Commissioners
Mr. Aubra Anthony, Forestry
1501 North Jefferson
El Dorado, Arkansas 71730
(870) 862‐3414, aanthony@anthonyforest.com
Pres & CEO of Anthony Forest Products Co.
Mr. Nick Brown, Public Energy
4907 North Lookout
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
(501) 614‐3213, nbrown@spp.org
Formerly with Forest Stewardship Council, worked for World Wildlife Fed.
Rep. Joan Cash, At Large
1301 Thrush Road
Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401
(870) 802‐0406, jcash@ritternet.com
Rep in Ark legislature.
Mr. Steve Cousins, Ark Chamber of Commerce
1000 McHenry, PO Bo x7005
El Dorado, Arkansas 71731
(870) 864‐1120, Steve.cousins@lionoil.com
Chair of Ark Chamber of Commerce.
Dr. Jerry Farris, Scientist
3613 Alabama Road
Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401
(870) 933‐8295, jlfarris@astate.edu
9. Aquatic toxicologist at Ark State Univ, Jonesboro.
Mr. Rob Fisher, At Large
4319 North Lookout Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
(501) 372‐7895, fisher@ecoconservation.org
Hydro-biologist.
Dr. Richard Ford, Economist
17000 Lawson Road
Little Rock, Arkansas 72210
(501) 821‐1700, rkford@ualr.edu
Economist at UALR, Pres of UALR Gen Assembly.
Mr. Miles Goggans, Agriculture
16 Greathouse Bend
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
(501) 374‐9500, mmg@goggansinc.com
Former chief of staff for Sen. David Pryor.
Dr. Art Hobson, Scientist
525 North Olive
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
(479) 575‐5918, ahobson@uark.edu
Physicist, UA Fayetteville
Mr. Kevan Inboden, Municipal Energy
Post Office Box 1289
Jonesboro, Arkansas 72403
(870) 930-3325, kinboden@jonesborocwl.org
Mr. Christopher Ladner, Sustainable Energy Construction
2919 Shenandoah Valley Drive, Suite 701
Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
(501) 661‐0621, chris.ladner@ecointegration.net
Green Building Council representative.
Dr. Elizabeth (Betty) Martin, Union (AFL-CIO)
2825 East Weston Place
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
(479) 575‐5840, plantvirology@cox.net
Biological & agricultural engineering. Fayetteville. Plant Pathology.
Dr. Robert McAfee, Climatologist
2610 West Hackett Road
Hackett, Arkansas 72937
(479) 638‐8371, robertmca1@aol.com
An Al Gore trainee.
Mr. Bill Reed, House Appointee
P.O. Bo x927
Stuttgart, Arkansas 72160
(870) 673‐5212, breed@riceland.com
CEO of Riceland Corp
Dr. Cindy Sagers, Environmental Nonprofit
435 North Olive
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
(479) 575‐5547, csagers@uark.edu
UA Dept of biology, former chair of Sierra Club's Ozark Headwaters group.
Mr. Jeffrey Short, Environmental Nonprofit
122 Riverpark Drive
Malvern, Arkansas 72104
(501) 337‐7107, bashman@earthlink.net
Retired AF Colonel, scientist, biologist, organic farmer.
Mr. Hugh McDonald, Industry
HMCDONA@entergy.com
CEO of Entergy Arkansas
Mr. Kevin Smith, Ark Senate appointee
135 Waverly Wood Drive
Helena, AR 72342
(870)816-5122, kasmith@suddenlinkmail.com
Former state senator, did the Al Gore training.
Mr. Gary Voigt, Environmental Nonprofit
23871 North Cold Springs Road
Paron, Arkansas 72122
(501) 570‐2260, g.voigt@aecc.com ,
Works for the Rural Elect Coops.
Rep. Kathy Webb, House Appointee.
14 Pilot Point Place
Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 412‐6443, kathy@lillysdimsum.com
State Representative, co-chair of GW Commission.
Commission Advisory Body
Mr. Richard Bell
Arkansas Agriculture Department
1 Natural Resources Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
(501) 683‐4851, richard.bell@aad.ar.gov
Mr. Lawrence Bengal
Oil and Gas Commission
301 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 102
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
(501) 683‐5816, larry.bengal@aogc.state.ar.us
Mr. John Bethel
Public Service Commission
P.O. Bo x400, 1000 Center Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203‐0400
(501) 682‐2051, john_bethel@psc.state.ar.us
Mr. Richard Davies
Parks and Tourism
One Capitol Mall
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 682‐7777, Richard.davies@arkansas.gov
Ms. Maria Haley
Economic Development
One Capitol Mall, Fourth Floor
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 682‐2124, m.haley@1800arkansas.com
Ms. Nancy Ledbetter *
Game and Fish Commission
#2 Natural Resources Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
(501) 223‐6318, nledbetter@agfc.state.ar.us
Mr. Lynn Malbrough *
Highway and Transportation
10324 Interstate 30, P.O. Box 2261
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203‐2261
(501) 569‐2000, lynn.malbrough@arkansashighways.com
Ms. Teresa Marks
Department of Environmental Quality
5301 North Shore Drive
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72218
(501) 682‐0959, marks@adeq.state.ar.us
Mr. John Shannon
Forestry Commission
3821 West Roosevelt Road
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 296‐1941, john.shannon@mail.state.ar.us
Mr. Randy Young
Natural Resources Commission
101 East Capitol Avenue, Suite 350
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 682‐3961, randy.young@arkansas.gov
*designee
Friday, July 11, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Japanese prove that one can leave his carbon footprint at the door
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121546455572133635-lMyQjAxMDI4MTA1ODQwNjg0Wj.html
>
>
>
> Leave Your Carbon Footprint at the Door
>
> Japanese Model Home Touts
>
> Eco-Gadgets for G-8 Summit;
>
> Air-Washing the Laundry
>
> By LISA THOMAS
>
> July 8, 2008; Page D1
>
> As leaders of the world's most powerful nations discuss climate change at the Group of Eight summit in northern Japan, Japan's big tech companies are displaying some of their most cutting-edge solutions in a nearby "zero emissions house."
>
> The single-story, 2,152-square-foot house generates all the energy required for a family of four, therefore eliminating carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the Japanese government. Products inside, many already on sale in Japan, include a washer that requires no water and an air conditioner that senses where people are in a room and automatically sends cool air in their direction rather than cooling empty space. Yet the eco-friendly products also carry a steeper price tag than traditional appliances.
>
> The house uses a wind-turbine generator and a photovoltaic generation system, which directly converts light into electricity, to produce about 15 kilowatts of energy a day, nearly five times the amount used by a regular household. The government has presented the house as one of its contributions toward helping the world cut greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.
>
> The zero-emissions house is an attempt by Japan's big tech companies to showcase their recent and growing focus on environmental technologies as a future area of growth.
>
>
>
>
> Sanyo Electric
>
>
> This washing machine made by Sanyo Electric Co. uses air to clean clothes instead of water.
>
>
> The waterless washer is Sanyo Electric Co.'s latest Aqua washer/dryer, a three-in-one machine that uses high-powered air, or ozone, to wash clothes without a single drop of water. The process of "ozonation" -- which disinfects bacteria on contact -- can air-wash clothes, removing about 80% of biodegradable stains without using any water at all, says Ryo Hagiwara, Sanyo's spokesman.
>
> The company says a full-cycle of air-wash uses about twice as much electricity as a regular wash, but only one-fifth the total energy of a comparable full wash and dry -- in part because the air wash doesn't need a drying system.
>
> The Aqua washer also has a regular wash setting that can purify and recycle water that had been used for a bath, thus reducing the amount of fresh water required by the machine to a mere half-bucket.
>
> The machine is available only in Japan and Taiwan, but the company says it hopes to make inroads eventually in the U.S. and Europe. Sanyo's Aqua washer costs 228,000 yen ($2,135) or about 80% more than an equivalent washer/dryer on the Japanese market.
