With all the talk of the 'Oxfam' protests at the G8 meeting in Tokyo, it comes as no surprise that Vice President Dick Cheney wants to sweep climate change debate under the rug. In fact, it appears the effort is years in the making.

Vice President Dick Cheney's office pushed to delete references about the 'consequences' of climate change on public health from congressional testimony, a former senior EPA official claimed Tuesday.

Jason K. Burnett, former top level EPA administrator, said that White House was concerned that the testimony last October by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, might make it tougher to avoid regulation.

Burnett, until last month a senior adviser on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency, described that Cheney's office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC's original testimony removed. The office of the vice president was seeking deletions to the testimony concerning any references to human health consequences, as a result of of climate change.

Sernator Barbara Boxer maintains that the deletions are the first part of "a master plan" with the goal of "covering up" the real dangers of global warming.

As many as six of 14 total pages of CDC testimony may have been deleted. 

Megan Mitchell, Dick Cheney's press secretary, dismissed the allegations by Burnett and said, "We don't comment on internal deliberations."

Jason Burnett, a lifelong Democrat, resigned last month from the EPA for the second time since 2004, because of the EPA's position on climate change and other issues. He currently supports Barack Obama for president.

He has registered strong concerns about Cheney's office fighting to not link climate change directly to public health or damage to the environment.

Burnett wrote that The White House, at Cheney's urging, "requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change." 

Burnett refused to press CDC on the deletions, because he believes the CDC's draft testimony was "fundamentally accurate."

In 2007 The Supreme Court directed the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare and, if so, begin to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. With this type of obstruction by Cheney and the rest of the Bush administration, that process is not likely to get off the ground until a Democrat is elected. 

  Like this post? Share it with others...

Inspite of science and signs, this Administration denied the Global Warming phemonomen for years. This allowed them to reject treaties, and keep their industrial polluting buddies in booming business.

Finally they succumbed to the massive evidence. However, they are not content to get on the survival bandwagon with the rest of us. Manipulation and distraction is their speciality. 

For quite a while they have been pressuring scientists to down play the consequences of climate change. To remove whole sections of evaluation from published reports and now to hide the worst prognostications from Congressional committee.

This news has not had much play on the straight news. We heard it on the NPR while coming back from the doctor.

Thank God, their over-reaching ineptitude out strips their evil ambition.

Until the new President is sworn in, I will not rest easy.

It is still possible these goons will fabricate a reason to declare martial law and suspend the election.

Keep an ear out for the ratcheting up of agression, especially with regards to Iran.

It won't be over till the fat guy leaves his suite in the bunker.

Take care out there.

Love,

LuRain

x

 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=cheney+office+climate+change&tc= 

-lp(c)08-

RussiaToday

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev summed up the results of the G8 summit in Japan. He also commented on the installation of the U.S. anti-missile system in Europe and the importance of the G8 meeting for the global agenda.

see

G8 summit marked by impotence and division

Czech Republic and U.S. sign radar base agreement

GMO

Food

Global Warming

The article was by Frank Davis in the Mercury News Washington Bureau.  Here is an excerpt:

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's office last year blocked testimony on how global warming endangers public health, a former Environmental Protection Agency official said Tuesday.
It was the strongest evidence yet of White House efforts to censor data on climate change.

My problem was that I wanted to see the actual testimony and that took a little doing. I finally found it at Science Progress Org where you can download both the original draft and the version presented to congress.

In the G8 statement on climate change, paragraphs 27 on clean energy, 28 on nuclear power and 31 on Carbon Capture and Storage are the ones that currently interest me most:

27. We promote clean energy, given its importance in tackling climate change and for the enhancement of energy security, by setting national goals and formulating action plans followed by appropriate monitoring. We believe that there are significant and growing economic and employment opportunities in this sector. We recognise the important role of renewable energy in tackling climate change and in the long term reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. We underscore the importance of sustainable biofuel production and use. The same should apply for the broader use of biomass for fuel, heat and electricity. We support the work of the “Global Bioenergy Partnership” (GBEP) and invite it to work with other relevant stakeholders to develop science-based benchmarks and indicators for biofuel production and use. We are committed to continuing research and development of second generation biofuel technologies.

28. We witness that a growing number of countries have expressed their interests in nuclear power programmes as a means to addressing climate change and energy security concerns. These countries regard nuclear power as an essential instrument in reducing dependence on fossil fuels and hence greenhouse gas emissions. We reiterate that safeguards (nuclear nonproliferation), nuclear safety and nuclear security (3S) are fundamental principles for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Against this background, an international initiative proposed by Japan on 3S-based nuclear energy infrastructure will be launched. We affirm the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in this process.

