Climate change is speeding up insect breeding

Orange-sulphur butterfly, photo by Alan Kneidel

This post now appearing on the DailyMe

Those of us concerned about greenhouse gases and climate change have a new study to ponder. This study, from Dr. Florian Altermatt at UC Davis, documents once again the biological effects of global warming.

Altermatt examined insect data from Central Europe. Temperatures have been increasing there for decades, but particularly since 1980. This European warming trend is increasing the number of generations per year for some insects.

Altermatt discovered this by analyzing climate records and population data for 263 butterfly and moth species in Central Europe. He included only species that are known to have more than one generation per year, at least occasionally.

Because the warming trend in Central Europe has been more dramatic since 1980, he compared insect-breeding data before 1980 to insect-breeding data after 1980.

He found that, for 190 of the 263 species examined (=72%), the second or subsequent generation became more pronounced after 1980 compared with before 1980.  In other words, for most of the species he examined, there were more generations per year after 1980.

So what?
What difference does that make to the ecology of our planet?  There are a number of potential repercussions, few of them good.

For one thing, many crop pests are larvae of moths or butterflies, such as the cabbage white and the tomato hornworm - to name just a couple from my own garden.  A population that is having more generations per year will grow in number faster than a population with fewer generations per year, all other things being equal. So global warming could mean faster-proliferating insect pests, hence higher numbers of insect pests on crops.

In addition to that, higher numbers of a particular insect species can lead that species to deplete its food source, or outcompete and eliminate its competitors for limited resources such as food or breeding sites.

Ecosystems can be altered if just one species goes awry
Another potential result of an overblown insect population could be increases in the predators of this insect species. Predators of butterflies, moths, and their larvae include birds, lizards, mice, toads, parasitic wasps, and many more. If these predator populations increase, this could have a dampening effect on the other prey of these predators, prey that could have economic value - or could be significant species in their respective ecosystems.  As ecologists have demonstrated repeatedly, eliminating any species from an ecosystem, or even just changing the density of one species, can have profound effects on the stability of the ecosystem as a whole.  Ecosystems are highly complex systems whose parts are intricately interdependent. 

The principle that Altermatt demonstrated is far more significant than the particulars he reported.  Specifically, he showed that 72% of the moths and butterflies he looked at in Central Europe have more generations per year now that the climate is warmer.  But his data suggest something far more sinister....that any or all terrestrial invertebrates may have their breeding disrupted in some fashion by climate change.

Most animal species are invertebrates
The vast majority of animal species on this planet are invertebrates, which are much more directly susceptible to temperature changes, since their body temperature fluctuates with the air or water around them. When invertebrates are warmer, all of their physiological processes are speeded up.  This is unlike warm-blooded mammals and birds (including humans), whose body temperatures remain the same regardless of ambient temperatures (disregarding accidents such as a plunge into frigid waters).

Are negative consequences inevitable?
We don't really know. Animals that have more generations can adapt faster to changing conditions. Or maybe more insects could mean more prey for birds that are declining.  It's conceivable that there could be benefits to having insects breed faster.  Is that the most likely outcome?  I don't know.  But I don't think so.  The few stable ecosystems we have remaining are the result of millions of years of co-evolution.  It's hard to think that a few years of random interference is going to improve millions of years of fine-tuning.

What can be done?
Reduce your own carbon footprint.  Residents of the United States generate more greenhouse gases per person than residents of any other country in the world.

The easiest thing you can do, every day,  is to eat fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute).  The Worldwatch Institute, a prominent environmental think-tank, reports that the livestock sector generates 51% of greenhouse gases worldwide.

Find ways to drive less. Carpool, ride your bike, take public transportation.  If you do drive, use a fuel-efficient car.

Choose a passive-solar home, which can reduce your heating and cooling needs to almost nothing.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has reported that our diets, our transportation, and the way we heat and cool our homes are the biggest consumer contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in general.

Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and learn more about how to reduce your own carbon footprint.

We have only a short window of opportunity over the next few years to have any hope of slowing global climate change.  Once the ice sheets are all melted, the loss of all that white ice reflecting solar radiation away from the planet will accelerate the process of global warming.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:
Florian Altermatt.  12/22/2009. "Climatic warming increases voltinism in European butterflies and moths." Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. 2008. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. Fulcrum Books.

