Galaxy
12/7/07
Since stories have started surfacing more recently, many have wondered, if the rumors are true. Are there really 'continents', or massive floating garbage patches residing in the pacific ocean? Apparently, the rumors are true, and these unsightly patches are reportedly killing marine life and releasing poisons that enter the human food chain, as well. However, before you start imagining a plastic version of Maui, keep in mind that these plastic patches certainly aren'tsolid surfaced islands that you could build a house on! Ocean currents have collected massive amounts of garbage into a sort of plastic "soup" where countless bits of discarded plastic float intertwined just beneath the surface. Indeed, the human race has really made its mark. One enormous plastic patch is estimated to weigh over 3 million tons altogether and cover an area roughly twice the size of Texas.
But if there is an unfathomably massive collection of plastic junk out there, then why doesn't everyone already know about it, and why aren't we doing something about it? Well, there are several reasons. First, no one is keen to claim responsibility for these monstrosities, which exists in one of the most remote spots on the planet. It's easier to ignore than to deal with, at least in the short term. Most of the
plastic is floating just below the surface where explorers, researchers, and scientists can get a good close-up view, but it is nearly impossible to see the massive quantities of submerged trash in photographs taken from great distances. This makes it easier for naysayers to disregard the problem as a mere myth, in spite of all of the well-documented research to the contrary. Clean up seems nearly impossible at this point, so even those who are well aware of the situation have adopted the famous ostrich cliche of burying their heads in the sand. Even so, this polluted, chemical filled junk is finding it's way onto our dinner tables.
Sadly, marine researcher Charles Moore at the Algalita Marina Research Foundation in Long Beach says there’s no practical fix for the problem. He has been studying the massive patch for the past 10 years, and said the debris is to the point where it would be nearly impossible to extract.
"Any attempt to remove that much plastic from the oceans - it boggles the mind," Moore said from Hawaii, where his crew is docked. "There's just too much, and the ocean is just too big."
The trash collects in this remote area, known as the North Pacific Gyre, due to a clockwise trade wind that encircles the Pacific Rim. According to Moore the trash accumulates the same way bubbles clump at the center of hot tub.
Ian Kiernan, the Australian founder of Clean Up the World, started his environmental campaign two decades ago after being shocked by the incredible amount of rubbish he saw on an around-the-world solo yacht race. He'll says he’ll never be able the wipe the atrocious site from his memory.
"It was just filled with things like furniture, fridges, plastic containers, cigarette lighters, plastic bottles, light globes, televisions and fishing nets," Kiernan says. "It's all so durable it floats. It's just a major problem."
Kiernan says it’s killing wildlife in a vicious cycle. Holding an ashtray filled with colorful pieces of plastic he told The Sydney Morning Herald, "this is the contents of a fleshy-footed shearwater's stomach. They go to the ocean to fish but there ain't no fish - there's plastic. They then regurgitate it down the necks of their fledglings and it kills them. After the birds decompose, the plastic gets washed back into the ocean where it can kill again. It's a form of ghost fishing, where it goes on and on."
A Dutch study in the North Sea of fulmar seabirds concluded 95 per cent of the birds had plastic in their stomachs. More than 1600 pieces were found in the stomach of one bird in Belgium.
The United Nations Environment Program says plastic is accountable for the deaths of more than a million seabirds and more than 100,000 marine mammals such as whales, dolphins and seals every year.
Since his first encounter with the gyre in 1997, Moore created the Algalita Marine Research Foundation to help study the problem. Canadian filmmaker Ian Connacher joined Moore last year to film the garbage patch for his documentary, I Am Plastic.
"The most menacing part is those little bits of plastic start looking like food for certain animals, or the filter feeders don't have any choice, they just pick them up," noted Connacher.
Perhaps an even bigger problem is hiding beneath the surface of the islands of garbage. Greenpeace reports that about 70 per cent of the plastic that makes it to the ocean sinks to the bottom, where it then smothers marine life on the ocean floor. Dutch scientists have found 600,000 tons of discarded plastic on the bottom of the North Sea alone.
A study by the Japanese geochemist Hideshige Takada and his colleagues at Tokyo University in 2001 found that plastic polymers soak up the resilient poisons such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls. The researchers found that non-water-soluble toxic chemicals can be found in plastic in levels as high as a million times their concentration in water. As small pieces of plastic are mistaken for fish eggs and other food by marine life, these toxins end up at the dinner table. But even without the extra toxins, eating plastic is hazardous to health.
It is estimated that 80 per cent of plastic found at sea is washed out from the land. The journal Science last year predicted seafood stocks would collapse by 2048 if overfishing and pollution continued. If the seafood stocks collapse, a lot of humans will follow. So, is there anything we can do to prevent this?
Greenpeace says embracing the three Rs - reduce, re-use and recycle - would help tackle the problem. Plastic recycling is lagging well behind paper and cardboard. Part of the reason is because many people aren’t even sure what recycling options exist in their area. But there are other challenges for plastic recycling too. Some plastics release toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and are more expensive to recycle than to simply create a new product from petrochemicals.
