Ban on plastic bags makes HP clean
Shimla, Jan 19: The hills are looking clean again. Once an eyesore, littering the verdant mountain slopes, choking drains and scarring the environment, plastic pollution has come down dramatically in Shimla and other parts of Himachal Pradesh, four years after this north Indian state banned the use of small polythene bags.
"Before the implementation of the ban, polythene pollution was a major problem in the state," R.K. Sood, joint member- secretary of the Himachal State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, told.
Describing the scene before the ban was imposed, he said: "Plastic bags littered the hillsides. During the monsoon, the rain water brought along heaps of polythene bags and other non-biodegradable material that choked most of the municipal drains. Now, the problem has been solved to a great extent."
Himachal Pradesh was the first state in India to ban the production, storage, use, sale and distribution of small polythene bags in June 2004.
Under the Himachal Pradesh Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act of 1995, any violator trespassing faced a fine up to Rs.25,000. The minimum fine was fixed at Rs.500.
"The ban on use of coloured polythene bags manufactured from recycled plastic was initially imposed on Jan 1, 1999. Later in 2004, the ban was imposed under Section 7(h) of the State Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Rules on the use of polythene bags having thickness less than 70 microns and size less than 18"x12"," Sood said. As a result, paper and jute bags are now back in the state.
Sanjay Verma, project officer with the state Department of Environment Science and Technology, said: "Initially, it was a herculean task to enforce the ban. Special sensitisation drives were launched across the state to educate the common man about the ecological hazards and about which type of bags were exempted from the ban and which were not."
About 20 government officials were empowered at the district and sub-divisional level to ensure effective implementation of the ban."Still, 25 to 30 people are fined on an average every month in the state," Verma said. He said the problem is still acute in areas located along neighbouring Punjab and Haryana.
"The use of polythene continues in the border areas of the state. The problem can be checked when the neighbouring states enforce the ban too. Moreover, tourists generate more plastic during the peak season than the locals during the entire year," he said.
To dispose of Shimla's polythene waste, private firm Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd(GACL) joined hands with the city's municipal corporation in July last year as part of corporate social responsibility.
"As part of the understanding, we (GACL) are regularly getting truckloads of polythene waste that is scientifically burnt at our Darlaghat unit in Solan district," GACL official Sandeep Kapoor said.Around 1.5 to 2 quintals of polythene waste is collected daily in Shimla alone.
State Forest Minister J.P. Nadda said the state would soon have its environmental master plan to tackle critical areas of environmental degradation. "The master plan will include a baseline study of the environmental vulnerabilities and details of measures to tackle problems mainly related to urban solid waste, industrial pollution and ecological degradation caused by hydropower projects," he said.
IANS
resource: http://www.zeenews.com/sci-tech/eco-news/2009-01-19/499827news.html
JOIN US:
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2009
still want to use plastic?
SANGAM (ALLAHABAD): If you are still carrying foodstuff or essential commodities in polythene bags on the bank of the Ganga or the Yamuna during
Magh Mela, you run the risk of being penalised.
In fact, vigilant mela officials are on prowl on the entire campus to catch defaulters and initiate strict measures against them accordingly. Perhaps, this would be the first time in the history of Magh Mela in last one decade when usage of polythene or polybags was completely banned on the mela campus. Even the owners of shops of essential commodities and grocery, who have set up their business establishments in and around the campus, were not allowed to keep polythene bags with them to serve the customers.
The mela administration has assigned the special task to administrative teams of carrying out frequent raids at shops and punish the errant shop owners or carriers. The motive of banning polythene bags, according to insiders, could be an effective tool in reducing pollution in river Ganga and the Mela administration has been urging visitors to discard the use of polythene bags.
Till date, preventive action was initiated against 200 persons who had carried away polythene bags into mela campus due to ignorance or being of neighbouring district\state visitors.
District magistrate Rajeev Aggarwal said that the ban was put in place since the first day and would be effective till February 23. He added the orders covers all market areas, eating joints and hospitals.
He further stressed that there was an urgent need to educate and aware people about the disadvantages of using polythene bags. He, however, admitted that the usage of polythene bags has certainly declined in mela campus this year as the administrative teams had already seized polythene bags and related materials in the same regard.
Aggarwal also maintained that the mela administration has also sought the support of pilgrims and visitors, apprising them about the disadvantage of polythene made material and visitors have also assured them to keep them away from its usage. He added that preventive actions were being initiated against the defaulters and they were also given oral warnings.
Recently, a group of 15 visitors from Madhya Pradesh became so much impressed over the mela administration approach of banning polythene usage, claiming that it could reduce the pollution level of river ganga little a bit that they promised the concerned authorities to minimise its usage in their routine life too.
Resource: News
In fact, vigilant mela officials are on prowl on the entire campus to catch defaulters and initiate strict measures against them accordingly. Perhaps, this would be the first time in the history of Magh Mela in last one decade when usage of polythene or polybags was completely banned on the mela campus. Even the owners of shops of essential commodities and grocery, who have set up their business establishments in and around the campus, were not allowed to keep polythene bags with them to serve the customers.
The mela administration has assigned the special task to administrative teams of carrying out frequent raids at shops and punish the errant shop owners or carriers. The motive of banning polythene bags, according to insiders, could be an effective tool in reducing pollution in river Ganga and the Mela administration has been urging visitors to discard the use of polythene bags.
Till date, preventive action was initiated against 200 persons who had carried away polythene bags into mela campus due to ignorance or being of neighbouring district\state visitors.
District magistrate Rajeev Aggarwal said that the ban was put in place since the first day and would be effective till February 23. He added the orders covers all market areas, eating joints and hospitals.
He further stressed that there was an urgent need to educate and aware people about the disadvantages of using polythene bags. He, however, admitted that the usage of polythene bags has certainly declined in mela campus this year as the administrative teams had already seized polythene bags and related materials in the same regard.
Aggarwal also maintained that the mela administration has also sought the support of pilgrims and visitors, apprising them about the disadvantage of polythene made material and visitors have also assured them to keep them away from its usage. He added that preventive actions were being initiated against the defaulters and they were also given oral warnings.
Recently, a group of 15 visitors from Madhya Pradesh became so much impressed over the mela administration approach of banning polythene usage, claiming that it could reduce the pollution level of river ganga little a bit that they promised the concerned authorities to minimise its usage in their routine life too.
Resource: News
Monday, January 5, 2009
Small Tsunami Waves
Twin Papua Quakes Collapse Hotel; Trigger Small Tsunami Waves
Japan coast braces after twin quakes in Indonesia
TOKYO, Jan 4, 2009 (AFP) - Japan's Pacific coast could see some minor tsunami waves on Sunday after two powerful earthquakes off Indonesia, but nothing big enough to cause damage, the country's meteorological agency said. Waves up to 50 centimetres (1.5 feet) could reach the Pacific sides of islands from the Okinawan chain to the main island of Honshu, it said in an advisory -- which is less significant than an urgent warning. The agency advised people from going near beaches and estuaries. A 7.6-magnitude quake and 7.5-magnitude aftershock hit Sunday morning off.
by Staff Writers
Manokwari, Indonesia (AFP) Jan 4, 2009
Two powerful earthquakes rattled Indonesia's West Papua province early Sunday, triggering panic among residents but there were no immediate reports of any casualties or heavy damage.
The first 7.6-magnitude quake struck at 4:43 am (1943 GMT Saturday), about 150 kilometres northwest of the city of Manokwari, the US Geological Survey said, triggering a tsunami alert that was later withdrawn.
It was followed almost three hours later at 2233 GMT by a 7.5-magnitude aftershock, the US agency said.
Both quakes were fairly shallow, with the first hitting at a depth of 35 kilometres (22 miles) and the second at 45 kilometres.
Distressed residents ran out of their homes as the quake rattled Manokwari, the seaside capital of the province, but there were no immediate signs of heavy damage or injuries, an AFP correspondent in the town said.
Thousands of residents including children and the elderly could be seen thronging the roads of the town in the darkness of a blackout and heading away from the sea despite the tsunami warning being lifted.
Little damage could be seen initially in the town apart from cracked walls.
"The quake was quite strong and we felt it for about three minutes. The electricity blacked out after the quake," a policeman who identified himself as Ketut said.
"The police and military are working right now to help people get to higher ground due to the tsunami alert and the fact that we're on the coast," he said.
Several smaller aftershocks were also reported in the hours following the first quake, Indonesian seismologists said.
Indonesia, which sits at the meeting of continental plates, is frequently hit by earthquakes and tsunamis.
The Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, which was triggered by a massive quake off the coast of Indonesia, killed at least 168,000 people in the country's Aceh province and Nias island.
Hotel collapses after powerful Indonesian quakes
A hotel in Indonesia's West Papua province collapsed when the second of two powerful earthquakes hit the region Sunday and three people were pulled alive from the rubble, officials said.
The three guests who had been staying at the Mutiara hotel in the city of Manokwari were taken to hospital, but their condition was not immediately clear. No other hotel staff or guests were believed to be trapped or missing.
"Those three hotel guests returned to their room after the first big quake. They failed to evacuate after the second powerful quake struck and got trapped in the hotel rubble," a hotel staffer identified as Harun told AFP.
"The three have been brought to a nearby hospital. But it's not clear what injuries they suffered," he added.
He said that the hotel had failed to withstand the quake as it was old but that other buildings in the neighbourhood had received only minor damage such as cracks to the walls.
The first 7.6-magnitude quake struck at 4:43 am (1943 GMT Saturday), about 150 kilometres northwest of Manokwari and was followed almost three hours later by a 7.5 magnitude aftershocks, the US Geological Survey said.
resource : http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Twin_Papua_Quakes_Collapse_Hotel_Trigger_Small_Tsunami_Waves_999.html
Japan coast braces after twin quakes in Indonesia
TOKYO, Jan 4, 2009 (AFP) - Japan's Pacific coast could see some minor tsunami waves on Sunday after two powerful earthquakes off Indonesia, but nothing big enough to cause damage, the country's meteorological agency said. Waves up to 50 centimetres (1.5 feet) could reach the Pacific sides of islands from the Okinawan chain to the main island of Honshu, it said in an advisory -- which is less significant than an urgent warning. The agency advised people from going near beaches and estuaries. A 7.6-magnitude quake and 7.5-magnitude aftershock hit Sunday morning off.
by Staff Writers
Manokwari, Indonesia (AFP) Jan 4, 2009
Two powerful earthquakes rattled Indonesia's West Papua province early Sunday, triggering panic among residents but there were no immediate reports of any casualties or heavy damage.
The first 7.6-magnitude quake struck at 4:43 am (1943 GMT Saturday), about 150 kilometres northwest of the city of Manokwari, the US Geological Survey said, triggering a tsunami alert that was later withdrawn.
It was followed almost three hours later at 2233 GMT by a 7.5-magnitude aftershock, the US agency said.
Both quakes were fairly shallow, with the first hitting at a depth of 35 kilometres (22 miles) and the second at 45 kilometres.
Distressed residents ran out of their homes as the quake rattled Manokwari, the seaside capital of the province, but there were no immediate signs of heavy damage or injuries, an AFP correspondent in the town said.
Thousands of residents including children and the elderly could be seen thronging the roads of the town in the darkness of a blackout and heading away from the sea despite the tsunami warning being lifted.
Little damage could be seen initially in the town apart from cracked walls.
"The quake was quite strong and we felt it for about three minutes. The electricity blacked out after the quake," a policeman who identified himself as Ketut said.