Some of my recent posts about climate change:
North Carolina's vital coastal breeding grounds vulnerable to climate change

Tree deaths have doubled due to climate change

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car 

Keywords:: climate change greenhouse gases global warming carbon footprint Florian Altermatt increase number of generations in butterflies Central Europe voltinism Proceedings of Royal Society B UC Davis

Copenhagen data: ten percent of Florida underwater by end of the century

This post is now a Google News Link and is posted on Basil and Spice

This post named by Carnival of the Green #207 as "Best Green Tweet" of the week. It was posted on Twitter December 14, 2009.

I wrote a few weeks ago that ten percent of Louisiana is projected to be underwater by the year 2100. Now, it looks like Florida is in the same boat. Or perhaps I should say "in need of" the same boat.

If we apply the predictions coming from the Copenhagen climate meetings (Dec. 7-18) to the topography of Florida, then ten percent of Florida too will be inundated by the end of this century.

The new climate projections from Copenhagen are in a report called the "Copenhagen Diagnosis," composed by a group of 26 climatologists. In essence, it says that the situation is worse than we thought - glaciers and ice sheets are melting faster, oceans are rising faster. The report is a summary of hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers published in the last couple of years. The Copenhagen Diagnosis supersedes a 2007 report from the IPCC that has been the standard for reference on climate statistics since its publication a couple of years ago. Fourteen of the climatologists who compiled the Copenhagen Diagnosis were also authors of the 2007 report from the IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That IPCC report was scary enough. The IPCC chairman declared dramatically, in 2007, that action must be taken by 2012 in order to have any effect on global warming. So we should be in the midst of those corrective actions right now, which unfortunately, we are not.

Copenhagen Diagnosis more unnerving than older IPCC report

Anyway, the Copenhagen Diagnosis is even more severe than the 2-year-old IPCC report. Some specifics from the Copenhagen Diagnosis: Arctic sea ice is melting 40% faster than was projected a few years ago. The IPCC had estimated that sea levels would rise 1.9 mm per year between 1993 and 2008. We now know from satellite data that seas have risen 3.4 mm per year during that same period, which is 80% more rise than predicted. The rise is from thermal expansion (water expands as it warms) as well as melting glaciers, ice sheets, and ice caps.

According to the Copenhagen climatologists, by the end of this century global sea levels will rise at least twice as much as earlier predicted by the IPCC. If heat-trapping emissions are not reduced, the rise will be 1 to 2 meters by the year 2010. And they will keep on rising for centuries, for a total of several meters - even if global temperatures have been stabilized.

How might this affect Florida?  

What will happen in Florida when sea levels rise, say, 27 inches? Frank Ackerman, a senior economist at the Stockholm Institute, has studied that question with computer modeling. His model projects a 27-inch rise by the year 2060, just 50 years from now.

About Florida, Ackerman says, "Our map of the area vulnerable to 27 inches of sea-level rise looks like someone took a razor to the state right above Miami and sliced off everything below that, [which includes] residential real estate worth $130 billion in that, half of Florida's beaches, two nuclear reactors, three prisons, 37 nursing homes, and on and on."

What about levees, like in New Orleans and the Netherlands? Would that help?

They won't work in Florida, because the metropolitan area of South Florida is built on porous limestone.

Dr. Hal Wanless, Chairman of Geological Sciences at the University of Miami, says that rising sea levels come right up through the limestone, as was proved during Hurricane Betsy. "There's no way to put a levee around South Florida and really keep the water out."

Katy Sorenson, a County Commissioner in Miami-Dade, says "We're going to be fighting flooding year-round. And we're going to have to adapt to that." For example, building codes will have to require higher foundations, she says.

Yes, but somehow it seems that she's missing the point. Is she paying attention? When Miami is underwater, a higher foundation is not going to help.

Half the world's population live close to coasts

This issue is not restricted to Florida and Louisiana of course. Approximately 50% of the world's population live within 60 miles of a coastline. Those numbers vary a little depending upon the source; Jared Diamond says something similar in his book Collapse. And most of those people are living in developing nations with few resources and no wealth to buffer the effect of lost homes, flooded farms. This is why we'll be hearing the term "climate refuge" more and more as the years tool along.

