Officials wonder if maybe the environment could find some time in its busy schedule to refreeze a few glaciers.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called a press conference Monday to publicly denounce the environment for blatantly refusing to pull its weight in mankind’s ongoing efforts at ecological conservation.

“For 40 years, we have worked tirelessly to ensure the health and safety of our natural environment,” a visibly angered EPA administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters. “But this can only work when it’s a give-and-take. If the environment won’t even meet us halfway by regenerating a rain forest or two, or pumping out some clean air and water every once in a while, then what’s the point of us trying?”

Added Jackson, “I’m as committed to saving the earth as anyone, but for crying out loud, when is the earth going to hold up its end of the bargain?”

According to an EPA report, most of the environment’s day-to-day processes can be categorized as rude and inconsiderate, in particular its selfish overreliance on “absolutely, perfectly clean soil” for sustainable growth, and its continual inability to act in good faith and adapt to rising carbon dioxide levels.

The EPA also accused the environment of creating more work for the overburdened agency by stubbornly refusing to break down and absorb plastic and other synthetic materials, and producing rare species that can only survive in very specific, excessively fragile ecosystems.

“We’re putting in a lot of effort here with recycling and hybrid cars, so a little reciprocity from the environment would be appreciated,” Jackson said. “God forbid the oceans replenish their own fish. And would it really be so much trouble for the earth’s collective biospheres to pitch in and come up with a clean fuel alternative for use in our homes and vehicles? It’s the environment’s glaciers we’re busting our asses trying to save, after all.”

Continued Jackson, “The environment needs to realize that mankind may not always be around to clean up its messes.”

Based on recent projections pointing to a high rate of extreme weather and accelerated climate change, EPA scientists have concluded that the least the environment could do is cut back on natural disasters, and perhaps try to grow some crops to help save the 1 billion people who go starving every day.

A nice new waterfall here and there reportedly wouldn’t hurt either, officials said.

“I think everybody is getting a little fed-up with the hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis,” EPA engineer Thomas Bergman said. “Not to mention UV rays and acid rain. And, not to be petty, but shark attacks? Mankind doesn’t have enough on its plate already without having to worry about getting eaten alive by killer sharks? I’m sorry, but that is just unacceptable.”

Added Bergman, “The environment may be in peril, but it has no right to treat us like animals.”

In an impassioned final warning, Administrator Jackson announced that if the environment did not start helping to stave off global catastrophe soon, it could face “serious repercussions” from humanity in the coming years, including massive Styrofoam-cup usage, oil spills, and exponentially higher emission rates.

“It becomes very frustrating when you give, and you give, and you give, and you get nothing in return,” said Jackson, holding back tears. “And after you’ve exhausted yourself from all that giving, you leave work and have two measly hours of sunlight before it gets dark or starts pouring down rain on you out of nowhere. It’s like the environment doesn’t even care. And what’s with the leaves everywhere? Every fall, with the goddamn leaves! What are we, your servants? We’re supposed to pick up after you? Jesus, if I find one more leaf or fallen branch clogging up my gutters, I swear to God, I’m going to snap.”

“Stupid environment,” Jackson added. “Sometimes I wish it would just go away.”

Source The Onion

Additional reading ‘Climate change is coming to you as it did to a dear friend of mine.’

The year before and the years preceding that, both nature’s ecological voice led by the environmentalists and nature’s science voice promoted by concerned scientists had fallen on deaf economic ears.

The tree hugging, cries of ecosystem damage, species extinctions, humanitarian disasters, changing weather patterns, and more and more frequent severe weather events, while being highlighted to the true decision makers of the economically privileged, were more often an irritation rather than a concern. There may have been occasional mutterings from the halls of power when they could see the political gain in condemning whaling, promoting energy efficient light bulbs, or committing this or that $600 million or so over the next five years in Australia for climate change, while continuing to subsidize the $2 billion per month coal export trade, taking care of GDP. But largely this was window dressing, mostly green wash and political grandstanding.

Economic prosperity was sacrosanct.

Nature’s science voice was also only managing to preach to the converted. The environmentalists held rallies for the converted, rock concerts to raise awareness, lobbied endlessly trying to sell the bitter pill of economic and industrial rationalism to save the polar bear. But just like the Cree Indian before them who advised “only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten,” those that had money could buy the trees and eat the fish, and how can you make money out of polar bears anyway? You can’t blame the environmentalists; they at least acted as one single sincere voice, not for the good of themselves but for the good of the global shared community, its inhabitants, and its future. They just didn’t know how to sell to a reluctant market segment.

