This article (a report by an environmental journalist for the BBC) talks mostly about the changes in environmental government policy made by the UK, but also compares it to other countries in the EU and in the world.
As stated in the article, most governments are still not ready to go the whole way to combat climate change and global warming- they are still adapting strategies that are far too 'nice' and not effective enough. The author compares it to a medicinal prescription against a sickness- you have to take drastic measures to fully cure it. Some prescriptive policies must be taken to have the needed results.
---------------------------- "Japan's emissions now stand 6% above 1990 levels, partially because it plucked its own low-hanging fruit - energy efficiency - in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s.
As a few recent analyses (including one from the World Resources Institute) have shown, the degree of "ambition" shown in the pledges of developed nations in the lead-up to the Copenhagen summit are not enough to bring carbon cuts of the 25-40% scale that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests are necessary to "avoid dangerous climate change".
The conclusion from the CCC's report provides part of the explanation.
For most countries, a "step change" in ambition would require a "step change" in policies - policies that would, for most, mean making the first painful bites into the nether regions of national carbon emissions.
A little wincing at the prospect seems to me entirely natural." ------- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/its_worth_looking_at_the.html
The British environmentalist David de Rothschild wants to increase awareness of environmental problems. Therefore he’s going to sail from San Francisco to Australia with his catamaran, which is made almost entirely from plastic bottles. He faced a lot of challenges in designing this boat and finally demonstrates what is possible with a strong will and creativity. The article comes along with a short video.
---------------------------------- SOUNDBITE (English) David de Rothschild, Adventure Ecology Founder: "What we're doing is getting our buoyancy from 12-and-a-half thousand two litre bottles that are acting as individual buoyancy chambers." But de Rothschild needed to do some convincing before his concept could be made a reality. SOUNDBITE (English) David de Rothschild, Adventure Ecology Founder: "When I first said that to my naval architect and some of the concept architects they looked at me as if I was totally nuts." De Rothschild is also National Geographic 2007 Emerging Explorer. He founded Adventure Ecology to inspire interest in environmental issues among schoolchildren. His Plastiki adventure will be chronicled on the groups website. The voyage will make several island stops in the Pacific, and will pass through the famed Great Pacific Garbage Patch, where ocean currents for years have collected human-created debris much of it--- plastic. Plastikis construction has been ongoing for months. While the boat will float thanks to the recycled bottles, the frame is also made entirely of recyclable materials. The aim is to highlight the perils of plastic and promote recycling. One of the challenges in the design was finding something environmentally friendly to hold the whole thing together. The solution turned out to be a waterproof glue made from cashew nuts and sugar. A full crew will be on board to make the 100-day, 11-thousand-mile voyage. Jo Royle will be Plastiki's skipper. SOUNDBITE (English) Jo Royle, Plastiki Skipper: "The fact that we've got the plastic bottles on the outside against the water, that goes against any boat building laws that have ever been created. In fact, normally we're always working hard to make the hull as smooth as possible." The boat's unusual design will offer the crew a few challenges. SOUNDBITE (English) David de Rothschild, Adventure Ecology Founder: "Someone a while back said to me 'It's an untested material in an uncontrollable environment, what does that equal?' You know, and there's lots of question marks and I think if we knew everything that was going to happen precisely, it wouldn't be an adventure." Plastiki is expected to launch on its voyage later this year. And when its completed, the boat will be recycled.
Wind energy is a very effective and environment friendly way or producing energy. It generates no air or water emissions and do not produce hazardous waste. Nor do they deplete natural resources such as coal, oil, or gas, or cause environmental damage through resource extraction and transportation, or require significant amounts of water during operation. As Carbon Dioxide is one of the most important factors of global warming, wind energy can even influence to reduce CO2 emissions because it is very clean as mentioned before. Factors which may give a negative image to wind energy and have to be thought of are how energy consuming is the production of windmills, how much land is needed to be effective, shadow flickers, noise and visual impact to mention some.