Well. I'll be interested to hear more news from Copenhagen. The Copenhagen Diagnosis from the climatologists has certainly earned some attention. It includes general recommendations, such as this:
If global warming is to be limited to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, then global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. Annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink by 2050 to 85-90% of what emissions from industrialized nations were in the year 2000. A formidable task indeed, given the seeming inability of governments to fight the interests of big business.

I'm ready - what's the plan??

What I want to hear next is how will our country, and the world, make such cuts in greenhouse gas emissions? What's the plan, and who's in charge of executing it?

It's one thing to hear dire predictions and daunting must-do statements. They just get our attention (hopefully) so that we're listening when the specific plans for how we're going to change are announced. I hope President Obama will do his part, as the leader of the country that generates more greenhouse-gas emissions per capita than any other country in the world. I'll be waiting, with bated breath, for our leader to take the reins when he arrives in Copenhagen next week. I want him to tell us, convincingly, how we're going to navigate this tumultuous trip through the coming decades, in order to leave a planet worth living on for our descendants.

Sources:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis. Executive Summary.

Sally Kneidel, Ph.D. " One tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2100." 11/9/09

Greg Allen. "Florida faces drastic change from sea level rise." All Things Considered, National Public Radio. Dec 11, 2009.

Jared Diamond. Collapse. 2004.

Additional reading on cutting emissions:

Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key factors in climate change are cows, pigs, and chickens?" Worldwatch 22(6):10-19. Nov/Dec 2009.

Sally Kneidel, PhD. " Livestock account for 51% of annual worldwide greenhouse gas emissions." 11/2/09

Key words:: Copenhagen Diagnosis climate change sea level rise Florida flooded Florida inundated

Most Earth-friendly Mass Transit?

What kind of mass transit is the most eco-friendly?

Intercity buses. Yup. Most of us don't travel much on intercity buses, and we have reasons for that. Bus routes between cities in the U.S. can be unreasonably long - I think Charlotte to Birmingham takes 1 or 2 days one-way, as I recall from our friend Carra. But other bus routes make a lot of sense. The trip from Charlotte to Asheville NC is only about 3 hours (same as by car), it's cheaper than the gas to drive it yourself, and the bus is remarkably punctual - unlike Amtrak and many airplanes. All in all, buses are not a bad way to go, unless it's a very long route that stops in every burg and holler.

Convenient or not, bus travel is green, we have to give it that. Michael Brower and Warren Leon of the Union of Concerned Scientists calculated that intercity bus travel is by far the least polluting mode of personal travel per passenger-mile. Intercity buses are 2 to 4 times less polluting than cars and trucks, per passenger-mile. Intercity buses are also less polluting than passenger trains and air travel, per passenger-mile.

You might guess that cars and trucks are the most polluting form of travel. And you'd almost be right. But motorcycles are actually worse. A motorcycle generates the same amount of greenhouse gases as a car, per passenger mile, but twice as much toxic air pollution and 3-4 times as much toxic water pollution. Even though motorcycles get good gas mileage, their small engines have fewer emissions controls than cars. Also, they're made of a higher proportion of steel and other metals than other vehicles, which accounts for their high toxic air and water pollutant emissions.

The best way to reduce consumer fuel consumption is obviously to travel less, but that’s hard to do when lots of us live in the suburbs and work downtown. Our local newspaper here in Charlotte often features developers who are planning self-contained and mixed-use communities, which in the future will house workers closer to jobs and services. We need more such housing and we need it now, before we pass one of those infamous "tipping points" on our journey toward climatic upheaval.

For now, we could reduce fuel consumption tremendously by making better use of mass transit, especially in cities. Half of the United States' 26 largest urban areas currently fall short of the EPA’s minimum air-quality standards. Increasing ridership on the 35 public transportation systems serving these cities (subways, light rail, intracity buses) would improve air quality, congestion, and the financial strain of building new highways and widening roads.

But... municipal dollars won't be funneled into mass transit unless consumers demand it. So let's start demanding. If you live near a functioning mass-transit system, consider using it, even if just one day per week. Every little action helps. Just doing one little thing can inspire you to tell someone else about it, who might then do it themselves, and might tell someone else. Action generates its own momentum. I believe that.

by Sally Kneidel

Sources:

Michael Brower and Warren Leon, The Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists (New York: Three Rivers Press).

