Once upon a time the planet earth was covered in ice.  About two hundred years ago, people began to notice strange things around the earth. Boulders the size of a house were found in the middle of fields where there was no rock of the same type. Some how these people began to deduce that the ice field on the mountain pushed the boulder down.  Eventually, more people got on the band wagon and a theory developed about the glacial period.  I refer to it as the Ice Age.  In the two hundred years since the glacial period was discovered, scientists have learned that there have been four ice ages.  They  took place over periods of millions of years, but they did take place. Each time, the ice receded and melted. The last ice age was twenty thousand years ago. The arctic and the antarctic ice caps, and mountain glaciers are the remnants.  Let’s face it, there were no cars or power plants twenty thousand years ago to make all that ice melt, so what made it go away?

Today, we have a giant argument about how our CO2 emissions are causing global warming. True, CO2 does cause global warming, it is one of the mechanisms that made the glacial periods recede? Could it be that we are still in the recession period of the last glacial period? Could it be that all the cars and coal-fired power plants in the world running twenty-four hours a day could not have any effect whatsoever on global warming? Could it be that global warming is merely a natural cycle that the planet earth experiences?  Who has been around for a million years to tell us?

I once visited a great place near Tucson Arizona called the Biosphere 2.

Bio-Sphere 2 was originally designed as an experiment to determine if man could survive in a totally closed cell natural environment. They could not. The property was sold to a University that used the Bio-sphere as a closed environment where they ran full size experiments to measure the effects of  CO2 on the planet. The results were too erratic to continue.

While there, I saw a small-scale experiment which was more controlled. The exhibit was a series of twenty-gallon fish tanks. Each growing corn at different levels of CO2. What I recall is that it took a huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to cause plants to grow poorly. In fact, the plants did  better with more CO2. The amount of CO2 plants can handle before it becomes deleterious is huge. 

It is clear to me that the current evidence for CO2 emissions causing global warming are irrelevant when compared to the natural dynamics of the solar system, and the cycle of glaciation on planet earth. It is also clear to me that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is still at a level that will help things grow more vigorously. It is also clear to me that the current hysteria about global warming is based on a bunch of questionable data that has now mysteriously disappeared. It is also clear to me that the Cap and Trade system being foisted upon us is still another way for POTUS to grab more control over our lives.

While I have only had about an hour to comb through this mountain of correspondence in the controversial emails, I did happen to come across some very interesting information to say the least. I understand there will be some who say these segments have been “taken out of context”, and for this reason I have linked to the entire package of emails HERE (East Anglia Emails). Below, is some of what I have found so far:

Few investigators doubt that the world has warmed recently. Nor that the enhanced “greenhouse effect” of pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide, will warm the planet. But in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the “signal” of human influence.

As I read through the emails I am struck by the overwhelming sense that these researchers are looking only for information that might support the GHG effect on Global Warming rather than searching to understand what is really taking place.

Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that “the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world”. If they are they “might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case.”

This entry was speaking to a piece published in the journal, The Holocene. In this work, Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography points out:

they do not include vital “forcing” mechanisms that alter temperature, such as solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.

The thing I am most shocked by is how utterly arbitrary the methods seem to be for collecting data. Moreover, how factors like solar cycles, El Nino and volcanic eruptions could be overlooked in the process of understanding and interpreting the previously gathered data.

Barnett knows how easily this can happen. He was a lead author for a critical chapter in the last IPCC scientific assessment, which investigated “the detection of climate change and attribution of causes”. It formulated the IPCC case that the evidence points towards a human influence on climate, but it warned repeatedly that great uncertainties remained. “We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter,” says Barnett. “We got a lot of static from within IPCC, from people who wanted to water down and delete some of those caveats. We had to work very hard to keep them all in.” Even so, when the findings were first leaked to the New York Times, it was under the headline “Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming”.

In this section, Barnett ‘warned repeatedly’ how great uncertainties remained. In addition, Barnett had to fight with the IPCC to keep these warnings from being deleted. Further, I find it amazing that with all these warnings the New York Times still led off with the headline, “Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming”. Did they? Or was no one listening?

Should you have the time, ‘End of Empire-Propaganda and the American Myth’ offers a brilliant perspective on how Americans are longing for the garbage our Government has been serving up at the ‘all you can eat’ buffet of lies. Enjoy, I sure did.

ORGANIZATION FOR

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TC8

(SHIPS & MARINE TECHNOLOGY)

  OCTOBER 2009                  NEWSLETTER                       ISSUE NO. 23

FROM THE CHAIRMAN

   With the complex technical and political global challenges facing us, it is our collective responsibility to develop relevant, sustainable, user friendly, international standards in a timely manner to meet industry market needs, to support regulatory bodies in their development of requirements and to facilitate their uniform international industry implementation. If they are not timely, they are of NO value. In these difficult economic times, our challenge has never been greater to develop standards which provide tools for business transactions and eliminate barriers to trade. Outsourcing, small profit margins and fierce competition demand standards that “level the technical playing field”. In the protection of the environment, where climate change, energy efficiency, protection of marine ecosystems and disposal of hazardous materials are among the most complex challenges the world must address, international standards developed in close partnership with government regulators can offer policy makers, industry, and users with practical solutions and common benchmarks. All stakeholders must have confidence in the standards we produce – government, industry and consumers.

   In this Newsletter, four articles on key environment issues are provided – remarks by the IMO Secretary General, remarks by ISO Secretary General on World Maritime Day, World Standards Day message from the Presidents of IEC, ISO and ITU, and the notice of the ISO/TC8 – Turkey seminar on marine environment. We are honored to recognize our representative from Spain, CAPT. Nogueira, as the newly elected IMO/MEPC Vice Chairman. This is a key leadership position in IMO’s committee charged with the marine environment. Major Focus areas in TC8 and some of the most recent undertakings by our Subcommittees are provided and we welcome Tyler Messa, ISO Central Secretariat, aboard.

   We have a tremendous task before us, but we will maintain “course and speed”.

Charlie Piersall

CAPT. Charles H. Piersall, Chairman

1696 Long Level Road

 Wrightsville, PA 17368

 TEL:  +717-252-4222

 FAX:  +717-252-4223

 E-mail: amadis@olg.com

CAPTAIN MANUEL NOGUEIRA

NEW IMO/MEPC VICE CHAIRMAN

   Captain Manuel Nogueira, Representative of Spain to ISO/TC8 and a distinguished member of ISO/TC8 Chairman’s Strategic Advisory Group (CSAG), was unanimous-ly elected by the IMO member governments at the 59^th session (July 2009) of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) to be the new Vice Chairman of the Committee. He brings to this high level leadership position a wealth of experience and expertise in areas of maritime safety, security and pollution control. He has been active in IMO for more than a decade.

   Captain Nogueira is Counsellor for Transport, Ministry of Transport and Development, Embassy of Spain in London. In his current position, Captain Nogueira has attended successive marine pollution episodes and marine accidents. Among his many responsibilities as Counsellor for Transport, he also serves as the Alternate Permanent Representative of Spain to IMO. In this role he prepares and coordinates meetings and takes part in the IMO subcommittees and working groups on behalf of Spain. 

   Additionally, he participates in commissions and meetings of international bodies responsible for the safety of life at sea, fighting against marine pollution, crew education and training, maritime transport, and maritime safety; as well as, participating in meetings and working groups of the European Union concerning maritime safety and maritime security.

   Captain Nogueira’s maritime career began at the age of 15 when he was an apprentice at the Bazan shipyard. His sea-going career of 22 years was aboard merchant vessels, first as a Cadet and Deck Officer and for the last 11 years as Captain (Ship’s Master). His sea-going Commands have included bulk carriers, container ships, OBO’s, chemical tankers and refrigeration (reefer) ships.

   After coming ashore, he worked at the National Maritime Rescue Coordination Center in Madrid and was Head of the Maritime Rescue Coordination Center and Vessel Traffic Service in Finisterre. His next assignments were Harbour Master (maritime authority) in La Coruna and Santa Cruz de Tenerife where he was tasked to make both fully operational as a consequence of change of responsibility over the Spanish Maritime Administration from the military to a civil administration. His next assignment (for 10 years) was as the Deputy-Director, Maritime Traffic, Safety and Marine Pollution in Madrid. 

   We extend our sincere congratulations to our shipmate Captain Nogueira in recognition of his selection to the prestigious post of Vice Chairman, IMO/MEPC, and we look forward to his continued numerous and significant contributions to helping set the course and speed of ISO/TC8 in the years ahead.

ISO/TC8 SIGNIFICANT

COMMITTEE FOCUS AREAS

• Protecting the marine ecosystem from underwater irradiated noise
• Arctic polar operations and environmental impact
• Piracy – ships, large yachts, other – new construction “design features”, existing vessels – “add-on equipment/devices”, any amendments needed for ISO 28000 series or ISO 20858?
• Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships & energy efficiency (design & operations) – supporting IMO
• ISO 28000 amendments for small ports, small-to-medium businesses, assisting AEOs, etc.; other security related issues
• Intermodal; short-sea shipping; floating ports initiatives

SUBCOMMITTEE NEW ITEM EXAMPLES

• Determination of capacity of Marine Evacuation Systems (MES) for evaluation of evacuation time (SC1)
• ISO/NP 13073-1: Risk assessment on anti-fouling systems on ships – Part 1: risk assessment method on active substances used for anti-fouling systems on ships (SC2)
• ISO/AWI 13613: Critical systems for propulsion and maneuver-ability – maintenance & testing guidelines (risk & long term maintenance concerns for engines because of fuel switching from heavy marine fuels to distillate fuels in compliance with environ-mental regulations for low sulfur fuels (SC3)
• ISO/CD 13122: Launching appliances for davit-launched life raft (SC4)
• Maneuvering of ships – a multi part series (SC6)
• Air bag for ship up to or down to launching way (SC8)
• ISO/AWI 28006: Security management of RORO passenger ferries – best practices (SC11)
• ISO/AWI 30008: Ship recycling management systems – large yachts recycling (SC12).

 ISO/TC8 AND REPUBLIC OF TURKEY CONDUCT SEMINAR

ON MARINE ENVIRONMENT

  As part of ISO Technical Committee on Ships and Marine Technology’s annual meeting in Izmir, Turkey during 26-30 October 2009, ISO TC8 and Dokuz Eylül University will host a seminar on Application of ISO Standards in a Marine Environment.  The seminar will be held on October 27, 2009 at the Tınaztepe Campus School of Maritime Business and Management, Çakabey Deniz Feneri Confer-ence Hall beginning at 1400.  Capt. Charles Piersall, Chairman, ISO/ TC8 and Prof. Dr. Mehmet Füzün President of Dokuz Eylül Ün-versity will jointly chair the seminar.

   The seminar will be moderated by His Excellency CAPT. Manuel Nogueira, Vice Chairman IMO/MEPC, Counsellor for Transport Embassy of Spain in London, Representative of Spain to ISO/TC8 and Member, ISO/TC8 Chairman’s Strategic Advisory Group.  

• Opening Welcome Speeches:

Director, School of Maritime Business and Management

Republic of Turkey Undersecretariat for Maritime Affairs

Turkish Standards Institution (TSE) Representative

President, Dokuz Eylül University

Chairman ISO/TC8 (CAPT. Piersall)

• Presentations:

Jack Westwood Booth, IMO Liaison Officer to ISO on “IMO Update”

Mr. Sang-Soo Seo, General Manager of Hyundai Heavy Ind. on “Performance Standards on Protective Coatings” (IMO/ISO)

 Dr. Koichi Yoshida, Chairman ISO/TC8/SC2 on “GHG and Climate Change”

Mr. Robin Townsend, Project Leader on “ISO 30000 Series Update”

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa İnsel- Türk Loydu

Emrah Erginer – Uctea Ctname, İzmir Branch

• Closing Remarks:  Chairman ISO/TC8 

CLOSING REMARKS OF THE

IMO SECRETARY-GENERAL
AT THE END OF MEPC 59

(17 July 2009) – “EXCERPTS”

   “Distinguished Delegates, We are approaching the end of an exceptionally busy session that has also been a momentous one with regard to all the issues you dealt with. So, after five days of strenuous efforts, you can look back with satisfaction on what you were able to achieve.