>
> Human-Sensing AC
>
> The air conditioner is the new, human-sensing air-conditioner by Mitsubishi Electric Corp., which detects a person's motion and location using heat sensors. The machine, which is available only in Japan, then emits air waves specifically targeting the people. That can save up to 50% in energy use, the company says. Still, the air conditioner, which is built into a wall, costs a lofty 200,000 yen ($1,873), or about a third more than conventional air conditioners.
>
>
>
>
> Sharp Corp.
>
>
> A solar-powered TV made by Sharp Corp. is both thin and efficient, consuming half the energy of current models.
>
>
> There's also a low-energy television set. Sharp Corp., a leading solar-panel producer, is showing one of the world's thinnest liquid-crystal-display TVs, with a thickness of about three-fourths of an inch. The set, not yet on sale, consumes only half the energy of existing models, the company says.
>
> Sharp is also showing a solar-energy array whose solar cells can be made semitransparent, so they can be put into a window.
>
> Some ideas are simple. Sekisui House Ltd. is displaying a roof-top vegetation system that uses a thin film of moss grown on tile plates attached to the roof of the house.
>
> The housing company says the moss, which can be fitted alongside solar panels on the rooftop, can lower the temperature inside the house by one degree Celsius, helping reduce air-conditioning use. The company plans to start sales in Japan soon.
>
> Seeking Dominance
>
> Squeezed both by low-cost competitors from China and Taiwan and innovative companies like Apple Inc., the Japanese companies that dominated the global electronics industry for decades have been seeking ways to play up their technological manufacturing strengths and know-how to stay ahead.
>
> What's more, competition is fierce as rivals jump onto the environment-friendly technology bandwagon. Just last year, Sharp lost its No. 1 position to Germany's Q-Cell AG in global market share of solar panels.
>
> Japan's model home goes one step beyond previous zero-emissions homes by providing a fully furnished home using cutting-edge household appliances.
>
> Last year, the British government presented a carbon-free home that beefed up heat insulation by using triple-glazed windows, solar panels and low-energy lighting, among other things.
>
>
>
> Leave Your Carbon Footprint at the Door
>
> Japanese Model Home Touts
>
> Eco-Gadgets for G-8 Summit;
>
> Air-Washing the Laundry
>
> By LISA THOMAS
>
> July 8, 2008; Page D1
>
> As leaders of the world's most powerful nations discuss climate change at the Group of Eight summit in northern Japan, Japan's big tech companies are displaying some of their most cutting-edge solutions in a nearby "zero emissions house."
>
> The single-story, 2,152-square-foot house generates all the energy required for a family of four, therefore eliminating carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the Japanese government. Products inside, many already on sale in Japan, include a washer that requires no water and an air conditioner that senses where people are in a room and automatically sends cool air in their direction rather than cooling empty space. Yet the eco-friendly products also carry a steeper price tag than traditional appliances.
>
> The house uses a wind-turbine generator and a photovoltaic generation system, which directly converts light into electricity, to produce about 15 kilowatts of energy a day, nearly five times the amount used by a regular household. The government has presented the house as one of its contributions toward helping the world cut greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.
>
> The zero-emissions house is an attempt by Japan's big tech companies to showcase their recent and growing focus on environmental technologies as a future area of growth.
>
>
>
>
> Sanyo Electric
>
>
> This washing machine made by Sanyo Electric Co. uses air to clean clothes instead of water.
>
>
> The waterless washer is Sanyo Electric Co.'s latest Aqua washer/dryer, a three-in-one machine that uses high-powered air, or ozone, to wash clothes without a single drop of water. The process of "ozonation" -- which disinfects bacteria on contact -- can air-wash clothes, removing about 80% of biodegradable stains without using any water at all, says Ryo Hagiwara, Sanyo's spokesman.
>
> The company says a full-cycle of air-wash uses about twice as much electricity as a regular wash, but only one-fifth the total energy of a comparable full wash and dry -- in part because the air wash doesn't need a drying system.
>
> The Aqua washer also has a regular wash setting that can purify and recycle water that had been used for a bath, thus reducing the amount of fresh water required by the machine to a mere half-bucket.
>
> The machine is available only in Japan and Taiwan, but the company says it hopes to make inroads eventually in the U.S. and Europe. Sanyo's Aqua washer costs 228,000 yen ($2,135) or about 80% more than an equivalent washer/dryer on the Japanese market.
>
> Human-Sensing AC
>
> The air conditioner is the new, human-sensing air-conditioner by Mitsubishi Electric Corp., which detects a person's motion and location using heat sensors. The machine, which is available only in Japan, then emits air waves specifically targeting the people. That can save up to 50% in energy use, the company says. Still, the air conditioner, which is built into a wall, costs a lofty 200,000 yen ($1,873), or about a third more than conventional air conditioners.
>
>
>
>
> Sharp Corp.
>
>
> A solar-powered TV made by Sharp Corp. is both thin and efficient, consuming half the energy of current models.
>
>
> There's also a low-energy television set. Sharp Corp., a leading solar-panel producer, is showing one of the world's thinnest liquid-crystal-display TVs, with a thickness of about three-fourths of an inch. The set, not yet on sale, consumes only half the energy of existing models, the company says.
>
> Sharp is also showing a solar-energy array whose solar cells can be made semitransparent, so they can be put into a window.
>
> Some ideas are simple. Sekisui House Ltd. is displaying a roof-top vegetation system that uses a thin film of moss grown on tile plates attached to the roof of the house.
>
> The housing company says the moss, which can be fitted alongside solar panels on the rooftop, can lower the temperature inside the house by one degree Celsius, helping reduce air-conditioning use. The company plans to start sales in Japan soon.
>
> Seeking Dominance
>
> Squeezed both by low-cost competitors from China and Taiwan and innovative companies like Apple Inc., the Japanese companies that dominated the global electronics industry for decades have been seeking ways to play up their technological manufacturing strengths and know-how to stay ahead.
>
> What's more, competition is fierce as rivals jump onto the environment-friendly technology bandwagon. Just last year, Sharp lost its No. 1 position to Germany's Q-Cell AG in global market share of solar panels.
>
> Japan's model home goes one step beyond previous zero-emissions homes by providing a fully furnished home using cutting-edge household appliances.
>
> Last year, the British government presented a carbon-free home that beefed up heat insulation by using triple-glazed windows, solar panels and low-energy lighting, among other things.
American basket flower (Centaurea Americana) blooming on World Peace Wetland Prairie and other unmowed places throughout northwest Arkansas
Please click on image to ENLARGE photo of American basketflower made on July 10, 2008.
American basketflower photos and description˜
American basketflower photos and description˜
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Please click on image to ENLARGE photo of IPCC President and Nobel Laureate Rajendra Pachauri, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, says humanity has only seven years to reverse the greenhouse emissions trend before we cross a threshold of "serious danger."
(Photo: Bjorn Sigurdson / Scanpix Norway / AFP)
OPINION
"We Have Seven Years Left to Reverse the CO2 Emissions Curve"
Monday 07 July 2008
»
by: Laurence Caramel and Stèphane Foucart Interview Rajendra Pachauri, Le Monde
IPCC President and Nobel Laureate Rajendra Pachauri, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, says humanity has only seven years to reverse the greenhouse emissions trend before we cross a threshold of "serious danger."
(Photo: Bjorn Sigurdson / Scanpix Norway / AFP)
Since 2002, Rajendra Pachauri has presided over the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the reports of which have scientifically asserted the reality of climate change. For that work, this 67-year-old Indian engineer and economist received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize jointly with former American Vice President Al Gore. A guest in Saint-Cloud (Hauts-de-Seine) at the Informal Council of European Environment and Energy Ministers on Friday, July 4, he called on the Twenty-Seven to maintain their commitment to reduce their greenhouse gases by at least 20 percent between now and 2020. Quoting Gandhi, he exhorted the Europeans to be at the forefront of the struggle against global warming: "If you want the world to change," he declared to the ministers, "you have to embody the change you want."