------------------
“Wind energy system operations do not generate air or water emissions and do not produce hazardous waste. Nor do they deplete natural resources such as coal, oil, or gas, or cause environmental damage through resource extraction and transportation, or require significant amounts of water during operation. Wind's pollution-free electricity can help reduce the environmental damage caused by power generation in the U.S. and worldwide.“ “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important of the global warming pollutants which are changing our climate. According to experts, if we are to avoid dangerous levels of warming, we must cut our CO2 emissions by 80-90 per cent by 2050. That means switching to forms of energy generation that do not produce CO2. Wind power is a clean, renewable form of energy, which during operation produces no carbon dioxide. While some emissions of these gases will take place during the design, manufacture, transport and erection of wind turbines, enough electricity is generated from a wind farm within a few months to totally compensate for these emissions. When wind farms are dismantled (usually after 20-25 years of operation) they leave no legacy of pollution for future generation. Given the scale of the CO2 cuts needed, wind power--as the least expensive, most developed renewable energy technology and the fastest to build--is the best placed renewable technology to deliver carbon emissions reductions on a large scale, quickly.” “Wind power plants, like all other energy technologies, have some environmental impacts. However, unlike most conventional technologies (which have regional and even global impacts due to their emissions and fuel imports), the impacts of wind energy systems are minimal and local. This makes them easier for local communities to monitor and, if necessary, mitigate.“
"Tres Amigas Super Station will help connect nation's three major electrical grids"
The article talks about building "Tres Amigas Super Station" in New Mexico where three major electrical grids are met. It would help carry electricity more effectively through out the nation(United States), it would guarantee fewer blackouts in demanding markets of electricity such as California, and also it would make major solar and wind energy more readily available to people. There are still some obstacles to dodge coming from technical difficulty in converting different currents and plus State of Texas may not want to agree upon building this facility because they are quite satisfied with where they are.
----------------------------------------------- "This would be good for renewable energy because it would increase the number of potential buyers. For example, if the wind is blowing hard in Texas and there is a surplus of wind power, it could be sold to the Eastern grid at a better price than the local market where supply is temporarily outpacing demand." "This would be good for renewable energy because it would increase the number of potential buyers. For example, if the wind is blowing hard in Texas and there is a surplus of wind power, it could be sold to the Eastern grid at a better price than the local market where supply is temporarily outpacing demand."
This article raised a hare about the green job's low pay. Job's pay is very important factor to make the realm prosperous. So he argued that by raising the green job's pay, the green job should become a good job for environment. In this context, I think "The Save Four Rivers project makes green jobs." - remark of the president Lee- is nothing but an anachronism.
--------------------------------------------- Many clean-technology jobs pay well, according to a report released Wednesday by the research firm Clean Edge and PayScale, an online compensation data company.
Lawmakers, clean-technology companies and out-of-work employees are hoping that green jobs can replace some of the millions of jobs lost in the recession. But controversy over the wages for these jobs has raised some dispute about whether green jobs are good jobs.
A United States Senate Subcommittee on Green Jobs report earlier this year, for example, found low pay in wind and solar energy, green construction, and recycling workplaces, with jobs in recycling processing paying as low as $8.25 an hour and jobs in renewable-energy factories paying as little as $11 an hour.
According to that report, many wind and solar factories pay below the national average for workers manufacturing durable goods, and most green carpenters, roofers, painters and laborers earn less than $12.50 per hour.
The findings from the PayScale and Clean Edge survey strike something of a counterpoint to that study.
The median earnings found in the survey range from $36,100 a year for an insulation worker to $112,000 a year for design engineering managers in alternative energy, according to Al Lee, director of quantitative analysis at PayScale.
All the jobs PayScale found were “very reasonably paid,” Mr. Lee said, adding that several entry-level positions — including jobs as solar-energy system installers and solar fabrication technicians — require only high school or associate’s degrees and pay more than $40,000 annually.
“It’s not like working the McDonald’s line,” he said.
Most of the jobs in the survey are for employees with bachelor’s degrees, and more than one-third are engineering jobs, Mr. Lee said.
Still, clean-tech jobs aren’t yet able to replace all the jobs lost in other industries, Ron Pernick, a principal at Clean Edge and the lead author of the report, said during a conference call. And many projects have been put on hold or scrapped in the economic downturn, Mr. Pernick said.
But a significant number of clean-tech jobs offer competitive wages, he added, and a number of companies are opening factories in places that have recently sustained manufacturing layoffs.
