Polar Bears at Risk as Warming Thaws Icy Home

After seeing the sad, tired (animated) polar bear in An Inconvenient Truth swim to a chunk of ice and have it fall apart under its feet (so sad!), I've been noticing that people are becoming more concerned about the polar bears. Even to the point where people are pushing to get them listed as endangered. And this all makes sense if scientists are right (and I think they are) about the melting ice caps.

Many scientific studies project that warming, widely blamed on emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, could melt the polar ice cap in summer, with estimates of the break-up ranging from decades to sometime beyond 2100.

Bears' favourite hunting ground is the edge of the ice where they use white fur as camouflage to catch seals.

"If there's no ice, there's no way they can catch the seal," said Sarah James of the Gwich'in Council International who lives in Alaska. "Gwich'in" means "people of the caribou", which is the main source of food for about 7,000 indigenous people in Alaska and Canada.

It just gets to me how people are so resistant to changing their lifestyle and don't care that the things we do have major effects on beings that have no control over what we do. We're so self-centered.

Little money to clean up polluting school buses

Ah, I remember the days of taking the bus to school when the driver pulled up in a "stinky" old bus because our regular bus was getting a tune-up.

An estimated 390,000 diesel school buses are on the road in the U.S., according to the EPA. Most newer buses were manufactured to meet stricter emissions guidelines and do not need filters. But about one-third of the nation’s diesel school-bus fleet, or more than 100,000 buses, were manufactured before 1990 and are big polluters, according to EPA.

If there's a more effective rally cry than "save the children," I've never heard it. If more news outlets start picking this up, I'm sure states will start seeing some money to put filters into the older buses. Check out the map in the article to see how your state fares on school bus emissions.

Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?

I'll be honest, I haven't been to up-to-date on what buying carbon credits meant and I'm not entirely sure what my stance on it is yet. I feel like Denis Hayes's comparison of this to the Catholic Church selling indulgences is a bit strong, but the article does have good points about how buying and selling carbon credits could actually be detrimental to the attempt to stop global warming.

Michael R. Solomon, the author of “Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being” and a professor at St. Joseph's University, said he was not surprised by the allure of the carbon-offsetting market.

“Consumers are always going to gravitate toward a more parsimonious solution that requires less behavioral change,” he said. “We know that new products or ideas are more likely to be adopted if they don’t require us to alter our routines very much.”

But he said there was danger ahead, “if we become trained to substitute dollars for deeds — kind of an ‘I gave at the office’ prescription for the environment.”

Schwarzenegger Warns of California Suit Against EPA

Last year I wrote an article for my school newspaper when I found out about California's attempt to sue automakers for not creating vehicles with stricter emissions standards. While I thought that it was good that someone was doing something, I didn't think this was a good way to go about it. After all, automakers are supplying our need, and obviously enough demand isn't there to make a change. It just seemed akin to suing McDonald's because kids are fat.

What I thought would make more sense is pressuring for stricter standards for automakers to follow, and finally, California is trying to do this. Schwarzenegger threatened the EPA that the state would sue them if they don't act soon on the state's attempt to regulate greenhouse emissions themselves:

Schwarzenegger's move stems from California's request in 2005 to get a federal Clean Air Act waiver that would allow it to regulate auto emissions more aggressively.

The Republican governor said the state Thursday will send a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson telling the agency of its plans to file legal action if the EPA does not act on the exemption request within six months.

I think it's a good step that individual states want to make stricter regulations, but this can only be effective if the majority of states follow suit. I don't know what the chances are of this happening without federal laws being put in place.

Al Gore Gets Approval To Install Solar Panels at His Tennessee Home

I know a lot of people think that Gore is only making changes now that he got "caught." I never saw the original article about the energy use at his home, but I did see some responses and I don't think I buy what was said in the original article. Anyone out there have a link to it?

Anyway, Gore finally got it approved to install solar panels in his home, and he'll be doing other renovations along with this:

He is also upgrading the furnace, windows, and light switches, as well as installing new floor radiant heat and solar vents, to improve the home's energy standards, said Kalee Kreider, a Gore spokeswoman.

What bothers me the most about that article calling Gore a hypocrite is that is just gives people a reason to disregard the real issue, and then they can feel satisfied not doing anything about pollution in their daily lives. People are just looking for distractions so that they don't have to make a change.

Study Shows New York City Puts Out Nearly One Percent of Greenhouse Gases in U.S.