The widespread use of bioplastics could largely reduce the amount of plastic strewn around the world. Traditional petrochemical-based plastics are non-degradable and non-renewable; degradable plastic breaks into smaller pieces in UV light but remains plastic. Then there are two kinds of biodegradable plastic that break down in compost - one from a petrochemical resource, the other from a renewable resource such as corn or wheat, which is known as bioplastic. Bioplastic is by far the most environmentally friendly option. Dr Katherine Dean, of the CSIRO, says corporate firms are now becoming increasingly interested in bioplastics.
"When oil prices soared in 2005, that changed a lot of people's perspective, because bioplastic became quite cost-competitive," she says. "All of a sudden it wasn't just about doing the right thing."
The company Plantic Technologies, has developed biodegradable plastic for everything from food and beverage packaging to medical, agricultural and sporting applications. The chief executive of Plantic, Grant Dow, says once composted, the plastic would become nothing more than carbon dioxide and water.
"For all intents and purposes, it looks like plastic and feels like plastic and does the same thing as plastic in the application," he says.
"It will only biodegrade in the presence of heat, moisture and bacteria, so it will sit in your cupboard pretty much indefinitely, but when the bacteria get to it in compost, that's it. It's gone."
While parts of our oceans have already become inhospitable soups of plastic and plankton, we can at least mitigate the future consequences by making smart individual choices. Experts say the best way to mitigate the damage down the road is by buying less products that contain plastics or plastic packaging, recycling, lobbying for safer bio-degradable plastics, and by purchasing reusable cloth grocery bags among other strategies.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Green Basics: Organic Food
by Collin Dunn, Seattle on 09.13.07
Food & Health
Though known colloquially as food that is grown more healthily (and is more expensive), in order for organic food to be certified as such, it must be produced under specific, legally-regulated standards and be subject to testing in order to retain certification.
In agriculture, this means that crops were grown without the use of conventional pesticides, artificial fertilizers or sewage sludge, and that they were processed without food additives (like chemical preservatives). When it comes to animals, they must be reared without the routine use of antibiotics and growth hormones and fed a diet of organic foods. In most countries, organic produce must not be genetically modified.
Historically, organic produce was almost exclusively available directly from small family-run farms or at community farmer's markets. Lately, though, organic foods are becoming much more widely available; organic food sales in the United States have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year for the past few years, while sales of conventional food have grown more slowly, at about 2 to 3 percent a year. This explosion in popularity has led the way for bigger companies, like Wal-Mart, to get into the organic food business and change the way that organics are perceived and, to a certain extent, the way they're produced.
Perhaps the most important thing to understand about organic food is the relationship between legal (usually government) oversight and production of food employing earth-friendly practices. In order to be "certified," organic food -- and the farm it was grown on -- must apply for certification, pass a rigorous series of tests, and pay a fee for the process. In the US, this process is regulated by the US Department of Agriculture; as a government agency, it's subject to politicization and changing rules as different administrations and individuals assert their influence. As such, all "certified" organic food is organic, but not all organic food is certified. This, in part, has led to the increasing popularity of local food over organic food (but that's another post).
As organics have grown in popularity, more and more food items are available in organic varieties. What used to be the nearly exclusive realm of fruits and vegetables has grown to include processed foods like coffee (though its days may be numbered), ketchup and ice cream -- a veritable orgy of organic food that has come to include just about anything and everything you eat on a daily basis. The modulation of the market to include more processed foods marks a sea change in the organic industry, though, as these processed foods are increasingly coming from large conglomerates and companies producing huge amounts of canned goods, frozen vegetables, pre-prepared dishes and the like. While the ingredients are certified, this "industrialization of organic" down conveyor belts and into a carbon-intensive supply chain is a bit antithetical to organics' original purpose of creating "an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony", as defined by the USDA National Organic Standards Board.
Still, the only way to be sure that the food you're eating is organic, short of growing it yourself (or buying it from someone you trust not to have soaked it in pesticides), is looking for certification marks, like the USDA Organic Seal, pictured here. Elsewhere, similar government regulations and third-party inspectors certify that food is produced to certain standards; in Australia, it's the NASAA Organic Standards, in Japan, the JAS Standards must be met. In the United States, In the United States, the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.A. § 6501-22) required that the USDA develop national standards for organic products. The regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 205) are enforced by the USDA through the National Organic Program under this act. These laws essentially require that any product that claims to be organic must have been manufactured and handled according to specific NOP requirements. A USDA Organic seal identifies products with at least 95% organic ingredients.
Given the industrialization of organics and various attempts to water down organic standards, there are some widely agreed-upon benefits of organic farming, including things like: organic farms do not release synthetic pesticides into the environment, some of which have the potential to harm local wildlife; organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, i.e., populations of plants and insects, as well as animals; and when calculated either per unit area or per unit of yield, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, e.g., waste such as packaging materials for chemicals.