What if the global temperature would increase with 4°C or more? Gathering this month at the University of Oxford, project leader Mark Stafford-Smith sketched out a world affected by severe climate change, which they now see as increasingly probable. He argues that without swift and steep curbs on emissions, temperatures could rise as much as 4 °C by 2060.
This scenario would expose 1 billion people to higher water stress (estimated up to $215 billion if current best guesses are surpassed for the US to protect its coastline) and would intensify flood risks for half those living in flood-prone areas. Agricultural lands would shift markedly, with yields of certain crops such as soybeans plummeting. As much as 15 per cent of today's cultivatable land would turn barren, but an extra 20 per cent would be added as cold areas warmed up, found the study.
To avoid temperatures rising to this extent, global emissions will have to peak within about 30 years, says Stafford-Smith. And to stay within 2 °C, they'll have to peak within a decade. According to papers published in Nature this year, the later emissions peak, the more precipitously they'll have to fall afterwards to avoid dangerous warming. Even if ambitious action is agreed at this year's UN climate conference in Copenhagen, notes Stafford-Smith, it is likely to take years to implement.
As a solution or rather as a prevention of this huge danger planners will need to hedge against a wide range of possible climatic futures by simultaneously pursuing multiple adaptation strategies and later abandoning those that don't work. "You can't just do incremental adaptation and then gradually shift to transformative thinking," he says.
---------------------------------------------
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0911/full/climate.2009.106.html (see next blog for the article)
Sam Wijnants (Part II: Article) --------------------------------------------- Scientists look seriously at the possibility of warming beyond the 2 °C target. Anna Barnett reports. No easy way out
Warming of 4 °C would cause large declines in rainfall in Africa, Australia, the Mediterranean and Central America, according to climate modellers.
The conference, which took place 28–30 September, marks a shift in experts' hopes of keeping average global temperatures to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels — widely considered the threshold for 'dangerous climate change'. "Emissions have not gone down globally, as people had hoped they would do," says Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK, who spoke at the conference. "The rate of increase has actually gone up."
"Now we know that emissions are at the upper end of what the IPCC projected a decade ago, it justifies taking the higher-emissions scenario more seriously," he notes. Diana Liverman, director of the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford, says that until now, "it was almost like the 2 °C target was driving the science".
The study predicts that oceans would warm less than the 4 °C average and land areas more — 7 °C in many areas, says Betts. Temperatures could climb by up to 10 °C in western and southern Africa and by the same or more in the Arctic. Decreases in rainfall of at least 20 per cent would be widespread in parts of Africa, Australia, the Mediterranean and Central America.
Peak practice A separate study presented by Nigel Arnell, director of the Walker Institute for Climate System Research at the University of Reading, looked at the impacts of temperatures rising 4 °C by 2080. This scenario would expose 1 billion people to higher water stress and would intensify flood risks for half those living in flood-prone areas. Agricultural lands would shift markedly, with yields of certain crops such as soybeans plummeting. As much as 15 per cent of today's cultivatable land would turn barren, but an extra 20 per cent would be added as cold areas warmed up, found the study. The Amazon rainforest could die back significantly, while pines and firs replace northern grasses.
If business as usual continues, extreme climate change could occur soon enough to affect a host of decisions being made today. Infrastructure and forestry plans in preparation now are meant to last for decades or more, and experts on adapting to climate change say these plans may need to be much bolder.
"As you can't rule out a more severe scenario, potentially you have to invest in more expensive, proactive adaptation," says Mark Stafford-Smith, director of the Climate Adaptation Flagship at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Crace, Australia. "You can't just do incremental adaptation and then gradually shift to transformative thinking," he says. Instead, these opposite approaches need to be combined — for example, by protecting trees from wildfires in some areas so that they could survive slight warming, but allowing blazes elsewhere, potentially clearing the way for a very different ecosystem to arise in a 4 °C world.
Tailoring all adaptation to deal with the impacts of 4 °C warming would be expensive. For sea level rise alone, protecting global coastlines could cost at least US$25 billion per year, and up to $215 billion if current best guesses are surpassed, according to new figures presented at the Oxford conference. UN experts have previously estimated costs of $49–171 billion a year for all adaptation3.