31. We will establish an international initiative with the support of the IEA to develop road maps for innovative technologies and cooperate upon existing and new partnerships, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) and advanced energy technologies. Reaffirming our Heiligendamm commitment to urgently develop, deploy and foster clean energy technologies, we recognise and encourage a wide range of policy instruments such as transparent regulatory frameworks, economic and fiscal incentives, and public/private partnerships to foster private sector investments in new technologies. We strongly support the launching of 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects globally by 2010, taking into account various national circumstances, with a view to beginning broad deployment of CCS by 2020. To accelerate these and other efforts, we are committed to increasing investment in both basic and applied environmental and clean energy technology research and development (R&D), and the promotion of commercialisation including through direct government funding and fiscal measures to encourage private sector investment. In this respect, G8 members have so far pledged over the next several years over US$10bn annually in direct government-funded R&D. We also agree to take various policy and regulatory measures to provide incentives for commercialising these technologies. We note the opportunity to promote research on complementary technological approaches which may contribute towards maintaining a stable climate. To respond to the growing demand for Earth observation data, we will accelerate efforts within the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), which builds on the work of UN specialised agencies and programs, in priority areas, inter alia, climate change and water resources management, by strengthening observation, prediction and data sharing. We also support capacity building for developing countries in earth observations and promote interoperability and linkage with other partners.

They say "We promote clean energy" but do not define "clean energy" as far as I can see.  In briefings and interviews this week, James Connaughton and Gordon Brown do define clean energy quite clearly as including nuclear power—they stress its significance—and by their recent remarks, it seems nuclear power is becoming the brightest star of all their clean energy ambitions.  At least, nuclear is on the tips of their tongues, whereas CCS is not.

Well, giving the G8 delegates the benefit of the doubt, I would choose to substitute the words "carbon capture and storage and nuclear power" wherever "clean energy" appears in the text.  Then, let's read ¶27 on clean energy again, and see if it makes sense:

27. We promote clean energy ^carbon capture and storage and nuclear power^, given its importance in tackling climate change and for the enhancement of energy security, by setting national goals and formulating action plans followed by appropriate monitoring. We believe that there are significant and growing economic and employment opportunities in this sector.

We recognize the important role of renewable energy in tackling climate change and in the long term reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.

We underscore the importance of sustainable biofuel production and use. The same should apply for the broader use of biomass for fuel, heat and electricity. We support the work of the “Global Bioenergy Partnership” (GBEP) and invite it to work with other relevant stakeholders to develop science-based benchmarks and indicators for biofuel production and use. We are committed to continuing research and development of second generation biofuel technologies.

Note that they "promote clean energy ^carbon capture and storage and nuclear power^, given its importance in tackling climate change and for the enhancement of energy security," yet merely "recognize the important role of renewable energy in tackling climate change".  Nuclear power is what these countries will, undoubtedly, promote for reasons of energy security (which they consider of strategic national importance) as well as tackling climate change (which is an inconvenient global challenge), and they are under pressure from scientists to do something about carbon capture and storage, though I am still not convinced that the CCS message is really getting through to decision makers, because they appear to be infatuated with nuclear dreams …

Also, see the difference in emphasis on G8 determination to act immediately:

"We promote clean energy ^carbon capture and storage and nuclear power^, … by setting national goals and formulating action plans followed by appropriate monitoring."

 versus their recognition of, but lack of action:

"We recognize the important role of renewable energy … in the long term reducing our dependency on fossil fuels."

That ¶27 thus leads naturally to ¶28 on nuclear … and, skipping a few paragraphs, leads in a less direct way to ¶31 on carbon capture and storage.

So, there you have it:

• Nuclear power is in.  It even has an entire paragraph ¶28 dedicated to it, and there's plenty of enthusiasm for it by policymakers and nuclear industry proponents alike.
• Carbon capture and storage is included in clean energy technologies, and forms a large part of ¶31.  However, getting ministers to talk about CCS is tough when they prefer singing the praises of nuclear.  Meanwhile, they are still authorising new-build coal-fired power plants without CCS because, as John Hutton tells us, Britain cannot wait!
• Renewable energy is not quite out, but it is not going to get any specific promotion, nor national goals, nor formulation of action plans, nor appropriate monitoring by these leaders.  Actually, in ¶35 renewable energy does get one further mention, "We call upon banks to set specific targets for low carbon investments like renewable energy", in this context:

35. We welcome the final report of the Gleneagles dialogue on climate change, clean energy and sustainable development. We also welcome the reports submitted by the IEA and the World Bank on their work related to the Gleneagles plan of action and continue to cooperate with those organisations. We value the useful exchange of views both between member countries and also business and civil society participants and acknowledge the role that further exchanges of this nature can play in supporting action on climate change and the UNFCCC process. We note the significant progress made by the multilateral development banks on the Clean Energy Investment Framework (CEIF) agreed at Gleneagles and welcome their joint level of ambition to mobilise public and private investments of over US$100bn up to 2010 from within existing resources. We call upon these Banks to build on the CEIF to develop comprehensive strategies to guide the integration of climate change into their development work and to set specific targets for low carbon investments like renewable energy.

According to their statement, the G8 succeeded in one fundamental area: they have side-stepped and ducked the most crucial issue—the global imperative of phasing out coal use, unless it is captured and stored underground.