Further, a 2002 study found that "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods"; additionally, several studies corroborate this finding by having found that that while 77 percent of conventional food carries synthetic pesticide residues, only about 25 percent of organic food does. So, generally, organic food isn't going to have as much nasty residue on it, and that is a very good thing.
But what about taste? A 2001 study by researchers at Washington State University concluded that organic apples were sweeter. Along with taste and sweetness, the texture and firmness of the apples were also rated higher than those grown conventionally. These differences are attributed to the greater soil quality resulting from organic farming techniques compared to those of conventional farming. However, a different small study looking at processed organic foods found participants could not differentiate organic and conventional varieties of a rice cakes.
The biggest criticism of organic food, though, is the price premium. According to the Journal of Food Science, organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar, conventionally-produced products. Prices tend to be higher because organic produce is produced on a smaller scale, and may need to be milled or processed separately; some of the price premium is likely to decrease as organic produce continues to scale up. Organic foods also tend to include more of the environmental costs that conventional agriculture tends to externalize. So, you're paying more for what's not in your food (pesticides, hormones, etc.) and you're paying more of the actual cost of food production, because things like pesticides aren't being passed along to the environment where friendly fuzzy bunnies and clear-running spring water pay for them.
For more information on organics, see Wikipedia's organic food entry, along with their organic farming entry. Local Harvest has more info on the different "shades" of organic you're likely to find at your local farmer's markets, while the USDA's National Organic Program and Alternative Farming Information Center will provide all the facts and definitions for organics (and give you some idea of the government's role in all of this).
Here at TreeHugger, we've written a lot about organics; we think organic milk is healthier, know that organics make the supply chain healthier, like to support new organic farms, take note when Wal-Mart and Safeway start incorporating organics, and believe that organic ketchup helps prevent cancer -- really! Read more in our How to Green Your Meals guide, or just type "organic" into our search engine and go nuts!
The Green Basics series of posts appears on Thursdays here at TreeHugger; we're writing them to provide basic information about important ideas, materials and technologies for new greenies, or for those who just need a quick refresher.
Food & Health
Though known colloquially as food that is grown more healthily (and is more expensive), in order for organic food to be certified as such, it must be produced under specific, legally-regulated standards and be subject to testing in order to retain certification.
In agriculture, this means that crops were grown without the use of conventional pesticides, artificial fertilizers or sewage sludge, and that they were processed without food additives (like chemical preservatives). When it comes to animals, they must be reared without the routine use of antibiotics and growth hormones and fed a diet of organic foods. In most countries, organic produce must not be genetically modified.
Historically, organic produce was almost exclusively available directly from small family-run farms or at community farmer's markets. Lately, though, organic foods are becoming much more widely available; organic food sales in the United States have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year for the past few years, while sales of conventional food have grown more slowly, at about 2 to 3 percent a year. This explosion in popularity has led the way for bigger companies, like Wal-Mart, to get into the organic food business and change the way that organics are perceived and, to a certain extent, the way they're produced.
Perhaps the most important thing to understand about organic food is the relationship between legal (usually government) oversight and production of food employing earth-friendly practices. In order to be "certified," organic food -- and the farm it was grown on -- must apply for certification, pass a rigorous series of tests, and pay a fee for the process. In the US, this process is regulated by the US Department of Agriculture; as a government agency, it's subject to politicization and changing rules as different administrations and individuals assert their influence. As such, all "certified" organic food is organic, but not all organic food is certified. This, in part, has led to the increasing popularity of local food over organic food (but that's another post).
As organics have grown in popularity, more and more food items are available in organic varieties. What used to be the nearly exclusive realm of fruits and vegetables has grown to include processed foods like coffee (though its days may be numbered), ketchup and ice cream -- a veritable orgy of organic food that has come to include just about anything and everything you eat on a daily basis. The modulation of the market to include more processed foods marks a sea change in the organic industry, though, as these processed foods are increasingly coming from large conglomerates and companies producing huge amounts of canned goods, frozen vegetables, pre-prepared dishes and the like. While the ingredients are certified, this "industrialization of organic" down conveyor belts and into a carbon-intensive supply chain is a bit antithetical to organics' original purpose of creating "an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony", as defined by the USDA National Organic Standards Board.
Still, the only way to be sure that the food you're eating is organic, short of growing it yourself (or buying it from someone you trust not to have soaked it in pesticides), is looking for certification marks, like the USDA Organic Seal, pictured here. Elsewhere, similar government regulations and third-party inspectors certify that food is produced to certain standards; in Australia, it's the NASAA Organic Standards, in Japan, the JAS Standards must be met. In the United States, In the United States, the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.A. § 6501-22) required that the USDA develop national standards for organic products. The regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 205) are enforced by the USDA through the National Organic Program under this act. These laws essentially require that any product that claims to be organic must have been manufactured and handled according to specific NOP requirements. A USDA Organic seal identifies products with at least 95% organic ingredients.