Any half-decent car salesman will tell you it’s easy to sell a new car to a willing buyer. You can even convert the sale to the reluctant purchaser if you ask the right questions. They’ll offer the tip. “All you need is a question directed to a reluctant purchaser that will give an answer in the positive. Never ask a question that will provide the answer, no.” “Can I help you this morning Sir?” Wrong question: this will generate “No thank you I’m just looking,” a wrong answer as the outcome. “Good morning Sir, are you looking at six-cylinder or four-cylinder vehicles this morning?” is the right question. “Just a four-cylinder thanks,” is the right answer. “They are over on this side of the lot, I’ll show you.”

The trouble with our ecological and science salesmen was that the only ones who were buying the message were the converted buyers. You couldn’t sell “It’s going to cost you dearly to save this rainforest for future generations, are you willing to pay the price?” or “It will hurt the nation’s GDP and cost jobs if we reduce our environmental impact, would you please sign the Kyoto Protocol?”

The economist Sir Nicholas Stern came close to asking the right questions in 2006 with his report. At least he in part had their tuned in, economic ear, though falling short on the purchase price of the vehicle. They already had the Mercedes SLK, and he was asking them to trade down to the four-cylinder hybrid. “This will cost you 1 percent of global GDP each year for 20 years, but waiting and the cost to global GDP will be 5 percent or even as high as 20 percent.” Where he also went wrong was that the sale of his hybrids needed to be a global fleet vehicle purchase, and some with even bigger SUVs weren’t going to trade down.

See if you can pick some of his “no thank you very much” questions in the summary of conclusions:

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response. This review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.

Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world—access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

Using the results from formal economic models, the review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5 percent of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20 percent of GDP or more.

In contrast, the costs of action—reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change—can be limited to around 1 percent of global GDP each year.

The investment that takes place in the next 10–20 years will have a profound effect on climate in the second half of this century and in the next. Our actions now and over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes.

So, prompt and strong action is clearly warranted. Because climate change is a global problem, the response to it must be international. It must be based on a shared vision of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade, and it must build on mutually reinforcing approaches at national, regional and international level.

The buyers walked by his hybrid car yard in droves and went to buy the SUVs they could afford right now.

He may have briefly captured the attention of the economic rich, as he was talking in terms that they at least understood and held dear, GDP, but he failed to close the sale. Reference to the second half of this century and the next wasn’t going to affect the decision makers in place today. It wouldn’t hurt their GDP immediately. Their larders of food wouldn’t run out, their bottled water supply and water from their taps was safe for the foreseeable future. Their private health care was okay. Their environment was safe.

He nearly got the attention of those in Florida with the waters rising, but if you have ever been to Fort Lauderdale, you’ll know they have all got pretty large boats down that way, moored in front of their canal- and harbor-side mansions.

So nature’s science salesmen, like nature’s environmental salesmen, had no sales training. They held seminars, conference after conference and lecture after lecture for the converted. They spent their research funding, handed out in dribs and drabs by the economic decision makers, to come up with this model and that scenario. The answer to their sales pitch for many years was always the same. “No thanks, we’re just looking.”

End adaptation.

So come on environmentalists and activists for change. Let’s all start asking the right questions in the right way. Ask AND OR questions of those that can make good policy.

“Would you like to act now or would you prefer to wait until it is too late?”

As Mother Natures Super Salesman in the book puts it Climate change is a bit like a good vindaloo curry, the longer you leave it the hotter it gets.

December should be national Green-Free Month. Instead of continuing our faddish and counterproductive emphasis on small, voluntary actions, we should follow the example of Americans during past moral crises and work toward large-scale change. The country’s last real moral and social revolution was set in motion by the civil rights movement. And in the 1960s, civil rights activists didn’t ask bigoted Southern governors and sheriffs to consider “10 Ways to Go Integrated” at their convenience.

Green gestures we have in abundance in America. Green political action, not so much. And the gestures (“Look honey, another Vanity Fair Green Issue!”) lure us into believing that broad change is happening when the data shows that it isn’t. Despite all our talk about washing clothes in cold water, we aren’t making much of a difference.

For eight years, George W. Bush promoted voluntary action as the nation’s primary response to global warming — and for eight years, aggregate greenhouse gas emissions remained unchanged. Even today, only 10 percent of our household light bulbs are compact fluorescents. Hybrids account for only 2.5 percent of U.S. auto sales. One can almost imagine the big energy companies secretly applauding each time we distract ourselves from the big picture with a hectoring list of “5 Easy Ways to Green Your Office.”