Policymakers are left between a rock and a hard place, concludes Anderson. "Mitigating for 2 °C is much more challenging than was previously thought, but adapting to 4 °C is also extremely challenging," he says. "There is no easy way out." --------------------------------------------- http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0911/full/climate.2009.106.html
Some people buy IPods and Flat TVs, Cell phones and stuff every time it comes with new tech or design. I am also a big fan of new, practical and fancy electrical items myself, but I feel people just throw their old ones away just because they've got new ones sometimes. Maybe it's because my major's Electronics, I don't know, but electrical items do have harmful chemicals inside so we cannot just throw'em away like we throw any other stuffs. It is really important to return it to the company so they can reuse some parts and recycle some other parts. Few years ago in Korea, we did have this system that we can bring our old handy to any cell phone shop when we buy new ones and we can get some discount, but I guess they don't do that anymore. In this way we could actually save some money ourselves, and phone shops sent old ones to their own companies, so companies could recycle part of'em. But I don't think we can do that for all kinds of electrical items, such as Radio, TV, DVD player and stuff. (Not sure about Apple. Have to look it up.) Not only is it such a waste to throw'em, it's also harmful environmentally. It's all same that we cannot just throw batteries with other garbage. I think we really need to build a take-back system for old electrical items. It's helpful for environment, companies, and us to make a little bit of money. Such a win-win.
------------------------------
Old electrical items are being thrown out with household rubbish because many people don't know how to recycle them, a new survey reveals today.
Jess Ross, editor of which.co.uk, said: "Most people have good intentions about recycling but, when it comes to old electrical items, there is still a lot of confusion about what goes where and when. We would urge consumers to think twice before throwing things out with their rubbish."
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
Alexandra Vorobyova
ReplyDelete"Climate Doctors Say: "Feel the Pain""
This article (a report by an environmental journalist for the BBC) talks mostly about the changes in environmental government policy made by the UK, but also compares it to other countries in the EU and in the world.
As stated in the article, most governments are still not ready to go the whole way to combat climate change and global warming- they are still adapting strategies that are far too 'nice' and not effective enough. The author compares it to a medicinal prescription against a sickness- you have to take drastic measures to fully cure it. Some prescriptive policies must be taken to have the needed results.
----------------------------
"Japan's emissions now stand 6% above 1990 levels, partially because it plucked its own low-hanging fruit - energy efficiency - in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s.
As a few recent analyses (including one from the World Resources Institute) have shown, the degree of "ambition" shown in the pledges of developed nations in the lead-up to the Copenhagen summit are not enough to bring carbon cuts of the 25-40% scale that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests are necessary to "avoid dangerous climate change".
The conclusion from the CCC's report provides part of the explanation.
For most countries, a "step change" in ambition would require a "step change" in policies - policies that would, for most, mean making the first painful bites into the nether regions of national carbon emissions.
A little wincing at the prospect seems to me entirely natural."
-------
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/its_worth_looking_at_the.html
Anna Maislinger
ReplyDelete"Plastic-bottle boat to sail"
The British environmentalist David de Rothschild wants to increase awareness of environmental problems. Therefore he’s going to sail from San Francisco to Australia with his catamaran, which is made almost entirely from plastic bottles. He faced a lot of challenges in designing this boat and finally demonstrates what is possible with a strong will and creativity. The article comes along with a short video.
----------------------------------
SOUNDBITE (English) David de Rothschild, Adventure Ecology Founder: "What we're doing is getting our buoyancy from 12-and-a-half thousand two litre bottles that are acting as individual buoyancy chambers."
But de Rothschild needed to do some convincing before his concept could be made a reality.
SOUNDBITE (English) David de Rothschild, Adventure Ecology Founder: "When I first said that to my naval architect and some of the concept architects they looked at me as if I was totally nuts."
De Rothschild is also National Geographic 2007 Emerging Explorer. He founded Adventure Ecology to inspire interest in environmental issues among schoolchildren. His Plastiki adventure will be chronicled on the groups website.
The voyage will make several island stops in the Pacific, and will pass through the famed Great Pacific Garbage Patch, where ocean currents for years have collected human-created debris much of it--- plastic. Plastikis construction has been ongoing for months.