Robert J. Shapiro, Kevin A. Hassett, and Frank S. Arnold, “Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation,” American Public Transportation Association, July 2002, www.fypower.org/pdf/RES171664_shapiro.pdf.BKeywords:: mass transit buses motorcycles greenhouse gases climate change global warming

Can a Warmer Planet Feed Us?

Before too long, our most direct link to global warming will be the food on our dinner tables. The vast bounty of our neighborhood supermarkets all depends on cycles of rain and air temperatures in far-off parts of the globe. Now, across the world, those cycles are changing and the effects will be profound — for all of us.

As patterns of wind and rain shift, no one knows exactly where the water will end up or when it will arrive. But most of the big computer models predicting Earth's future climate, including those created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, foresee declining rainfall in the tropics. Harvests in those regions will decrease too. In India and much of Africa, already struggling with food shortages, food production will drop.

Climate change will produce more extreme weather, such as hurricanes and monsoons that can destroy crops and leave people with no food at all.

Most scientists don't foresee major changes in total food production during the next decade or two, as average temperatures increase by just a few degrees. As food production falls in sub-Saharan Africa and India, food production will actually increase (temporarily) in temperate regions such as North America and Europe. As a result, the world will become increasingly dependent on a handful of major food exporters, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina.

Forty or 50 years from now, as today's children reach middle age, things are projected to get worse. As temperatures continue to rise, along with levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, most models show global food production falling. The areas most affected will be those least able to purchase food from abroad. Foremost among these is Africa. According to some estimates, tens of millions of people could go hungry unless there's a major effort to help these countries adapt.

Agricultural communities can adapt in some ways, but it won't be easy, especially in the poorest parts of the world. The soil in many parts of Africa is highly degraded from overgrazing and overharvesting. There's very little organic matter — decomposed leaves, roots and grass — left in the soil. It isn't replenished because any leftover vegetation is used for fuel. Improving the soil would help Africa prepare for climate change by increasing harvests and also helping the soil store water. Providing alternative fuels for rural households is one way to help improve soil in sub-Saharan Africa.

Anything that increases the wealth of developing nations, especially in the tropics, will help them adapt to coming food shortages.

What can we do? Decrease our own contribution to greenhouse gases, with our driving choices, our food choices, and how we heat and cool our homes. Our new book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet offers guidelines for these three high-impact consumer categories.

Sally Kneidel

Source: "Will a Warmer World Have Enough Food?" Dan Charles. NPR. November, 2007

Keywords:: greenhouse gases global warming food shortages Africa

Mangroves - A Potent Climate Change Weapon

mangroves at low tide

Mangrove forests, found along tropical coasts throughout the world, may become tools in the fight against global warming. A study by Malaysian professor Jim Eong Ong reveals that mangroves may sequester more carbon than any other ecosystem on earth, soaking up some of the carbon dioxide that humans generate.

However, mangrove forests in South America and Southeast Asia are being destroyed to clear their shallow ocean-side habitats for the building of shrimp ponds to meet the increasing demand for seafood in rich countries such as the United States. Shrimp farmers only use each pond for a short period before clearing more mangrove forest to build new ponds - a strategy to avoid disease in shrimp populations. In other areas of the world, human population growth has led to destruction of these coastal forests to make way for oceanside development. But new evidence could provide more incentives for preserving mangroves forests, which are home to many coastal birds that nest nowhere else, and which protect the vulnerable young of many marine fish from larger predatory oceanic fish.

If carbon trading becomes mainstream, mangrove forests may benefit, as the forests could be "traded" as a commodity. If a developing country agreed to preserve a forest of mangroves, it could claim a carbon-sequestering unit and then sell it to an industrialized country struggling to reduce emissions. Thus,
mangrove forests would be preserved both for their ecological value and as a new weapon against global climate change. Destruction of mangroves is not only bad news for our climate, it can also have devastating effects on ecologically and commercially important fish populations.


Key words:: global warming, climate change, tools, solutions, mangroves, carbon trading, sequester carbon, fish populations, commercial fisheries

Sources:
Cory Sanderson. Fall 2007. "Mangroves - The Unexpected Climate Change Weapon." The Reporter, a publication of Population Connection.