"The police and military are working right now to help people get to higher ground due to the tsunami alert and the fact that we're on the coast," he said.
Several smaller aftershocks were also reported in the hours following the first quake, Indonesian seismologists said.
Indonesia, which sits at the meeting of continental plates, is frequently hit by earthquakes and tsunamis.
The Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, which was triggered by a massive quake off the coast of Indonesia, killed at least 168,000 people in the country's Aceh province and Nias island.
Hotel collapses after powerful Indonesian quakes
A hotel in Indonesia's West Papua province collapsed when the second of two powerful earthquakes hit the region Sunday and three people were pulled alive from the rubble, officials said.
The three guests who had been staying at the Mutiara hotel in the city of Manokwari were taken to hospital, but their condition was not immediately clear. No other hotel staff or guests were believed to be trapped or missing.
"Those three hotel guests returned to their room after the first big quake. They failed to evacuate after the second powerful quake struck and got trapped in the hotel rubble," a hotel staffer identified as Harun told AFP.
"The three have been brought to a nearby hospital. But it's not clear what injuries they suffered," he added.
He said that the hotel had failed to withstand the quake as it was old but that other buildings in the neighbourhood had received only minor damage such as cracks to the walls.
The first 7.6-magnitude quake struck at 4:43 am (1943 GMT Saturday), about 150 kilometres northwest of Manokwari and was followed almost three hours later by a 7.5 magnitude aftershocks, the US Geological Survey said.
resource : http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Twin_Papua_Quakes_Collapse_Hotel_Trigger_Small_Tsunami_Waves_999.html
Series of quakes hit Indonesia
Series of quakes hit Indonesia,
killing 42009-01-05 02:26:01 -
MANOKWARI, Indonesia (AP) - A series of powerful earthquakes killed at least four people and injured dozens in remote eastern Indonesia Sunday and briefly triggered fears of another tsunami in a country still recovering from 2004's deadly waves.One of the quakes _ a 7.3-magnitude tremor _ was felt as far away as Australia and sent small tsunamis into Japan's southeastern coast.Residents near the epicenter in Papua province rushed from their homes in search of higher ground shortly after the first 7.6-magnitude quake struck at 4:43 a.m. local time (1943 GMT), afraid that huge waves might wash over the island.The epicenter was about 85 miles (135 kilometers) from Papua's main city of Manokwari and occurred at a depth of 22 miles (35 kilometers), the U.S. Geological Survey said. It was followed by dozens of aftershocks.At least four people died, dozens were injured and some 135 homes and other buildings were badly damaged or toppled in the province. Power lines fell, cutting off electricity, and the runway of Manokwari's Rendani airport was cracked, prompting the cancellation of commercial flights.The government initially issued a tsunami warning but lifted it within an hour after it was confirmed that the epicenter was on land, not water.Quakes centered onshore pose little tsunami threat to Indonesia itself, but those close to the coast can churn up large waves that sometimes reach the coastlines of other countries such as Japan.Japan reported tsunamis between 4 inches (10 centimeters) and 16 inches (40 centimeters) high hitting its shores following the temblors.A huge quake off western Indonesia caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed about 230,000 people, more than half of them on the western Indonesian island of Sumatra. Four years on, the multibillion dollar rebuilding process is almost complete.Residents in Papua's Manokwari _ a jumble of low-lying brick and cement structures home to 167,000 people _ remained jittery late Sunday, with thousands prepared to sleep outside for fear of aftershocks.«We don't feel safe,» said Simon, 32, who like many Indonesians goes by one name. He was staying outside with his wife and three kids. «It's just in case there are strong aftershocks.Local officials drove through the streets warning people not to return to structures that might be vulnerable if an aftershock hit.The Indonesian healthy ministry was sending an aid team to Manokwari Sunday night as well as four tons of medical supplies and baby food, spokeswoman Lily Sulistyowati said.Relief agency World Vision Indonesia was flying in 2,000 emergency provision kits, including canned food, blankets and basic medical supplies, said spokeswoman Katarina Hardono. She said its team will try to reach Manokwari by plane, but if needed will make a 36-hour trip by boat.The National Disaster Coordination Agency said 135 houses and buildings were badly damaged or collapsed.Hengky Tewu, director of a local hospital, said 19 patients were being treated there for broken bones, cuts, crushed fingers and other injuries.Twenty quake patients were being treated at a navy hospital, said Ina, a nurse who also goes by a single name.Papua _ located about 1,830 miles (2,955 kilometers) east of the capital Jakarta _ is among the nation's least developed areas, and a low-level insurgency has simmered in the resource-rich region for years. It is off limits to foreign reporters.Indonesia straddles a chain of fault lines and volcanoes known as the Pacific «Ring of Fire» and is prone to seismic activity.The quake was felt 800 miles (1,300 kilometers) southwest of Papua in Australia's northern city of Darwin but no damage was reported there.
Associated Press writers Zakki Hakim and Niniek Karmini contributed to this report from Jakarta.
window.google_render_ad();
resource: http://www.pr-inside.com/print988533.htm
killing 42009-01-05 02:26:01 -
MANOKWARI, Indonesia (AP) - A series of powerful earthquakes killed at least four people and injured dozens in remote eastern Indonesia Sunday and briefly triggered fears of another tsunami in a country still recovering from 2004's deadly waves.One of the quakes _ a 7.3-magnitude tremor _ was felt as far away as Australia and sent small tsunamis into Japan's southeastern coast.Residents near the epicenter in Papua province rushed from their homes in search of higher ground shortly after the first 7.6-magnitude quake struck at 4:43 a.m. local time (1943 GMT), afraid that huge waves might wash over the island.The epicenter was about 85 miles (135 kilometers) from Papua's main city of Manokwari and occurred at a depth of 22 miles (35 kilometers), the U.S. Geological Survey said. It was followed by dozens of aftershocks.At least four people died, dozens were injured and some 135 homes and other buildings were badly damaged or toppled in the province. Power lines fell, cutting off electricity, and the runway of Manokwari's Rendani airport was cracked, prompting the cancellation of commercial flights.The government initially issued a tsunami warning but lifted it within an hour after it was confirmed that the epicenter was on land, not water.Quakes centered onshore pose little tsunami threat to Indonesia itself, but those close to the coast can churn up large waves that sometimes reach the coastlines of other countries such as Japan.Japan reported tsunamis between 4 inches (10 centimeters) and 16 inches (40 centimeters) high hitting its shores following the temblors.A huge quake off western Indonesia caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed about 230,000 people, more than half of them on the western Indonesian island of Sumatra. Four years on, the multibillion dollar rebuilding process is almost complete.Residents in Papua's Manokwari _ a jumble of low-lying brick and cement structures home to 167,000 people _ remained jittery late Sunday, with thousands prepared to sleep outside for fear of aftershocks.«We don't feel safe,» said Simon, 32, who like many Indonesians goes by one name. He was staying outside with his wife and three kids. «It's just in case there are strong aftershocks.Local officials drove through the streets warning people not to return to structures that might be vulnerable if an aftershock hit.The Indonesian healthy ministry was sending an aid team to Manokwari Sunday night as well as four tons of medical supplies and baby food, spokeswoman Lily Sulistyowati said.Relief agency World Vision Indonesia was flying in 2,000 emergency provision kits, including canned food, blankets and basic medical supplies, said spokeswoman Katarina Hardono. She said its team will try to reach Manokwari by plane, but if needed will make a 36-hour trip by boat.The National Disaster Coordination Agency said 135 houses and buildings were badly damaged or collapsed.Hengky Tewu, director of a local hospital, said 19 patients were being treated there for broken bones, cuts, crushed fingers and other injuries.Twenty quake patients were being treated at a navy hospital, said Ina, a nurse who also goes by a single name.Papua _ located about 1,830 miles (2,955 kilometers) east of the capital Jakarta _ is among the nation's least developed areas, and a low-level insurgency has simmered in the resource-rich region for years. It is off limits to foreign reporters.Indonesia straddles a chain of fault lines and volcanoes known as the Pacific «Ring of Fire» and is prone to seismic activity.The quake was felt 800 miles (1,300 kilometers) southwest of Papua in Australia's northern city of Darwin but no damage was reported there.
Associated Press writers Zakki Hakim and Niniek Karmini contributed to this report from Jakarta.
window.google_render_ad();
resource: http://www.pr-inside.com/print988533.htm
Monday, December 15, 2008
Obama left with little time to curb global warming
Obama left with little time to curb global warming
WASHINGTON – When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.
Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.
"The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. "We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."
But there are powerful political and economic realities that must be quickly overcome for Obama to succeed. Despite the urgency he expresses, it's not at all clear that he and Congress will agree on an approach during a worldwide financial crisis in time to meet some of the more crucial deadlines.
Obama is pushing changes in the way Americans use energy, and produce greenhouse gases, as part of what will be a massive economic stimulus. He called it an opportunity "to re-power America."
After years of inaction on global warming, 2009 might be different. Obama replaces a president who opposed mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution and it appears he will have a willing Congress. Also, next year, diplomats will try to agree on a major new international treaty to curb the gases that promote global warming.
"We need to start in January making significant changes," Gore said in a recent telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This year coming up is the most important opportunity the world has ever had to make progress in really solving the climate crisis."
Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."
"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."
U.S. emissions have increased by 20 percent since 1992. China has more than doubled its carbon dioxide pollution in that time. World carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than scientists' worst-case scenarios. Methane, the next most potent greenhouse gas, suddenly is on the rise again and scientists fear that vast amounts of the trapped gas will escape from thawing Arctic permafrost.
The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past what some scientists say is the safe level.
In the early 1990s, many scientists figured that the world was about a century away from a truly dangerous amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Mike MacCracken, who was a top climate scientist in the Clinton administration. But as they studied the greenhouse effect further, scientists realized that harmful changes kick in at far lower levels of carbon dioxide than they thought. Now some scientists, but not all, say the safe carbon dioxide level for Earth is about 10 percent below what it is now.
Gore called the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."
Scientists fear that what's happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.
In December 2009, diplomats are charged with forging a new treaty replacing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set limits on greenhouse gases, and which the United States didn't ratify. This time European officials have high expectations for the U.S. to take the lead. But many experts don't see Congress passing a climate bill in time because of pressing economic and war issues.
"The reality is, it may take more than the first year to get it all done," Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said recently.
Complicating everything is the worldwide financial meltdown. Frank Maisano, a Washington energy specialist and spokesman who represents coal-fired utilities and refineries, sees the poor economy as "a huge factor" that could stop everything. That's because global warming efforts are aimed at restricting coal power, which is cheap. That would likely mean higher utility bills and more damage to ailing economies that depend on coal production, he said.
Obama is stacking his Cabinet and inner circle with advocates who have pushed for deep mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas pollution and even with government officials who have achieved results at the local level.
The President-elect has said that one of the first things he will do when he gets to Washington is grant California and other states permission to control car tailpipe emissions, something the Bush administration denied.
And though congressional action may take time, the incoming Congress will be more inclined to act on global warming. In the House, liberal California Democrat Henry Waxman's unseating of Michigan Rep. John Dingell — a staunch defender of Detroit automakers — as head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was a sign that global warming will be on the fast track.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., vowed to push two global warming bills starting in January: one to promote energy efficiency as an economic stimulus and the other to create a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from utilities. "The time is now," she wrote in a Dec. 8 letter to Obama.
Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government's machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.
