photographs released - includes views of the Alaskan port of Barrow. One, taken in July 2006, shows sea ice still nestling close to the shore. A second image shows that by the following July the coastal waters were entirely ice-free.
The photographs demonstrate starkly how global warming is changing the Arctic. More than a million square kilometres of sea ice - a record loss - were missing in the summer of 2007 compared with the previous year.
Nor has this loss shown any sign of recovery.
Here's the image that the Guardian's talking about:
Kudos to Julia Whitney at the Mother Jones Blue Marble blog, Dan Vergano at USA Today's Science Fair blog, and Deborah Zabarenko at Reuters, for being right on top of this story earlier in July. As Zabarenko notes, the images are at a resolution of 1 meter, an enormous improvement over earlier images with resolutions of 15 to 30 meters.
"These are one-meter resolution images, which give you a big picture of the summertime Arctic," Thorsten Markus of Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center told Reuters. "This is the main reason why we are so thrilled about it. One-meter resolution is the dimension that's been missing."
Especially given the failed late Feburary launch of NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (it crashed into the Southern Ocean a few minutes after takeoff, due to rocket failure), these images should be an enormous boon to researchers trying to figure out how fast global warming is progressing, and better understand what the future might look like.
Whitney writes,
The higher definition pictures reveal small features with big impacts on warming—like dark melt pools on top of the ice that absorb light and heat. These images will vastly improve the accuracy of forecast modelling.
Scientists were expecting the request for the Arctic images to be declassified to take months—at least.
But apparently someone in Washington digs science and actually understands something about climate security and the perils of thin ice.
The Arctic ice cap plays a major role in regulating the global climate. Without that ice reflecting the sun's heat back into space (an effect that's called albedo), the heat is instead absorbed by the water, which in turn melts more ice, which leaves more open water to absorb more heat, and so on. (Dr. Mark Serreze, the director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, recently called this an Arctic ice death spiral.) All of which is contributing to raising the average surface temperature of the entire Earth.
That ice is also crucial habitat for polar bears, walruses and Arctic seals. Without it, it seems likely they would ultimately go extinct in the wild.
-----
Images courtesy US Geological Survey
Beaufort Sea - 73N, 150W
This region has been the site of many field studies since the International Geophysical Year 1957/58. The ice in this region is the most studied and best known. It has been the locale of many studies of the surface heat budget, as well as submarine sonar cross sections.
Arctic ice is retreating; a trend overlain with considerable year to year variability. This site is near the edge of the ice pack. In the 24 hour darkness and cold of winter, any open water freezes quickly. In summer, as shown here, ponds of meltwater form on the surface. These dark pools absorb more of summertime's solar radiation than does the surrounding ice, enhancing melting. Pond coverage monitored over time contributes to estimates of surface reflectivity that are needed to model the response of sea ice to changing climate.
Fatalistic Friday: 'Cash for Clunkers' could save 16 mpg Hummer
Published July 24, 2009 @ 11:02AM PT
Source: failblog
It's been an unusually fertile week for apocalypcious news, so let's dive right in:
'Cash For Clunkers' Program Could Boost Hummer: People who trade in their gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars can get a government subsidy -- even if they trade in old pickups for ones that get just 2 miles per gallon more. Which means the program could provide an unexpected boost to the beleaguered Hummer brand. Its H3T pickup gets 16 mpg. (NPR)
Related:
Cash for Clunkers: Compare the fuel savings (Consumer Reports)
Cars.gov, the official cash for clunkers website
Energy companies opened wallets wide to sway house climate bill: Electric utilities boosted lobbying in the second quarter of 2009, narrowing the gap with oil and gas companies that had dominated spending on persuasion by a wide margin earlier this year. (Greenwire/The New York Times)
Grist grades senate websites on climate transparency; flunks some: Grist combed the Web sites of 99 senators and issued report cards grading them on how well they explained the senators' positions on climate change and energy. "The results aren't pretty. We found a distinct lack of information among Democrats and Republicans alike, senators with and without strong environmental voting records, and from all regions of the country." (Grist)
Meet Belcha - Europe's biggest carbon polluter (and it's about to get even bigger): The biggest single producer of carbon emissions in the European Union has been named - and it is about to get even bigger. The appropriately titled Elektrownia Belchatow - a massive coal-fired power station - belched out 30,862,792 tonnes of CO2 last year and by 2010 the whole generating facility will have grown by 20%. (The Guardian)
Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Expected: A NASA study finds that Arctic ice is melting at a rate that scientists didn't anticipate. (Environment Report)
Massive Glacier In Sub-Antarctic Island Shrinks By A Fifth: French scientists say satellites show a glacier on a southern Indian Ocean island shrunk dramatically in recent decades. They think global warming may be a factor. (AFP)
Warmest june on record for global ocean surface temperature: The world's ocean surface temperature in June rose to its warmest since 1880, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville. (Environment News Service)
Arctic Mystery: Identifying The Great Blob Of Alaska: The mysterious, miles-long "blob" found floating in the Chukchi Sea is not an oil spill or alien life-form, according to early tests, but an unusual algal bloom. (TIME)
Caribou Populations Fall Sharply: Scientists are finding what seems to be a global decline in caribou populations, due to global warming (Christian Science Monitor)
Shrinking fish, dying sequoias, rampant tomato fungus, and more after the jump.
