Surprising Changes Brought About by Global Warming.

Global Warming Song and Dance

You've probably heard about the global warming song and dance: rising temperatures, melting ice caps and rising sea levels in the near future. But Earth's changing climate is already wreaking havoc in some very weird ways. So gird yourself for such strange effects as savage wildfires, 25-mile long icebergs, disappearing lakes, freak allergies, and the threat of long-gone diseases re-emerging.

Forest Fire Frenzy

While it's melting glaciers and creating more intense hurricanes, global warming also seems to be heating up forest fires in the United States. In western states over the past few decades, more wildfires have blazed across the countryside, burning more area for longer periods of time. Scientists have correlated the rampant blazes with warmer temperatures and earlier snowmelt. When spring arrives early and triggers an earlier snowmelt, forest areas become drier and stay so for longer, increasing the chance that they might ignite.

Ruined Ruins

All over the globe, temples, ancient settlements and other artifacts stand as monuments to civilizations past, which until now have withstood the tests of time. But the immediate effects of global warming may finally do them in. Rising seas and more extreme weather have the potential to damage irreplaceable sites. Floods attributed to global warming have already damaged a 600-year-old site, Sukhothai, which was once the capital of a Thai kingdom.

Rebounding Mountains

Though the average hiker wouldn't notice, the Alps and other mountain ranges have experienced a gradual growth spurt over the past century or so thanks to the melting of the glaciers atop them. For thousands of years, the weight of these glaciers has pushed against the Earth's surface, causing it to depress. As the glaciers melt, this weight is lifting, and the surface slowly is springing back. Because global warming speeds up the melting of these glaciers, the mountains are rebounding faster.

Speedier Satellites

A primary cause of a warmer planet's carbon dioxide emissions is having effects that reach into space with a bizarre twist. Air in the atmosphere's outermost layer is very thin, but air molecules still create drag that slows down satellites, requiring engineers to periodically boost them back into their proper orbits. But the amount of carbon dioxide up there is increasing. And while carbon dioxide molecules in the lower atmosphere release energy as heat when they collide, thereby warming the air, the sparser molecules in the upper atmosphere collide less frequently and tend to radiate their energy away, cooling the air around them. With more carbon dioxide up there, more cooling occurs, causing the air to settle. So the atmosphere is less dense and creates less drag.

Survival of the Fittest

As global warming brings an earlier start to spring, the early bird might not just get the worm. It might also get its genes passed on to the next generation. Because plants bloom earlier in the year, animals that wait until their usual time to migrate might miss out on all the food. Those who can reset their internal clocks and set out earlier stand a better chance at having offspring that survive and thus pass on their genetic information, thereby ultimately changing the genetic profile of their entire population.

The Big Thaw

Not only is the planet's rising temperature melting massive glaciers, but it also seems to be thawing out the layer of permanently frozen soil below the ground's surface. This thawing causes the ground to shrink and occurs unevenly, so it could lead to sinkholes and damage to structures such as railroad tracks, highways and houses. The destabilizing effects of melting permafrost at high altitudes, for example on mountains, could even cause rockslides and mudslides. Recent discoveries reveal the possibility of long-dormant diseases like smallpox could re-emerge as the ancient dead, their corpses thawing along with the tundra, get discovered by modern man.

Pulling the Plug

A whopping 125 lakes in the Arctic have disappeared in the past few decades, backing up the idea that global warming is working fiendishly fast nearest Earth's poles. Research into the whereabouts of the missing water points to the probability that permafrost underneath the lakes thawed out. When this normally permanently-frozen ground thaws, the water in the lakes can seep through the soil, draining the lake, one researcher likened it to pulling the plug out of the bathtub. When the lakes disappear, the ecosystems they support also lose their home.

Arctic in Bloom

While melting ice in the Arctic might cause problems for plants and animals at lower latitudes, it's creating a downright sunny situation for Arctic biota. Arctic plants usually remain trapped in ice for most of the year. Nowadays, when the ice melts earlier in the spring, the plants seem to be eager to start growing. Research has found higher levels a certain type of the pigment chlorophyll (telltale sign of photosynthesis) in modern soils than in ancient soils, showing a biological boom in the Arctic in recent decades.

Heading for the Hills

Starting in the early 1900s, we've all had to look to slightly higher ground to spot our favorite chipmunks, mice and squirrels. Researchers have found that many of these animals have moved to greater elevations, possibly due to changes in their habitat caused by global warming. Similar changes to habitats are also threatening Arctic species like polar bears, as the sea ice they dwell on gradually melts away.

Aggravated Allergies

Have those sneeze attacks and itchy eyes that plague you every spring worsened in recent years? If so, global warming may be partly to blame. Over the past few decades, more and more Americans have started suffering from seasonal allergies and asthma. Though lifestyle changes and pollution ultimately leave people more vulnerable to the airborne allergens they breathe in, research has shown that the higher carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures associated with global warming are also playing a role by prodding plants to bloom earlier and produce more pollen. With more allergens produced earlier, allergy season can last longer. Get those tissues ready.

How Climate Change REALLY Affects Us.

The planet keeps getting hotter. Especially in America, where 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded, by far. Every few years, the U.S. federal government engages hundreds of experts to assess the impacts of climate change, now and in the future.

From agriculture to infrastructure to how humans consume energy, the National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee spotlights how a warming world may bring widespread disruption.

Farmers will see declines in some crops, while others will reap increased yields. Won't more atmospheric carbon mean longer growing seasons? Not quite. Over the next several decades, the yield of virtually every crop in California's fertile Central Valley, from corn to wheat to rice and cotton, will drop by up to 30 percent, researchers expect.

Lackluster pollination, driven by declines in bees due partly to the changing climate, is one reason. Government scientists also expect the warmer climate to shorten the length of the frosting season necessary for many crops to grow in the spring. Aside from yields, climate change will also affect food processing, storage, and transportation—industries that require an increasing amount of expensive water and energy as global demand rises—leading to higher food prices.

