1) Global warming has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders. On the one hand, warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. On the other, the technological, economic and political issues that have to be resolved before a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions can begin have gotten no simpler, particularly in the face of a global economic slowdown.
World leaders gathered in Copenhagen in December 2009 for a session tha that had been years in the making but that fell short of even the lowered expectations with which it opened. The 192 nations in attendance at the end merely agreed to try to reach a binding accord before at a follow up meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in December 2010. By the summer, Ban-Ki Moon, the United Nations Secretary General, was saying that no sweeping accord was likely, and recommending that a better approach might consist of small steps in separate fields that built toward wider consensus.
At the heart of the international debate is a momentous tussle between rich and poor countries over who steps up first and who pays most for changed energy menus.
In the United States, Democratic leaders in the Senate in July 2010 gave up on reaching even a scaled-down climate bill, in the face of opposition from Republicans and some energy-state Democrats. The House had passed a broad cap-and-trade bill in 2009.
In the meantime, recent fluctuations in temperature have intensified the public debate over how urgently to respond. A string of large snowstorms in the Washington area and freezing weather in Florida in the winter of 2009-2010 were seized on by climate change skeptics. But the combination of flooding, heat waves and droughts in the summer were taken by most researchers trained in climate analysis as evidence to show that weather extremes are getting worse.
The long-term warming trend over the last century has been well-established, and scientists immersed in studying the climate are projecting substantial disruption in water supplies, agriculture, ecosystems and coastal communities. Passionate activists at both ends of the discourse are pushing ever harder for or against rapid action, while polls show the public locked durably in three camps — with roughly a fifth of American voters eager for action, a similar proportion aggressively rejecting projections of catastrophe and most people tuned out or confused.
Background
Scientists learned long ago that the earth's climate has powerfully shaped the history of the human species — biologically, culturally and geographically. But only in the last few decades has research revealed that humans can be a powerful influence on the climate as well.
A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the world's climate has been warming, primarily as a result of emissions from unfettered burning of fossil fuels and the razing of tropical forests. Such activity adds to the atmosphere's invisible blanket of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases. Recent research has shown that methane, which flows from landfills, livestock and oil and gas facilities, is a close second to carbon dioxide in impact on the atmosphere.
That conclusion has emerged through a broad body of analysis in fields as disparate as glaciology, the study of glacial formations, and palynology, the study of the distribution of pollen grains in lake mud. It is based on a host of assessments by the world's leading organizations of climate and earth scientists.
In the last several years, the scientific case that the rising human influence on climate could become disruptive has become particularly robust.
Some fluctuations in the Earth's temperature are inevitable regardless of human activity — because of decades-long ocean cycles, for example. But centuries of rising temperatures and seas lie ahead if the release of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation continues unabated, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore for alerting the world to warming's risks.
Despite the scientific consensus on these basic conclusions, enormously important details remain murky. That reality has been seized upon by some groups and scientists disputing the overall consensus and opposing changes in energy policies.
For example, estimates of the amount of warming that would result from a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations (compared to the level just before the Industrial Revolution got under way in the early 19th century) range from 3.6 degrees to 8 degrees Fahrenheit. The intergovernmental climate panel said it could not rule out even higher temperatures. While the low end could probably be tolerated, the high end would almost certainly result in calamitous, long-lasting disruptions of ecosystems and economies, a host of studies have concluded. A wide range of economists and earth scientists say that level of risk justifies an aggressive response.
Other questions have persisted despite a century-long accumulation of studies pointing to human-driven warming. The rate and extent at which sea levels will rise in this century as ice sheets erode remains highly uncertain, even as the long-term forecast of centuries of retreating shorelines remains intact. Scientists are struggling more than ever to disentangle how the heat building in the seas and atmosphere will affect the strength and number of tropical cyclones. The latest science suggests there will be more hurricanes and typhoons that reach the most dangerous categories of intensity, but fewer storms over all.
Steps Toward a Response
The debate over such climate questions pales next to the fight over what to do, or not do, in a world where fossil fuels still underpin both rich and emerging economies. With the completion of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in 1992, the world's nations pledged to avoid dangerously disrupting the climate through the buildup of greenhouse gases, but they never defined how much warming was too much.
Nonetheless, recognizing that the original climate treaty was proving ineffective, all of the world's industrialized countries except for the United States accepted binding restrictions on their greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in Japan in 1997. That accord took effect in 2005 and its gas restrictions expire in 2012. The United States signed the treaty, but it was never submitted for ratification, in the face of overwhelming opposition in the Senate because the pact required no steps by China or other fast-growing developing countries.
It took until 2009 for the leaders of the world's largest economic powers to agree on a dangerous climate threshold: an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from the average global temperature recorded just before the Industrial Revolution kicked into gear. (This translates into an increase of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above the Earth's current average temperature, about 59 degrees).