While the boat will float thanks to the recycled bottles, the frame is also made entirely of recyclable materials. The aim is to highlight the perils of plastic and promote recycling.
One of the challenges in the design was finding something environmentally friendly to hold the whole thing together.
The solution turned out to be a waterproof glue made from cashew nuts and sugar.
A full crew will be on board to make the 100-day, 11-thousand-mile voyage.
Jo Royle will be Plastiki's skipper.
SOUNDBITE (English) Jo Royle, Plastiki Skipper: "The fact that we've got the plastic bottles on the outside against the water, that goes against any boat building laws that have ever been created. In fact, normally we're always working hard to make the hull as smooth as possible."
The boat's unusual design will offer the crew a few challenges.
SOUNDBITE (English) David de Rothschild, Adventure Ecology Founder: "Someone a while back said to me 'It's an untested material in an uncontrollable environment, what does that equal?' You know, and there's lots of question marks and I think if we knew everything that was going to happen precisely, it wouldn't be an adventure."
Plastiki is expected to launch on its voyage later this year.
And when its completed, the boat will be recycled.
----------
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091007-us-plastiki-missions-video-ap.html
Nicole Niedermeier
ReplyDelete„Environmental benefits of Wind energy“
Wind energy is a very effective and environment friendly way or producing energy. It generates no air or water emissions and do not produce hazardous waste. Nor do they deplete natural resources such as coal, oil, or gas, or cause environmental damage through resource extraction and transportation, or require significant amounts of water during operation.
As Carbon Dioxide is one of the most important factors of global warming, wind energy can even influence to reduce CO2 emissions because it is very clean as mentioned before.
Factors which may give a negative image to wind energy and have to be thought of are how energy consuming is the production of windmills, how much land is needed to be effective, shadow flickers, noise and visual impact to mention some.
------------------
“Wind energy system operations do not generate air or water emissions and do not produce hazardous waste. Nor do they deplete natural resources such as coal, oil, or gas, or cause environmental damage through resource extraction and transportation, or require significant amounts of water during operation. Wind's pollution-free electricity can help reduce the environmental damage caused by power generation in the U.S. and worldwide.“
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important of the global warming pollutants which are changing our climate. According to experts, if we are to avoid dangerous levels of warming, we must cut our CO2 emissions by 80-90 per cent by 2050. That means switching to forms of energy generation that do not produce CO2.
Wind power is a clean, renewable form of energy, which during operation produces no carbon dioxide. While some emissions of these gases will take place during the design, manufacture, transport and erection of wind turbines, enough electricity is generated from a wind farm within a few months to totally compensate for these emissions. When wind farms are dismantled (usually after 20-25 years of operation) they leave no legacy of pollution for future generation.
Given the scale of the CO2 cuts needed, wind power--as the least expensive, most developed renewable energy technology and the fastest to build--is the best placed renewable technology to deliver carbon emissions reductions on a large scale, quickly.”
“Wind power plants, like all other energy technologies, have some environmental impacts. However, unlike most conventional technologies (which have regional and even global impacts due to their emissions and fuel imports), the impacts of wind energy systems are minimal and local. This makes them easier for local communities to monitor and, if necessary, mitigate.“
------
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html#What%20are%20the%20environmental%20benefits%20of%20wind%20power
Young Han
ReplyDelete"Tres Amigas Super Station will help connect nation's three major electrical grids"
The article talks about building "Tres Amigas Super Station" in New Mexico where three major electrical grids are met. It would help carry electricity more effectively through out the nation(United States), it would guarantee fewer blackouts in demanding markets of electricity such as California, and also it would make major solar and wind energy more readily available to people. There are still some obstacles to dodge coming from technical difficulty in converting different currents and plus State of Texas may not want to agree upon building this facility because they are quite satisfied with where they are.
-----------------------------------------------
"This would be good for renewable energy because it would increase the number of potential buyers. For example, if the wind is blowing hard in Texas and there is a surplus of wind power, it could be sold to the Eastern grid at a better price than the local market where supply is temporarily outpacing demand."
"This would be good for renewable energy because it would increase the number of potential buyers. For example, if the wind is blowing hard in Texas and there is a surplus of wind power, it could be sold to the Eastern grid at a better price than the local market where supply is temporarily outpacing demand."