More energy demand, higher prices, more climate change.

The worldwide trend is stunning. Since 1970, global demand for heating has decreased, while demand for cooling has shot up. Higher temperatures over the next decade, mixed with a growing global population, will continue to increase energy demand, accelerating the loop of emissions that cause climate change that cause more emissions. Rain, meanwhile, is projected to drop up to 40 percent in some places. Less water, a key ingredient in power production, will constrain energy generation systems. What's more, government analysts anticipate that a higher projected chance of flooding in certain areas will risk inundating power generators and disrupting transmission routes. Aging transportation infrastructures won't mix well with extreme weather. Large storms and extreme weather have already shown their might. The impact on transportation infrastructure won't be pretty, on par with superstorm Sandy's destruction in 2012. But scientists expect similar scenarios to increase in regions that will become more vulnerable to changing weather.

Several states, including Vermont, Tennessee, Iowa, and Missouri, have already experienced severe weather that damaged roads, bridges, and railroad tracks. Some engineers worry that heavy demands on aging infrastructure can create unreliable routes for the transport of vital commodities like food, fuel, and water.

Droughts will become more common virtually everywhere.

The world has a finite amount of water, and new demands, especially from a growing population, will stretch that supply. Watersheds in the southwestern U.S., including the Rockies and the Rio Grande, will encounter supply problems as the runoff that replenishes them declines. Perhaps worse, longer droughts in formerly fertile regions will mean less certainty for farmers and water-dependent industries.

Cases of allergies and asthma will continue to rise.

Prepare yourself for dirtier air. Climate change is expected to increase atmospheric ozone—widely known to lead to decreased lung function—up to ten parts per billion. Cases of asthma are expected to jump by up to 10 percent in urban areas such as New York City. Longer pollen seasons will lead to more air-based allergies, scientists say, and with increasing carbon dioxide, the pollen count could nearly double from 2000 levels.

Cities could become more dangerous than suburban areas.

Cities have become more attractive since 2000, owing mainly to the proximity of major conveniences. But there's a big downside. Natural disasters wrought by climate change—such as increased hurricanes and more severe storms—mean that any disruption could impact millions of people's lives. Only some cities have devised plans to deal with these events. Shutting down New York City's subway system and issuing advance evacuation orders to some parts of New York and New Jersey in advance of superstorm Sandy is thought to have saved thousands of homes and lives.

Keeping yourself informed is the best way to stay ahead. Knowledge is power and it isn't too late. For more updates on our Environment, visit http://www1.nationalgeographic.com/

Save our Seas!

Healthy coral reefs provide a living for about 275 million people – and ¾ of the world’s coral reefs are at risk due to factors such as overfishing, pollution and climate change.

According to studies made and compiled over the last 3 years by Reefs at Risk Revisited, the biggest threat is exploitative fishing. Another concern is that in 20 years’ time, most reefs will also be feeling the impact of climate change.
The report is compiled by a group of more than 20 research and conservation organisations, led by the World Resources Institute (WRI) in Washington DC, in the hopes sending a wake up call for policymakers, business leaders, ocean managers, and others about the urgent need for greater protection for coral reefs.

Local and global threats, are already having significant impacts on coral reefs, putting the future of these beautiful and valuable ecosystems at risk.

The upside is that there are measures that can be taken to protect at least some. One variable that must be changed in this equation is the way fishermen make use of the reefs. Half of those around the world are threatened by methods ranging from simply catching more than nature can replace to the use of extremely damaging fishing methods such as dynamite fishing to stun or kill them - which also blasts coral formations to smithereens. Educating those in this particular industry of less abrasive and acquisitive methods for fishing would help preserve the balance of the reefs.

Other major threats are pollution carried in rivers, coastal development, and climate change.

If climate projections turn into reality, then by 2030 roughly half of the world's reefs will experience bleaching in most years - rising to 95% during the 2050s. Coral polyps - the tiny reef-building creatures - live in partnership with algae that provide nutrition and give corals their colour. When the water gets too hot, the algae are expelled and the coral turns white. Although reefs can recover, the more often it happens, the more likely they are simply to die. In addition, the slow decrease in the pH of seawater as it absorbs more carbon dioxide - usually known as ocean acidification - will compromise coral's capacity to form the hard structures it needs.

Regionally, Southeast Asia is the worst affected region, with 95% of reefs on the threatened list. But in terms of the impact on human society, threat is only part of the equation; societies most affected by reef degradation would be those where the threats are high, where a big proportion of the population depends on reefs for their livelihood, and where people's capacity to adapt is low. Combining these criteria, the countries highest on the risk register are Comoros, Fiji, Haiti, Indonesia, Kiribati, Philippines, Tanzania and Vanuatu.

Once again, let us remember that hope springs eternal. Reefs are resilient; and by reducing the local pressures, we can help buy time to find solutions to global threats that can preserve reefs for future generations.

Research has shown for example, that allowing a diversity of life to flourish on a reef keeps it healthy and more resistant to rising water temperatures. Protecting important regions of sea would also be one obvious strategy.

On the other hand, circumstances have shown that more than 2,500 protected areas of reef, researchers concluded that even though over a quarter of the world's coral is nominally protected, only one-sixth of those areas offer good protection.

Nevertheless there remains to be real world examples, studies and further research made that have proven solutions – real world examples whereby people have succeeded in turning things around. If we don’t learn from these successes now while there is still time and resource, we may end up 5 decades into the future with most of our beautiful reefs replaces by eroding limestone, overgrown with algae and grazed merely by a variety of fish.

UN climate talks in Mexico hang in balance

Hopes have been raised of a possible breakthrough at the UN climate summit in Cancun as key talks enter the decisive final stage.