   From amongst the many milestones of this session, I will focus exclusively on your work relating to climate change and where we go from here. This, not only because of the importance and significance of the issue but also because of the pressure of time under which complex decisions had to be made, with the Copenhagen Conference only five months away.

    I would be carrying coal to Newcastle if, on this occasion, I stressed again the need to intensify our efforts to reduce GHG emissions from shipping operations. However, to effectively tackle climate change, the endeavour should be consistent, holistic and global: we must, as the “Times” newspaper suggested recently, demand much of our scientists, our economists, our politicians, our writers and ourselves.

  We need our scientists to lay out, brutally if necessary, the scale of the problem. And we need them to apply all their ingenuity and inventiveness to the putative technological responses to climate change. The best hope for man will be found in a laboratory, not on a soapbox. But we also need economists. It is only by finding a way of painting green the age-old and inescapable laws of supply and demand, that we will find sustainability. Man’s story is one of the pursuit and defence of natural resources and riches. An economic template based solely on a self-denying frugality that goes against Man’s nature will not provide a lasting solution to the problem.

   We will also need politicians of the highest calibre. Our nightmarish scenario painted by the prophets of climate doom is the fragmenting of the world into entities fighting for the world’s dwindling resources. We need politicians capable of creating and sustaining a consensus. Copenhagen will test their mettle. The war on climate change also needs its poets. Hearts must be won and minds changed; jargon and sloganeering cannot speak to the hearts of the unconvinced.

   Distinguished delegates, Balancing the future growth of world trade against an essential reduction in greenhouse gases is not, as “Lloyd’s List” remarked recently, a decision to be taken lightly. It is, however, a decision that needs to be made – and made now, in the harsh glare of public scrutiny and political perceptions. The world is watching – and this and future generations are expecting. We do not have the right to let them down.

   As I said in my opening speech, the time for apportioning blame as to who is responsible for the state of the planet has passed. Now it is time for action. Developed and developing countries, industrialized and emerging economies alike are left with no option other than to get together and, together, work out solutions that will serve well the good cause of reversing the route to planet destruction. Time cannot wait: IMO, that is, its Member Governments, must act – and act in such a manner that the Copenhagen Conference will find it easy to repeat the decision made in Kyoto, to continue entrusting the Organization with the regulation of shipping from the reduction and limitation of GHG emissions points of view. We have every good reason to try to achieve that.   Your sterling work to drive forward the Committee’s agreed action plan on greenhouse gas emissions from ships deserves to be recognized as compelling proof that IMO can, indeed, be entrusted with the regulation of international shipping on the issue of climatic change – an unequivocal message that needs to be heard, and fully understood, all over the globe. To that end, I urge each of you to actively promote, on your return home, the successful outcome of this session, by explaining it to your colleagues, in particular those who will participate in the Copenhagen Conference in December, and by publicizing it widely to other interested parties and all those concerned with the survival of the planet. What, then, would I consider to be “concrete progress” in pursuing the objectives you set out to attain at this session? I think I can identify them as:

• one, your agreement to the circulation of guidelines on the Energy Efficiency Design Index and on the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator;
• two, your similar agreement with respect to the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan; and
• three, the focused and well-structured discussion on market-based instruments and your elaboration of a work plan to progress the matter further.

   The complexity of the issue as to which market-based instrument to choose is exacerbated by the need to provide convincing answers not only to the question “which of the schemes proposed is the more politically palatable” but also which one stands the best chance, once selected and implemented, of achieving its main purposes: namely, that it benefits the environment by helping to stem climate change, at the same time casting shipping as an environment-conscious industry whose credentials continue to include those of being the most energy-efficient and environment-friendly mode of transport; an industry determined to form part of the solution to the climatic problem, not a contributor to its creation and persistence.

   When, back at home, you continue enquiring which scheme to support, I believe you should, in your analysis of the situation, try to answer questions such as these:

• Which of the schemes proposed has the potential to contribute most to the world efforts to stem climate change and global warming by ensuring participation by all the IMO Members?
• How best might it satisfy the aspirations of all Members, in particular those of the developing countries, without moving away from the level playing field consistently advocated by IMO?
• Who will contribute to the preferred system’s proper functioning, by how much and how?
• Who will enforce/audit it?
• How best will the proceeds from the chosen system be utilized to effect and promote its objectives?
• If it is decided that IMO is to be the body establishing the scheme – and I cannot see who else – how will the function of the scheme be monitored and supervised; and how will disputes that may arise in its operation be settled?
• How will the system be introduced, given the need to have it up and running in a very short period of time?

   These and many other relevant questions you should engage yourselves with back home……..” “It will be most unfortunate to promote the issue of shipping’s contribution to the world efforts to stem climate change in the manner we do here, conscientiously and painstakingly, comprehensively involving all parties concerned (governments, industry organizations and environmental groups), only to hear in Copenhagen comments from representatives of countries present there shedding doubts – or worse, ignoring – the work you have been doing with such commendable dedication and commitment for so long and suggesting action that might not maintain IMO’s central and pivotal role in the regulation of shipping from the environmental point of view. I sincerely hope that national policies decided, and positions articulated, will not ignore the particularities of shipping and thus miss the opportunity to render sound and sustainable services to the environment and the industry, which, from consultations I have had with its representatives, is determined and has the potential to play its role positively, constructively and responsibly.”

   For the complete report of the Secretary General, visit the IMO website http://www.imo.org

WORLD STANDARDS DAY MESSAGE

14 October 2009

TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH STANDARDS

By:  Mr. Jacques Regis, IEC President, Dr. Alan Morrison, ISO President, Dr. Hamadoun Toure, ITU Secretary-General

    The world is facing a critical challenge. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions are raising the earth’s average temperature. As a result, dramatic climate change is forecast and global scientific opinion predicts enormous developmental, economic, social and environmental stresses on our planet.

   Leading climate change experts have put forward a series of practical solutions to tackle climate change. These solutions include the technical standards published by the world’s three leading international standardization organizations: the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Telecommunication Union (TU).

   In its groundbreaking report published in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cited technical standards, like those published by the IEC, ISO and ITU, as a means of mitigating climate change now, while offering the potential to reduce its effects in the future as new technologies are developed and mature.

   The three global organizations are coordinating their work to ensure that government, business and society are provided with the necessary tools to help combat global climate change and support reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by increasing energy efficiency, while facilitating sustainable development.

   The standards produced by the three organizations reach across all sectors identified in the IPCC report where mitigation technologies, policies and measures, constraints and opportunities exist, including energy supply, transport, buildings, industry, agriculture, forestry, and waste.

   The IEC, ISO and ITU offer a system of standardization whose output includes standards for the following aspects of the fight against climate change:

• Monitoring and measurement of greenhouse gas emissions
• Measuring the carbon footprint of networks and products
• Designing and building energy efficient homes and workplaces
• Benchmarking for good practices including environmental and energy efficiency labeling
• Promoting good practice for environmental management and design, and for energy management
• Disseminating innovative technologies that promise to help reduce the effects of climate change
• Fostering the introduction of new energy-efficient technologies and services

   International standards offer policy makers, industry and users the common tools they need to work together on tackling climate change. The three partner organizations also offer a comprehensive system in which nations and the private sector can participate to establish the priorities for tackling climate change in the years ahead. As such, they offer practical solutions with the potential to be used as part of any international agreement following the Kyoto Protocol.

   Standards from the IEC, ISO and ITU offer the world’s governments and industry the best possible benchmarks to be referenced in any policy making decisions or future climate treaties. The three organizations are working together with other international organizations to ensure that participants at the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference on 7-18 December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark, will be fully aware of the solutions offered by existing and future International Standards.

ISO STANDARDS’ CONTRIBUTION

TO OBJECTIVES OF

WORLD MARITIME DAY

   “To fight climate change successfully, the world needs to act as a team. ISO is proud of its teamwork with partners such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in developing solutions to this challenge” said ISO Secretary-General Rob Steele in connection with World Maritime Day 2009, which is organized annually on 24 September by the IMO, a partner organization to ISO in developing standards for this sector. ISO and IMO have a long-running and successful partnership.

   Commenting on this relationship, Mr. Steele said: “ISO standards benefit from multi-stakeholder input and are based on international consensus within sectors and between countries. Because of this, they provide an effective platform for linking the needs and objectives of IMO with those of industry. The International Standards resulting from this collaboration constitute an important technical and practical complement to different areas of IMO’s work.”  (Reprinted from an ISO press release dated 2009-09-24.  For complete text go to http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease)

WELCOME ABOARD TYLER MESSA

“Our New Man in Geneva”

     Tyler Messa is the new Technical Programme Manager (TPM) for Transport on the staff of the ISO Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, replacing Francois Abram,  who retired. In addition to his responsibilities for ISO/TC8, Mr. Messa is  the TPM for twelve other transport related ISO TCs.

   Mr. Messa joined ISO in February 2009, having previously worked as the Director for Intelligent Transport Systems at the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) in Washington, DC, where, among his many duties he served as both International Secretary and US TAG Administrator for ISO/TC204 -  Intelligent Transport Systems. 

   After completing his Master’s degree, he began working as a research analyst studying U.S. government science and technology programs for a small Japanese consulting firm.  He then served as an international trade and technology analyst for the Embassy of the Republic of Korea in Washington, DC and later as a Project Manager for the Korea Industrial Technology Foundation (KOTEF) in Seoul, Korea where he assisted the Korean government in establishing international collaborative partnerships in the high tech industry.

   Mr. Messa has a Master’s degree in International Affairs with a concentration in International Science and Technology Policy from the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs in Washington, DC, as well as a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs and Economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. 

   Let us welcome Tyler aboard our ISO/TC8 ship as we chart our course for the future.

—Yi Wang  (Shenyang, China)

Climate Warm has become one of the most severe problem of Earth Environment. The main factor of Climate Change is GHG effect. Recently, scientists list ten typical gas contributing to the GHG. Among those gas, vapor ranks the first, Carbon dioxide which is well know is ranked the second, and the CH4 Methane ranks the third. The following will introduce the ten GHG.

1.Vapor
According to IPCC, 36-70% GHG comes from vapor.Mist and floating cloud are all made of vapor, and meanwhile, vapor is one of the main by-product of the combustion of the fossil fuel. However, Climate Warm causes more vapor and the vapor increases the temperature more, making a vicious circle.

2.Carbon Dioxide
Environmental experts point out that carbon dioxide is by-product coming from combusting fossil fuel. Carbon dioxide also comes from cell’s respiration. Plus, human’s industrial production also produces large quantity of carbon dioxide.

3.Methane
Methane is the main component of Natural Gas and cows’ belch. IPCC admits that the circulation of methane has not been understood, but research shows that methane gas is emitted from wetlands, landfills, and cow-farming.

4.Nitric Oxide
Nitric Oxide comes form rockets’ fuel combustion, car emission, and meanwhile, this gas also serves as recreational drug.

5.Ozone
Usually, when people talk about Ozone, they will focus on its insufficiency. However, ozone is one of powerful GHG. Because of its uneven distribution around the earth’s surface, some places are lake of it, while, some places have more than needed.

6.Trifluoromethane
Trifluoromethane has two major applications. First, it’s used on Computer Chip’s etching. Second, it is main component of fire extinguishing agent. As the richest hydrogen florine carbide, Trifluoramethane’s average living life in the atmosphere is about 260 years, and it can absorb the 11700 time heat of Carbon Dioxide.

7.Perfluoroethane
Perfluoroethan is always used to make semiconductor. Most of the chemicals can only live about 10 years in the atmosphere. Whereas, Perfluoroethane can stay in the atmosphere about 10,000 years. Because of its long life and its ability of absorbing 9200 times heat of carbon dioxide, perfluoroethane has become IPCC’s close study-object.

8.Sulfur Hexafluoride
This inert substance is mainly used as electrical insulation. It also can be used as tracer gas in the experiment to imitate the anemochory toxic gas in the terrorist attacks. IPCC believes that it’s the strongest GHG which absorbs 22,200 times heat of carbon dioxide.

9.Freon (Chlorofuoromethane)
Freon’s contribution to refrigeration is suspicious because first, Its heat absorption capacity is 4600 times of carbon dioxide, and on the other hand, its destructive effects on ozonosphere is stronger than any other refrigerant. Chlorofuoromethane can decompose out chlorine atoms in ultraviolet ray and the chlorine atoms will destroy ozoneosphere.