Given the industrialization of organics and various attempts to water down organic standards, there are some widely agreed-upon benefits of organic farming, including things like: organic farms do not release synthetic pesticides into the environment, some of which have the potential to harm local wildlife; organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, i.e., populations of plants and insects, as well as animals; and when calculated either per unit area or per unit of yield, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, e.g., waste such as packaging materials for chemicals.
Further, a 2002 study found that "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods"; additionally, several studies corroborate this finding by having found that that while 77 percent of conventional food carries synthetic pesticide residues, only about 25 percent of organic food does. So, generally, organic food isn't going to have as much nasty residue on it, and that is a very good thing.
But what about taste? A 2001 study by researchers at Washington State University concluded that organic apples were sweeter. Along with taste and sweetness, the texture and firmness of the apples were also rated higher than those grown conventionally. These differences are attributed to the greater soil quality resulting from organic farming techniques compared to those of conventional farming. However, a different small study looking at processed organic foods found participants could not differentiate organic and conventional varieties of a rice cakes.
The biggest criticism of organic food, though, is the price premium. According to the Journal of Food Science, organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar, conventionally-produced products. Prices tend to be higher because organic produce is produced on a smaller scale, and may need to be milled or processed separately; some of the price premium is likely to decrease as organic produce continues to scale up. Organic foods also tend to include more of the environmental costs that conventional agriculture tends to externalize. So, you're paying more for what's not in your food (pesticides, hormones, etc.) and you're paying more of the actual cost of food production, because things like pesticides aren't being passed along to the environment where friendly fuzzy bunnies and clear-running spring water pay for them.
For more information on organics, see Wikipedia's organic food entry, along with their organic farming entry. Local Harvest has more info on the different "shades" of organic you're likely to find at your local farmer's markets, while the USDA's National Organic Program and Alternative Farming Information Center will provide all the facts and definitions for organics (and give you some idea of the government's role in all of this).
Here at TreeHugger, we've written a lot about organics; we think organic milk is healthier, know that organics make the supply chain healthier, like to support new organic farms, take note when Wal-Mart and Safeway start incorporating organics, and believe that organic ketchup helps prevent cancer -- really! Read more in our How to Green Your Meals guide, or just type "organic" into our search engine and go nuts!
The Green Basics series of posts appears on Thursdays here at TreeHugger; we're writing them to provide basic information about important ideas, materials and technologies for new greenies, or for those who just need a quick refresher.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Worse than we thought
· Report warns of 4C rise by 2100
· Floods and food and water shortages likely
David Adam in Paris
Guardian Unlimited
Saturday February 3, 2007
The world's scientists yesterday gave their starkest warning yet that a failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions will bring devastating climate change within a few decades.
Average temperatures could increase by as much as 6.4C by the end of the century if emissions continue to rise, with a rise of 4C most likely, according to the final report of an expert panel set up by the UN to study the problem. The forecast is higher than previous estimates, because scientists have discovered that Earth's land and oceans are becoming less able to absorb carbon dioxide.
An average global temperature rise of 4C would wipe out hundreds of species, bring extreme food and water shortages in vulnerable countries and cause catastrophic floods that would displace hundreds of millions of people. Warming would be much more severe towards the poles, which could accelerate melting of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets.
The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is written by hundreds of scientists across the world and has been approved by every government. It leaves little room for doubt that human activity is to blame. Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said: "February 2 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether people are to blame for climate change."
The report itself said human activity was "very likely" to be responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades, which means the scientists are 90% sure.
The new warning comes as world governments face increasing pressure to agree a new global deal to reduce emissions.
Susan Solomon, the co-chair of the IPCC working group that prepared the report, said: "If we keep emitting greenhouse gases at current rates we will see bigger changes this century than we did in the previous century. The amount of warming will depend on choices that human beings make."
The previous IPCC report, in 2001, said that failure to act could bring global warming of up to 5.8C by 2100.
Dr Solomon said yesterday's predictions painted a gloomier picture because scientists have discovered feedbacks in the global carbon cycle that are adding to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Early estimates say this would be enough to raise temperatures by at least another 1C by 2100.
A 4C rise or higher this century would see the world warm almost as much in 100 years as it did during the 15,000 years since the end of the last ice age.
The IPCC panel stressed that such an outcome was not inevitable. A significant switch to "clean and resource efficient technologies" would cut expected temperature rises by half. But even their most optimistic scenario would see a likely increase in temperature of 2.4C over pre-industrial levels by 2100. The EU has defined any rise over 2C as "dangerous".
David Miliband, the environment secretary, said the report was "another nail in the coffin of the climate change deniers and represents the most authoritative picture to date, showing that the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over". He added: "What's now urgently needed is the international political commitment to take action. This has been absent so far."