The average global temperature in 2008 is likely to wind up slightly under 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit, about a tenth of a degree cooler than last year. When Clinton was inaugurated, 57.9 easily would have been the warmest year on record. Now, that temperature would qualify as the ninth warmest year.
___
Associated Press writer Dina Cappiello contributed to this report.
source : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081214/ap_on_sc/global_warming_obama/print
Friday, December 5, 2008
Quake with magnitude of 6.1 hits northern Japan
Quake with magnitude of 6.1 hits northern Japan
1 day ago
TOKYO (AP) — A 6.1-magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of northern Japan on Thursday, the Meteorological Agency said. There were no immediate reports of damage or casualties.
The quake hit Thursday morning off the coast of Miyagi, about 180 miles (290 kilometers) north of Tokyo, the agency said. It struck at a depth of about six miles (10 kilometers).
The agency said there was no danger of a tsunami from the earthquake.
Masakazu Murakami, an official in charge of disaster management in Miyagi, said the quake caused no damage to utilities such as water, electricity, gas and telephone lines.
"I was in the office when the quake hit this morning. But I did not feel any tremors," Murakami said.
A police official in Miyagi said authorities there had not received any reports of damage or casualties. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department policy.
Japan is one of the world's most earthquake-prone countries.
The most recent major quake in Japan killed more than 6,400 people in the western port city of Kobe in January 1995.
Experts believe Tokyo has a 90 percent chance of being hit by a major quake over the next 50 years.
source :
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j2Of-mRPmlnRRq09DW2EVRHLWqnAD94RIKN80
1 day ago
TOKYO (AP) — A 6.1-magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of northern Japan on Thursday, the Meteorological Agency said. There were no immediate reports of damage or casualties.
The quake hit Thursday morning off the coast of Miyagi, about 180 miles (290 kilometers) north of Tokyo, the agency said. It struck at a depth of about six miles (10 kilometers).
The agency said there was no danger of a tsunami from the earthquake.
Masakazu Murakami, an official in charge of disaster management in Miyagi, said the quake caused no damage to utilities such as water, electricity, gas and telephone lines.
"I was in the office when the quake hit this morning. But I did not feel any tremors," Murakami said.
A police official in Miyagi said authorities there had not received any reports of damage or casualties. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department policy.
Japan is one of the world's most earthquake-prone countries.
The most recent major quake in Japan killed more than 6,400 people in the western port city of Kobe in January 1995.
Experts believe Tokyo has a 90 percent chance of being hit by a major quake over the next 50 years.
source :
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j2Of-mRPmlnRRq09DW2EVRHLWqnAD94RIKN80
Friday, November 21, 2008
Indonesia's Quake Toll Rises To Six, 10,000 Displaced
(RTTNews) - Six persons were killed and over 10,000 others were displaced after a strong earthquake of magnitude 7.5 rattled Indonesia's Sulawesi Island Monday. Health ministry reports said that over 150 persons were injured.
The shallow quake hit Indonesia early Monday with its epicenter 138 km northwest of Gorontalo city. Indonesia's meteorology agency issued a tsunami alert, but the warning was lifted later.
Two more bodies were pulled out from the rubble Tuesday adding to the four already reported dead in Monday's quake. The Health Ministry crisis center reports said that over 1,000 buildings were damaged in the quake and over 10,000 persons had sought safe shelters out of their homes.
Indonesia had just launched a hi-tech tsunami alert system to issue early warnings, but experts said that large parts of the country are still not covered and the system will not be fully operational till 2010.
Meanwhile, a moderate earthquake of magnitude 5.5 rocked eastern Indonesia Tuesday. However, there were no reports of damage or casualties.
by RTT Staff Writer
For comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com
Source: http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=779460&SMap=1
The shallow quake hit Indonesia early Monday with its epicenter 138 km northwest of Gorontalo city. Indonesia's meteorology agency issued a tsunami alert, but the warning was lifted later.
Two more bodies were pulled out from the rubble Tuesday adding to the four already reported dead in Monday's quake. The Health Ministry crisis center reports said that over 1,000 buildings were damaged in the quake and over 10,000 persons had sought safe shelters out of their homes.
Indonesia had just launched a hi-tech tsunami alert system to issue early warnings, but experts said that large parts of the country are still not covered and the system will not be fully operational till 2010.
Meanwhile, a moderate earthquake of magnitude 5.5 rocked eastern Indonesia Tuesday. However, there were no reports of damage or casualties.
by RTT Staff Writer
For comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com
Source: http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=779460&SMap=1
Monday, November 17, 2008
16 November 2008
Showcases Its Revolutionary Air Purifer; Confernce A Success
The EnviroCities 2008 International Conference that was held at the Bustan Rotana Hotel, was organized by the 'Environmental Centre for Arab Towns', in association with Harvard University- School of Public Health. More than 20 experts from different parts of the world had spoken about the health hazards of pollution and the ways to combat them, such as the use of Plasmacluster Ion Purifier developed by Sharp Corp. The conference was attended by ministers, senior government officials, NGO's, healthcare professionals and other dignified invitees.
This conference had attracted the attention of the world leaders, the conference calls for the immediate government intervention in emission control and the subsequent healthcare. "We are proud to say that Sharp Plasmacluster ion technology can help to provide healthier and comfortable indoor environment. The Plasmacluster ion purifier from Sharp generates positive and negative ions that can inactivate airborne virus, bacteria, odour and allergens." Mr Fred Yamaguchi, the newly on board Managing Director of Sharp Middle East said in his presentation speech in EnviroCities conference.
The effect of the Plasmacluster has proven its effect against more than 17 kinds of airborne and harmful species including bird flu H5N1.It has also been proven that the trigger of allergic asthma can be reduced by the Plasmacluster ions, and Sharp has granted the certificate from Asthma Society of Canada in the year 2004.
More than 25 collaborative researches have been conducted with academic bodies and associations all over the world, including the Asthma association of Canada, as well as the Professors from Harvard School of public health in the US, University of London in the UK, and University of Lubeck in Germany.
Sharp had built stalls around the conference area to demonstrate the Plasmacluster air purifiers, a technology that was verified by harnessing the intellectual power of experts across the globe, in the field of healthcare control.
The conference also emphasized about the active involvement of the government in cutting the carbon and other greenhouse gas emission. It has highlighted about the repercussions that will result if strategies to control all forms of pollution are not implemented immediately. Sharp Corp, the Platinum sponsor of the conference wants to provide the people with clean air to breath, a clean and green earth for the people to live in.
- Ends -
About Sharp Middle East FZE
Sharp Middle East Free Zone Establishment (SMEF) began operations on April 1, 1998, in the Jebel Ali Free Zone (JAFZ) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE). A Dhs30m ($8m) enterprise wholly owned by Sharp Corporation, Japan, SMEF was established as a central base to handle all regional marketing activities, including sales, service and distribution. Not only is SMEF working to expand its sales activities in the Middle East and Africa, but in Pakistan, Iran and Central Asia as well.
For more Information please contact
Mr. Shaukat
Tel:04 32176200
© Press Release 2008
http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20081116131515/Sharp%27s%20Air%20Purifier%20Draws%20Attention%20at%20EnviroCities%202008
Showcases Its Revolutionary Air Purifer; Confernce A Success
The EnviroCities 2008 International Conference that was held at the Bustan Rotana Hotel, was organized by the 'Environmental Centre for Arab Towns', in association with Harvard University- School of Public Health. More than 20 experts from different parts of the world had spoken about the health hazards of pollution and the ways to combat them, such as the use of Plasmacluster Ion Purifier developed by Sharp Corp. The conference was attended by ministers, senior government officials, NGO's, healthcare professionals and other dignified invitees.
This conference had attracted the attention of the world leaders, the conference calls for the immediate government intervention in emission control and the subsequent healthcare. "We are proud to say that Sharp Plasmacluster ion technology can help to provide healthier and comfortable indoor environment. The Plasmacluster ion purifier from Sharp generates positive and negative ions that can inactivate airborne virus, bacteria, odour and allergens." Mr Fred Yamaguchi, the newly on board Managing Director of Sharp Middle East said in his presentation speech in EnviroCities conference.
The effect of the Plasmacluster has proven its effect against more than 17 kinds of airborne and harmful species including bird flu H5N1.It has also been proven that the trigger of allergic asthma can be reduced by the Plasmacluster ions, and Sharp has granted the certificate from Asthma Society of Canada in the year 2004.
More than 25 collaborative researches have been conducted with academic bodies and associations all over the world, including the Asthma association of Canada, as well as the Professors from Harvard School of public health in the US, University of London in the UK, and University of Lubeck in Germany.
Sharp had built stalls around the conference area to demonstrate the Plasmacluster air purifiers, a technology that was verified by harnessing the intellectual power of experts across the globe, in the field of healthcare control.
The conference also emphasized about the active involvement of the government in cutting the carbon and other greenhouse gas emission. It has highlighted about the repercussions that will result if strategies to control all forms of pollution are not implemented immediately. Sharp Corp, the Platinum sponsor of the conference wants to provide the people with clean air to breath, a clean and green earth for the people to live in.
- Ends -
About Sharp Middle East FZE
Sharp Middle East Free Zone Establishment (SMEF) began operations on April 1, 1998, in the Jebel Ali Free Zone (JAFZ) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE). A Dhs30m ($8m) enterprise wholly owned by Sharp Corporation, Japan, SMEF was established as a central base to handle all regional marketing activities, including sales, service and distribution. Not only is SMEF working to expand its sales activities in the Middle East and Africa, but in Pakistan, Iran and Central Asia as well.
For more Information please contact
Mr. Shaukat
Tel:04 32176200
© Press Release 2008
http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20081116131515/Sharp%27s%20Air%20Purifier%20Draws%20Attention%20at%20EnviroCities%202008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
(Corrects funds under management to more than $1.6 billion in last paragraph, instead of more than $150 million)
By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia
GOLD COAST (Reuters) - The world still has the funds and ability to fight climate change and nations should not use the financial crisis to delay policies on tackling global warming, a top carbon expert said on Thursday.
James Cameron, vice-chairman of London-based Climate Change Capital, said the mobilisation of trillions of dollars over recent months had demonstrated the strength and scale of cooperation in tackling a global crisis.
"We run the risk that governments will choose to focus on the near-term crisis and allow themselves the delusion that there is more time available to deal with a crisis coming slowly from afar," he told a major carbon conference in Australia.
"So I accept that there is a danger that climate change could slip in the priority list for governments," he told delegates.
"But we have learned that we are able to cooperate across borders to deal with the financial crisis, and beyond political boundaries, so we can mobilize capital very fast and that we do so in ways that support the continuation of our market systems."
He said if governments combined that same capacity to cooperate with a matching urgency in tackling climate change, then the world could deal with both crises at the same time.
There are concerns the financial crisis has already called on large reserves of public capital and that countries would be reluctant to make near-term climate change commitments that would cost their economies or threaten jobs.
But Cameron, a senior member of one of the world's leading investors in clean-energy projects, said such a short-term focus was unwise.
"If you are making investments that are designed to deliver public good in dealing with a crisis that will undeniably cost our economies substantial amounts over decades to come, it trivialises the issue to do a near-term cost-benefit analysis."
"We are not, despite the recent drastic fall in the value of stock markets, without the capital to invest in solutions to this problem," he added.