Le Monde: Six months have gone by since the Bali Conference. Are the negotiations to achieve a post-Kyoto international agreement advancing?
Rajendra Pachauri: Not much has happened and that's worrying. There isn't much time left before the Copenhagen Summit in December 2009, even though, with these kinds of negotiations, it's always a bit the same: everyone watches everyone else and waits until the last minute. In the best case, that leads to agreement on a compromise, while this time, we need a solid and ambitious accord. To contain the rise in temperatures below 2-2.4 degrees C, which, according to our studies, is the threshold not to be crossed without putting us in serious danger, we have only seven years left in which to reverse the global curve of greenhouse gas emissions. That's very little time.
What role may Europe play?
Europe has an essential role to play; it must continue to show the way as it had begun to do. If Europe does not decide to be the first great region to voluntarily reduce its carbon dioxide discharges, it is futile to hope for an international agreement. Neither the United States nor China will ever come on board.
Should we see the food crises that are hitting poor countries as a manifestation of climate disturbance?
The present crisis has multiple causes, specifically population increases, changes in certain countries' eating patterns - like the increase in meat consumption - or even the fact that stocks of certain foodstuffs have not been maintained. But it is certain that if temperatures continue to increase, food shortages will get worse. We've calculated that agricultural yields could drop by half in certain African countries between now and 2020.
What do you think about the doubts some people have expressed about the reality of climate change?
They are marginal and most often reflect special interests that fear being penalized by a transition to a "de-carbonized" economy. But objectively, there is no room for doubt. Science has brought so many proofs, we no longer need any demonstration to know on a scientific basis that global warming is underway and that this warming is essentially due to human activities. But there will always be people who will argue about it. There's still a Flat Earth Society whose members continue and will continue for centuries to deny the rotundity of the Earth....
The generally publicized objective is to maintain the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) below 450 to 550 parts per million (ppm). But recent studies show that we'd need to stay below 350 ppm, a level that has already been exceeded ...
The IPCC does not give advice; it settles for providing an evaluation of different scenarios. Then it's up to the international community to decide. The main consideration is that we have to stabilize the level of greenhouse gas to a level below that of dangerous human interference with the climate. How should we define what is dangerous? And more importantly, dangerous for whom? For some little island states, the present level is unquestionably dangerous. I was recently in New Zealand, where I met the president of the Kiribati Islands (Anote Tong), whose country will be submerged before the end of the century. He is very aware of the fact that for the inhabitants of his country - who will have to leave - the danger level has already been outstripped. The international community cannot decide what is dangerous based on an average: there is no average in the danger climate change represents.
With a report every four to five years, the IPCC is sometimes criticized for being slow. Why doesn't it issue studies every year or every two years so as to be as up-to-date as possible?
Producing a report every year or every other year would be impossible. The IPCC does not employ any researchers: the authors of the report devote only 20-25 percent of their work time to it. But that is the only way to assure the collaboration of the best scientists. Data from the last year suggest that perhaps the Arctic is melting faster than the IPCC said in its last report. But it's possible that next year's measure will tell us something else.... We must take the time necessary to take into account sufficient data: that's also what creates our scientific credibility.
--------
Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher.
(Photo: Bjorn Sigurdson / Scanpix Norway / AFP)
OPINION
"We Have Seven Years Left to Reverse the CO2 Emissions Curve"
Monday 07 July 2008
»
by: Laurence Caramel and Stèphane Foucart Interview Rajendra Pachauri, Le Monde
IPCC President and Nobel Laureate Rajendra Pachauri, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, says humanity has only seven years to reverse the greenhouse emissions trend before we cross a threshold of "serious danger."
(Photo: Bjorn Sigurdson / Scanpix Norway / AFP)
Since 2002, Rajendra Pachauri has presided over the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the reports of which have scientifically asserted the reality of climate change. For that work, this 67-year-old Indian engineer and economist received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize jointly with former American Vice President Al Gore. A guest in Saint-Cloud (Hauts-de-Seine) at the Informal Council of European Environment and Energy Ministers on Friday, July 4, he called on the Twenty-Seven to maintain their commitment to reduce their greenhouse gases by at least 20 percent between now and 2020. Quoting Gandhi, he exhorted the Europeans to be at the forefront of the struggle against global warming: "If you want the world to change," he declared to the ministers, "you have to embody the change you want."
Le Monde: Six months have gone by since the Bali Conference. Are the negotiations to achieve a post-Kyoto international agreement advancing?
Rajendra Pachauri: Not much has happened and that's worrying. There isn't much time left before the Copenhagen Summit in December 2009, even though, with these kinds of negotiations, it's always a bit the same: everyone watches everyone else and waits until the last minute. In the best case, that leads to agreement on a compromise, while this time, we need a solid and ambitious accord. To contain the rise in temperatures below 2-2.4 degrees C, which, according to our studies, is the threshold not to be crossed without putting us in serious danger, we have only seven years left in which to reverse the global curve of greenhouse gas emissions. That's very little time.
What role may Europe play?
Europe has an essential role to play; it must continue to show the way as it had begun to do. If Europe does not decide to be the first great region to voluntarily reduce its carbon dioxide discharges, it is futile to hope for an international agreement. Neither the United States nor China will ever come on board.
Should we see the food crises that are hitting poor countries as a manifestation of climate disturbance?
The present crisis has multiple causes, specifically population increases, changes in certain countries' eating patterns - like the increase in meat consumption - or even the fact that stocks of certain foodstuffs have not been maintained. But it is certain that if temperatures continue to increase, food shortages will get worse. We've calculated that agricultural yields could drop by half in certain African countries between now and 2020.
What do you think about the doubts some people have expressed about the reality of climate change?
They are marginal and most often reflect special interests that fear being penalized by a transition to a "de-carbonized" economy. But objectively, there is no room for doubt. Science has brought so many proofs, we no longer need any demonstration to know on a scientific basis that global warming is underway and that this warming is essentially due to human activities. But there will always be people who will argue about it. There's still a Flat Earth Society whose members continue and will continue for centuries to deny the rotundity of the Earth....
The generally publicized objective is to maintain the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) below 450 to 550 parts per million (ppm). But recent studies show that we'd need to stay below 350 ppm, a level that has already been exceeded ...
The IPCC does not give advice; it settles for providing an evaluation of different scenarios. Then it's up to the international community to decide. The main consideration is that we have to stabilize the level of greenhouse gas to a level below that of dangerous human interference with the climate. How should we define what is dangerous? And more importantly, dangerous for whom? For some little island states, the present level is unquestionably dangerous. I was recently in New Zealand, where I met the president of the Kiribati Islands (Anote Tong), whose country will be submerged before the end of the century. He is very aware of the fact that for the inhabitants of his country - who will have to leave - the danger level has already been outstripped. The international community cannot decide what is dangerous based on an average: there is no average in the danger climate change represents.
With a report every four to five years, the IPCC is sometimes criticized for being slow. Why doesn't it issue studies every year or every two years so as to be as up-to-date as possible?
Producing a report every year or every other year would be impossible. The IPCC does not employ any researchers: the authors of the report devote only 20-25 percent of their work time to it. But that is the only way to assure the collaboration of the best scientists. Data from the last year suggest that perhaps the Arctic is melting faster than the IPCC said in its last report. But it's possible that next year's measure will tell us something else.... We must take the time necessary to take into account sufficient data: that's also what creates our scientific credibility.
--------
Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Texas approves coal plant in Arkansas
The Morning News
Local News for Northwest Arkansas
Texas Regulators Approve Arkansas Coal Plant
By John Lyon
The Morning News
LITTLE ROCK - The Public Utility Commission of Texas on Thursday approved Southwestern Electric Power Co.'s proposal for a coal-fired power plant in southwest Arkansas.