A draft text, being considered by delegates, looks to bridge differences that could scupper the talks. Earlier, prospects for a deal appeared to be receding, with nations clashing on future emission commitments.

Japan and Russia were opposed to further cuts under the Kyoto Protocol - a major demand of developing countries. There were also divisions over a proposed fund to help poor nations deal with climate impacts.

The latest draft document makes reference to a "second commitment period" of the Kyoto Protocol - a period in which countries in the protocol would make further emission cuts - without mandating that it will happen. The issue has caused major divisions between developing countries and Japan and Russia. However, it still needs to be accepted by the plenary of the 190-nation gathering.

The money wrangle concerned the proposed "Green Fund" - a vehicle that would gather and distribute funds running to perhaps $100bn (£63bn) per year by 2020. During overnight discussions into Friday morning, the US, EU and Japan stuck to their line that the World Bank must administer the fund. For developing countries, this was unacceptable, as they viewed the bank as a western-run institution.

The latest development, in which the World Bank will be invited to run the fund for an initial three-year period, seems to have won the support of many delegates and observers attending the summit.

Brazilian negotiator Luiz Figueiredo said Japan and Russia "accept this language, while before they didn't accept it", the AFP news agency reported.

The UK's Climate Secretary Chris Huhne warned that there was a "real danger" that the annual talks could become a "zombie process" if there was not a successful outcome.

The Sudanese negotiator suggested that it was too early to judge whether the draft document would succeed in delivering a deal at the talks being held in the Mexican resort. "At the first cut it shows some promise. But whether it amounts to something adequate to address the challenge is something we have to look at," Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping told BBC News.

As to whether it allowed Japan and Russia wriggle-room not to commit to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, he added: "That's a very serious question. We cannot have the [protocol] as an empty shell."

BBC environment correspondent Richard Black, reporting from the summit in Cancun, said the compromise text was a step forward but the talks were still likely to go down to the wire. "The new document is strong on acknowledging the scale of the problem, but does not commit parties to new measures to curb emissions," he observed. "It recognises that developed countries would need to cut their combined emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 in order to meet 1.5C or 2C targets - but does not say how it is to be done." He added that it "urged" Annex One countries (industrialised nations) to "raise the level of ambition" in order to meet the 25-40% threshold.

Some - especially the Latin American Alba bloc, spear-headed by Bolivia - also object to the Green Fund as currently conceived, because they believe western nations have a duty to pay up from the public purse, whereas the fund calls for money to be raised through levies on carbon trading, taxes on aviation, or other "innovative mechanisms".

Bolivia's hardline stance was not popular with all other developing countries, with Costa Rica saying the nation's delegation were "leading the process to delay the discussion".

Modest hopes for climate summit, as gas levels rise

"Keeping the show on the road" may be all governments can hope for at next week's UN climate talks, the UK admits.

Energy and Climate Secretary Chris Huhne said there was no chance of getting a legally binding deal at the summit in Cancun, Mexico.

The aim, he said, should be to get "within shouting distance".

Meanwhile, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released data showing that greenhouse gas levels continued their rise through 2009.

It follows publication of a scientific paper at the weekend suggesting that without new constraints, global carbon emissions will re-commence rising at 2-3% per year, following a brief lull caused by the recession.

And on Tuesday, the UN Environment Programme (Unep) said pledges that countries had made on constraining emissions were not enough to keep the global temperature rise within limits that most countries say they want - either 2C or 1.5C since pre-industrial times.

"We want to see progress [in Cancun] - we don't want to see a shambles that involves lots of name-calling," said Mr Huhne.

"If we don't get peaking of [global] emissions by 2020, the prospects for the people on the planet are looking pretty bleak, so we really do have to make progress on this."

Realistically, the government believes, progress could be made on issues such as reducing deforestation, financial pledges and bringing the unilateral carbon-cutting pledges that countries unveiled at Copenhagen into the UN framework so they can be properly analysed.

Western countries are equally keen to pursue the place that private finance and the business sector can play in leading the transition to a low-carbon global society.

But the Secretary of State was downbeat about how much progress was possible given the legacy of last year's Copenhagen summit, the domestic concerns of a few key countries including the US and China, and the differing demands of various negotiating blocs.

"We're clearly not expecting a final agreement at Cancun; but our objective is to ensure we re-invigorate the whole UN climate convention (UNFCCC) process and manage to get a new sense of momentum, with the ambition of reaching full agreement [at the summit] in South Africa next year," he said.

However, even that may not be possible, officials acknowledged, unless important countries can find a way to reconcile their domestic political problems with the demands of other nations.

The US Senate is extremely unlikely to ratify any UN climate deal, meaning that prospects of the world's second largest greenhouse gas emitter signing up to anything that other countries would consider legally binding is remote.

US officials - and their Canadian counterparts - are now talking openly about the possibility of a "Plan B" if Cancun does not move in the direction they want.

Among developing nations, China in particular has railed against demands from the West - and from Japan - that it must agree measures enabling its carbon-constraining performance to be monitored and verified.

The UK was encouraged by a recent Indian proposal to put international verification under the auspices of the UN climate convention.

But the US appears to be growing as an obstacle, with campaigners acknowledging privately that the balance of power in Congress is likely to become even less favourable to carbon-cutting legislation after the next round of elections in 2012.

Warming and wetting

The WMO data, meanwhile, confirms that atmospheric concentrations of the three gases principally responsible for the man-made component of the greenhouse effect - carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide - all rose during 2009.

The agency highlighted the rise in methane emissions, which it says is probably due to higher than average emissions from wetlands around the Arctic and in the tropics, both related to weather conditions.

Heightened methane emission from wetlands and permafrost has regularly been touted as a potential amplifying factor in climate change, with warmer weather stimulating their release and so producing further warming.