10. Sulfuryl fluoride
This new chemical substance is defined as GHG by MIT’s scientists on Mar. 11, 2009. In the beginning, a U.S.’s pottery chemical industry synthesized the sulfuryl fluoride to kill termites (white ants). This inert chemical can be effective for as long as 40 years. Sulfuryl fuoride’s heat absorption capability is 4800 times of carbon dioxide’s. Although this chemical occupies only 15/100,000 billions, this number keeps increasing at a rate of 5% every year according to recent report from the magazine of Journal of geophysical research.

1.水汽

水？水？！水！依据跨政府气候变化评估小组称，36~70%的温室效应是由水蒸气造成的。薄雾以及浮云都是水汽形成的，同时，水汽也是化石燃料燃烧 的主要副产品之一。更糟糕的是，变暖引发了一个正反馈环——高温造成更多的水汽，水汽增多导致温度进一步升高，如此循环往复。那么，下次如果再有人问起你 的“碳足迹”，你可以回问他们的“水足迹”。

2.二氧化碳

二氧化碳是导致全球气候转暖的第二大“元凶”，专家强调指出，二氧化碳是化石燃料燃烧的副产品，同样也是细胞呼吸作用的产物，而人类工业生产同样也产生二氧化碳。

3.甲烷

甲烷是天然气和母牛打嗝、放屁中的主要成份，目前甲烷气体已被科学家列为构成温室气体的三大气体之一。政府气候变化评估小组承认目前并不完全理解甲烷的循环，但已探测到甲烷气体从沼泽和白蚁等自然资源中释放出来，它还从垃圾堆和母牛农场中释放。

4.一氧化氮

一氧化氮是一种最快和最强烈的温室气体，火箭燃料燃烧、汽车耗油将释放出大量的一氧化氮，同时，该气体也可以作为一种”娱乐性药物 “（recreationaldrug）。随着人体呼出气体中包含着一氧化氮，以及街道车辆驾驶排放的大量该气体，使得一氧化氮成为温室气体的主要成份之 一。

5.臭氧

通常情况下，当气候讨论涉及到臭氧时，人们的讨论中心就会转向普遍的缺乏臭氧方面上。事实上，臭氧也是一种威力强大的温室气体。但是由于臭氧不是均 匀分布于地球表面，有的地方就会多一些（大气层最底层的人造臭氧层吸收热量，使地球保持适宜的温度），有的地方就会少一点（碳氟化合物使得大气层上部的臭 氧层因受破坏而变薄，从而导致冰冠暴露于太阳辐射之下）。

6.三氟甲烷

三氟甲烷，又称三氟甲，主要有两大用途，一是用于计算机硅片的蚀刻，一是用作灭火剂。作为迄今最为丰富的氢氟碳化物，三氟甲烷在大气中存在的平均寿命在260年左右，其吸热量相当于二氧化碳的11700倍。

7.全氟乙烷

全氟乙烷称得上是温室气体中的”彭祖“了，它常被用于半导体的制作。很多化学物质只能在大气中存在数十年，与之相比，全氟乙烷可以持续存在1万年。其超常寿命，以及相当于二氧化碳9200倍的吸热量，使得全氟乙烷成为跨政府气候变化评估小组密切监测的化学物质。

8.六氟化硫

这一惰性物质主要在电子工业中作为气体绝缘体，还可充当试验示踪气体以模仿恐怖袭击中的风播毒气。跨政府气候变化评估小组将其认定为世上最强温室气体——拥有相当于二氧化碳22200倍的吸热量。

9.氟利昂（氯氟甲烷）

氟利昂作为制冷剂在温室效应的产生上有着高度可疑的”贡献“，主要表现以下两方面：一方面是等量的三氯一氟甲烷的吸热量是二氧化碳的4600倍；另 一方面它对臭氧层的破坏力大大超过其他任何一种制冷剂。氯氟甲烷在紫外线的作用下可以分解出氯原子，氯原子可以对臭氧层造成极大的破坏，当然，氯本身也是 一种致死性毒素。

10.硫酰氟

这一新见化学物质于2009年3月11日被美国麻省理工学院的科学家定性为温室气体。最初是美国陶氏化工合成了硫酰氟来作为一种熏剂杀灭白蚁，而这 一惰性化学物质持久效力达40多年，每个硫酰氟分子的吸热量是二氧化碳的4800倍。虽然这一化学物质在大气层中仅占十万亿分之十五，然而根据《地球物理 学研究杂志》近期的报道，这一数字正以每年百分之五的速度增长着。

For the next 10 days I would like to share some tips on how individuals can reduce their Greenhouse gas emissions.

Check back every day for a new tip!

• Cutting down on the amount you and your family fly will make a huge difference to your carbon “footprint” (11/1)

• Avoid short car journeys. A cold engine uses almost twice as much fuel as a warmer one.  Take a walk or bike ride and enjoy the fresh air. (11/2)

• Buy local and seasonal where possible. Getting produce out of season usually means importing it (11/3)

• Switching from traditional light bulbs to CFLs simple change everyone can make. (11/4)

• Only use a washing machine on full-load.  (11/5)

• Switch off the engine if you think you will be stationary for more than two minutes. Idling for this long burns more fuel than it takes to restart the engine. (11/6)

• Think twice before buying clothes. Take your clothes to a second-hand store or charity collection bin. When buying clothes, try to avoid cheap imports. Try to buy well-made and durable clothes made of natural materials if possible, buy from an eco-company www.WearTheEarth.com. (11/7)

• Keep your car tires properly inflated. It’s estimated that up to 80 per cent of car tires are under-inflated, which can increase fuel consumption, and therefore emissions – as well as increasing wear and tear. (11/8)

• Improve your consumption efficiency. Don’t buy impulsively only to enjoy something for a short time.   The longer we use a product, the better use we make of embodied energy.   Our consumption preferences and the way we treat our goods can make a major difference in this. So let’s go to the second-hand store instead of the furniture warehouse or the refuse incineration plant. (11/9)

• Unplug equipment once fully charged. Mobile phones, shavers and electric toothbrushes keep drawing electricity even when the battery is full. (11/10)

From left: Tan Sri Yusof Basiron hitting the gong to mark the opening of the conference. With him are Datuk Sabri Ahmad, MPOC council member Datuk Er Kok Leong and Bursa Malaysia CEO Datuk Yusli Mohamed Yusoff

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia wants to standardise the way palm oil’s impact on the environment is calculated, senior officials said yesterday, as it seeks to counter criticism that the industry fuels climate change.

Next year, the European Union (EU), a top biofuels consumer, will impose a target to only accept biodiesel that can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 35% versus fossil fuel, which risks cutting out palm oil which the EU considers to save only 19%.

“We are willing to let the EU scrutinise our system,” Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) chairman Datuk Sabri Ahmad told Reuters on the sidelines of a regional conference.

“We should be the ones coming up with the standard, since we know palm oil best and we have nothing to lose.”

Officials said there was no clear timetable when Malaysia would present its own system to compute palm oil’s greenhouse gas savings, although a major government-sponsored study due to be presented next month would form the basis.

Environmentalists said the rapidly growing palm oil sector was not only responsible for the loss of vast areas of tropical forests that soaked up carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, but emitted warming gases during processing.

Sabri said a major saving could come through capturing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas produced during the processing of oil palm fruit bunches. Flammable methane can be burned to produce electricity on-site.

A tonne of crude palm oil could produce between 400kg and 900kg of methane, analysts said.

Based on current studies, palm oil’s greenhouse gas savings ranged from 19% to 72% over fossil fuels, making it difficult to decide on a standard value for the tropical oil, said MPOB chief executive Tan Sri Yusof Basiron.

That becomes a problem for governments wanting to draft biofuel legislation. Malaysia’s palm oil industry has long wanted to export its biofuels to the EU, which has made big investments in the biofuel sector. But palm biodiesel’s use has been limited.

“The low and erroneous values would be used to the advantage of detractors, who accuse the industry of not being sustainable, as is happening at the moment,” Yusof told the conference.

So far, studies conducted by the MPOB showed that palm oil with methane capture at mills could achieve 62% greenhouse gas savings, Yusof said.

“Further greenhouse gas savings can be expected from the Malaysian palm oil industry as the lifecycle assessment of palm oil production determined that methane emission contributes to 51% of its emissions,” Yusof said.

Lifecycle calculations also include the amount of carbon saved by displacing the use of ordinary fossil fuels.

Efforts were under way to equip Malaysia’s palm oil mills with methane capturing technology, Yusof said.

Only 4% of the country’s mills had been equipped, officials said. — Reuters

KUALA LUMPUR: The need for proper data compilation for the life cycle assessment (LCA) study on palm oil production to counter outdated and misleading data from Western countries used in the calculation of palm oil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was highlighted at a palm oil conference here yesterday.

The setting up of a special LCA task force on palm oil was also a key point at the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) International Palm Oil LCA Conference.

Germany-based IFEU Institute for Energy and Environment Research scientic director Dr Gudo A. Reinhardt said it was important to access additional and specific LCA data on palm oil and other oilseed crops given the growing debate on issues such as GHG, fossil-fuel savings, indirect land use and other social implications.

He said an overview of the full life cycle of GHG balances of biofuels from oil crops such as palm oil, rapeseed, sunflower, canola, Jatropha, soybean and coconut, compared to their fossil fuel equivalent, was needed and should also include both scientific and legislative approaches.

MPOC chief executive Tan Sri Yusof Basiron wants more scientific-based decisions be made on LCA.

“There must also be consideration for carbon sequestration by living plants, carbon sequestered on long-term basis for oil palm and rubber and indirect land use change factors,” he said.

Sirim Bhd Environment and Bioprocess Techology Centre senior general manager Dr Chen Sau Soon said the wrong data input could influence the carbon footprint in the trading of palm oil products.

In the case of LCA studies on palm oil products, the most complex data collection phase was the upstream unit processes involving the agriculture practices, she added.

“Raw data treatment for agriculture practices can also vary from several perspectives such as inclusion versus exclusion of land use within the system boundary, interpretation of carbon sequestration and carbon loss, emission associated with land fertilisation and adoption of default values for calculating estimates,” she said.

by Hanim Adnan

THE integrity of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) has been heavily questioned following its recent decision to adopt the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission draft into the grouping’s existing principles and criteria (P&C), as well as its backing for a proposed ban on peat-soil land development for oil palm cultivation.

The proposals, which are scheduled for tabling at the RSPO 6th AGM in Kuala Lumpur next month, have created an uproar among RSPO stakeholders, especially oil palm planters in Malaysia and Indonesia.

RSPO is an international organisation which aims to develop and implement global standards for sustainable palm oil.

But now many are accusing RSPO of succumbing to the demands of Western non-government organisations (NGOs), whose motives are to jeopardise the steady efforts toward sustainable palm oil production.

They also argued that the inclusion of GHG calculations into the RSPO’s P&C are against the original objectives of RSPO, which is supposed to be a voluntary industry initiative and cannot dictate the end-use of certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO).

If so, why is palm oil being singled out when no other food crops in the world are being certified on GHG certification criteria?

The RSPO draft is said to be heavily biased with emphasis on biofuel considerations. Hence, a separate P&C for CSPO for food and biofuel is strongly suggested as crude palm oil (CPO) is mainly sold for food and pharmaceutical purposes, while biofuel only takes up about 1% of the world’s total CPO production.

In the case of peat land development, peat lands worldwide, including those from temperate countries, are being utilised for commercial purposes, so why shouldn’t Malaysia and Indonesia be allowed to allocate part of its resouces for oil palm to generate revenue, especially for smallholders?

Plantation groupings such as Sarawak Oil Palm Plantation Owners’ Association (SOPPOA), the Malaysian Palm Oil Association (MPOA) and its peer Indonesia-based GAPKI (Gabungan Pekebun Kecil Indonesia) strongly object to the adoption of the proposed amendments to the RSPO P&C and implementation of the draft on a moratorium on peat and carbon stock value at 35,000ha.

It is a new area and RSPO should not be turned into a “guinea pig” and jeopardise the rice bowl of the palm oil producers to satisfy the qualms of NGOs, according to MPOA.