As America joins the rest of the world in finally fighting global warming, we need to bring our battle plan up to scale. If you believe that astronauts have been to the moon and that the world is not flat, then you probably believe the satellite photos showing the Greenland ice sheet in full-on meltdown. Much of Manhattan and the Eastern Shore of Maryland may join the Atlantic Ocean in our lifetimes. Entire Pacific island nations will disappear. Hurricanes will bring untold destruction. Rising sea levels and crippling droughts will decimate crops and cause widespread famine. People will go hungry, and people will die.

Morally, this is sort of a big deal. It would be wrong to let all this happen when we have the power to prevent the worst of it by adopting clean-energy policies.

But how do we do that? Again, look to the history of the civil rights struggle. After many decades of public denial and inaction, the civil rights movement helped Americans to see Southern apartheid in moral terms. From there, the movement succeeded by working toward legal change. Segregation was phased out rapidly only because it was phased out through the law. These statutes didn’t erase racial prejudice from every American heart overnight. But through them, our country made staggering progress. Just consider who occupies the White House today.

All who appreciate the enormity of the climate crisis still have a responsibility to make every change possible in their personal lives. I have, from the solar panels on my roof to the Prius in my driveway to my low-carbon-footprint vegetarian diet. But surveys show that very few people are willing to make significant voluntary changes, and those of us who do create the false impression of mass progress as the media hypes our actions.

Instead, most people want carbon reductions to be mandated by laws that will allow us to share both the responsibilities and the benefits of change. Ours is a nation of laws; if we want to alter our practices in a deep and lasting way, this is where we must start. After years of delay and denial and green half-measures, we must legislate a stop to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

Of course, all this will require congressional action, and therein lies the source of Obama’s Copenhagen headache. To have been in the strongest position to negotiate a binding emissions treaty with other world leaders this month, the president needed a strong carbon-cap bill out of Congress. But the House of Representatives passed only a weak bill riddled with loopholes in June, and the Senate has failed to get even that far.

So what’s the problem? There’s lots of blame to go around, but the distraction of the “go green” movement has played a significant role. Taking their cues from the popular media and cautious politicians, many Americans have come to believe that they are personally to blame for global warming and that they must fix it, one by one, at home. And so they either do as they’re told — a little of this, a little of that — or they feel overwhelmed and do nothing.

We all got into this mess together. And now, with treaty talks underway internationally and Congress stalled at home, we need to act accordingly. Don’t spend an hour changing your light bulbs. Don’t take a day to caulk your windows. Instead, pick up a phone, open a laptop, or travel to a U.S. Senate office near you and turn the tables: “What are the 10 green statutes you’re working on to save the planet, Senator?”

Demand a carbon-cap bill that mandates the number 350. That’s the level of carbon pollution scientists say we must limit ourselves to: 350 parts per million of CO2 in the air. If we can stabilize the atmosphere at that number in coming decades, we should be able to avoid the worst-case scenario and preserve a planet similar to the one human civilization developed on. To get there, America will need to make deep but achievable pollution cuts well before 2020. And to protect against energy price shocks during this transition, Congress must include a system of direct rebates to consumers, paid for by auctioning permit fees to the dirty-energy companies that continue to pollute our sky.

Obama, too, needs to step up his efforts; it’s not just Congress and the voters who have been misguided. Those close to the president say he understands the seriousness of global warming. But despite the issue’s moral gravity, he’s been paralyzed by political caution. He leads from the rear on climate change, not from the front.

Forty-five years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson faced tremendous opposition on civil rights from a Congress dominated by Southern leaders, yet he spent the political capital necessary to answer a great moral calling. Whenever key bills on housing, voting and employment stalled, he gave individual members of congress the famous “Johnson treatment.” He charmed. He pleaded. He threatened. He led, in other words. In person, and from the front.

Does anyone doubt that our charismatic current president has the capacity to turn up the heat? Imagine the back-room power of a full-on “Obama treatment” to defend America’s flooding coastlines and burning Western forests. Imagine a two-pronged attack on the fickle, slow-moving Senate: Obama on one side and a tide of tweets and letters from voters like you.

So join me: Put off the attic insulation job till January. Stop searching online for recycled gift wrapping paper and sustainably farmed Christmas trees. Go beyond green fads for a month, and instead help make green history.

Source Washinton Post

Source The Economist

NOTE A 1.1-meter rise by 2100 is based on the maximum IPCC figures and were calculated mainly from the expected expansion of water from temperature increase. It takes no account of on-going melting of the great glaciers in Greenland and the Western Antarctic. Let alone the possibility based on ice-core samples of ice sheet collapse.

This is purely a time-line issue. Ice core and similar evidence shows from past climate changes that for every 1 degree rise in temperature we should expect a minimum of 4 meters rise in sea-levels. It looks like 8-12 meters is now inevitable. The only question is when………. how long do we have? SEE update So what IS happening in Antarctica?