"Greenhouse gas concentrations have reached record levels despite the economic slowdown," observed WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud. "Potential methane release from northern permafrost, and wetlands, under future climate change is of great concern, and is becoming a focus of intensive research and observations."

Why Cool It, a Film about the Self-Proclaimed "Skeptical Environmentalist," Is a Must-See

The new movie featuring the economist Bjorn Lomborg, who has been a thorn in the side of climate change activists since his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist," is provocative – and not just for the sake of being provocative.

On November 12, the cinemas will start screening Cool It!, a documentary about Lomborg and his contrarian ideas about climate change. Odds are that the runaway train will put more butts in the seats than musings about runaway climate change. No matter. "Cool It!" is not a bad film in an "Inconvenient Truth" sort of way. Like "Inconvenient Truth," "Cool It!" tries to humanize its protagonist by taking a look at his early years - Lomborg laughingly recalling how he angered his stepfather when he dug up the family garden for an experiment, sort of like Gore in his movie sheepishly recalling the time he crashed the family car.

The film could have been an ego trip, and at times, it meanders close to the edge of that cliff, but pulls back sufficiently to focus on what we need to know about Lomborg's ideas and on the work of experts exploring alternative energy technologies, climate change adaptation, and geo-engineering.

Lomborg has long been a bete noire of the green movement, likely because he accepts the reality of human-caused climate change but rejects conventional thinking about fixing the problem. There's nothing that sets off a tribe more than a member of the tribe who likes to pick fights with the family, like the roguish cousin who stirs the pot around the turkey every Thanksgiving.

Unlike a James Inhofe or a Rush Limbaugh, outsiders who are easy to dismiss because of their buffoonish tirades about climate change hoaxes and scientists plotting world domination, Lomborg is not so easily brushed off. Unlike Inhofe and Limbaugh, he has actually thought about this stuff in depth. Too often, he says, the climate change debate has devolved into shouting between two extremes - one proclaiming imminent apocalypse, the other painting sugar-plum fantasies of a greening earth. Better to chart a middle way.

Not that Lomborg's ideas don't have holes in them. They do, but any plan for cracking a nut as rock-hard as climate change will have holes in it. More about that in a bit.

The chronically casual Lomborg - has he ever worn a long-sleeved shirt in his life? - was on hand at a private screening in Seattle last week. During the post-screening Q&A, Lomborg answered questions matter-of-factly in streams-of-consciousness that layered on details and minimized spin and self-referential bloviation. He graciously acknowledged some pointed criticism that the film went overboard in making an argument that individual steps taken now - changing out inefficient lighting, for example - are of little consequence in the broad scheme of things.

So what are the particulars of Bjorn's argument? He asserts that climate activists have wasted time scaring people about climate change. Public campaigns like Earth Hour - everyone turn off your lights for one hour - are feel-good exercises that amount to a whole lotta nothin'. Politicians' promises to cut emissions significantly have come to little. Even if they had, they would have cost too much and yielded too little.

Lomborg says a better approach would be pouring money into R&D to drive down the costs of solar energy, ocean wave power, 4th generation nukes, and biofuels produced from non-edible feedstocks, so that they can compete with oil and coal. Spend money on the unavoidable need to adapt to climate change already in the pipeline - better sea walls, for example. And - many greens hate this - put some dollars into R&D for geo-engineering, just in case climate change takes off at frightening speeds, sort of like Denzel Washington's freight train.

The annual budget for his work program - $250 billion. Spend $100 billion on energy R&D and another $50 billion on adaptation. Spend another $99 billion on development basics for poor countries - clean water, education, and health care - human needs that are immediate and acute. The remaining $1 billion from the kitty would be earmarked for geo-engineering research.

Where to get the money? Charge a carbon tax of $7 per metric ton. Where to get the political will to carry out the plan? That's the question that Lomborg hasn't answered effectively. He makes a moral case for his proposal, which is well and good, but moral cases often don't get money appropriated for big projects in the absence of a compelling driver that is immediately obvious to one and all, even to knuckleheads like Sarah Palin.

For example: Lincoln got the Transcontinental Railroad built as a way to bind up a country in mortal danger of flying apart. FDR spared no expense on the Manhattan Project because the specter of Hitler's Luftwaffe armed with nukes was terrifying. We went to the moon because we feared that a chortling Khrushchev would use space as a platform to flick hydrogen bombs onto the USA anytime he fancied.

Many believe that climate change is just that sort of driver. Many, however, do not. We must change that and/or identify other drivers. And, Lomborg's argument that R&D alone will push cleaner energy sources into the market, in the absence of market signals that tell the truth about carbon pollution costs, is not entirely convincing.
Still, Lomborg has raised some provocative ideas that have added spice to a global debate that has been stuck in neutral since the Copenhagen belly flop last year. He's worth listening to.

Greens should go see "Cool It!" next month. They might find that the skeptical environmentalist doesn't have horns and a tail after all.

Australia corals to light up cancer cure fight

Australian scientists have discovered a cluster of brilliant shallow-water corals that could help in the search for anti-cancer drugs and to understand global warming, a researcher said Saturday.

The vividly fluorescent cluster was found in waters off Lord Howe Island, 600 kilometres (400 miles) east of the Australian mainland, with some displaying rich reds that were difficult to find and in high demand for studies of cancer cells, researcher Anya Salih said.

"The underwater buttresses and caverns are densely inhabited by hundreds of corals, all deeply pigmented by the most intense green, blue and many with red fluorescence," she said.

Salih said she had never seen such an abundance of highly red fluorescent corals, nor such an extraordinarily vibrant site.

"We are using these pigments to light up the workings of living cells and to study what goes wrong in cancer cells," said Salih, from the University of Western Sydney.

