Environmentalism: Religion vs. Necessity

[MJ]

I have expectations much less than that from "others", here.

[Sip]

What I meant with "expecting others" has to do with the worth of childeren. The "value" of human life has been one of those things that has distrubed me greatly in the past. Obviously human life cannot have infinite value.

 

How much is person x, walking on the street, really worth? How much is an unborn child really worth? How much am I worth? Life is precious ...yes! Life is infinitely precious ... NO! Can the value of life can be quantified? ... I think so. How? ... I don't know.

 

However, I am VERY certain that human value CAN be quantified in relative terms (person x in terms of person y).

 

Does all this fall under the "childeren are stupid" series? Maybe! But I think it's at the heart of the "environment" question. How much are your (MJ's) childeren and the other childeren and the coming generations really worth? Do we have to go out of our way to ensure their well being? How far out of our way?

 

Actually, come to think of it, this probably falls under the Sip's mental diarrhea series. I'm off to my much needed beauty sleep.

[MJ]

Human life can be of infinite value, especially when it comes to one's children. I can understand that for a single person this may sometimes be hard to comprehend.

 

Infinity here can be understood the way computer scientist may do - a number that anything larger than that would result in machine overflow. Now, this last one should be clear, right?

 

To go back to the main subject, clean environment is a good thing and should be aspired, I think. Unfortunately, it has become a media for discharging the negativism of incompetent on the subject (not only this subject) angry-envy young people/countries. This is what I would call pollution of the environment. The remedy for that pollution, I think, is successfully formulated in the 10 Commandments – especially in the one about not wishing your neighbors property, wife, etc.

[Boghos]

I agree with you, it is beyond my knowledge of science to have an informed and educated opinion on the subject. Nevertheless debunking popular mtyhs is an interesting proposition per se. I didn´t mean that global warming and its "tree hugging" critics are necessarily fake, I just said "caveat emptor".

[Sip]

Forgive my bluntness but you are joking about the last part, right?

[Twilight Bark]

There is no question that there are a lot of "scientists", some of them even "respectable", that have huge conflicts of interest, and are incapable of conducting good science on the subject. But ...

 

I am afraid your understanding is out of date by a few years. If you do care about the subject, I suggest you read up on it (I, on the other hand, can't be bothered ). Your confusing the ozone-hole problem with global warming suggests that you have a long learning curve. But I am sure for an intelligent person it is a matter of a few days to digest the relevant literature.

 

That is a straw man argument. The first question to ask is something like "Is the current upward fluctuation explainable by the historic patterns of temperature fluctuations, with, say 95% confidence". If the answer is negative, i.e. the fluctuation is too big and fast to be characterized as "natural", then the second question would be about what we can or should do about it.

 

Their idea of free-market emphasizes the "free" (as in freedom) more than a "wild" capitalist would like. But to say that they are not particulary free-market oriented is unreasonable. How would you characterize The Economist?

 

Not to take anything from your children, but I think the only individuals on the planet that are worth more than that happen to be mine . Needless to say, for most parents the value of their children is indeed infinite. The society at large has a different way of valuing a person, of course. At the other end of the spectrum, for the military types, the value of a human on the "other side" is measured by the cheapest way to exterminate them. But that's another topic.

 

[ October 03, 2002, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[MJ]

 

As far as I understand, such phenomenon has been alleged but no such evidence has been presented so far.

 

I am afraid your understanding is out of date by a few years. If you do care about the subject, I suggest you read up on it (I, on the other hand, can't be bothered ). Your confusing the ozone-hole problem with global warming suggests that you have a long learning curve. But I am sure for an intelligent person it is a matter of a few days to digest the relevant literature.

 

Dear TB,

 

I definitely don’t know much about the ozone layer and global warming, and one of my points was that there is not much known about them. But I have once taken very successfully a graduate class in Stratified and Rotating Fluids from a well recognized guru in the subject (know, better to say have known, how to solve Navier-Stokes for laminar flow, for instance… ). My understanding has been that one of the alleged outcomes of Global Warming is the ozone layer. Maybe I am wrong – wouldn’t be ashamed to admit it.

 

However, if the relevant literature may be digested in few days, then it should mean that there is indeed not much literature on the subject, wouldn’t it?

 

I also think that some of the opinions by some of the best recognized experts that I have posted in this thread are of not that distant past.

 

quote:

 

One of the questions that I have never been able to find an answer to, is which law of physics contemplates that the temperature of the earth has to stay constant. Clearly, historically it has not been constant.

 

That is a straw man argument. The first question to ask is something like "Is the current upward fluctuation explainable by the historic patterns of temperature fluctuations, with, say 95% confidence". If the answer is negative, i.e. the fluctuation is too big and fast to be characterized as "natural", then the second question would be about what we can or should do about it.

 

However, I should admit that I disagree with your above-mentioned methodological approach to the problem, and I think the question formulated above may very well lead to misleading conclusions – maybe this is what many advocates of Global Warming hypothesis do?

 

To be more specific, the answer to your question may be irrelevant, for example, if the ‘global’ temperature of the Earth is highly dependent/correlated (as a random process) on the solar activities, therefore the unconditional probability estimates off of that variable alone are of not much relevance, and things have to be seen in the context of the joint distribution of the above-mentioned two random processes.

 

I am tired tonight – even left work quite earlier than I usually do. Besides, had more than enough random variables to gaze at all day today…

 

quote:

 

I disagree with you on the subject of The Economist. In particular, don’t find it particularly free-market oriented.