What +4C will mean
Loss of food production
Droughts. African crops slump 15% to 35%. Global production falls 10%
Increased flooding
Sea levels rise by up to 59cm. Bangladesh and Vietnam worst hit, along with coastal cities such as London, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Calcutta and Karachi. 1.8m people at risk from coastal flooding in Britain alone
Melting ice
Half the Arctic tundra at risk. Europe loses 80% of alpine glaciers. West Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet start to melt
More disease
Mosquitoes thrive, exposing 80 m more people to malaria in Africa; 2.5bn more exposed to dengue fever
Loss of land species
20-50% of land species threatened with extinction
Water shortages
Fresh water availability halved in southern Africa and Mediterranean
Hurricanes more powerful Wind strengths increasing 15-25%. Great damage to infrastructure
· Floods and food and water shortages likely
David Adam in Paris
Guardian Unlimited
Saturday February 3, 2007
The world's scientists yesterday gave their starkest warning yet that a failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions will bring devastating climate change within a few decades.
Average temperatures could increase by as much as 6.4C by the end of the century if emissions continue to rise, with a rise of 4C most likely, according to the final report of an expert panel set up by the UN to study the problem. The forecast is higher than previous estimates, because scientists have discovered that Earth's land and oceans are becoming less able to absorb carbon dioxide.
An average global temperature rise of 4C would wipe out hundreds of species, bring extreme food and water shortages in vulnerable countries and cause catastrophic floods that would displace hundreds of millions of people. Warming would be much more severe towards the poles, which could accelerate melting of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets.
The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is written by hundreds of scientists across the world and has been approved by every government. It leaves little room for doubt that human activity is to blame. Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said: "February 2 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether people are to blame for climate change."
The report itself said human activity was "very likely" to be responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades, which means the scientists are 90% sure.
The new warning comes as world governments face increasing pressure to agree a new global deal to reduce emissions.
Susan Solomon, the co-chair of the IPCC working group that prepared the report, said: "If we keep emitting greenhouse gases at current rates we will see bigger changes this century than we did in the previous century. The amount of warming will depend on choices that human beings make."
The previous IPCC report, in 2001, said that failure to act could bring global warming of up to 5.8C by 2100.
Dr Solomon said yesterday's predictions painted a gloomier picture because scientists have discovered feedbacks in the global carbon cycle that are adding to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Early estimates say this would be enough to raise temperatures by at least another 1C by 2100.
A 4C rise or higher this century would see the world warm almost as much in 100 years as it did during the 15,000 years since the end of the last ice age.
The IPCC panel stressed that such an outcome was not inevitable. A significant switch to "clean and resource efficient technologies" would cut expected temperature rises by half. But even their most optimistic scenario would see a likely increase in temperature of 2.4C over pre-industrial levels by 2100. The EU has defined any rise over 2C as "dangerous".
David Miliband, the environment secretary, said the report was "another nail in the coffin of the climate change deniers and represents the most authoritative picture to date, showing that the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over". He added: "What's now urgently needed is the international political commitment to take action. This has been absent so far."
What +4C will mean
Loss of food production
Droughts. African crops slump 15% to 35%. Global production falls 10%
Increased flooding
Sea levels rise by up to 59cm. Bangladesh and Vietnam worst hit, along with coastal cities such as London, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Calcutta and Karachi. 1.8m people at risk from coastal flooding in Britain alone
Melting ice
Half the Arctic tundra at risk. Europe loses 80% of alpine glaciers. West Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet start to melt
More disease
Mosquitoes thrive, exposing 80 m more people to malaria in Africa; 2.5bn more exposed to dengue fever
Loss of land species
20-50% of land species threatened with extinction
Water shortages
Fresh water availability halved in southern Africa and Mediterranean
Hurricanes more powerful Wind strengths increasing 15-25%. Great damage to infrastructure
Friday, February 2, 2007
Panel Issues Bleak Report on Climate Change
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL and ANDREW C. REVKIN
New York Times
February 2, 2007
PARIS, Feb. 2 — In a bleak and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate change scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.
They said the world is already committed to centuries of warming, shifting weather patterns and rising seas, resulting from the buildup of gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the warming can be substantially blunted by prompt action, the panel of scientists said in a report released here today.
The report summarized the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, sizing up the causes and consequences of climate change. But it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming since 1950.
In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, put the confidence level at between 66 and 90 percent. Both reports are online at http://www.ipcc.ch.
If carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach twice their pre-industrial levels, the report said, the global climate will probably warm by 3.5 to 8 degrees. But there would be more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater warming, a situation many earth scientists say poses an unacceptable risk.
Many energy and environment experts see such a doubling as a foregone conclusion sometime after midcentury unless there is a prompt and sustained shift away from the 20th-century pattern of unfettered burning of coal and oil, the main sources of carbon dioxide, and an aggressive quest for expanded and improved nonpolluting energy options.
Even an increased level of warming that falls in the middle of the group’s range of projections would likely cause significant stress to ecosystems and alter longstanding climate patterns that shape water supplies and agricultural production, according to many climate experts and biologists.