Climate Change Capital has more than $1.6 billion in funds under management and focuses on companies and institutions affected by the policy and capital market responses to climate change, the firm says on its website.
from: http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36219820081030?sp=true
Monday, October 20, 2008
News From Times : How to win the war on Global warming
Wednesday, Apr. 16, 2008
How to Win the War on Global Warming
By Bryan Walsh
Americans don't like to lose wars—which makes sense, since we have so little practice with it. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars—the kind that test our mettle and our patriotism and our resourcefulness and our courage—and those are the kind at which we excel. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads or the eradication of polio but a massive, often frightening challenge that we decided as a culture we ought to rise up and face? If we indulge in a bit of chest-thumping and flag-waving when the job is done, well, we earned it.
We are now faced with a similarly momentous challenge: global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of our very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we're fighting at all—and by most accounts, we're not—we're fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations ratified the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. While even developing China has boosted its mileage standards to 35�m.p.g., the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer. Oh, there are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from switchgrass or powering cars with hydrogen—someday. But for a country that rightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, we're taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of the country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy—and for those of the world at large as well.
The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less consensus on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always be at the table and will always—sensibly—demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave us both environmentally safe and economically sound?
Forget precedents like the Manhattan Project, which developed the atom bomb, or the Apollo program that put men on the moon—single-focus programs both, however hard they were to pull off. Think instead of the overnight conversion of the World War II�era industrial sector into a vast machine capable of churning out 60,000 tanks and 300,000 planes, an effort that not only didn't bankrupt the nation but instead made it rich and powerful beyond its imagining and—oh, yes—won the war in the process.
Halting climate change will be far harder than even that. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem, by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala of Princeton University, calls for a reduction of 25�billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 50 years—the equivalent of erasing nearly four years of global emissions at today's rates. And yet by devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of our way of life for future generations. Money will get us part of the way there, but what's needed most is will. "I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming," says Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the new book Earth: The Sequel. "But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before."
No one yet has a comprehensive plan for how we could do so again, but everyone agrees on what the biggest parts of the plan would be. Here's our blueprint for how America can fight—and win—the war on global warming.
First, Price the Sky
The most important part of a blueprint to contain climate change is to put a charge on carbon emissions. As long as the sky is free, renewable energy will never beat fossil fuels. But put a price on carbon, and suddenly the alternatives look a lot better. The most feasible way to do this is through a cap-and-trade system that sets ceilings for carbon output and lets companies that come in under the limit sell credits to those that don't, allowing them to keep polluting—a little. The effect is that overall carbon levels fall, and there is even money to be made by being greener than the next guy. That drives investment and research dollars into renewable energy and efficiency. "Cap and trade changes everything," says Krupp.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was an early attempt at such a system, with the aim of having developed nations reduce their carbon emissions an average of 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. The accords were meant to drive cuts in greenhouse gases and promote investment in clean tech in developing nations through carbon trading. What probably doomed Kyoto was the absence of some key players. Large developing nations like China, India and Indonesia were excused from the treaty, since limiting their emissions was seen as likely to limit their burgeoning economies. The U.S., whose participation was necessary if the treaty was going to succeed, cited this perceived favoritism when it abandoned Kyoto altogether in 2001.
While President George W. Bush has little environmental cred left after seven years of the least green Administration in modern memory, in this case he had a point. Carbon is a global pollutant, meaning that it has the same impact whether it's emitted from an suv in Boston, a factory in Beijing or a burning forest outside BrasÃlia. Dramatic reductions in U.S. emissions won't bring the intended environmental benefits if emissions by other countries increase at the same time. The problem is, if we don't clean up our own mess because developing giants don't have to, what's the incentive for them to clean up theirs? "If we don't act, China and India will simply hide behind America's skirts of inactions and take no steps of their own," says Senator John Warner of Virginia.
If the U.S. breaks the logjam and adopts a national cap-and-trade program, it may be Warner who will deserve much of the credit. Last December, a bill that the veteran Republican co-sponsored with independent Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut passed out of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works, giving it the best opportunity of any of the many proposed cap-and-trade bills to become law. Lieberman-Warner, as it's known, calls for cutting carbon from most sources to 2005 levels by 2012 and then 70% below 2005 levels by 2050. Environmentalists would like to see it strengthened, with less wiggle room for polluting industries, but with little else on the table, an attainable good bill may be a lot more attractive than an unattainable perfect one. "The sooner we can get something, the better," says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Lieberman-Warner hasn't yet gone to a full vote in the Senate, although it may reach the floor by late spring. It will face opposition from the White House, as well as from many Republicans and some Democrats from coal-dependent states. The principal rap against cap-and-trade proposals is that they would be a drag on the economy. A new study by the National Association of Manufacturers, an industry trade group, estimates that Lieberman-Warner would cost the U.S. up to 4�million jobs by 2030 while eroding gdp by up to $669 billion per year. "The environmental community would have you believe that you can make these changes and not only will there not be negative consequences, there'll be positive consequences," says Republican Representative Joe Barton, ranking minority member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
It's true that there will be costs associated with any carbon-pricing plan; ending climate change won't be free. "You want a clean environment, you have to pay for it," says Peter Fusaro, founder of the green investment group Global Change Associates. But just how high will the tab be? An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study found that gdp would grow just 1% less from 2010 to 2030 under Lieberman-Warner than without it—and that doesn't take into account the potential economic benefits. In an April study, the International Monetary Fund concluded that smart carbon-cutting policies could contain climate change without seriously harming the global economy. And while the U.S. business community will fight hard over the details of any cap-and-trade plan, a growing number of companies are now begging for the certainty that will come from what many see as inevitable legislation. "I believe it will be a challenge, but it's doable," says Peter Darbee, CEO of the West Coast utility PG&E.
Of course, such a challenge is easier for a major utility to face than it is for some consumers. Any carbon cap with teeth will boost electricity and gas prices in the short term, before carbon-free alternatives can be scaled to market, and that will hurt those already struggling to heat their homes and fill their tanks. Here's a solution, courtesy of Peter Barnes, a pioneering green entrepreneur: a cap-and-dividend system that returns the revenue raised by a cap-and-trade system to citizens through a flat rebate, similar to the way Alaskans receive oil-industry dividends from the state government.
Though a federal cap-and-trade system for carbon would largely be a foray into the unknown, we can examine how the idea is working in the states, many of which are far ahead of Washington. At the New York City headquarters of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), organization president Frances Beinecke shows a map that identifies in green those states that have committed to or are considering mandatory carbon caps. A year ago, the map was mostly white, but now it's less than half. Not only are states coming aboard one at a time, but some are joining in groups, as in the West and Northeast, where regional greenhouse-gas trading blocs are being launched. "The momentum that has built up in the states is unbelievable," says Beinecke.
To see why a serious cap-and-trade system doesn't have to come at the expense of economic growth, take a look at California. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the most aggressive carbon regulation in the country: California has now implemented law AB�32, which mandates that the state's greenhouse-gas emissions be cut to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of about 25%. "There are so many states in the U.S. that have signed on to [carbon cuts]," says Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has bucked the White House and led the way on global warming.
Schwarzenegger's plans have plenty of critics. Cathy Reheis-Boyd, the chief operating officer at the Western States Petroleum Association, worries that if California gets out too far ahead of the rest of the country, local businesses will flee to unregulated states, a phenomenon called "leakage"—which is another reason a national cap is so important. "I think our industry could be effectively pushed out of�California," says Jim Repman, CEO of the California Portland Cement Co.
Past predictions that environmental laws like the Clean Air Act would decimate California's economy, however, proved false, and AB�32 could be no different. A 2006 report by the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that the law would actually boost the state's gdp by $60�billion and create 17,000 jobs by 2020 as the state's entrepreneurial tech culture churns out new companies to meet the need for energy efficiency. While energy-intensive industries like cement-making may indeed be driven out, they could be replaced by clean-tech start-ups like Solarcity, which has become in a couple of years the state's fastest-growing solar installer, employing more than 200 people. Nationwide, the American Solar Energy Society estimates, there are already 8.5�million jobs in the clean-tech sector, which it projects could grow to 40�million by 2030 with the right policies.
Energy by the Sip
The next big piece of a global-warming-control plan involves learning to be more efficient with the fossil fuels we continue to burn. America has long been astoundingly wasteful about energy use, but for years, that mattered little because power and fuel were so cheap. "Until recently, using more energy was a way to get more productive," says Kevin Surace, CEO of Serious Materials, a green building company. "That doesn't change until energy costs go substantially up."
Surace has a point. There are a lot of reasons Western Europe and Japan are so far ahead of the U.S. on energy efficiency, but one is that their higher energy costs simply forced their hand. With oil now well over $100 per bbl., that crisis moment may have arrived for the U.S. too. The answer is an "efficiency surge," a crash improvement that can help offset the steady increase in energy prices and so buy time for the development of carbon-free alternatives. "We need to create breathing room," says Rick Duke, director of NRDC's Center for Market Innovation. "But an unguided market won't take care of that alone."
A coherent plan could. Recent research from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) shows that we could slash the projected growth in the world's energy demand by at least half by 2020 just by taking advantage of existing opportunities to cut waste. Think of simple, costless changes like turning off the lights in offices at night—that's "money on the table," in the words of efficiency guru Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. MGI says annual industry-wide investments of $170�billion per year in efficiency improvements like green buildings and higher-mileage cars could yield an additional $900�billion per year in savings by 2020. More important, the emissions cuts resulting from better efficiency could deliver up to half the carbon reductions needed to keep warming at no more than 2�C hotter than the present—considered to be an upper safe level. "There's so much water pouring out of the bottom of the bucket that it's insane to put more water into it," says Adam Grosser, a partner with Foundation Capital, which has invested heavily in energy-efficiency companies.
Some of that hole-plugging has already begun. Last year's federal energy bill raised corporate average fuel economy (cafe) standards for the first time in three decades, to 35�m.p.g. for cars by 2020. That's not world-beating compared with Europe's average of 40�m.p.g., but it's a good start. Efficiency standards could be put in place for household appliances and lighting as well. Japan's smart Top Runner program takes the best model in the marketplace and sets its performance as the industry requirement. Similar rules could be applied to architecture. Since nearly half of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions channel through buildings, there's a sizable opportunity for savings if we mandate green design rather than simply depend on architects and builders to adopt it voluntarily. And if utilities were able to institute variable pricing—charging customers more for power during periods of peak demand and less during off periods—you'd see enormous efficiency improvements.
California—again the leader—has implemented a pilot program for just such a variable-pricing plan. It uses what are known as smart meters, which provide real-time information about customer energy use and make billing more precise and savings more predictable. Since the project began, energy demand has fallen 13%, giving a taste of the wider savings that could be captured with a more comprehensive, permanent plan. Other efficiency programs have managed to keep per capita energy use in California—already the lowest in the country—essentially flat for the past three decades, even as energy use per person in the U.S. overall jumped 50%. California's pleasant clime plays a role, but efficiency still matters. Darbee of PG&E estimates that the state's green policies have eliminated the need for 24 power plants over the past 30 years—a process called "demand destruction," or cutting carbon before it's even born.
Invent, Invent, Invent
Even an epic surge in efficiency, though, won't by itself solve our energy woes, because demand in the booming developing world will outpace the best productivity measures. Hence the need for the final and most difficult step in the blueprint: the creation of a new energy system, one that doesn't depend on carbon. There's a chasm between where we are and where we need to be—and our current strategy for bridging it is murky at best. "What we need to do over the next 10 to 20 years is redesign our relationship with nature and energy," says Nicholas Parker, chairman of the Cleantech Group, a green research organization.