Halfway through the article I still wasn't sure if this amount of greenhouse gas output was supposed to be a lot or a little, if the article was praising New York City or condemning it, in it's statement of these facts. But then I finally got to this part:

With 2.7 percent of the country's population -- 8.2 million of 300 million -- the average New York City resident contributes less than a third of the emissions generated by a typical American. This is largely due to the popularity of the city's mass transit system, which cuts down on car emissions, officials said.

Ah, so it's a good thing, I told myself... at least in relation to the rest of our carbon overproducing country. Now that the NYC government has this data, they can figure out how to continue going about lowering the city's amout of greenhouse gas emmissions by 30% by 2030.

Scientists Detail Climate Changes, Poles to Tropics

I kind of dropped the ball on the next report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which came out on Friday. This article details the effects of global warming that we're heading towards in the near future and the changes that are already taking place. The scientific evidence in this report could serve as a powerful reminder to governments, especially the U.S., that better environmental policies need to be put in place -- this is something every country in the world needs to cooperate on.

And it seems that representatives from the U.S. are beginning to agree:

The conclusions came after four days of revisions by scientists and then an often rancorous all-night debate with government officials. In a sign of shifting geopolitics on global warming, scientists who worked on the report criticized China for weakening some language in the summary, while they credited the United States, which had for years stressed uncertainty in the science, with playing a mostly constructive role.

Yet, as always, I express concern over governments playing any role in the editing of these kind of reports, and the article does address the problems that come of this.

Under pressure from nations including Russia, China and Saudi Arabia, the authors said, sections on coral damage and tropical storms were softened in the summary. They also got the authors to drop parts of an illustration showing how different emissions policies might limit damage. Officials from those countries argued that data in the report did not support the level of certainty expressed in the final draft.

But some authors were not assuaged. The final document was “much less quantified and much vaguer and much less striking than it could have been,” said Stéphane Hallegatte, a participant from France’s International Center for Research on the Environment and Development.

I know, it is only the summary is what has been edited by this group, but how many people will have access to, and will actually read, the 1,572 page report?

Auto Industry Urges Economy-Wide Approach to Global Warming

Here's something that I didn't know was going on:

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

The auto industry reacted as expected. They want to be involved in the decision-making so that they can pressure for more lenient laws.

Dave McCurdy, the [Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers] president and chief executive, said automakers would work with lawmakers and federal agencies to help develop a national approach.

I'll believe the cooperation when I see it.

Changed Climate, Changed Species

MSNBC has put together a document that shows real life examples of the changes that have occurred and will continue to do so because of global warming. This comes along with the second report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which will come out officially on April 6.

It's an interesting read with a cute map showing the areas and species that it focuses on, such as polar bears in the Arctic. One species that I was surprised to find on the map is ticks in Sweden:

Swedish studies have shown that ticks have multiplied countrywide in recent decades, spreading north from traditional breeding grounds in the Stockholm archipelago. The pinhead-sized arachnids have even turned up near the Arctic Circle.

It makes sense that with an increasingly warmer climate, that these pests wouldn't die off every winter. Having grown up with pets, I know what a pain ticks (and fleas) can be, and what a relief it is come winter when we don't have to worry about them.

Another point that I found interesting and sad is the part about the coral reefs and their bleaching due to rising temperatures and an increase in carbon dioxide absorption.

Updates: Gore's speech to Congress; defense of editing documents

Update on Gore's Petition to Congress:

Here's a couple of articles about Gore's speech to Congress yesterday and a few of the reactions. As expected, there were many who met the plea to make progress in protecting the environment with doubt and criticism.

Update on skepticism concerning the role of government officials in environmental reports:

It seems that the ex-White House official who was accused of editing climate reports was trying to defend his actions in front of the House Government Reform Committee. There is also an interesting section about the government pressure felt by scientists not to disclose certain information. I'll be keeping my eye out for any results from this hearing.

Global deforestation rate slows

The UN has just released the "State of the World Forest's Report" stating that the rate of deforestation is starting to decrease. In the 1990s, forests were disappearing at a rate of 9 million hectares a year, and this has now slowed to 7.3 million. Countries such as China are forerunners in this reduction thanks to tree planting initiatives. It's a bit of good news, but nothing to become complacent about.

"Deforestation continues and it continues at an unacceptable rate, however there are signs of potential change," said Wulf Killmann, a forestry expert at the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) which published the report.

The destruction of forests not only reduces habitat available for wildlife but also adds to the greenhouse effect because the carbon stored in trees is released into the atmosphere.

Gore's Petition to Congress

If you haven't signed Al Gore's petition to congress yet, now is the time to do so. Tomorrow Gore will testify at the Congressional hearings on global warming and has set a goal of 500,000 signatures on the petition - the more voices backing him up, the more power behind his message.