While the new report projected a modest rise in seas by 2100 — between 7 and 23 inches — it also concluded that seas would continue to rise, and crowded coasts retreat, for at least 1,000 years to come. By comparison, seas rose about 6 to 9 inches in the 20th century.
John P. Holdren, an energy and climate expert at Harvard University, said that the “report powerfully underscores the need for a massive effort to slow the pace of global climatic disruption before intolerable consequences become inevitable.” [Read a report by Mr. Holdren. (PDF format)]
“Since 2001 there has been a torrent of new scientific evidence on the magnitude, human origins and growing impacts of the climatic changes that are underway,” said Mr. Holdren, who is the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “In overwhelming proportions, this evidence has been in the direction of showing faster change, more danger and greater confidence about the dominant role of fossil fuel burning and tropical deforestation in causing the changes that are being observed.”
The conclusions came after a three-year review of hundreds of studies of clues illuminating past climate shifts, observations of retreating ice, warming and rising seas, and other shifts around the planet, and a greatly expanded suite of supercomputer simulations used to test how earth will respond to a building blanket of gases that hold heat in the atmosphere.
The section released today was a 20-page summary for policymakers, which was approved early this morning by teams of officials from more than 100 countries after three days and nights of wrangling over wording with the lead authors, all of whom are scientists.
It described far-flung ramifications for both humans and nature.
“It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent,” said the summary.
Generally, the scientists said, more precipitation will fall at higher latitudes, which are likely also to see lengthened growing seasons, while semi-arid, subtropical regions already chronically beset by drought could see a further 20-percent drop in rainfall under the midrange scenario for increases in the greenhouse gases.
The summary added a new chemical consequence of the buildup of carbon dioxide to the list of mainly climatic and biological impacts foreseen in its previous reports: a drop in the pH of seawater as oceans absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid when partly dissolved. Marine biologists have said that could imperil some kinds of corals and plankton.
A vast improvement in the science of climatology — including “larges amounts of new and more comprehensive data” — has allowed the group to become far more confident and specific in its predictions, compared with its previous assessment in 2001, the authors said.
The report essentially caps a half-century-long effort to discern whether humans, through the buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases released mainly by burning fuels and forests, could influence the earth’s climate system in potentially momentous ways.
The group operates under the aegis of the United Nations and was chartered in 1988 — a year of record heat, burning forests, and the first big headlines about global warming — to provide regular reviews of climate science to governments to inform policy choices.
Government officials are involved in shaping the summary of each report, but the scientist-authors, who are unpaid, have the final say over the thousands of pages in four underlying technical reports that will be completed and published later this year.
Big questions remain about the speed and extent of some impending changes, both because of uncertainty about future population and pollution trends and the complex interrelationships of the greenhouse emissions, clouds, dusty kinds of pollution, the oceans and earth’s veneer of life, which both emits and soaks up carbon dioxide and other such gases.
But a broad array of scientists, including authors of the report and independent experts, said the latest analysis was the most sobering view yet of a century of transition — after thousands of years of relatively stable climate conditions — to a new norm of continual change.
Should greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at even a moderate pace, average temperatures by the end of the century could match those last seen 125,000 years ago, in the previous warm spell between ice ages, the report said.
At that time, the panel said, sea levels were 12 to 20 feet higher than they are now. Muych of that extra water is now trapped in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, which are eroding in some places.
The panel said there was no solid scientific understanding of how rapidly the vast stores of ice in polar regions will melt, so their estimates on new sea levels were based mainly on how much the warmed oceans will expand, and not on contributions from the melting of ice now on land.
Other scientists have recently reported evidence that the glaciers and ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic could flow seaward far more quickly than estimated in the past, and they have proposed that the risks to coastal areas could be much more imminent. But the I.P.C.C. is proscribed by its charter from entering into speculation, and so could not include such possible instabilities in its assessment.
Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, said the lack of clarity should offer no one comfort. “The speed with which melting ice sheets are raising sea levels is uncertain, but the report makes clear that sea levels will rise inexorably over the coming centuries,” he said. “It is a question of when and how much, and not if,” he said, adding: “While the conclusions are disturbing, decision makers are now armed with the latest facts and will be better able to respond to these realities.”
Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, which oversees the I.P.C.C. along with the meteorological group, said society now had plenty of information on which to act.
“The implications of global warming over the coming decades for our industrial economy, water supplies, agriculture, biological diversity and even geopolitics are massive,” he said. “This new report should spur policymakers to get off the fence and put strong and effective policies in place to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.”
The warming and other climate shifts will be highly variable around the world, with the Arctic particularly seeing much higher temperatures, said Susan Solomon, the co-leader of the team writing the summary and the section of the I.P.C.C. report on basic science. She is an atmospheric scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The kinds of vulnerabilities are very much dependent on where you are, Dr. Solomon said in a telephone interview. “If you’re living in parts of tropics and they’re getting drier and you’re a farmer there are some very acute issues associated with even small changes in rainfall — changes we’re already seeing are significant,” she said. “If you are an Inuit and you’re seeing your sea ice retreating already that’s affecting your lifestyle and culture.”