SWEPCO, a subsidiary of American Electric Power, received approval for the plant from the Arkansas Public Service Commission in November, but the company also had to submit applications to regulators in Texas and Louisiana, where many of its customers live. Louisiana regulators approved the proposal in March.
The Texas commission voted 2-1 Thursday to approve SWEPCO's proposal for a $1.52 billion, 600-megawatt plant in Hempstead County.
"The Texas commission's approval of the John W. Turk Jr. Power Plant means Texas customers will continue to benefit from a reliable and affordable supply of electricity in the years ahead," AEP Chairman Michael Morris said in a news release. "Coal is essential to meeting the growing energy needs of our region and our country, and we are putting new technology to work in a facility that will generate electricity more efficiently with less environmental impact."
John W. Turk Jr. served as president and CEO of SWEPCO from 1983-88.
The Texas commission rejected the recommendation of Administrative Law Judge Wendy Harvel, who said in January that SWEPCO had failed to show a need for the plant.
SWEPCO had said it would build the plant with or without approval from Texas regulators, though a denial would have meant that Texas customers' rates could not be raised to help pay for the facility.
Hunting clubs and landowners in Arkansas who oppose the plant, claiming it will harm the local environment, have appealed the Arkansas Public Service Commission's ruling to the state Court of Appeals.
An application by SWEPCO for an air permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality is pending.
Local News for Northwest Arkansas
Texas Regulators Approve Arkansas Coal Plant
By John Lyon
The Morning News
LITTLE ROCK - The Public Utility Commission of Texas on Thursday approved Southwestern Electric Power Co.'s proposal for a coal-fired power plant in southwest Arkansas.
SWEPCO, a subsidiary of American Electric Power, received approval for the plant from the Arkansas Public Service Commission in November, but the company also had to submit applications to regulators in Texas and Louisiana, where many of its customers live. Louisiana regulators approved the proposal in March.
The Texas commission voted 2-1 Thursday to approve SWEPCO's proposal for a $1.52 billion, 600-megawatt plant in Hempstead County.
"The Texas commission's approval of the John W. Turk Jr. Power Plant means Texas customers will continue to benefit from a reliable and affordable supply of electricity in the years ahead," AEP Chairman Michael Morris said in a news release. "Coal is essential to meeting the growing energy needs of our region and our country, and we are putting new technology to work in a facility that will generate electricity more efficiently with less environmental impact."
John W. Turk Jr. served as president and CEO of SWEPCO from 1983-88.
The Texas commission rejected the recommendation of Administrative Law Judge Wendy Harvel, who said in January that SWEPCO had failed to show a need for the plant.
SWEPCO had said it would build the plant with or without approval from Texas regulators, though a denial would have meant that Texas customers' rates could not be raised to help pay for the facility.
Hunting clubs and landowners in Arkansas who oppose the plant, claiming it will harm the local environment, have appealed the Arkansas Public Service Commission's ruling to the state Court of Appeals.
An application by SWEPCO for an air permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality is pending.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission fails to add carbon dioxide to state list of air contaminants
Panel denies air-code changes
BY MICHELLE HILLEN
Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/229886/
Saying the request was premature, the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission on Friday unanimously rejected a request by environmental groups to change Arkansas’ air code to consider carbon dioxide an “air contaminant.”
“I do think this is putting the cart before the horse,” commission member Scott Henderson, explaining that he believes the governor’s Global Warming Commission should have first crack at determining how carbon dioxide emissions should be regulated.
The commission, established last year, is studying ways state agencies can offset factors that might contribute to climate change.
“I don’t agree with the discussion about waiting for the federal government to do it, but I do think the Global Warming Commission has to do its work,” Henderson said.
The Arkansas Sierra Club, Audubon Arkansas and the Environmental Integrity Project had filed a petition seeking to amend definitions included in Regulations 18 and 26 of the state’s airquality regulations. The proposal called for the definitions in both regulations to eliminate carbon dioxide from a list of emissions not considered air contaminants, including water vapor, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and inert gases.
The petition cited concerns that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can lead to higher maximum temperatures, more hot days, higher minimum temperatures, fewer cold days, more intense “precipitation events” and increased risk of drought.
Environmentalists argued their proposal wouldn’t immediately require regulation of carbon dioxide by the Environmental Quality Department. But industry and department officials disagreed.
“We are not opposed to the removal of this exemption.... We realize that global warming is a global problem,” department Director Teresa Marks said. “Our concern is unintended consequences, and the practicality of what we would do if the exemption was removed immediately.”
Marks said existing regulations would require the department to regulate anyone who emits more than 25 tons per year of an “air contaminant.” The department today doesn’t have the technology available to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, she said.
After more than a half-hour of comments from industry leaders and environmentalists, the commission approved an order supplied by the Arkansas Environmental Federation, an organization that lobbies on behalf of companies on environmental matters.
The order states that the request from the environmental- ists was defective for a number of reasons, including that it failed to include an economic impact statement and an environmental benefit analysis. Such statements are required by state law if the proposed change is more stringent than federal requirements.
Glen Hooks, regional representative of the Sierra Club, said he was surprised by the decision.
“I think what these guys have done is stand up and say we know CO 2 is a pollutant, we know it is a contaminant, but we don’t want to do anything about it,” Hooks said.
“They said it publicly, and I found it amazing.”
He said he and other environmentalists expect to bring forward a new petition that addresses the commissioners’ concerns sooner rather than later.
“We’ll be back,” said Ilan Levin of the Environmental Integrity Project.
The concerns can be addressed in a number of ways, including by increasing the allowable emission threshold from 25 tons per year, Levin said.
Copyright © 2001-2008 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved. Contact: webmaster@nwanews.com
BY MICHELLE HILLEN
Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/229886/
Saying the request was premature, the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission on Friday unanimously rejected a request by environmental groups to change Arkansas’ air code to consider carbon dioxide an “air contaminant.”
“I do think this is putting the cart before the horse,” commission member Scott Henderson, explaining that he believes the governor’s Global Warming Commission should have first crack at determining how carbon dioxide emissions should be regulated.
The commission, established last year, is studying ways state agencies can offset factors that might contribute to climate change.
“I don’t agree with the discussion about waiting for the federal government to do it, but I do think the Global Warming Commission has to do its work,” Henderson said.
The Arkansas Sierra Club, Audubon Arkansas and the Environmental Integrity Project had filed a petition seeking to amend definitions included in Regulations 18 and 26 of the state’s airquality regulations. The proposal called for the definitions in both regulations to eliminate carbon dioxide from a list of emissions not considered air contaminants, including water vapor, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and inert gases.
The petition cited concerns that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can lead to higher maximum temperatures, more hot days, higher minimum temperatures, fewer cold days, more intense “precipitation events” and increased risk of drought.
Environmentalists argued their proposal wouldn’t immediately require regulation of carbon dioxide by the Environmental Quality Department. But industry and department officials disagreed.
“We are not opposed to the removal of this exemption.... We realize that global warming is a global problem,” department Director Teresa Marks said. “Our concern is unintended consequences, and the practicality of what we would do if the exemption was removed immediately.”
Marks said existing regulations would require the department to regulate anyone who emits more than 25 tons per year of an “air contaminant.” The department today doesn’t have the technology available to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, she said.
After more than a half-hour of comments from industry leaders and environmentalists, the commission approved an order supplied by the Arkansas Environmental Federation, an organization that lobbies on behalf of companies on environmental matters.
The order states that the request from the environmental- ists was defective for a number of reasons, including that it failed to include an economic impact statement and an environmental benefit analysis. Such statements are required by state law if the proposed change is more stringent than federal requirements.
Glen Hooks, regional representative of the Sierra Club, said he was surprised by the decision.