The gene producing the particular pigment -- red, green, blue or yellow -- would be attached to a molecule in both healthy and cancerous cells, and would enable scientists to track cell growth and change using a special fluorescent-sensitive laser microscope.

Salih is working with scientists from the University of California to explore how cancer cells differ from normal cells and how effective anti-cancer drugs are. She said red pigments were especially valuable because they allowed researchers to see deeper into tissues.

"These fluorescent molecules are transforming cell science and biomedical research," said Salih.

The corals were discovered by scientists tracking the recovery of coral bleaching linked to global warming at Lord Howe Island, and Salih said they were invaluable not only for her research but for understanding climate change.

"Earlier this year, the coral reefs of Lord Howe Island experienced a sudden mass bleaching event caused by warming of seawater. It's a sign that global warming is beginning to be a threat to coral survival even to the most southern reefs in Australia," she said.

But the fluorescent corals had been much less damaged by the bleaching, lending "support to the hypothesis that fluorescence can provide some level of protection to corals from temperature stresses due to climate change."

"Coral fluorescence is proving to be incredibly important in the biology of coral reefs and their ability to survive stressful conditions," she said.

Climate change will increase number of heart deaths

Climate change means a lot more than just rising water levels and the fact that we have to adjust to warmer weather. There is a lot more at stake, and now a new study shows that climate change will increase our health quite extremely.

Many more people will die of heart problems as global warming continues, experts are warning. Cllmate extremes of hot and cold will become more common and this will puts strain on people's hearts, doctors say. A study in the British Medical Journal found that each 1C temperature drop on a single day in the UK is linked to 200 extra heart attacks.

Heatwaves, meanwhile, increase heart deaths from other causes, as shown by the events in Paris during summer 2003. Over 11,000 people died in France's heatwave in the first half of August of that year when temperatures rose to over 40C. Many of these were sudden cardiac deaths related to heart conditions other than heart attack. That same summer, record-breaking temperatures led to 2,000 excess deaths in the UK. And experts predict that by the 2080s events similar to these will happen every year. The risks posed by extreme spells of hot and cold are largely within two weeks of exposure and are greatest for the most frail - the elderly and those with heart problems already, say experts.

Fight Climate Change with Diet Change

Global warming is one of the world's greatest challenges at the moment and according to scientists one of the most effective ways to fight global warming is to become vegetarian.

A UN report found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined.Greenhouse gases cause global warming, which studies show will increasingly lead to catastrophic disasters-like droughts, floods, hurricanes, rising sea levels, and disease outbreaks - unless we drastically reduce the amounts emitted into the atmosphere.

The official handbook for the Live Earth concerts says that "refusing meat"
is the "single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. Studies have shown that if every American replaced one meal of chicken per week with vegetarian foods, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than a half-million cars off the roads. According to The University of Chicago that becoming a vegetarian is 50% more effective than switching to a hybrid car in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Did you know that eating half a kilo of meat emits just as much greenhouse gas as driving an SUV for 65 kilometers??

We Can Help Stop Global Warming Today

The most effective way to fight the global warming crisis is to stop eating meat, eggs, and dairy products. However for a meat lover like myself becoming a vegetarian might be a big task. So for now I will incorporate 2 meat free days pr week in my lifestyle. And well, if we all do that it will have a huge impact on our environment and the future of our Mother Earth.

Anyone want to join me on my quest to save the planet??

Important read.

The world's eco-systems are at risk of "rapid degradation and collapse." That’s among the grim findings of a new United Nations (UN) report.The third Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-3) published by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) warns that unless "radical and creative action" is taken quickly " the variety of life on Earth, natural systems that support lives and livelihoods are at risk of collapsing.”

Based on more than 100 national reports and future scenarios for biodiversity, GBO-3 shows that world leaders failed to deliver on their commitment to reduce the global rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.The five main pressures directly causing biodiversity loss: habitat change, over-exploitation, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change.

The report also finds these stresses on the environment are either constant or increasing in intensity.Vertebrate species fell by nearly one third between 1970 and 2006, natural habitats are in decline, genetic diversity of crops is falling and 60 breeds of livestock have become extinct since 2000.“Business as usual is no longer an option if we are to avoid irreversible damage to the life-support systems of our planet,” said Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, calling the report “a wake-up call for humanity.”The Economics of EnvironmentalismThe authors of the GBO-3 report argue that for a mere fraction of the money summoned up instantly by the world’s governments to mitigate the economic crisis, the serious and fundamental breakdown in the Earth’s life support systems could have been avoided.“Many economies remain blind to the huge value of the diversity of animals, plants and other life forms and their role in healthy and functioning ecosystems from forests and freshwaters to soils, oceans and even the atmosphere,” said Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP.“To tackle the root causes of biodiversity loss, we must give it higher priority in all areas of decision-making and in all economic sectors,” says UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.In remarks made in February, Ki-Moon argued the Earth’s eco-systems are our “natural capitol” and protecting them is really a bottom line issue. In fact, a UN-backed study estimates that loss of natural capital due to deforestation and land degradation alone stands at between $2 trillion and $4.5 trillion each year.“Too often environmental protection is seen as conflicting with economic protection. In fact they are two sides of the same coin.

All over the world, ecosystem services are a massive undervalued subsidy provided by the environment. When we lose these services through mismanagement, crops fail, profits drop, people become poorer, economies suffer,” said Ki-Moon.

Alternative climate summit in Bolivia

Environmental activists, indigenous leaders and Hollywood celebrities are gathering in Bolivia ahead of a self-styled global people's conference on climate change starting Tuesday. Thousands of attendees intend to highlight the plight of the world's poorest who they argue were largely ignored at the official United Nations sponsored summit in Copenhagen last December.

Critics say that the deal will not avert catastrophe and the "People's World Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth Rights," which runs through Thursday, aims to draft new proposals for consideration at the next UN meeting in Mexico at the end of the year. Bolivia's UN ambassador, Pablo Solon, said the conference, which is expected to be attended by 18,000 people, is "the only way to get the climate change talks back on the track".