No problem, right? But the good news is that there are already thousands of very smart people working on alternative energy in what Daniel Yergin, chairman of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, calls "the great bubbling." Venture-capital funding in the clean-tech sector hit $5.18�billion in 2007, up 44% from the year before. And no surprise, the biggest bubbling is happening in California, specifically Silicon Valley, where a combination of the state's progressive environmental measures, unmatched scientific talent and entrepreneurial culture is giving birth to dozens of start-ups.
Among the new companies is Amyris Biotechnologies in the Bay Area, where Jack Newman and his team are developing ways to genetically modify bacteria to make better biofuels, sidestepping the food-vs.-energy debate that has long dogged the field. With nearly $100�million in venture backing, Amyris is trying to engineer yeast or bacteria that can metabolize biofuel feedstocks like wood chips and dramatically increase the amount of biofuel that can be extracted from them. "There are staggering things that technology can do," says Newman. "But we need to make this happen in as short a time as possible."
That's where government can help. There may be nothing like free enterprise to unleash innovation, but there's nothing like government to put a whip hand to the process. A firm carbon price will accelerate creativity by making alternatives that much more economical. If Washington better allocated its own research-and-development dollars—as it did in the storied Apollo days—it could accelerate things even more. Currently, the Federal Government budgets about $5�billion per year for research and tax incentives for renewables and energy efficiency. With a federal budget of $2.9�trillion in 2008 and the Iraq war alone burning through an estimated $12�billion per month, there is clearly money to be spent if we decide to reprioritize. A plan floated by Democrats to eliminate $18�billion worth of tax breaks for the oil industry and use the money to support research into renewable fuels would be a smart place to start.
There's no shortage of ways to spend whatever money is made available. Photovoltaic solar panels have made significant improvements, but they are still five to 10 years away from achieving economic parity with fossil fuels—at least at current rates of development. More promising are solar thermal power plants, like the one inaugurated this spring in the deserts of Nevada by Spanish clean-energy giant Acciona. The installation—a 300-acre array of 182,000 mirrors, each aligned to catch and concentrate the sun's energy—heats a synthetic oil that runs in a pipeline and produces steam, which drives turbines to generate electricity. Mirrors and turbines are comparatively cheap, and they're hardly the stuff of high technology. The trick is scaling up and pricing down.
Wind power, the most mature renewable technology, is growing fast, but we need to find a way to store electricity when the breeze isn't blowing. Then there are more fringe alternatives like tidal power, geothermal energy and even nuclear fusion—any of which could take off with enough luck and money.
While Washington should flood the zone with research funding, it should refrain from trying to pick a winner. The great biofuel scam—in which government support for corn ethanol choked the market with a fuel that simply creates other problems, such as deforestation and food price spikes—shows that straightforward subsidies can easily be perverted for political reasons. But a national renewable portfolio standard, which would mandate that a certain percentage of the nation's electricity supply must come from renewable sources, can force utilities to adopt alternatives on a wider scale, going with the technologies that are producing the best results. For that to happen, though, the government has to stop providing the fossil-fuel industry with billions of dollars in subsidies, which boost the sector's built-in advantage even more. "How can the oil industry need a dollar in the days of $100 crude oil?" says John Berger, CEO of Standard Renewable Energy.
Finally, there are micropolicies, like tax credits, that can make solar power and green building more economical on a house-by-house basis. Such credits have helped the wind and solar industries grow out of infancy, but the laws establishing them periodically expire if they're not renewed. The solar investment credit, which was part of the 2005 energy bill, provides a 30% tax credit for the purchase of solar power but will cease to exist at the end of the year if it can't move out of the legislative gridlock that is blocking its renewal. Fortunately, Congress seems ready to extend it. "If it expires, it will take out all the good work that's been done on the state and commercial level," says Julie Blunden, vice president of public policy at SunPower, a leading solar manufacturer and installer. "We could watch our business essentially evaporate by the end of the year."
The Long War
If we took all the steps outlined here—a national cap-and-trade system with teeth, coupled with tougher energy-efficiency mandates and significant new public and private investment in green technologies—where would that get us? We'd be a little poorer—a sustained battle against climate change will hit our wallets hard, absorbing perhaps 2% to 3% of gdp a year for some time, according to energy expert Henry Lee at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, though unchecked warming could end global prosperity. But think of it as an investment: that money, if matched by action internationally, can reduce emissions radically over the next half-century, contain warming and lead us to a postcarbon world.
Ultimately, global warming is not a battle that will be fought fiscal year by fiscal year; it's a fight that will occupy us for generations. Our policies have to operate on the same time frame, even if our politics run on election cycles. We've learned from think tanks and war colleges that the outcome of any crisis is usually determined by one dominant global player that has the innovators who can churn out the technology, the financiers who can back it and the diplomatic clout to pull the rest of the planet along. That player, of course, exists, and it is, of course, us. The U.S. has enjoyed an awfully good run since the middle of the 20th century, a sudden ascendancy that no nation before or since has matched. We could give it up in the early years of the 21st, or we could recognize—as we have before—when a leader is needed and step into that breach ourselves. Going green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer than that?
—with reporting by Kristin Kloberdanz/Modesto, Calif., and Massimo Calabresi, Mark Thompson and Adam Zagorin/Washington
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731363,00.html
How to Win the War on Global Warming
By Bryan Walsh
Americans don't like to lose wars—which makes sense, since we have so little practice with it. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars—the kind that test our mettle and our patriotism and our resourcefulness and our courage—and those are the kind at which we excel. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads or the eradication of polio but a massive, often frightening challenge that we decided as a culture we ought to rise up and face? If we indulge in a bit of chest-thumping and flag-waving when the job is done, well, we earned it.
We are now faced with a similarly momentous challenge: global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of our very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we're fighting at all—and by most accounts, we're not—we're fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations ratified the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. While even developing China has boosted its mileage standards to 35�m.p.g., the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer. Oh, there are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from switchgrass or powering cars with hydrogen—someday. But for a country that rightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, we're taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of the country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy—and for those of the world at large as well.
The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less consensus on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always be at the table and will always—sensibly—demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave us both environmentally safe and economically sound?
Forget precedents like the Manhattan Project, which developed the atom bomb, or the Apollo program that put men on the moon—single-focus programs both, however hard they were to pull off. Think instead of the overnight conversion of the World War II�era industrial sector into a vast machine capable of churning out 60,000 tanks and 300,000 planes, an effort that not only didn't bankrupt the nation but instead made it rich and powerful beyond its imagining and—oh, yes—won the war in the process.
Halting climate change will be far harder than even that. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem, by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala of Princeton University, calls for a reduction of 25�billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 50 years—the equivalent of erasing nearly four years of global emissions at today's rates. And yet by devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of our way of life for future generations. Money will get us part of the way there, but what's needed most is will. "I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming," says Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the new book Earth: The Sequel. "But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before."
No one yet has a comprehensive plan for how we could do so again, but everyone agrees on what the biggest parts of the plan would be. Here's our blueprint for how America can fight—and win—the war on global warming.
First, Price the Sky
The most important part of a blueprint to contain climate change is to put a charge on carbon emissions. As long as the sky is free, renewable energy will never beat fossil fuels. But put a price on carbon, and suddenly the alternatives look a lot better. The most feasible way to do this is through a cap-and-trade system that sets ceilings for carbon output and lets companies that come in under the limit sell credits to those that don't, allowing them to keep polluting—a little. The effect is that overall carbon levels fall, and there is even money to be made by being greener than the next guy. That drives investment and research dollars into renewable energy and efficiency. "Cap and trade changes everything," says Krupp.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was an early attempt at such a system, with the aim of having developed nations reduce their carbon emissions an average of 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. The accords were meant to drive cuts in greenhouse gases and promote investment in clean tech in developing nations through carbon trading. What probably doomed Kyoto was the absence of some key players. Large developing nations like China, India and Indonesia were excused from the treaty, since limiting their emissions was seen as likely to limit their burgeoning economies. The U.S., whose participation was necessary if the treaty was going to succeed, cited this perceived favoritism when it abandoned Kyoto altogether in 2001.
While President George W. Bush has little environmental cred left after seven years of the least green Administration in modern memory, in this case he had a point. Carbon is a global pollutant, meaning that it has the same impact whether it's emitted from an suv in Boston, a factory in Beijing or a burning forest outside BrasÃlia. Dramatic reductions in U.S. emissions won't bring the intended environmental benefits if emissions by other countries increase at the same time. The problem is, if we don't clean up our own mess because developing giants don't have to, what's the incentive for them to clean up theirs? "If we don't act, China and India will simply hide behind America's skirts of inactions and take no steps of their own," says Senator John Warner of Virginia.
If the U.S. breaks the logjam and adopts a national cap-and-trade program, it may be Warner who will deserve much of the credit. Last December, a bill that the veteran Republican co-sponsored with independent Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut passed out of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works, giving it the best opportunity of any of the many proposed cap-and-trade bills to become law. Lieberman-Warner, as it's known, calls for cutting carbon from most sources to 2005 levels by 2012 and then 70% below 2005 levels by 2050. Environmentalists would like to see it strengthened, with less wiggle room for polluting industries, but with little else on the table, an attainable good bill may be a lot more attractive than an unattainable perfect one. "The sooner we can get something, the better," says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Lieberman-Warner hasn't yet gone to a full vote in the Senate, although it may reach the floor by late spring. It will face opposition from the White House, as well as from many Republicans and some Democrats from coal-dependent states. The principal rap against cap-and-trade proposals is that they would be a drag on the economy. A new study by the National Association of Manufacturers, an industry trade group, estimates that Lieberman-Warner would cost the U.S. up to 4�million jobs by 2030 while eroding gdp by up to $669 billion per year. "The environmental community would have you believe that you can make these changes and not only will there not be negative consequences, there'll be positive consequences," says Republican Representative Joe Barton, ranking minority member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
It's true that there will be costs associated with any carbon-pricing plan; ending climate change won't be free. "You want a clean environment, you have to pay for it," says Peter Fusaro, founder of the green investment group Global Change Associates. But just how high will the tab be? An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study found that gdp would grow just 1% less from 2010 to 2030 under Lieberman-Warner than without it—and that doesn't take into account the potential economic benefits. In an April study, the International Monetary Fund concluded that smart carbon-cutting policies could contain climate change without seriously harming the global economy. And while the U.S. business community will fight hard over the details of any cap-and-trade plan, a growing number of companies are now begging for the certainty that will come from what many see as inevitable legislation. "I believe it will be a challenge, but it's doable," says Peter Darbee, CEO of the West Coast utility PG&E.
Of course, such a challenge is easier for a major utility to face than it is for some consumers. Any carbon cap with teeth will boost electricity and gas prices in the short term, before carbon-free alternatives can be scaled to market, and that will hurt those already struggling to heat their homes and fill their tanks. Here's a solution, courtesy of Peter Barnes, a pioneering green entrepreneur: a cap-and-dividend system that returns the revenue raised by a cap-and-trade system to citizens through a flat rebate, similar to the way Alaskans receive oil-industry dividends from the state government.
Though a federal cap-and-trade system for carbon would largely be a foray into the unknown, we can examine how the idea is working in the states, many of which are far ahead of Washington. At the New York City headquarters of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), organization president Frances Beinecke shows a map that identifies in green those states that have committed to or are considering mandatory carbon caps. A year ago, the map was mostly white, but now it's less than half. Not only are states coming aboard one at a time, but some are joining in groups, as in the West and Northeast, where regional greenhouse-gas trading blocs are being launched. "The momentum that has built up in the states is unbelievable," says Beinecke.