SOPPOA, meanwhile, is proposing that the GHG emission criteria for palm oil should only be adopted when all the oils and fats producers involved in the biofuels industry implement the GHG emission criteria simultaneously and that there is a moratorium on all peat development in all countries worldwide (before banning peat development in Indonesia and Malaysia).

It also calls for countries that are forced to maintain their forest areas to be adequately compensated annually, based on the total economic opportunity loss of the said areas. An amount of US$5,000 per hectare annually is proposed.

Malaysian and Indonesian stakeholders also view RSPO as a voluntary standard and should not infringe on the sovereign rights of any nation in determining its right to use its land in accordance with its own needs.

In fact, palm oil producers worldwide, including Malaysia, are taking steps to contribute to the global mitigation of GHG emissions.

GAPKI wants the RSPO executive board to commission additional scientific research projects to fill the wide gap in knowledge with the scope of research covering social and economic aspects, as they are equally important in the production of sustainable palm oil.

It recommends that discussions of GHG issues in the oil palm industry be in line with the global context, including other GHG emitters, with local considerations based on reasonable and logical applications, while the interests of smallholders are not marginalised.

In Malaysia, about 10% are independent smallholders and 30% are scheme settlers from Felda, Risda, Felcra and Salcra, contributing 40% of total national palm oil production.

Like all new schemes, it will need time to be field-tested for adjustments and fine-tuned, for example, in the case of indirect land use change on corn where the US government allowed delayed adoption of five years and a period of study before implementation.

Hence, why the rush to push through the GHG emission proposal despite serious concerns raised by palm oil producers? Are there vested interests involved?

This seemingly rushed job may even discourage RSPO members, especially producers who see the proposals as being backed by the representatives of “non-producers”.

● Hanim Adnan is assistant news editor at The Star. A Sarawak planter told her during an RSPO consultation on GHG emission, he was reminded of a quote by the Italian economist, Ferdinando Galiani (1770): “Believe me, do not fear crooks or evil people, fear the honest person who is wrong. That person is in good faith, he wishes everyone well, and everyone has his confidence: but unfortunately his methods fail to get out the good in humans.”

If you read my post yesterday you’ll know that I’m in some sort of mourning for the end of barbecue season and that I’m an unreconstructed carnivore.  I’m not the kind of meat-eater who shuns vegetables as if they carry the plague but I do enjoy all kinds of meat.  When it comes to steak I prefer mine blue, which causes a whole host of problems if I happen

to be ordering one in a British or American restaurant rather than cooking at home.  Though I love a nice piece of cooked flesh I actually don’t eat meat as often as most of the other meat eaters I know.  This is partly because my wife is a pescatarian and it has always seemed silly, even rude to cook one meal for her and one for myself.  We do eat our fair share of fish and vegetarian-friendly proteins and my wife has never once made any attempt to get me to adopt her dietary habits.  This may be because before I met her she knew the joys of eating meat.  Even though I don’t eat meat as often as I might it is still the case that I put more animal protein into my body that is actually necessary from a nutritional standpoint, and that’s before even considering the fish I eat.  Most carnivores in the western world do.

As a keen amateur cook I spend a good deal of time investigating and thinking about where my food comes from, how it’s produced and what’s in it.  Partly this is because I want the best quality ingredients at the lowest possible price, but other factors enter into the equation as well.  I ensure that a large portion of the fruit and veg I buy is in season and as local as possible.  I use a great fishmonger who only stocks fish from sustainable sources and, in many cases, can tell me the name of the day boat the fish I’m buying was caught from.  Sometimes I suspect he knows the name of the fisherman who hauled the fish in (much of his stock is line-caught) but doesn’t share that information for fear of appearing too obsessive.  I’m constantly thinking of ways to bring my food waste to an absolute minimum.  Why do I do these things?  Well, it saves me money, but I also think I have a real responsibility to minimize the environmental impact of the food I eat and to make choices that, in theory at least, mean there’s more food available to other people than if I simply stuffed my face with the most convenient foods I could find.  As a result of this I’ve recently been wondering if I can continue to eat meat with a clear conscience.

What meat I do buy is always free range and often organic as well.  One of our dogs has a digestive and liver problem that means he needs chicken added to the hepatic support nodules we feed him.  He gets local, free range chicken or none at all.  In other words I’m already making choices about the kind of meat I will buy because I want to ensure that the animals were reared and slaughtered correctly and to minimise the environmental impact of my food.  Danish bacon may taste nice but there’s not a single good reason to buy it when I can just as easily get more sustainably produced bacon from a farm only 30 miles from my house.  The things is I’m starting to suspect that while it’s good I make these kinds of decisions I’m still not doing enough.

These suspicions stem from two very simple, but important concerns that I’ve already mentioned.  First, climate change is a problem and I don’t doubt that how food is produced and transported plays a very large part in both its cause and the potential solution.  Second, lots of people go hungry in the world.  They don’t have to.   Every reliable source I’ve looked at tells me that the production and consumption of meat, particularly but not limited to beef, can be directly linked to both of these concerns.  I could present a long list of statistics and a lengthy series of quotations, scholarly and otherwise, to support this assertion.  If you don’t believe me do search for keywords such as “meat environmental impact.”  Two quotations from a 2008 New York Times article capture both my unease and the reasons behind it.

First of all meat production occupies a disproportionate amount of land and it is, quite literally, poisoning the planet:

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

This doesn’t even take into account factors like the pollution of water supplies, or the fact that pumping animals full of antibiotics has been directly linked to the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria meaning the environmental impact is even greater that this passage suggests.  Ignoring that, the emission of greenhouse gases alone is enough to give me pause.  Given that I choose to walk or take the train to places I could drive to, or that my wife and I have taken and will continue to take the train to Europe rather than fly even though flying would be much cheaper I’m not sure I should allow myself to ignore how damaging meat production is let alone contribute to the problem by happily munching my way through nice helpings of the stuff.

Second, producing meat is a horribly inefficient way of using food resources and a terribly lousy way of feeding people:

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.

In other words lots of food, not to mention energy, is wasted to fatten up animals when it could be much more effectively used to feed hungry people.  Even if you’re a global-warming denier (I refuse to grace the wilful ignorance and stupidity of such a position with the term sceptic) this seems like a very strong argument in favour of at least reducing meat consumption and production.  I’m not comfortable with the idea of people going hungry because land and grain were used to feed my meal when a portion of that same land and grain could have been used to feed me with enough left over to feed someone else.  It’s not fair, it’s not nice and I’m guilty of being complicit in the whole damn process.

So what do I do?  Why haven’t I given up meat completely?  I don’t have a good answer for that second question.  As for the first, I think it’s obvious.  I need to eat considerably less meat than I already do.  Without me realising it my consumption of the stuff has dropped recently; now I need to make a conscious effort at a further reduction.  I don’t imagine I’ll  become a complete vegetarian.  I also don’t think it’s necessary; if all of us carnivores severely reduced how much meat we consume we’d be healthier people, with a healthier planet and there’d be more available for those currently going hungry.  I’m also not going to be giving up fish.  I know there are problems with the fishing industry, including many of the fish farms, but by making decisions as a consumer I can avoid contributing to them and support individuals and companies who are combating them.

Will this be enough?  I don’t know.  I’ll have to continue evaluating my own decisions as well as what’s happening in the wider world.  At the very least I need to reconcile my own diet with my political and social concerns so I no longer have to consider myself a hypocrite.

For those who may not know, today is Blog Action Day 2009. A day where bloggers across the world unite to post about a single issue, in hopes to create a global conversation and spread awareness about current issues. A great project that all of us here at Enviralment are glad to be a part of.

Last years topic was poverty and the campaign was a huge success. This year Blog Action Day 09 has chosen to focus on the issue of climate change. For those who are frequent visitors of this blog you’ll know it’s not a real stretch for me to be writing and addressing the issues surrounding climate change – 99.9% of the posts on Enviralment are directed at that very issue. However, as unbelievable as it is in today’s world, there are still those who doubt, question and try to disprove climate change. So in this post I will provide – as best I can – answers, proof and responses to those who doubt climate change and its affects on our planet.

To help provide answers I’ll be going off a comprehensive and well researched document put together by Dr Brett Parris, Chief Economist & Manager, Climate & Natural Resources Team, World Vision Australia.

In his document Dr Parris provides 21 answers to claims and questions on climate change from skeptics, but due to its length I will only go in depth for 12 of them.  For the full 68 page PDF click here. As well I will provide links to claims 13-21 down below.

Climate Change

Climate change and the troubling legacy we’re leaving for future generations is no longer an abstract debate. It’s not opportunities for political point scoring, or for fighting left-right culture wars. It’s an issue that matters and it deserves our full attention and to be taken with the utmost seriousness. Yet here we are, at a critical point in history and there are still vast numbers of skeptics, cynics and disbelieves. Although, I will say this in defense of cynics, unfortunately there are those few people of power and governments who use this issue for personal or political gain by misconstruing facts, policies and regulations.

When the British economist John Maynard Keynes was derided for changing his position on economic policy he replied: “When the facts change, I change my position. What do you do, sir?” Keynes’ response reflects the open-minded attitude of a genuine inquirer, a true skeptic, willing to change his mind when new information emerges, or when the weight of evidence, the balance of probabilities and the risks and consequences of being wrong become overwhelming.

Not everyone approaches the issue of climate change in this open-minded way. Some come to the science through the lenses of political ideologies or economic interests, maintaining positions dogmatically in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and endlessly recycling views that have been repeatedly debunked by scientists.  We have seen this approach before with those who continue to deny the moon landings, the link between HIV and AIDS and the link between smoking and cancer. Some continue to try to convince the public and governments that there is a raging debate among scientists about the main drivers of climate change. There isn’t. As Nicholas Stern, author of The Stern Review on the climate change for the British Government, wrote recently:

The argument for inaction, or for weak or delayed action, would make sense on the basis of reservations about the science only if one could assert that we know for certain that the risks are small. In the face of the evidence we now have, that is a complacent, ignorant and dangerous position to take. It is not healthy skepticism or an openness of mind; it is a denial of evidence and reason.

Responses to some of the most common objections regarding climate change.

1. The IPCC is a political body and its reports are scientifically unreliable.

False. There are many misconceptions about the IPCC. Some people believe its reports are concocted by a small band of ‘UN scientist’ in collaboration with (presumably) left-wing governments intent of deceiving the world. An argument that sounds more like the plot to a 007 movie than the truth. The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. It is the principal source of scientific advice for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The IPCC does not conduct its own research on climate monitoring. Instead it undertakes a comprehensive review and distillation of many thousands of published peer-reviewed papers and reports, representing the work of the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists and produces assessment reports publishing these findings.

A good summary of the nature of the IPCC’s work was given by Rik Leemans: “a scientific assessment applies the judgment of experts to existing knowledge to provide scientifically credible answers to policy-relevant questions.”

2. Science is not about consensus – Galileo was ridiculed by the authorities and the scientific establishment

True – but misleading. This argument is used to suggest that the agreement of the vast majority of qualified climate scientists is irrelevant. Not so. On the edge of every scientific field, for every true Galileo who was proven right, there are usually hundreds of people who would like to think of themselves as a Galileo. Their odds are not good. It is perfectly sensible for lay-people to take the overwhelming agreement of the vast majority of qualified climate scientists as a strong indication that the scientists are probably right – particularly since the evidence has been painstakingly built up over many years from many different fields.

‘Consensus’ does not mean that climate scientists agree on every single detail of climate change and its implications. Of course there is disagreement and uncertainty about a range of issues. But one of the most useful features of the presentation of the IPCC reports was the fact that the most important statements came with an indication of the level of confidence the scientists had in them. On the main features of climate change, and on the dangers posed by rising greenhouse gas emissions, there is very strong agreement.

It is important to emphasize that this is not simply an argument from authority. An argument from authority is weak because it asserts that we should believe something simply because an authority figure says it is true. That is not what is going on here. No-one is saying that we should believe the IPCC simply because of its status as an international institution. The reasons for confidence in the statements of the IPCC and the world’s leading scientific bodies do not rest not on their status as authoritative institutions but on the evidence for their statements. This evidence has already been through the wringer of peer-review publication and has survived post-publication scrutiny by the international scientific community.