“I think what these guys have done is stand up and say we know CO 2 is a pollutant, we know it is a contaminant, but we don’t want to do anything about it,” Hooks said.
“They said it publicly, and I found it amazing.”
He said he and other environmentalists expect to bring forward a new petition that addresses the commissioners’ concerns sooner rather than later.
“We’ll be back,” said Ilan Levin of the Environmental Integrity Project.
The concerns can be addressed in a number of ways, including by increasing the allowable emission threshold from 25 tons per year, Levin said.
Copyright © 2001-2008 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved. Contact: webmaster@nwanews.com
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Congress to hear call to punish fossil-fuel industry executives for pretending global-climate change not real
Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist
· Testimony to US Congress will also criticize lobbyists
· 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis
Ed Pilkington in New York
The Guardian,
Monday June 23, 2008
Article history
James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.
Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.
In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."
He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".
He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level.
The current concentration is 385 parts per million and is rising by 2ppm a year. Hansen, who heads Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, says 2009 will be a crucial year, with a new US president and talks on how to follow the Kyoto agreement.
He wants to see a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, coupled with the creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric power lines buried under ground and spread across America, in order to give wind and solar power a chance of competing. "The new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon."
His sharpest words are reserved for the special interests he blames for public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat. "The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."
A group seeking to increase pressure on international leaders is launching a campaign today called 350.org. It is taking out full-page adverts in papers such as the New York Times and the Swedish Falukuriren calling for the target level of CO2 to be lowered to 350ppm. The advert has been backed by 150 signatories, including Hansen.
About this article
Close
This article appeared in the Guardian on Monday June 23 2008 on p8 of the UK news section. It was last updated at 10:42 on June 24 2008.
· Testimony to US Congress will also criticize lobbyists
· 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis
Ed Pilkington in New York
The Guardian,
Monday June 23, 2008
Article history
James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.
Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.
In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."
He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".
He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level.
The current concentration is 385 parts per million and is rising by 2ppm a year. Hansen, who heads Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, says 2009 will be a crucial year, with a new US president and talks on how to follow the Kyoto agreement.
He wants to see a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, coupled with the creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric power lines buried under ground and spread across America, in order to give wind and solar power a chance of competing. "The new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon."
His sharpest words are reserved for the special interests he blames for public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat. "The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."
A group seeking to increase pressure on international leaders is launching a campaign today called 350.org. It is taking out full-page adverts in papers such as the New York Times and the Swedish Falukuriren calling for the target level of CO2 to be lowered to 350ppm. The advert has been backed by 150 signatories, including Hansen.
About this article
Close
This article appeared in the Guardian on Monday June 23 2008 on p8 of the UK news section. It was last updated at 10:42 on June 24 2008.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Please urge Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission to classify CO2 at pollutant
Would you write to the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APCE) and tell them you support changing the definition of CO2? Art Hobson describes the petition from Sierra Club, Audubon, and the Environmental Integrity Project, and asks people to write in support, kind of like this:
"Because anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming that is changing our planet and could be disastrous in the future, carbon dioxide needs to be classified as a pollutant, or "air contaminant," in Arkansas. I hope you will change Regulation No. 26 accordingly, as requested in the petition from Sierra Club, and others that will appear soon before the APCE." (Art Hobson)
Instructions for writing APCE are in Art's email below. Thanks to all you moved to write.
Gladys
--- On Mon, 6/23/08, Art Hobson wrote:
From: Art Hobson
Subject: Ask that CO2 be classified as a pollutant
To: ahobson@uark.edu
Date: Monday, June 23, 2008, 2:51 PM
Dear Friends,
You can make a real difference in Arkansas global warming politics. The Ark Sierra Club, Ark Audubon Society, and the Environmental Integrity Project are petitioning the Ark Commission on Pollution Control and Ecology (PCE) to allow CO2 to be declared an "air contaminant" (or pollutant). Their petition is attached. This issue is of crucial importance because the Ark Dept of Environmental Quality (ADEQ, which is PCE's parent organization) must soon either grant or deny a permit to the proposed Hempstead coal-fired generating plant, and ADEQ has been unable to include CO2 as a possible air contaminant in this case because present Ark regulations proclaim that CO2 is not an air contaminant. As you know, human-caused CO2 emissions are now the most deadly pollutant of all, because they can change our planet in large and harmful ways. In a contentious 2-to-1 ruling, the Hempstead plant has already received its Public Service Commission permit to proceed. If ADEQ also grants a permit, Swepco will immediately begin construction of the plant and it will then be impossible to stop. If CO2 is declared a pollutant, ADEQ will need to consider the entire issue of global warming before making a ruling on the Hempstead plant, and there's an excellent change that they will rule against the plant (for confirmation that there are good reasons to rule against the plant, see Judge David Newbern's dissenting opinion in the PSC ruling).
The PCE is a public commission that will hear/read your comments and take them into consideration. Your comment can be long and detailed, or it can be as short as:
Because anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming that is changing our planet and could be disastrous in the future, carbon dioxide needs to be classified as a pollutant, or "air contaminant," in Arkansas. I hope you will change Regulation No. 26 accordingly, as requested in the petition from Sierra Club and others that will appear soon before the APCE.
Feel free to quote me on that.
To submit a comment, go to the ADEQ website, http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/poa/forms/questions.asp. PCE is actually a sub-division of ADEQ. At that website, you'll find a space to make your written comment to both the PCE and to ADEQ. You'll also find a phone number if you'd rather talk with them.
Please pull out all the stops in telling others about this. If we can get excess CO2 classified as the planetary threat that it actually is, it will make a big difference.
Cheers - Art
"Because anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming that is changing our planet and could be disastrous in the future, carbon dioxide needs to be classified as a pollutant, or "air contaminant," in Arkansas. I hope you will change Regulation No. 26 accordingly, as requested in the petition from Sierra Club, and others that will appear soon before the APCE." (Art Hobson)
Instructions for writing APCE are in Art's email below. Thanks to all you moved to write.
Gladys
--- On Mon, 6/23/08, Art Hobson
From: Art Hobson
Subject: Ask that CO2 be classified as a pollutant
To: ahobson@uark.edu
Date: Monday, June 23, 2008, 2:51 PM
Dear Friends,
You can make a real difference in Arkansas global warming politics. The Ark Sierra Club, Ark Audubon Society, and the Environmental Integrity Project are petitioning the Ark Commission on Pollution Control and Ecology (PCE) to allow CO2 to be declared an "air contaminant" (or pollutant). Their petition is attached. This issue is of crucial importance because the Ark Dept of Environmental Quality (ADEQ, which is PCE's parent organization) must soon either grant or deny a permit to the proposed Hempstead coal-fired generating plant, and ADEQ has been unable to include CO2 as a possible air contaminant in this case because present Ark regulations proclaim that CO2 is not an air contaminant. As you know, human-caused CO2 emissions are now the most deadly pollutant of all, because they can change our planet in large and harmful ways. In a contentious 2-to-1 ruling, the Hempstead plant has already received its Public Service Commission permit to proceed. If ADEQ also grants a permit, Swepco will immediately begin construction of the plant and it will then be impossible to stop. If CO2 is declared a pollutant, ADEQ will need to consider the entire issue of global warming before making a ruling on the Hempstead plant, and there's an excellent change that they will rule against the plant (for confirmation that there are good reasons to rule against the plant, see Judge David Newbern's dissenting opinion in the PSC ruling).
The PCE is a public commission that will hear/read your comments and take them into consideration. Your comment can be long and detailed, or it can be as short as:
Because anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming that is changing our planet and could be disastrous in the future, carbon dioxide needs to be classified as a pollutant, or "air contaminant," in Arkansas. I hope you will change Regulation No. 26 accordingly, as requested in the petition from Sierra Club and others that will appear soon before the APCE.
Feel free to quote me on that.