How cheeky of them to lead with paragraph ¶22:

22. We reconfirm the significance of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as providing the most comprehensive assessment of the science and encourage the continuation of the science-based approach that should guide our climate protection efforts. We reaffirm our commitment to take strong leadership in combating climate change …

I suggest that from now on, every time a minister utters the words "clean energy" we press him or her on exactly what "clean energy" means.  I am not against nuclear power, but it seems there is deception going on here on a grand scale, and I think ministers should come clean to the public on that!

Instead of allowing any minister to wax lyrical on the benefits of nuclear power, we need to press firmly on the carbon capture and storage hot button and use that response as "a litmus test for climate change seriousness" (to steal a construction from James Connaughton).

P.S.  On DotEarth Andy Revkin has set up:

The (Annotated) Climate Declaration from the Industrial Powers
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
July 8, 2008, 9:37 am

It includes his insightful annotations, and he is encouraging comments.

The group decided to half emissions by 2050... that is a long time from now. The damage that our world can do in the next 30 year is almost unimaginable. The world population is currently about 6.5 Billion people and by 2050 it is estimated to be 9.4 Billion people. That is more people driving cars, drinking water, using plastic....etc.

They made a long term goal with no short term or mid-term goals and these large countries go on to pressure developing countries to do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. G8 countries (United States, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Canada and Italy) have more ability financially to reduce their emissions yet this group has the nerve to put pressure on other countries. To be fair the Europeans have pushed harder for rich countries to reinvigorate talks by making unilateral commitments. Germany, for instance, has pledged to cut emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and by 30 percent if other countries join the effort. In the end though Germany was not able to influence the other G8 countries to make any real change.

Kim Carstensen, Director WWF Global Climate Initiative criticized the group by saying "so little progress after a whole year of minister meetings and negotiations is not only a wasted opportunity, it falls dangerously short of what is needed to protect people and nature from climate change."  (from cnn.com).

The world only hope now is the UN lead talks that hope to create a new pact for countries to sign in December 2009 to follow up the Kyoto protocol that had a 2012 goal date. If that falls through it is unlikely that any world wide initiatives will help address or solve this worldwide problem.

In case you were not completely sick by the lack of work being performed by the group I leave you with this picture of the leaders eating dinner their official topic of discussion "World Food Crisis".... I could not make this up

Here is the menu too:

The dinner consisted of 18 dishes in eight courses including caviar, smoked salmon, Kyoto beef and a "G8 fantasy dessert". The banquet was accompanied by five different wines from around the world including champagne, a French Bourgogne and sake. The dinner came just hours after a "working lunch" consisting of six courses including white asparagus and truffle soup, crab and a supreme of chicken. 

(source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/2262534/G8-summit-Gordon-Brown-has-eight-course-dinner-before-food-crisis-talks.html)

They really should have just stayed home because they did NOTHING for the world by meeting.

2007:
In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. - full statement (pdf)

2008:
"We seek to share with all parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognising that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities." - full statement

So after a year of 'seriously considering', the men in suits who rule the world have moved to 'sharing the vision', with a bit more time to 'consider', and more crucially, 'adopt' the goal of halving emissions by 2050.

There's no denying that's progress, particularly now the US are on board (godspeed November and the back of Bush), but I'd hesitate to declare it strong, decisive or urgent. Even if that goes through, adopting a goal is a far cry from actually legislating cuts in emissions. Still, it's better than climate change falling off the agenda altogether. Let's just hope world temperatures move at an even slower pace than our political processes.

Today we will continue our explanations of how the rebalancing will manifest itself.  Once again, these are situations with which the Crystal, Indigo, and Star Children are very familiar.  They have experienced planetary rebalancing many times before.  They were also trained to come to this planet at this time to help us with our rebalancing.

Next Week

By Friday we will have spent two weeks looking at many different aspects of the planetary rebalancing.  That should be enough for now.  If anyone has any questions or comments please submit them and we can discuss the subject in greater detail.

Next week we will start taking a look at the illusions that so easily entrap the Crystal, Indigo, and Star Children.  These illusions are not encountered on other planets because people are trained out of them from birth.  Here, we are trained into them.  So starting next Monday we will begin looking at how we can learn to see through those illusions and by example help others to do the same.

Are you ready for today’s post?  Let’s go!

Windstorms

Once again, in previous posts to this blog we saw how on other planets windstorms were an essential part of the rebalancing.  The trees and buildings that are left behind when people move to safe areas need to be blown over.  Large and powerful windstorms do the job.

Many times our large windstorms are associated with large rainstorms.  We will approach them separately because wind and water play two different roles in rebalancing.

Rainstorms

Water plays a major role in helping a planet to rebalance properly.  The primary function that water plays is to carry the minerals and elementals needed to rebalance the soil and subsurface of the land.

Imagine the power of water to dissolve minerals and other compounds.  Now imagine that water seeping down through the entire surface of the earth.  As the preparations are finalized for the land to sink it receives some elementals and other compounds that will aid in rebalancing it once it sinks.  As the land that is submerged rises it also receives a few elementals and compounds that will enable it to finalize the proper balance.

All this carrying of compounds and elementals is done by water.  There are tremendous rainstorms that create large flows of water on the land and under the land.  What we call aquifers are the primary means of carrying the various elementals and compounds below the surface of the land.  Also, large amounts of water on the land that has yet to sink will help it prepare for being underwater.