 

Their idea of free-market emphasizes the "free" (as in freedom) more than a "wild" capitalist would like. But to say that they are not particulary free-market oriented is unreasonable. How would you characterize The Economist?

 

I have to add that I am not a particular supporter of “wild” capitalism, in case that was the contention, nor me or my colleagues benefit from it. The business I am a part of is a customer oriented business.

 

Now, what I dislike about The Economist is pretty much what I dislike about most of the contemporary publications – they are too ideological and increasingly less professional.

 

 

 

quote:

 

However, I estimate my children’s lives to be worth more than that.

 

Not to take anything from your children, but I think the only individuals on the planet that are worth more than that happen to be mine . Needless to say, for most parents the value of their children is indeed infinite. The society at large has a different way of valuing a person, of course. At the other end of the spectrum, for the military types, the value of a human on the "other side" is measured by the cheapest way to exterminate them. But that's another topic.

 

Now, wait a minute…. What did you say????

[Twilight Bark]

As far as I know they are separate problems to the first-order (Thoth in fact gave an explanation already). There may be second-order interactions as I implied in my first post in this thread.

 

As a rule, the relevant and important literature on most subjects is usually quite brief. The rest of the published "papers" (typically in the thousands) are what I lovingly classify as "toilet paper"s.

 

Ahh, but I didn't say "random", did I? You are of course right in pointing out that the temperature may not be purely random, related to many "systematic" variables from the sunspots to the intensity of cosmic rays that may depend in part on the particular angular position the solar system is at as it rotates around the galaxy. And those "natural" variations would be recorded by earth (the thick ice cover in the polar regions I think provides some information in that respect; as I said I am no expert, and not even interested enough to delve into it seriously). So looking at the natural variations (that include systematic as well as random components) one could in principle ask such questions and come up with meaningful conclusions.

 

Good night, and have a good rest.

 

TB

[Stormig]

http://www.enn.com/news/2003-11-25/s_10750.asp

 

Oil company sees burying gas as key to greener future

November 21, 2003

 

By Inger Sethov, Reuters

 

SLEIPNER PLATFORM, Norwegian North Sea — Norway's oil and gas group Statoil reckons it has found the key to a green and profitable future by burying greenhouse gases underground.

Norway's biggest company operates the world's only commercial gas platform in the North Sea to separate carbon dioxide (CO2) from gas and reinject it beneath the sea bed instead of releasing it into the air.

 

"The method has enormous potential. Our imagination is the only limit," said Sleipner platform chief Edvin Ytredal. The storage could prove profitable under planned CO2 emissions trading schemes.

 

Rising 650 feet above the sea surface with two giant burning flares, the Sleipner gas platform looks like a monster polluter. But underneath it has been stashing away 1 million tons of CO2 gas every year since 1996, or the equivalent of the amount produced by about 110,000 Norwegians a year.

 

An eight-story structure houses about 200 workers, a gym, a Bible study room, and a motorcycle club on top of a complex production facility pumping gas from the reservoir, splitting the CO2 from the gas, reinjecting the greenhouse gas back into the seabed, and piping the CO2-free gas to Norway and to Europe.

 

C02 is the main gas targeted by the international 1997 Kyoto pact aimed at cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming. The pact prompted the European Union to launch the world's first international emissions trading scheme in 2005.

 

State-controlled Statoil would like to be paid to bury CO2 produced by big fossil-fuel burners in Europe such as steel plants or coal-fired power plants which will have to cap their emissions.

 

"If that solution adds up financially, it would be a dream scenario for Statoil," said Jan Karlsen, Statoil's senior vice president for gas sales. But he said it was too early to predict the practical and financial viability.

 

Risky Business?

 

Several obstacles remain. So far it is unclear whether CO2 reinjection will be an accepted way of getting rid of climate gases as part of the Kyoto mechanisms. It is also uncertain what non-E.U. member Norway's position in the scheme will be.

 

And some environmental groups believe CO2 reinjection might be risky, fearing that the gas might leak into the sea and harm marine life. CO2 is a clear, nontoxic gas but can be disruptive in heavy concentrations.

 

"We are critical because we don't know whether this is a permanent solution. No one knows whether the CO2 will stay in the reservoir in 100 or 1,000 years," said campaigner Truls Gulowsen of the environmental group Greenpeace. "The more we store greenhouse gases away, the bigger the potential climate bomb is and the longer it will take to get rid of the real problem: the burning of fossil fuels," he said.

 

Statoil says there is no sign of leaks from Sleipner and that natural gas has stayed below ground for millions of years.

 

Offshore taxes in Norway — the world's third biggest oil exporter, pumping about 3 million barrels of oil per day — are 78 percent. Statoil says it is saving 1 million crowns (US$143,000) every day in CO2 taxes by reinjection.

 

Future?

 

To cut the CO2 content, Statoil lets a soaplike chemical called amine react with the gas under high pressure, splitting CO2 from the gas and pumping it back into the Utsira reservoir about 3,280 feet below the sea bed. It estimates that Utsira can hold 600 billion tons of CO2. The world's total human emissions are 23 billion tons a year.

 

Gas at the Sleipner West field contains up to 9 percent CO2 — almost four times the maximum 2.5 percent limit for sale in the market and forcing Statoil to cut the CO2 content.

 

Sleipner West is the only commercial CO2-injecting platform in the world, but there are other similar experimental projects, including in the United States.

 

Statoil's giant Snoehvit natural liquefied gas (LNG) project in the Barents Sea is due to come on stream in 2006 with the same technology. And environmental authorities recommend that any future Arctic development should have CO2 reinjection.

 

Even with CO2 reinjection, there is always a certain amount of emission. At Sleipner, the two flares are constantly burning for security reasons. In case of a leak, the gas will be burned instead of being released to the air.

 

 

 

Source: Reuters

[Stormig]

http://www.popmatters.com/columns/vaknin/030604.shtml

 

The Ecology of Environmentalism

[4 June 2003]

 

 

by Sam Vaknin

PopMatters Columnist

 

Greenpeace demonstration — Malta

:. e-mail this article

:. print this article

:. comment on this article

 

The concept of "nature" is a romantic invention. It was spun by the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century as a confabulated utopian contrast to the dystopia of urbanization and materialism. The traces of this dewy-eyed conception of the "savage" and his unmolested, unadulterated surroundings can be found in the more malignant forms of fundamentalist environmentalism.

 

At the other extreme are religious literalists who regard Man as the crown of creation with complete dominion over nature and the right to exploit its resources unreservedly. Similar, veiled, sentiments can be found among scientists. The Anthropic Principle, for instance, promoted by many outstanding physicists, claims that the nature of the Universe is preordained to accommodate sentient beings — namely, us humans.

 

Industrialists, politicians and economists have only recently begun paying lip service to sustainable development and to the environmental costs of their policies. Thus, in a way, they bridge the abyss, at least verbally, between these two diametrically opposed forms of fundamentalism. Still, essential dissimilarities between the schools notwithstanding, the dualism of Man vs. Nature is universally acknowledged.

 

Modern physics, notably the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, has abandoned the classic split between (typically human) observer and (usually inanimate) observed. Environmentalists, in contrast, have embraced this discarded worldview wholeheartedly. To them, Man is the active agent operating upon a distinct reactive or passive substrate, i.e., Nature. But, though intuitively compelling, it is a false dichotomy. Man is, by definition, a part of Nature. His tools are natural. He interacts with the other elements of Nature and modifies it — but so do all other species. Arguably, bacteria and insects exert on Nature far more influence with farther reaching consequences than Man has ever done.

 

Still, the "Law of the Minimum" — that there is a limit to human population growth and that this barrier is related to the biotic and abiotic variables of the environment — is undisputed. Whatever debate there is veers between two strands of this Malthusian Weltanschauung: the utilitarian (a.k.a. anthropocentric, shallow, or technocentric) and the ethical (alternatively termed biocentric, deep, or ecocentric). First, the Utilitarians.

 

Economists, for instance, tend to discuss the costs and benefits of environmental policies. Activists, on the other hand, demand that Mankind consider the "rights" of other beings and of nature as a whole in determining a least harmful course of action. Utilitarians regard nature as a set of exhaustible and scarce resources and deal with their optimal allocation from a human point of view. Yet they usually fail to incorporate intangibles such as the beauty of a sunset or the liberating sensation of open spaces. "Green" accounting — adjusting the national accounts to reflect environmental data — is still in its unpromising infancy. It is complicated by the fact that ecosystems do not respect man-made borders, and by such stubborn refusal of many ecological variables, fails to succumb to numbers. To complicate things further, different nations weigh environmental problems disparately.

 

Despite recent attempts, such as the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) produced by the World Economic Forum (WEF), no one knows how to define and quantify elusive concepts such as "sustainable development". Even the costs of replacing or repairing depleted resources and natural assets are difficult to determine. Efforts to capture "quality of life" considerations in the straitjacket of the formalism of distributive justice, known as human-welfare ecology or emancipatory environmentalism, backfired. These led to derisory attempts to reverse the inexorable processes of urbanization and industrialization by introducing localized, small-scale production.

 

Social ecologists proffer the same prescriptions but with an anarchistic twist. The hierarchical view of nature, with Man at the pinnacle, is a reflection of social relations, they suggest. Dismantle the latter and you get rid of the former. The Ethicists appear to be as confounded and ludicrous as their "feet on the ground" opponents.

 

Biocentrists view nature as possessed of an intrinsic value, regardless of its actual or potential utility. They fail to specify, however, how this, even if true, gives rise to rights and commensurate obligations. Nor was their case aided by their association with the apocalyptic or survivalist school of environmentalism which has developed proto-fascist tendencies and is gradually being scientifically debunked.

 

The proponents of deep ecology radicalize the ideas of social ecology ad absurdum and postulate a transcendentalist spiritual connection with the inanimate (whatever that may be). In consequence, they refuse to intervene to counter or contain natural processes, including diseases and famine. The politicization of environmental concerns runs the gamut from political activism to eco-terrorism. The environmental movement, whether in academe, in the media, in non-governmental organizations, or in legislature, is now comprised of a web of bureaucratic interest groups.

 

Like all bureaucracies, environmental organizations are out to perpetuate themselves, fight heresy, and accumulate political clout and the money and perks that come with it. They are no longer a disinterested and objective party. They have a stake in apocalypse. That makes them automatically suspect.

 

Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, was at the receiving end of such self-serving sanctimony. A statistician, he demonstrated that the doom and gloom tendered by environmental campaigners, scholars and militants are, at best, dubious and, at worst, the outcomes of deliberate manipulation.

 

The situation is actually improving on many fronts, showed Lomborg: known reserves of fossil fuels and most metals are rising, agricultural production per head is surging, the number of the famished is declining, biodiversity loss is slowing as is pollution and tropical deforestation. In the long run, even in pockets of environmental degradation, in the poor and developing countries, rising incomes and the attendant drop in birth rates will likely ameliorate the situation in the long run.

 

Yet both camps, the optimists and the pessimists, rely on partial, irrelevant, or, worse, manipulated data. The multiple authors of People and Ecosystems, published by the World Resources Institute, the World Bank, and the United Nations conclude: "Our knowledge of ecosystems has increased dramatically, but it simply has not kept pace with our ability to alter them." Quoted by The Economist, Daniel Esty of Yale, the leader of an environmental project sponsored by World Economic Forum, exclaimed:

 

 

"Why hasn't anyone done careful environmental measurement before? Businessmen always say, 'what matters gets measured.' Social scientists started quantitative measurement 30 years ago, and even political science turned to hard numbers 15 years ago. Yet look at environmental policy, and the data are lousy."

Nor is this dearth of reliable and unequivocal information likely to end soon. Even the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, supported by numerous development agencies and environmental groups, is seriously under-financed. The conspiracy-minded attribute this curious void to the self-serving designs of the apocalyptic school of environmentalism. Ignorance and fear, they point out, are among the fanatic's most useful allies. They also make for good copy.

 

Additional Reading

The Self-Appointed Altruists

Burning the Oil — Development and Ethnic Tensions

The Emerging Water Wars

[THOTH]

Well nice articles...the first suggests that in this and other areas advancing technology may save us from some problems we have created...and one can only hope fro more innovations like this. the second article certainly also has much food for thought...but...in dealing with environmental (geological) issues - sometimes we lack all the input necessary for measuring over a sufficient ong term - or just don't understand the causation of certain effects/phenomonon we observe - to make truly accurate predictions...again we are improving with technology...only hope that we can takle proper steps to avoid the worst potential cotastrophes...and certainly I too hope the environmentalists who shout dire warnings are all wrong...

[MJ]

From NY Times

 

Into Thin Air: Kyoto Accord May Not Die (or Matter)

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

 

Published: December 4, 2003

 

 

Since it was negotiated in Japan in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol, the first treaty that would require countries to curb emissions linked to global warming, has lingered in an indeterminate state, between enactment and outright rejection.

On Tuesday its prospects were dealt what may have been a fatal blow when a top Russian official said his country would not ratify it. But some experts on climate and diplomacy say that the fate of the Kyoto treaty itself is rapidly becoming less important than the longer-term processes it set in motion.

Even without approval by the United States and Russia — first and fourth on lists of the world's largest emitters of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases — the treaty has already changed the world in small but significant ways that will be hard to reverse, these experts say.

From Europe to Japan and the United States, just the prospect of the treaty has resulted in legislation and new government and industry policies curbing emissions.

The treaty's future impact is limited by deep flaws, many experts say, including its lack of any emissions limits on China and other big developing countries and its short time frame, with terms extending only to 2012. As a result, they add, new approaches must be developed now if atmospheric levels of the gases are to be stabilized.

The protocol has been approved by 120 countries but was rejected by President Bush in 2001. Without the United States, the only way to reach the threshold for enactment under the treaty's terms was with Russian participation. If enacted, it would give industrialized countries until 2012 to reduce their combined emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases more than 5 percent below 1990 levels.

The possibility remains that the statement on Tuesday by the Russian official, Andrei N. Illarionov, the top economic adviser to President Vladimir V. Putin, was just a negotiating ploy, aimed at extracting as many concessions as possible from the European Union and Japan, the treaty's main supporters.

On Wednesday a lower-level official, Mukhamed M. Tsikanov, a deputy economics minister, sounded a note of hope for the treaty, declaring, "There are no decisions about ratification apart from the fact that we are moving toward ratification." Mr. Putin, meanwhile, remained silent.

Regardless of which way Russia steps, the process of moving the world toward limiting releases of the gases after more than a century of relentless increases has clearly begun, said David B. Sandalow, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration who worked on the treaty.

"The standard of success isn't whether the first treaty out of the box sails through," he said. "The standard is whether this puts the world on a path to solving a long-term problem. Other multilateral regimes dealing with huge complex problems, like the World Trade Organization, have taken 45 or 50 years to get established."

Mr. Sandalow and other experts noted that the European Union had already passed a law requiring a cap and credit-trading system for the gases starting in 2005. It will follow the pattern laid out in Kyoto no matter what happens to the treaty.

Even in the United States, where Mr. Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress strongly oppose the treaty, legislation that would require milder restrictions on emissions than those in the Kyoto treaty has gained some momentum.

Opponents of the treaty acknowledge that it has already made a difference, though they say it is a harmful one.

"Kyoto is dead and has been dead, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't done some real damage and won't continue to do some real damage," said Myron Ebell, a climate policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-backed group that opposes regulatory solutions to environmental problems.

"If global warming turns out to be a problem, which I doubt, it won't be solved by making ourselves poorer through energy rationing," he said. "It will be solved through building resiliency and capability into society and through long-term technological innovation and transformation."

Critics of that view say the one feature of the Kyoto treaty that cannot be jettisoned is a ceiling on emissions. Without limits, they say, there will be no incentive for industry to innovate and find the cheapest, most effective ways to limit the human impact on the atmosphere, said David D. Doniger, the climate policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private environmental group.

"If the United States had invented the catalytic converter but not passed clean air laws," he said, "it would still be sitting on a shelf and we'd still be choking in smog."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/04/internat.../04CLIM.html?th

[MJ]

“Global Warming” is recorded on Mars. Must be there is oil on Mars and the blood sucking greedy alien capitalists have been poluting the environment there (surely this must be a Republican conspiracy.) But, most importantly, this must finally prove the existence of life on Mars.

 

 

 

Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest

 

Tue Dec 9, 4:04 PM ET

By SPACE.com, SPACE.com

 

Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.

NASA (news - web sites)'s Mars Odyssey orbiter has been surveying the planet for nearly a full Martian year now, and it has spotted seasonal changes like the advance and retreat of polar ice. It's also gathering data of a possible longer trend.

There appears to be too much frozen water at low-latitude regions -- away from the frigid poles -- given the current climate of Mars. The situation is not in equilibrium, said William Feldman of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," Feldman said. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated. In others, that process is slower and hasn't reached an equilibrium yet. Those areas are like the patches of snow you sometimes see persisting in protected spots long after the last snowfall of the winter."

Frozen water makes up as much as 10 percent of the top 3 feet (1 meter) of surface material in some regions close to the equator. Dust deposits may be covering and insulating the lingering ice, Feldman said.

Feldman is the lead scientist for an Odyssey instrument that assesses water content indirectly through measurements of neutron emissions. He and other Odyssey scientists described their recent findings today at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

"Odyssey is giving us indications of recent global climate change in Mars," said Jeffrey Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

High latitude regions of Mars have layers with differing ice content within the top 20 inches (half-meter) or so of the surface, researchers conclude from mapping of hydrogen abundance based on gamma-ray emissions.

"A model that fits the data has three layers near the surface," said William Boynton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, team leader for the gamma-ray spectrometer instrument on Odyssey. "The very top layer would be dry, with no ice. The next layer would contain ice in the pore spaces between grains of soil. Beneath that would be a very ice-rich layer, 60 to nearly 100 percent water ice."

Boynton interprets the iciest layer as a deposit of snow or frost, mixed with a little windblown dust, from an era when the climate was colder than nowadays. The middle layer could be the result of changes brought in a warmer era, when ice down to a certain depth dissipated into the atmosphere. The dust left behind collapsed into a soil layer with limited pore space for returning ice. More study is needed to determine for sure what's going on.

 

Other Odyssey instruments are providing other pieces of the puzzle. Images from the orbiter's camera system have been combined into the highest resolution complete map ever made of Mars' south polar region.

 

"We can now accurately count craters in the layered materials of the polar regions to get an idea how old they are," said Phil Christensen of Arizona State University, Tempe, principal investigator for the camera system.

 

Temperature information from the camera system's infrared imaging has produced a surprise about dark patches that dot bright expanses of seasonal carbon-dioxide ice.

 

"Those dark features look like places where the ice has gone away, but thermal infrared maps show that even the dark areas have temperatures so low they must be carbon-dioxide ice." Christensen said. "One possibility is that the ice is clear in these areas and we're seeing down through the ice to features underneath."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?

 

tmpl=story&cid=96&ncid=96&e=2&u=/space/20031209/sc_space/marsemergingfromiceagedatasuggest

Edited December 10, 2003 by MJ

[Twilight Bark]

One would be right to suspect the presence of little green oilmen if the climate change was uncharacteristically sudden, say one or two hunded years. On the other hand, if an attempt is made to equate the natural climate cycles, the shortest of which take at least thousands of years, with the possibility of artificial climate change over a hundred years, one would be right to suspect the presence of truly little people on planet earth. Edited December 10, 2003 by Twilight Bark

[MJ]

One would be right to suspect the presence of little green oilmen if the climate change was uncharacteristically sudden, say one or two hunded years. On the other hand, if an attempt is made to equate the natural climate cycles, the shortest of which take at least thousands of years, with the possibility of artificial climate change over a hundred years, one would be right to suspect the presence of truly little people on planet earth.

Me too, Me too...

 

[Twilight Bark]

Me too, Me too...

 

????

[Stormig]

Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-backed group that opposes regulatory solutions to environmental problems.

"If global warming turns out to be a problem, which I doubt, it won't be solved by making ourselves poorer through energy rationing," he said. "It will be solved through building resiliency and capability into society and through long-term technological innovation and transformation."

And sometimes you have to innovate not just for your profit but for the common wellbeing of the whole. Gawd I can't stand this type of reasoning. Am I gonna be like them when I grow up? <_<

[THOTH]

Stormy its not just that....sometimes you dont just get to play with all the toys you want...you need to sacrifice a little and think of something other then ones self. Its nice to say and think that technology will solve our problems...and I certainly hopr that it will, but in the meanwhile - with somthing as potentiall threatening to life on earth - and as we know it - wouldnt it be prudent to take some concrete steps top clean our act up? I certainlythink so - as the potential consequences - and we are seeing much in action already as a result of the impact of our industy etc on the world (deforestation, species dies off, ocean temps rising, ozone hole) etc etc...and ugly pollution just in general (and its much worse in the unregulated 2nd & 3rd world...as some of you may experience first hand)....I mean I care for my children and theirs - the kind of world they will be left with - shame on those who are too greedy or shortsighted to place them - and to work towards mitigating risk - first and foremost. How un christian I say - if we are the shepherds of this world - and all in it - then we must take this delegation seriously - otherwise outr quick demise will just be good ridance to all the rest and maybe the dolphins or the next bunch will learn form our mistakes and do better!

[Stormig]

I don't see how what I said is so narrow.

[MJ]

And sometimes you have to innovate not just for your profit but for the common wellbeing of the whole. Gawd I can't stand this type of reasoning. Am I gonna be like them when I grow up? <_<

Noble motto…. But how about something on the merits of the issue?

[Stormig]

MJ, you are asking me to expand, am I right?

Without going into the details of what I observe and read about (that would be considered "telling"), all I can say is that there is as particular industry which gives much harm to the environment (air, water, soil, physically and chemically, you name the medium), anywhere in the world, and, in the U.S., with public backing this industry was subjected to laws and regulations starting from the '70's, with much outrage from the industry. Much fighting, much whining, much crying, but two-three decades later today it is practiced by everyone and accepted as responsibility, even though any one company's commodity profits them less, because the remediations costs are, well, costly. But it is seen as a necessity and I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, companies try to show themselves off as environmentally responsible and that is where the competition is. Examples exist also in Europe, Canada, and Australia, and these companies have still to compete against commodities from other parts of the world where the expenses of such are not required, but they do it, and they are definitely not getting as rich as they could have, but we all are the richer for it, and third-world countries can only hope to follow the example(s).

Industries that emit gases and the like can get away with it easily because you can't actually observe, pinpoint, the damage unless you are a scientist, and even then they contest each other's credibility. That's not my point, my point is that regulations are a MUST in preventing AND mitigating environmental problems, and what the Competitive Enterprise person said was what I was disagreeing with. It is not technology that has to be built in, it is res-pon-si-bi-li-ty.

[MJ]

Alternative Energy Proves Deadly for Birds

 

Monday, December 22, 2003

 

 

 

The alternative energy movement is ruffling the feathers of animal rights activists.

 

Wind turbines, lauded for being an environmentally friendly energy source, are killing thousands of birds that fly into their propellers in the Altamont Pass (search) just east of Oakland, Calif., where more than 5,000 turbines have helped power the Bay Area for 20 years.

 

Jeff Miller, of the Center for Biological Diversity (search), said the latest research indicates that one to two thousand or more birds are killed each year in the area. Included in the yearly death toll are approximately 60 golden eagles, 300 red-tailed hawks, and 270 burrowing owls.

 

Two environmental groups are trying to stop the renewal of the windmills' permits to prevent more birds from dying in their blades.

 

The Alameda County (search) zoning board renewed a batch of permits in November angering green activists who demanded an environmental impact report and mandatory concessions from the energy industry to make the mills more bird-friendly.

 

"The public is owed an open environmental review of the issue," said Miller. "If the board of supervisors doesn't see it our way, I'm sure we'll look very carefully at some kind of legal action."

 

But the board felt the confrontation with the utilities was the wrong way to go.

 

"What we have is a conflict developing over the best environmental approach and that conflict is moving into a much larger scaled war than is necessary," said Larry Gosselin, of the zoning board. "We need a progressive study."

 

Click here to watch a fair and balanced report by Fox News' Anita Vogel.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...,106438,00.html

[Stormig]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Norway Extends Arctic Sea Zone to Protect Sea Life

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OSLO - Norway extended a marine conservation area around a chain of Arctic islands last week, shutting out any future mining or oil and gas drilling to protect local sea life including polar bears, seals and fish.

"These areas are very vulnerable and important for seabirds and sea mammals like polar bears and walruses," Environment Minister Boerge Brende said of the new conservation area for the Svalbard islands, 1,000 miles from the North Pole.

 

The government said it was extending the marine protection zone around Svalbard to 12 nautical miles from four, adding an area of 15,830 square miles - the size of the Netherlands or Switzerland.

 

On Monday, the government decided to lift a two-year ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Barents Sea but shielded the scenic Lofoten islands south of Svalbard after pressure from environmentalists and the fishing industry.

 

"This is a double Christmas present for everyone who cares about the environment," said conservation organization WWF's Arctic Program head Samantha Smith of the Svalbard and Lofoten decisions.

 

"We hope this is a precedent for other areas in the Barents Sea under threat from oil and gas development," she said.

 

Norway is the world's third biggest oil exporter behind Saudi Arabia and Russia, pumping about three million barrels per day. But finds in the North Sea are drying up, pushing oil companies to seek new Arctic areas.

 

Svalbard is a coal mining center and some oil companies reckon it could offer interesting prospects. In September, the government set aside about 4,500 square kms of the land on Svalbard as a conservation park.

 

 

Story Date: 22/12/2003

 

Back to Top

Back to Headlines

See yesterday's headlines

 

 

 

 

All Contents

© Reuters News Service 2003

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out Planet Ark on the web at www.planetark.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Stormig]

Not all being said is baloney, you know...

 

 

Friends of the Earth thanks you for taking action online

throughout the year and for all you do to defend the environment

and champion a healthy and just world.

 

Read below about our International Program's top five,

incredible accomplishments in 2003 and the many ways your

support helps us to fight for what's right for our environment,

our communities and our health.

 

And as you consider the many, many worthy causes to support with

your year-end giving, please include the bold and determined

work of Friends of the Earth's International Program in 2004.

 

You can become a member and make a secure and fully

tax-deductible donation at: http://ga1.org/ct/7pLHabF1Fdxu/

 

If you prefer, please mail a check to: Friends of the Earth,

1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036.

 

SUCCESSES IN 2003

 

----------

Convinced the U.S. Export-Import Bank to say NO to further

destruction in the Amazon's rainforest

----------

 

When we convinced Ex-Im's board of directors in September 2003

to reject public financing for a $1.6 billion gas project in

the Peruvian rainforest, it was the first time they ever turned

down a project on environmental grounds. The Camisea gas project

is highly controversial because it includes plans to drill in

indigenous peoples' reserves and the potential for massive

damage to a pristine tropical rain forest. Had the loan been

approved, it would have provided $213 million of taxpayer money

for the project.

 

----------

Spearheaded international pressure on major private banks, which

led to unprecedented adoption of international standards to

reduce harmful social and environmental impacts

----------

 

In an unprecedented move, major investment banks in June 2003

adopted a new commitment to not only assess the impact of

proposed projects but to also require corporate clients to

undertake certain measures to help protect people and the

environment. The 12 banks (Citigroup and others) that endorsed

the "Equator Principles" are responsible for arranging over 70

percent of the dollars loaned to projects worldwide, which means

they have an enormous potential to promote more responsible

corporate behavior worldwide.

 

----------

Greatly influenced a groundbreaking report on the World Bank's

role in oil, mining and gas projects that could improve its

future lending practices

----------

 

We played a major role in pushing the World Bank to review the

often-devastating environmental and social impacts associated

with Bank-financed projects in the oil, gas and mining sectors.

When the Bank-commissioned Extractive Industries Review process

released its report in November 2003, it included many of our

recommendations: halt financing for coal projects; phase out

support for oil projects by 2008; implement a "no go zones"

policy that bars investments in ecologically sensitive areas;

and give indigenous communities the right to clear projects

through prior informed consent.

 

----------

Forced greater accountability by a U.S. agency that finances

multinationals' projects in developing countries

----------

 

Working with a coalition of environmental, labor and human

rights groups, we helped pass legislation in Congress requiring

the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to work with Friends

of the Earth and others to become more accountable and

transparent. The agency must give groups the right to file

claims if it fails to implement or enforce its environmental and

social policies. The agency must also jointly and systematically

review all aspects of its operations with a view towards vastly

increased disclosure of both documents and decision-making

results.

 

----------

Stopped anti-environmental trade rules at two international

trade summits

----------

 

We worked with a broad international network of environmental

and development groups to oppose rich countries' demands that

developing countries accept trade rules that would have given

multinational investors broad new rights at their expense. In

September 2003, high-level talks at the World Trade Organization

meeting in Cancun collapsed when developing countries held their

ground on these and other issues. A month later, developing

countries also succeeded in watering down the 34-nation Free

Trade Area of the Americas by insisting that they have

flexibility in deciding whether to sign up for multinational

investor rights and other rules. We were at the forefront of

efforts to brief the public and developing countries' decision

makers about the harmful way corporations have used rules in

previous trade agreements (especially the North American Free

Trade Agreement) to challenge environmental laws and

regulations.

 

ACTION PLAN FOR 2004

 

----------

Advance positive solutions to ensure that multinational

companies operate in a responsible and accountable manner

----------

 

We will continue spearheading the effort to reform the

Securities and Exchange Commission -- the government agency that

regulates companies and U.S. stock exchanges -- to improve rules

on corporate disclosure, so companies disclose more social and

environmental information in audited financial statements.

Greater information disclosure on social and environmental

matters will give consumers and investors the knowledge and

ability to reward responsible companies and penalize the bad

actors.

 

Working with a coalition of environmental, development, human

rights and labor groups, we will advocate for "International

Right to Know" disclosure standards, which would require large

U.S. companies and foreign companies traded on U.S. stock

exchanges to report information on their toxic pollution and

their labor and human rights practices for their international

operations.

 

We will press ChevronTexaco to release information to the

communities, including its plans to address the rampant gas

flare problems in the Niger Delta, and disclosure of its oil

revenues. In addition, we will press ChevronTexaco and major oil

companies operating elsewhere, such as in the Caspian Basin, to

adhere to international best practice and disclose revenue

payments to government as well as project-related legal and

production agreements.

 

----------

Ensure that international financial institutions use taxpayers'

money for sustainable development rather than ecological and

social damage

----------

 

Working closely with our partners groups in Friends of the Earth

International, we will press the World Bank Group to implement

the recommendations contained within the groundbreaking,

November 2003 report on the World Bank's role in the oil, gas

and mining sectors. We will also educate decision-makers on the

World Bank's recent change in course to return to financing big,

risky infrastructure projects that have historically led to

widespread social and environmental harm.

 

We will continue our innovative work to ensure that U.S.

government trade agencies are complying with the National

Environmental Policy Act, which requires them to reduce their

global warming impacts. We will work diligently to ensure that

the Overseas Private Investment Corporation implements robust

accountability and transparency mechanisms in keeping with its

new congressional mandate. We will also continue to lead efforts

to ensure that the Export-Import Bank strengthens its

environmental and social policies.

 

----------

Advocate for international trade rules that protect, and do not

harm, the environment and public health

----------

 

We will be at the forefront of efforts to challenge a new wave

of bilateral and mini-regional trade and investment agreements

that the U.S. is currently pursuing with more than 20 countries

in every region of the globe - including the Central America

Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Bilateral agreements, including

bilateral investor rights treaties, are the central trade

strategy that has been adopted by the U.S. Trade Representative

in the wake of setbacks for the WTO and FTAA. Meanwhile, we will

also closely monitor negotiations at the WTO and the FTAA to

ensure that investment rules and other environmentally harmful

initiatives do not move forward in those contexts.

--------------------------------------------------

[Stormig]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17504

 

 

Coal Mountain

 

By William J. Kelly, AlterNet

January 6, 2004

 

The celebrated ecological economist Herman Daly once said, "There is something fundamentally wrong with treating the earth as if it were a business in liquidation." In the year ahead, the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, the nation's largest municipal utility, has the perfect opportunity to begin righting that wrong.

 

 

The question on the minds of many environmentalists and elected officials in Los Angeles is whether the department – which contributes to smog in Southern California and environmental degradation throughout the Southwest – will begin to treat earth's resources as precious stones to be conserved for future generations or go on treating them like cheap goods at a discount store?

 

 

If any place in the nation has the potential to make a massive shift toward renewable power it would seem to be Los Angeles, with its abundant sunshine and urgent need to clean up air pollution. Ironically, though, the department seems poised to invest in a distant coal plant. It's not alone. Across the intermountain West, energy companies are contemplating construction of some 35 new coal power plants. Other proposals dot the South and nation as a whole.

 

 

Indeed, coal shows no signs of giving up its throne as the king of fuels in the U.S. electric utility industry. Cheaper today than in 1949, coal produces 56 percent of the nation's electricity and the Department of Energy estimates that the U.S. has enough of the mineral to burn for hundreds of years to come.

 

 

Yet, even with modern day environmental controls, coal is a major source of air pollution, including toxic mercury, and produces more carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels, which scientists widely acknowledge are causing Earth to warm up. Coal, for instance, produces 89% of the carbon dioxide from U.S. electric power plants.

 

 

Despite such problems, early next year the Utah Department of Environmental Quality is expected to issue a draft permit to build a third coal-burning power plant at the state's InterMountain Power Project. The Los Angeles department has spent $2 million to support planning and permit applications for the project and soon will have to decide whether to help finance the proposed $1.75 billion project. Alternatively, it could spend the money on renewable power facilities in its own smog-clouded backyard.

 

 

That looks unlikely. A recent report from the city council's chief advisor recommends that that department embrace green power and move toward the state's 20 percent renewable portfolio standard, but only if it's not too expensive, a caveat that appears to leave the door open to more coal.

 

 

The problem chronicled by the report – which relies on conventional accounting – is that renewable energy costs more than fossil fuel. For instance, wind costs between 5 and 6.5 cents/kwh and solar power costs between 40 and 60 cents/kWh, even in sunny Southern California. Meanwhile, power made from coal, like rags on a department store discount rack, costs just 2 to 4 cents/kWh.

 

 

No surprise then that the department is likely to invest in coal power in the coming year and hold off much of its planned investment in renewable power until the proverbial out years.

 

 

The Intermountain Power Project – built in the early 1980s – already has two 950-megawatt coal-fired units and the Los Angeles department consumes about 45 percent of their combined output. The units burn 5.3 million tons of coal a year. Their operator, the Intermountain Power Agency, estimates there are about 100 million tons of recoverable coal in the vicinity of the project's current supply mines, or a 20-year supply. The project is one of three major coal-fired power plants on which the department relies.

 

 

Its upcoming decision on whether to invest in expanding the Intermountain Power Project is likely to be intertwined with the fate of another coal plant, the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada. Mohave – owned jointly by Southern California Edison, the department, the Salt River Project, and Nevada Power Co. – has operated since 1971. The federal Environmental Protection Agency is requiring the operators to reduce the plant's sulfur dioxide emissions by 85 percent by 2006 because it diminishes visibility at the Grand Canyon. It is the single biggest source of the acidic emissions in the western United States, producing about 41,000 tons of the pollutant a year.

 

 

The 273-mile slurry pipeline that supplies the plant with coal from the Black Mesa Mine is depleting the local aquifer of the Navajo and Hopi Indians and the mine itself faces eventual depletion. Given the prospect of having to internalize some of the costs of the pollution and resource depletion, instead the department and other Mohave plant owners may simply walk away and close the plant in 2005. This would cut the department's capacity by 158 megawatts, which is 10 percent of the plant's total 1,580-megawatt capacity.

 

 

Seeing the writing on the wall, the department sold half its original 20 percent interest in the Mohave plant to the Salt River Project in 2000. It has since used the $95 million in proceeds to modernize major generating stations in the Los Angeles Basin, which operate on natural gas. The move will enable the plants to make more power without exceeding air pollution limits. However, environmental groups point out that more frequent operation of the plants will increase the actual pollution emitted from the facilities at a time when air quality shows signs of deteriorating in the Los Angeles region.

 

 

Last year, the inland area downwind of the department's plants experienced its first stage one smog alert since 1998, forcing the local air district to tell residents to restrict their outdoor activities. Over the past two years, the number of days over the federal ozone standard in the Los Angeles area shot up from an all-time low of 36 in 2001 to 68 during the 2003 summer smog season.

 

 

Meanwhile, state law requires the department to develop a renewable portfolio standard plan. In response, it plans some investments in wind, solar power, and other renewable facilities. However, even with those additional facilities, its total renewable energy generation capacity will amount to only 3 percent, or 220 megawatts out of a total of 7,000 megawatts.

 

 

The department's laggard pace at developing renewable power has rankled some members of the Los Angeles City Council and state Legislature, which has buoyed the hopes of environmentalists that a breakthrough may be at hand in the next month or two. But the promise of cheap and abundant power for the nation's second biggest city and profits from wholesale power sales bode against any departmental rush to green power.

 

 

Instead, the future is likely to involve burning sizable amounts of coal that release large amounts of carbon dioxide, acidic gases, and mercury, pollutants that are changing the climate, polluting the air, gradually contaminating the world's fish supply, and damaging human health. Coal, which supplies 50 percent of the department's power, sells for less than $24/ton, down from a peak price of $52 a ton in 1979. As long as the coal is mined and burned hundreds of miles from Southern California, Angelinos will not bear the environmental costs, at least not directly.

 

 

Being able to escape those costs will likely make it irresistible for the Los Angeles City Council – which depends upon the department to transfer 7 percent of its power sales revenues to the city's general coffers each year – to pass up the opportunity to invest in the new coal plant, even as they give lip-service to a renewable future.

 

 

William J. Kelly is a correspondent for Energy Circuit, where a version of this story originally appeared, at www.californiaenergycircuit.net.

 

« Home « EnviroHealth