Kennedy Warne. "Forests of the Tide." National Geographic. February 2007.

mangrove forest at high tide

Violence in Darfur Fueled by Global Warming

Darfur photo courtesy of Columbia University

A hidden culprit behind the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region is global climate change, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon wrote in a newspaper editorial last spring. Although we tend to use political or military terms when discussing the violence in Darfur, "its roots," says Ban, are "a more complex dynamic." One of the root problems of the conflict is global warming.

More than 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur since 2003, when local rebels took up arms against the Sudanese government. Violence in Darfur began in response to worsening drought conditions in the region that caused both water and food shortages.

Ban's warning follows that of other experts, including Britain's Home Secretary John Reid, who pointed out that "the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur. We should see this as a warning sign" of continued social dislocation and violence.

Rainfall in Sudan began declining in the 1980s because of "man-made global warming," said Ban. He called for economic development in the region that might involve new irrigation and water storage techniques. Meeting unmet contraceptive need would also address the very root of climate change: population growth.

Key words:: Darfur, violence, global warming, climate change, drought, population growth, Africa

Sources:
Kandis Wood. Violence in Darfur Linked to Climate Change. The Reporter, magazine of Population Connection, Vol. 39. Fall, 2007.

The Washington Post, AP Online, June 16, 2007. www.seedmagazine.com

Air conditioning: Making the heat hotter

August is hard without air conditioning.

The first few months of summer aren't bad. Throughout May, June, and July, a few trusty fans and some strategically opened and closed windows ensure a decent level of comfort - bolstered, of course, by the monthly bonus of the lowest energy bill on the block.

But August is a different story. Almost to the day, on the second day of this month, an oppressive blanket of 100-plus degree heat settled over the rolling hills of North Carolina, bringing with it a tinge of desperation. Hot days are bearable when the nights are reliably cool, when a fan can whirl in gusts of 70-degree silky night air over your sleeping body.

But on nights like tonight, when it's still 90 degrees at 10 PM, a person gets ornery. In our house we've taken to desperate measures. Nego taught me to wet a bandanna, place it in the freezer until it hardens, and then wear it around my neck as a blessedly icy collar. Isabell was seen yesterday with a plastic bag of ice cubes clipped to a string around her neck. "I tried putting it under my shirt at first," she confessed, "but the plastic felt gross." It dripped slowly on her shirt as she read contentedly on the couch.

After two sweaty and sleep-scarce nights, I've begun taking fan management more seriously. For the past few months - such child's play! - I was too lazy to bother opening and shutting the windows as the temperature changed outside, much less rearranging the fans inside. My fans sat at awkward, inconvenient angles in the corners of the room.

Last night, however, I stole an extra fan from theliving room, and placed it in the window directly above my bed. A pleasing breeze ruffled the sheets. I cranked it up to level two; the humming grew louder,a corner of the sheet flapped half-heartedly. Level three: a poster came unstuck from the wall and flew across the room. The sheet blew off the bed. I smiled and climbed into bed.

Throughout the day today, I carried the fan aroundwith me wherever I went, plugging it in at the nearest outlet. Playing the fiddle, fan on the dresser. Studying French, fan on the kitchen table. Writing on the computer, fan at my back. I think I am developing a relationship with this fan.

And still, at 3:00 we had to stage an emergency evacuation. Isabell and I staggered down the street to Larkin's house and ducked into the chilly respite of cool, merciful, conditioned air. "It's like a different world in here!" Isabell said, staring out the plate glass window. "I can't believe we're on the same planet as our house."

But we are. And unfortunately, the heat wave swamping our city is a problem that the entire planet is facing. As global temperatures rise, cities are getting hotter than ever. On a hot day, a city becomes an urban heat island - a massive conglomerate of asphalt, metal and other heat-absorbing materials. When the sun finally goes down, these man-made structures release the heat that they have soaked up all day long - preventing the city from ever really cooling off. When the sun rises the next morning, even more heat is absorbed by buildings, streets, and rooftops, only to radiate out into the next summer evening.

Miserable as this is for city inhabitants, air conditioners aren't the answer. Not only do they guzzle electricity, contributing to the global warming that makes them necessary, but they also prevent your body from handling the heat on its own.