Comets

Where do the elements needed for rebalancing come from?  During our discussions regarding rebalancing we talked a lot about elementals and compounds that are needed for rebalancing.  It is very clear that this planet will need a lot of different compounds to finalize its rebalancing.  How will they get here?

There are two main ways for the compounds and elements to enter the planet.  First they come from the sun.  The sun is a major force to stabilize balance through the solar system.  The sun will begin to emit the necessary elementals as the planet rebalances.  These elementals will be carried on the solar wind and enter the planet through the atmosphere.

The other major source of the elementals required for achieving proper balance is comets.  A comet has a very long and eccentric orbit.  As it travels far away from the solar system it is gathering the elementals needed for rebalancing.  When it reenters the bounds of the solar system it begins to drop those elementals off.  Sometimes they enter the planetary atmosphere directly.  Sometimes they are adjusted by the solar winds and then enter the atmosphere.  Either way, comets are a primary source for the building blocks required to achieve proper planetary rebalancing.

Well, that’s all for today.  Remember, next week we will start to take a look at the illusions in which so many of us feel trapped.  These are the stumbling blocks that prevent so many of us from accomplishing what we came here to do.  It should be a great week.

Until tomorrow…

Discuss & Comment

We do not want this blog to be a fountain of words from one view point.  We welcome comments and questions.  Please feel free to ask a question or make a comment when the mood strikes you.

WordPress forces all comments to be moderated.  We usually check for comments at least twice a day.  So do not be surprised if it takes a few hours for you to see your comment.

Talk to us.

Subscribe

Don’t miss any updates.  Get daily posts by email.  Subscribe to this blog by clicking here: SUBSCRIBE

This email list is maintained by Feedburner, a subsidiary of Google.  This blog does not have access to that list nor do we know who is on the list.

© 2008 by KanDu Associates, LLC 

The content of this blog is copyrighted by KanDu Associates.  All rights are reserved by the owner.  For reprint information please email:

nicetouchnj-noahnow@yahoo.com

By Nick Beams
www.wsws.org
9 July 2008

Facing what is arguably its most serious crisis since the end of the Second World War, the global capitalist economy has never been in greater need of co-ordinated policies from the world’s major national governments.

But unity and collaboration in the face of the mounting problems posed by climate change, oil and food price hikes and the ever-present threat of recession, have been conspicuously absent from the meeting of the G8 major industrial nations being held in Hokkaido, Japan, this week.

Nowhere were the divisions more apparent than in yesterday’s statement on climate change. After much behind the scenes negotiations, the G8 meeting finally agreed to a communiqué in which the major industrial powers agreed to a “vision” of “achieving at least 50 percent reduction of global emissions by 2050.” However, in order to secure agreement from US President George Bush, who has refused to name any target in the absence of commitments from India and China, the statement added a rider “recognising that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies.”

The statement was dismissed by scientists as lagging far behind what was needed to arrest global climate change.

...continued

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Daily Show

h/t: The Largest Minority

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.627550&w=425&h=350&fv=videoId%3D174783]

Total energy consumption was down by less than one percent to 228.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent, but of this we produced in these islands only around 20% of our total energy consumption. Oil consumption and coal consumption were both down as was primary electricity consumption – in the case of coal by 6.3% and gas consumption was 3.4% higher so carbon dioxide emissions should be marginally lower that they were in the first quarter of 2007.

Coal imports, production and coal used in power stations are all down by around 8% compared with the same period in 2007. Closing Tower Colliery in Glamorgan, the oldest deep mined colliery which has been worked since 1805, led to a decrease by 11.8% of deep mined coal, with open cast coal production barely changing.

Oil use was down 5% with petrol use decreasing and diesel use increasing by the same amount. The hike in oil prices is beginning to affect motoring behaviour. Aircraft fuel use showed a rise of nearly 2%. UK oil production was down by 5.6% and only the coming into production of nine new small oil fields preventing that figure from doubling. The UK was a net importer of oil, and I think this new trend will continue with oil imports having to be increased year by year in the future as the oil of the North Sea fields runs out.

Most people use natural gas to heat their homes and water. Here the figures are showing the start of a very significant new trend. UK gas production was down by 3.5% but gas imports were up by 14.3%. Gas used in the domestic sector increased by 7.2% and the amount of gas used in power stations was up by 10.7%. This shows that the natural gas reserves are depleting and we are becoming more dependent year on year on imported gas. That means more international pipe line gas will be needed and more liquefied gas shipped by sea and stored here will also be needed.

Electricity generation may be coming more efficient as the figures show that generators supplied 2% more electricity which catered for an increased demand of a slightly higher figure. The efficiency of electricity generation is probably due to more gas and less coal being used to supply power. Domestically we are all using more electricity, notwithstanding the increased use of low energy light bulbs.

Electricity produced by nuclear power was down by 7% as some nuclear generating plants closed for servicing and repairs.