3. There’s no consensus – 31,000 scientists signed a petition denying the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

There is and they didn’t. Some of those who denied the link between greenhouse gases and climate change didn’t have much confidence themselves in the argument that the scientific consensus was irrelevant, so they tried to gather signatures from professional scientists for statements asserting that humans are not one of the main causes of climate change. As a result of these efforts, it is often claimed for example, that 31,000 or more scientists have signed a petition denying the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. But it is well known that the great majority of people on these kinds of lists are not practicing research scientists with PhDs, and of those who are, very few are climate scientist. Science encompasses a broad range of fields, many of which are quite unrelated to climate science. When the views of climate scientists are considered, very few remain unconvinced that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are contributing to climate change, and will continue to do so in the coming decades.

So is it true that the vast majority of qualified scientists agree that humans are significantly contributing to climate change? Yes it is. Aside from the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, strong statements affirming the reality of human contribution to climate change have been released by the National Academies of Science of many countries, including: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the US and UK. Reviews have also been undertaken of the scientific literature and again and again the finding is that the vast majority of qualified scientists with expertise in the relevant areas support the view that humans are influencing the climate.

It is a common misperception among the public that just because someone has a PhD and is a scientist in one field, it somehow gives them a privileged insight into other fields. It may, if they have closely followed that field and have kept up with the scientific literature, but it does not necessarily. We should not imagine for example, that a researcher in electrical engineering would necessarily have a highly developed up-to-date understanding of developments in aeronautical engineering. Equally, just because someone is a qualified tradesman, like a plumber, that does not make them an expert on carpentry.

In a recent survey of Earth scientists, predominantly from the United States, participants were asked two questions:

1.     When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2.     Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Of the respondents, 79 scientists had expertise in climate science and had published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change. Of these 79 scientists, 96.2% (76 out of 79) answered ‘Yes’ to question 1 and 97.4% (75 out of 77) answered ‘Yes’ to question 2. The authors of the survey concluded:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

There is rarely total unanimity on anything very complex in the Earth sciences, so by any measure, the agreement of more than 96% of scientists with demonstrated expertise in the field, plus the backing of all of the world’s major national academies of science and major professional scientific associations represents an extremely strong professional consensus on the core issue that the climate is warming and that humans are contributing to the problem through excessive greenhouse gas emissions.

4. We should wait until there is more evidence before reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We’ve already done that and the evidence is in. The basic physics of the warming potential of the greenhouse gases was worked out more than a century ago by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, and in 1938, G.S. Callendar solved a set of equations linking carbon dioxide to climate change. In modern times, scientists became increasingly concerned about the possibility of climate change. In 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization in response to growing scientific concern, exemplified by NASA scientist James Hanson’s testimony before the US Congress that year that global warming was a reality.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997, the IPCC produced its Third Assessment Report in 2001 and its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, concluding: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”[29] and “The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR [Third Assessment Report], leading to very high confidence [at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.” The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol will end in 2012. A new agreement is needed to govern the period after 2012 and is the subject of current negotiations to culminate in Copenhagen in December 2009.

In short, we now know enough to know that drastic reductions in emissions are needed. What’s more, we also know that the climate system is a highly complex, nonlinear system with considerable momentum. The climate system is like driving a fully-laden semi-trailer down a mountain road. We need to brake when we see the bend in the road coming. If we wait until we’re heading into the bend before we brake, we’re going over the cliff.

5. Climate change has been happening throughout geological and human history. What is happening now is not outside the bounds of natural climate variability.

Mostly true – but irrelevant. Climate changes have certainly happened throughout history, but with differing degrees of severity and different rates: Between around 130,000 to 118,000 years ago for example, at the height of the last interglaciation (the period between ice ages) the sea levels were some four to seven metres higher than they are now. This is around the same increase in level that would occur if the Greenland Ice Sheet were to melt. But more extreme levels have also occurred in the past. Sea levels were around 70 metres higher 45 million years ago when CO₂ levels were around 1000 to 1500 ppm (parts per million) and there was no permanent ice on the planet. More recently, they were around 130 metres lower during the Last Glacial Maximum 21,000 years ago when CO₂ levels were around 185 ppm.

Local and regional temperatures have also increased rapidly in the past. In Greenland temperatures rose around 10°C within three years around 14,700 years ago. This warming was interrupted by an abrupt cooling about 12,900 years ago known as the Younger Dryas, sending temperatures plummeting again in the Northern hemisphere. It ended suddenly around 11,700 years ago when temperatures in Greenland rose some 8°C within 10 years. The abrupt climatic shifts of the Younger Dryas period are by no means unique, as two recent studies on the ancient climatic records have shown:

Paleoclimatic records show that large, widespread, abrupt climate changes have affected much or all of the earth repeatedly over the last ice-age cycle as well as earlier – and these changes sometimes have occurred in periods as short as a few years. Perturbations in some regions were spectacularly large: some had temperature increases of up to 16°C and doubling of precipitation within decades, or even single years.

Intense, abrupt warming episodes appeared more than 20 times in the Greenland ice records. Within several hundreds or thousands of years after the start of a typical warm period, the climate reverted to slow cooling followed by quick cooling over as short a time as a century. Then the pattern began again with another warming that might take only a few years.

Sea-levels have also risen rapidly in the past, with average rates of sea-level rise during the last interglacial period of around 1.6 m per century, and peak rates of up to 5 m per century.

Most of the strong climate changes of the past however, were either local or regional or, if global, took at least many thousands of years. As the IPCC emphasized:

The largest tem­perature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years … It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century … are re­alized, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.

In summary, the past global ‘natural variability’ of sea levels, rates of sea-level rise, temperature changes and so on, cover an enormous range, and the extremes are outside the experience of human civilizations. There is also no evidence of a global temperature increase of 5°C (which would be accompanied by much larger regional increases) in a single century for the past 50 million years. Neither human social systems nor many eco-systems, nor many eco-systems, could adapt to some of these changes, so the fact that some are of similar magnitude to those in the past is hardly comforting and does not provide a reason for inaction.

6. Because what is happening now is within the realms of natural variability, we can’t say that humans are contributing to climate change.

False. It is sometimes asserted that if climates changed in the past from natural causes without any human influence, then any climate change occurring now must also be entirely due to natural causes. This is simply an error of logic. The fact that lightning strikes caused bushfires in the distant past, and continue to do so today, does not imply that arsonists never cause bushfires. The same event can have a number of different possible causes and no fire investigator in her right mind would rule out arson simply because the natural explanation of lightning strikes was adequate to explain the outbreak of bushfires in general. She is not interested in past bushfires in general – she is interested in how particular bushfires started. In the same way, the fact that past climate changes were entirely natural in no way rules out the possibility that humans are contributing to the current changes – particularly if, as we know, humans are now emitting gases on an epic scale which have strongly influenced the climate in the past. We are interested in the causes of this particular episode of climate change, not past climate changes in general.

Figure 1. Natural and anthropogenic contributions to temperature change

Overall both empirical and theoretical studies are in agreement that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities must be taken into account to explain the warming we have witnessed.

7. Because what is happening now is within the realms of natural variability, it is not something to worry about. Species have always adapted.

False. Sea levels have been more than 70 metres higher in the past. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would raise seas by 7 m and melting the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels by 5 metres. Sea level rise of 1 metre would displace around 145 million people and take out some of the world’s best farmland leading to enormous stress on human societies. It is simply false to assert that species can always adapt – even under past conditions.

The world experienced several mass extinctions in the past where 50-90% of species became extinct with temperature changes of around 5°C. The Permian-Triassic extinction around 251 million years ago, for example, is thought to have extinguished 95% of the world’s species in existence at the time. Under today’s circumstance with possible migration routes blocked by fences, human settlements and degraded habitats (such as isolated pockets of forest surrounded by cleared farmland), it is wishful thinking to imagine that species can simply migrate and adapt to any climate change.

8. It was warmer during medieval times.

Probably false, but irrelevant anyway. Many of those who most strenuously deny any link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change make a great deal of the period from roughly 800 to 1300 AD, when it is possible that temperatures may have been slightly warmer than at present – at least in northern Europe. The argument runs that if temperatures were warmer then, and CO₂ levels were lower, then (somehow) that is supposed to show that rising greenhouse gas levels are nothing to worry about because natural variability can lead to warming. There are a few problems with this logic.

Firstly, even if temperatures were slightly higher in medieval times, that is irrelevant to our current situation. No-one claims that rising greenhouse gas levels are the only factor that has ever led to higher temperatures. Changes in solar intensity, variations in ocean currents and a number of other factors can influence temperatures. In this case a persistent positive North Atlantic Oscillation from 1050 to 1400 seems to have played an important role. The fact that temperatures appear to have been warm during medieval times in certain regions does not necessarily imply that the warming in our current era can be explained by similar factors. The main reason scientists are so concerned is because they cannot explain the changes over the past century without taking into account rising greenhouse gas levels.

Second, recent research suggests that the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ as it now increasingly described by scientists, was warmer than the Little Ice Age, which lasted from around 1500 to 1850, but globally it was probably slightly cooler than the last 30 years. It was also most likely a regional, rather than a global phenomenon.

9. Climate models are unreliable.

False. No-one claims that climate models are perfect, but they are based on sound science and have been able to replicate past observations to a good degree of accuracy and have also anticipated effects such as the global cooling effects resulting from major volcanic eruptions such as Mt Agung in Bali in 1963 and Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, as well as the more recent partial offsetting of the effects of rising greenhouse gas levels by natural internal variability.

When people disparage climate models because they have not ‘predicted’ the evolution of the temperature path in one particular locality, they reveal that they do not understand climate modelling or complex systems modeling more generally. It is also extremely misleading to give people the impression that because models can’t necessarily ‘predict’ the future temperature paths precisely, that the models are therefore useless as guides for policy. If, as is the case currently, a large number of model scenarios from a large number of different models all yield dire projections for future climate scenarios, then it strongly suggests we have a problem.

It should also be noted that it is not possible for anyone, including those who deny the human influence on climate, to make assertions about the future relationship between greenhouse gases and global climate without some explicit or implicit reference to a model of how the world’s climate works. So when someone asserts definitively that greenhouse gases will have no effect on climate, or only a minor effect that is not worth worrying about, we are entitled to ask: How do they know? They can only make that assertion based on some more or less sophisticated understanding of how the climate system works – in other words, a model. But where are these climate models? Where are the models which show that human greenhouse emissions will have little or no effect on the world’s climate?

Lastly, it is also worth mentioning how striking it is that so often the same people who deny the validity of climate models, place so much faith in the minority of economic models which suggest that mitigating climate change would be terrible for our economies. Most economic models in fact have far less claim to scientific validity than climate models.

10. There was a consensus among climate scientist in the 1970’s that we would soon be heading into another ice age.

False. This is one of those persistent assertions that is repeated endlessly, but which has little basis in fact. The implication of the statement is that if scientists were wrong in the 1970s, there’s no reason to believe them now when they warn of climate change. But it is a complete myth that there was any kind of consensus among climate scientists in the 1970s that we were heading into a cool period – in fact there was far more concern about warming. The most thorough recent debunking of this myth was given in a 2008 paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The authors undertook a review of climate science publications and found 7 papers “predicting, implying, or providing supporting evidence for future global cooling”, 20 that were neutral and 44 supporting future warming. From their publication date to 1983, “The cooling papers received a total of 325 citations, neutral 424, and warming 2,043” (p. 1333).  The authors concluded (p. 1326):

A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.

11. Global warming ended around 1998 anyway – it’s been cooling since then.

False. There are a couple of issues that need to be addressed here: the cherry-picking of data and the complex relationship between emissions and temperatures.

Firstly, the cherry-picking: Choosing particular years, like 1998, to derive ‘trends’ that are not representative of the data is called cherry-picking. The years 1997-1998 saw a major temperature spike from the strong El Niño in the Pacific, so if we take a big El Niño year like 1998 as a starting point, then of course the years immediately following it during the neutral and La Niña phases are going to be relatively cooler.

To see why such cherry picking is so silly (or deliberately deceptive), consider the following: As Figure 3 shows, the 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from 1998 (they were both very warm years), and the NASA GISS data, which also takes into account Arctic temperatures, put 2005 as slightly warmer than 1998, which in the NASA data tied with 2007. So if we took either 1997 or 1999 as our starting year rather than 1998, we’d be able to show a strong warming trend between those years and 2005. Even taking the period 1999 to 2008 would show a strong, statistically significant, warming trend.