Citizenship 101: How to contact Congress
Published July 20, 2009 @ 09:36AM PT
If you have an opinion about an issue, such as stopping global warming, aiding those in poverty, or reforming the criminal justice system (among the other beats covered here at Change.org), one of the most important things you can do to influence legislation about it is to contact your senator or representative in Washington D.C.
There are a few crucial info-bits to include in your communication -- be it a letter via postal mail or a phone call, the two most effective means of voicing your opinion -- to ensure that that it will have the most impact:
1. Make the message your own.
With all due respect to letter campaigns and the tools that Change.org and others provide to facilitate them, form letters are not always the most effective way to reach out to members of Congress. "Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength," writes Carey at The Consumerist . "If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters."
2. The basic structure of your letter or phone call message should be: introduce yourself, ask for a specific action, describe your issue.
- Introduce yourself: Do you live in this person's district? For how long? Do you vote? Do you work in a field that's relevant to your issue, or are you involved in the community? Be sure to include all this information at the beginning of your communication, so that you demonstrate why they ought to listen.
- Ask for action: Notice how often form letter campaigns include the number and name of a particular piece of legislation? This is because members of Congress get hammered with bills to review, often with very little time before a committee hearing or a vote. So don't just say, "I want you to do what it takes to stop global warming." Say something like, "I urge you to vote yes on S. One Two Three, the [Name of the Legislation Act of 2009.]"
- Support your argument with facts: Your goal here is to convince a legislator that your position has merit. So reference specific facts about why your issue needs action, such as, "Global warming is already causing droughts and sudden storms that threaten the security of our nation's food supply." Put them in your own words, and even reference credible sources for the information, if it won't drag out the length of your message too much. If you have a personal anecdote that's relevant, share it; that can make a big impression.
3. Be brief.
Imagine how many letters and phone calls the average Congressional staffer goes through every day. Length matters less here than clarity of message.
4. Be courteous. Really.
Much as I'm not particularly charitable to users who post rants, insults, and distortions of fact in the comments on this blog, the staffers of your senator or representative's office are unlikely to be moved by rudeness or misinformation. "Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted," writes The Consumerist. "You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice."
5. If writing, proofread your letter and correct grammar errors.
6. Include your own name and address, and a specific request for a response if you'd like one.
7. Communicate with the right people: Your own two senators and one representative.
- First, find your ZIP+4 code: your five-digit ZIP code plus 4-digit extension.
- Next, enter the number in this handy online House of Representatives form to find contact information for your representative.
- Then go to this handy online list to find the contact information for your two senators.
Carey at The Consumerist writes that "Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make."
I can't honestly say that I've heard about this particuar Congressional courtesy before, but it sounds realistic that your opinion will carry a lot more weight with the legislators who may soon need your vote, than with those who don't. I'm going to ask a few Hill staffers and report back on what they tell me.
8. When you send your letter, make a note on the envelope as to what issue you are writing about, so that it will be directed more quickly to the relevant staffer:
Member Of Congress
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515
ATTN: Global Warming Staff
So go for it. As I sometimes note here, our legislators work for us, the taxpayers. Sending a personal message about an issue you care about is an important way to manage these employees.
(Big hat tip to The Consumerist, which inspired this post. Carey's post is also worth reading for slightly different pov and info.)
Palin's Higher Calling? Fame, Fortune via Global Warming Denial
Published July 14, 2009 @ 02:32PM PT
Does Sarah Palin understand global warming, why it's happening, and how to slow it down? In the wake of her opinion piece in today's edition of The Washington Post, in which she rehashes several false arguments against carbon cap and trade, as well as other parts of the clean energy legislation in front of Congress, we don't really know.
But those aren't the right questions to be asking, really. The real question is how far she will advance her political ambitions on the exhaust of global warming denial.