---------------------------------------------
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/tres-amigas-clovis-superstation-connecting-us-electricity-grids.php
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHyun-deok, Park
ReplyDelete"Are Green Jobs Good jobs?"
This article raised a hare about the green job's low pay. Job's pay is very important factor to make the realm prosperous. So he argued that by raising the green job's pay, the green job should become a good job for environment.
In this context, I think "The Save Four Rivers project makes green jobs." - remark of the president Lee- is nothing but an anachronism.
---------------------------------------------
Many clean-technology jobs pay well, according to a report released Wednesday by the research firm Clean Edge and PayScale, an online compensation data company.
Lawmakers, clean-technology companies and out-of-work employees are hoping that green jobs can replace some of the millions of jobs lost in the recession. But controversy over the wages for these jobs has raised some dispute about whether green jobs are good jobs.
A United States Senate Subcommittee on Green Jobs report earlier this year, for example, found low pay in wind and solar energy, green construction, and recycling workplaces, with jobs in recycling processing paying as low as $8.25 an hour and jobs in renewable-energy factories paying as little as $11 an hour.
According to that report, many wind and solar factories pay below the national average for workers manufacturing durable goods, and most green carpenters, roofers, painters and laborers earn less than $12.50 per hour.
The findings from the PayScale and Clean Edge survey strike something of a counterpoint to that study.
The median earnings found in the survey range from $36,100 a year for an insulation worker to $112,000 a year for design engineering managers in alternative energy, according to Al Lee, director of quantitative analysis at PayScale.
All the jobs PayScale found were “very reasonably paid,” Mr. Lee said, adding that several entry-level positions — including jobs as solar-energy system installers and solar fabrication technicians — require only high school or associate’s degrees and pay more than $40,000 annually.
“It’s not like working the McDonald’s line,” he said.
Most of the jobs in the survey are for employees with bachelor’s degrees, and more than one-third are engineering jobs, Mr. Lee said.
Still, clean-tech jobs aren’t yet able to replace all the jobs lost in other industries, Ron Pernick, a principal at Clean Edge and the lead author of the report, said during a conference call. And many projects have been put on hold or scrapped in the economic downturn, Mr. Pernick said.
But a significant number of clean-tech jobs offer competitive wages, he added, and a number of companies are opening factories in places that have recently sustained manufacturing layoffs.
-----
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/are-green-jobs-good-jobs/
Sam Wijnants
ReplyDelete"No Easy Way Out"
What if the global temperature would increase with 4°C or more? Gathering this month at the University of Oxford, project leader Mark Stafford-Smith sketched out a world affected by severe climate change, which they now see as increasingly probable. He argues that without swift and steep curbs on emissions, temperatures could rise as much as 4 °C by 2060.
This scenario would expose 1 billion people to higher water stress (estimated up to $215 billion if current best guesses are surpassed for the US to protect its coastline) and would intensify flood risks for half those living in flood-prone areas. Agricultural lands would shift markedly, with yields of certain crops such as soybeans plummeting. As much as 15 per cent of today's cultivatable land would turn barren, but an extra 20 per cent would be added as cold areas warmed up, found the study.
To avoid temperatures rising to this extent, global emissions will have to peak within about 30 years, says Stafford-Smith. And to stay within 2 °C, they'll have to peak within a decade. According to papers published in Nature this year, the later emissions peak, the more precipitously they'll have to fall afterwards to avoid dangerous warming. Even if ambitious action is agreed at this year's UN climate conference in Copenhagen, notes Stafford-Smith, it is likely to take years to implement.
As a solution or rather as a prevention of this huge danger planners will need to hedge against a wide range of possible climatic futures by simultaneously pursuing multiple adaptation strategies and later abandoning those that don't work. "You can't just do incremental adaptation and then gradually shift to transformative thinking," he says.
---------------------------------------------
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0911/full/climate.2009.106.html
(see next blog for the article)
Sam Wijnants (Part II: Article)
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------------
Scientists look seriously at the possibility of warming beyond the 2 °C target. Anna Barnett reports.
No easy way out
Warming of 4 °C would cause large declines in rainfall in Africa, Australia, the Mediterranean and Central America, according to climate modellers.