To submit a comment, go to the ADEQ website, http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/poa/forms/questions.asp. PCE is actually a sub-division of ADEQ. At that website, you'll find a space to make your written comment to both the PCE and to ADEQ. You'll also find a phone number if you'd rather talk with them.
Please pull out all the stops in telling others about this. If we can get excess CO2 classified as the planetary threat that it actually is, it will make a big difference.
Cheers - Art
Monday, June 23, 2008
Ozark Highlands Group of Sierra Club to meet with James Burke to discuss fight against dirty coal burning in Arkansas at Smiling Jack's at 7 p.m. Wed.
Our June monthly meeting will be this Wednesday at 7 p.m. at Smiling Jack's just off Dixon Street behind the Dixon Street book shop.
James Burke will be joining us to talk about the coal campaign and the progress we are making in that area. It will be very informal; this is a great opportunity to learn more about what we can do to make sure Arkansas doesn't build any new coal fired power plants. Bring your coal questions for James to answer!
Our Arkansas Chapter chair, Adrienne, will be bringing some yard signs protesting dirty coal if you would like one.
As always, please forward this email along to others you think might be interested.
Molly Rawn
Sierra Club, Ozark Headwaters Group
Intern
(479) 879-1620
James Burke will be joining us to talk about the coal campaign and the progress we are making in that area. It will be very informal; this is a great opportunity to learn more about what we can do to make sure Arkansas doesn't build any new coal fired power plants. Bring your coal questions for James to answer!
Our Arkansas Chapter chair, Adrienne, will be bringing some yard signs protesting dirty coal if you would like one.
As always, please forward this email along to others you think might be interested.
Molly Rawn
Sierra Club, Ozark Headwaters Group
Intern
(479) 879-1620
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Info to debunk global warming deniers
Stages of Denial
There's nothing happening
Inadequate evidence
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren't even sure
Contradictory evidence
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
No consensus
Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
We don't know why it's happening
Models don't work
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don't have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can't be sure
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Climate change is natural
It happened before
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
Global warming is nothing new!
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
It's part of a natural change
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The CO2 rise is natural
We are just recovering from the LIA
It's not caused by CO2
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It's the sun, stupid
Climate change is not bad
The effects are good
What's wrong with warmer weather?
The effects are minor
Change is normal
Climate change can't be stopped
Too late
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
It's someone else's problem
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
Economically infeasible
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
Scientific Topics
Temperature
There is no evidence
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
What's wrong with warmer weather?
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Some sites show cooling
Atmosphere
Extreme events
Temperature records
One record year is not global warming
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Storms
Droughts
Cryosphere
Glaciers
Glaciers have always grown and receded
But the glaciers are not melting
Sea ice
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Ice sheets
Antarctic ice is growing
Greenland used to be green
Oceans
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Modeling
Scenarios
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Hansen has been wrong before
Uncertainties
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don't have clouds
Climate forcings
Solar influences
Mars and Pluto are warming too
It's the sun, stupid
Greenhouse gases
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The US is a net CO2 sink
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Aerosols
What about mid-century cooling?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Paleo climate
Holocene
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
We are just recovering from the LIA
Ice ages
CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
Global warming is nothing new!
Geologic history
What's wrong with warmer weather?
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
Scientific process
Global warming is a hoax
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
There is no consensus
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Position statements hide debate
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Types of Argument
Uninformed
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
One hundred years is not enough
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
What's wrong with warmer weather?
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
There is no consensus
We cannot trust unproven computer models
Misinformed
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Antarctic ice is growing
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
Greenland used to be green
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
It's the sun, stupid
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Vineland was full of grapes
Cherry Picking
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic sea ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Vineland was full of grapes
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
The sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
Urban Myths
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
Greenland used to be green
Hansen has been wrong before
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Vineland was full of grapes
FUD
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Mars and Pluto are warming too
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Global warming is nothing new!
The CO2 rise is natural
The hockey stick is broken
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The models don't have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
The scientists aren't even sure
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Vineland was full of grapes
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
We are just recovering from the LIA
Non Scientific
Global warming is a hoax
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
The scientists aren't even sure
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Underdog Theories
Crackpottery
Levels of Sophistication
Silly
There is no evidence
Global warming is a hoax
One record year is not global warming
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Naive
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
We can't even predict the weather next week
We can not trust unproven computer models
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The models don't have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
It's the sun, stupid
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
Vineland was full of grapes
Some sites show cooling
Specious
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
What's wrong with warmer weather?
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Greenland used to be green
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Global warming is nothing new!
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
But the glaciers are not melting
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Vineland was full of grapes
Scientific
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
Chaotic systems are not predictable
The hockey stick is broken
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
We are just recovering from the LIA (Last Ice Age)
There's nothing happening
Inadequate evidence
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren't even sure
Contradictory evidence
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
No consensus
Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
We don't know why it's happening
Models don't work
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don't have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can't be sure
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Climate change is natural
It happened before
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
Global warming is nothing new!
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
It's part of a natural change
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The CO2 rise is natural
We are just recovering from the LIA
It's not caused by CO2
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It's the sun, stupid
Climate change is not bad
The effects are good
What's wrong with warmer weather?
The effects are minor
Change is normal
Climate change can't be stopped
Too late
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
It's someone else's problem
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
Economically infeasible
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
Scientific Topics
Temperature
There is no evidence
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
What's wrong with warmer weather?
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Some sites show cooling
Atmosphere
Extreme events
Temperature records
One record year is not global warming
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Storms
Droughts
Cryosphere
Glaciers
Glaciers have always grown and receded
But the glaciers are not melting
Sea ice
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Ice sheets
Antarctic ice is growing
Greenland used to be green
Oceans
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Modeling
Scenarios
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Hansen has been wrong before
Uncertainties
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don't have clouds
Climate forcings
Solar influences
Mars and Pluto are warming too
It's the sun, stupid
Greenhouse gases
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The US is a net CO2 sink
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Aerosols
What about mid-century cooling?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Paleo climate
Holocene
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
We are just recovering from the LIA
Ice ages
CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
Global warming is nothing new!
Geologic history
What's wrong with warmer weather?
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
Scientific process
Global warming is a hoax
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
There is no consensus
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Position statements hide debate
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Types of Argument
Uninformed
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
One hundred years is not enough
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
What's wrong with warmer weather?
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
There is no consensus
We cannot trust unproven computer models
Misinformed
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Antarctic ice is growing
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
Greenland used to be green
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
It's the sun, stupid
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Vineland was full of grapes
Cherry Picking
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic sea ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Vineland was full of grapes
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
The sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
Urban Myths
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
Greenland used to be green
Hansen has been wrong before
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Vineland was full of grapes
FUD
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Mars and Pluto are warming too
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Global warming is nothing new!
The CO2 rise is natural
The hockey stick is broken
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The models don't have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
The scientists aren't even sure
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Vineland was full of grapes
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
We are just recovering from the LIA
Non Scientific
Global warming is a hoax
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
The scientists aren't even sure
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Underdog Theories
Crackpottery
Levels of Sophistication
Silly
There is no evidence
Global warming is a hoax
One record year is not global warming
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Naive
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't?
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
We can't even predict the weather next week
We can not trust unproven computer models
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The models don't have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
It's the sun, stupid
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
Vineland was full of grapes
Some sites show cooling
Specious
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
What's wrong with warmer weather?
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Greenland used to be green
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Global warming is nothing new!
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
But the glaciers are not melting
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Vineland was full of grapes
Scientific
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
Chaotic systems are not predictable
The hockey stick is broken
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
We are just recovering from the LIA (Last Ice Age)
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Concerned scientists urge citizens to support senators, congressmen who support reduction of global warming causes
Concerned Scientists say keep congress on track to fight global climate change
A million-dollar opportunity to help put the brakes on global warming
Last week, Senate obstructionists were able to block meaningful debate on a bill that would have established a strong framework for reducing U.S. global warming pollution. Momentum is growing, however. More senators than ever before supported moving forward on climate solutions. You can help the Union of Concerned Scientists seize the opportunities ahead of us to put the brakes on global warming. Make a donation today to the UCS Matching Gift Fund and it will be matched dollar for dollar.