After all, the human body knows what to do about heat. In hot conditions, your body begins to create heat shock proteins, which help your cells weather extreme temperature or stress. The composition of your sweat also changes, allowing your body to conserve more salt and prevent dehydration.

In the end, I'm inclined to let my body do its job, strengthened by the knowledge that my sweaty afternoons - however ridiculous - are not contributing to this ominous trend.

As evening fell, Isabell and I shuffled home again. I thought affectionately of my fan waiting patiently by my bedside. The air conditioning was wonderful for a visit, but Iwouldn't want to bring it home with me. After all, what would we complain about then?

by Sadie Kneidel

Alternative fuel vehicles will be tough sell

Imagine a vehicle that runs on hydrogen or biofuels
and offers the same features, performance and price as today's
gasoline vehicle.

Will it capture half the market? Not likely,
concludes a new MIT analysis of the challenges behind introducing
alternative-fuel vehicles to the marketplace. Not even if it's three
times more fuel-efficient.

Among the barriers: Until many alternative fuel (AF) vehicles are on
the road, people won't consider buying one-so there won't be many on
the road. Catch-22.

The researchers' conclusions are not all gloomy, though. If policy
incentives are kept in place long enough, adoption will reach a level
at which the market will begin to grow on its own. But "long enough"
may be a surprisingly long time.

Given today's environmental pressures and energy security concerns,
we need to move away from fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. But repeated
attempts to introduce other technologies during the past century have
nearly all failed. Dethroning the gasoline-consuming internal
combustion engine (ICE) has proved difficult.

"The challenge is not just introducing an AF vehicle," said
postdoctoral associate Jeroen Struben of the Sloan School of
Management, who has been examining the mechanisms behind such market
transitions. "Consumer acceptance, the fueling infrastructure and
manufacturing capability all have to evolve at the same time."

Thus, consumer exposure to AF vehicles is just one feedback loop that
can slow adoption. Similarly, fuel suppliers won't build AF stations
until they're certain of future demand; but until the fuel is widely
available, consumers won't buy the vehicles. And manufacturers won't
be able to make AF vehicles cheaper and better until their production
volume is high; but high-volume production won't happen until such
improvements are in place to attract buyers.

And then of course there's the status quo to be overcome-the
well-established and highly attractive gasoline-ICE vehicle and the
fueling infrastructure, energy supply chain and other industries that
support it.

April 14, 2007: National Day of Climate Action

Photo courtesy of peacecorpsonline.org

Here's your chance to meet other global-warming activists in your own community.

The website Step It Up! 2007 is promoting a "national day of climate action" on April 14, 2007. Great idea, and a desperately needed action. Already 920 events are planned in 50 states. The Step It Up 2007 website has an interactive map that allows you to locate the event closest to your home.

Step It Up! is pushing Congress for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2050, which is just a 2% reduction per year.

Here is Step It Up's explanation of why they've chosen this particular goal. From their website:

"The latest science tells us that temperatures are increasing faster than expected, and the results are showing up in melting ice caps, intensifying storms, and rising sea levels. America's foremost climatologist, NASA scientist James Hansen, has said that we have just a few years to start reducing carbon emissions, and he's endorsed our goal of 80% by 2050. That won't prevent global warming - it's already too late for that - but it may be enough to stave off the most catastrophic effects.

"While few experts have said explicitly 'we need to reduce carbon emissions 80% by 2050,' we're sticking to this message. Here's why: Scientists have resisted in nearly every case prescribing policy because they don't want to enter the political realm. That's why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others won't suggest policy, but rather leave it up to legislators to do the dirty work. That said, Jim Hansen, the Stern Report, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a number of European countries, the State of California and others (including the new USCAP business-environmental partnership) have either suggested or explicitly referred to 80% carbon cuts by 2050 as a solution commensurate to the scale of the problem.

"And it's possible. The cost of renewable energy is falling fast. New conservation technologies, like hybrid cars, are becoming more available. Many Americans are starting to switch already, but only leadership from Washington can allow this transformation to happen fast enough. And if we begin to get our house in order, then we can play some role in helping China and India steer away from cataclysm as well.

"There are no guarantees we'll succeed. But if we act ambitiously, we have reason to hope."