The conference, which took place 28–30 September, marks a shift in experts' hopes of keeping average global temperatures to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels — widely considered the threshold for 'dangerous climate change'. "Emissions have not gone down globally, as people had hoped they would do," says Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK, who spoke at the conference. "The rate of increase has actually gone up."
"Now we know that emissions are at the upper end of what the IPCC projected a decade ago, it justifies taking the higher-emissions scenario more seriously," he notes. Diana Liverman, director of the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford, says that until now, "it was almost like the 2 °C target was driving the science".
The study predicts that oceans would warm less than the 4 °C average and land areas more — 7 °C in many areas, says Betts. Temperatures could climb by up to 10 °C in western and southern Africa and by the same or more in the Arctic. Decreases in rainfall of at least 20 per cent would be widespread in parts of Africa, Australia, the Mediterranean and Central America.
Peak practice
A separate study presented by Nigel Arnell, director of the Walker Institute for Climate System Research at the University of Reading, looked at the impacts of temperatures rising 4 °C by 2080. This scenario would expose 1 billion people to higher water stress and would intensify flood risks for half those living in flood-prone areas. Agricultural lands would shift markedly, with yields of certain crops such as soybeans plummeting. As much as 15 per cent of today's cultivatable land would turn barren, but an extra 20 per cent would be added as cold areas warmed up, found the study. The Amazon rainforest could die back significantly, while pines and firs replace northern grasses.
If business as usual continues, extreme climate change could occur soon enough to affect a host of decisions being made today. Infrastructure and forestry plans in preparation now are meant to last for decades or more, and experts on adapting to climate change say these plans may need to be much bolder.
"As you can't rule out a more severe scenario, potentially you have to invest in more expensive, proactive adaptation," says Mark Stafford-Smith, director of the Climate Adaptation Flagship at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Crace, Australia. "You can't just do incremental adaptation and then gradually shift to transformative thinking," he says. Instead, these opposite approaches need to be combined — for example, by protecting trees from wildfires in some areas so that they could survive slight warming, but allowing blazes elsewhere, potentially clearing the way for a very different ecosystem to arise in a 4 °C world.
Tailoring all adaptation to deal with the impacts of 4 °C warming would be expensive. For sea level rise alone, protecting global coastlines could cost at least US$25 billion per year, and up to $215 billion if current best guesses are surpassed, according to new figures presented at the Oxford conference. UN experts have previously estimated costs of $49–171 billion a year for all adaptation3.
Policymakers are left between a rock and a hard place, concludes Anderson. "Mitigating for 2 °C is much more challenging than was previously thought, but adapting to 4 °C is also extremely challenging," he says. "There is no easy way out."
---------------------------------------------
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0911/full/climate.2009.106.html
Sujin Kwon
ReplyDeleteSome people buy IPods and Flat TVs, Cell phones and stuff every time it comes with new tech or design. I am also a big fan of new, practical and fancy electrical items myself, but I feel people just throw their old ones away just because they've got new ones sometimes. Maybe it's because my major's Electronics, I don't know, but electrical items do have harmful chemicals inside so we cannot just throw'em away like we throw any other stuffs. It is really important to return it to the company so they can reuse some parts and recycle some other parts. Few years ago in Korea, we did have this system that we can bring our old handy to any cell phone shop when we buy new ones and we can get some discount, but I guess they don't do that anymore. In this way we could actually save some money ourselves, and phone shops sent old ones to their own companies, so companies could recycle part of'em. But I don't think we can do that for all kinds of electrical items, such as Radio, TV, DVD player and stuff. (Not sure about Apple. Have to look it up.) Not only is it such a waste to throw'em, it's also harmful environmentally. It's all same that we cannot just throw batteries with other garbage. I think we really need to build a take-back system for old electrical items. It's helpful for environment, companies, and us to make a little bit of money. Such a win-win.
------------------------------
Old electrical items are being thrown out with household rubbish because many people don't know how to recycle them, a new survey reveals today.
Jess Ross, editor of which.co.uk, said: "Most people have good intentions about recycling but, when it comes to old electrical items, there is still a lot of confusion about what goes where and when. We would urge consumers to think twice before throwing things out with their rubbish."
---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/which-survey-electric-recycling