To see why a serious cap-and-trade system doesn't have to come at the expense of economic growth, take a look at California. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the most aggressive carbon regulation in the country: California has now implemented law AB�32, which mandates that the state's greenhouse-gas emissions be cut to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of about 25%. "There are so many states in the U.S. that have signed on to [carbon cuts]," says Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has bucked the White House and led the way on global warming.
Schwarzenegger's plans have plenty of critics. Cathy Reheis-Boyd, the chief operating officer at the Western States Petroleum Association, worries that if California gets out too far ahead of the rest of the country, local businesses will flee to unregulated states, a phenomenon called "leakage"—which is another reason a national cap is so important. "I think our industry could be effectively pushed out of�California," says Jim Repman, CEO of the California Portland Cement Co.
Past predictions that environmental laws like the Clean Air Act would decimate California's economy, however, proved false, and AB�32 could be no different. A 2006 report by the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that the law would actually boost the state's gdp by $60�billion and create 17,000 jobs by 2020 as the state's entrepreneurial tech culture churns out new companies to meet the need for energy efficiency. While energy-intensive industries like cement-making may indeed be driven out, they could be replaced by clean-tech start-ups like Solarcity, which has become in a couple of years the state's fastest-growing solar installer, employing more than 200 people. Nationwide, the American Solar Energy Society estimates, there are already 8.5�million jobs in the clean-tech sector, which it projects could grow to 40�million by 2030 with the right policies.
Energy by the Sip
The next big piece of a global-warming-control plan involves learning to be more efficient with the fossil fuels we continue to burn. America has long been astoundingly wasteful about energy use, but for years, that mattered little because power and fuel were so cheap. "Until recently, using more energy was a way to get more productive," says Kevin Surace, CEO of Serious Materials, a green building company. "That doesn't change until energy costs go substantially up."
Surace has a point. There are a lot of reasons Western Europe and Japan are so far ahead of the U.S. on energy efficiency, but one is that their higher energy costs simply forced their hand. With oil now well over $100 per bbl., that crisis moment may have arrived for the U.S. too. The answer is an "efficiency surge," a crash improvement that can help offset the steady increase in energy prices and so buy time for the development of carbon-free alternatives. "We need to create breathing room," says Rick Duke, director of NRDC's Center for Market Innovation. "But an unguided market won't take care of that alone."
A coherent plan could. Recent research from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) shows that we could slash the projected growth in the world's energy demand by at least half by 2020 just by taking advantage of existing opportunities to cut waste. Think of simple, costless changes like turning off the lights in offices at night—that's "money on the table," in the words of efficiency guru Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. MGI says annual industry-wide investments of $170�billion per year in efficiency improvements like green buildings and higher-mileage cars could yield an additional $900�billion per year in savings by 2020. More important, the emissions cuts resulting from better efficiency could deliver up to half the carbon reductions needed to keep warming at no more than 2�C hotter than the present—considered to be an upper safe level. "There's so much water pouring out of the bottom of the bucket that it's insane to put more water into it," says Adam Grosser, a partner with Foundation Capital, which has invested heavily in energy-efficiency companies.
Some of that hole-plugging has already begun. Last year's federal energy bill raised corporate average fuel economy (cafe) standards for the first time in three decades, to 35�m.p.g. for cars by 2020. That's not world-beating compared with Europe's average of 40�m.p.g., but it's a good start. Efficiency standards could be put in place for household appliances and lighting as well. Japan's smart Top Runner program takes the best model in the marketplace and sets its performance as the industry requirement. Similar rules could be applied to architecture. Since nearly half of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions channel through buildings, there's a sizable opportunity for savings if we mandate green design rather than simply depend on architects and builders to adopt it voluntarily. And if utilities were able to institute variable pricing—charging customers more for power during periods of peak demand and less during off periods—you'd see enormous efficiency improvements.
California—again the leader—has implemented a pilot program for just such a variable-pricing plan. It uses what are known as smart meters, which provide real-time information about customer energy use and make billing more precise and savings more predictable. Since the project began, energy demand has fallen 13%, giving a taste of the wider savings that could be captured with a more comprehensive, permanent plan. Other efficiency programs have managed to keep per capita energy use in California—already the lowest in the country—essentially flat for the past three decades, even as energy use per person in the U.S. overall jumped 50%. California's pleasant clime plays a role, but efficiency still matters. Darbee of PG&E estimates that the state's green policies have eliminated the need for 24 power plants over the past 30 years—a process called "demand destruction," or cutting carbon before it's even born.
Invent, Invent, Invent
Even an epic surge in efficiency, though, won't by itself solve our energy woes, because demand in the booming developing world will outpace the best productivity measures. Hence the need for the final and most difficult step in the blueprint: the creation of a new energy system, one that doesn't depend on carbon. There's a chasm between where we are and where we need to be—and our current strategy for bridging it is murky at best. "What we need to do over the next 10 to 20 years is redesign our relationship with nature and energy," says Nicholas Parker, chairman of the Cleantech Group, a green research organization.
No problem, right? But the good news is that there are already thousands of very smart people working on alternative energy in what Daniel Yergin, chairman of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, calls "the great bubbling." Venture-capital funding in the clean-tech sector hit $5.18�billion in 2007, up 44% from the year before. And no surprise, the biggest bubbling is happening in California, specifically Silicon Valley, where a combination of the state's progressive environmental measures, unmatched scientific talent and entrepreneurial culture is giving birth to dozens of start-ups.
Among the new companies is Amyris Biotechnologies in the Bay Area, where Jack Newman and his team are developing ways to genetically modify bacteria to make better biofuels, sidestepping the food-vs.-energy debate that has long dogged the field. With nearly $100�million in venture backing, Amyris is trying to engineer yeast or bacteria that can metabolize biofuel feedstocks like wood chips and dramatically increase the amount of biofuel that can be extracted from them. "There are staggering things that technology can do," says Newman. "But we need to make this happen in as short a time as possible."
That's where government can help. There may be nothing like free enterprise to unleash innovation, but there's nothing like government to put a whip hand to the process. A firm carbon price will accelerate creativity by making alternatives that much more economical. If Washington better allocated its own research-and-development dollars—as it did in the storied Apollo days—it could accelerate things even more. Currently, the Federal Government budgets about $5�billion per year for research and tax incentives for renewables and energy efficiency. With a federal budget of $2.9�trillion in 2008 and the Iraq war alone burning through an estimated $12�billion per month, there is clearly money to be spent if we decide to reprioritize. A plan floated by Democrats to eliminate $18�billion worth of tax breaks for the oil industry and use the money to support research into renewable fuels would be a smart place to start.
There's no shortage of ways to spend whatever money is made available. Photovoltaic solar panels have made significant improvements, but they are still five to 10 years away from achieving economic parity with fossil fuels—at least at current rates of development. More promising are solar thermal power plants, like the one inaugurated this spring in the deserts of Nevada by Spanish clean-energy giant Acciona. The installation—a 300-acre array of 182,000 mirrors, each aligned to catch and concentrate the sun's energy—heats a synthetic oil that runs in a pipeline and produces steam, which drives turbines to generate electricity. Mirrors and turbines are comparatively cheap, and they're hardly the stuff of high technology. The trick is scaling up and pricing down.
Wind power, the most mature renewable technology, is growing fast, but we need to find a way to store electricity when the breeze isn't blowing. Then there are more fringe alternatives like tidal power, geothermal energy and even nuclear fusion—any of which could take off with enough luck and money.
While Washington should flood the zone with research funding, it should refrain from trying to pick a winner. The great biofuel scam—in which government support for corn ethanol choked the market with a fuel that simply creates other problems, such as deforestation and food price spikes—shows that straightforward subsidies can easily be perverted for political reasons. But a national renewable portfolio standard, which would mandate that a certain percentage of the nation's electricity supply must come from renewable sources, can force utilities to adopt alternatives on a wider scale, going with the technologies that are producing the best results. For that to happen, though, the government has to stop providing the fossil-fuel industry with billions of dollars in subsidies, which boost the sector's built-in advantage even more. "How can the oil industry need a dollar in the days of $100 crude oil?" says John Berger, CEO of Standard Renewable Energy.
Finally, there are micropolicies, like tax credits, that can make solar power and green building more economical on a house-by-house basis. Such credits have helped the wind and solar industries grow out of infancy, but the laws establishing them periodically expire if they're not renewed. The solar investment credit, which was part of the 2005 energy bill, provides a 30% tax credit for the purchase of solar power but will cease to exist at the end of the year if it can't move out of the legislative gridlock that is blocking its renewal. Fortunately, Congress seems ready to extend it. "If it expires, it will take out all the good work that's been done on the state and commercial level," says Julie Blunden, vice president of public policy at SunPower, a leading solar manufacturer and installer. "We could watch our business essentially evaporate by the end of the year."
The Long War
If we took all the steps outlined here—a national cap-and-trade system with teeth, coupled with tougher energy-efficiency mandates and significant new public and private investment in green technologies—where would that get us? We'd be a little poorer—a sustained battle against climate change will hit our wallets hard, absorbing perhaps 2% to 3% of gdp a year for some time, according to energy expert Henry Lee at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, though unchecked warming could end global prosperity. But think of it as an investment: that money, if matched by action internationally, can reduce emissions radically over the next half-century, contain warming and lead us to a postcarbon world.
Ultimately, global warming is not a battle that will be fought fiscal year by fiscal year; it's a fight that will occupy us for generations. Our policies have to operate on the same time frame, even if our politics run on election cycles. We've learned from think tanks and war colleges that the outcome of any crisis is usually determined by one dominant global player that has the innovators who can churn out the technology, the financiers who can back it and the diplomatic clout to pull the rest of the planet along. That player, of course, exists, and it is, of course, us. The U.S. has enjoyed an awfully good run since the middle of the 20th century, a sudden ascendancy that no nation before or since has matched. We could give it up in the early years of the 21st, or we could recognize—as we have before—when a leader is needed and step into that breach ourselves. Going green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer than that?
—with reporting by Kristin Kloberdanz/Modesto, Calif., and Massimo Calabresi, Mark Thompson and Adam Zagorin/Washington
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731363,00.html
Friday, September 26, 2008
White Rabbit comes under scrutiny
White Rabbit comes under scrutiny
Editor:Sharon Lee
Source:ä¸å›½æ—¥æŠ¥ç½‘
Updated: 2008-9-26 11:11:59
SHANGHAI -- The municipal government in Shanghai is inspecting the White Rabbit creamy products of confectionery manufacturer, Guanshengyuan.
Editor:Sharon Lee
Source:ä¸å›½æ—¥æŠ¥ç½‘
Updated: 2008-9-26 11:11:59
SHANGHAI -- The municipal government in Shanghai is inspecting the White Rabbit creamy products of confectionery manufacturer, Guanshengyuan.
Wang Yiyi, spokeswoman of the Shanghai-based company, said the inspections only involve products for export. Products sold domestically are not affected.
"We're currently also conducting internal inspections and will come up with more effective measures soon," Wang said. She declined to give more details.
The Shanghai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau said the inspections are in response to media reports that the brand had been recalled in Singapore after being tested positive for melamine last Sunday.
It was the third Chinese made dairy product found to contain melamine, the Associated Press reported, citing Singapore's Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).