Developing nations have resisted a legally binding climate treaty, arguing that wealthy nations must bear the primary responsibility for climate change. Nearly 130 countries, including many of the world's poorest, will be represented at the Cochabamba conference, which symbolically reaches its climax on Earth Day. The conference will seek to refine proposals presented by Morales in Copenhagen that included the creation of a world tribunal for climate issues and a global referendum on environmental choices. Presidents Chavez and Morales were among the harshest critics of the December 2009 Copenhagen conference, arguing that developing countries were largely ignored in the debates. The conference begins the day after representatives from the world's leading economies gathered in Washington for a preparatory meeting ahead of the December UN summit in Cancun.

The US-led Major Economies Forum comprises 17 countries responsible for the bulk of global emissions and excludes smaller nations such as Sudan whose firebrand negotiators held up sessions at December's Copenhagen summit. Washington hopes the closed-door talks will allow key nations to quietly assess what they can achieve heading into the next major climate summit in December in Cancun.

Well, after the outcome of last year's summit in Copenhagen, let's see what will be achieved from this one. Heh. Hmmmmmm....

Rice Husks Concrete?

Concrete made from rice husk and coal ash waste is being developed in a scheme to tackle climate change.

Traditional methods of concrete production release large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere so British and Indian researchers are working together on the scheme to cut the carbon footprint of concrete. The scale of the problems facing infrastructure development in India and the UK means that collaboration between a number of institutions is the only way to reach their goals. The researchers have been working as part of a UK-India Education & Research Initiative (UKIERI) project, led by the University of Dundee. A major component of traditional concrete is Portland cement but for every tonne of cement produced about one tonne of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. As a result concrete production amounts to approximately 5% of global CO2 emissions.

Concrete is the second most used material in the world after water, and so reducing the CO2 emissions produced by it could make a real difference to climate change. Rice husk is already used as a fuel in the boilers for the processing of paddy and for power generation. The ash of the rice husk (rice husk ash or RHA for short) is used as a super-pozzolan to make special concrete mixers. There are many uses for this RHA, such as green concrete, ceramic glaze, oil-spill absorbent, insulator, flame retardants, insecticide, bio-fertilizers and more.

I didn't know rice is super useful man! It's waste has more uses than human waste. Maybe we should make more studies on our waste (poo) to see what else we can use it for :) Well cow dung is used as a source of fuel..

Tip of the day: Have a quick or navy shower to save water. It is the
no.1 used material in the world so please save water and it is still wasted everyday! Or you can shower together with your partner. It helps saves water. Whatever works for you ;)

Counting down to Earth Hour - Less is More?

New Delhi will join 91 other countries in switching off their lights on the 27th of March at 830pm across the globe.

The Capital managed to save 700 megawatts (MW) during last year's Earth Hour. Monuments, government buildings, residential and commercial establishments switched off non-essential lights for an hour to save energy. Because of the success of last year's Earth Hour, Delhi's government decided to hold their own Earth Hour on the last Friday of every month. So when they started doing it monthly, the popularity of it dropped. With the enthusiasm dipping both for the campaign strength and the public response,the government has decided to keep it simple, and annual.

Hmmmmm.. so people, what do you guys think about "Delhi's experiment"? Are people doing the Earth Hour cos it's cool? Or do you think they really care? I mean, if it's non-essential lights, it's non-essential right? So why is it hard for people to actually save electricity every day? Is it like a chore to them? I understand the need for street lamps but buildings? Maybe for starters they slowly cut down the electricity usage by a quarter then half and so on. You know, like cold turkey hehe..Don't people miss the darkness of night? I know I do..

Tip of the day: REMEMBER TO OFF THE MAIN SWITCH WHEN NOT IN USE AND WHEN LEAVING THE HOUSE. Don't just wait for Earth Hour, start now..

Still arguing over Climate Change

Why is it so hard for people to accept that we humans are to be blamed for the mess we've caused? Isn't it typical of us human to not accept blame or push it to someone else?

So there's a new article that came out today stating that human impact on the climate change is more clearer. The Met, Britain's national weather service, says a new review of 110 research papers written and researched during the last 3 years shows "evidence has strengthened for human influence on climate" according to a BBC news report.

What makes the new review by the Met more credible, according to its authors, is the broad view it takes of the world's weather and it's eco-systems. A separate research has shown that Methane is possibly a bigger threat to the Earth's delicate environment than previously thought. Methane, which is a potent global warming gas, is bubbling out of the Arctic ice faster than expected, thanks to a warming climate. This was reported in Friday's edition of the journal Science. "The amount of methane coming out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is comparable to the amount coming out of the entire world's oceans" said Natalie Shakhova, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks International Arctic Research Center and co-author.

Concerns about global warming have centered on rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but scientists note that methane can be 30 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. But this DOES NOT mean that we can use this to our advantage and continue our increase in carbon dioxide ok people! Maybe the skeptics should sit in a room full of smog and see whether they can last in there and come out feeling good..

Tip of the day: Instead of using a treadmill, go out and jog in the park. Rather than breathing in used and recycled air in the gym, enjoy the air, which is cleaned up naturally by the plants, in the park :) You'll save as well :)

I found this article that might help non-believers change their minds

IT IS an ''increasingly remote possibility'' that human activity is not the main cause of climate change, concludes a review of more than 100 scientific studies that have tracked observed changes in the Earth's climate system.

The research will strengthen the case for human-induced climate change against the viewpoints of sceptics who argue the observed changes in the Earth's climate can largely be explained by natural variability.

Climate scientists and the UN's climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have come under intense pressure in recent months after the panel was forced to admit it had made two errors in its fourth assessment report, published in 2007. Asked whether his study was specifically scheduled as a fightback, Peter Stott, who led the review for Britain's Meteorological Office, said the paper was drafted a year ago.