A million-dollar opportunity to help put the brakes on global warming
Last week, Senate obstructionists were able to block meaningful debate on a bill that would have established a strong framework for reducing U.S. global warming pollution. Momentum is growing, however. More senators than ever before supported moving forward on climate solutions. You can help the Union of Concerned Scientists seize the opportunities ahead of us to put the brakes on global warming. Make a donation today to the UCS Matching Gift Fund and it will be matched dollar for dollar.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Chinese news service reports Russia claiming arctic oil
Tuesday,Jun. 108
ENGLISH / TOP_NEWS
Russia schemes to claim North Pole oil
BEIJING, Aug. 2 (Xinhuanet) -- The icebreaker Rossiya and scientific vessel Akademik Fyodorov have reached the North Pole and will attempt to plant a Russian flag on the Arctic seabed as part of an ambitious scheme to claim vast reserves of oil and gas, Russian news agency ITAR-TASS announced Wednesday.
Polar explorer and Russian parliament member Artur Chilingarov heads a team of about 100 scientists on the expedition designed to find evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge — a 1,200-mile underwater mountain range that crosses the polar region — is a geologic extension of Russia.
Russian researchers used two mini-submarines to dive to a depth of 4,300 feet (1,300 meters) prior to reacing their destination. The dives "were only a dress rehearsal before diving at the North Pole, where depths are over four kilometers (2.5 miles)," Chilingarov told ITAR-TASS.
Chilingarov and fellow parliament member Vladimir Grudez will later attempt to dive in one of the mini-subs to more than 13,200 feet (4,023 meters), where they will drop a titanium tube containing the Russian flag on the sea floor.
The gesture will symbolize Russia's claim to a large chunk of the Arctic shelf twice the area of Britain and estimated to contain up to 10 billion tons of oil and gas deposits, as well as vast reserves of diamonds and valuable metals such as gold, tin and platinum.
Under current international law, Russia, Canada, the United States, Norway and Denmark—the countries with territories ringing the Arctic — are limited to a 200-mile economic zone around their coastlines.
In May, Russian leader Vladimir Putin claimed that the Lomonosov Ridge is a geologic extension of Siberia and can therefore be claimed by Russia under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Ironically, the North Pole is already drifting towards Siberia, albeit in a very slow, geologic way.
ENGLISH / TOP_NEWS
Russia schemes to claim North Pole oil
BEIJING, Aug. 2 (Xinhuanet) -- The icebreaker Rossiya and scientific vessel Akademik Fyodorov have reached the North Pole and will attempt to plant a Russian flag on the Arctic seabed as part of an ambitious scheme to claim vast reserves of oil and gas, Russian news agency ITAR-TASS announced Wednesday.
Polar explorer and Russian parliament member Artur Chilingarov heads a team of about 100 scientists on the expedition designed to find evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge — a 1,200-mile underwater mountain range that crosses the polar region — is a geologic extension of Russia.
Russian researchers used two mini-submarines to dive to a depth of 4,300 feet (1,300 meters) prior to reacing their destination. The dives "were only a dress rehearsal before diving at the North Pole, where depths are over four kilometers (2.5 miles)," Chilingarov told ITAR-TASS.
Chilingarov and fellow parliament member Vladimir Grudez will later attempt to dive in one of the mini-subs to more than 13,200 feet (4,023 meters), where they will drop a titanium tube containing the Russian flag on the sea floor.
The gesture will symbolize Russia's claim to a large chunk of the Arctic shelf twice the area of Britain and estimated to contain up to 10 billion tons of oil and gas deposits, as well as vast reserves of diamonds and valuable metals such as gold, tin and platinum.
Under current international law, Russia, Canada, the United States, Norway and Denmark—the countries with territories ringing the Arctic — are limited to a 200-mile economic zone around their coastlines.
In May, Russian leader Vladimir Putin claimed that the Lomonosov Ridge is a geologic extension of Siberia and can therefore be claimed by Russia under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Ironically, the North Pole is already drifting towards Siberia, albeit in a very slow, geologic way.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Global warming called a war-generating machine
Global Warming is a war generating machine. Fight it to avoid more conflict.
Cutting back would hae been gentle if started iin 1990. Sarting cutting back this late, now, if to be successful - it's going to be really drastic. But even so, not as bad as the comnig Runaway Global Warming.
Harry Holloway
------------------------------------------------
Came from
aubrey@gci.org.uk
via GCN@igc.topica.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Various C&C News World Environment Day
[1] “The Age of Stupid”
Simply the best film on climate change ever made. The 'Age of Stupid'
was previewed to a selcted audience in London yesterday.
This full-length climate docu-drama is certainly informative. It is also
authentically hilarious yet gut-wrenching around the folly of our double
standards on the global impacts of poverty and climate change - now and
into the future.
The film's grim prognosis is seen ‘retrospectively’ by the actor Peter
Postlethwaite. He reviews the descent into the hell-on-earth of runaway
climate change from a specially created ‘future-archive for a failed
civilizations’ in the Artic Ocean.
Picking up the words of a Katrina survivor he asks ‘how could we have
been so stupid?’
The film recognises that the only serious proposal between now and that
prognosis-come-true is C&C.
As serious critical journalism, this film ranks with Naomi Klein, Robert
Fiske and a host of eminent others. But for relevance it outranks them
all as it understand the reality in the recent words about climate
change of James Hansen: - “The stakes, for all life on the planet,
surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued
ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.”
An extraordinarily effective piece of work. If five-stars is tops this
gets them all.
The general release date has not yet been revealed.
http://www.crudemovie.net/category/film
All this goes straight to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate
Change. The news from there is that the UK Climate Bill is back for
'debate' in the UK Parliament next week. Still without any coherent
methodology behind its numbers for emissions control, it is said the
Government want its 'Royal Assent' before summer recess [Mid July].
This UK 'uni-lateralism' is at odds with the debate beginning again in
the US Senate where, the Liebermann 'Climate Act' notwithstanding, the
demand for globality [this equals at least India and China on the
accounts] hasn't gone away and the 'pragmatic' C&C answer to this
stand-off has been upheld on both sides of that divide.
We are now beyond climate denial. So the severe and worsening problem
for us is 'picking emissions control numbers out-of-a-hat' . . . that
don't add up now to a coherently safe and stable ppmv outcome. With
Hansen calling for 350 ppmv [!] all out best local efforts will be
wasted in the large global failure that attends this absence.
As the film upholds, there is a way to address this - its called C&C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[2] Fair Shares Fair Choice: -
http://www.fairsharesfairchoice.com/
A brilliant local campaign in the UK South West specifically based on
C&C: -
http://www.fairsharesfairchoice.com/the_science.asp
. . . . has reached the support figure of 1,000 MPs and Councillors etc.
Here is the press release from Sustainability South West: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/press/Fair_Shares_Press_Release.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[3] Nice new website for the indefatigable C&C champion Mayer Hillman: -
http://www.mayerhillman.com/Articles/tabid/101/EntryID/51/Default.aspx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[4] A very funny and very clever critique of Foot-printing/C&C at ‘Cheat
Neutral’: -
http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/05/what-is-your-cheating-footprint/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[5] Some more C&C input to Government from: -
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file30864.pdf [Plaid Cymru]
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file30744.pdf [Brecon Beacons]
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file31378.pdf [Welsh Greens]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[6] Derek Wall of the UK Green Party – “C&C is Progress”!
http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2008/06/permanent-revolution.html
Cutting back would hae been gentle if started iin 1990. Sarting cutting back this late, now, if to be successful - it's going to be really drastic. But even so, not as bad as the comnig Runaway Global Warming.