Scientists don’t cherry pick data like that because it is meaningless to try to pick major long-term climate trends based on just a few years of data. Cherry-picking data is poor scientific practice, it cannot yet be concluded statistically that the warming trend since the late 1970s has ended, and greenhouse gas increases were never expected to lead to a relentless year-after-year increase in temperatures in any case. Temperatures have zigzagged up and down due to the complex natural internal variability of the climate system, and they will continue to do so. But despite these year-to-year variations, we have every reason to believe, based on the science of the climate system, that the long-term warming trend experienced since the early 20^th century will continue, even if for certain periods temperatures stabilize or even cool for a while.

12. Our best strategy is simply to adapt to climate change.

False. This approach greatly underestimates the risks from unmitigated climate change and also presumes that the climate will settle into a new stable state that we can adapt to. But the Earth’s climate is a highly complex nonlinear system with the potential to cross thresholds or tipping points and lurch from one stable state to another. We cannot simply assume that the world’s climate will settle into a new state that is both stable and suitable enough to prevent catastrophic consequences for ecological and human systems. As one recent study put it: “Palaeoclimate data shows that the Earth’s climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks predominate. This allows the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states.” The emergence from the last ice age for example, was characterised by dramatic oscillations, or ‘flickering’ between cold and warm periods.

The humanitarian, economic and security implications of unmitigated climate change would also be staggering. In Africa 75-250 million people are expected to be suffering water stress by the 2020s and 350-600 million by the 2050s. In Asia, the projections are even worse. The glaciers of the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau are the source for seven of Asia’s most important rivers: the Ganges, which flows across northern India to join the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh; the Indus which flows through Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir before becoming the lifeblood of Pakistan’s agriculture; the Salween which flows through China and Burma into Thailand; the Mekong which flows through half a dozen countries and is critical to food supplies in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos; and two of China’s great rivers, the Yangtze and the Huang (Yellow River). 

The recommendation to just let climate change run its course and adapt to it seems to come only from those who either do not believe the climate is warming, or if it is, do not believe anything can be done.

13. CO2 exists only in very low concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore it cannot have significant effects.

14. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to 560 ppm would only bring warming of about 1ºC.

15. CO2 is not a pollutant – it is completely natural and essential for life.

16. Any warming is the Sun’s fault.

17. Climate change is due to the effects of cosmic rays.

18. Lack of warming in the tropical troposphere (lower atmosphere) proves anthropogenic global warming is a myth.

19. Coming out of the ice ages, the changes in CO2 happened after the warming began, so CO2 doesn’t affect atmospheric temperatures.

20. Antarctica is cooling, so that proves the global climate isn’t warming.

21. Action on climate change would ruin our economies.

I don’t expect this material to change the minds of trenchant denialists (who are immune to evidence and logic, however well presented). But for the vast majority of undecided people who might be curious about these issues but not willing to make a judgement until they know more, or for those honestly confused about what has been adequately explained by climate science versus what is too uncertain, this is a really useful resource. It is also a good place to send your skeptical friends and colleagues — at least as a starting point for whetting their intellectual appetite to learn more (or, as a quick answer to blog comments).

Thanks for reading and happy Blog Action Day 09.

- Patrick Aizen
Co-founder Enviralment

Slashdot It!

Please read this concerns you. This project does not benefit The city of Carson cause it will only Generate power to supply BP not the community. Thereby releasing more Carbon Pollution in the Atmosphere.

FOR BP REACTION CLICK HERE

I fly, that much is true and though I consciously limit the number of short haul flights I take, my carbon footprints stains the forest floor with a number of flights annually. Realising I want to ensure my actions begin to align with my beliefs I have decided to offset my flights (eat more lentils and holiday in Goa).

A helpful start is to broadly understand what an offset is and why they are considered beneficial

1. An offset represents the reduction, removal, or avoidance of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from a specific project that is used to compensate for GHG emissions occurring elsewhere
2. A principle benefit is that the “Offsets prompt the market to seek out and take advantage of the lowest cost reduction opportunities first, resulting in the most economically efficient distribution of reduction efforts and mitigation funding. This reduces the overall costs of the program, which should translate to a higher level of political support.” See (http://www.offsetqualityinitiative.org/benefits_off.htm) for other benefits.

There are two questions I believe need answering in order to assess how to offset my flights:
1. To which project / organisation should I pay my carbon offset?
2. What is the true cost to the environment of a flight and hence the amount I should pay to offset a flight?

Part 1: What project / organisation should I pay my carbon offset?

The standard approach is to pay an organisation that in turn invests in a project that reduces carbon emissions, as is the case with carbon offsets paid to British Airways.

Obviously when one pays for a carbon offset one wants to feel that ones money and the project it funds will is actually reduce carbon emissions. Below is a list of risks that impact a projects ability to effectively reduce GHG, which should be considered when choosing an offset project:

• Additionality – whether the project (saving a rain forest, building a wind farm, capturing methane or carbon sequestration) would have happened anyway. Said differently, the revenue from selling the project’s emission reductions is reasonably expected to have incentivised the project’s implementation.

• Real – offsets should be real; in other words, they should represent actual emission reductions and not be artifacts of incomplete or inaccurate accounting.

• Certified – offsets should also be monitored and quantified in accordance with established standards, and be verified by an independent third party.

• Leakage – the situation in which a carbon sequestration activity (e.g., tree planting) on one piece of land inadvertently, directly or indirectly, triggers an activity which, in whole or part, counteracts the carbon effects of the initial activity

• Permanence – that an offset is permanent i.e. ensure a forest saved from deforestation is not ultimately cut down.

• Duplicate – Offsets should be unambiguously owned, serialized, and accounted for in a registry to ensure they are not double counted or sold twice.

• Social or other project consequences – ensure that non-GHG considerations are adequately addressed i.e. consider the consequence of a project that reduces employment levels

If the company you pay your carbon offset to does not list specific projects one must rely on the accreditation organisations to perform the review. Carbon offset calculations and projects are complex and many of the parties involved have a profit motive. It is therefore likely or possible that projects may not have adequate controls to guard against the risks listed above that result in the publicised offset not being achieved.

Offset Quality Initiative (OQI) (www.offsetqualityinitiative.org) classifies offsets as one of three types and comments on whether it is suited for a regulatory offset program. This implies that certain types of offsets are more likely to result in actual, permanent and measurable offsets than others, as discussed below.

“Broadly speaking, OQI believes that direct emission-reduction projects — projects that cause emission reductions at the project site, such as capture and combustion of landfill methane — are best suited for use in a regulatory offset program.”

“Indirect emission-reduction projects are defined as projects that cause emission reductions at a location other than the project site, such as the installation of energy efficient equipment in a building that results in reduced power plant emissions.”

OQI states that due to difficulty in establishing ownership and the risk of emission reductions being double counted, Indirect emission projects should not be funded through offset, but through other incentives.

OQI believes the third project type Biological sequestration carries a risk of impermanence or susceptible to leakage, as explained below.

“Biological sequestration projects, such as reforestation and rangeland management, utilize natural processes to remove and store GHG from the atmosphere or avoid GHG emissions by preventing the release of stored carbon. OQI recognizes that while this is a vital category of mitigation opportunities, there are unique challenges inherent in integrating biologically based sequestration credits into a regulatory offset framework. These challenges include issues surrounding baseline establishment, permanence, and
leakage. However, OQI believes that policy mechanisms and criteria can be designed and implemented to ensure that biological sequestration activities play a credible role in the offset market.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) describes leakage as follows:

“Leakage refers to the situation in which a carbon sequestration activity (e.g., tree planting) on one piece of land inadvertently, directly or indirectly, triggers an activity which, in whole or part, counteracts the carbon effects of the initial activity. It can be shown that most of these types of problems arise from differential treatment of carbon in different regions and circumstances, and the problem is not unique to carbon sequestration activities but pervades carbon mitigation activities in the energy sector as well.”

“In land use, leakage can occur from either protection or planting activities. Suppose, for example, that a forest or wetland that was to be cleared is instead protected. Protection of one such forest or wetland may simply deflect the pressure to another piece of land that is not protected and will be cleared instead. Leakage can occur across both spatial and temporal boundaries. Additionally, a forest protected in one year is subject to the possibility of clearing in subsequent years.“
(http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/174.htm)

So that’s a little something on the risks and considerations of carbon offset projects. However, there is another option, what if the money I was going to spend on carbon offsets could instead be donated to an environmental pressure group that aims to ensure the correct GHG legislation is passed nationally and globally.

This decision clearly removes the direct connection between the GHG my flights caused and the remedy, but it does feel that stronger regulation or global agreement on reduction of GHG emissions is likely to be the best way to “Save the World”, especially in the lead up to United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December of this year. So that’s what I chose.

There are obviously many non- direct carbon trade projects to support, such as family planning programs or programs that make euthanasia more publically acceptable especially in Western Nations where people consume significant resources.

Andrew Winston from the Huffington Post makes a good point when he wrote, “Because not creating carbon to begin with is the highest quality offset around” and is definitely the first prize.

Part 2 – Some thoughts on, What is the true cost to the environment of a flight and hence the amount I should pay to offset a flight? will follow some time soon…

Well, if the Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger gets his wish it will be.

This past weekend the state legislature in California passed a pair of bills issuing the long-sought goal of generating 33% of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020. California already has the hardest goals to reach in the country, requiring utilities to get 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010. Schwarzenegger, a big proponent of clean energy and supporter of the 33% goal, said over the weekend he would veto the bill and do the job himself through an executive order sometime midweek.

Part of what’s at issue affects just California. The bills would limit the amount of out-of-state clean power that utilities could get, which the governor says would hamstring the state’s efforts. AP Quotes the governor’s communications director Matt David: “The poorly drafted, overly complex bills passed by the Legislature are protectionist schemes that will kill the solar industry in California and drive prices up like the failed energy deregulation of the late 1990s.”

-THE WSJ

But the big aspect of this plan which could have big implications for the rest of the country and industries in North America is that Gov. Schwarzenegger is considering directing the California Air Resource Board to look at broadening the state’s definition of renewable energy sources to include nuclear power and hydroelectric dams.

Currently state and prospective federal rules limit “renewable energy” to solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass.

If Gov. Schwarzenegger does brand nukes “renewable energy,” it would be a huge lift for nuclear advocates in the Senate who keep pressing Democratic leaders to offer more support for nuclear power as part of the big energy bill.

On paper at least, it would also make it a lot easier to meet renewable-energy targets, since nuclear power punches above its weight. That is, nuclear power represents only 10% of U.S. electricity capacity, but 20% of its electricity generation. Since all the renewable-energy standards under consideration in Congress deal with the amount of electricity actually generated, that makes a big difference.

Obviously anti nuclear proponents will say that it’s impossible for nuclear to be renewable since uranium is a mineral, it’s mined and processed into nuclear fuel, and eventually will be depleted and cease to produce energy. To which I would agree. Unless the U.S. started supporting breeder reactors, Nuclear fission and recycling nuclear fuel (which the French and Japanese have been doing for years with great success.) then I would most definately classify it as renewable. However in this case, renewable, not so much, sustainable may be the more accurate term. As for being Green, nuclear doesn’t emit any GHG’s (green house gases) which is why nuclear proponents have been hollering for their inclusion in federal renewable-energy rules, but their pleas continue to fall on def ears.

I’m not going to try and prove why I believe nuclear does and should fit under the “green” and “renewable” categories, it would take a much much longer post to do that. And regardless there are always going to be the nay-sayers who say that nuclear is too expensive, cost over-runs, fearful of nuclear waste and reactors meltdowns like Chernobyl (see previous posts: nuclear faces typical misinformed opposition to see the fallacies in that reasoning).

Bottom line: I’m glad Schwarzenegger is being progressive enough and pragmatic enough about the future of his states energy concerns and it’s clear that nuclear power’s jumped back into the energy conversation in the last six years. But this rhetoric needs to be matched by government policies to make a nuclear revival possible. Harper and Raitt, pay attention.

Slashdot It!

Raymond Colitt-Reuters, 09/10/2009

BRASILIA (Reuters) – Brazil’s Environment Minister Carlos Minc said on Wednesday that U.S. targets for greenhouse gas emissions are unacceptably weak and that Brazil will place new restrictions on its huge farm sector to cut deforestation.