But he added: "I hope people will look at that evidence and make up their minds." Scientists matched computer models of possible causes of climate change, both human-led and otherwise, to measured changes in factors such as air and sea temperature, Arctic sea ice cover and global rainfall patterns. This technique, called optimal detection, showed clear fingerprints of human-induced global warming, Dr Stott said. The review, published in Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, finds the natural causes of climate variation, including changing energy output from the sun and volcanic eruptions, cannot alone explain the observed changes.

''There hasn't been an increase in solar output for the last 50 years and solar output would not have caused the cooling of the higher atmosphere and the warming of the lower atmosphere we have seen,'' the review said.

Evidence that the climate system is changing goes beyond measured air temperatures, with much in the fresh body of facts relating to the oceans. ''Over 80 per cent of the heat that's trapped in the climate system as a result of the greenhouse gases is exported into the ocean and we can see that happening,'' Dr Stott said.

Arctic sea ice is also retreating: the summer minimum of sea ice is declining at a rate of 600,000 square kilometres a decade. Rainfall is increasing in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere and in large parts of the southern hemisphere, while in the tropics and sub-tropics there are decreases. ''The already wet regions are getting wetter and the dry regions are getting drier,'' Dr Stott said.
If the observed climate change were entirely due to solar activity, the Earth's atmosphere would have warmed more evenly, and the troposphere and stratosphere would have been affected.

~ GUARDIAN

Tip of the Day: For mums :) Reuse the jar of your baby food. You can use it to store your self-made pureed fruits for your baby :)

Don't you feel it or see it?

I read an article online that a survey done on 1001 adults (in the U.K) showed people who are sceptical on the climate change is on the rise.

25% of the people who took part in the poll said that they did not believe that climate change is happening, that is an increase of 10%. 75% said that climate change was happening, a drop from 83%, and 26% of those said that they believe its happening and is mainly caused by us human beings. More people are sceptical about man's contribution to climate change than firm believers. One in three of the 75% even say that living in warming world has been exaggerated.

Has the truth really been stretched? Has Mother Nature not given us enough signs that we are slowly causing her death? Do you think that what we've been doing on Earth, which is all for our own convenience, a natural process? As they say, Ignorance Is Bliss.

Tip of the Day: I want a nice, healthy environment for my son and grandkids (if ever and still a long long way to go). Don't you?
Maybe we should all sit back and think whether we humans are causing the death of the world or not..

Ed Miliband declares war on climate change sceptics

Climate secretary Ed Miliband warns against listening to 'siren voices', in an interview with the Observer (UK).

The climate secretary, Ed Miliband, last night warned of the danger of a public backlash against the science of global warming in the face of continuing claims that experts have manipulated data. In an exclusive interview with the Observer, Miliband spoke out for the first time about last month's revelations that climate scientists had withheld and covered up information and the apology made by the influential UN climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which admitted it had exaggerated claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

The perceived failure of global talks on combating climate change in Copenhagen last month has also been blamed for undermining public support. But in the government's first high-level recognition of the growing pressure on public opinion, Miliband declared a "battle" against the "siren voices" who denied global warming was real or caused by humans, or that there was a need to cut carbon emissions to tackle it.

"It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there," he said.

"We know there's a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures, that's a question of physics; we know CO2 concentrations are at their highest for 6,000 years; we know there are observed increases in temperatures; and we know there are observed effects that point to the existence of human-made climate change. That's what the vast majority of scientists tell us."

Mistakes and attempts to hide contradictory data had to be seen in the light of the thousands of pages of evidence in the IPCC's four-volume report in 2007, said Miliband. The most recent accusation about the panel's work is that its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, may have known before the Copenhagen summit that its assessment report had seriously exaggerated the rate of melting of the Himalayan glaciers.

However, Miliband was adamant that the IPCC was on the right track. "It's worth saying that no doubt when the next report comes out it will suggest there have been areas where things have been happening more dramatically than the 2007 report implied," he said.

The danger of climate scepticism was that it would undermine public support for unpopular decisions needed to curb carbon emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households, and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines, said Miliband, who is also energy secretary.

If the UK did not invest in renewable, clean energy, it would lose jobs and investment to other countries, have less energy security because of the dependence on oil and gas imports and contribute to damaging temperature rises for future generations. "There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous," he said. "Every­thing we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle; to take what the sceptics say seriously would be a profound risk."

The Copenhagen conference in December ended with no formal agreement to make deep cuts in global emissions, or even set a timetable, but Miliband warned activists against "despair".

The UN conference was a "disappointment", he said, but there were important achievements, including the agreement by countries responsible for 80% of emissions to set domestic carbon targets by today. "There's a message for people who take these things seriously: don't mourn, organise," said Miliband, who has previously called for a Make Poverty History-style mass public campaign to pressure politicians into cutting emissions.

Lord Smith, the Environment Agency chairman, said: "The [Himalayan] glaciers may not melt by 2035, but they are melting and there's a serious problem that's going to affect substantial parts of Asia over the course of the next 100 or more years."

The greatest threat of the 21st century: not AGW but Eco-Fascism

This is Peter Spencer, he’s a farmer in New South Wales, and his livelihood has been stolen by the Australian government in the name of – you guessed it – “combatting climate change.”

That’s why he is now sitting atop that windblown tower you see in the photograph, on sheep farmland rendered useless by eco-legislation, starving himself to death in protest at his government’s callous disregard for his property rights. This is his 46th day on hunger strike.

Jo Nova from the Telegraph (UK) has been following the story closely. Here’s the eco-political background:

As a part of Australia’s commitment to protect native vegetation and to reduce carbon emissions under the Kyoto protocol, Peter Spencer and thousands of farmers like him, have been subjected to a government imposed ban on land clearing.