As everyone knows, fuel prices have increased, coal by 11%, oil by 43%, and gas by 15%. Oil now costs nearly three times more than it cost in 1990, after adjusting for inflation, as everyone who drives a car or who depends on heating oil knows. By the middle of June petrol had increased by 22% to 118p per litre and diesel by 35% to an average of 131p a litre. Heating oil increased by 41%

Renewables barely make an impact on the heat and power that we use. We have an energy economy based almost entirely on fossil fuel, with a small amount of nuclear electricity generation. Almost all of our greenhouse gas emissions comes from burning fossil fuel and this is unsustainable in economic terms as well as in environmental terms.

Talking about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 60%, as the Climate Change Bill envisages or 80% as some Members of Parliament prefer, or talking about a shared climate change “vision” by the leaders at the G8 summit actually disguises the immensity of the task that we face to reduce emissions.

Targets should be couched in terms of renewable energy measures, not in theoretical emission savings. Mr Wick’s recent statement about the need to put solar heating panels on seven million homes and the need to build thousands of large scale wind farms points the way to the kind of targets that we need to adopt and then create the means for fulfilling them. All the climate change visions in the world will not, by themselves stop irreversible climate change

At the end of July the government will be publishing further figures including those that cover renewable energy generation. If you want to see the complete statistics you can find them by clicking on the following link. http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/statistics/publications/trends/index.html

With only a few weeks to go before the 2008 Olymics, officials in Beijing have ordered the Home Guard to fire Silver Iodide into the smoggy air above the capital in a desperate attempt to seed rain clouds.
Air Quality is so bad here that these antiquated anti-aircraft guns have been hauled out of their dust sheets to do a job that seems almost impossible.
But the problems are only just beginning for Beijing. For within a generation, Beijing will 'cease to exist,' according to China's leading environmentalist Dai Qing. To quote:
"We won’t have the ancient capital any longer and the ugly modern Beijing would disappear too. Unfortunately, government officials and Beijing residents are equally unaware of how serious the water crisis is."

Much of the available information about this pending crisis is top secret of course, but there is an underlying theme here. Available water resources will not match demand. Period.
Climate changes are upon us all, with the Far East set to become beset with water wars.
Sadly, the G8 summit is becoming an annual bureaucratic hand-squeeze, with little to offer the planet save for a mediocre resolution about halving greenhouse emissions by 2050.

Too little too late.
One can only feel sorry for the athletes who compete in Beijing this year as their lungs struggle to cope with a particulate soup that is likely to harm them. The gold medals will come with a health warning.
Mankind simply cannot continue belching out cloud-loads of effluent into the atmosphere without consequences, and seeding clouds with silver iodide will be unlikely to clear the air for long.

In the letter, while declining to name individuals, Mr. Burnett said the offices of Mr. Cheney and the White House Council on Environmental Quality “were seeking deletions” of sections of draft testimony describing health risks from warming. The testimony was prepared by Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for a hearing last October before Mrs. Boxer’s committee.

Mr. Burnett’s letter said the council “requested that I work with C.D.C. to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change.”

While Mr. Burnett's credibility should be considered carefully, given his political history, such blatant disregard for environmental policy is not unprecedented from the Bush administration. Last month, senior E.P.A. officials accused the Bush administration of pressuring them to remove their conclusion that greenhouse gases must be controlled from an environmental analysis. And more than one half of the sixteen-hundred EPA employees who responded to an online questionnaire reported that they faced "incidents of political interference" while at work.

To avoid this sort of outrageous political meddling in the future, the E.P.A. must be reformed. To put federal environmental policy in the hands of political appointees is irresponsible; there are too many conflicting interests in the world of politics to risk the global climate on it. Congress must look towards the Environmental Agency of England and Wales, a Non-Departmental Public Body that does its work farther from the reaches of political hands, as a model for reform of the E.P.A, and allow scientists a greater voice in shaping federal environmental policy.

UNEARTHED:

NEWS OF THE WEEK THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA FORGOT TO REPORT

Not only were there no concrete mid-term targets set but the 50% reduction promise has no binding character, lacks any base reference year against which the reduction should be measured and is all focused on finding solutions through technological innovations. Of course, political leaders with lack of vision see no need to change the unsustainable lifestyles which hundreds of millions of new middle class Chinese and Indian citizens are now starting to imitate. The declaration also still clings to the fallacious premise that the necessary climate/energy revolution can take place without questioning the current "economic growth addiction".

Don't take my word for it, just read the excellent "annotated climate declaration" by Andrew Rivkin in the New York Times' Dot Earth blog.

According to the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog, "clean" coal is the big winner of the G8 Hokkaido summit.