The 20-page summary is a sketch of the findings that are most germane to the public and world leaders.
The full I.P.C.C. report, thousands of pages of technical background, will be released in four sections through the year — the first on basic science, then sections on impacts and options for limiting emissions and limiting inevitable harms, and finally a synthesis of all of the findings near year’s end.
In a news conference in Paris, Dr. Solomon declined to provide her own views on how society should respond to the momentous changes projected in the study.
“I honestly believe that it would be a much better service for me to keep my personal opinions separate than what I can actually offer the world as a scientist,” she said. “My stepson, who is 29, has an utterly different view of risks than I do. People are going to have to make their own judgments.”
Some authors of the report said that no one could honestly point to any remaining uncertainties as justification for further delay.
“Policy makers paid us to do good science, and now we have high very scientific confidence in this work — this is real, this is real, this is real,” said Richard B. Alley, one of the lead authors and a professor at Penn State University. “So now act, the ball’s back in your court.”
Elisabeth Rosenthal reported from Paris, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York.
New York Times
February 2, 2007
PARIS, Feb. 2 — In a bleak and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate change scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.
They said the world is already committed to centuries of warming, shifting weather patterns and rising seas, resulting from the buildup of gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the warming can be substantially blunted by prompt action, the panel of scientists said in a report released here today.
The report summarized the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, sizing up the causes and consequences of climate change. But it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming since 1950.
In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, put the confidence level at between 66 and 90 percent. Both reports are online at http://www.ipcc.ch.
If carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach twice their pre-industrial levels, the report said, the global climate will probably warm by 3.5 to 8 degrees. But there would be more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater warming, a situation many earth scientists say poses an unacceptable risk.
Many energy and environment experts see such a doubling as a foregone conclusion sometime after midcentury unless there is a prompt and sustained shift away from the 20th-century pattern of unfettered burning of coal and oil, the main sources of carbon dioxide, and an aggressive quest for expanded and improved nonpolluting energy options.
Even an increased level of warming that falls in the middle of the group’s range of projections would likely cause significant stress to ecosystems and alter longstanding climate patterns that shape water supplies and agricultural production, according to many climate experts and biologists.
While the new report projected a modest rise in seas by 2100 — between 7 and 23 inches — it also concluded that seas would continue to rise, and crowded coasts retreat, for at least 1,000 years to come. By comparison, seas rose about 6 to 9 inches in the 20th century.
John P. Holdren, an energy and climate expert at Harvard University, said that the “report powerfully underscores the need for a massive effort to slow the pace of global climatic disruption before intolerable consequences become inevitable.” [Read a report by Mr. Holdren. (PDF format)]
“Since 2001 there has been a torrent of new scientific evidence on the magnitude, human origins and growing impacts of the climatic changes that are underway,” said Mr. Holdren, who is the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “In overwhelming proportions, this evidence has been in the direction of showing faster change, more danger and greater confidence about the dominant role of fossil fuel burning and tropical deforestation in causing the changes that are being observed.”
The conclusions came after a three-year review of hundreds of studies of clues illuminating past climate shifts, observations of retreating ice, warming and rising seas, and other shifts around the planet, and a greatly expanded suite of supercomputer simulations used to test how earth will respond to a building blanket of gases that hold heat in the atmosphere.
The section released today was a 20-page summary for policymakers, which was approved early this morning by teams of officials from more than 100 countries after three days and nights of wrangling over wording with the lead authors, all of whom are scientists.
It described far-flung ramifications for both humans and nature.
“It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent,” said the summary.
Generally, the scientists said, more precipitation will fall at higher latitudes, which are likely also to see lengthened growing seasons, while semi-arid, subtropical regions already chronically beset by drought could see a further 20-percent drop in rainfall under the midrange scenario for increases in the greenhouse gases.
The summary added a new chemical consequence of the buildup of carbon dioxide to the list of mainly climatic and biological impacts foreseen in its previous reports: a drop in the pH of seawater as oceans absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid when partly dissolved. Marine biologists have said that could imperil some kinds of corals and plankton.
A vast improvement in the science of climatology — including “larges amounts of new and more comprehensive data” — has allowed the group to become far more confident and specific in its predictions, compared with its previous assessment in 2001, the authors said.
The report essentially caps a half-century-long effort to discern whether humans, through the buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases released mainly by burning fuels and forests, could influence the earth’s climate system in potentially momentous ways.
The group operates under the aegis of the United Nations and was chartered in 1988 — a year of record heat, burning forests, and the first big headlines about global warming — to provide regular reviews of climate science to governments to inform policy choices.
Government officials are involved in shaping the summary of each report, but the scientist-authors, who are unpaid, have the final say over the thousands of pages in four underlying technical reports that will be completed and published later this year.