The saved trees are natural carbon sinks worth an estimated $10.8 billion to the government in reduced carbon emissions, should Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme go ahead. But the farmers, who can no longer develop this land have received no compensation.

Peter Spencer is among the victims of this legalised theft. He first told his story here in 2006.

In recent decades, thousands of farms have become economically marginal and have gone out of business. What is not widely known is that this “marginality” has often been the result not of market forces but of government regulation. In particular, governments in pursuit of urban green votes have imposed a vast range of devastating new costs on farmers.

My farm is probably one of the worst affected in Australia, so I can speak about this with some knowledge. “Saarahnlee” is at Shannons Flat in NSW. Our northern boundary fence is the southern boundary of the ACT and its Namadgi National Park.

The farm consists of about 14,000 acres, about 60 per cent of which was cleared before World War II. When I bought it in the 1980s, I had been working overseas to earn the money to buy the place. Unfortunately, I was unable to farm it for some time so extensive regrowth occurred. When I returned to Australia to begin to farm, I found that various laws to preserve native vegetation had been enacted in the meantime, and I was unable to “reclear” the land.

I could have applied for permission to clear, but not only was it unlikely this would have been granted, at that time it would have cost us over $300,000 merely to prepare the necessary farm plan. This was because of the number of different ecosystems present due to the 900 metre altitude variation on the property. There would have been no refund if the plan was rejected. It should be pointed out that under the just-released regulations (December 1, 2005) this cost would now be paid by the relevant department.

The result was that I was left with only 800 acres to farm: not nearly enough to live off and a financial catastrophe. The bank foreclosed on our mortgage and at the moment we are barely hanging on, thanks to the help of our extended families.

I protested to the state government and was told nothing could be done. Our plight has received extensive publicity and it’s worth putting on the record that I haven’t received one message of sympathy from any environmentalist. It appears the Green movement is prepared to destroy the property rights of despised groups such as farmers and devastate their lives in order to achieve its ends.

The rest of the article shows that Peter Spencer was no whingeing slouch. As Jo Nova reports, he really did try everything before resorting to his final, desperate pass.

After the land-clearing laws came into effect, Peter paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to set up ponds for trout fishing. But new water laws ended that too (and also without compensation). Tenaciously Peter then set up a fine-wool breeding program, but the bushfires of 2003 (that destroyed 500 homes in Canberra, and native forest near Peter) meant that hundreds of wild dogs were forced out of burnt areas. They over-ran his property, killing hundreds of sheep.

Spencer gave a moving interview on ABC radio’s Counterpoint programme.


Every one of my projects is destroyed, every one of my…it’s just disgraceful, Michael, I just feel sick. I was just thinking last night, I can remember going off to court, day after day, sometimes the last eight or nine weeks I would come back, spend one night [unclear], change all my files, back to Sydney again. I spent nearly five weeks there non-stop the last two months. And I’d watch sheep dying in the paddock and I couldn’t go round and shoot them because I had nobody left to help me. I had to let them die on their own, just kicking and struggling because they couldn’t stand up anymore, nothing to feed them with, it was just unbelievable.

One of Spencer’s neighbours wrote to an Australian senator, describing the kind of man Spencer is:

I have known Peter since 1989 when I became one of the Spencer Family’s next door neighbours and the two families spent a lot of time together especially the children as living 42 kilometers from the nearest town..

In those days Peter spent a lot of time in the highlands of Papua New Guinea as he had various… tourism accommodation type businesses and had been operating them for 10-15 years prior to us knowing him. Peter is/was accepted as a Chief in one of the Highland Tribes in Papua New Guinea and has been known to be called in by the then Papua New Guinea Government to negotiate peace between the two… fighting tribes putting his own life on the line in these situations but coming out with very positive results. In 1996/97 there was a riot at his Hotel in Mt Hagan where rascals tried to rob and burn his Hotel, Peter was taken captive and placed on his knees with hands tied behind his back and a gun placed at his head, fortunately for Peter the gun misfired and in the rascals confusion he was able to escape.

Peter Spencer is an example to us all. I’m not suggesting we all go on hunger strike but we ought surely to emulate his clear-eyed courage in facing up to the greatest menace of our age. That menace is not, of course, the illusory threat of AGW which our governments so cheerfully use to fleece us and impose control of over us. That menace is eco-fascism. It’s real, it’s terrifying and it’s time we fought back.

I agree with Gerald Warner. The only way to get our message across that we’re sick to the craw of Green lies, Green taxes, and Green tyranny is to punish all the mainstream parties – and that very much includes Cameron’s Green Conservatives – at the polls.

Apes 'threatened by climate change'

Some species of monkeys and apes are in danger of being wiped out by global warming, say scientists. A new study suggests that many of the animals will not survive if temperatures around the world rise by just 2C.

Those that cannot adapt could be driven to extinction, experts warn. The species most at risk are the already endangered gorillas and colobine monkeys, say the British researchers.

The study, published online in the journal Animal Behaviour, pinpoints which primates are are most threatened by climate change. Old World populations in Africa will be hardest hit, especially species such as colobines whose diets are mainly leaf-based, the scientists predict.

New World monkeys in South America are much less likely to be affected by a rise of 2C in average global temperature. However, they would not be spared if temperatures rose by 4C, causing their habitats to become fragmented.

The researchers coupled climate models with an analysis of behaviour, diet and group size of different primate species across the world. African monkeys and apes with leafy diets are vulnerable because their habitats are so restricted, being confined to a narrow region of the equator. Fruit-eating species such as the baboons and guenon monkeys of Africa typically have a much wider latitudinal range and could cope with more variable climatic conditions.

A bit of humour for you :)

Award winning stand-up comedian Jon Richardson gets hot and bothered about living with climate change....