The Group of 8 industrial powers also agreed that year to a goal of reducing global emissions 50 percent by 2050, with the richest countries leading the way by cutting their emissions 80 percent. But they did not set a baseline from which to measure that reduction, and so far firm interim targets — which many climate scientists say would be more meaningful — have not been defined.
At the same time, fast-growing emerging economic powerhouses, led by China and India, still oppose taking on mandatory obligations to curb their emissions. They say they will do what they can to rein in growth in emissions — as long as their economies do not suffer. The world's poorest countries, in the meantime, are seeking payments to help make them less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, given that the buildup in climate-warming gases so far has come mainly from richer nations. Such aid has been promised since the 1992 treaty and a fund was set up under the Kyoto Protocol. But while tens of billions of dollars are said to be needed, only millions have flowed so far.
In many ways, the debate over global climate policy is a result of a global "climate divide.'' Emissions of carbon dioxide per person range from less than 2 tons per year in India, where 400 million people lack access to electricity, to more than 20 in the United States. The richest countries are also best able to use wealth and technology to insulate themselves from climate hazards, while the poorest, which have done the least to cause the problem, are the most exposed.
In the meantime, a recent dip in emissions caused by the global economic slowdown is almost certain to be followed by a rise, scientists warn, and with population and appetites for energy projected to rise through mid-century, they say the entwined challenges of climate and energy will only intensify.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
-I feel this article provides efficient information about the global warming situation. This is something I'm very concerned about ever since i watched the movie 2012 lol (but seriously).
The chemicals BP is now relying on to break up the steady flow of leaking oil from deep below the Gulf of Mexico could create a new set of environmental problems. Even if the materials, called dispersants, are effective, BP has already bought up more than a third of the world’s supply. If the leak from 5,000 feet beneath the surface continues for weeks, or months, that stockpile could run out.
On Thursday BP began using the chemical compounds to dissolve the crude oil, both on the surface and deep below, deploying an estimated 100,000 gallons. Dispersing the oil is considered one of the best ways to protect birds and keep the slick from making landfall. But the dispersants contain harmful toxins of their own and can concentrate leftover oil toxins in the water, where they can kill fish and migrate great distances.
The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws, but a worker safety sheet for one product, called Corexit, says it includes 2-butoxyethanol, a compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.
“There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,” said Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programs for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. “It’s a trade-off – you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t -- of trying to minimize the damage coming to shore, but in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.”
BP did not respond to requests for comment for this article.
Dispersants are mixtures of solvents, surfactants and other additives that break up the surface tension of an oil slick and make oil more soluble in water, according to a paper published by the National Academy of Sciences. They are spread over or in the water in very low concentration – a single gallon may cover several acres.
Once they are dispersed, the tiny droplets of oil are more likely to sink or remain suspended in deep water rather than floating to the surface and collecting in a continuous slick. Dispersed oil can spread quickly in three directions instead of two and is more easily dissipated by waves and turbulence that break it up further and help many of its most toxic hydrocarbons evaporate.
But the dispersed oil can also collect on the seabed, where it becomes food for microscopic organisms at the bottom of the food chain and eventually winds up in shellfish and other organisms. The evaporation process can also concentrate the toxic compounds left behind, particularly oil-derived compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs.
Studies if oil dispersal have found that the chemicals used can accumulate in shellfish and other organisms. (Getty Images file photo)
A version of Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and, according to a literature review performed by the group the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, was later linked with health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. But the Academy report makes clear that the dispersants used today are less toxic than those used a decade ago.
“There is a certain amount of toxicity,” said Robin Rorick, director of marine and security operations at the American Petroleum Institute. “We view dispersant use as a tool in a toolbox. It’s a function of conducting a net environmental benefit analysis and determining the best bang for your buck.”
Charter, the marine expert, cautioned the dispersants should be carefully considered for the right reasons.
“Right now there is a headlong rush to get this oil out of sight out of mind,” Charter said. “You can throw every resource we have at this spill. You can call out the Marine Corps and the National Guard. This is so big that it is unlikely that any amount of response is going to make much of a dent in the impacts. It’s going to be mostly watching it happen.”
http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-gulf-oil-spill-dispersants-0430
- The oil spill, I feel is a huge alarm clock waking up the nation, if not the entire world. our water supply is not unlimited, many animals were injured or even killed over a silly mistake made by a company we DEPEND ON for our daily lives, yet they are endangering our entire planet.
3) In the 1990s, corporate America's embrace of the green movement was led mostly by free-spirited, maverick companies such as Ben & Jerry's, Starbucks and Whole Foods.
Now, mainstream giants in markets spanning consumer products, banking, airlines and chemicals have sweeping programs to shrink their companies' impact on the environment — and cash in on consumers' desire to go green.