Catastrophic collapse is a real possibility, and could be in our lifetime. Climate scientists say we are likely to cross this threshold later this century.

If we do that we are looking at 13-meter sea-level rise. Where will this leave some of the major cities of the world including Shanghai, London, New York, Boston or even Florida? Under water!

The Australian Federal Parliament committee report on rising sea level caused by global warming has been welcomed by Friends of the Earth (FOE). Damien Lawson, National Climate Justice Coordinator of Friends of the Earth said “The report is a wake up call about the sea level rise threat, but it may have underestimated the sea level rise problem. Around the world changes in the climate system are breaching worse case scenarios. It is likely sea level rises will be the same. The view that sea level rise may not be more than a metre is assuming no major loss from the Antarctic ice sheet. That is a dangerous assumption given the recent evidence of warming there, and the fragility of many of the ice shelves which are restraining glacier outflow.”

FOE Sea level rise report may underestimate problem | Melbourne Sea level rise walk

Lawson pointed out that research examining the paleoclimate record shows sea level rises of 3 metres in 50 years due to the rapid melting of ice sheets 120,000 years ago. “We need to take off the rose coloured glasses. Our planning for cuts to carbon pollution and dealing with sea level rise should be based on the worst case scenarios, not the best.” he said in a media release.

Latest research released by the British Antarctic Survey shows rapid glacial thinning in Greenland and Antarctica. Lead author Dr Hamish Pritchard from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) said “We were surprised to see such a strong pattern of thinning glaciers across such large areas of coastline — it’s widespread and in some cases thinning extends hundreds of kilometres inland. We think that warm ocean currents reaching the coast and melting the glacier front is the most likely cause of faster glacier flow. This kind of ice loss is so poorly understood that it remains the most unpredictable part of future sea level rise.”

Friends of the Earth Melbourne are organising in November a sea level rise walk of about 100 km from Sorrento to Port Melbourne, marking the extent of sea level rise to highlight the danger of sea level rise to Melbourne and the world.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was reported in the Age as saying “Australia has more to lose through continued inaction on climate change than do our competitor economies,” he said. “As we have been warned today by this report … the real cost for Australia of continued inaction on climate change is deep and enduring and damaging to our economy and damaging to the nation’s environment.”

Liberal MP Tony Abbott rejected the need for urgent action, saying that no one had even noticed the 20cm rise in sea levels along the NSW coast during the 20th century.

The House of Representatives cross-party Committee released its report on the Inquiry into climate change and environmental impacts on coastal communities on Monday 26 October, making 47 recommendations for action on managing the threat of rising sea level and its impact on coastal infrastructure and environment.

Recommendations include the funding of more research into climate change and sea level rise and its impacts, including:

• that the Australian Government continue to take urgent action to ensure that Australia can best contribute to a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
• increase investment in coastal based climate change research particularly sea level rise projections and the dynamics of polar ice sheets especially in the Antarctic, extreme sea level events such as storm surge and tropical cyclones, regional variations in sea level rise, ocean acidification particularly impacts on Australia’s coral reefs, higher ocean temperatures and changing ocean currents,
• establish a National Coastal Zone Database to improve access to and consistency of information relevant to coastal zone adaptation, including vulnerability assessments,
• urgent action to protect Australians from the threats of dengue fever and chikungunya virus,
• disaster mitigation preparedness and response,
• assessment of coastal infrastructure vulnerability to inundation from sea level rise and extreme sea level events,
• insurance impacts,
• revision of the Building codes for increasing resilience to climate change,
• liability and legal issues associated with the impacts of climate change,
• increased demographic statistics collection to assist in coastal zone planning and management,
• climate change impacts on biodiversity especially high biodiversity coastal habitat,
• Vulnerability assessments for Kakadu National Park and Great Barrier Reef and increase the number of coastal wetlands classified as Ramsar sites,
• implement a National Shorebirds Protection Strategy,
• implement a nationally consistent coastal and marine biodiversity monitoring and reporting framework
• provide a national repository identifying Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural heritage sites in vulnerable coastal areas,
• identify socio-economic vulnerability to climate change impacts, particularly in coastal communities.
• addressing Governance arrangements and the coastal zone

There was much discussion in the report over how much sea level rise could be expected by 2100. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that a global rise in sea level of up to 80cm is possible by 2100. However climate scientists point out that more rapid climate change is occurring — anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and sea levels have been rising at or near the upper limit of the envelope of the IPCC projections — and more costly and dangerous impacts are associated with this faster change.