Harry Holloway
------------------------------------------------
Came from
aubrey@gci.org.uk
via GCN@igc.topica.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Various C&C News World Environment Day
[1] “The Age of Stupid”
Simply the best film on climate change ever made. The 'Age of Stupid'
was previewed to a selcted audience in London yesterday.
This full-length climate docu-drama is certainly informative. It is also
authentically hilarious yet gut-wrenching around the folly of our double
standards on the global impacts of poverty and climate change - now and
into the future.
The film's grim prognosis is seen ‘retrospectively’ by the actor Peter
Postlethwaite. He reviews the descent into the hell-on-earth of runaway
climate change from a specially created ‘future-archive for a failed
civilizations’ in the Artic Ocean.
Picking up the words of a Katrina survivor he asks ‘how could we have
been so stupid?’
The film recognises that the only serious proposal between now and that
prognosis-come-true is C&C.
As serious critical journalism, this film ranks with Naomi Klein, Robert
Fiske and a host of eminent others. But for relevance it outranks them
all as it understand the reality in the recent words about climate
change of James Hansen: - “The stakes, for all life on the planet,
surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued
ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.”
An extraordinarily effective piece of work. If five-stars is tops this
gets them all.
The general release date has not yet been revealed.
http://www.crudemovie.net/category/film
All this goes straight to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate
Change. The news from there is that the UK Climate Bill is back for
'debate' in the UK Parliament next week. Still without any coherent
methodology behind its numbers for emissions control, it is said the
Government want its 'Royal Assent' before summer recess [Mid July].
This UK 'uni-lateralism' is at odds with the debate beginning again in
the US Senate where, the Liebermann 'Climate Act' notwithstanding, the
demand for globality [this equals at least India and China on the
accounts] hasn't gone away and the 'pragmatic' C&C answer to this
stand-off has been upheld on both sides of that divide.
We are now beyond climate denial. So the severe and worsening problem
for us is 'picking emissions control numbers out-of-a-hat' . . . that
don't add up now to a coherently safe and stable ppmv outcome. With
Hansen calling for 350 ppmv [!] all out best local efforts will be
wasted in the large global failure that attends this absence.
As the film upholds, there is a way to address this - its called C&C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[2] Fair Shares Fair Choice: -
http://www.fairsharesfairchoice.com/
A brilliant local campaign in the UK South West specifically based on
C&C: -
http://www.fairsharesfairchoice.com/the_science.asp
. . . . has reached the support figure of 1,000 MPs and Councillors etc.
Here is the press release from Sustainability South West: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/press/Fair_Shares_Press_Release.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[3] Nice new website for the indefatigable C&C champion Mayer Hillman: -
http://www.mayerhillman.com/Articles/tabid/101/EntryID/51/Default.aspx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[4] A very funny and very clever critique of Foot-printing/C&C at ‘Cheat
Neutral’: -
http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/05/what-is-your-cheating-footprint/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[5] Some more C&C input to Government from: -
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file30864.pdf [Plaid Cymru]
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file30744.pdf [Brecon Beacons]
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file31378.pdf [Welsh Greens]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[6] Derek Wall of the UK Green Party – “C&C is Progress”!
http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2008/06/permanent-revolution.html
KICK THE CO2 HABIT
World Environment Day, June 5, 2008, Calls for Kicking the CO2 Habit. By Gyles Beckford, Reuters, June 5, 2008. "U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said global warming was becoming the era's defining issue and would hurt rich and poor [alike]. 'Our world is in the grip of a dangerous carbon habit,' Ban said in a statement [today]... World Environment Day, which is being marked by events around the globe and hosted by the New Zealand city of Wellington... World Environment Day, conceived in 1972, is the U.N.'s principal day to mark global green issues and aims to give a human face to environmental problems and solutions… 'We take pride in our clean, green identity as a nation and we are determined to take action to protect it. We appreciate that protecting the climate means behavior change by each and every one of us,' said New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark. New Zealand staged art and street festivals to spread the message... In Australia, Adelaide Zoo staged a wild breakfast for corporate leaders to focus on how carbon emissions threaten animal habitats... Many Asian cities, such as Bangalore and Mumbai, plan tree-planting campaigns... But in Europe, which claims to be a leader in the climate change battle, Environment Day passed with barely a blip." [And so too in the U.S.]
CCTF Meeting
OMNI’S Carbon Caps Task Force Meeting Agenda
1:30 – 3:00 PM, 08 June 2008, OMNI Office, Fayetteville, AR
1. Introductions & Welcome, Robert & Matt
2. Approval of Minutes, 04 May 2008, Gladys
3. Approval of Agenda, 08 June 2008, Gladys
4. Announcements
5. Solar panels @ St. Thomas, Stephan
6. Carbon Caps Fund, Gladys
7. Reports:
1. Reception for Global Warming Commission, Matt
2. PlanetWork, Gladys & Maya
3. Global Warming Commission TWG’s (cross., agri., trans., energy, residential)
4. 350 PPM – Robert
5. Global Warming Commission, Robert
6. Arkansas Citizens First Congress – Environmental Caucus, Matt, Edward
8. Old Business
1. Showing of draft of PSA - Dava
9. New Business
1. Next Global Warming Commission – Public Comment
2. Support ECO and anti Coal campaign, Robert
3. Get newspapers to feature regular, weekly section on Science, Dick
4. IEER Workshop, Matt & Robert
5. Adoption of 1Sky Solutions and 350.org as framework – MattC
6. Name change consideration
7. Citizens First Congress Convention, August 15-17
10. Adjourn – Set meetings through 2008
1:30 – 3:00 PM, 08 June 2008, OMNI Office, Fayetteville, AR
1. Introductions & Welcome, Robert & Matt
2. Approval of Minutes, 04 May 2008, Gladys
3. Approval of Agenda, 08 June 2008, Gladys
4. Announcements
5. Solar panels @ St. Thomas, Stephan
6. Carbon Caps Fund, Gladys
7. Reports:
1. Reception for Global Warming Commission, Matt
2. PlanetWork, Gladys & Maya
3. Global Warming Commission TWG’s (cross., agri., trans., energy, residential)
4. 350 PPM – Robert
5. Global Warming Commission, Robert
6. Arkansas Citizens First Congress – Environmental Caucus, Matt, Edward
8. Old Business
1. Showing of draft of PSA - Dava
9. New Business
1. Next Global Warming Commission – Public Comment
2. Support ECO and anti Coal campaign, Robert
3. Get newspapers to feature regular, weekly section on Science, Dick
4. IEER Workshop, Matt & Robert
5. Adoption of 1Sky Solutions and 350.org as framework – MattC
6. Name change consideration
7. Citizens First Congress Convention, August 15-17
10. Adjourn – Set meetings through 2008
Environment 360
'Yale Environment 360' Magazine Launches Online. Press Release, Yale University, June 3, 2008. "Yale Environment 360, a new online magazine dedicated to covering the global environment, is launching today... Edited by Roger Cohn, the former editor of Mother Jones and Audubon magazines, Yale Environment 360 aims to become one of the leading Web sites for commentary and reporting on the crucial environmental issues of the day. The magazine's inaugural edition features articles by noted environmental advocate and author, Bill McKibben; New Yorker staff writer Elizabeth Kolbert; climate scientist Richard C.J. Somerville; marine biologist and author Carl Safina; British journalist Fred Pearce; and many other writers and thinkers. The first issue contains reports, analysis, and Op-Ed-style pieces on such issues as climate change, the concept of 'clean coal,' the impact of water shortages on global food supplies, and the challenge of crafting an innovative energy policy in the U.S. E360's initial postings also showcase reporting from China, the Amazon, and Russia and include a thought-provoking interview with Nobel Prize winner Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC."
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