Brazil would also soon announce targets to substantially curb carbon emissions before a crucial global climate summit in Copenhagen in December, he said in an interview as part of the Reuters’ Climate Change and Alternative Energy Summit.

Criticizing the U.S. administration’s stated target of returning to its 1990 level of emissions by 2020, Minc said: “We don’t accept that, it’s very poor.”

Read more…

SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 15, 2009 – McAfee, Inc. (NYSE: MFE) today announced new research findings that reveal spam e-mail is not only a nuisance, but is damaging to the environment and substantially contributes to green house gas (GHG) emissions.

In McAfee’s “Carbon Footprint of Spam” study released today, climate-change researchers ICF and spam experts calculated globally the annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), or 33 terawatt hours (TWh). That’s equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes, with the same GHG emissions as 3.1 million passenger cars using 2 billion gallons of gasoline.

“As the world faces the growing problem of climate change, this study highlights that spam has an immense financial, personal and environmental impact on businesses and individuals,” said Jeff Green, senior vice president of product development and McAfee Avert Labs. “Stopping spam at its source, as well investing in state-of-the-art spam filtering technology, will save time and money, and will pay dividends to the planet by reducing carbon emissions as well.”

A Day without Spam

In late 2008, McColo, a major source of online spam, was taken offline and global spam volume dropped 70 percent. The energy saved in the ensuing lull before spammers rebuilt their sending capacity, equated to taking 2.2 million cars off the road that day, proving the impact of the 62 trillion spam e-mails that are sent each year.

Research Findings

The “Carbon Footprint of Spam” study looked at global energy expended to create, store, view and filter spam across 11 countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, India, Mexico, Spain, the United States and the United Kingdom. It correlated the electricity spent on spam with its carbon footprint, since fossil fuels are by far the largest source of electricity in the world today. Since emissions cannot be isolated to one country, it averaged its findings to arrive at the global impact. Key findings of the “Carbon Footprint of Spam” study included:

• The average GHG emission associated with a single spam message is 0.3 grams of CO2. That’s like driving three feet (one meter); but when multiplied by the yearly volume of spam, it is equivalent to driving around the earth 1.6 million times.
• Much of the energy consumption associated with spam (nearly 80 percent) comes from end-users deleting spam and searching for legitimate e-mail (false positives). Spam filtering accounts for just 16 percent of spam-related energy use.
• Spam filtering saves 135 TWh of electricity per year. That is equivalent to taking 13 million cars off the road.
• If every inbox were protected by a state-of-the-art spam filter, organizations and individuals could reduce today’s spam energy by 75 percent or 25 TWh per year, the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road.
• Countries with greater Internet connectivity and users, such as the United States and India, tended to have proportionately higher emissions per e-mail users. The United States for example, had emissions that were 38 times that of Spain.
• While Canada, China, Brazil, India, the United States and the United Kingdom had similar energy use for spam by country, Australia, Germany, France, Mexico and Spain tended to come in about 10 percent lower. Spain came in at the lowest, with both the smallest amount of e-mail that was received as spam and the smallest amount of energy use for spam per e-mail user.

Our Computer Help Desk articles are for informational purposes only and are not intended to replace the advice and work of a professional technician. Many computer issues are complicated to fix yourself and can result in further problems with your computer. To have your computer fixed quickly and accurately, please call us today at 800-483-0645 or see http://www.mywindowscomputerworks.com .

About McAfee, Inc.

McAfee, Inc., headquartered in Santa Clara, California, is the world’s largest dedicated security technology company. McAfee is relentlessly committed to tackling the world’s toughest security challenges. The company delivers proactive and proven solutions and services that help secure systems and networks around the world, allowing users to safely connect to the Internet, browse and shop the web more securely. Backed by an award-winning research team, McAfee creates innovative products that empower home users, businesses, the public sector and service providers by enabling them to prove compliance with regulations, protect data, prevent disruptions, identify vulnerabilities, and continuously monitor and improve their security. http://www.mcafee.com

NOTE: McAfee and any additional McAfee marks herein are registered trademarks of McAfee, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and/or other countries. McAfee Red in connection with security is distinctive of McAfee brand products. All other registered and unregistered trademarks herein are the sole property of their respective owners. © 2009 McAfee, Inc. All rights reserved.

Some of Bowen Island’s municipal councillors are a tad too close to the road’s shoulder and about to slip.  It’s all about an astroturf practise field that was bullied through without proper procedure, ignoring the public, and accepting only an erroneous math calculation from a study.

Lucky we have people like David Chamberlain on fair Bowen isle.  His commentary and letter below (which he has submitted to Bowen’s newspaper, The Undercurrent without success of publication)  tells almost all:

(From the Bowen Island Phorum) I’m posting this here, as I haven’t had much luck getting my letters printed in the Undercurrent the last few times. It could be editorial policy, or it could just be me! 

Democracy and Science

It’s amazing what a few words, thrown about carelessly, will convey. Or not, if you know what’s really going on. 

Matthew Redekopp, in his letter to the Undercurrent, says that in the case of the Artificial Turf (AT) field, “democracy decided”. Oh, really? When you look at the facts, any similarities of the Artificial Turf field process to democracy are purely coincidental. 

According to both Bob Turner and Peter Frinton, when questioned about how this debacle all started, Council was approached by an advocacy group a while ago, and informed about the availability of a grant from the West Vancouver School Board that could be used in the construction of an AT field (it’s not clear if the money could have been used for other purposes). The Bowen Island Football Club (BIFC) played a key role in this advocacy group. 

Council thought that this might be a good idea, particularly as an adjunct to the upcoming Community Centre, and assigned Christine Walker as the Municipality representative to investigate. Now, according to Turner and Frinton, due process would have involved looking at various alternatives, weighing them carefully and then taking input from the public (a pretty common sense approach in a democracy, and one that is usually followed). This was not done; the primarily role of the Municipality representative appears to have been to convince Council (and the public) that the Artificial Turf field was the ONLY option. Perhaps this was because, on June 27, 2008, Christine Walker signed her name to a letter appearing in the Undercurrent from the Board of the BIFC and strongly supporting the AT field. The consultant that was hired to assist her played (and, as far as I know, still plays) a prominant role in the BIFC, coaching. So it’s no wonder that the process was unduly biased [please note that I do not blame any of the non-Council indivduals mentioned - Council should have known better than to rely on a then BIFC board member for an unbiased viewpoint, or perhaps it suited some member's objectives]. 

Despite all of this, and strong public opposition (once the public found out what was happening – it was almost snuck through with a minimum of hoopola), 4 of 7 Council members (Doug Hooper, David Wrinch, Cro Lucas and Alison Morse) voted in favour of proceeding with the AT field this past January, but with substantive conditions attached. There was a cap of $500,000 placed on the project. A Plan B (alternative strategy) was to be devised by Municipality staff. Trees were not to be cut, if at all possible. And others. Not one condition was met. However, the ground is now being dug up for the field, and the trees have alrady been cut. The lowest bid came in at $532,000 or so, even with many of the original field features dropped (one can only presume so the bid could get close to the cap) – Council reallocated another $7,000 and money dropped from the sky in the form of a mysterious gift of $25,000. Another $20,000 was requested for more consulting, and granted. No Plan B was delivered. And still the project moved on, even with growing signs that this was not favoured by the majority of Bowen Island (few people I talked to even knew about it, thought it had been killed, and couldn’t believe that it was still moving forward with so many other things that Council has identified as priorities). 

All in all, I wouldn’t call this democracy. 

But when Matthew attempts to be a mathematician and scientist, talking about the ‘greenness’ of the AT field, all I can say is, don’t quit your day job. It is a valiant attempt at bafflegab, however. 

The central premise behind ANY attempt at saying that a plastic field can be greener than a natural one is reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with a reduction in automobile travel. There was a great of analysis of the Queen of Capilano’s emissions in the letter, but regardless of how many cars get on the ferry, it will still run. There will be no savings of greenhouse gas emissions there, period. There might be an argument that fewer cars MAY travel to the mainland as a result of the AT field (thus reducing THEIR emissions to and from the ferry), but since many people combine trips, that is far from proven. And they won’t go downtown to play soccer. Science is very inconvenient for the Matthew’s of the world, as it requires first, a hypothesis, and then second, proof that this hypothesis is valid. So until someone can prove that car trips will be reduced, it’s all guesswork. I could just as easily say that car trips will increase, particularly on Bowen, as people may not make as much of an effort to carpool to the new AT field, and they will still travel to the mainland for their errands (yes, going downtown). 

Maintenance of natural vs AT fields was also brought up. Yes, natural fields do have to be maintained with equipment that generate greenhouse gases. But so do AT fields. In fact, AT fields have to be kept clean of organic matter (something you don’t have to worry about with natural fields), and it is still unclear how that will be accomplished here (short of hiring a gatekeeper). Plus, everyone is calling this AT field all-weather, when it is anything but. You can’t play soccer on an AT field in snow and ice. West Vancouver, which David Wrinch talked about to me (“West Vancouver doesn’t have that problem”), can’t be compared to Bowen Island – last winter, they had a few days of snow, while ours was still here for several months. The City of Coquitlam (which has weather more comparable to us) has had to develop a snow removal policy for their artificial turf field, but when I asked about whether anyone investigated that particular aspect, all I got was blank looks. Snow removal requires equipment that generates greenhouse gases. And there is no method at present to melt ice on an AT field (directly from the City of Coquitlam). 

In short, there really is no scientific evidence at all that our AT field will be any greener than a natural turf one (and lots that it isn’t). So we’re stuck with a piece of plastic that we have to get rid of in 8 to 12 years, trees that were cut down (and were not replaced), lights that simply have to be put up, according to several members of Council (generating light pollution) so that the field can be played on in the winter (assuming, of course, that the snow and ice can be removed) – and this will cost more money, taking us well over the so-called upper limit of expenditure – and possibly even more car trips (my hypothesis – until I’m proven wrong, just as valid as any other). 

Finally, to add insult to injury (and to further make a mockery of the democratic process), a fee will not only be charged to use the AT field, but, as I understand it, the natural field adjacent to it as well. 

I don’t know what the colour of anger is, but colour me that!

——————————————————————————————————————————–

a great letter, driving it all home!

there’s other things too….one involves the study on artificial turf as commissioned by Upper Canada College, which David Hocking presented. it is a fairly extensive study and according to Mr. Hocking, he did the mathematics contained within the study to show that artificial turf would release less greenhouse gas effects. HOWEVER the study offset those emissions by recommending trees be planted to such up carbon emmissions which a grass field and trees would do. the field in question was to plant 1,861 trees!!!! this also took into account that the soil dug up would be used elsewhere. this was not taken into consideration by Hocking’s figures or Council’s decision. yet another budget cost that wasn’t factored in. 

fake grass needs the cleansing due to bacteria outbreaks. it also has to be watered in hot weather as the temperature of artificial turf in hot weather can soar to 30 degrees higher then grass….yet another unforseen maintenance cost not budgeted for. 

let’s not forget the online petition by artificial turf advocates that Council accepted. It contains many anonymous names and people from out of country. 

AND the contractor doing the job is having to subcontract….what are those costs? it is my understanding the sub-contracts were not built into the quote. let’s hope i’m wrong. 

the acrylic wool was pulled over the eyes of many.

Is the current Obama administration’s approach to eliminating greenhouse gases (GHG) balanced? It seems the in vogue thing to do is build a wind farm, set-up solar PV panels and put more and more money toward clean energy. I agree that all these measures have a tremendously positive impact on our environment. However, it appears the lost child in this whole green initiative is improvements on how existing buildings actually consume energy.

The amount of private commercial real estate that exists is in the billions. According to the Energy Information Administration’s latest report, there are over 4.8 million commercial buildings in the United States covering over 71.6 billion square feet. These buildings consume over $82 billion in electricity and spew out GHG. The cost of improving these buildings’ energy efficiency would be a fraction of the cost to build a wind farm or install an array of solar panels. Marc Gunther of Reuters recently covered Silicon Valley venture capitalist Sunil Paul’s “Gigaton Throwdown” report that details how top clean energy technologies can have a significant impact by 2020. Gunther writes, “building efficiency is a much, much cheaper way to reduce greenhouse gas emission than solar thermal power or nuclear” noting that it’s the least expensive option.