YOUR HOUSEHOLD: Share your tips, experiences
Many see doing so as a virtual necessity as regulators consider limits on greenhouse gas emissions and consumers demand environmentally friendly products.
U.S. companies also realize they must follow Europe's lead on environmental issues to compete in a global marketplace, says Jack Geibig, director of the Center for Clean Products at the University of Tennessee.
"I think we're beyond the fad point," he says. "People are buying hybrid vehicles, they're concerned about global warming, they're more engaged than ever."
Hybrid cars from Toyota and Honda have grabbed headlines, as have Wal-Mart's green initiatives, such as plans to double the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet during the next 10 years and push its 60,000 suppliers to produce eco-friendly goods. But in ways large and small, the notion of "going green" is also reshaping product development and marketing strategies.
Discovery is launching an eco-friendly channel. Method, which makes housecleaning products with biodegradable ingredients, saw sales nearly double last year to $60 million. NEC has developed a new plant-based bioplastic for mobile phones and laptops.
Venture capital investments in alternative energy, biofuels and clean technologies jumped from $491 million in 2005 to $884 million last year, according to Dow Jones VentureOne and Ernst & Young.
America's largest companies, meanwhile, are seeking to both cut pollution and save money.
PHH Arval, which manages the vehicles of about one-third of Fortune 500 companies, says it's in discussions with dozens of them about switching to more fuel-efficient models under PHH's GreenFleet program.
"Two or three years ago, it was a little tough getting people's attention on this," says PHH Chief Executive George Kilroy. "Now everybody's interested."
DuPont typifies the evolution of many big corporations. The chemical giant's initial brush with conservation came while slashing greenhouse gas emissions at its factories by 72% since 1990 through both energy efficiency and better pollution filters.
The initiative saved $3 billion in energy costs, but now DuPont wants to go further, viewing the environmental movement as a key lever to increase revenue.
"We felt the bigger societal contribution and bigger shareholder value was in finding new products to bring to the market," says Linda Fisher, DuPont's chief sustainability officer.
So the company is making solar-panel materials, more energy-efficient building insulation and air-conditioner coolants that emit fewer greenhouse gases.
By 2015, the $27 billion company plans to boost revenue from such products by $10 billion and double research spending to $450 million.
Even businesses with no obvious impact on the environment are going green.
Wells Fargo was named the Environmental Protection Agency's No. 1 green power partner this year after it offset 40% of its electricity use by buying renewable energy credits, which are certificates that subsidize the cost of wind, biomass or other alternative energy projects.
The banking giant also has provided $750 million in loans for the construction of environmentally friendly office and apartment buildings.
Bank customers surveyed said installing energy-efficient windows is the No. 1 upgrade they would make with a $50,000 home equity credit line.
"This is clearly what our customers … are focused on, and we're reflecting that," says bank Vice President Mary Wenzel.
Others going green:
•Marriott hotels are saving 65% on hotel lighting costs after replacing 450,000 bulbs with compact fluorescents last year. The chain also changed out 400,000 shower heads to cut hot water usage 10%.
While the efforts reduce carbon dioxide emissions, they also save millions of dollars.
"It's good business sense," says Marriott Senior Vice President Pat Maher.
•Continental Airlines has spent more than $16 billion the past decade to overhaul its fleet, making it 35% more energy efficient per passenger-mile.
•Sun Microsystems, whose computer networking products help 37% of the world's corporate data centers, launched a computer server in late 2005 that's up to five times more energy efficient than standard systems.
It hit $400 million in sales the past year, lifting Sun to a profit last quarter after years of losses.
The rush to go green is not without controversy. Some big companies have drawn complaints of "greenwashing," or using environmentalism to polish their corporate images.
David Hawkins, head of the National Resources Defense Council's climate center, cites ExxonMobil's $100 million, 10-year grant to Stanford University in 2002 for climate research. He says the company has extensively advertised the donation even while eschewing renewable energy as uneconomical.
ExxonMobil spokesman Dave Gardner calls the claim "silly" and says Stanford is "doing significant work" to develop new carbon-cutting technologies.
DuPont, meanwhile, has drawn greenwashing charges from the United Steelworkers union.
In 2005, the company agreed to pay $16.5 million to settle EPA charges that it hid information about the dangers posed by a chemical used to make Teflon and other products.
DuPont's Fisher says burnishing the company's reputation is "part of making those commitments."
Yet as companies like DuPont invest billions in eco-friendly products, greenwashing complaints have waned, says Allen Hershkowitz, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Public relations alone is "not enough of a motivator to change corporate behavior," he says, "when there's big dollars involved."
-I feel this article expresses how I feel the most about global warming. It relates to the other 2 article by being the solution... finally.
-I feel that everyone is trying to do their part, but I also feel that "being green" is the new fad. So the merchants main focus is the money and helping our planet is just a plus.
No comments:
Post a Comment