Naturally, according to Palin, America's energy security and national security will be ensured only if we drill, baby, drill. (It won't.) Charitably, she's displaying her storied grasp of factual information and public policy details. But it's equally likely that Palin's embracing the "cap and tax" crowd for the cynical purpose of walking an easy path to political fame and personal fortune.
(Which isn't to say she shouldn't be debunked. Media Matters has done a fast, good job of clearing the fog from around Palin's op-ed on federal climate and energy legislation, which is chock-full of misinformation. And let's recall that in an interview last summer, Palin did deny the reality of global warming. "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location," she said. "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.")
Give the woman credit: By applying her charisma, sex appeal, and will to power to national energy policy, Palin has made a crafty move. Here's why:
- First of all, she'll bring a surface gloss of expertise to energy security issues; she was governor of oil and gas-stoked Alaska for two and a half years, right? And before that sat on an important state oil and gas board for all of 11 months. It's sufficiently plausible believability to keep her narrow base of conservative supporters in tow. (Although keep in mind that for this crowd, the facts ultimately don't matter, and Palin understands that.)
- This same veneer of energy security acumen may entice a few fellow politicians (who might otherwise opt to keep Sarah Barracuda and her swirl of crazy at arm's length) to use Palin to advance their own anti-climate/clean energy agendas.
- Second, skepticism toward carbon cap-and-trade markets has a ready audience among libertarian and some independent voters, the only arenas where Palin has any potential to expand her base. These voters have been made wary of the House energy and climate legislation (softened up, so to speak) by the flood of disinformation preceding Palin onto the scene.
- Third, Palin -- demonstrably no slouch when it comes to identifying a free meal -- has surely noticed that there's a lot of money to be made in professionally opposing cap and trade, which goes hand in hand with organized global warming denial. ExxonMobil alone gave millions to such groups between 2002 and 2005. Last year, as the UK's Telegraph newspaper reported a couple weeks ago, ExxonMobil gave gave $75,000 to the National Center for Policy Analysis, $50,000 to the Heritage Foundation, and $245,000 to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Opponents of the Obama administration's plans for expanding clean energy and fighting global warming are probably thrilled to have Sarah Palin's pearly whites smiling in their direction. But the reality-based world can take heart by remembering that Palin's bright light has often overexposed matters she and others hoped would remain in the dark.
So pay attention as Palin embraces energy and climate policy as her "higher calling." Her presence may ultimately prove as helpful to the global warming denialists as it was to the McCain campaign, and her loyalty as true.
Suggest a story to Stop Global Warming
Published July 10, 2009 @ 08:01AM PT
Use this form to submit a news tip, story, video, or link for editorial review.
To improve your chances that it will be reviewed:
- Please include a permalink, not the top level URL/general link to an entire site
- Tell us a little about the item and why it's a good one for Stop Global Warming
Please don't use this form for any kind of personal or professional note to the editors and writers of SGW or Change.org. We're all pretty easy to find via email, which is the better medium for such messages.
Discuss: Is G8's "2 degree promise" #climate progress or fail?
Published July 09, 2009 @ 11:27AM PT
President Barack Obama confers with Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso at the G-8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, July 8, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
The Group of Eight industrial nations, meeting for a few days this week in Italy, released a joint statement today on stopping human-propelled global warming. They've agreed that action needs to be taken so that the Earth's surface temperature does not rise more than 2 deg. Centigrade/3.6 deg. Fahrenheit above average temperatures in the year 1900:
The peaking of global and national emissions should take place as soon as possible, recognizing that the timeframe for peaking will be longer in developing countries, bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities in developing countries and that low-carbon development is indispensible to sustainable development. We recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees C. In this regard and in the context of the ultimate objective of the Convention and the Bali Action Plan, we will work between now and Copenhagen, with each other and under the Convention, to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050.
With no firm commitment in there to slash human-created, heat-trapping greenhouse gases 80% by 2050 (which many scientists say is the crucial step to hold off the worst impacts of climate change), it's a lot less than many action advocates wanted. And so far G8 observers India and China, two of the biggest greenhouse polluters in the developing world, won't promise carbon cuts, either.
Is this "2 degree promise" a positive step on the road to December's international climate talks in Copenhagen? Or is it no progress at all? What should political leaders like President Obama be doing between now and December, to get a better, stronger global warming agreement? What should we do as citizens?
After the jump, the full "Declaration of the leaders of the major economies forum on energy and climate."
Update, 10:38 PM ET: I've substantially edited this post from its' earlier state of word hash. Hopefully the improved clarity will help generate some discussion about the G8 statement.