Big questions remain about the speed and extent of some impending changes, both because of uncertainty about future population and pollution trends and the complex interrelationships of the greenhouse emissions, clouds, dusty kinds of pollution, the oceans and earth’s veneer of life, which both emits and soaks up carbon dioxide and other such gases.
But a broad array of scientists, including authors of the report and independent experts, said the latest analysis was the most sobering view yet of a century of transition — after thousands of years of relatively stable climate conditions — to a new norm of continual change.
Should greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at even a moderate pace, average temperatures by the end of the century could match those last seen 125,000 years ago, in the previous warm spell between ice ages, the report said.
At that time, the panel said, sea levels were 12 to 20 feet higher than they are now. Muych of that extra water is now trapped in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, which are eroding in some places.
The panel said there was no solid scientific understanding of how rapidly the vast stores of ice in polar regions will melt, so their estimates on new sea levels were based mainly on how much the warmed oceans will expand, and not on contributions from the melting of ice now on land.
Other scientists have recently reported evidence that the glaciers and ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic could flow seaward far more quickly than estimated in the past, and they have proposed that the risks to coastal areas could be much more imminent. But the I.P.C.C. is proscribed by its charter from entering into speculation, and so could not include such possible instabilities in its assessment.
Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, said the lack of clarity should offer no one comfort. “The speed with which melting ice sheets are raising sea levels is uncertain, but the report makes clear that sea levels will rise inexorably over the coming centuries,” he said. “It is a question of when and how much, and not if,” he said, adding: “While the conclusions are disturbing, decision makers are now armed with the latest facts and will be better able to respond to these realities.”
Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, which oversees the I.P.C.C. along with the meteorological group, said society now had plenty of information on which to act.
“The implications of global warming over the coming decades for our industrial economy, water supplies, agriculture, biological diversity and even geopolitics are massive,” he said. “This new report should spur policymakers to get off the fence and put strong and effective policies in place to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.”
The warming and other climate shifts will be highly variable around the world, with the Arctic particularly seeing much higher temperatures, said Susan Solomon, the co-leader of the team writing the summary and the section of the I.P.C.C. report on basic science. She is an atmospheric scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The kinds of vulnerabilities are very much dependent on where you are, Dr. Solomon said in a telephone interview. “If you’re living in parts of tropics and they’re getting drier and you’re a farmer there are some very acute issues associated with even small changes in rainfall — changes we’re already seeing are significant,” she said. “If you are an Inuit and you’re seeing your sea ice retreating already that’s affecting your lifestyle and culture.”
The 20-page summary is a sketch of the findings that are most germane to the public and world leaders.
The full I.P.C.C. report, thousands of pages of technical background, will be released in four sections through the year — the first on basic science, then sections on impacts and options for limiting emissions and limiting inevitable harms, and finally a synthesis of all of the findings near year’s end.
In a news conference in Paris, Dr. Solomon declined to provide her own views on how society should respond to the momentous changes projected in the study.
“I honestly believe that it would be a much better service for me to keep my personal opinions separate than what I can actually offer the world as a scientist,” she said. “My stepson, who is 29, has an utterly different view of risks than I do. People are going to have to make their own judgments.”
Some authors of the report said that no one could honestly point to any remaining uncertainties as justification for further delay.
“Policy makers paid us to do good science, and now we have high very scientific confidence in this work — this is real, this is real, this is real,” said Richard B. Alley, one of the lead authors and a professor at Penn State University. “So now act, the ball’s back in your court.”
Elisabeth Rosenthal reported from Paris, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Convenient Truths - Servin' Save CO2
by Jessica Root, Brooklyn NY
Treehugger TV
Treehugger TV
This week, TreeHuggerTV and myself, the proud contest manager of Convenient Truths, bring you a little 50s nostalgia. Watch as I shamelessly share my Servin Saver solution to climate change.
Unless you are retro-cool, using re-usable containers doesnt have to conjure up images of ladies donning aprons, with hair tightly coiffed in curlers, serving up freshly chilled ambrosia salad to their nuclear families.
Put your favorite dish and lid to good use by toting it (in a backpack or purse, if your shy) to your eatery of choice. Theres a good chance youll have yummy leftovers to take home.
While Id like to think otherwise, Im not by any means infallible, and my Servin Saver reflects this. In my perfect world, I would never order more than I needed to eat, and my Servin Saver would be made out of bioplastic. But instead of throwing out the one that was gifted to me back in my college days for a new, shiny bioplastic one, I am replacing those hideous Styrofoam and aluminum containers and doggie bags with a reusable plastic container that will last me a lifetime. According to stopglobalwarming.org, one of our contest sponsors, Less packaging could reduce your garbage by about 10%. Save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide and $1,000 per year. I dont know about you, but thats enough for me to wave around my Servin Saver with delight!
This is just one teeny tiny step Im taking to reduce my carbon footprint. Get inspired with our How to Green Your Meals guide and show us your solutions by entering Convenient Truths. And hurry - the deadline to enter is February 28!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)