สาเหตุส่วนใหญ่ของการเปลี่ยนแปลงสภาพภูมิอากาศเกิดขึ้นจากกลุ่มประเทศอุตสาหกรรมชั้นนำ ซึ่งเป็นผู้ปล่อยคาร์บอนไดออกไซด์ที่สะสมอยู่ในชั้นบรรยากาศในปัจจุบันในสัดส่วนมากกว่าร้อยละ 80 กลุ่มประเทศเหล่านี้ยังเป็นผู้ปล่อยคาร์บอนไดออกไซด์มากกว่าร้อยละ 40 ของปริมาณการปล่อยคาร์บอนไดออกไซด์ทั้งหมด ทั้งๆ ที่มีประชากรรวมกันเพียงร้อยละ 13 ของประชากรโลก

ผลกระทบทางเศรษฐกิจและสิ่งแวดล้อมจากการเพิ่มขึ้นของราคาน้ำมันและถ่านหิน และการเปลี่ยนแปลงสภาพภูมิอากาศที่กำลังเกิดขึ้นจริง ทำให้พลังงานหมุนเวียนที่สะอาดเป็นหนทางเดียวที่จะหลีกเลี่ยงผลกระทบที่ร้ายแรงที่สุดของการเปลี่ยนแปลงสภาพภูมิอากาศและรับประกันความมั่นคงทางเศรษฐกิจ

ผู้นำ G8 และธนาคารโลกจะประกาศกองทุนปกป้องสภาพภูมิอากาศใหม่ที่เมืองโทยาโกบนเกาะฮอกไกโดของญี่ปุ่น กองทุนนี้ไม่ได้ให้คำนิยามถึง “เทคโนโลยีสะอาด” ที่ชัดเจน กลุ่ม G8 จึงเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของปัญหาไม่ใช่ทางออก และกองทุนดังกล่าวนี้ท้ายที่สุดแล้วก็จะนำไปอุดหนุนทางเลือกพลังงานที่สกปรก ที่สุดนั่นคือ ถ่านหิน จะต้องไม่มีการสนับสนุนถ่านหินเพราะไม่มีสิ่งที่เรียกว่าถ่านหินสะอาด

การอุดหนุนให้สร้างโรงไฟฟ้าถ่านหินโดยอ้างว่าเป็นการแก้ปัญหาโลกร้อนคือความบ้าคลั่ง กรีนพีซ ชุมชนในเอเชีย และ กลุ่มประชาสังคมต่างๆ มีจุดยืนร่วมกันในการคัดค้านกองทุนนี้

ผลกระทบต่างๆ ของระดับน้ำทะเลที่เพิ่มสูงขึ้น

ถ้าเราไม่ควบคุมการปล่อยก๊าซเรือนกระจกให้ลดลงมากที่สุด ทั้งพืดน้ำแข็งกรีนแลนด์และพืดน้ำแข็งแอนตาร์กติกาตะวันตกอาจทำให้โลกต้องประสบกับระดับน้ำทะเลที่เพิ่มสูงขึ้น 13 เมตร (43 ฟุต) ระดับน้ำทะเลที่เพิ่มขึ้นแม้เพียงเล็กน้อยนี้จะเป็นหายนะต่อเศรษฐกิจและ มนุษยชาติ

หากระดับน้ำทะเลเพิ่มขึ้นแม้เพียงเพียงเล็กน้อย จะทำให้เกิดน้ำท่วมใกล้ชายฝั่ง พายุรุนแรงขึ้นทำให้สร้างความเสียหาย ชายฝั่งถูกกัดเซาะ น้ำอุปโภคบริโภคถูกน้ำทะเลปนเปื้อน พื้นที่ใกล้พื้นที่ชุ่มน้ำและแนวเกาะถูกน้ำท่วม และ การเพิ่มขึ้นของความเค็มที่ปากแม่น้ำ นอกจากนี้ เมืองและหมู่บ้านตามชายฝั่งที่อยู่ในระดับต่ำจะได้รับผลกระทบด้วย ยิ่งไปกว่านั้น ทรัพยากรที่สำคัญยิ่งต่อประชากรบนเกาะและตามชายฝั่ง เช่น ชายหาด น้ำจืด การประมง แนวปะการังและเกาะหินปะการัง และ ถิ่นที่อยู่ของสัตว์ป่า ก็กำลังตกอยู่ในภาวะเสี่ยง

นี่คือภาพจำลองเมืองต่างๆ หากระดับน้ำทะเลสูงขึ้นในอีก 50 ปี ซึ่งเป็นผลมาจากภาวะโลกร้อน ซึ่งทำให้น้ำแข็งขั้วโลกละลาย นำไปสู่น้ำท่วม

เริ่มจากแมนฮัตตัน , นิวยอร์ก สหรัฐอเมริกา
เป็นศูนย์กลางทางธุรกิจที่สำคัญของอเมริกา ไม่ว่าจะเป็นตึกระฟ้า สำนักงานใหญ่บริษัทต่างๆ หรือตลาดหลักทรัพย์ วอลล์ สตรีท

รัฐฟลอริดา สหรัฐอเมริกา

ภาพเมื่อถูกน้ำท่วม คนเป็นล้านจะต้องอพยพออก

ต่อมาคือ ปักกิ่ง ประเทศจีน

เซี่ยงไฮ้

กัลกัตตา อินเดีย

ซานฟรานซิสโก ในอเมริกา

และเนธอร์แลนด์ ซึ่งเป็นประเทศที่พื้นที่ส่วนมากของประเทศอยู่ต่ำ (มีพื้นที่บางส่วน ต่ำกว่า ระดับน้ำทะเล ด้วยซ้ำ)