Earlier, Yili yogurt bars and Dutch Lady strawberry milk, were found to contain melamine.
The AVA in a statement said: "Retailers and importers have been instructed to recall these products and withhold them from sale."
The Shanghai bureau will strictly examine all imported and exported dairy products to ensure they are not contaminated, spokesman, Chen Qiwei, said.
White Candy is exported to more than 50 countries and regions and has grossed sales of about $160 million in five years.
Hu Minghua, spokesman for Wal-Mart in Shanghai, said the company had not received any notice from the authorities to ban the product.
Carrefour said the same.
"We have only heard rumors, and are keeping a close eye on progression of the issue," Chen Bo, press manager of Carrefour Greater China, said.
The Shanghai municipal government also plans to tighten safety checks on all non-dairy products destined for export.
The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine too is testing White Rabbit products.
Shanghai authorities also revealed on Thursday that a recent citywide health check of children under three years old showed about 5 percent were diagnosed with symptoms of possible kidney stones after being fed contaminated powdered milk.
Song Guofan, deputy director of the press department of the municipal health bureau, said those diagnosed were immediately referred to hospitals.
The bureau, however, said on its website the number of sick babies reported in the past week has begun to fall.
White Rabbit candy, made by the 90-year-old Guanshengyuan, has long been a household brand name among Chinese.
It became popular in 1972, when it was presented as a State gift to then US president Richard Nixon.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Global warming: Evidence is much more than hot air
Global warming: Evidence is much more than hot air
State Sen. Jerome Delvin states that the Western Climate Initiative constitutes "foolish environmental policies" prompted by "faulty and often-discredited climate change research" ("Hot air over global warming," Sept. 3 guest column). While we have no comments about the merits of the WCI, Delvin's dim view of science stems from a highly selective sampling of available evidence.
Science is built on evidence, expressed through peer-reviewed papers in which conclusions are scrutinized by other experts before publication. Scientists have published thousands of papers on a wide range of relevant subjects in Earth system science.
Every major scientific body that has assessed this vast array of papers has concluded that the Earth is warming and that humans are at least partly responsible. The largest assessment, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated in 2007 that evidence of global warming is "unequivocal."
By contrast, Delvin cites, as an authority, a widely discredited petition for which signers needed only to claim to be scientists. In what other realm is expert opinion sought by consulting a loosely controlled petition, rather than by directly asking known experts? Most signatories claimed no expertise in climate science, and an investigation by Scientific American magazine of some who did claim expertise found that only a tiny minority actually had such expertise and still agreed with the statement they signed.
Delvin also claims that climate models "have never been validated through observable data." That is simply untrue. In 1991, when Mount Pinatubo erupted, scientists predicted the amount of global cooling that would result; the predictions turned out to be remarkably accurate. Simulations in 1990 and again in 1995 of the rate of global warming were also remarkably accurate, according to the scientists who scrutinized them for the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Delvin's statement that "We have had 10 years of global cooling since 1998" is a red herring. The year 1998 was exceptionally warm the world over because of a large El Niño event, but the whole of the past decade stands out as exceptionally warm by historical standards. In fact, the past decade includes eight of the 10 warmest years of the past century and just continues to strengthen the case for global warming.
The evidence shows that global warming is real, serious and far more than a lot of hot air, as politicians from both parties recognize. Our children and grandchildren will have to deal with the consequences of climate change. Their job will be easier if we act quickly and decisively to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions based on the abundance of warming signs already before our eyes.
Christopher Bretherton is director of the University of Washington Program on Climate Change. Philip Mote is the state climatologist.
From: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378606_climaterebut11.html
From: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378606_climaterebut11.html
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Brunei To Try Solar Power
Brunei To Try Solar Power
By Amin Hosni
Bandar Seri Begawan - Brunei Darussalam may have enough LNG reserves to cater to the country's energy needs for years to come but it is also leaving no stones unturned in its pursuit of renewable energy.
| With the help of a Japanese firm, Brunei is embarking on a large-scale Photovoltaic (PV) demonstration project, considered the largest in Asean. Solar power will soon be an additional source of energy to power the nation's electricity grid with the utilisation of Photovoltaic (PV) cells to be installed at one of the power stations in the country. Yesterday, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Energy Division at the Prime Minister's Office and Mitsubishi Corporation. By signing the MoU, the government of His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam and Mitsubishi Corporation have agreed to work together to carry out the large-scale Photovoltaic (PV) demonstration project in Brunei.
The increasing demand for energy worldwide has put great pressure on the price of oil. Solar power is one of the alternatives that is not only renewable but also very clean. With the utilisation of this system, the Energy Division at the Prime Minister's Office, Department of Electrical Services and Mitsubishi Corporation (MC) will jointly carry out verification tests of several different types of PV module over a period of three years to evaluate the suitability of each module for use in Brunei's tropical climatic condition. The TSB project in one of Mitsubishi Corporation's corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities with the intention to help support the sustainable development of renewable energy in Brunei Darussalam. Mitsubishi Corporation will provide capital, knowledge and expertise for the successful implementation of the TSB project. The project will not only strengthen the relationship between Brunei Darussalam and Mitsubishi Corporation but is also seen as a major step to promote the development of renewable energy in Brunei. Overseas field visits and site training will also be provided by MC to develop the local expertise and capacity building in the field of PV system. Awang Haji Ismail bin Pehin Orang Kaya Pekerma Setia Dato Paduka Haji Ibrahim, Deputy Permanent Secretary (Energy) at the Prime Minister's Office hoped that the Tenaga Suria Brunei would also help facilitate the development of photovoltaic industry in Brunei Darussalam and create job opportunities and help diversify Brunei's economic base. -- Courtesy of Borneo Bulletin Brudirect.com News source: http://www.brudirect.com/DailyInfo/News/Archive/Aug08/140808/nite01.htm
| ||
Mitsubishi Corp and Brunei
TOKYO (Reuters) - Mitsubishi Corp said on Thursday it has signed a memorandum of understanding with Brueni's Energy Ministry to build and operate a test solar power plant in the western part of the sultanate in a three-year project starting in 2010.
Mitsubishi, Japan's biggest trading company, will transfer needed technology, educate local staff and shoulder the project's total cost, estimated at 1.5 billion yen ($13.7 million), a company spokesman said.
The tiny but wealthy nation on Borneo island is aiming to introduce renewable power sources to diversify its primary energy supply, with hurdles yet to be cleared including the grid system and know-how on installation and maintenance.
"Brunei heavily relies on oil and natural gas, both natural resources with deposit limits," the Mitsubishi spokesman said. "As a business partner with a history of almost 40 years, we'd like to do something for the economy's sustainable growth."
In a joint venture with the Brunei government and Royal Dutch Shell, Mitsubishi has since 1972 produced and shipped natural gas mainly to Japan.
It is the sole such project, and Japan relies on Brunei for about 10 percent of its annual natural gas imports.
Mitsubishi said the test solar plant will be fitted with a range of solar panel types and produce data to gauge the most suitable one under for the region's climate.
The plant will be located at an abandoned thermal power plant in Seria, about 70 km (44 miles) west of the capital of Bandar Seri Begawan. Its capacity of 1.2 megawatts would be enough to power some 400 homes.
($1=109.37 Yen)
(Reporting by Risa Maeda; Editing by Michael Watson)
Source
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUST16550020080814
Monday, August 11, 2008
ELEPHANT seals in the Southern Ocean are giving scientists an insight into icy underwater environments usually inaccessible to humans.
Scientists say the information could have ramifications for understanding the effects of climate change on the planet.
Fifty seals have been tagged with sensors as part of an international project involving CSIRO and Antarctic Climate & Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre scientists and their counterparts in the U.S., UK, Norway and France.
The primary aim of the tagging project is to learn more about the behaviour of seals and where they feed and swim but climate scientists can study the climatic conditions of oceans at the same time, using data from improved sensors attached to the seals.
They can study how rapidly sea ice forms as the seals swim around and under the sea ice in the Antarctic.
The more sea ice there is, the more heat is reflected from the planet.
The findings will be released tomorrow in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Co-author Dr Steve Rintoul said the seals went to parts of the ocean scientists cannot get to any other way.
"In the Antarctic we don't understand (the formation of sea ice) as well as we do in the Arctic and that is due to a lack of observations, but this is really closing a gap there," he said.
From http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24164561-5006301,00.html
Scientists say the information could have ramifications for understanding the effects of climate change on the planet.
Fifty seals have been tagged with sensors as part of an international project involving CSIRO and Antarctic Climate & Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre scientists and their counterparts in the U.S., UK, Norway and France.
The primary aim of the tagging project is to learn more about the behaviour of seals and where they feed and swim but climate scientists can study the climatic conditions of oceans at the same time, using data from improved sensors attached to the seals.
They can study how rapidly sea ice forms as the seals swim around and under the sea ice in the Antarctic.
The more sea ice there is, the more heat is reflected from the planet.
The findings will be released tomorrow in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Co-author Dr Steve Rintoul said the seals went to parts of the ocean scientists cannot get to any other way.
"In the Antarctic we don't understand (the formation of sea ice) as well as we do in the Arctic and that is due to a lack of observations, but this is really closing a gap there," he said.
From http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24164561-5006301,00.html
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Lawmakers to ban toxins in kids’ products
MSNBC.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers to ban toxins in kids’ products
White House, chemical lobby say health concerns over phthalates unproven
By Lyndsey Layton
The Washington Post
updated 12:08 a.m. ET July 29, 2008
Congressional negotiators agreed Monday to a ban on a family of toxins found in children's products, handing a major victory to parents and health experts who have been clamoring for the government to remove harmful chemicals from toys.
The ban, which would take effect in six months, would have significant implications for U.S. consumers, whose homes are filled with hundreds of plastic products designed for children that may be causing dangerous health effects.
The rare action by Congress reflects a growing body of scientific research showing that children ingest the toxins by acts as simple as chewing on a rubber duck. Used for decades in plastic production, the chemicals are now thought to act as hormones and cause reproductive problems, especially in boys.
It also signals an important crack in the chemical industry's ability to fend off federal regulation and suggests that the landscape may be shifting to favor consumers. The movement to ban the toxins accelerated last year when California prohibited their use in children's products.
White House may veto ban
Earlier this year, the country's largest retailer, Wal-Mart; the biggest toy seller, Toys R Us; and Babies R Us told their suppliers that they will no longer carry products containing the chemicals, known as phthalates, as of Jan. 1, 2009. Toys containing these chemicals, however, will still be on many retail shelves during the holiday season.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that President Bush opposes the ban but that it is too early to say whether he will veto the measure, which is part of popular legislation to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Among other things, the legislation would ban lead in children's products and would give consumers access to a new database of complaints or accident reports for goods. The measure also allows stiffer fines for violations and enhanced enforcement of consumer safety laws.
Under language finalized yesterday, House and Senate lawmakers agreed to permanently ban three types of phthalates from children's toys and to outlaw three other phthalates from products pending an extensive study of their health effects in children and pregnant women.
Phthalates make plastics softer and more durable and also are added to perfumes, lotions, shampoos and other items. They are so ubiquitous that in one 1999 study, the Food and Drug Administration found traces in all of its 1,000 subjects.
Chemical industry has resisted regulation
The measure had wide support in the Senate, but it bogged down in the House, where the chemical industry waged a costly battle to defeat it. The campaign was led by Exxon Mobil, which manufacturers diisononyl phthalate, or DINP, the phthalate most frequently found in children's toys. The company spent a chunk of its $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent any ban.