Professor Will Steffen, Executive Director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University (ANU), and Dr John Church, Principal Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and Leader of the Sea Level Rise Program with the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) both offered estimates in their submissions. Professor Steffen told the committee “the maximum possible increase in sea-level rise by 2100 is around 2 metres, but only under the most extreme levels of forcing … A more plausible estimate of total sea-level rise by 2100 is around 0.8 metres. This value lies at the upper end of the IPCC projections. … Sea-level rise larger than the 0.5-1.0 metre range—perhaps towards 1.5 metres … — cannot be ruled out.”

Sea Levels will continue to rise after 2100 and what efforts we make in reducing emissions now may mitigate the rate of sea level rise next century.

While sea level rises of 20cm or even 50cm doesn’t seem like much, but the maximum impact will occur during high tides and storm surges. Professor Steffen used the example of Cairns in North Queensland: “If you look at the mapping done with a storm surge of, say, half a metre of sea-level rise, you get a very large increase in the area that is actually flooded from the same event that you had earlier.”

According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology submission an “analysis of the increase in frequency of extreme events for a rise of ten centimetres in sea levels at 28 locations around Australia shows that Darwin, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne will experience four to six times as many as currently observed”.

The Federal Climate Change Department has published an assessment in a Factsheet the potential impacts of sea level rise which include:

• More than 200,000 buildings along the NSW coast are vulnerable.
• Nearly 900 coastal buildings in the Northern Territory, together with harbour and port facilities, are vulnerable to sea-level rise and associated changes.
• Queensland poses the highest risk of all states with almost 250,000 vulnerable coastal buildings, especially on the Gold coast and Sunshine coast.
• In South Australia more than 60,000 buildings along the State’s coast are likely to be at risk from sea-level rise, coastal flooding and erosion.
• In Tasmania over 20 per cent of the coastline will be at risk from sea level rise and more severe storm surges associated with climate change affecting 17,000 coastal buildings.
• In Victoria more than 80,000 coastal buildings and infrastructure are at risk from the projected sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, including the low lying Western Port region
• In Western Australia more than 94,000 coastal buildings are at risk from projected sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion. Between Fremantle and Mandurah, an estimated 28,000 buildings and 641 kilometres of road are at risk from erosion due to rising sea levels.

In May 2009, the Australian Government committed to ‘reduce Australia’s carbon pollution by 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal to stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent at 450 parts per million’.

Is this really enough? Many scientists believe we should aim to stabilise greenhouse gas in the atmosphere at 350ppm to avoid dangerous climate change. So why is the Government aiming at 450ppm, and only if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal?

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been asked to play a key role in the Copenhagen Climate Summit with Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen asking him to serve as a friend to the chair – along with Mexico and the United Nations – in the lead up to the talks in December.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is attending a Ministerial Meeting in Barcelona from 29-31 October. “We are just weeks out from Copenhagen and at a critical stage in negotiations,” Senator Wong said. “This is an important opportunity for countries to make progress on key issues central to achieving consensus in Copenhagen.”

The Government’s Carbom Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation is currently before the House of Representatives, with the Government pushing strongly for it to be passed prior to the Copenhagen climate talks. The legislation will be debated this week and voted on in the House in the week beginning Monday November 16. It will then be introduced into the Senate immediately after the vote in the House, and voted on in the Senate in the week beginning 23 November. The Labor Government has to negotiate its passage with the coalition parties, the Greens, and independent Senators who are in the majority in the Senate.

Greens Senator Christine Milne said in parliament on Tuesday 27th October 2009 “The government is running up the white flag on Australia’s coastline and the 711,000 residences on that coastline. For every metre of sea level rise, you can talk about up to 100 metres of incursion in vulnerable coastal areas. Australians must take notice of the House of Representatives committee report but they must then come back and say to the Prime Minister and to Minister Wong, ‘You cannot look us in the eye and tell us that your targets are in any way going to mitigate this outcome.’”

According to Milne “…if we proceed with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and a national reduction of emissions target of 5 to 25 per cent, we will lock in a high probability that we will see the worst case scenario in this report actually come to pass. That is the critical thing. There is a massive disconnect between what the science is saying and what the government is saying. It is irresponsible in the extreme for anyone to report that the CPRS or the national target will in any way mitigate climate change or avoid the worst case scenarios.”

Sources:

• House of Representatives Committee Report, October 26, 2009 – Inquiry into climate change and environmental impacts on coastal communities
• FOE media release, October 27, 2009 – Sea level rise report may underestimate problem
• Christine Milne Speech, October 27, 2009 – The disconnect between sea level rise report and the CPRS
• Press Release, British Antarctic Survey, September 23, 2009 – Lasers from space show thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

LONDON (Reuters)

ABI research, commissioned from Britain’s Met Office and catastrophe risk modeling firm AIR Worldwide, examined the implications of 2 Celsius, 4C and 6C increases in global mean temperature on inland flooding and windstorms in Great Britain, and typhoons in China.