หายไปเกือบครึ่งประเทศ

นี่เป็นแค่ส่วนหนึ่งเท่านั้น ของพื้นที่ที่ได้รับผลกระทบจำนวนมากบนโลกแห่งนี้

กรีนพีซเรียกร้องให้ผู้นำกลุ่มประเทศอุตสาหกรรมชั้นนำ 8 ประเทศที่กำลังประชุมที่ญี่ปุ่นผลักดันแนวทางเพื่อรักษาระดับอุณหภูมิเฉลี่ยผิวโลกมิให้เพิ่มมากไปกว่า 2 องศาเซลเซียสเมื่อเทียบกับระดับก่อนยุคอุตสาหกรรม

ติดตามการเดินทางของเรือเรนโบว์ วอร์ริเออร์ได้ที่ http://www.greenpeace.or.th/quitcoal
ลงชื่อในจดหมายเรียกร้องการปฏิวัิติพลังงาน

[WTF]

A week after U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline declared that "the balance of hardships" is in favor of the BP and Shell, "who have invested significant time [never mind nature's 4.55 billion year investment] and expense in preparing for the scheduled activities," and dismissed lawsuit against exploration permits granted by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the MMS, two environmental groups filed a lawsuit yesterday against new federal regulations that grants permission to oil companies to disturb the polar bears and walrus in the Chukchi Sea.

The Pacific Walrus: "ah may be ugly, but ah ain't dumb, an' ah ain't hurting no one!" [Image: NOAA]

"The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Anchorage, challenges regulations issued last month by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that allow 'incidental takes' of the animals, meaning permission to disturb or accidentally harass them as long as such actions do not result in physical injury or death." Reuters reported.

Polar bears were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in May, and a similar petition seeking protections to the Pacific walrus has since been submitted. More ...

An aerial view of the oil spill from Statfjord A platform in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea December 12, 2007. About 25,000 barrels of oil spilled into the Norwegian sector of the North Sea near the Statfjord oilfield on Wednesday, field operator StatoilHydro and oil officials said. REUTERS/Kystverket (The Norwegian Coastal Administration) via Scanpix Norway (NORWAY) NORWAY OUT NO COMMERCIAL USE

[MMS: the U.S. Minerals Management Service]

Related Links:

• Death by Lethal Pollution
• Bering Sea Drilling Revisited!

Questo fatto può bastare a uno scettico del global warming per dire che la climatologia è inaffidabile. Qui trovate un brano di un programma trasmesso da Channel Nine, una tv australiana. Adam Shand, il giornalista che conduce il programma, è lo scettico; Tim Flannery è un paleontologo e un ambientalista. Ricordate che in Australia a gennaio è estate e a giugno è inverno.

Tim Flannery: "Nessuno può predire il tempo con tre mesi di anticipo, è assolutamente vero. Ma se le chiedessi se probabilmente gennaio dell'anno prossimo sarà più caldo di giugno quest'anno, cosa direbbe?".

Adam Shand: "Non avrei idea!".

Qui TF avrebbe dovuto fare allargare il silenzio e poi dire: "Ah, non ha idea?". Invece tenta di convincere AS:

TF: "Dovrebbe dire di sì perché è quanto vediamo sempre. Le estati sono più calde dell'inverno. E in termini di predizioni sul trend generale globale, questa è esattamente il genere di ricerca scientifica che stiamo facendo. Non è come predire il tempo di un certo giorno in anticipo di tre mesi, è come predire se gennaio sarà probabilmente più caldo di giugno".

AS: "Ma è solo un'assunzione, noi facciamo una specie di assunzione che l'estate sia più calda dell'inverno".

Di nuovo, TF avrebbe dovuto fare allargare il silenzio. Invece, confessa quanto poco può dare la scienza a chi reclama verità assolute.

TF: "L'estate lo è sempre, lo è sempre stata. E' una buona teoria, ben fondata nella realtà che sperimentiamo".

"When a group of Minnesota legislators pointed to a seeming disconnect between philanthropist Bill Gates' public calls to address climate change and his partial ownership of a Minnesota utility that's pushing to build a controversial coal-burning power plant, Gates' investment manager said the Microsoft billionaire had only "passive" interest in the utility. "

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/07/07/2471/given_his_investment_and_loan_gates_interest_in_otter_tail_power_appears_more_than_passive

Ahhh, the beautiful site of a Polar Bear slaughteringa baby seal.  Notice how the hue of the blood of the seal mixed with the reflection of blue sea water gives the picture a kind of violet tint.  Nature is a wonderous and magical thing.  But there is evil lurking in these blood-filled waters.  An evil no polar bear, even with his massive strength, can possibly defeat.

Big Oil!  That's right the money-hungry, greedy, good for nothun' Republican Controlled Oil Industry.  Somehow Bush and his henchmen were able to con the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service into granting legal protection to seven oil companies in the Chukchi Sea over the next five years should they accidentally harm "small numbers" of polar bears or Pacific walruses while drilling or during other exploratory activities. 

Oh the humanity...er...polar bearanity.