Daryl Ditz, senior policy adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law, said industry viewed the ban as a benchmark that might signal a shift in Congress's willingness to toughen restrictions on toxins.
"The great fear is that if a big, established chemical like this can be driven from the market, what's next?" he said.
Said Andy Igrejas of the Pew Charitable Trusts: "The debate over this one set of chemicals is a referendum on a broken system. Congress saw just how screwed up the system is in protecting people from chemicals, especially children."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the measure, said yesterday that the action is a first step toward moving the United States closer to the European model, where industry must prove the safety of a chemical before it is allowed on the market.
"Chemical additives should not be placed in products that can impact health adversely until they are tested and found to be benign," she said.
U.S. companies manufacture $1.4 billion worth of phthalates annually, and less than 5 percent of that is used in children's products, according to the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical makers.
Congress putting children at risk?
Sharon Kneiss, a vice president at the trade group, said Congress acted prematurely. "There is no scientific basis for Congress to restrict phthalates from toys and children's products. With over 50 years of research, phthalates are among the most thoroughly studied products in the world, and have been reviewed by multiple regulatory bodies in the U.S. and Europe," she said.
Exxon Mobil contended that banning phthalates may inadvertently expose children to greater risks, because manufacturers will be forced to use substitute chemicals that may be even more hazardous.
"What's at stake is, in fact, children's safety," said Elissa Sterry, a vice president at Exxon Mobil Chemicals. "If DINP is replaced by alternative products, that's a potential risk to children."
The industry's position was repeated by Keith Hennessey, director of Bush's Economic Policy Council, who wrote to the Senate saying that a ban could hurt children.
"Banning a product before a conclusive, scientific determination is reached is short-sighted and may result in the introduction of unregulated substitute chemicals that harm children's health," he wrote.
Most research on phthalates has been performed on rodents, and chemical makers say there is no evidence that humans are similarly affected. They also contend that children are exposed to phthalate levels far below the doses administered to laboratory rats.
Studies link chemicals linked to cancer
But the first study involving human babies in 2005 raised questions about those arguments. Federally funded research by the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology at the University of Rochester Medical School, found that male babies born to women with high levels of phthalates in their blood exhibited changes related to low sperm count, undescended testicles and other reproductive problems. In that study, the infants were exposed to phthalate levels way below the doses administered in rat experiments. Other studies have connected some phthalates to liver and kidney cancer.
Health experts argue that dangers may be more significant from cumulative exposure, because phthalates surround babies not only in toys and products but also in breast milk if the mother has been exposed to the chemicals.
The European Union banned six phthalates from children's products in 1999 and more than a dozen other countries have done the same.
California's ban has been followed by legislation in Washington state and Vermont.
Staff writer Annys Shin contributed to this report.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25893316/
Friday, July 25, 2008
Tropical Trees Cool Earth Most Effectively
Tropical Trees Cool Earth Most Effectively
A new study finds that tropical trees are better at combating global warming than trees in higher latitudes.
"Our study shows that only tropical rainforests are strongly beneficial in helping slow down global warming," said study team leader Govindasamy Bala of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
Forests affect the climate in three different ways:
1) By absorbing carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) to help cool the planet;
2) By evaporating water which forms clouds, helping to keep the planet cooler;
3) By absorbing sunlight with their dark leaves. This warms the Earth.
Trees in snowy places absorb sunlight that would otherwise be reflected back to space by the bright white snow.
However, tropical rainforests trap larger amounts of carbon dioxide and evaporate more water to produce clouds that reflect sunlight back to space.
"Tropical forests are like Earth's air conditioner," said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Bala's colleague.
By simulating the effects of deforestation in different parts of the world, the study, published in the April 9 online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that deforestation in the tropics is more destructive to Earth's climate than deforestation in higher latitudes, and that trees in mid- to high-latitudes could actually cause warming.
The scientists warn that these findings don't mean it's time to take out the axes and cut down all the trees outside of the tropics.
"A primary reason we are trying to slow global warming is to protect nature," Caldeira said. "It just makes no sense to destroy natural ecosystems in the name of saving natural ecosystems."
Source from: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070409_deforest_cooling.html
By Cesca On
A new study finds that tropical trees are better at combating global warming than trees in higher latitudes.
"Our study shows that only tropical rainforests are strongly beneficial in helping slow down global warming," said study team leader Govindasamy Bala of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
Forests affect the climate in three different ways:
1) By absorbing carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) to help cool the planet;
2) By evaporating water which forms clouds, helping to keep the planet cooler;
3) By absorbing sunlight with their dark leaves. This warms the Earth.
Trees in snowy places absorb sunlight that would otherwise be reflected back to space by the bright white snow.
However, tropical rainforests trap larger amounts of carbon dioxide and evaporate more water to produce clouds that reflect sunlight back to space.
"Tropical forests are like Earth's air conditioner," said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Bala's colleague.
By simulating the effects of deforestation in different parts of the world, the study, published in the April 9 online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that deforestation in the tropics is more destructive to Earth's climate than deforestation in higher latitudes, and that trees in mid- to high-latitudes could actually cause warming.
The scientists warn that these findings don't mean it's time to take out the axes and cut down all the trees outside of the tropics.
"A primary reason we are trying to slow global warming is to protect nature," Caldeira said. "It just makes no sense to destroy natural ecosystems in the name of saving natural ecosystems."
Source from: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070409_deforest_cooling.html
By Cesca On
Friday, July 18, 2008
Arctic is starting to melt
A General Article Related To Global Warming:
On 2nd of February, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.
Arctic is starting to melt, due to the increasing temperature of the earth. Scientists are unnerved by the polar ice melt, its implications and their ability to predict it. The melting of Arctic is putting the polar bears and other inhabitants of Arctic into danger. The animals now face another threat: a changing climate.
Several countries and companies had tried to improve the situation. The Ontario provincial government of Canada had said that it would conserve a huge swath of its forest to protect polar bears and other animals and help fight climate change on the 15th of July 2008. On the same day as well, Exelon, the electric company based in Chicago, promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by an amount larger than its total emissions in 2008.
The sad thing is that while some countries no longer deny the science of climate change, they still insist on putting the concerns of industry over the needs of the planet. If this continues, the planet might continue to experience global warming, and a lot of innocent lives, especially the animals, might be in danger.
We might not be able to stop global warming completely, but at least we can try our best to reduce it. Just remember that while we are reducing global warming, we are increasing our own future comfortableness.
Can you imagine how will the future be like if global warming continues? You can’t, because there will be no future if it continues.
Source from: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
Article By: Jessyca, Rainbow Society Secretary
On 2nd of February, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.
Arctic is starting to melt, due to the increasing temperature of the earth. Scientists are unnerved by the polar ice melt, its implications and their ability to predict it. The melting of Arctic is putting the polar bears and other inhabitants of Arctic into danger. The animals now face another threat: a changing climate.
Several countries and companies had tried to improve the situation. The Ontario provincial government of Canada had said that it would conserve a huge swath of its forest to protect polar bears and other animals and help fight climate change on the 15th of July 2008. On the same day as well, Exelon, the electric company based in Chicago, promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by an amount larger than its total emissions in 2008.
The sad thing is that while some countries no longer deny the science of climate change, they still insist on putting the concerns of industry over the needs of the planet. If this continues, the planet might continue to experience global warming, and a lot of innocent lives, especially the animals, might be in danger.
We might not be able to stop global warming completely, but at least we can try our best to reduce it. Just remember that while we are reducing global warming, we are increasing our own future comfortableness.
Can you imagine how will the future be like if global warming continues? You can’t, because there will be no future if it continues.
Source from: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
Article By: Jessyca, Rainbow Society Secretary
Saturday, July 12, 2008
'Global Warming Causing California Glacier to Grow'
From the "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" department: "Global Warming Causing California Glacier to Grow, Scientists Say."
What? Hasn't Nobel Laureate Al Gore and every climate alarmist in the media been warning us that global warming is causing glaciers to melt, and that we're all going to die if we don't do something about it?
Well, not so fast, because according to the CBC, much like climate change can cause droughts AND torrential rains, it now seems the tricky little devil can make glaciers grow too (emphasis added, better stow fluids and sharp objects):
The glaciers on Mount Shasta in California are growing because of global warming, experts say.
"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers.
But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, "seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean," he said.
As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century.
Hmmm. That's not what NASA said in March, as reported by Green Daily (emphasis added):
Researchers with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory studying temperature changes in the world's oceans are finding no evidence of heating up in the last 5 years or so.
Scientists have been working with a program called Argo, which looks at ocean temperatures using robotic buoys which dive down to three thousand feet to collect data. Since the study began in 2003, measurements have not only failed to find evidence of warming, but in fact have picked up a slight cooling trend.
Well, maybe the Banana Slugs of Santa Cruz hadn't heard about this NASA study...or didn't care.
Update: NBer danbo rightly states in the comments section that the average yearly temperature has declined in the Mt. Shasta area since the '90s
Isn't it also interesting that the temperature in Shasta for the past three years has been lower than some of the years prior to WWI?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
from: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/09/headline-global-warming-causing-california-glacier-grow
Sunday, June 29, 2008
North pole:'(
North Pole may have no ice this summer: US expert
WASHINGTON (AFP) — There could briefly be no ice at the North Pole this summer, a US scientist said Friday, an event that would mark a new stage in the melting of the Arctic ice sheets due to global warming.
"We could have no ice at the North Pole at the end of this summer," Mark Serreze, a scientist with the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, told AFP in an interview.
"And the reason here is that the North Pole area right now is covered with very thin ice and this ice we call first-year ice, the ice that tends to melt out in the summer."
If the ice, albeit briefly, were to break up completely this summer it would be the first time this had happened in human history.
Serreze put the chances of this occurring at 50 percent -- if it does happen, in September "it's possible" that ships could sail from Alaska right to the North Pole.
Last summer, melting ice allowed ships through the Arctic's Northern Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans for longer than ever before.
Serreze pointed out that even if there were no ice left at the North Pole, there would be ice in other parts of the Arctic Ocean this summer.
But he recognized the symbolism of an ice-free North Pole in the minds of the public, and said it was yet another indication of the environmental changes taking place because of global warming.
"There should be ice at the North Pole, and there might not be at the end of the summer and that is telling that something is wrong," he said.
"Clearly if you look over what we have seen in the past three years and where we were headed, we are in ... this long-term decline and we may have no ice at all in the Arctic Ocean in summer by 2030 or so," he said.
He recalled that a few years ago, such a scenario was not expected to happen until between 2050 and 2100. Personally, he said that five years ago, he would not have imagined the situation occurring now.
In last year's Arctic summer, the surface of the ice sheet in mid-September was the "the least sea ice that we have ever seen in satellite record, probably the least in a century," Serreze noted.
The sheet melted by 23 percent, breaking the previous record from 2005.
Arctic ice begins to melt in about mid-June and reaches its thinnest level around mid-September, before beginning to freeze over again and reaching a maximum around mid-March.
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the rate of global warming should slow down the effect of such melting but to reverse the trend will take a long time, Serreze said.
On the upside, the melting of the Arctic ice sheet could help ships by providing an alternative route around the world to the Panama Canal, while it has also made accessible areas rich in natural resources, experts say.
from: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iU9UOmEQ5-DXROTg33PsMch2Xopg
Edited by : ELLY SEE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