The ABI says a 2C is rise inevitable and this will increase average annual insured losses in Britain from inland flooding by eight percent, or by 47 million pounds ($77 million), to 600 million pounds. This would indicate a 16 percent theoretical impact on insurance pricing (with an annual GDP growth of 2.25 percent assumed).

Nick Starling, the ABI’s Director of General Insurance and Health, told the Climate Change conference in London that the continued widespread availability of property insurance in the future depends on taking action now to manage the threats of climate change.

“The clear message to world leaders meeting at the UN’s Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in December is that they must reach agreement on ambitious emission reduction targets.

“And, closer to home, the UK Government needs to push ahead with the Flood and Water Management Bill, and ensure long-term investment in flood management as a priority, so that the long-term flood risk is better managed,” he said.

The impact of losses from weather hazards can also mean increases in insurance capital requirements, to ensure that insurers hold sufficient capital to cover the additional risks. With a 2C temperature increase, the ABI reckons additional insurance capital of 1.65 billion pounds would be required for a 200-year flood.

If insurers do not hold sufficient capital, this is likely to result in reduced availability of insurance, the ABI said.

Cyclone tracks are excepted to shift as a result of an increase in global temperatures and this could increase the frequency of storm passage over the UK.

The ABI said that even a modest systematic change in storm tracks could increase average annual insured losses from windstorms by 25 percent.

The impact of temperature change on typhoons in China was shown to be greatest in terms of associated rain. Rain associated with a typhoon is likely to increase by 13 percent, 26 percent and 30 percent under the 2C, 4C and 6C temperature increases respectively.

Professor Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the Met Office warned that a further temperature rise to 4C would make some parts of the world uninhabitable.

“We have committed to a different world than the one we are used to,” she said at the ABI’s Climate Change conference today.

“A compelling case to reduce commissions is because a 2 C increase in temperatures may be livable, but any higher would be life changing for certain parts of the world — that is why the negotiations at Copenhagen in December are vital.”

The ABI called on global governments to ensure they prepare now for “the inevitable consequences of climate change” and invest wisely in mitigation and adaptation measures.

While livestock are already known to contribute to GHG emissions, their levels have been underestimated or simply overlooked, former and current World Bank environmental experts Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang argue in a paper published in the November issue of World Watch Magazine. 

The authors recognise that the 51% figure put forward ”is a strong claim that requires strong evidence,” but stress that if their argument is right, “it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives” would have far more rapid effects on the climate than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.

This partly due to significant reductions in the amount of methane, produced by enteric fermentation from cattle. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation, 37% of human-induced methane comes from livestock. Although methane produced by enteric fermentation from cattle warms the atmosphere much more strongly than CO2, its half-life in the atmosphere is only about eight years, compared to at least 100 years for CO2.

 Livestock ‘underestimated and overlooked’ source of emissions

Reviewing the direct and indirect sources of GHG emissions from livestock, the authors argue that contribution of livestock respiration to global CO2 emissions is being underestimated. “Livestock (like automobiles) are a human invention and convenience, not part of pre-human times, and a molecule of CO2 exhaled by livestock is no more natural than one from an auto tailpipe,” they state. 

Another major source of emissions that is overlooked is livestock-related deforestation, the report finds, meaning conversion of natural forest and particularly rainforest into grassland. While rainforest stores “at least 200 tons of carbon per hectare,” the tonnage stored by grassland is only eight, the authors say, adding that another 200 tons per hectare of CO2 may be released from the soil beneath.

Furthermore, current estimates exclude farmed fish from the definition of livestock and neglect to calculate the contribution of several other indirect sources of emissions. These include fluorocarbons needed for cooling livestock products, “carbon-intensive medical treatment” of zoonotic illnesses and disposal of by-products, such as leather, feathers, skins and fur, and their packaging. 

Food, water crisis

The authors argue that action to replace livestock products would not only achieve swift GHG emission reductions but would also help ease the global food crisis, as more calories can be produced directly from crops rather than feeding them to livestock. 

They also believe alternative products would help ease the global water crisis, as water necessary for livestock production would be freed up.

Alternatives

The paper suggests that a 25% reduction in livestock products worldwide could be achieved by 2017, contributing to a 12.5% reduction in global GHG emissions. The authors note that this is “almost as much reduction as is generally expected to be negotiated in Copenhagen,” the United Nations’ climate conference in December 2009.