Step It Up's website (link above) also has suggetions for how to plan an action near you, if there isn't one already planned, and other steps you can take to reduce our contribution to climate change. Americans are right now the world's biggest producers of the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. But we're not helpless to stop it.

Keywords:: global warming, day of action, step it up, Congress, 80% reduction, greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, climate change

Tardy report on climate change is long overdue

Later than the latest homework assignment, more inadequate than the most half-hearted school project, the US’s upcoming climate change report is expected to disappoint climate scientists around the world.

The report, required by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, was due to the UN no later than January 1, 2006. Yes, 2006. Nonetheless, it is currently still under review by the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

According to the Council, the fourteen-month delay has been the result of an exhaustive review process. Skeptics, however, beg to differ. Rick Plitz, director of Climate Science Watch and a former senior associate of the federal Climate Change Science Program, hypothesizes that the postponement is largely because “the administration is reluctant to make an honest statement about likely climate change impacts on this country.”

This reluctance is rather understandable, given the degree of action that an honest assessment would necessitate. The UN’s own report, released last month, stressed more harshly than ever the drastic need for a significant worldwide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Although the US ratified the report, along with 112 other nations, the administration has yet to appropriately address the gravity of this news. The US’s current emissions policy calls for limiting the nation’s rate of increase to 19% – which still allows emissions to increase from 7.7 billion tons in 2000 to 9.2 billion tons by 2020.

This slowed rate of increase is simply not enough, according to Washington’s own Climate Institute. “We really need to be seriously reducing emissions, not just reducing the growth rate, as the president is doing,” says Michael MacCracken, the Institute’s chief scientist.

It’s easy to understand why the administration, and indeed, the American public, is hesitant to admit the decisive stance that is truly needed. After all, the greatest sources of greenhouse gases are coal, oil, and natural gas – the very fuels that support almost every aspect of the comfortable American lifestyle. Acknowledging the gravity of the true need for change is going to require a serious policy change from the government and citizens alike.

Both the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Science Watch offer continued monitoring of the report’s progress, as well as further information on climate change in the political arena.

By Sara Kate Kneidel

keywords:: global warming, climate change, UN report, US greenhouse gas emissions

North Carolina is not alone in our struggle to block the construction of new coal-fired power plants. Far from it. The Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club recently posted the article below about the "Midwest coal rush." The article explains why coal is making a comeback in spite of considerable health and environmental costs. To find the original article go to the Illinois Sierra Club Home Page, then scroll down and click on "Clean Air", then click on "Midwest Coal Rush". Or read it right here:

Midwest Coal Rush

Dirty coal is making a comeback...

For three decades the devastating pollution costs associated with burning coal for energy has prevented the construction of new coal power plants. American innovation has helped clean the air while meeting US energy demands with clean energy choices such as energy efficiency, wind, solar and clean-burning natural gas.

All that progress is now at risk. With a sympathetic White House, relaxed environmental protections, and large state and federal subsidies, dirty coal is staging its most serious resurgence in thirty years. 114 new coal-burning power plants are in various stages of planning and permitting in the US today. Most of the plants are proposing outdated coal combustion technology which would create the largest new source of global warming pollution in the US.

Almost one half of the new coal plants are proposed in the Upper Midwest – with a record 12 plants in Illinois! These new coal plants, some of which are already being permitted and funded with taxpayer subsidies, will not replace the old existing coal plants but instead will compound our existing pollution woes. These “new” coal plants emit essentially as much carbon dioxide – the principal cause of global warming -- as a 1950s-era coal plant.

What Is At Stake?

Our Health: Coal-burning power plants are the single largest source of mercury, a potent neurotoxin contaminating our nation’s waterways. The Illinois Department of Health has issued a fish consumption advisory due to dangerous levels of mercury in every waterway in the state. US EPA estimates that one in six women in America has levels of mercury in their bodies that presents a risk of permanent brain damage to her child in utero.

Coal-burning power plants also cause the fine soot pollution that blankets our cities. This fine soot bypasses the lung’s natural defenses and becomes lodged deep in the lungs where it causes asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart attacks, and even premature death. The Midwest already has its share of air quality alert days – more coal plants will only mean more dirty air days.