In his blog on his website, Gore talks about how concern over the environment is not just a liberal, democratic concern, but should be the concern of all political parties:

One of our goals must be to make this issue one that transcends partisanship. While many of the solutions to the climate crisis will be found within the political system, there should be bipartisan and transpartisan agreement on the basic nature of the crisis and the sense of urgency that is appropriate for us to solve it.

That point was brought home to me again last week when I visited London and met with the leaders of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In the UK, both major political parties are completely committed to taking real action to solve the climate crisis. They openly acknowledge this is an unprecedented moral issue and are competing vigorously to see who can propose the most creative and effective solutions to solve this crisis.

The other day I was talking to my dad, who is pretty conservative, about global warming and he made some comment like, "My daughter, the liberal environmentalist," and I countered, "Liberals shouldn't be the only ones who care about the environment." He agreed.

Britain Proposes Legal Limits on Carbon Emissions

Kind of old news, but awesome news anyway.

Britain on Tuesday became the first country to propose legislation setting binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions as it stepped up its campaign for a new global warming pact to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

In its draft Climate Change Bill, the government said carbon dioxide emissions had to be cut by at least 60 percent by 2050, set out five-year carbon budgets to reach the target and created an independent monitoring committee to check annual progress.

As long as consequences are severe enough to keep local governments in check, this plan seems like it could work very well. There is debate about whether yearly targets should be put in place, which to me seems like a good idea so that it is easier to make sure that every area is staying on track. More countries need to abandon free-market thinking and create stronger laws against the emission of greenhouse gases. As a whole, we are not responsible enough to do it on our own, to choose environmentally friendly products over others which are normally cheaper, for example - we need guidance and isn't that what governments are supposed to provide?

Report outlines global warming's effects

Following up last month's global warming report issued in Paris, the same group of more than 1,000 scientists have put together a document that determines the likely social effects of global warming. And basically, what they've determined is just plain scary:

The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

The information in these reports (2 more will be coming out this year) should prompt world leaders to act quickly. Not all the damage can be avoided, but much of it can if the industrial world puts a halt on CO2 levels. But this part of the report bothers me even more:

The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials. (emphasis mine)

With the history of the Bush administration censoring environmental documents, why should government officials be able to edit scientific documents, especially when many of them do not have the necessary educational background? And, officials from which governments? Perhaps this won't be a problem at all, but it bothers me that the AP writers would throw that line in without further elaboration.

Scientists turn spotlight on world's poles

After reading junkscience.com and getting utterly frustrated, it's great to find an article about cooperation between countries in an effort to figure out how global warming is affecting the north and south poles.

Scientists formally kicked off the International Polar Year on Thursday, the biggest such project in 50 years. It is unifying researchers from 63 nations in 228 studies to monitor the health of the polar regions, using icebreakers, satellites and submarines. The project ends in March 2009.

It is predicted that ice in the Arctic will melt completely within the century, which will have effects on much of the world. Even if not all the leaders of this project believe that the results of global warming on the polar climate will be this drastic, it is important that so many scientists believe that this is such a pressing issue.

To kick off the event and raise awareness, teachers in schools around the world created ice-related activities for their students to participate in. Even though this fact is barely mentioned in the article, I think it's pretty important because, you know, children are our future.

ENN: Fight Brews Over How to Address Climate Change

Now that it is official -- humans are almost certainly causing the most dramatic climate shift the planet has seen in thousands of years -- it is time to stop arguing and get down to the serious work of solving the problem, right?

This is a good article from ENN (link in title) about what's going on right now with politics about global warming. I really hope our next president is (tons) more forceful about creating laws to lower green house gas emissions and finding other, more eco-friendly sources of fuel, because, honestly, I think this is the biggest problem the global community is facing right now. Everything else can pretty much wait. And a lot of other issues, such as aspects of poverty (if you look at the environmental justice theory, for example), are tied to environmental issues. But Bush believes that a free market economy will regulate everything, and uh, sorry, so far it hasn't. A lot more needs to be done.

Yeah, of course no one wants a drop in our standards of living which is what will probably have to happen if we as a nation become serious about slowing/stopping (is that possible?) global warming, but it's pretty selfish to have the mindeset that I'm not going to change my lifestyle, that I need to have four cars for my family and air conditioning keeping me at 65 degrees all summer -- forget about future generations. But it's also going to be hard for people to change unless there's a massive force around it, I mean, realistically, who wants to be the only one sweating all summer and riding their bike to the grocery store? Being able to pat yourself on the back only gets most people so far. We like following the crowd, so in order to change the mindesets of crowd, laws need to be put in place.