Ways forward to reduce livestock products and related GHGs include the imposition of carbon taxes by governments “despite opposition from the livestock industry,” the authors advance. Such measures, they argue, would push industry and investors to look for market alternatives to livestock products “that taste similar, but are easier to cook, less expensive and healthier,” such as soy and seitan (wheat gluten), which are both sources of protein.

The European Natural Soyfood Manufacturers’ Association (ENSA) stresses that vegetal alternatives can help reduce meat consumption while preserving the environment , and suggests that each European opt for at least one day a week for a non-animal-based food.

Guidelines for climate friendly food choices

Earlier this year, Swedish National Food Administration and the country’s Environmental Protection Agency published guidelines for climate-friendly food choices (EurActiv 22/06/09) . 

The guidelines cover meat, fish, seafood, fruits, berries, starches, fats and even water. Recommendations range from eating seasonal, locally-produced fruits, vegetables and berries, avoiding bottled water, soda and palm oil and limiting rice consumption as its cultivation produces methane. 

The Swedish authorities are the first in Europe to develop such recommendations, which they hope will be a source of inspiration to other EU countries.

Full Article  – credit is given to EurActiv.com as the source of the above

Watch the short YouTube ‘Eyes Wide Open’ and you’ll want to get involved

The protest campaign has two goals and I think it will allow thousands of people to take part between now and Copenhagen on December 7^th. The first objective is to send a strong message that we need world leaders to make binding emission reduction agreements at the up coming COP15 meeting. The second is to raise awareness of those who will perish from starvation as a result of climate change in the coming years. These innocents, mostly in the Third World, haven’t been responsible for the emissions that are now due to haunt our futures on the planet, but they will be some of the worst affected by the rising temperatures around the globe, that these emissions will result in. We know that they will suffer intensified droughts and crop failures, as are already plaguing most of East Africa, where only recently it was reported that in Kenya alone, 23 million are now at risk of starvation. With only 25 cents a day needed to feed a starving child, the money I raised through pledges from family and friends, will go a little way in assisting. It’s not much, but will feed 1,260 people for a day.

These 5 days though have brought home to me with stark reality, how much we eat and how little we really need. Looking at the clock today I see that the amount of food discarded in the US today alone is equal to 26,150 tons and that is 5 times the amount of food the world provides in food aid which today stands at 5,475 tons It shows that there is a person who dies of starvation every 3 second and as at today, this year alone there have been 8,474,975 deaths. It also shows that there are 340,011,092 obese people in the world. Now admittedly some may be due to health conditions but many others are the result of lifestyle and over eating. It also shows that today in the US there has been $23,862,956 spent by householders on food that was then thrown away. It displays how we spend around $10 million a day on pet food, but only around 10% of that amount in food aid (these figures will have varied when you look at them however the percentages will hardly have changed). So that brings me to the point that this protest has personally driven home to me.

We need to rethink what we eat and what we spend of our hard earned money on food we throw out. 

My family are not over eaters, well not in terms of some I have encountered. I was amazed when we visited America in 2006 to accept a Global Environment Award, how some people, in the ‘all you can eat buffet breakfast’ at the hotel we were staying at, even though they had mountains of food on their plates and side plates, when told by the waiter that the buffet would soon close, went back and helped themselves to yet more food. I was surprised that most, if not all of these extra portions were left on the table when they departed. I asked one guy who was British, but living permanently in the US, why so many seemed so gluttonous? He said that he thought it was because they wanted to make sure they got their monies worth. Well as I said most of the food was left on the table, so I don’t see how that works for them too well. To me it’s just plain wasteful.

My eating habits and what I ended up consuming throughout the last 5 days won’t get any applause from nutritionists’ or a tick from the Heart Foundation. However I’ll be honest with all those reading this. I have become accustomed since the early 80’s, living a busy commercial life in the corporate sector, to miss meals, to the point where; I never eat breakfast, rarely eat lunch and have a reasonable, but not overly large, evening meal. I drink too much coffee and these days don’t get enough exercise. I weight in at about 75 kilos (165lbs) and although the midriff bulges a little with middle age spread, you wouldn’t consider me over weight. So the free weight loss program I have just finished has dropped a couple of kilos – mostly I’m delighted to report off that belly.

It’s recommended that people who take part in the COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CHANGE – WORLD HUNGER STRIKE, which has options for a 1 day (24 hour) fast or 3 days, or 5, which as mentioned I opted for, should only rule out solid food during the protest, so all liquids are allowed such as fruit and vegetable juices, clear soups and broths. Coffee & tea is also ok, which is good for me because as mentioned I drink lots of the former. But I have to admit, I didn’t do too well on following the guidelines to the letter by consuming these (apart from coffee) regularly. In fact I didn’t have my first glass of fruit juice until the morning of the fourth day and only had one glass subsequent to that. Apart from that I only consumed 1 cup of clear soup during the whole 120 hours of fast. So chastise me if you like. I’m a naughty boy.