Our Economy: Investing in dirty old coal technology closes the market to expanding clean energy opportunities in the Midwest. Modern clean energy technologies, such as energy efficiency and wind power, are viable solutions to meet future energy needs in the US. The Midwest has an exciting opportunity, with its abundant wind and biomass resources, to become a leader in the 21st century energy market. Midwest wind energy alone could meet 25% of America’s electricity needs and create thousands of additional jobs in manufacturing, installation and maintenance of clean energy systems.

Our Future: Leading experts agree that the single largest threat facing our planet and our children’s future is global warming. A 2004 Pentagon-commissioned report states that “ because of potentially devastating consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change … should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.” The proposed Midwest coal plants would add billions of tons of new carbon dioxide to the air, making them the #1 US threat to global warming, at a time other states and 140 nations are taking action to reduce their global warming pollution.

Stop New Dirty Coal NOW To Build A Clean Energy Future

Building dirty coal-burning power plants is a giant step in the wrong direction, leading us into a future of at least 50 more years of additional air pollution and increased health risks. The Midwest needs to become a leader by banning new dirty coal-fired power plants and instead investing in safe and clean energy technology. Clean energy alternatives should be considered before any other technologies. [end of article]

To learn more about the fight against coal's resurgence, go to the Energy Justice Network. Among other things, they have an interesting map of the nation's coal supply regions. I begin to understand why the Southeast has a hefty proportion of the nation's existing coal-fired power plants.

To register your objection to Duke Energy's proposed new Cliffside coal plants in North Carolina, e-mail the NC Utilities Commission with a brief statement at vance@ncuc.net (Subject heading: Cliffside or Docket E-7, Sub 790). Ask the Utilities Commission to reject Duke's construction request, and include any negative comment about coal. Send it by Weds February 28 if you can, although that decision date may wind up being postponed (at the request of several concerned legislators). You don't have to be a resident of NC to object. We'll all pay the price for the 11 million tons of carbon dioxide that these new NC plants will generate every year.

Thanks for any e-mails. For more about the struggle in NC against the mighty Duke Energy, which has its tendrils deep into local government and local corporations, see previous posts on this blog. More will be forthcoming.

Keywords: coal coal-fired power plants Duke Energy midwest coal rush Illinois Sierra Club map of coal supply largest source of global warming mercury brain damage asthma

Weiners & Burgers Heating the Planet More than Cars

A scientist collecting waste samples from a swine manure holding pond in Iowa

Animal farming is a bigger contributor of greenhouse gases and global warming than transportation is. So says a new report from the United Nations FAO or Food and Agricultural Organization.

Raising livestock accounts for 18% of all green-house gas emissions worldwide, including 9% of all carbon dioxide produced by human activities. Most of that CO2 is from the burning of forests for livestock pastures or to grow feed for farmed animals.

In addition, 37% of all methane due to humans is from livestock. Methane is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule, than CO2 is.

Farmed animals, says the FAO report, now comprise 20% of all land animals. The proliferation of animals we keep for meat, eggs, and milk is displacing and endangering wildlife species. The report says that 30% of land which is now occupied by livestock was at one time prime wildlife habitat. [It seems to me this figure should be closer to 100%.]

The FAO proposes, as a partial solution, that the true environmental costs inherent in animal agriculture should be passed along to livestock farmers. This would include the cost of attempting to restore habitats damaged by livestock, including the cleaning of rivers polluted by the liquid effluent from waste lagoons. The farmers then would be forced to pass those costs along to retailers and on to consumers. Sounds good to me.

But some costs can't be recouped. There is no technology to remove CO2 from the air, for example. I know this because my community has just had a couple of public hearings to consider our local power company's request to build more coal-fired power plants. That point was brought up again and again as I and others protested the construction: there is no technology to remove CO2 from the air. So the real solution to animal farming will have to be consuming fewer animal products. There is no other true fix.

Science News, January 13, 2007

Keywords:: GREENHOUSE GASES GLOBAL WARMING CLIMATE CHANGE ANIMAL AGRICULTURE FACTORY FARMING ANIMAL PRODUCTS FARMED ANIMALS TRANSPORTATION SUVS CARS TRUCKS EMISSIONS CARBON DIOXIDE BURNING FORESTS BURNING WOODLANDS PASTURES LIVESTOCK FEED ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS CONSUMER LIVESTOCK FARMER TRUE COSTS