It’s plain and simple: today’s buildings don’t run efficiently and it’s the worst kept secret in America. There are many buildings that are either too cold or too hot and are wasting energy by allowing those kilowatts to literally escape out the window. I have been involved in commissioning millions of square feet of all types of buildings and can tell you that finding savings is easy and relatively inexpensive.

So why aren’t more building owners doing it? Reasons abound – building operators are too busy keeping their buildings from falling apart and dealing with tenant complaints. In addition, tenants are often kept in the dark with building costs and problem areas, but still have to foot the bill because of how leases are structured. This waste is quickly written off as the “cost of doing business” and not investigated further.

What incentives will encourage building owners and tenants to look at actively decreasing energy consumption as a bottom-line saver? The highest expense our businesses face today (other than payroll, benefits and rent) is energy. Improving energy consumption by just 10% will undoubtedly increase profits and save jobs by improving the bottom-line.

ROI should be proof enough to support energy efficiency of buildings. An upcoming study by ACEEE found that for every kilowatt-hour saved by installing solar panels we spend 20¢ or more. But for every kilowatt-hour saved by improving an existing building’s systems we only spend 3.5¢. Why does the current administration not see this and invest more toward building efficiency instead of focusing so heavily on clean energy? This too creates jobs, saves money and reduces GHG. President Obama recently said changing light bulbs is not that sexy, but he’s doing it. Though I give him credit, more still needs to be done. For now, building owners can follow suit and launch initiatives to capitalize on these low/no cost energy saving measures.

On June 27th, Untapped New York took the Fresh Kills Tour run by the New York City Dept of Parks and Recreation. Construction has only recently begun but we got a glimpse of the site’s potential by traversing the topography below expansive skies. Overall, I was struck by the gravity of the debate between the retroactive masking of human excess and a binary apprehension of pragmatism/optimism regarding the reappropriation of public space from once foundering land. Architect Bruce Sparano kindly provided us with the counterposition on Fresh Kills, written by his colleague John May, a geographer and architect, in the July 2008 edition of Verb Crisis. Though beautiful and well-written, addressing the complicity of an architecture without social purpose, the cynic in me thirsted for yet even more evidence.

How to Visit: By tour only by the Department of Parks and Recreation, sign up and meet here.

Top Photo: view from mound one. Bottom photo, clockwise from top left: vegetation on mound one, mound three being capped with impermeable seal, view from mound two, methane collection pump. All photos by Michelle Young.

House of Reps Pass Climate Change Bill

Highlights of climate bill approved passed by the House:

Reducing greenhouse gases by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050 through a cap-and-trade program that allows pollution permits to be bought and sold. Limiting emissions from major industrial sources, including power plants, factories, refineries and electricity and natural gas distributors. Emissions from agriculture would be excluded from the cap.

  Controlling carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and limiting six other greenhouse gases. Allowing companies to meet emission-limiting targets by investing in offset projects such as tree planting and forest protection. Requiring electric utilities to produce at least 12% of their power from renewable sources such wind and solar energy by 2020, and requiring as much as 8% in energy efficiency savings. Imposing tighter performance standards on new coal-fired power plants and providing $1 billion a year in development money for capturing carbon dioxide from such plants. Establishing standards that will require new buildings to be 30% more energy-efficient by 2012 and 50% more efficient by 2016. Protecting consumers from rising energy costs by giving rebates and credits to low-income households.

– The Associated Press

Vision for Fresh Kills (Source: NYC Dept of Parks & Recreation)

Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island was established in 1948 on land that was originally tidal creeks and coastal marsh. It was the largest landfill in the world, second now only to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. By the time of its forced closure in 2001 by the EPA, the site had reached 2200 acres, almost three times the size of Central Park, with a peak taller than the Statue of Liberty. Unbeknownst to the general public, Fresh Kills is also the largest man-made structure on earth, surpassing the Great Wall of China (by volume)! It is also a revenue generator, giving the city $12 million a year through the sale of methane gas emissions to Con Edison and National Grid.

Fresh Kills Landfill 1990 (Source Stephen Ferry/Getty Images)

In 1999, the New York Dept. of City Planning launched an international design competition for a master plan to convert the site into New York’s largest park. New York based landscape architecture firm, Field Operations, was chosen. The lead architect, James Corner, is the same man who designed the High Line. To be built over course of the next thirty years, the park will consist of five areas, each with a unique character and architectural program. NYC Dept. of Parks & Recreation describes the framework of the plan as integrating “three separate systems—programming, wildlife, and circulation—into one cohesive and dynamic unit.”

This ambitious public works reclamation project addresses the contrast between natural and engineered aestheticism, the contradiction of an urban ecology, a direct physical dialogue about our human impact on the environment, the complex issues of sustainability and preservation, and the appropriation of public space.

Freshkills Superimposed on Lower Manhattan would stretch from South Ferry to 26th St. (Source: Eloise Hirsh, NYC Dept of Parks & Recreation)

What this means for us laymen: Spectacular views of Manhattan, recreational opportunities (bike paths, kayaking, horseback riding, fishing), unique public space for art  – like old barges repurposed as floating gardens, and wildlife habitats. If you are interested, Untapped New York will be going this Saturday, June 27th to check out what has been constructed so far – there are still spots open if you sign up here on the NYC Parks & Recreation website. Also on their site: nerdy information on the cool ecological restoration techniques they are using!

UPDATE: Pictures from the Untapped Trip to Fresh Kills!

This is my  third idea that I will Expressed for Green Living things to keep Environment EcoFriendly.When I was in Bangalore with my brother in Svr Flora Apartment in Bangalore,many People thought me about green living Things.My third Article is about Recycling.

Is Recycling Necessary or Not:-

According to me recycling is necessary because It saves Energy,It also saves our Natural Resources, It saves Environmental condition & Reduces Pollution.

What is Recycling:-

Recycling refers to the process of collecting used materials which is usually considered as ‘waste’ and reprocessing them. In this process these used materials are sorted and processed to be used as ‘raw materials’ for the production of new products.recycling means using the core elements of an old product as raw material to manufacture new goods. Some of the most common items that are recycled are plastic, glass, paper, batteries, aluminum etc.

Process of Recycling:-

The recycling process involves three stages. In the first stage the old products are collected and processed, where they are sorted, cleaned and made ready for recycling or manufacturing new products. The second stage involves the manufacturing of new products from the raw material obtained by the processing of the old products. Finally, the process ends with the purchasing of recycled goods by the consumers.

Importance of Recycling:-

Recycling Saves Energy:-When new products are manufactured from the raw material obtained from recycled products, it saves a lot of energy which is consumed for the production.

Recycling Saves Environmental Conditions and Reduces Pollution:-Recycling helps in preventing global climate change to a great extent. By minimizing the energy spent on industrial production, recycling also helps in reducing greenhouse gas emission.The processing of fresh raw material also creates toxic materials which pollute the environment. By reducing the energy used, recycling also minimizes the amount of fuel usage which in turn reduces the amount of harmful pollutants in the environment.

Recycling Saves Space for Waste Disposal
Most of the landfill sites are filled up with a lot of waste products that could have been recycled effectively. Some of these waste materials belong to non-biodegradable category which takes a long time to decompose. Recycling enables proper usage of these waste products and saves space for landfills. The pace with which landfills are getting filled up, soon we might run short of laablendfills unless we start following recycling at our own home and spread the word to others.

Advantages of Recycling:-

– Recycling helps to limit the amount of glass, paper and plastic that must be produced. This will end with less garbage in landfills because it’s being reused. Currently, 100% of all refuse is recycled.
– Adds jobs to the economy;
– Slows the consuming of natural resources;
– Makes people environmentally aware;
– Promotes scientific advancements in recyclable and biodegradable materials;
– Makes governments and businesses choose programs and apply policies in consideration of preserving and respecting the environment.

All the things have certain disadvantages also like — seperate factories must be set up for the recycling of materials, and this will just cause more pollution and energy consumption for transport, sorting, cleaning and storage; But it much more advantages also.So Recycling is definately important for Environment to Ecofriendly & Green Living. So Recycling is Necessary Done.

Maybe my invitation to one of the many social gatherings and cocktail parties hosted by President Obama and the First Lady has been lost in the mail? I mean I have been paying for the $100 single servings of the mighty delicious, oh so tender and savory “wagwu steaks” that Barry O delightfully serves to his VIP, red-carpet-welcomed guests. While this week’s episode of The Fabulous Life on VH-1 did not feature Barack’s cushy playboy lifestyle, I am holding out for the episode that will attribute him as this year’s concluding rock star. I mean, the man deserves the celebrity lifestyle he was given.

His giving nature is what inspires me to be all that I can be. Even today Barry O put Mother Teresa to shame when he signed the credit card bill into law. In case you missed the coverage, his halo radiantly floated above his head, while the delightful harps played in the background as the rays from heaven shined down to gracefully silhouette his toned features as he delicately signed each letter of his name with a new pen. His generosity outpoured as he carefully designated each pen to a specific individual who aided in the writing of the credit card bill so they would have a token to cherish and pass down to generations.

But the blessings we have received from Barry are much more than pens to treasure. We Americans have received the charming gift of debt and now it seems with new emission standards we will also receive the gift of death, well at least 800 more Americans a year to be specific.

Ian Murray, writer of “the corner,” part of the National Review stated, “Using the methodology of the CEI study from a few years back, applied to today’s fatality numbers in a back-of-the-envelope calculation, the new policy will lead to around 800 more needless deaths on the road each year. Blood for less oil, you could say.”

Announced by Barry O earlier this week, cars and trucks produced by the year 2016 are to achieve an improved EPA all in the name of improved greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, on the market today there are only 11 vehicles that meet these tough standards and most of which are nothing more than glorified golf carts that could barley transport more than a few victims, excuse me, passengers.

Beyond killing American’s, Megan McCardle encapsulates what the new policy or regulations will do:

• It will raise the prices of cars, and make them less safe
• It will reduce our carbon emissions, but not by as much as advertised, because more fuel efficient cars make driving cheaper, so people will do more of it. This “rebound” effect robs about 25% of gains, and also means more congestion, and more wear-and-tear on roads
• This will either help the Big Three compete, or seal their doom as the Japanese manufacturers continue to eat into their market share. If I had to bet, I’d wager this means big ongoing subsidies for our favorite three public charities.
• If you want to cut down on the pollution from driving, this is about the worst possible way to do it. On the other hand, it may be the only politically feasible way to do it. If you take global warming seriously, as I do, it may be the best of a bad set of policy choices.

You know, I have nothing against taking care of the environment. In fact, I do my part to be conservative with the Earth we were given by recycling and by taking correct care of my trash. That is called being responsible. But irresponsibility is cultivated when poor regulatory choices are forced upon a once free market by the government. But of course we must remember America’s good fortune with the election of a selfless man who has taken time off the greens to help us poor, uneducated peasants achieve global warming Moksha.

I think Don Boudreaux, of Café Hayek, describes our nation’s luck the best in his offered comment:

“We Americans are lucky. President Obama, although having zero experience as an entrepreneur or in the automotive industry, has designed fuel-efficiency standards that (he assures us) will save the average car buyer $2,800 over the life of his or her vehicle. What a deal!

No one in Detroit, in the U.K., in Japan, in Germany, in Korea, in Sweden, in Italy, in France – no one anywhere, not even persons with decades of experience producing and selling automobiles – has figured out how to devise vehicles that are so obviously attractive to American consumers — and, therefore, so rich in profit-earning potential for manufacturers — as are the ones now promised to us by the Obama administration.

And we can admire not only Mr. Obama’s industrial and commercial genius, but also his magnanimity in offering to the public, free of charge, his money-saving idea. He could have earned billions of dollars in profit by putting his idea to the test in the market. But no: by simply forcing us to use his idea and charging us nothing for it, he’ll forego this profit. We Americans are lucky indeed.”

Thanks Barry O! While you continue to ride in your motorcade of limousines, align yourself a photo-op next to the Statue of Liberty in Air Force One, or cruise in Marine One to Meijer to ride the coveted penny pony ride, I will opt for the heavy duty, at times gas guzzling, Range Rover in light of the environmentally friendly, oh so ugly smart car, especially with the knowledge that Ted (hiccup) Kennedy (hiccup, hiccup) is on the road.

Chaz Oswald

New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions, sources said Monday.

Here.