I mentioned we are not heavy eaters but it did strike me last night (while still on my hunger strike) when I saw the remainder of the family sitting down to a BBQ dinner, that we still eat and waste too much food. There were lamb chops cooked, along with sausages, a large potatoes bake and fresh salad. Looking at what remained left over, which will mostly be fed to our three dogs, there are 3 chops and around 20 sausages in a container, along with a third of the potato bake and about a quarter of the salad (this will go to the chickens we keep). Now that’s a lot of wasted food.

Anyway my epiphany is that we don’t have a problem feeding the world even as the population grows over the next few years. We just need to rethink what we consume in the developed world and then redistribute that and we would have the job of world hunger beaten. Think about that when you go back for the second serving of breakfast at the all you can eat buffet.

Oh and join us – this will be the easiest and most important protest you can be involved with in the lead up to, and right through the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Go the registration page here and sign up, even if you can only manage one day of active protest. If you can’t even do that for health reasons, or some other impediment, think about giving a donation of a few dollars – remember it only cost 25 cents a day to save a child from dying of starvation.

You might even consider cutting out one meal per week and donating the $25-$30 per month you spend on food now, to the fight for world hunger – that would contribute to providing 100-120 days of food every month to those who most need our help.

UPDATE TO THIS PROTEST – I have decided that starting from midnight on Saturday November 14th I will commence a second 5 day protest. To help me in this why not sponsor me with 10 cents per hour – for the 120 hours it would the small sum of $12 – but this small sum would help feed 48 people for a day. DONATE/ PLEDGE HERE And why not join us, even if you can only participate for a single day – JOIN US HERE NOW for a day any time before Copenhagen starting on December 7th and show you care. You can send me a direct message too on Twitter to ZEROGreenhouse or to Bob_Williamson. Thank you for your support.

Addressing hundreds of biologists, ecologists and social scientists who were meeting in Cape Town under the auspices of Diversitas, an interdisciplinary group of researchers, Lijbert Brussaard of Wageningen University outlined progress made towards the Millennium Development Goals agreed by members of the United Nations in 2001. One of the targets was to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss of biodiversity. That has not happened. Neither will it do so next year.

One reason why Dr Brussaard and his colleagues are concerned about this is that they believe environmental degradation goes hand-in-hand with poverty. Missing the goal for the environment thus risks missing it for the people who live in that environment.

Writing in Science last month, Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University, and his colleagues stated, “With increasing global challenges, such as population growth, climate change and overconsumption of ecosystem services, we need further integration of the poverty-alleviation and biodiversity-conservation agendas.” Such a link is, admittedly, complex. Dr Sachs called for future efforts aimed at reducing poverty to be monitored for their effects on ecosystems, and thus on the “services”, such as water cleaning and air purification, that such habitats provide for people.

Another economist, Pavan Sukhdev of Deutsche Bank, told the Diversitas meeting that he had put a price on some of those services. Coral reefs, he reckons, provide services such as acting as nurseries for commercially important fish that would cost up to $130,000 per hectare per year if they had to be paid for. The figures for coastal areas and inland wetlands that, among other tasks, help filter and purify water, were $74,000 and $14,000 per hectare per year respectively.

Read More……

Please note:
This article is for information purposes only. The Greenhouse Neutral Foundation does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information provided.

In signing the compact — initiated in 2005 by Greg Nickels, the mayor of Seattle and the president of the conference — local leaders commit to reducing their cities’ carbon emissions in concert with the national goals laid out by the Kyoto Protocol: a 7 percent reduction over 1990 emissions levels by 2012.

As with the country-level signatories to the Kyoto agreement, many cities will fail to meet this goal. But with prospects dimming that world leaders will agree to a substantive successor treaty to the expiring Kyoto accord at the global climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December, local endeavors like Mr. Nickels’s mayoral agreement would seem to take on a whole new measure of import.

“Locally elected officials can create ripples — and maybe even waves — in the fight against global warming,” Mr. Nickels wrote in the introduction to a report, published this month, highlighting the efforts of 16 mayors in various American cities. “What we do in our cities,” he continued, “whether it’s constructing green buildings, establishing electric car charging stations, planting urban forests or creating legions of good-paying green jobs, can serve as a model for state governments” and for Washington.

Read More……

Please note:
This article is for information purposes only. The Greenhouse Neutral Foundation does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information provided.