But wait--there is hope for the polar bear harassed by these villans.  In fact there is always hope for the environment because as soon as any industry tries to make an advancement to ease our pain at the pump--there will always be...

The mighty lawsuit.  Yes, the lawsuit--which has brought us such advances as warning labels on McDonald's coffee to let you know it is actually "hot", instructions on the back of rat poison that instruct you not to eat it, expensive car emissions systems, no more prayer in schools and constitutional rights to prisoners of war. 

This time--two separate conservation groups have teamed up to sue everyone that has ever lived to stop this "free pass" to Big Oil.  After all, we all know that drilling for oil harms the environment and therefore harasses the polar bear and the walrus.  Just like ANWR--I mean just look at the land region that Republicans insist should be explored for oil: 

Wow!  What a paradise!  I see why we need to be extra cautious there too.

Once again I say "bravo" to the liberals in our Country.  They never dissappoint me.  It had been almost 4 weeks since the authority was given to explore and I thought maybe the followers of the global environmental cult had missed it--but oh, no, they just needed to find a few brave heroes to do the job.  When we think of heroes we may think of soliders, astronauts, firemen, policemen, Ronald Regan but we all know the real heroes of our Country:

LAWYERS!  They know best how to make a Federal Case (literally) out of hanging chads, fatty foods and waterboarding.  Who else will speak for the Polar Bear?  Who else will champion the unheard voice of the walrus?  Paul McCartney?  I don't think so.  If you want to hear the glorious sound of "coo coo ca choo" then you need a lawyer.  I just hope their lawsuit is in time to save us from lower gas prices in the next 5 years.  I am really hoping to be able to pay $10 a gallon one day so that I will be forced to by a smart car and then be crushed to death in the first minor accident I have on a Texas highway.

(remember, I have a right to be sarcastic about this--I am one of these)  :)

-Murphy

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The G8 came to the conclusion that the industrialized countries that participate within the group of eight will eliminate emissions in half by 2050, just about the time the troops will get on a time table to return from Iraq.  Environmentalists are disappointed in the group who believe the world needs to eliminate 80-90% of greenhouse gas emissions at current levels to hold off environmental affects.  The New York Times reports:

...there was confusion over whether the cuts would be from current levels or the 1990 levels discussed at Heiligendamm. Mr. Fukuda, in a question-and-answer session with reporters, seemed to indicate it would be current levels.

That prompted harsh criticism. Phil Clapp, an expert in climate change at the Pew Environmental Group who is here monitoring the talks, said, “The science shows that we have to reduce 80 to 90 percent from current levels to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”

Securing a harsh realization that the countries that run the world are in no hurry to save it.  This is a truly pressing matter and hot button issue for future candidates to take into consideration so it begs the question:

What do the candidate say? 

Barack Obama the flip-flopping electable democrat has been listening to his environmental advisors and states on his website that he pushes to remove carbon emissions by 80% (at 1990 levels) by the time we reach 2050 (Obama site).  Of course, that's not current levels which Mr. Clapp says won't cut it.

John McCain who probably still believes it's a myth but wants to get elected has compromised and wants to follow the same cap-and-trade strategy of Barack Obama but has his goal set 16% higher than that of the G8, stating he would like to lower emissions to 66% of 2005 standards (The Lexington Project).

MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. —  Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.

Reaching more than 14,000 feet above sea level, Mount Shasta is one of the state's tallest peaks, dominating the landscape of high plains and conifer forests in far Northern California.

Nearby Indian tribes referred to its glaciers as the footsteps made by the creator when he descended to Earth. Hikers flock to Shasta's peak every summer to scale them.

With glaciers retreating in the Sierra Nevada, the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere in the Cascades, Mount Shasta — the southernmost volcano in the Cascade range — is actually benefiting from changing weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta's glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."

Really? The oceans are actually cooling. Let's see what else they may have gotten wrong.

Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert at Ohio State University, has projected the storied snows at Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro might disappear by 2015.

You might want to look at THIS.

Although Mount Shasta's glaciers are growing, researchers say the 4.7 billion cubic feet of ice on its flanks could be gone by 2100.

For the glaciers to remain their current size, Shasta would have to receive 20 percent more snowfall for every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, Tulaczyk said.

Well now, since global warming stopped 10 years ago, that shouldn't be a problem.

The Shasta glaciers have been advancing since the end of a drought in the early 20th century. The mountain's smallest glaciers — named Konwakiton, Watkins and Mud Creek — have more than doubled in length since 1950.

Hikers seeking to cross Shasta's glaciers — marked with crevasses as deep as 100 feet — say they are much larger than the boundaries drawn on geological maps.

"I noticed I was traveling down farther than the maps were showing it," said Eric White, a U.S. Forest Service ranger who has climbed Shasta for 23 years.

Four glaciers at Washington's Mount Rainier are staying about the same size. Those glaciers — shielded from the sun on the mountain's north and east sides — have received just enough snow to keep them from shrinking.

Well they get that mostly right. How do you get Just Enough? Who measures that?

Here's The Rest

Now here's another theory. The Lemurians have lived in the mountain for 12,000 years, and like it just the way it is. You can read it Here
and Here. :wink: