tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69535428822573786472024-01-19T22:11:37.950-08:00Yarra Valley Climate Action GroupDr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-82705456323855206142011-08-27T16:49:00.000-07:002011-10-20T22:43:37.328-07:00Climate Change Course<p><b>Climate Change. Animal Science, La Trobe University, 2011. Dr Gideon Polya.</b></p> <p><b>A. Man-made global warming and GHGs.</b></p> <p><b>1. Earth’s atmosphere:</b> troposphere (surface to 9 km at poles, 17 km at equator); stratosphere (from tropopause boundary to 50 km; UV-absorbing O<sub>3</sub> layer); mesosphere (from stratopause boundary out to 80-85 km; where most meteors burn up); ionosphere (from 50 km out to 1,000 km; solar radiation ionizes molecules).</p> <p><b>2. Dry air composition:</b> 78% nitrogen (N<sub>2</sub>) 21% oxygen (O<sub>2</sub>), 0.9% argon (Ar), 0.04% CO<sub>2 . </sub>Air typically has about 1% water (H<sub>2</sub>O) and increases with temperature in the range 0.01% (dry, polar) to 20% (humid tropical).</p> <p><b>3. Greenhouse effect:</b> thermal radiation from sun absorbed by surface and air; re-emitted and reflected light absorbed & re-radiated by air molecules, notably carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>), nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O), methane (CH<sub>4</sub>), H<sub>2</sub>O, man-made greenhouse gases (GHGs). Greenhouse effect (John Tyndall, 1858, UK) keeps planet warm. CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent (CO<sub>2</sub>e): total GHGs including CO<sub>2</sub> and other GHGs. </p> <p><b>4. Radiative forcing and Global Warming Potential (GWP) of GHGs.</b> Radiative forcing measures warming (positive) effects of e.g. GHGs and carbon particles and cooling (negative ) effects of e.g. sulphate aerosols and reflectivity (albedo) of ice, snow and clouds. Relative GWP based on infra-red (IR) absorbance properties and half-life in atmosphere is directly proportional to radiative forcing and inversely proportional to half-life in the atmosphere.</p> <p><b>GWP relative to same mass of CO<sub>2 </sub>on a 20 year time frame:</b> CO<sub>2</sub> (1.0), CH<sub>4</sub> (79; 105 if aerosol impacts are considered), N<sub>2</sub>O (289), chlorofluorohydrocarbon CFC-12, CCl<sub>2</sub>F<sub>2</sub> (11,000), hydrochlorofluorohydrocarbon HFC-22, CHClF<sub>2</sub> (5,160), hydrofluorohydrocarbon HFC-23, CHF<sub>3</sub> (12,000), sulphur hexafluoride SF<sub>6 </sub>(16,300), nitrogen trifluoride NF<sub>3</sub> (12,300).</p> <p><b>GWP relative to same mass of CO<sub>2</sub> (1.0) on a 100 year time frame:</b> CO<sub>2</sub> (1.0), CH<sub>4</sub> (25), N2O (298), chlorofluorohydrocarbon CFC-12, CCl<sub>2</sub>F<sub>2</sub> (10,900), hydrochlorofluorohydrocarbon HFC-22, CHClF<sub>2</sub> (1,810), hydrofluorohydrocarbon HFC-23, CHF<sub>3</sub> (14,800), sulphur hexafluoride SF<sub>6</sub> (22,800), nitrogen trifluoride NF<sub>3</sub> (17,200).</p> <p><b>5. O<sub>3</sub>-destroying chlorofluorohydrocarbons (CFCs)</b> such as chlorofluorohydrocarbon CFC-12, CCl<sub>2</sub>F<sub>2</sub> were replaced under the Montreal Convention (1987) by hydrofluorohydrocarbon refrigerants and propellants such as hydrofluorohydrocarbon HFC-23 (CHF<sub>3</sub>) but the HFCs are now posing an increasing threat because o</p> <p>f their increasing use and high GWP. </p> <p><b>6. CO<sub>2</sub> is the major contributor to anthropogenic global warming (AGW),</b> deriving from aerobic respiration involving oxidation of carbohydrate ( (CH<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>n</sub> + O<sub>2</sub> -> n CO<sub>2</sub> + nH<sub>2</sub>O), lime (CaO) in cement production (CaCO<sub>3</sub> -> CaO + CO<sub>2</sub>), and the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal ( C + O<sub>2</sub> -> CO<sub>2</sub>) , oil (CH<sub>3</sub>(CH<sub>2</sub>)nH + ((3n +4)/2)O<sub>2</sub> -> (n+1)CO<sub>2</sub> + (n+2)H<sub>2</sub>O) and natural gas, mainly methane (CH<sub>4 </sub>+ 2O<sub>2 </sub>-> CO<sub>2</sub> + 2 H<sub>2</sub>O). </p> <p><b>Major CO<sub>2</sub> sinks</b> include photosynthetic bacterial photosynthesis and plant photosynthesis yielding cellulose and related carbohydrates of wood and thence of soil carbonaceous compounds of humus. Photosynthesis yields carbohydrate: nCO<sub>2</sub> + nH<sub>2</sub>0 + solar energy -> (CH<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>n</sub> + nO<sub>2</sub>. Most of photosynthesis is reversed by carbohydrate oxidation by fires or aerobic organisms: (CH<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>n</sub> + O<sub>2</sub> -> nCO<sub>2</sub> + nH<sub>2</sub>O. Some CO<sub>2</sub> dissolves in ocean water, this resulting in biologically deleterious acidification: CO<sub>2</sub> + H<sub>2</sub>O -> H<sub>2</sub>CO<sub>3</sub> -> HCO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> + H<sup>+</sup>; HCO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> -> CO<sub>3</sub><sup>2-</sup> + H<sup>+</sup> (see later: threat to coral from ocean acidification as well as warming). </p> <p><b>Coal derives from anaerobic geologic conversion of cellulosic carbohydrates to carbon</b> ((CH<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>n</sub> + heat, pressure -> nC + n H<sub>2</sub>O). Subterranean oil drives from anaerobic decarboxylation of biologically-derived fatty acids (CH<sub>3</sub>(CH<sub>2</sub>)<sub>n</sub>-COOH + heat, pressure -> CH<sub>3</sub>(CH<sub>2</sub>)<sub>n</sub>H + CO<sub>2</sub>. Subterranean methane derives from anaerobic reduction of carbohydrates by anaerobic bacteria (reduction being addition of electrons (e-), addition of hydrogen atoms (H) or removal of oxygen (O)): (CH<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>n</sub> + 4H (derived from catabolism and reduced coenzymes) -> nCH<sub>4</sub> + nH<sub>2</sub>O. </p> <p><b>7. Methane derives from anaerobic degradation of biological material e.g. in swamps, waste dumps, livestock digestion:</b> (CH<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>n</sub> + 4H (derived from reduced coenzymes) -> nCH<sub>4</sub> + nH<sub>2</sub>O. Global warming is already releasing CH<sub>4</sub> from H<sub>2</sub>O-CH<sub>4</sub> clathrates in tundra and in shallow parts of the Arctic Ocean. Fugitive CH<sub>4</sub> emissions occur from coal mines, coal seam gas (CSG) extraction, conventional natural gas extraction, from coal seam and shale fracking and from systemic gas reticulation leakage.</p> <p><b>8. Nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O)</b> derives from agricultural use of nitrogenous fertilizers and from fossil fuel (coal, gas and oil) combustion.</p> <p><b>9. CO<sub>2 </sub>concentration.</b> As determined from ice cores the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration has been 180-300 parts per million (ppm) for the last 800,000 years (excluding the last century), during which time <i>Homo sapiens</i> finally evolved (glaciation at low CO<sub>2 </sub>and inter-glacial at high CO<sub>2</sub>). Indeed these circa 100,000 year cycle oscillations (determined by the earth’s orientation towards the sun and the ellipticity of its orbit) crucially contributed to the final evolution of man (repeated severe selection pressures). Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> , <span> </span>now 394 ppm and increasing at over 2.4 ppm per year (seasonally oscillating, Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii), is reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of CO<sub>2 </sub>divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO<sub>2</sub> itself, after water vapor has been removed. Man-made from burning fossil fuels (decreasing <sup>14</sup>C; fossil CO<sub>2</sub> lacks <sup>14</sup>C) and deforestation (initially non-tropical, now mostly tropical). </p> <p><b>10. CH<sub>4 </sub>concentration</b> now 1774 parts per billion (ppb) versus 700 ppb in 1750 (i.e. pre-industrial). <b>N<sub>2</sub>O concentration</b> is 319 ppb now as compared to 270 ppb in 1750.</p> <p><b>11. Temperature change correlates with GHG change</b>. Modelled temperature change from GHG forcings fits observed pattern in nearly all zones (IPCC; key evidence for Anthropogenic Global warming, AGW).</p> <p><b>12. Forcing of man-made GHG and absorbing particles 30x that of change in solar input effect.</b> 1750-2005 heating change in watts/m<sup>2</sup>: air CO<sub>2</sub> (+1.7), CH<sub>4</sub>, N<sub>2</sub>O, CFCs (+1.0), net O<sub>3</sub> (troposphere up, stratosphere down; +0.3), soot (+0.3), reflective particles e.g. sulphate aerosols (-0.7), indirect, cloud-forming particle effects (-0.7), human land-use increasing reflectivity (-0.2), solar input change (+ 0.1). </p> <p><b>13. Photosynthesis and re-oxidation carbon cycle.</b> Terrestrial carbon fixation of 121.3 GtC/y (x 44/12 = 3.7 -> 449 Gt CO<sub>2</sub> = 449 billion tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub>) of which about half returns annually to the atmosphere through plant and animal respiration and most of the remaining half returns to the air through the action of soil fungi and bacteria. Net terrestrial biome production 0.7 GtC/year. Ocean photosynthesis (prokaryotic cyanobacteria and eukaryotic algae) 45 GtC /year.</p> <p><b>14. Biochar <span> </span>from anaerobic pyrolysis (400-700C) conversion of cellulosic material to carbon</b> (C, charcoal, biochar, Amazonian Indian terra preta): (CH<sub>2</sub>O)<sub>n</sub> + heat -> nC + nH<sub>2</sub>O. Current potential:<b> </b>1.7 GtC/yr (straw from agriculture) + 4.2 GtC/yr (total grass upgrowth from grasslands upgrowth) + 6 GtC/yr (possible sustainable woodharvest) = 11.9 GtC/yr. Professor Johannes Lehmann (Cornell University): could fix 9.5bn tonnes of carbon per year using biochar, noting global annual production of carbon from fossil fuels is 8.5bn tonnes (see later: biochar is a major means of returning atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to 300 ppm from current dangerous and damaging 394 ppm;<span> </span>geoengineering abatement). </p> <p><b>15. Carbon storage.</b> 750 GtC in atmosphere (mostly CO2; half due to historical fossil fuel combustion); 700 GtC in biomass (mostly wood); 1,600 GtC in soil; 36,000 GtC in ocean as bicarbonate ion (HCO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup>); no net CO<sub>2</sub> from vulcanism and weathering (time scale < 100,000 years).</p> <p><b>16. World Bank</b> analysts have recently re-assessed annual global greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution as 50% bigger than hitherto thought and that the livestock contribution is over 51% of the bigger figure (major element: 20 year time frame considered for CH<sub>4</sub> GWP). </p> <p><b>B. Already observed climatic disruption consequences of global warming.</b></p> <p>1. <b>Climate is the pattern of weather.</b> Average surface temperature + 0.8C; +2C inevitable on current trends; may reach +4C by 2100.</p> <p><b>2. Non-uniform temperature increase</b> e.g. +2C (Indian Ocean), +4C (Arctic), average +0.8C; thermal inertia, >90% extra heat in oceans. </p> <p><b>3. Uneven heating changes wind patterns</b> e.g. East Asia monsoon weakening. </p> <p><b>4. Glaciers are shrinking word-wide. </b>No net deposition of ice in Himalayas (no deposition of atmospheric radioactivity) – feeds rivers from Pakistan to China.</p> <p><b>5. Permafrost thawing</b> (Fairbanks, Alaska: average circa 0C, +2C over last 50 years). Permafrost melts at T> 0C (noting CH<sub>4</sub> release and positive feedback). </p> <p><b>6. Arctic summer sea ice disappearing</b> (80% decrease of total mass; NIDC data: half surface area gone already, the rest to go by about 2030, NW Passage open in summer).</p> <p><b>7. Surface melting in Greenland expanding</b> (+ 7 metres sea level if all goes).</p> <p><b>8. China:</b> increased floods (south), increased drought (north); same pattern in Australia of increased floods (closer to equator), increased drought (south). </p> <p><b>9. A 4-10-fold increase in major flood events per decade around the world (1950-2000)</b> (increased sea temperature means increased humidity, increased precipitation). Statistically proven AGW cause for recent Welsh floods but hard to prove in general because of weather variability (cf cannot prove an individual smoker’s lung cancer due to smoking).</p> <p><b>10. Consensus prediction of an increased number of the more intense storms</b> as AGW increases (arguable doubling of tropical hurricane intensity 1950-2000; tropical cyclone power increase parallels increased sea temperature). </p> <p><b>11. Melting land ice and thermal expansion increasing sea level</b> (3.0 mm/yr, 1993-2003; 1.5 mm/yr, 1910-1990; circa 20 cm). Major problem for India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, other tropical megadelta regions (storm surges). </p> <p><b>12.</b><b> Ocean</b><b> acidification due to CO<sub>2</sub> dissolution and ionization</b> (0.1pH; see below: coral threat). </p> <p><b>13. Loss of major CO<sub>2</sub> uptake by Southern Ocean</b> (increased storm intensity impact).</p> <p><b>14. Over 90% of extra heat in oceans. </b></p> <p><b>C. Already observed biological impacts related to AGW. </b></p> <p><b>1. Ecosystem migration towards poles</b> with AGW (e.g. ocean phytoplankton, deciduous trees in Canada).</p> <p><b>2. Heat waves 2x more frequent in Europe</b> (2003 heat wave killed 35,000-50,000 people). January 2009 heat wave prior to 7 February 2009 Victoria Black Saturday killed 500 in SE Australia (elderly more frail, decreased stress signaling).</p> <p><b>3. Drought and heat causing increased forest fires</b> (4-10-fold increase in forest area burned in W USA, 1970-2000). Amazon forests threatened by drought and burning positive feedback cycle. Threat to Australia.</p> <p><b>4. Mountain pine beetle</b> (MPB) <i>Dendroctonus ponderosae</i> blight (warmer winters, increased survival; larval feeding; fungus infection prevents tree resin defence; devastation of North American conifer forests, US, Canada).</p> <p><b>5. Disease migration towards poles</b> (e.g. dengue fever and malaria spread through mosquito vector migration). </p> <p><b>6. Increased drought impact</b> in Southern US, Central America, Brazil, Europe, Russia, Mediterranean, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Africa, Siberia, Central Asia, Northern China, Southern Australia, SE Asia (+1C -> 10% decrease in sub-tropical grain yield).</p> <p><b>7. Increased temperature, droughts, floods and coastal loss coupled with increased population</b> (9.5 billion by 2050) means greater impact on ecosystems.</p> <p><b>8. Coral loss</b> started at 320 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> (general death above 450 ppm; ecosystem disaster).</p> <p><b>9. Sex ratio changes in reptilian species</b> due to increased average temperature.</p> <p><b>10 Species extinction rate is now 100-1,000 times greater than previously</b>, impacted by AGW and increasing human population and land use.</p> <p><b>D. Projected biological impacts.</b></p> <p><b>1. Increasing temperature, drought, floods, sea level rise</b> (possibly 2 metre by 2100), increased high intensity storms and storm surges (see (C) above) resulting in further loss of arable land, ecosystems, pressure on remaining ecosystems.</p> <p><b>2. Coral loss due to ocean warming</b> (expulsion of Zooxanthellae photosynthetic algae symbionts and coral bleaching) and ocean acidification from CO<sub>2</sub> dissolution impacts on calcareous exoskeleton formation. Major coral death above 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>. </p> <p><b>3. Ocean acidification impacting all ocean organisms with calcareous exoskeletons</b> (e.g.<span> </span>lobster, crab and shrimp crustaceans). </p> <p><b>4. Above 500 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> major loss of phytoplankton</b> (bottom of the ocean food chain) and dimethyl sulphide (DMS) production (involved in cloud seeding); complete loss of Greenland ice sheet (long-term loss yielding 7 m sea level rise); loss of terrestrial plants as CO<sub>2</sub> sinks (i.e. net CO<sub>2</sub> emission).</p> <p><b>5. Complete loss of Arctic summer sea ice in circa 2030</b> (loss of ecosystems, increased risk of oil pollution in Arctic.from increased shipping). </p> <p><b>6. Successive loss of Antarctic sea ice, phytoplankton, krill</b> <b>and thence krill-eating animals</b> e.g. fish, penguins, seals, whales.</p> <p><b>7. Water stress in particular regions</b> with agricultural, ecosystem, peace impacts.</p> <p><b>8. Climate genocide.</b> <span>Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming. Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including roughly 2 times the present populations of various non-European groups, specifically 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. <b>Biofuel genocide</b> (food for fuel, price increase, volatility). </span></p> <p><b><span>E. Urgency of required action. </span></b></p> <p><b>1. Just as we turn to top medical specialists for advice on life-threatening disease</b>, so we turn to the opinions of top scientists and in particular top biological and climate scientists for Climate Change risk assessment. Thus some opinions: <b>(a) Professor James Hansen</b> (top US climate scientist, head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies): “We face a climate emergency”; <b>(b) Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty</b>: “We are in real danger”; <b>(c) Professor David de Kretser AC</b> (eminent medical scientist and former Governor of Victoria, Australia): “There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency”; <b>(d) Dr Andrew Glikson</b> (palaeo-climate scientist, ANU): “The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has … raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres”; <b>(e) Synthesis Report of the March 2009 Copenhagen Scientific Climate Change Conference:</b> “Inaction is inexcusable”; and <b>(f) 2010 Open Letter by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences:</b> “Delay is not an option”.</p> <p><b>2. Climate emergency actions urgently required:</b> <b>(a) Change of societal philosophy</b> to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying; <b>(b) Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of about 300 ppm</b> (as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists to address the current mass species extinction event and to permit return and sustainability of Arctic sea ice); <b>(c) Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy </b>(solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that have currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power and a 4 times cheaper “true price” taking environmental and human impacts into account) and to <b>energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils</b> coupled with correspondingly <b>rapid cessation of</b> <b>fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.</b></p> <p><b>3. Budget approach to last remaining permissible GHG pollution. </b></p> <p><b>(a). Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber</b> (Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany): for a 67% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature rise the World must cease CO<sub>2</sub> emissions by 2050 and top per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters such as the US and Australia must get to zero CO<sub>2</sub> emissions by 2020. </p> <p><b>(b) Australian Climate Commission's 2011 "The Critical Decade" report:</b> for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise the World can emit no more than 1 trillion tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> before reaching zero emissions in about 2050. Australia's high Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution rate means it must get to zero emissions in 1.9 years (or in 4.6 years ignoring Exported GHG pollution).</p> <p><b>(c) WBGU (that advises German Government on climate change),</b> “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach” (2009): for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade (2C) temperature rise the World can emit no more than 0.6 trillion tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> before reaching zero emissions in about 2050. Australia's high Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution rate means that by August 2011 it had already used up its “fair share”.</p> <p><b>F. Further key points.. </b></p> <p><b>1. Gas is not clean, it is dirty</b>, 1 tonne of methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) generating 2.8 tonnes CO<sub>2</sub> on combustion. Gas burning is cleaner than coal burning in terms of twice the MWh/tonne CO<sub>2</sub> emitted and less health damaging pollutants but gas is not cleaner than coal burning GHG-wise. Thus methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) leaks (3.3% in the US; 7.9% from fracking shale deposits) and is 105 times worse than CO<sub>2</sub> as a GHG on a 20 year time frame taking aerosol impacts into account, this meaning that a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition could double electric power industry-derived GHG pollution (if shale gas used). </p> <p><b>2. Climate change is damaging and destroying ecosystems (ecocide)</b> and the species extinction rate is now 100-1,000 times greater than normal (Australia is a word leader). We must not destroy what we cannot replace. </p> <p><b>3. Leading scientists, economists and analysts slam the Carbon Trading Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) approach</b> as empirically ineffective, dangerously counterproductive and inherently fraudulent because it involves governments selling licences to pollute the one common atmosphere of all countries.</p> <p><b>4. <strong><span>2.6 % leakage of CH<sub>4</sub> yields the same greenhouse effect as burning the remaining 97.4%</span></strong></b><strong><span style="font-weight:normal"> (noting that 1g CH<sub>4</sub> has 105 times the GWP of 1 g CO<sub>2</sub>) – ergo, stop gas exploitation, aquifer-poisoning and aquifer-depleting fracking of shale and coal seams.</span></strong></p> <p><b>5. Many countries (e.g. EU countries and Australia) support a 450 ppm CO<sub>2 </sub>-e and 2C temperature rise "cap".</b> However the Synthesis Report of the 2,500-delegate March 2009 scientific Copenhagen Climate Conference indicates that we have already exceeded 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>-e and over 90% of delegates polled thought 2C was inevitable. </p> <p><b>6. Atmospheric CO2 must be urgently returned to about 300 ppm</b> <b>for a safe Planet.for all peoples and all species</b>. Circa 320 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> is required for restoration of the Arctic sea ice and for coral sustainability. However atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration is currently 394 ppm and is increasing at about 2.4 ppm per year. <b>Less not more!</b></p> <p><b>7. Stop shale oil exploitation</b> (e.g. Canada-US keystone oil pipeline) means “game over” for Planet. Dr James Hansen (NASA): “The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>). Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> well above 400 ppm, which is unsafe for life on earth. However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels including tar sands are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize earth's climate. Phasing out emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over.”</p> <p><b>8. “Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent per person per year”</b> (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution is included). </p> <p><b>G. Australia</b></p> <p><b>1. Carbon burning pollutants have been estimated from Canadian and New Zealand data to kill about 10,000 Australians yearly</b>. Australians dying each year from the effects of pollutants from vehicles, coal burning for electricity and other carbon burning total about 2,200, 4,600 and 2,800, respectively. </p> <p><b>2. Australia has about 0.3% of the World’s population but its Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution is about 3% of the World total</b> (climate exceptionalism, climate racism, and climate injustice in addition to horrific intergenerational inequity). </p> <p><b>3. Australia already has a huge negative carbon tax of $12 billion annually to subsidize carbon burning. </b></p> <p><b>4. It is estimated that an Australian carbon tax of circa $25/tonne carbon will encourage gas-fired power</b>, $70/tonne carbon will encourage wind and about $200/tonne carbon will encourage concentrated solar thermal installation (indeed Australian Government hopes for a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition).</p> <p><b>5. True carbon price.</b> A risk avoidance-based estimate of $7.6 million for the value of a statistical life and Australia’s annual Domestic GHG pollution (2009) of 600 million tonnes CO2-e (162 million tonnes Carbon) yields a Carbon Price of $7.6 million x 10,000 annual deaths/ 162 million tonnes Carbon = $469/tonne carbon. </p> <p><b>6. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)</b> has projected that Australia's black coal exports will increase at an average rate of 2.6% per year over the next 20 years and that liquid natural gas (LNG) exports will increase at 9% per year over the same period. Further, it is estimated that Australian exports of dried brown coal will reach 20 million tonnes by 2020, this corresponding to about 59 million tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-e after combustion.</p> <p><b>7. The Carbon Tax-ETS-Ignore Agriculture (CTETSIA) policy</b> of the Australian Government fails comprehensively in 3 key areas, specifically (1) it <b>entrenches climate change inaction </b>for decades by promoting a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition (that will double electricity generation-derived GHG pollution if shale gas used) and scuppering science-demanded 100% renewable energy by 2020; <span> </span>(2) it adopts an <b>empirically ineffective, disastrously counterproductive and inherently fraudulent ETS</b> approach and (3) <b>ignores major GHG sources </b>of petrol, diesel, biofuel, fossil fuel exports (apart from fugitive emissions, extraction and transport costs), soil, forestry and agriculture (agriculture is responsible for over 50% of GHG pollution). </p> <p><b>8.. Success in “tackling climate change” is surely measured in terms of GHG pollution reduction but</b> Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution increased from 1,018 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e (CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent) in 2000 to 1,415 million tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-e in 2009 and is expected to reach about 1,799 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e by 2020 and 4,490b Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e in 2050. However Treasury ABARE and US EIA data show the following Australian Domestic and Exported GHG pollution (in millions of tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent, Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e) for Australia under the proposed Carbon Price plan: </p> <p><b>2000:</b> 496 (Domestic) + 505 (coal exports) + 17 (LNG exports) = 1,018.</p> <p><b>2009:</b> 600 (Domestic) + 784 (coal exports) + 31 (LNG exports) = 1,415.</p> <p><b>2020:</b> 621 (Domestic) + 1,039 (black coal exports) + 80 (LNG exports) + 59 (brown coal exports) = 1,799.</p> <p><b>2050:</b> 527 (Domestic) + 2902 (coal exports) + 1,061 (LNG exports) = 4,490.</p> <p><b>H. 100% renewable energy, cessation of GHG pollution, re-afforestation and biochar.</b></p> <p><b>1. The Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) plan for 100% renewable stationary energy for Australia by 2020</b> (Zero Carbon Australia by 2020, ZCA 2020) involves 40% wind energy, 60% concentrated solar thermal (CST) with molten salts energy storage for 24/7 baseload power, biomass and hydroelectric backup (for days of no wind and low sunshine) and a HV DC and HC AC national power grid. The BZE scheme was costed at $370 billion over 10 years, with roughly half spent on CST, one quarter on wind and one quarter on the national electricity grid. </p> <p><b>2. Seligman scheme. A scheme for 100% renewable energy for Australia has been set out by top electrical engineer Professor Peter Seligman</b> (a major player in development of the bionic ear). Professor Seligman’s scheme involves wind, solar thermal, other energy sources, hydrological energy storage (in dams on the Nullabor Plain in Southern Australia), an HV AC and HV DC electricity transmission grid and a cost over 20 years of $253 billion. </p> <p><b>3. Wind power.</b> Ignoring cost-increasing energy storage and transmission grid costs and cost-decreasing economies of scale for a 2- to10-fold size increase, here are 2 similar cost estimates for installation of wind power for 80% of Australia’s projected 325,000 GWh of annual electrical energy by 2020: (1) 90,000 MW capacity, 260,000 GWh/year, $200 billion/10 years (10-fold scale-up from GL Garrad Hassan) and (2) 96,000 MW, 260,000 GWh/year, $144 billion (2-fold scale up from BZE ). </p> <p><b>4. Science-demanded reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> from 394 ppm to 300 ppm requires “negative GHG emissions”</b> achieved by cessation of GHG pollution ASAP and CO<sub>2</sub> reduction though re-afforestation, renewable energy driven CO<sub>2</sub> trapping in alkaline solutions, and biochar (as much as 12 billion tonnes carbon as biochar can be fixed annually globally from renewable energy-driven anaerobic pyrolysis of agricultural and forestry cellulosic waste).</p> <p><b>5. Re-afforestation</b> (SE Australian native forests are World’s best forest carbon sinks; 14 M ha, 25.5 Gt CO<sub>2</sub>, 460 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>/yr avoided for next 100 years if retained). Nicholas Stern: only $20 billion pa to halve annual global deforestation. </p> <p><b>6. Livestock production inefficient, requires compensating carbon sinks – we are all in this together.</b></p> <p> I. <b>Some useful references.</b></p> <p><span>This course synopsis is on the websites for the </span><span>Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (see: <a href="http://yvcag.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html">http://yvcag.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html</a> and <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-climate-change-course">https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-climate-change-course</a> ) and 300.org (see: <a href="http://300org.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html">http://300org.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html</a> and <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course">https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course</a> )</span> <span> together with numerous detailed Web-accessible references (these sites also contain many other carefully researched and documented articles). </span></p> <p>James Hansen, “Letter to PM Kevin Rudd”: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2008/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf</a> . </p> <p> </p> <p>John Holdren, “The science of climatic disruption”: <a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> .</p> <p> </p> <p>Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, “Terra quasi-incognita: beyond the 2 degree C line”: <a href="http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-1schellnhuber.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-1schellnhuber.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-1schellnhuber.pdf</a> .</p> <p> </p> <p><b>References.</b></p> <p> </p> <p>1. Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, “Terra quasi-incognita: beyond the 2 degree C line”< 4 Degrees & Beyond, International Climate Conference, 26-30 September 2009, Oxford University, UK : <a href="http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-1schellnhuber.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-1schellnhuber.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-1schellnhuber.pdf</a> .</p> <p> 2. Beyond Zero Emissions Zero (BZE), Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 Report (BZE ZCA2020 Report), 2010: <a href="http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand" title="blocked::http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand" rel="nofollow">http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand</a> .</p> <p> 3. Australian Climate Commission, “The Critical Decade. Climate science, risks and responses”, 2011: <a href="http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/" title="blocked::http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/" rel="nofollow">http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/ </a>. </p> <p> 4. Gideon Polya, “<strong><span style="font-weight:normal">Country By Country Analysis Of Years Left Until Science-demanded Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions</span></strong>”, Countercurrents, 11 June 2011: <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/polya110611.htm" title="blocked::http://www.countercurrents.org/polya110611.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/polya110611.htm</a> .</p> <p> 5. Gideon Polya, “<strong><span style="font-weight:normal">Australia</span></strong><strong><span style="font-weight:normal">'s Carbon Tax And Coal To Gas Transition Will Double Power Generation Greenhouse Gas Pollution</span></strong>”, Countercurrents, 15 May 2011: <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150511.htm" title="blocked::http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150511.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150511.htm</a> . </p> <p> 6. Gideon Polya, “Carbon Price & Climate Change Action Fact Sheet for leading per capita greenhouse gas polluter Australia”, Bellaciao, 14 March 2011: <a href="http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20628" title="blocked::http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20628" rel="nofollow">http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20628</a> .</p> <p> 7. Phillip Levin, Donald Levin, “The real biodiversity crisis”, American Scientist, January-February 2002: <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-real-biodiversity-crisis" title="blocked::http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-real-biodiversity-crisis" rel="nofollow">http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-real-biodiversity-crisis</a> . </p> <p> 8. “Australia’s threatened species”, Nova: <a href="http://www.science.org.au/nova/010/010key.htm" title="blocked::http://www.science.org.au/nova/010/010key.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.science.org.au/nova/010/010key.htm</a> .</p> <p> 9. “Experts: carbon tax needed and not cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme (ETS”, 300.org): <a href="http://300org.blogspot.com/2011/05/experts-carbon-tax-not-ets.html" title="blocked::http://300org.blogspot.com/2011/05/experts-carbon-tax-not-ets.html">http://300org.blogspot.com/2011/05/experts-carbon-tax-not-ets.html</a> .</p> <p> 10. Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: <a href="http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf</a> .</p> <p> 11. Synthesis Report from the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, Climate Change, Global risks, challenges & decisions”, Copenhagen 10-12 March, 2009, University of Copenhagen, Denmark: <a href="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf" title="blocked::http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis Report Web.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads//Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf</a> .</p> <p> 12. “300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm”, 300.org: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm</a> . </p> <p> 13. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA, “Recent monthly mean CO<sub>2</sub> at Mauna Loa”: <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/" title="blocked::http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/" rel="nofollow">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/</a> .</p> <p> 14. “Australian carbon burning-related deaths”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-burning" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-burning">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-burning</a> .</p> <p> 15. “Climate Genocide”: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/">http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/</a> .</p> <p> 16. Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), “Australia spends $11 billion more encouraging pollution than cleaning it up”, 1 March 2011: <a href="http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3308&eid=11731" title="blocked::http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3308&eid=11731" rel="nofollow">http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3308&eid=11731</a> .</p> <p> 17. Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE), “Carbon pricing – will it benefit renewable energy”, February 2011: <a href="http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/15154881/738777308/name/BZE%20Carbon%20Price%20Recommendations%2020110228.pdf" title="blocked::http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/15154881/738777308/name/BZE Carbon Price Recommendations 20110228.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/15154881/738777308/name/BZE%20Carbon%20Price%20Recommendations%2020110228.pdf</a> .</p> <p> 18. Gideon Polya, “Australia's Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution has increased under Labor”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-ghg-pollution" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-ghg-pollution">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-ghg-pollution</a> .</p> <p> 19. ABARE, “Australian energy national and state projections to 2029-2030”: <a href="http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_06/nrg_projections06.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_06/nrg_projections06.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_06/nrg_projections06.pdf</a> . </p> <p> 20. Peter Seligman, “Australian sustainable energy – by the numbers”, Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne , 2010: <a href="http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/ozsebtn/" title="blocked::http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/ozsebtn/" rel="nofollow">http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/ozsebtn/</a>.</p> <p> 21. GL Garrad Hassan <a href="https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/mediaObject/events/2010-conference/presentations/1600-Barber---White/original/CEC%202010%20conference%20-%20GLGH.pdf" title="blocked::https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/mediaObject/events/2010-conference/presentations/1600-Barber---White/original/CEC 2010 conference - GLGH.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/mediaObject/events/2010-conference/presentations/1600-Barber---White/original/CEC%202010%20conference%20-%20GLGH.pdf</a> . </p> <p> 22. Gideon Polya, “Forest biomass-derived Biochar can profitably reduce global warming and bushfire risk”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/forest-biomass-derived-biochar-can-profitably-reduce-global-warming-and-bushfire-risk" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/forest-biomass-derived-biochar-can-profitably-reduce-global-warming-and-bushfire-risk">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/forest-biomass-derived-biochar-can-profitably-reduce-global-warming-and-bushfire-risk</a> .</p> <p> 23. “Climate crisis facts and required actions”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-crisis-facts-required-actions" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-crisis-facts-required-actions">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-crisis-facts-required-actions</a> .</p> <p>24. Gideon Polya, “Oz Labor’s Carbon Tax-ETS & gas for coal plan means INCREASED GHG pollution”, Bellaciao, 27 August 2011: <a href="http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article21140" title="blocked::http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article21140" rel="nofollow">http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article21140</a> .</p> <p>25. Gideon Polya, “Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions”, Green Blog, 1 August 2011: <a href="http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-years-left-to-zero-emissions/" title="blocked::http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-years-left-to-zero-emissions/" rel="nofollow">http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-years-left-to-zero-emissions/</a> .</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><span style="font-weight:normal">26. Drew T. Shindell</span> </strong><span>, Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”, </span><em><span style="font-style:normal">Science,</span> </em><span>30 October 2009: </span><br /><span>Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716" title="blocked::http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716 </a>. </span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><strong><span style="font-weight:normal">27 Shindell et al (2009), Fig.2: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only" title="blocked::http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only<b> </b></a>. </span></strong></p> <p> </p> <p>28. Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea, “Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations”, Climatic Change, 2011: <a href="http://www.sustainablefuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.sustainablefuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.sustainablefuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf</a> .</p> <p> </p> <p>29. Australian Treasury, “Strong growth, low pollution. Modelling a carbon price”, 2011: <a href="http://cache.treasury.gov.au/treasury/carbonpricemodelling/content/report/downloads/Modelling_Report_Consolidated.pdf?v=1" title="blocked::http://cache.treasury.gov.au/treasury/carbonpricemodelling/content/report/downloads/Modelling_Report_Consolidated.pdf?v=1" rel="nofollow">http://cache.treasury.gov.au/treasury/carbonpricemodelling/content/report/downloads/Modelling_Report_Consolidated.pdf?v=1</a> .</p> <p> </p> <p>30. John Holdren, “The Science of climatic disruption”: <a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> .</p> <p> </p> <p>31. James Hansen, “Letter to PM Kevin Rudd”: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2008/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf</a> . </p> <p> </p> <p>32. Brendan Mackey, Heather Keith, Sandra Berry, David Lindenmeyer (ANU), “Green Carbon. The role of natural forests in carbon storage”: <a href="http://epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon/pdf/whole_book.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon/pdf/whole_book.pdf</a> .</p> <p><strong><span>Dr Gideon Polya</span></strong><strong><span style="font-weight:normal"> </span></strong>currently teaches science students at a major Australian university. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has recently published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="blocked::http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ </a>); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007): <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm" title="blocked::http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm </a>) and “Ongoing Palestinian Genocide” in “The Plight of the Palestinians (edited by William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html" title="blocked::http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html </a>). He has just published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (see: <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/" title="blocked::http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ </a>) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others: <a href="http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/%20bengalfamine_programme.html" title="blocked::http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/ bengalfamine_programme.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/ bengalfamine_programme.html </a>). When words fail one can say it in pictures - for images of Gideon Polya's huge paintings for the Planet, Peace, Mother and Child see: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/">http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/ </a>and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/" title="blocked::http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/ </a>. </p> <p><b><br /></b></p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-40007333473656659462011-07-07T19:41:00.001-07:002011-07-07T19:43:53.501-07:00Australia ignores 25 major science-based issues in climate change action debate<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal">The following detailed, documented, science-based analysis has been sent to Australian media and to all Federal MPs by Dr Gideon Polya</p> <p><b>Current Carbon Tax debate ignores 25 major science-based issues.</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Utterly astonishing in the Australian debate about the Carbon Tax is the near total exclusion from the woeful public discussion in Parliament and the Mainstream media of 25 science-based, Elephant in the Room matters relating to climate change action. For documented details reproduced below and being sent to all Australian MPs and Media in the public interest simply Google “Australia ignores 25” or see: <a href="http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20943" title="blocked::http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20943">http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20943</a> .</p> <p>Thus Australia must get to zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions well before 2020 to do its “fair share” in the required global action to avoid a damaging 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise but in fact is set to increase its Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution to about 150% of the 2000 level by 2020. </p> <p>Further, a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition will result in a doubling of power industry-based GHG pollution because methane (about 85% of natural gas) leaks at 3.3% and is 105 times worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a GHG on a 20 year timeframe with aerosol impacts considered. </p> <p>Culpably ignored is that achieving zero emissions is not enough - atmospheric CO2 must be then reduced from the current 394 ppm to about 300 ppm as demanded by top climate scientists and biologists for a safe planet for all peoples and species.</p> <p>Ignoring the science will be disastrous. Thus Labor’s Carbon Tax-ETS-Ignore Agriculture (CTETSIA) policy entrenches climate change inaction by promoting a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition (that will double electricity generation-derived GHG pollution), scuppering science-demanded 100% renewable energy by 2020, adopting an empirically ineffective, disastrously counterproductive and inherently fraudulent ETS approach, and by ignoring petrol, fossil fuel exports, soil, forestry and agriculture (yet agriculture is responsible for over 50% of GHG pollution).</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Yours sincerely,</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Dr Gideon Polya (contact details).</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>25 major science-based issues ignored in the current Carbon Tax debate.</b></p> <p>1. According to Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany), for a 67% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise the World must cease CO2 emissions by 2050 and top per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters such as the US and Australia must get to zero CO2 emissions by 2020. [1, 2] </p> <p>2. According to the Australian Climate Commission's 2011 "The Critical Decade" report, for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise the World can emit no more than 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 before reaching zero emissions in about 2050. Australia's high Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution rate means it must get to zero emissions in 1.9 years or in 4.6 years (ignoring Exported GHG pollution). [3, 4] </p> <p>3. Gas is not clean, it is dirty, 1 tonne of methane (CH4) generating 2.8 tonnes CO2 on combustion. Gas burning is cleaner than coal burning in terms of twice the MWh/tonne CO2 emitted and less health damaging pollutants but gas is not cleaner than coal burning GHG-wise. Thus methane (CH4) leaks (3.3%) and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year timeframe taking aerosol impacts into account, this meaning that a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition will double electric power industry-derived GHG pollution. [5, 6] </p> <p class="MsoNormal">4. Climate change is damaging and destroying ecosystems (ecocide) and the species extinction rate is now 100-1,000 times greater than normal (Australia is a word leader). We must not destroy what we cannot replace. [7, 8] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">5. Leading scientists, economists and analysts slam the Carbon Trading Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) approach as empirically ineffective, dangerously counterproductive and inherently fraudulent because it involves governments selling licences to pollute the one common atmosphere of all countries. [9]. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">6. World Bank analysts have recently re-assessed annual global greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution as 50% bigger than hitherto thought and that the livestock contribution is over 51% of the bigger figure (Labor proposes to ignore agriculture). [10] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">7. Many countries (e.g. EU countries and Australia) support a 450 ppm CO2-equivalent and a 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise "cap". However the Synthesis Report of the 2,500-delegate March 2009 scientific Copenhagen Climate Conference indicates that we have already exceeded 450 ppm CO2-e and over 90% of delegates polled thought 2C was inevitable. [11] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">8. GHG pollution must decrease but it has increased under Labor whose policies mean that Australia's Domestic plus Exported GHG will be about 150% of the 2000 level by 2020. [4] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">9. Atmospheric CO2 must be urgently returned to about 300 ppm for a safe Planet.for all peoples and all species. Circa 320 ppm CO2 is required for restoration of the Arctic sea ice and for coral sustainability. However atmospheric CO2 concentration is currently 394 ppm and is increasing at about 2.4 ppm per year. [12, 13] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">10. Carbon burning pollutants have been estimated from Canadian and New Zealand data to kill about 10,000 Australians yearly. Australians dying each year from the effects of pollutants from vehicles, coal burning for electricity and other carbon burning total about 2,200, 4,600 and 2,800, respectively. [14] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">11. Leading UK climate scientists Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson (Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming. Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of about 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. [15]. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">12. “Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution is included). [15]</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">13. Australia has about 0.3% of the World’s population but its Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution is about 3% of the World total (climate exceptionalism, climate racism, and climate injustice in addition to horrific intergenerational inequity). [15].</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">14. Australia already has a huge carbon tax of $12 billion annually to subsidize carbon burning. [16]. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">15. It is estimated that a carbon tax of greater than $25/tonne carbon will encourage gas-fired power, $70/tonne carbon will encourage wind and about $200/tonne carbon will encourage concentrated solar thermal installation (indeed Labor hopes for a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition). [5, 17] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">16. A risk avoidance-based estimate of $7.6 million for the value of a statistical life and Australia’s annual Domestic GHG pollution (2009) of 600 million tonnes CO2-e (162 million tonnes Carbon) yields a Carbon Price of $7.6 million x 10,000/ 162 million tonnes Carbon = $469/tonne carbon. [14]</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">17. Politically correct voter strategy should be to punish the incumbent and success in “tackling climate change” is surely measured in terms of GHG pollution reduction. Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution increased from 1121 million tonnes CO2-e (CO2 equivalent) in 2006-2007 (under the Coalition) to 1,415 million tonnes CO2-e in 2009 (under Labor) and is expected to reach about 1,666 Mt CO2-e by 2020 under Labor policies. [4, 18] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">18. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) has projected that Australia's black coal exports will increase at an average rate of 2.4% per year over the next 20 years and that liquid natural gas (LNG) exports will increase at 9% per year over the same period. Further, it is estimated that Australian exports of dried brown coal will reach 20 million tonnes by 2020, this corresponding to about 59 million tonnes CO2-e after combustion. [19] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">19. The Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) plan for 100% renewable stationary energy for Australia by 2020 (Zero Carbon Australia by 2020, ZCA 2020) involves 40% wind energy, 60% concentrated solar thermal (CST) with molten salts energy storage for 24/7 baseload power, biomass and hydroelectric backup (for days of no wind and low sunshine) and a HV DC and HC AC national power grid. The BZE scheme was costed at $370 billion over 10 years, with roughly half spent on CST, one quarter on wind and one quarter on the national electricity grid. [2] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">20. A scheme for 100% renewable energy for Australia has been set out by top electrical engineer Professor Peter Seligman (a major player in development of the bionic ear). Professor Seligman’s scheme involves wind, solar thermal, other energy sources, hydrological energy storage (in dams on the Nullabor Plain in Southern Australia), an HV AC and HV DC electricity transmission grid and a cost over 20 years of $253 billion. [20] </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">21. Ignoring cost-increasing energy storage and transmission grid costs and cost-decreasing economies of scale for a 2- to10-fold size increase, here are 2 similar cost estimates for installation of wind power for 80% of Australia’s projected 325,000 GWh of annual electrical energy by 2020: (1) 90,000 MW capacity, 260,000 GWh/year, $200 billion/10 years (10-fold scale-up from GL Garrad Hassan) and (2) 96,000 MW, 260,000 GWh/year, $144 billion (2-fold scale up from BZE ). [2, 6, 21] </p> <p>22.Science-demanded reduction of atmospheric CO2 from 394 ppm to 300 ppm requires “negative GHG emissions” achieved by cessation of GHG pollution ASAP and CO2 reduction though re-afforestation (SE Australian native forests are the World’s best forest carbon sinks), renewable energy driven CO2 trapping in alkaline solutions, and biochar (as much as 12 billion tonnes carbon as biochar can be fixed annually globally from renewable energy-driven anaerobic pyrolysis of agricultural and forestry cellulosic waste). [22] </p> <p>23. What needs to be done to tackle climate change: (1) Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying, (2) urgent reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of about 300 ppm as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists, and (3) a rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils and mining cavities coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth. [23] </p> <p class="MsoNormal">24. From a science perspective, the Australian Coalition's Direct Action policy has 2 major things to commend it, specifically (1) unlike Labor's policy it does not entrench climate change inaction (it can be scaled up or down in response to science or greed, respectively) and (2) unlike Labor's hypothetical market approach it actually does something concrete about reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution (cleaner energy, biochar, re-afforestation), albeit too little too late. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">25. In stark contrast to the Australian Coalition Opposition’s Direct Action policy, the pro-coal, pro-gas, anti-science Labor market economics-based Carbon Tax-ETS-Ignore Agriculture (CTETSIA) policy of the Gillard Labor Government fails comprehensively in 2 key areas, specifically (1) it entrenches climate change inaction for decades by promoting a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition (that will double electricity generation-derived GHG pollution) and scuppering science-demanded 100% renewable energy by 2020 and (2) it adopts an empirically ineffective, disastrously counterproductive and inherently fraudulent ETS approach as well as ignoring petrol, fossil fuel exports (apart from fugitive emissions, extraction and transport costs), soil, forestry and agriculture (agriculture is responsible for over 50% of GHG pollution).</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>References.</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">1. Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, “Terra quasi-incognita: beyond the 2 degree C line”< 4 Degrees & Beyond, International Climate Conference, 26-30 September 2009, Oxford University, UK : <a href="http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-1schellnhuber.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-1schellnhuber.pdf">http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-1schellnhuber.pdf</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">2. Beyond Zero Emissions Zero (BZE), Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 Report (BZE ZCA2020 Report), 2010: <a href="http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand" title="blocked::http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand">http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/about/bze-brand</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">3. Australian Climate Commission, “The Critical Decade. Climate science, risks and responses”, 2011: <a href="http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/" title="blocked::http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/">http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/ </a>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">4. Gideon Polya, “<strong><span style="font-weight:normal">Country By Country Analysis Of Years Left Until Science-demanded Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions</span></strong>”, Countercurrents, 11 June 2011: <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/polya110611.htm" title="blocked::http://www.countercurrents.org/polya110611.htm">http://www.countercurrents.org/polya110611.htm</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">5. Gideon Polya, “<strong><span style="font-weight:normal">Australia</span></strong><strong><span style="font-weight:normal">'s Carbon Tax And Coal To Gas Transition Will </span></strong> <strong><span style="font-weight:normal">Double Power Generation Greenhouse Gas Pollution</span></strong>”, Countercurrents, 15 May 2011: <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150511.htm" title="blocked::http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150511.htm">http://www.countercurrents.org/polya150511.htm</a> . </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">6. Gideon Polya, “Carbon Price & Climate Change Action Fact Sheet for leading per capita greenhouse gas polluter Australia”, Bellaciao, 14 March 2011: <a href="http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20628" title="blocked::http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20628">http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20628</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">7. Phillip Levin, Donald Levin, “”The real biodiversity crisis”, American Scientist, January-February 2002: <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-real-biodiversity-crisis" title="blocked::http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-real-biodiversity-crisis">http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-real-biodiversity-crisis</a> . </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">8. “Australia’s threatened species”, Nova: <a href="http://www.science.org.au/nova/010/010key.htm" title="blocked::http://www.science.org.au/nova/010/010key.htm">http://www.science.org.au/nova/010/010key.htm</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">9. “Experts: carbon tax needed and not cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme (ETS”, 300.org): <a href="http://300org.blogspot.com/2011/05/experts-carbon-tax-not-ets.html" title="blocked::http://300org.blogspot.com/2011/05/experts-carbon-tax-not-ets.html">http://300org.blogspot.com/2011/05/experts-carbon-tax-not-ets.html</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">10. Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: <a href="http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf">http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">11. Synthesis Report from the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, Climate Change, Global risks, challenges & decisions”, Copenhagen 10-12 March, 2009, University of Copenhagen, Denmark: <a href="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf" title="blocked::http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis Report Web.pdf">http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads//Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">12. “300.0rg – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm”, 300.org: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm</a> . </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">13. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA, “Recent monthly mean CO2 at Mauna Loa”: <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/" title="blocked::http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">14. “Australian carbon burning-related deaths”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-burning" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-burning">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-burning</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">15. “Climate Genocide”: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/">http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">16. Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), “Australia spends $11 billion more encouraging pollution than cleaning it up”, 1 March 2011: <a href="http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3308&eid=11731" title="blocked::http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3308&eid=11731">http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3308&eid=11731</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">17. Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE), “Carbon pricing – will it benefit renewable energy”, February 2011: <a href="http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/15154881/738777308/name/BZE%20Carbon%20Price%20Recommendations%2020110228.pdf" title="blocked::http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/15154881/738777308/name/BZE Carbon Price Recommendations 20110228.pdf">http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/15154881/738777308/name/BZE%20Carbon%20Price%20Recommendations%2020110228.pdf</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">18. Gideon Polya, “Australia's Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution has increased under Labor”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-ghg-pollution" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-ghg-pollution">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-ghg-pollution</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">19. ABARE, “Australian energy national and state projections to 2029-2030”: <a href="http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_06/nrg_projections06.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_06/nrg_projections06.pdf">http://www.abare.gov.au/publications_html/energy/energy_06/nrg_projections06.pdf</a> . </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">20. Peter Seligman, “Australian sustainable energy – by the numbers”, Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne , 2010: <a href="http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/ozsebtn/" title="blocked::http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/ozsebtn/">http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/ozsebtn/</a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">21. GL Garrad Hassan <a href="https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/mediaObject/events/2010-conference/presentations/1600-Barber---White/original/CEC%202010%20conference%20-%20GLGH.pdf" title="blocked::https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/mediaObject/events/2010-conference/presentations/1600-Barber---White/original/CEC 2010 conference - GLGH.pdf">https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/mediaObject/events/2010-conference/presentations/1600-Barber---White/original/CEC%202010%20conference%20-%20GLGH.pdf</a> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">22. Gideon Polya, “Forest biomass-derived Biochar can profitably reduce global warming and bushfire risk”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/forest-biomass-derived-biochar-can-profitably-reduce-global-warming-and-bushfire-risk" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/forest-biomass-derived-biochar-can-profitably-reduce-global-warming-and-bushfire-risk">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/forest-biomass-derived-biochar-can-profitably-reduce-global-warming-and-bushfire-risk</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">23. “Climate crisis facts and required actions”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-crisis-facts-required-actions" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-crisis-facts-required-actions">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-crisis-facts-required-actions</a> .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Dr Gideon Polya</strong><strong><span style="font-weight:normal"> </span></strong>currently teaches science students at a major Australian university. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has recently published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="blocked::http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ </a>); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007): <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm" title="blocked::http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm </a>) and “Ongoing Palestinian Genocide” in “The Plight of the Palestinians (edited by William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html" title="blocked::http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html">http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html </a>). He has just published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (see: <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/" title="blocked::http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ </a>) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others: <a href="http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/%20bengalfamine_programme.html" title="blocked::http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/ bengalfamine_programme.html">http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/ bengalfamine_programme.html </a>). When words fail one can say it in pictures - for images of Gideon Polya's huge paintings for the Planet, Peace, Mother and Child see: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/" title="blocked::http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/">http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/ </a>and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/" title="blocked::http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/ </a>. </p>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-5841217494040947962011-06-24T00:31:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:32:32.254-07:00SUMMARY of Synthesis Report of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">SUMMARY of Synthesis Report of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference</span> </h3> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>The must-read Synthesis Report from the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference</b> (“Climate Change, Global risks, challenges & decisions”, Copenhagen 10-12 March, 2009, University of Copenhagen, Denmark) has just been released: <a href="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf" title="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis Report Web.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads//Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">This is a vital synthesis of current climate science from the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference that involved 2,500 professional participants, most of them climate science researchers. All were welcome and the program and abstracts of the papers presented are available here: <a href="http://climatecongress.ku.dk/" title="http://climatecongress.ku.dk/" rel="nofollow">http://climatecongress.ku.dk/</a> .<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>The key moral imperative of the Synthesis Report is “Inaction is inexcusable”. </b></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The members of the writing team for this extensively and expertly reviewed 2009 Synthesis Report are listed below together with their credentialing institutional affiliations.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Katherine Richardson (Vice-Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark), </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Will Steffen (Executive Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Australia)</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany and Visiting Professor, University of Oxford, UK).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Joseph Alcamo (Chief Scientist designate, United Nations Environment Program, UNEP).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Dr. Terry Barker (Centre for Climate Change Mitigation research, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, UK)</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Daniel M. Kammen (Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Energy & resources Group & Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, USA).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Dr. Rik Leemans (Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Netherlands)</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Diana Liveman (Director of the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, UK).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Mohan Munasinghe (Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND), Sri Lanka). </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Dr. Balgis Osman-Elashe (Higher Council for Environment & Natural Resources, HCENR, Sudan).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Sir Nicholas Stern (top UK climate change economist, IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government, London School of Economics, UK).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Ole Wæver (Political Science Department, University of Copenhagen, Denmark). </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>The Synthesis Report was in 6 key areas that are briefly summarized below</b> (with complementary documented comments added).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">1. Climatic trends</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> – the Report details the remorseless INCREASING in past decades in sea level; in energy content change for glaciers, ice caps, .Greenland ice sheet, Antarctic ice sheet, contents, atmosphere and Arctic sea ice; Greenland melt area; Greenland ice mass loss; surface air temperature; ocean heat content; atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, methane, nitrous oxide, and total greenhouse gases (GHGs) in CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">For recent, detailed, incisive assessments of the extent of the current climate emergency see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-change-power-point-lectures-1">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-change-power-point-lectures-1</a> . </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">2. Social and environmental disruption</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> – the Report details actual climate disruption realities that have ALREADY HAPPENED such as (a) increased hurricane intensity, drought, fires and flooding and impacts on tropical diseases, agriculture, malnutrition, and health in general; (b) major ecosystem damage including boreal forest die-back (N America), melt of Greenland ice shelf, changes in ENSO amplitude and frequency, dieback of Amazon rainforest, Atlantic deep water formation, European ozone hole, boreal forest dieback (Russia), Permafrost and tundra loss (N America, Russia), Sahara greening, West African monsoon shift, Indian Monsoon chaotic multistability, instability of West Antarctic ice sheet and changes in Antarctic bottom water formation; (c) huge decrease in ocean pH (increased acidity) in the last 2 centuries that is unprecedented over the last 20 million years and with devastating consequences for coral and crustaceans; (d) increased species extinction rates 1,000 times that of background rates typical of the planet’s history; and (e) huge increased risks in relations to species, extreme weather events, global distribution of impacts, aggregate impacts and risk of large scale discontinuities.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">For a series of brilliant power point presentations on the current predicament from top climate scientists and analysts (Including Professor John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser) see “8 top Climate Change power point lectures & 300.org 300 ppm CO2 target “: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/8-top-climate-power-point-lectures-300-ppm-co2-target" title="http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/8-top-climate-power-point-lectures-300-ppm-co2-target">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/8-top-climate-power-point-lectures-300-ppm-co2-target</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">America is a major GHG polluter and a leading annual per capita GHG polluter but is already being seriously impacted itself by man-made global warming as set out in the key 2009 summary document from the US Administration <span> </span>entitled <span> </span>“Global climate change impacts in the United States” : <a href="http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts</a> . </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">3. Long term strategy: global targets and deadline</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> – “rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid” dangerous climate change” regardless of how it is defined”. The equilibrium temperature increase is a very damaging 2.0-2.4<sup>o</sup>C increase over the pre-industrial for a 85-50% decrease on 2000 GHG and a 445-490 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>-e or 350-400 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> peaking at 2000-2015 (roughly the current situation with CO2-e of 460 ppm but with zero net emissions) – however, this rises to a catastrophic 4.9-6.1<sup>o</sup>C increase for a 90-140% increase on 2000 GHG and a 855-1130 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>-e or 660-790 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> peaking at 2060-2090 (this latter scenario exceeding the projections of world-leading per capita GHG polluter and world #1 coal exporter Australia which under present policies will increase its Domestic and Exported GHG pollution on the 2000 value by about 80% by 2050: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere</a> ).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The most shocking finding (apart from the immense, life-threatening climate disruption already occurring across the world with a temperature of +0.7<sup>o</sup>C above that in 1900 and with a further circa 1<sup>o</sup>C virtually inevitable) is the over 50% probability of exceeding very damaging +2<sup>o</sup>C if we have as our target the "zero net emissions" target from the present atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) level of about 460 ppm CO2-equivalent. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Indeed a survey of the Copenhagen Conference participants found that 90% expected 2<sup>o</sup>C to be exceeded (see “World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree”, The Guardian, UK, 2009:<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c</a> ).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">4. Equity dimension</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> – “climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world ... tackling climate change should be seen as integral to the broader goals of enhancing socio-economic development and equity throughout the world” .</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">This indeed is the “elephant in the room” because already 16 million people die avoidably each year </span>from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> (overwhelmingly in the non-European Developing World) (see my book “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950: </span><a href="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" title="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya</a> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">and my 2008 lecture with the same title: <a href="http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/08/body-count-global-avoidable-mortality.html" title="http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/08/body-count-global-avoidable-mortality.html">http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/08/body-count-global-avoidable-mortality.html</a> ). The partial breakdown of </span>16 million people dying avoidably each year (2003 data) is 0.18 million for the Western European World (including colonization-derived Overseas Europe) , 1.1 million for the Eastern European World, 14.8 million for the non-European World, 9.5 million under-5 year old infants, about 7.4 million for the Muslim World, 0.6 million in Bangladesh, 3.7 million in India and 0.9 million in Pakistan) but Professor Lovelock’s estimation of circa 10 billion excess deaths (mostly non-European) due to global warming by the end of the century lifts the average 21st century global annual death rate to an horrendous 10,000 million/100 years = 100 million per year (see. Gaia Vince (2009), “One last chance to save mankind“, New Scientist, 23 January 2009: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true" title="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true</a> and Gideon Polya “Climate Disruption, Climate Emergency, Climate Genocide & Penultimate Bengali Holocaust through Sea Level Rise “: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-disruption-climate-emergency-climate-genocide-penultimate-bengali-holocaust-through-sea-level-rise" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-disruption-climate-emergency-climate-genocide-penultimate-bengali-holocaust-through-sea-level-rise">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-disruption-climate-emergency-climate-genocide-penultimate-bengali-holocaust-through-sea-level-rise</a> ).</p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Currently, </span> “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 2.2 (India), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution from its world’s biggest coal exports is included) (latest available estimates plus 2005 data from <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Wikipedia, “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita</a> <span> </span>).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Top climate scientists say that the atmospheric CO2 needs to be urgently reduced to 300 ppm to make the planet safe for all peoples and all species (see 300.org: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org</a> ). However, with global annual greenhouse gas pollution still INCREASING it is clear that World governments still do not appreciate the dire urgency of the problem. The worst offender by far is Australia which has annual per capita Domestic and Exported GHG pollution 10 times that of <span> </span>China, 25 times that of India and 60 times that of Bangladesh – but which under its policy of “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” is committed to INCREASING its Domestic and Exported GHG pollution from 2000 levels by 40% (2020) and by 80% (2050) (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere</a> ).</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">5. Inaction is inexcusable</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> – “Society already has many tools and approaches – economic, technological, behavioural, and managerial – to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. If these tools are not widely and vigorously implemented, adaptation to the unavoidable climate change and the social transformation required to decarbonise economies will not be achieved. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to achieve effective and rapid adaptation and mitigation. These include job growth in the sustainable sector; reductions in the health, social, economic and environmental costs of climate change; and the repair of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services".</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">For a clear statement about climate emergency facts and required actions see the summary provided by the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions</a> . The key required actions advocated include: </span><b><span style="font-size:11pt">1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying.</span> <b><span style="font-size:11pt">2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of about 300 ppm</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists.</span> <b><span style="font-size:11pt">3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils <b>coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation </b>of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt">A clear strategy to get governments to finally take action over the climate emergency is the so-called ABC Protocol that </span>involves <b>(A) Accountability</b> of greenhouse gas (GHG)-polluting climate criminals imposing GHG pollution on all peoples and species (e.g. by naming via an electronic Climate Doomsday Book or virtual Climate Doomsday Monument of bad and good guys; by using a Green Credentialling or Green Certification system to identify products, people, companies and countries we can support and those we must boycott; and by international and intra-national sanctions, boycotts, green tariffs, reparations demands, civil actions and criminal prosecutions); <b>(B) a Badge</b> that activists can wear with a simple core pictorial or word message (e.g. “Climate Emergency” or “Climate Emergency Network”) or a core numerical message (e.g. “300” or “350” to indicate the urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration to about 300 parts per million (ppm) or to less than 350 ppm, respectively); and <b>(C) a Credo</b> or core statement of beliefs e.g. “<b>Safe and sustainable existence for all peoples and all species on our warming-threatened Planet requires a rapid reduction of atmospheric CO2 to 300 ppm</b>” (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/letter-to-island-nations---accountability-badge-and-credo-abc-protocol-icc-prosecutions-may-yet-save-island-states-planet">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/letter-to-island-nations---accountability-badge-and-credo-abc-protocol-icc-prosecutions-may-yet-save-island-states-planet</a> ).</p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">6. Meeting the challenge </span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">- the key final conclusion was ultimately one about human values and the enormous risk we face: "Ultimately these human dimensions of climate change [the cultures and worldviews of individuals and communities] will determine whether humanity eventually achieves the great transformation that is in sight at the beginning of the 21st century or whether humanity ends the century with a "miserable existence in a +5<sup>o</sup>C world".</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The ultimate philosophic point is what VALUE do we place on other peoples and other species? The Australia-based 300.org is explicit in its position, a position that is shared by the Climate Emergency Network, the influential Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group, and by the over 140 climate action groups that attended the January 2009 Canberra Climate Action Summit: </span>“<b>There must be a safe and sustainable existence for all peoples and all species on our warming-threatened Planet and this requires a rapid reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to about 300 parts per million</b>” (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org</a> ).<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> <span></span></span>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-811534478271356382011-06-24T00:29:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:31:11.110-07:00Water & climate change<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Water & climate change</span> </h3> <p><b>20 Questions and Answers re Water & Climate Change [brief answers in parentheses].</b></p> <p> </p> <p><b>1. How should we respond to risks in general? </b> [Rational risk management successively involves (a) getting accurate data, (b) scientific analysis (science involving the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses) and (c) systemic change to minimize risk. Conversely, all too common spin successively involves (a) lies, propaganda, obfuscation, censorship, (b) anti-science spin (this involving the selective use of asserted facts to support a partisan position and (c) counterproductive blame and shame that is politically profitable but which inhibits mandatory reportage].</p> <p> </p> <p><b>2. Is the world responding properly to man-made climate change? </b>[No. Top climate scientists including the UK Royal Society Coral Working Group say we must urgently reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentration from the current dangerous and damaging 392 parts per million (ppm) to a safe and sustainable 300 ppm to protect all peoples and all species. However all governments are committed to continued increase in GHG pollution. Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows (UK Tyndall Institute, University of Manchester) have estimated that a 6-8% annual decrease in GHG pollution, i.e. in carbon-based economic activity, would be required to keep to a 2 degree C temperature rise but all governments are committed to increasing carbon-based economic activity].</p> <p> </p> <p><b>3. Why isn’t the world responding properly to man-made climate change? </b>[Governments focus on citizen satisfaction and short-term economic growth, especially in democracies with 3-5 year electoral cycles. This is compounded by powerful business lobbies, notably the fossil fuel lobby (hence the term Lobbyocracy) and oligopoly media (hence the term Murdochracy). Professor Jared Diamond in his book “Collapse” considers top-down and bottom-up scenarios for social change in response to threatening environmental change. Useful actions by China in response to the Climate Emergency provide an example of an effective top-down response ].</p> <p> </p> <p><b>4. Could you comment on scientists and global climate change policy?</b> As a science student, scientist and science teacher over 5 decades I can give my personal experience: as a science student in the 1960s aware of man’s impact on the biosphere (Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”) and our burning of oil, the feedstock of organic chemical industry; as a scientist in the early 1970s aware of population pressures (Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb”) and the finiteness of resources, including the atmosphere (The Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth”); as a scientist researcher and teaching academic in the middle 1980s aware of the seriousness of Man’s chemical pollution of the atmosphere (CFCs and the Ozone Hole) and the growing seriousness of man-made global warming (IPCC set up in 1988); early 1990s realization of societal ignoring of the deadly seriousness of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) especially to megadelta countries such as Bangladesh (see Gideon Polya’s <span> </span>book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History”); 21st century activism to tackle huge gulf between science and public perception. 2008-2010 – pleas by top scientists and scientific bodies e.g. “We face a climate emergency” (NASA’s Dr James Hansen, 2008); “inaction is inexcusable” (Synopsis of 2,500-delegate March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference), “delay is not an option” (255 members of the US National Academy of Science, 2010). Just as we turn to top medical specialists in relation to life threatening disease, so we must take the advice on the climate emergency from top climate scientists. The gulf over climate change action remains between science (urgent action now) and public perception (some token action) c/- polluter lobbyists in Lobbyocracy Australia </p> <p> </p> <p><b>5. Can you outline the water situation on Planet Earth and the gross impact of climate change? </b>About 97% of the world’s water is saline sea water. Of the 3% of fresh water about 30% is groundwater, 69% is tied up as ice in the polar regions and glaciers and about 1% is surface water. Of the 1% of fresh water that is surface water, the breakdown is 2% (rivers), 11% (swamps) and 67% (lakes). AGW will shift huge amounts of glacier and polar ice to saline sea water (2-5 metre sea rise this century). <span style="font-size:11pt">Dr </span>Andrew Glikson (palaeo-climate scientist, ANU): “The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has … raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date [actually now 392 ppm, increasing ar 2 ppm per year], leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.” Groundwater aquifers are being ”mined” by agriculture just as soils have been “mined” by agriculture and arable land is being lost through nutrient depletion, erosion, urbanization, coastal inundation and salinization. AGW is impacting surface fresh water through increased drought and floods in different areas.</p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b>6. How is man-made climate change impacting global fresh water?</b> [According to Professor John Holdren “The Science of Climatic Disruption”, drought is increasing in northern and southern latitudes (e.g. US, Russia, Northern China, Southern Australia) but floods have increased in tropical and sub-tropical regions ( Southern China, Pakistan, Northern Australia). Aquifers are being depleted (notably in North India) and glaciers are melting, notably in the Himalayas that feed the major rivers of South Asia, South East Asia and East Asia crucial for about 3 billion people].</p> <p> </p> <p><b>7. What is Water Stress? </b>[Water Stress can be measured by the Water Withdrawal/Water Availability ratio. The World Water Council has provided a colour-coded map indicating that some parts of First World countries are suffering High Water Stress (ratio 0.4 – 0.8), notably in the US, the Ukraine and Southern Australia. However Very High Water Stress (ratio 0.8-1.0) is occurring in a swathe of Developing countries from North Africa through to Mongolia in addition to occurring in specific regions of Western US, Mexico, Chile, South Africa, and Southern Australia (e.g. regions where the drought has most strongly persisted).</p> <p><b>8. Can you outline global inequities in basic water availability for human use? </b>The World Water Council provides the following statistics. 1.1 billion people (overwhelmingly in the Developing World) live without clean drinking water (potable water). 2.6 billion people (overwhelmingly in the Developing World) lack adequate sanitation, this having major health consequences. 1.8 million people (overwhelmingly in the Developing World) die every year from diarrhoeal diseases (from lack of clean water, soap and sanitation). 1.4 million children (overwhelmingly in the Developing World) die each year from water borne diseases (3,900 daily). Daily per capita use of water in residential areas is 380 litres (North America and Japan ), 200 litres (Europe), and 10-20 litres (sub-Saharan Africa ). </p> <p><b>9. What is peak water?</b> Peak water is reached when the rate of water demand higher exceeds the rate of replenishment. Water is declining in glaciers (worldwide), aquifers (e.g. Northern India and Australia), rivers (e.g. the Murray-Darling River system in Australia) and in lakes. Peak water is being approached in many areas around the world (see #7). By 2025 two thirds of the world population could be subject to water stress. </p> <p><b>10. What is the relative water use in Australia and other countries? In very dry Australia </b>total freshwater withdrawal is 24.1 km<sup>3</sup>/year; per capita withdrawal is 1,193 m<sup>3</sup>/person/year; and the % use is 15% (domestic), 10% (industry) and 75% (agriculture). <b>In wet Canada</b> (a major repository of global fresh water) total freshwater withdrawal is 44.7 km<sup>3</sup>/year; per capita withdrawal is 1,386 m<sup>3</sup>/person/year; and the % use is 20% (domestic), 69% (industry) and 12% (agriculture) (similar % use to Russia). <b>In the drier US</b> total freshwater withdrawal is 477 km<sup>3</sup>/year; per capita withdrawal is 1,600 m<sup>3</sup>/person/year; and the % use is 13% (domestic), 46% (industry) and 41% (agriculture). <b>In heavily rural but industrializing India</b> total freshwater withdrawal is 646 km<sup>3</sup>/year; per capita withdrawal is 585 m<sup>3</sup>/person/year; and the % use is 8% (domestic), 5% (industry) and 86% (agriculture). <b>In substantially rural but rapidly industrializing China</b> total freshwater withdrawal is 550 km<sup>3</sup>/year; per capita withdrawal is 415 m<sup>3</sup>/person/year; and the % use is 7% (domestic), 26% (industry) and 68% (agriculture). <b>In dominantly rural Developing Countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, Iran, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Guyana and Suriname</b>, the % of fresh water for agriculture is in the range 91-96%.</p> <p><b>11. What is</b> <b>virtual water</b> <b>(also known as</b> <b>embedded water</b>, <b>embodied water</b>, <b>or hidden water) and the differential use of water for different products? </b>Virtual water is the quantity of water needed to produce an economic item e.g. the virtual water cost of 1 kg of the following products is 1,000 litres (wheat), 1,400 litres (rice), 3,300 litres (eggs), and 15,000 litres (beef) (noting that Americans eat 22 times more meat annually than Indians). For industrial products the virtual water cost of following products is 11,000 (pair of jeans), 1,000,000 litres (a car), and 6,000,000 litres (a house). </p> <p><b>12. Is water being exported?</b> Turkey exports water to Israel in tankers. Dry Australia exports virtual (embedded) water in its wheat exports (1,000 litres water per kg of wheat x 14.7 million tonnes wheat in 2009-2010 x 1,000 kg/tonne x 1 m<sup>3</sup> / 1,000 litres= 14.7 billion m<sup>3</sup> H<sub>2</sub>O as compared to about 26 billion m<sup>3</sup> total annual water withdrawal. </p> <p><b>13. Should Australia (and other countries) shift to better use of water?</b> Yes. Domestically there must be better storm water collection, recycling of water, use of grey water for flushing toilets and watering gardens and alternative sewerage systems may need to be developed (e.g. based on existing dry systems if compatible with urban health). Growing cotton and rice in dry Australia is profligate. Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) and conventional breeding approaches for drought-tolerant and salinity-tolerant plants may provide partial solutions to drought and salinization effects on agriculture. There may be vastly better crops for arid zones e.g. indigenous sandalwood (oil), aloe (pharmaceuticals) <span> </span>and mulga and other plants (for biochar production) (see “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds”). The rate of species extinction is 100-1,000 times higher than normal and excessive use of water and drastic depletion of river flows is contributing to Australia’s world leading loss of biodiversity and ecosystems. </p> <p><b>14. Is the worsening water crisis threatening world peace?</b> Yes. Over 260 river basins are shared by 2 or more countries, mostly without adequate legal or institutional arrangements (with huge implications for current and future conflicts). Thus high population megadelta Egypt is threatened by rising sea levels (that will destroy the fertile Nile delta) and by greater Sudanese and Ethiopian use of Nile water upstream. Africa-Asian Very High Water Stress zone countries are variously violently occupied, bombed or threatened by the US Alliance in a swathe stretching from Occupied Somalia and Occupied Palestine in the West to Occupied Afghanistan and US robot-bombed Pakistan in the East. In Occupied Palestine, Israel mostly steals 80% of the water from the West Bank Mountain Aquifer for itself, leaving 20% for its Occupied Palestinian Subjects, who are thus deprived not only of basic human rights but also of their own water supplies. According to Amnesty International (2009): “While Palestinian daily water consumption barely reaches 70 litres a day per person, Israeli daily consumption is more than 300 litres per day, four times as much. In some rural communities Palestinians survive on barely 20 litres per day, the minimum amount recommended for domestic use in emergency situations.” The Iraq War and the horrible threat of an extension to Iran may be due to potential Israeli desires for water from the Euphrates as well as from US desires for oil and hegemony.</p> <p><b>15. Is the water crisis compounded by population increase? </b>Yes. The world’s population is currently 6.7 billion and is projected by the UN Population Division to plateau at about 9.5 billion by 2050. However nearly half the world’s population variously suffers from water deficits for drinking, sanitation and/or agriculture already. Each year about 16 million people die avoidably from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease (2003 data; see my book “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”). The latest data from the UN Population Division indicate 22 million avoidable deaths annually, with global warming, drought, shrinking aquifers, decreased agricultural productivity, water-borne disease, malnutrition, illiteracy, lack of primary health care, lack of sanitation and lack of potable water all contributing to this avoidable carnage. </p> <p><b>16. Can you comment on the term climate genocide in relation to water deficits and population growth? </b> Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming – noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Water deficits will compound this worsening climate genocide. Already 16 million people (about 9.5 million of them under-5 year old infants) die avoidably every year due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease – and man-made global warming is already clearly worsening this global avoidable mortality holocaust. However 10 billion avoidable deaths due to global warming this century yields an average annual avoidable death rate of 100 million per year. Collective, national responsibility for this already commenced Climate Holocaust is in direct proportion to per capita national pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (GHGs). Indeed, fundamental to any international agreement on national rights to pollute our common atmosphere and oceans should be the belief that “all men are created equal”. However reality is otherwise: “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution is included).</p> <p><b>17. How should Australia and the World respond to the worsening climate crisis? </b>Top scientists say that crucial policies should be (1) no ETS (the Carbon Trading-based Emission Trading Scheme approach is empirically ineffective, dangerously counterproductive and is inherently fraudulent – in addition to dangerous market manipulation leading to carbon credit “bubbles”, nobody has the right to sell “licences” to pollute the one common atmosphere of the Planet); (2) 100% renewable energy ASAP (Beyond Zero Emissions has recently published its Zero Carbon Australia 2020, ZCA 2020, Report that costs 100% renewable energy for Australia based on wind and concentrated solar thermal with molten salts energy storage at A$370 billion) coupled with cessation of GHG pollution, deforestation, population increase and mass species extinction; and (3) a carbon price (e.g. a revenue neutral Carbon Tax).</p> <p><b>18. Can biofuels contribute to solving the water and climate change crisis?</b> Biofuel generation via algal photosynthesis can be carbon neutral. However biofuels from converting food to fuel is obscene in a hungry world (biofuel genocide already threatens billions through food price rises that were only averted in 2008 due to the Global Financial Crisis) and in actuality also creates big water losses and a carbon debt (e.g. methane from anaerobic bacterial action in deforested tropical wetlands, CO<sub>2</sub> from oxidation of soil carbon and agricultural waste).</p> <p><b>19. How can the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration be reduced to 300 ppm and other GHGs be contained ?</b> Biochar expert Professor Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University has calculated that it is realistically possible to fix 9.5bn tonnes of carbon per year using biochar (charcoal generated by anaerobic pyrolysis of cellulose waste at 400-700 degrees C) , noting that global annual production of carbon from fossil fuels is 8.5bn tonnes. However GHG methane from melting tundra, industrial natural gas leakage and from methanogenic livestock is a huge problem (methane is 72 times worse than CO<sub>2</sub> as a GHG on a 20 year time scale). World Bank analysts recently estimated that GHG pollution is 50% bigger than hitherto thought and that livestock contribute over 51% of the bigger figure.. Natural gas is dirty energy.</p> <p><b>20. What can individuals do?</b> Silence kills and silence is complicity. Educated people have an obligation to inform others about the worsening climate emergency. You can vote appropriately, be environmentally correct and also join a local Climate Action Group (e.g. the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group) so that you can say that you <u>have</u> done something collectively to avert climate catastrophe.</p> <p>References.</p> <p>“Peak water”, Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water</a> <span> </span>.</p> <p>Gideon Polya, “Water crisis, Palestinian Genoicde and Climate Genocide”, Countercurrents: <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/polya270410.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/polya270410.htm</a> .</p> <p>World Water Council, “Water crisis”, 2009: <a href="http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/index.php?id=25" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/index.php?id=25 </a>.</p> <p>Amnesty International, “ Israel rations Palestinians to a trickle of water”, 27 October 2009: <a href="http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/israel-rations-palestinians-trickle-water-20091027" rel="nofollow">http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/israel-rations-palestinians-trickle-water-20091027 </a>.</p> <p>Climate Genocide: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/">https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/</a> .</p> <p>Biofuel Genocide: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/biofuelgenocide/">https://sites.google.com/site/biofuelgenocide/</a> .</p> <p>Climate crisis articles: <span> </span><a href="https://sites.google.com/site/climatecrisisarticles/">https://sites.google.com/site/climatecrisisarticles/</a> .</p> <p>300.org: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/">https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/</a> .</p> <p>Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/">https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/</a> .</p> <p><span>Professor John Holdren</span> (Professor of Environmental Policy and Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University; Director, Woods Hole Research Center; former president, American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS; President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser), <span>“The Science of Climate Disruption” (2008)</span> – a summary of the basis of man-made global warming and the climatic disruption that has already occurred: <a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> .</p> <p>Water resources, Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources</a> .</p> <p>World Water Council: <a href="http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/</a> .</p> <p>Water Crisis, World Water Council: <a href="http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/index.php?id=25" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/index.php?id=25</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortaliity since 1950”: <span> </span><a href="http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/08/body-count-global-avoidable-mortality.html">http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/08/body-count-global-avoidable-mortality.html</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History”: <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/2008/09/jane-austen-and-black-hole-of-british.html">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/2008/09/jane-austen-and-black-hole-of-british.html</a> .</p> <p>Jared Diamond, “Collapse”.</p> <p>Gideon Polya, “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds”.. </p> <p>Water availability information by country, Green Facts: <a href="http://www.greenfacts.org/en/water-resources/figtableboxes/3.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenfacts.org/en/water-resources/figtableboxes/3.htm</a> .</p> <p>Rachel Carson, <span> </span>“Silent Spring”.</p> <p>Paul Ehrlich, <span> </span>“The Population Bomb”. </p>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-57457593574571727522011-06-24T00:26:00.002-07:002011-06-24T00:29:03.969-07:00How to deal with Climate Change Denialists (aka Climate Change Sceptics)<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">How to deal with Climate Change Denialists (aka Climate Change Sceptics)</span> </h3> <div dir="ltr"> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"><b> How to deal with Climate Change Denialists (aka Climate Change Sceptics) .</b><br /></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">In dealing with climate change denialists (or indeed with <span> </span>people advocating smoking, drinking and obesity <span> </span>or opposing safe sex, vaccination, antibiotics, cancer screening and blood transfusions etc) we need to resort to extraordinarily well-credentialled scientific authority. Thus, for example, the umpteen-Nobel-Laureate UK Royal Society has been associated with the following 3 key documents relating to the urgent need for action on man-made climate change. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"> </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">1. “Climate change controversies: a simple guide” (2007)</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">: <a href="http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies/" rel="nofollow" title="http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies/">http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies/</a> , quote: “</span>This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">” [In short, we as individuals can’t all re-invent the wheel, go back to university, do Honours Physics, a PhD, postdoctoral research, and decades of further cutting edge research on climate change – we must rely on the expertise of top climate science experts]. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"> </span></p> <p><b>2. J.E.N. Veron<a name="bcor1"></a>, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, T.M. Lenton, J.M. Lough, D.O. Obura, P. Pearce-Kelly<a name="bfn1">, C.R.C. Sheppard, M. Spalding, M.G. Stafford-Smith<sup> </sup>and A.D. Rogers</a> Royal Society Working Party on Coral) , “The coral reef crisis: the critical importance of <350 ppm CO2”</b>, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 58, (10), October 2009, 1428-1436: <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-4X9NKG7-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1072337698&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6858c5ff7172f9355068393496a5b35d" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-4X9NKG7-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1072337698&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6858c5ff7172f93550">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-4X9NKG7-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1072337698&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6858c5ff7172f9355068393496a5b35d</a> , quote: “The coral reef crisis: the critical importance of <350 ppm CO2”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, October 2009: “Temperature-induced mass coral bleaching causing mortality on a wide geographic scale started when atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> levels exceeded about 320 ppm. When CO<sub>2</sub> levels reached about 340 ppm, sporadic but highly destructive mass bleaching occurred in most reefs world-wide, often associated with El Niño events. Recovery was dependent on the vulnerability of individual reef areas and on the reef’s previous history and resilience. At today’s level of about 387 ppm, allowing a lag-time of 10 years for sea temperatures to respond, most reefs world-wide are committed to an irreversible decline. Mass bleaching will in future become annual, departing from the 4 to 7 years return-time of El Niño events. Bleaching will be exacerbated by the effects of degraded water-quality and increased severe weather events. In addition, the progressive onset of ocean acidification will cause reduction of coral growth and retardation of the growth of high magnesium calcite-secreting coralline algae.” [In short, atmospheric CO2 is currently about 390 ppm and increasing at about 2.5 ppm per year. We cannot destroy what we cannot replace; extinction, let alone mass extinction, of species is totally unacceptable. According to Levin & Levin (2002) the current animal species extinction rate is 100-1,000 times above normal: <a href="http://www.soc.duke.edu/%7Epmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.soc.duke.edu/~pmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html</a>].</p> <p><b>3. Royal Society Statement on Climate Change, 15 February 2010</b>: <a href="http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/" rel="nofollow" title="http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/">http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/</a> , quote: “International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. Possible consequences of climate change include rising temperatures, changing sea levels, and impacts on global weather. These changes could have serious impacts on the world's organisms and on the lives of millions of people, especially those living in areas vulnerable to extreme natural conditions such as flooding and drought. </p> <ul><li><a href="http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Science/" rel="nofollow" title="http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Science/ Climate Science">Climate Science</a> </li><li><a href="http://royalsociety.org/Facts-and-fictions-about-climate-change/" rel="nofollow" title="http://royalsociety.org/Facts-and-fictions-about-climate-change/ Facts and fictions about climate change">Facts and fictions about climate change</a> </li><li><a href="http://royalsociety.org/Global-Climate-Change-Policy/" rel="nofollow" title="http://royalsociety.org/Global-Climate-Change-Policy/ Global Climate Change Policy">Global Climate Change Policy</a> </li><li><a href="http://royalsociety.org/UK-and-EU-Climate-Change-Policy/" rel="nofollow" title="http://royalsociety.org/UK-and-EU-Climate-Change-Policy/ UK and EU Climate Change Policy">UK and EU Climate Change Policy</a> </li><li><a href="http://royalsociety.org/Policy-reports-and-statements-Climate-change/" rel="nofollow" title="http://royalsociety.org/Policy-reports-and-statements-Climate-change/ Policy reports and statements">Policy reports and statements</a> .” </li></ul> <p>Please use this information in dealing with climate change denialists - simply refer them or their audience to these 3 Royal Society-related documents. <br /></p><p>You should also make a point of establishing the scientific credibility and, specifically, the climate science credentials of the Climate Change Denialists with whom you are dealing .<br /></p><p>The World is running out of time for dealing with man-made global warming - and uncredentialled Climate Change Denialists should be efficiently sidelined as suggested above. <br /></p><p>Please tell everyone you can. </p> <p>Dr Gideon Polya. Melbourne, Australia (Convenor 300.org: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/Home" title="http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/Home</a> ; for detailed, referenced articles on the Climate Emergency also see the following websites: “Climate Crisis Articles”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/climatecrisisarticles/" title="http://sites.google.com/site/climatecrisisarticles/">http://sites.google.com/site/climatecrisisarticles/</a> , “Biofuel Genocide”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/biofuelgenocide/" title="http://sites.google.com/site/biofuelgenocide/">http://sites.google.com/site/biofuelgenocide/</a> , Yarra Valley Climate Action Group”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home</a> , “100% renewable energy by 2020”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/" title="http://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/">http://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/</a> , “Cut Carbon Emissions 80% by 2020”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/" title="http://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/">http://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/</a> and “Climate Genocide”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/" title="http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/">http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/</a> ). </p> </div>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-82128317887372671552011-06-24T00:26:00.001-07:002011-06-24T00:26:44.593-07:00How many people die from Carbon Burning and Climate Change each year?<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">How Many People Die from Carbon Burning and Climate Change Each Year?</span> </h3> <p><b>How many people die from Carbon Burning and Climate Change each year?</b></p> <p><b>This Fact Sheet summarizes estimations of how many people die from (A) Carbon Burning and (B) Climate Change each year.</b></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>By way of introduction, we can ask the question: how many Australians die each year from the effects of pollutants from vehicles, coal burning for electricity and other carbon burning? Answer: about 2,200, 4,600 and 2,800, respectively. At a "value of a statistical life" (VOSL) of $7.6 million per person ($73 billion pa for Australian carbon burning-related deaths) and $9 billion pa in fossil fuel subsidies, the minimum Carbon Price to cover carbon burning-derived deaths and carbon burning subsidies is $554 per tonne of carbon as compared to the best political offer yet of $20 per tonne of carbon</b> (for this updated assessment see “2011. Australian carbon burninng-related <span> </span>deaths and carbon burning subsidies => Carbon Price of $554 per tonne carbon” c/- Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-burning">https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-carbon-burning</a> ).</span></p> <p><b>(A) Annual Carbon Burning Deaths</b></p> <p><b>1. Air pollution deaths.</b> In the US, poor air quality is estimated to cause tens of thousands of deaths and cost more than $100 billion annually. Globally, air pollution contributes to the deaths of more than 800,000 people per year, most in the developing world (see: <a href="http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/349" rel="nofollow">http://www.ogcnetwork.net/node/349</a> ).</p> <p><b>2. International comparisons of fossil fuel-based power pollution deaths.</b> “Annual coal-based electricity deaths” [“total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”] from pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, volatile organics and heavy metals, notably mercury)<span> </span>are 170,000 [283,000] (the World), 11,000 [13,000] (India), 47,000 [47,500] (China), 49,000 [72,000] (the US), 3,400 [6,900] (the UK), 4,900 [5,400] (Australia) and 2,700 [3,800](Canada) as compared to 110 [360] (heavily renewable-based New Zealand) (see: <a href="http://green-blog.org/2008/06/14/pollutants-from-coal-based-electricity-generation-kill-170000-people-annually/" rel="nofollow">http://green-blog.org/2008/06/14/pollutants-from-coal-based-electricity-generation-kill-170000-people-annually/</a> ; <a href="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" title="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" rel="nofollow">http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836</a> ).</p> <p><b>3. Fossil fuel-powered transport deaths.</b> While alternative, high-safety,<span> </span>high-efficiency and 100% renewable energy public transport is feasible (see Martin Mahy, “Hydrogen Minibuses”, in <span>“Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007; pp250-256), land transport is dominated by fossil fuel-powered vehicles. According to WHO “</span>An estimated 1.26 million men, women and children were killed around the world in the first year of the 21st century - not by wars or diseases or natural disasters, but by and in traffic accidents<span>” (see: <a href="http://www.paho.org/English/DD/PIN/whd04_features.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.paho.org/English/DD/PIN/whd04_features.htm</a> ) .</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span><b>It can be proportionately estimated from New Zealand data that about 2,000 Australians die from the effects of vehicle exhaust pollutants each year - in addition to the 5,000 who die from fossil fuel burning pollutants from power stations - and that 3,000 further Australians die from other fossil fuel combustion (e.g. domestic and industrial burning for heat)</b> (see: </span> </p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><a href="http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/health-effects-of-vehicle-emissions.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/health-effects-of-vehicle-emissions.pdf</a></span><span> )..<br /></span></p> <p><b>4. Smoking-related deaths.</b> Smoking of tobacco cigarettes is a highly significant carbon burning component that is associated with more than 5 million deaths worldwide each year (440,000 in the US alone) (see: <a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/mpower_report_tobacco_crisis_2008.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/mpower_report_tobacco_crisis_2008.pdf</a> ). </p> <p><b>(B) Annual Climate Change-related Deaths</b></p> <p>Avoidable mortality (excess mortality, avoidable death, excess death) in a global context can be defined as the difference between actual deaths in a country and deaths expected for a peaceful, decently governed country with the same demographics. Annual avoidable mortality (essentially from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease) by this conservative, macro-scale definition is essentially zero in advanced countries but totals 14.8 million for the non-European World out of the world total of 16.0 million (2003 data; “Body Count. Global <span>avoidable mortality since 1950”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/</a> ). </span></p> <p><b>1. Climate change already impacts global avoidable mortality.</b> Climate change is already significantly contributing to the 16 million annual avoidable deaths world-wide according to UN and FAO. Thus on <span>12 December 2007, Bali</span>, expressing their “deepest concern”, three Rome-based UN Agencies – FAO, the World Food Programme and the International Fund for Agricultural Development – warned that climate change is a major challenge to world food security and will increase hunger and malnutrition unless immediate action is taken. (see: <a href="http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000731/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000731/index.html</a> ) </p> <p><b>2. Malnourished face immediate climate change risks.</b> There are about 0.9 billion malnourished people in the world who face immediate risks from climate change impacts on agricultural production (see World Food Program: <a href="http://www.wfp.org/english/?ModuleID=137&Key=2721" rel="nofollow">http://www.wfp.org/english/?ModuleID=137&Key=2721</a> ). <span> </span></p> <p><b>3.<span> </span>Climate change deaths and refugees from sea level rise and storm surges</b>. a third of Bangladesh's coastline could be flooded if the sea rises <b>one meter</b> in the next 50 years, creating an additional 20 million Bangladeshis displaced from their homes and farms; about 10 million people are already threatened by annual floods and storms damaging riverine and coastal islands (see: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSDHA23447920080414" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSDHA23447920080414</a> ). In <span> </span>2008 alone Cyclone Nargis killed at least 130,000 in Myanmar and left over 1 million homeless (see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Nargis" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Nargis</a> ). Mega-delta countries around the world are acutely threatened (see: <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/</a> ). NASA’s Dr James Hansen (2007): “As an example, let us say that ice sheet melting adds 1 centimetre to sea level for the decade 2005 to 2015, and that this doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. This would yield <b>a rise in sea level of more than 5 metres by 2095 </b>… in my opinion, if the world warms by 2 °C to 3 °C, such massive sea level rise is inevitable, and a substantial fraction of the rise would occur within a century” (see: <a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526141.600" rel="nofollow">http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526141.600</a> ).</p> <p><b>4. Biofuel diversion and food price increases (compounded by global warming) threaten billions.</b> UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser Professor John Beddington FRS has said that the biofuel diversion impact on global food prices “threatens billions” and that substitution of rain forests for biofuel production is “insane” (see: <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23336840-11949,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23336840-11949,00.html</a><span> </span>). The legislatively mandated US, UK and EU diversion of food for fuel has contributed to 2-3 fold increases in grain prices in the last year (together with global warming effects, globalization, oil prices, grain diversion for meat,<span> </span>and speculation) and crop-derived biofuel is actually an enormous net CO<sub>2 </sub>polluter (see: <a href="http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/">http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/</a> ). There are already 67 million refugees and internally displaced persons who need to be fed (see: <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4852366f2.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4852366f2.pdf</a> ).</p> <p><b>5. Over 6 billion may perish this century due to global warming (Dr James Lovelock FRS).</b> <span> </span>Top UK and World climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS has warned that climate change may already be irreversible and that over 6 billion may perish this century due to unaddressed climate change (see: <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock" rel="nofollow">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock</a> ; <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home</a> ).</p>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-68474211308698874232011-06-24T00:24:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:25:45.449-07:00Global Warming Dangers & Solutions for Older People<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Global Warming Dangers & Solutions for Older People</span> </h3> <p><b>GLOBAL WARMING DANGERS AND SOLUTIONS FOR OLDER PEOPLE</b></p> <b>1. The World<span> </span>has already passed a key tipping point for Arctic ice melting and requisite <span> </span>“negative CO<sub>2</sub> emissions”</b> <b>will impact all</b> – According to top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen and colleagues, the world atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentration at 385 ppm has already passed a key tipping point for the melting of Arctic sea ice, with serious implications for <b>human mass mortality and mass species extinctions</b> from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, tundra melting, sea level rises and runaway global warming from potentially devastating “positive feedback” (worsening)<span> </span>effects (e.g. the “albedo flip” involving light-reflecting snow and ice replacement with light-absorbing dark water; melt water lubrication of glacier movement; release of greenhouse gases from melting tundra; burning of major tropical forests stopping CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration and releasing CO<sub>2</sub> ; warming-exacerbated storms limiting ocean CO<sub>2</sub> absorption; global warming limiting<span> </span>phytoplankton productivity and<span> </span>hence diminishing CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration and dimethyl sulphide production needed for “seeding” light-reflecting cloud formation). Dr Hansen and colleagues say that we must return atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of no more than 350 ppm through cessation of fossil fuel<span> </span>burning, replacement of the carbon economy with solar-based renewables and geothermal energy, decrease in atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> through re-afforestation and return of carbon to the soil as pyrolytically-generated biochar (see: <span><a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf" title="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf</a> </span>; <span>see also the latest 2007 IPCC Synthesis Report: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" title="http://www.ipcc.ch/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a> ).</span><span> </span> <b>2. Heat waves will differentially kill elderly people</b> – In 2003 there was a heatwave in Europe that killed 35,000-50,000 in Europe and nearly 15,000 in France. Older people were differentially affected, the problems being that older people are frailer, <span> </span>more prone to heat stress and have diminished <span> </span>brain signalling of dehydration stress (see:<span> </span><a href="http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/elderlyheat.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/elderlyheat.asp</a> ; <a href="http://www.medindia.net/news/Brain-Malfunction-Explains-Dehydration-in-Elderly-31069-1.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.medindia.net/news/Brain-Malfunction-Explains-Dehydration-in-Elderly-31069-1.htm</a> ; <a href="http://www.sfbr.org/pages/news_release_detail.php?id=15" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfbr.org/pages/news_release_detail.php?id=15</a> ; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave</a> ; <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm</a> ). <b>3. Retirement benefits require GDP growth, carbon-based growth is no longer possible but cheap, non-carbon energy alternatives are already developed </b>– For people who are self-funded retirees on superannuation schemes or government pensions it is necessary for GDP growth to compensate for outlays and inflation.<span> </span>However, as briefly summarized in #1, the <b>Climate Emergency requirement for urgent implementation of “negative CO<sub>2</sub> emissions”</b> means that the present carbon-based energy economy in which GDP is directly promotional to CO<sub>2</sub> pollution has to STOP (for recent reviews of such already developed, low-cost, non-carbon renewable and geothermal energy technologies see items below and : <a href="http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213" rel="nofollow">http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213</a> ; <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/</a> ; <a href="http://www.coolearthsolar.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolearthsolar.com/</a> ; <a href="http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf</a> ). <p><b>4. <span>The true cost of coal burning-based energy is 4-5 times the market</span></b><span> <b>cost </b> <b>(greater impact on </b></span><b>investment-dependent retirees<span>)</span></b><span> - </span>A study<span> </span>for the <span> </span>Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Energy has found that the “true cost” in cents/kWh of coal burning-based electricity with environmental and human impacts added is 4-5-fold greater than the “market cost”. This estimate makes all the latest renewable and geothermal energy provision technologies CHEAPER than the “true cost” of coal-based electricity. Investment-dependent retirees are differentially impacted <span> </span>(see: <a href="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" title="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" rel="nofollow">http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836</a> ; ).</p> <p><b>5. Pollutants from fossil fuel-based electricity generation kill 0.3 million people annually world-wide</b> <b>(greater risk to older people) </b>-<span> </span>Toxic pollutants are produced from fossil fuel-based electricity generation, notably carbon monoxide, particulates, sulphur dioxide, heavy metals (notably mercury, Hg), and volatile organics. Pollution from coal plants producing 27 TWh/year (20% of supply) kill 668 people per year in Ontario (population 12 million) suggesting <span>coal plants producing 77% of Australia's annual 255 TWh of electricity (see: </span><span><a href="http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm</a></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span><span>; i.e. 0.77 x 255 = 196.4 TWh/year) might kill about 196.4 TWh x 668/27 TWh = 4,859 people annually in Australia</span> (population 21 million). “Annual coal-based electricity deaths” [“total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”] are 170,000 [283,000] (the World), 11,000 [13,000] (India), 47,000 [47,500] (China), 49,000 [72,000] (the US), 3,400 [6,900] (the UK), 4,900 [5,400] (Australia) and 2,700 [3,800](Canada) as compared to <span> </span>110 [360] (heavily renewable-based<span> </span>New Zealand). There is a much greater life-time and old-age impact on older people (see: <a href="http://green-blog.org/2008/06/14/pollutants-from-coal-based-electricity-generation-kill-170000-people-annually/" rel="nofollow">http://green-blog.org/2008/06/14/pollutants-from-coal-based-electricity-generation-kill-170000-people-annually/</a> ; <a href="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" title="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" rel="nofollow">http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836</a> ).<span> </span></p> <p><b>6. Already developed renewable and geothermal energy is CHEAPER than the “true cost” of coal-based electricity</b> – Some 2007 figures in Australian cents/kWh for tradable electricity: 4 (coal “market cost”); 8 (likely coal-based<span> </span>under an ETS or emissions trading scheme); 16-20 (coal “true cost” taking environmental and human cost into account); 15 nuclear (via the UK's newest Sizewell B plant); 5 (geothermal); 8 (wind power); 15 (concentrated solar); 25-45 (standard silicon-based photovoltaics or PVs) (<a href="http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213" rel="nofollow">http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213</a> ). However sliver technology will reduce PV costs 3-fold (<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1805365.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1805365.htm</a> ) and <span> </span>tidal and wave power are established local possibilities. CIGS non-silicon thin film (<a href="http://www.globalsolar.com/content/view/25/49/" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalsolar.com/content/view/25/49/</a> ; <a href="http://www.thinfilmsblog.com/2007/12/157-efficient-thin-films-cigs-solar.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thinfilmsblog.com/2007/12/157-efficient-thin-films-cigs-solar.html</a> <span> </span>; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_indium_gallium_selenide" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_indium_gallium_selenide</a> ),<span> </span>thin balloon-based concentrated photovoltaics (CPV) (<a href="http://www.coolearthsolar.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolearthsolar.com/</a> ; <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/05/rethinking_the.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/05/rethinking_the.html</a> ) and large-scale concentrated solar power (CSP) with efficient energy storage (<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/" rel="nofollow">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/</a> ; <a href="http://www.ausra.com/news/releases/080306.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ausra.com/news/releases/080306.html</a> ) are CURRENTLY approaching cost-competitiveness with the “market price” of coal-based power. Plus plug-in electric cars, local electricity plus usable heat generation, energy efficiency, vast energy solar resource … </p> <p><b>7. Older people want to leave the world a better place</b> (but see #1); <b>8. Older people must be acutely concerned over the fate of their children and grandchildren</b> (see #1); <b>9. Older people have enjoyed the benefits of the profligate carbon economy and are obliged to “put back”</b> (see #1); <b>10. Older people have the accumulated experience, money and time to make a difference</b> – <b>CONTACT:</b> Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (YVCAG): <a href="mailto:mawj@bigpond.com">mawj@bigpond.com</a> ; Climate Emergency Network (CEN): <a href="http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/</a> .<br /></p>June 2008Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-76063130268284227132011-06-24T00:21:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:24:47.801-07:00Global Warming, Climate Emergency Course Notes<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Global Warming, Climate Emergency Course Notes</span> </h3> <div dir="ltr"> <p><b><span>Global Warming, Climate Emergency Course</span></b><span> <b>given in 2009-2010 by Dr Gideon Polya</b> <b>for the Yarra Valley University of the Third Age (U3A)</b> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><b>downloading the detailed and documented course lecture notes is of course FREE so that even people on the other side of the Planet can do this updated course - accordingly please tell everyone you know in the interests of public education].</b> </span></p> <p><b><span>Preface.</span></b></p> <p><span><b>The presenter, Dr Gideon Polya</b>, is a 4 decade career biochemist (biological chemist) who has been involved in university and other tertiary level teaching over the period 1972-2009 (teaching theory and laboratory courses to second year science students at La Tribe University, Melbourne, in 2009). His research career was initially concerned with energy transduction for ion transport and photosynthesis in plants and then expanded into signalling in plants, protein chemistry of plant bioactive proteins and the biochemical targets of plant bioactive compounds, this culminating in a </span><span>huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). </span></p> <p><span>In a shift of research interest he has recently published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: </span><b><span style="font-weight:normal"><a href="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" rel="nofollow" title="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya">http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya</a></span></b><span> and <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/</a> ); see also his contribution “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007): <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm</a> ). He has just published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in global sustainability” (see: <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/" title="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/</a> ) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others: <a href="http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html">http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html</a> ).</span></p> <p><span>The starting position and humane philosophy of the course is summarized in the 1-page “Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions” sheet, designed for wide dissemination to the public and placed on the Web (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions</a> ) by the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group together with numerous, carefully-researched and documented Climate Emergency Fact Sheets that represent a basic reference source for this course (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/system/app/pages/sitemap/hierarchy">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/system/app/pages/sitemap/hierarchy</a> ).</span></p> <p><b><span>In short</span></b><span>, in relation to man-made global warming, as stated by Australian Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty “We are in real danger”. According to top US climate scientist Professor James Hansen (Head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York): “We are facing a Climate Emergency” due to man-made global warming from greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution and we must urgently act to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) from the present, dangerous 387 parts per million (ppm) to a safe and sustainable level of about 300 ppm. </span></p> <p><b><span><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span>Course outline</span></b></p> <p><b><span><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span>A. Scientific method, statistics and rational risk management.</span></b></p> <p><b><span>B. Introductory chemistry and biochemistry, the carbon cycle and greenhouse gases.</span></b></p> <p><b><span>C. The Climate Emergency, Sustainability Emergency and the Science of Climatic disruption </span></b></p> <p><b><span>D. Consequences of global warming, mass extinctions and the Great Barrier Reef.</span></b></p> <p><b><span>E. Australia’s leading per capita GHG pollution, First World biofuel genocide and climate genocide. </span></b></p> <p><b><span>F. Current economic renewable and geothermal energy sources. </span></b></p> <p><b><span>G. Top scientists’ opinions and need to reduce atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to about 300 ppm.</span></b></p> <p><b><span>H. Acute global warming threat to older people and what older people must do for the Planet.<br /></span></b></p><p><b>I. Reference list.</b></p> <p><b><span> </span></b></p> <p><b><span>A. Scientific method, rational risk management and statistics.</span></b></p> <p><b><span><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span>1. Scientific method.</span></b><span> Science involves the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses. Thus religious belief clearly helps many people and societies cope with life but it is not “scientific” in the sense that the core beliefs are not potentially falsifiable hypotheses that can be critically tested. </span></p> <p><span>Conversely, anti-Science spin is the complete opposite of Science in that it involves the selective use of asserted facts to support a partisan position. Thus spin-based climate sceptics say that because the average global temperature was lower in 2008 than in 2007 (selective use of the data) we must be heading for a new Ice Age. However inspection of the temperature data from NASA over the last 40 years (see: <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/</a> )shows that there is a fluctuation of +/-0.1 degree Centigrade (0.1<sup>o</sup>C) and that global average temperature has steadily increased by about 0.6<sup> o</sup>C over the last 40 years and by about 0.8<sup> o</sup>C from 1890. </span></p> <p><b><span><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span>2. Rational Risk Management (RRM).</span></b><span> Rational Risk Management (RRM) successively involves (a) getting accurate data, (b) scientific analysis (science involving the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses) and (c) systemic change, involving setting up systems such that when Nature or fallible humans inevitably cause a dangerous situation the system is better able to minimize risk.</span></p> <p><span>Unfortunately a</span><span>ll too prevalent “spin” and “politicized” responses in society pervert RRM by (a) lies, slies (spin-based untruths), censorship, intimidation, self-censorship, white-washing, (b) anti-science spin involving the use of selected asserted “facts” to support a partisan position, and (c) “blame and shame”, picking convenient culprits for public punishment, thereby inhibiting reportage (war being the ultimate expression of this perverted approach) (see: <a href="http://rationalriskmanagement.blogspot.com/">http://rationalriskmanagement.blogspot.com/</a> ).</span></p> <p><b><span><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span>3. Avoidable mortality.</span></b><span> Excess death (avoidable mortality) and other measures of undesirable outcome (e.g. under-5 infant mortality) can be used to measure the success or otherwise of local, national or global policies. For a country in a given period, excess death (avoidable death, avoidable mortality, excess mortality, deaths that should not have happened) is the difference between the actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected for a peaceful, decently governed country with the same demographics (see: G. Polya, </span>“Body Count” (see: <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/</a> and <a href="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" rel="nofollow" title="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya">http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya</a> <span>). </span></p> <p><span>Excess death must be considered in the mounting Climate Emergency. Global warming is mounting problem for “home alone” elderly e.g. 15,000 people died in the 2003 French heat wave because the elderly switch off their heat stress warning too early. Up to 35,000 people died Europe during the 2003 heat wave (see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave</a> ). </span></p> <p><span>Already 16 million people die avoidably each year (about 2/3 being under-5 year old infants) due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease that is now increasingly impacted by global warming and biofuel-driven increased food price rises (see: </span><span>“Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: </span><b><span style="font-weight:normal"><a href="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" rel="nofollow" title="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya">http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya</a></span></b><span> and <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/</a> ; <a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html</a> ). </span></p> <p><span>According to Professor James Lovelock FRS some 10 billion may perish this century </span>(see <span>New Scientist Environment, 23 January 2009: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html</a> )</span>. On this basis some 2 billion Indians may<span> </span>perish this century from this First World manufactured Climate Genocide (see: <a href="http://newshopper.sulekha.com/blogs/post/2009/01/first-world-climate-genocide-global-warming-to-kill.htm" rel="nofollow">http://newshopper.sulekha.com/blogs/post/2009/01/first-world-climate-genocide-global-warming-to-kill.htm</a> ). </p> <p><b><span><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span>4. Statistics Introduction</span></b><span> </span></p> <p><b><span>i. Introduction.</span></b><span> In assessing Reality we can have a qualitative assessment (e.g. beauty, uniqueness) or quantitatively (how much how many). </span></p> <p><span>In assessing the likelihood of something happening we can consider the actual frequency of occurrence e.g. by tossing coins, estimating theoretical probability of heads (50%, 0.5) and empirical probability (from experiment); we can do a “number of experiments” versus “% heads obtained” and from the resulting “normal distribution” (bell-shaped curve) data obtain the mean (average result from all the data), median (the middle outcome in a series of outcomes e.g. the median of 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7 and 8 is 4; the mean is 45/10 = 4.5), the standard deviation (</span><span lang="EN-US">SD, σ; 68% of observations fall within 1 SD of the mean i.e. between μ-σ and μ+ σ), and perform statistical tests (Chi squared test, student’s t-test, consider null hypotheses, probability statements, confidence limits).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">We can quantitate some risks from empirical probabilities (i.e. from measurements of the actual incidence of such events in a given population in a given time e.g. annual probability of dying from shark attack, homicide, smoking, car accident, dying otherwise, or death from non-state “terrorism”; nuclear, greenhouse and poverty threats. </span></p> <p><b><span lang="EN-US">ii. Quantitating risk. </span></b><span lang="EN-US">We quantitatively predict outcomes by assessing the parameter “probability” (P, likelihood).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">For “coin tossing” we can calculate that P(heads) = 0.5 = 50%.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">We can also determine the “empirical probability” of “heads” by tossing enough coins and finding that in the end roughly 50% will be heads.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">However if we perform a number of such experiments you will get different numbers of “% heads” in each experiment because coin tossing is a random process. We can plot the results of these experiments as a graph of</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">Number of experiments versus % “heads” for the experiment .The resultant bell-shaped <span> </span>plot (with the mean value at the top of the bell) is called a “normal distribution” (other types of distributions are also found for other data sets). </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">We define the mean (μ) and the “standard deviation” (SD, σ). 68% of observations fall within 1 SD of the mean (i.e. between μ-σ and μ+ σ), 95% of observations fall between 2 SDs on either side of the mean and 99.7% of observations fall within 3 SDs either side of the mean.</span></p> <p><b><span lang="EN-US">iii. Statistical tests. </span></b><span lang="EN-US">We could, for example, collect data on “age of death” for cigarette smokers and non-smokers, plotting a graph of Number (n) versus Age at death (years) – we would end up with 2 bell-shaped curves with the one for the smokers being shifted to lower Age of Death values. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Statistical tests (Chi squared test, student’s t-test etc) can be applied to such data to determine (with the help of Statistical Tables) the Probability (P) that the difference between the 2 mean values of “age at death” for smokers and non-smokers is not simply due to chance e.g. we might find that P<0.05.</span></p> <p><b><span lang="EN-US">iv. Some risks and empirical probabilities</span></b></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Here are some risk estimates expressed as “annual death rate” (%, percentage, how many out of a group of 100 Australians will die in a year) as determined from actual data and numerically the same as the Probability that an Australian will die within Australia from such a cause in a year: from Muslim-origin non-state terrorism , electrocution or shark attack (0.0001% = 1/1,000,000), from a family member or acquaintance (0.001% = 1/100,000), from a car accident (0.01% = 1/10,000), from smoking (0.1% = 1/1,000), from natural causes (0.7% = 1/143).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Here are some topical Australian statistics expressed as “annual death rate” = “annual probability of death in the group, expressed as a %”: 2.2% (Indigenous Australians), 2.4% (Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory), 0.4% (what it should be for a high birth rate community), 0.7% (White Australians), 2.5% (pre-drought Australian sheep), 2.5% (under-5 year old infants in Australian-Occupied Iraq), 6.3% (under-5 year old infants in Australian-occupied Afghanistan), 10% (Australian POWs of the Japanese in WW2) –<b> </b><span>shocking figures that are NOT reported in Mainstream media nor by politicians and which point to a major Risk Factor in our society, specifically that of entrenched Lying by Omission by Bush-ite and neo-Bush-ite Mainstream politicians and media</span>.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Australian newspapers will give very precise probabilities each day in relation to horses or dogs winning races but will simply NOT report these crucial mortality statistics and death probabilities.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Scientists frequently express climate change predictions in a statistical fashion. Thus in a recent very important scientific paper </span><span>top UK climate scientists Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester) have recently estimated that an annual 6-8% <b>decrease</b> in greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is required to stabilize atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>-e (carbon dioxide equivalent) at 450 ppm (parts per million), a level at which there is still a 50% probability of exceeding an even more dangerous 2<sup>o</sup>C temperature increase over the pre-industrial. (Unfortunately, current Australian Federal Government policies mean an annual 2%<b> increase</b> in Australia’s Domestic and Exported GHG pollution) (see “Good and bad climate news”: <a href="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/">http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/</a> ). Yet we are told that atmospheric CO<sub>2 </sub>greater than 450 ppm and ocean warming and acidification means the death of the Great Barrier Reef. How do you respond to this probability estimate? To assist you: would you get on a plane if there were a 50% chance of it crashing – or for that matter if there were a 1%, 0.1% or even 0.01% chance of it crashing?</span></p> <p><b><span lang="EN-US">v. Quantitating nuclear, greenhouse & poverty threats.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">Dr John Holdren, former chairman <span> </span>of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently identified nuclear weapons, global warming and poverty as the three most acute threats facing humanity <span> </span>(see: <a href="http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0216am_holdren_address.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0216am_holdren_address.shtml</a> ).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The empirical annual probability (P) of dying from a nuclear bomb (based on the period 1945-2007, noting that 200,000 people died in the 1945 Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bomb explosions and assuming an average post-war human population of about 4 billion) = 200,000/4,000,000,000 x 62 ≈ 10<sup> -6</sup> (i.e 1 in 1 million).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Since a nuclear bombing has not happened since 1945 we have a problem in trying to assess P(annual death from a nuclear bomb) for the post-war period. However we could assess it as less than the P(dying from lightning) i.e. 10<sup>-6</sup> = 1/1,000,000 = 0.0001%. Hopefully it is much, much less than this but if a full nuclear exchange happens in the coming century the loss of life will be 6-9 billion people.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (2007) gave a 90% Probability of a greenhouse catastrophe that would kill 1 billion this century if not ameliorated. However Professor James Lovelock FRS recently gave estimates indicating that about 10 billion will die from unaddressed climate change this century. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The P for global poverty = 1.0 = 100% i.e. it is a palpable reality that currently causes 16 million avoidable deaths every year (roughly 10 million of under-5 year old infants) i.e. 16 million x 100 = 1,600 million = 1.6 billion over the coming century (assuming constancy of circumstances).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The Global avoidable mortality holocaust (16 million avoidable deaths each year, about 9.5 million of them those of under-5 year old children) is largely due to violence, deprivation, disease and LYING (that short-circuits Rational Risk Management).</span><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US">We will explore these three major threats later in this course and see how the world can be made safer for our children and grandchildren.</span></p> <p><b><span><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span>B. Introductory chemistry and biochemistry, the carbon cycle and greenhouse gases.</span></b></p> <p><b><span> </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span lang="EN-US">i. Some basic chemistry and physics.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Atoms have tiny but high mass nuclei composed of positively-charged protons (p<sup>+</sup>), electrically neutral neutrons (n0) and surrounded by very low mass negatively charged electrons (e<sup>-</sup>) in orbitals (shells). There are stable and unstable nuclei; molecules are composed of more than one atom that bind together via “covalent bonds” involving the sharing of electrons; there are nuclear energy levels and electronic energy states; light absorption excites electrons to higher energy levels and fluorescence (with lower energy light) is emitted when the electrons become de-excited and fall back to lower energy levels. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Many elements (e.g. H, hydrogen, C, carbon, O, oxygen, N, nitrogen etc) can have isotopes having different numbers of neutrons but the same number of protons and electrons and hence essentially the same chemical behaviour e.g. <sup>1</sup>H (hydrogen), <sup>2</sup>H (deuterium), <sup>3</sup>H (radioactive tritium), <sup>12</sup>C (carbon), <sup>13</sup>C, <sup>14</sup>C (radioactive), <sup>16</sup>O (oxygen), <sup>18</sup>O (heavy oxygen). Some isotopes (e.g. <sup>3</sup>H and <sup>14</sup>C) are unstable (like too many eggs in one basket) and are called radionuclides, which decompose randomly but with a characteristic half-life (time for 50% of the radionuclide atoms and hence radioactivity to decay) and in the process yields radioactivity or high energy radioactive particles (e.g. electrons, e<sup>-</sup>, positrons e<sup>+</sup>, neutrons, n0, alpha particles or helium nuclei, He-4 nuclei = 2n + 2p) and high energy electromagnetic radiation (X-rays and gamma rays) that can ionize molecules (introduce electrical charges, + or -) that in turn causes chemical reactions that can be deleterious (e.g. damage to DNA, mutation, cancer, teratogenic effects).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">As we have seen above, atoms are made up of a central nucleus (of high mass but taking up a minute amount of space) composed of large mass nucleons (positively charged protons, p<sup>+</sup>, and uncharged neutrons, n) surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged, very low mass electrons (e<sup>-</sup>). There are even more fundamental particles – thus protons and neutrons are composed of quarks held together by a strong force from gluon exchange between quarks. Thus a proton, p<sup>+</sup>, is composed of 2 up-quarks and 1 down-quark and a neutron, n, is composed on 2 down-quarks and 1 up-quark. There is a huge amount of “missing” dark matter in the Universe of unknown nature.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The simplest atom is that of hydrogen, H, or more specifically the H isotope <sup>1</sup>H which has a tiny central nucleus containing 1 proton surrounded by an electron cloud:</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">1p<sup>+</sup> + 1 e<sup>-</sup> = <sup>1</sup>H. The nucleus is tiny but has most of the mass.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The chemical behaviour of atoms is determined by the electrons which occupy specific orbitals around the central nucleus. Thus H has a valency of 1 and can form a single bond by sharing its one electron with other atoms e.g. H* reacts with another H# to form the diatomic hydrogen molecule H<sub>2</sub> in which electrons * and # are shared via a single bond: H*#H = H-H = H2 (conventionally H<sub>2</sub>).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Other elements have more protons and neutrons and the number of electrons equals the number of protons. Thus Helium (He-4) is composed of 2p<sup>+</sup> + 2 n + 2 e<sup>-</sup> .</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The mass of a proton is 1.007276 amu (atomic mass unit = u).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The mass of a neutron = 1.008665 amu</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The mass of an electron is 0.000549 amu</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">1 amu = u = = 1.66 x 10<sup>-27</sup> kg .</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The various electron orbitals or shells can accommodate only specific maximum numbers of electrons and have various “quantized” energy levels – thus electrons within an orbital can be excited by absorption of light (photons) to higher energy levels and in the process of de-excitation energy is released as light (fluorescence).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The outer electrons of atoms can participate in forming bonds with other atoms e.g. single bonds X-Y (2 electrons shared), double bonds X=Y (4 electrons shared) and triple bonds X≡Y (6 electrons shared).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Thus hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N) and carbon (C ) have valencies of 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Sulphur can have valencies of 2 and 4. Thus these elements can form the following molecules: molecular hydrogen H<sub>2</sub> (H-H), diatomic oxygen O<sub>2</sub> (O=O), carbon dioxide CO<sub>2</sub> (O=C=O), ammonia NH<sub>3</sub>, nitrogen N<sub>2</sub> (N≡N), methane CH<sub>4</sub>, nitrous oxide N<sub>2</sub>O, ethane (H<sub>3</sub>C-CH<sub>3</sub>), ethene (ethylene; H<sub>2</sub>C=CH<sub>2</sub>), acetylene (H-C≡C-H), hydrogen sulphide H<sub>2</sub>S (H-S-H), water, H<sub>2</sub>O (H-O-H) and sulphur dioxide SO<sub>2</sub> (O=S=O). </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Molecules or atoms lose electrons they become more positive and when they gain electrons become more negative – such entities are called ions and the process of producing such ions (e.g. by collision with radioactive particles) is called ionization.</span></p> <p><b><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span lang="EN-US">ii. Greenhouse gases.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> When these molecules absorb light they become excited and the constituent atoms can vibrate along bonds or rotate about single bonds i.e. they warm up. CO<sub>2</sub><span> </span>in the atmosphere will absorb various wavelengths of light from the Sun or reflected or re-emitted from the Earth and it is this that is important in the so-called Greenhouse effect in global warming.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The major greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>, O=C=O), methane (CH<sub>4</sub>),<span> </span>nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O, </span> </p><p><span lang="EN-US">N≡N<sup>+</sup>-O<sup>-</sup> <-> <sup>-</sup></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">N=N<sup>+</sup>=O</span><span lang="EN-US">), water (H<sub>2</sub>O, H-O-H) and compounds such as CFCs (chloroflurocarbons) .</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">You are familiar with the heating up inside a car or an unshaded<span> </span>multi-window room. This effect was discovered by the 19th century UK chemist John Tyndall (after whom the prestigious University of Manchester Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research is named) and was predicted to have major global consequences by the Swedish physical chemist Sven Arrhenius who suggested a warming of 5<sup>o</sup>C due to a doubling of<span> </span>atmospheric concentration (see Chapter 16, </span><span>“Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” by Gideon Polya: <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/" title="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/</a> )</span><span lang="EN-US">. </span></p> <p><span>According to Dr James Hansen</span> (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) with 8 UK, French and US climate change scientist co-authors (2008): “Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO<sub>2</sub> [carbon dioxide; atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> 280 ppm pre-industrial], including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO<sub>2</sub> for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO<sub>2</sub> was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO<sub>2</sub> fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm [parts per million], a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. <span>If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO<sub>2</sub> will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm<b>”</b></span> (see: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126</a> ).</p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>iii. Solid, liquid and gas phases of water.</b> <span lang="EN-US">In aqueous solution (i.e. in water) H<sub>2</sub>O molecules can ionize readily to form the hydrogen ion H<sup>+</sup> (a proton, p<sup>+</sup>) and a hydroxyl ion (OH<sup>-</sup>). More H<sup>+</sup> makes a solution more acidic (lower pH) and more OH<sup>-</sup> makes the solution more alkaline (higher pH). Acids (e.g. the acetic acid in vinegar) more or less readily give up protons (H<sup>+</sup>) (making the solution more acidic) and bases (e.g. ammonia) more or less readily bind protons (thereby making the solution more alkaline). At neutral pH (pH 7) the concentration of H<sup>+</sup> (denoted [H<sup>+</sup>]) equals the concentration of OH<sup>-</sup> (denoted [OH<sup>-</sup>]).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The various elements differ in electronegativity – thus in water, H<sub>2</sub>O, H-O-H, the electrons shared between the H atoms and the O atom (imagine these as electron clouds) are more closely associated with the more electronegative O atom so that the H atoms carry a small positive charge and the O atom carries a small negative charge. The result of this unequal sharing is that H-O-H is a polar molecule (Hδ+ -Oδ- -Hδ+ ) and can form weak, so-called hydrogen bonds between other molecules, including other H<sub>2</sub>O molecules, thus: H-O-Hδ+…Oδ-=X. Thus at temperatures below 0 degrees Centigrade (<span><sup>o</sup>C</span> ) the Hydrogen Bonds are strong and water forms the solid ice; between 0 <sup>o</sup>C and 100 <sup>o</sup>C it is a liquid (the hydrogen bonding is much weaker and the association less ordered) and above 100 <sup>o</sup>C water (at standard pressure at sea level) is a gas.</span></p> <p><b><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span lang="EN-US">iv. Biochemistry – the chemistry of life. </span></b><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>Life on earth is liquid water-based and functions between 0 <sup>o</sup>C (freezing point) and 100 <sup>o</sup>C (boiling point of water at standard pressure). Biochemistry is the chemistry of life. We have already considered atomic structure, molecular structure and molecular polarity above. Life is a self-repairing, self-replicating, water-based system. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The minimum unit is the cell that is surrounded by a phospholipid bilayer cell membrane but which variously contains cellular organelles that are in turn surrounded by a phospholipid bilayer membrane.<span> </span>Prokaryotes do not have nuclei (organelles containing the DNA-based genes) and include aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and photosynthetic bacteria (no nuclei). Eukaryotes (fungi, higher plants and animals) have cells containing<span> </span>nuclei (containing DNA, the genes), mitochondria (evolutionary remnants of prokaryotic symbionts involved in aerobic metabolism and oxidative phosphorylation to store energy as ATP, the energy currency of all cells), endoplasmic reticulum (a tubular network involved in making, modifying and secreting proteins), lysosomes (involved in degrading macromolecules) and other organelles. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Higher plants also contain chloroplasts (involved in photosynthesis, the light-driven photolysis of water to yield a reduced coenzyme NADPH , photophosphorylation<span> </span>that uses light energy to make ATP, and the enzyme [protein catalyst] Rubisco [ribulose bisphosphate carboxlyase; catalyzes reaction of CO<sub>2</sub> (C1 i.e. denoting 1 carbon atom) with ribulose-bis-phosphate (C5) to yield 2 molecules of 3-phosphoglyceric acid (3PGA, C3)] involved in the dark reactions of photosynthesis in which ATP and NADPH are used to reduce CO<sub>2</sub> to ultimately yield glucose [Glc] and glucose polymers [(Glc)n] like soluble starch and water-insoluble cellulose.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The atmosphere of the earth was mostly methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) and nitrogen (N<sub>2</sub>) 4 billion years ago.<span> </span><span> </span>However due to the operation of photosynthetic prokaryotes (blue-green algae, other photosynthetic bacteria) and thence photosynthetic Eukaryotes (higher plants) the earth’s atmosphere is now about 20% oxygen (O<sub>2</sub>) and 80% nitrogen (N<sub>2</sub>).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The light-driven so-called light reactions of photosynthesis: </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">2H<sub>2</sub>0 -> 4H<sup>+</sup> + O<sub>2</sub> + 4e<sup>-</sup> (solar energy-driven photolysis of water).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">2e<sup>-</sup> + ADP + Phosphate + NADP<sup>+</sup> (oxidized coenzyme) + H<sup>+</sup> -> <span> </span>via the photosynthetic electron transport chain and photophosphorylation -> ATP (energy currency of cell) + NADPH (reduced coenzyme).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">CO<sub>2</sub> (C1) + ribulose-bis-phosphate (C5) -> 2 <span> </span>3-phosphoglyeric acid (3-PGA) <span> </span>(C3) (catalyzed by Rubisco).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">3-PGA molecules converted to glucose (Glc; C6) via the dark reactions of photosynthesis (the Calvin Cycle) in reactions involving use of ATP and NADPH with regeneration of some ribulose-bis-phosphate (C5) to permit continuation of CO<sub>2</sub> fixation and reduction.<span> </span></span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The overall reaction of photosynthesis is the reduction (adding of H atoms or electrons) to CO<sub>2</sub> that is driven by solar energy:<span> </span></span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Solar energy (G) + 6H<sub>2</sub>O + 6CO<sub>2</sub> -> 6O<sub>2</sub> + 6 CH<sub>2</sub>O (glucose, Glc = C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>12</sub>O<sub>6</sub>). </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The Glc is converted by photosynthetic organisms<span> </span>to polymers of glucose i.e. (Glc)n (= Glc-Glc-Glc- Glc-<span> </span>etc)<span> </span>that are either water soluble (starch) or water insoluble (cellulose and related polymers that form wood) depending upon how the Glc monomers are joined to each other . Starch is readily broken down to the constitutent Glc molecules which are then oxidized (taking away electrons or H atoms or adding O atoms) by aerobic glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation:</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">6O<sub>2</sub> + 6 CH<sub>2</sub>O (glucose, Glc = C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>12</sub>O<sub>6<span> </span></sub>) -> 6H<sub>2</sub>O + 6CO<sub>2</sub> + energy (G = free energy; stored in the high energy bond energy of ATP) by Glycolysis (in the cytosol), by the mitochondrial process of the Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle (energy saved through formation of reduced coenzymes XH<sub>2</sub>) and thence by electron transfer from XH2 via the Electron Transport Chain (ETC) to O<sub>2</sub> (the terminal electron acceptor) that is coupled to formation of a H+ gradient across the mitochondrial membrane which is then used to make the high energy compound ATP (Oxidative Phosphorylation catalyzed by a spinning ATP synthetase ).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The ATP is then used for all the repair, replication, motility etc functions of cells (unicellular organisms) or collections of cells (multicellular organisms).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">In short, in photosynthetic organisms:<span> </span>Solar energy (G) + H<sub>2</sub>O + CO<sub>2</sub> -> O<sub>2</sub> + CH<sub>2</sub>O (carbohydrate).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Aerobic metabolism by plant-eaters and plants:<span> </span>O<sub>2</sub> + CH<sub>2</sub>O (carbohydrate) -> H<sub>2</sub>O + CO<sub>2</sub> <span> </span>+ energy (stored as ATP).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">ATP is used for repair, replication, cellular functions (e.g. motility, signaling) and synthesis of other compounds such as RNA, DNA, proteins, metabolites and fats.</span></p> <p><b><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span lang="EN-US">v. Biological origins of oil, gas and coal.</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>The insoluble carbohydrate (e.g. cellulose) effectively traps CO<sub>2</sub> in a relatively stable form of wood which is either above ground as trees, <span> </span>burnt (as in bush fires), degraded by fungal and bacterial<span> </span>action <span> </span>or slowly converted to Coal over hundreds of millions of years.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Fatty acids have been slowly converted to Oil over hundreds of millions of years.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Methane generated by anaerobic bacteria over hundreds of millions of years is present as natural gas underground and as sub-oceanic<span> </span>methane hydrates (clathrates of methane and water; see: <a href="http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate" rel="nofollow">http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate</a> ).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Figure 3 in the Appendix to Dr James Hansen’s 2008 letter to Australian PM Rudd <span> </span>(see: <a href="http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf</a> ) summarizes the estimated reserves (in Gt C or billions of tonnes of Carbon) of oil (270), natural gas (190), coal (1,240), sub-oceanic methane hydrates, shale oil and tar sands (more than 1,240).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">In the period 1751-2006 the amount already used is estimated in GtC as 110 (oil), 60 (gas), 170 (coal) and 0 (methane hydrates, shale oil, and tar sands). </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">As indicated above, stored carbon laid down over hundreds of millions of years has been substantially released back into the atmosphere as CO<sub>2</sub> by human activity in the last 2 centuries leading to a current atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration of 387 parts per million (ppm) as compared to a pre-industrial<span> </span>level of 280 ppm. <span> </span>As Dr Hansen points out, it is particularly important to stop further burning of the massive remaining coal reserves. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO<sub>2</sub> </span>(CH<sub>4</sub> being 21 times worse than CO<sub>2</sub> as a GHG averaged over 100 years) <span lang="EN-US">and a current fear is that release of methane from thawing tundra and sub-ocean methane hydrates in the Arctic (both already occurring) will produce positive feed-back effects involving<span> </span>accelerated global warming, more methane emissions and even more warming etc. <span> </span><span> </span></span></p> <p><b><span lang="EN-US"><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span lang="EN-US">vi. Metabolism, membranes, organelles, biochemical compartmentation and homeostasis. </span></b><span lang="EN-US">Cell structure involves membranes, cytosol, nucleus, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum and other organelles. 90% of the cell is water and most of what remains are proteins (macromolecules composed of specific sequences of amino acids joined together), polynucleotides (the macromolecules DNA and RNA; mostly composed of specific, protein-encoding<span> </span>sequences of nucleotide monomers joined together) and lipids (fats such as phospholipids that make the phospholipid<span> </span>bilayer membranes and storage fats such as tri-, di- and monoglycerides and constituent fatty acids). Gene expression involves the transcription of the DNA of a gene encoding a protein<span> </span>→ complementary messenger RNA → translation of messenger RNA on ribosomes → specific polypeptide → protein processing and folding → protein targeting (cytosol, organelle or export). </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The constituent amino acids (20 encoded by the degenerate 64 Codon Genetic Code) differ in having<span> </span>polar (uncharged polar, basic or acidic) <span> </span>or hydrophobic (water repelling) groups – these determine the nature of each<span> </span>protein, each protein having a specific sequence of amino acids. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total energy of a closed system is constant. <span> </span>Thus unless we can cool down (e.g. by sweating and water absorbing heat when it evaporates) we will get hotter due to metabolic reactions. Similarly, the earth will simply get hotter and hotter from solar irradiation unless it reflects<span> </span>or re-radiates away incident solar energy (but GHGs absorb such radiation). </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the disorder of the universe (measured as entropy, S) inevitably increases. Thus we all get old and die; “heat won’t go from a colder to a hotter”etc. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The energy in a system that can be used to do work or drive chemical reactions is called the Gibbs Free Energy, G.<span> </span>Reactions can “go” if the change in free<span> </span>energy (ΔG)<span> </span>is negative (exergonic reactions, ΔG<0) , can’t go if<span> </span>ΔG is positive (endergonic reactions, ΔG>0) and we get equilibrium if ΔG=0. <span> </span>At constant pressure, ΔG is determined by the change in enthalpy (change in heat content , ΔH, <span> </span>e.g. from breaking chemical bonds) and the change in entropy (ΔS, e.g. from creating disorder) (ΔG<span> </span>= ΔH - TΔS where T = temperature). </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">However exergonic reactions (for which ΔG<0 ) won’t necessarily go because of an “activation energy barrier” ΔG<sub> act</sub> e.g. before the man can jump off the cliff (ΔG<0) <span> </span>he must first jump on top of the barrier (ΔG<sub> act </sub>). Proteins called<span> </span>enzymes catalyze specific reactions -<span> </span>they speed up reactions by overcoming the ΔG<sub> act</sub> without changing the overall ΔG. Thus a piece of paper (cellulose) will take thousands of years to be oxidized to CO<sub>2</sub> and H<sub>2</sub>O – however apply a spark (ΔG<sub> act </sub>) and the piece of paper will be oxidized (react with oxygen or burn: nO<sub>2</sub> + (CH<sub>2</sub>O)n<span> </span>-> nH<sub>2</sub>O + nCO<sub>2</sub> + heat) in seconds. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Enzymes<span> </span>have evolved through mutation of the DNA-based genes that encode them and then natural selection operating upon the organisms containing the mutant genes. Improved<span> </span>survival to reproductive age of organisms containing the mutation ensures its selective<span> </span>transmission. Thus thermophilic bacteria<span> </span>that can live near 100<sup>o</sup>C contain enzymes that are relatively stable at this temperature. Conversely, humans have evolved to operate at a temperature range of about 36-40 <sup>o</sup>C -<span> </span>elevate ambient temperature to the point at which our physiological thermostat fails and we die.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Returning to the man on the cliff analogy, he can fall to his death (ΔG<0, ΔS>0 as he is irreversibly killed). Alternatively, he can descend by non-lethally coupling his descent (an exergonic reaction that releases free energy,<span> </span>ΔG<0) to the elevation of a load of bricks or another person <span> </span>(an endergonic reaction that requires an input of free energy, ΔG>0).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">That is what happens in life with the endergonic (energy requiring) formation of glucose in photosynthesis by terrestrial plants and phytoplankton being driven by solar energy; the exergonic (free energy releasing) “slow burning” of glucose from plants by other organisms is coupled to the endergonic formation of the energy currency<span> </span>ATP; the subsequent exergonic hydrolysis of ATP (adenosine triphosphate)<span> </span>to ADP (adenosine diphosphate) and phosphate is coupled to endergonic processes of chemical synthesis, repair, replication, motility etc. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Metabolism has an overall oxidation-reduction strategy, using ATP as “energy currency”. <span> </span>Solar energy drives photosynthesis yielding glucose (Glc) and starch that are ingested and “burned” by animals. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Catabolism is the oxidative breakdown to yield energy in the form of molecules of “energy-rich” ATP, the “energy currency” of cells.</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The converse, anabolism, involves using ATP to make complex, big molecules like polysaccharides (e.g. starch and cellulose), <span> </span>DNA, RNA, proteins and lipids from small precursors. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">The various metabolic processes are “compartmented” in various organelles to avoid “futile cycles” (i.e. making and breaking complex molecules simultaneously is futile). Hormonal control mechanisms also operate to ensure “homeostasis” or “balance”. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Thus anaerobic glycolysis operates in the cytosol (the internal “soup” of cells). In emergency situations (e.g. running for a bus or from a tiger) but is relatively inefficient: <span> </span>glucose → lactic acid [lactate; 2 ATP per Glucose, Glc]. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Aerobic glycolysis is the norma, efficient oxidation of glucose yielding roughly 38 ATP per Glc oxidized; pyruvate → CO<sub>2</sub> in Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle in Mitochondria [TCA cycle], yielding reduced coenzymes XH<sub>2</sub> → electrons (e-) passed down electron transport chain (ETC) to electron-acceptor oxygen (O<sub>2</sub>) ,with energy conserved as a proton (p+, H+) gradient → H+ gradient used to make ATP via a rotating ATP synthase (F<sub>0</sub>F<sub>1</sub>) in the process called Oxidative Phosphorylation. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">In the Pentose Phosphate Pathway excess Glc in a situation of Plenty is used to make reduced coenzyme NADPH for anabolism and the sugar ribose for polynucleotide (RNA and DNA synthesis).<span> </span></span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Fatty acid synthesis occurs in the Cytsosol when there is excess ATP, NADPH and precursor acetyl-coenzyme A (deriving from glucose oxidation in times of Plenty) and conversely fatty oxidation occurs in the Mitchondria during Fasting (e.g. between meals, in bird migration or starvation). </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Gluconeogenesis (by which amino acids and pyruvate can be used to make ATP when we are not feeding) and the Urea Cycle<span> </span>(enabling elimination of toxic ammonia NH<sub>3</sub> as urea) involve both the cytosol and mitochondria,. </span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Control (balance, homeostasis) is vital through (1) mass action (the more reactant, the faster the reaction); (2) allosteric control (e.g. feed forward activation and feedback inhibition of key enzymes by small molecule precursors and products, respectively); (3) protein degradation versus protein synthesis; (4) hormonal signaling (e.g. the hormone Insulin rises in Plenty and promotes anabolism or making things during Plenty versus <span> </span>Glucagon which rises in Fasting and promotes catabolism); (5) cell division (more cells) versus apoptosis (programmed cell death); (6) fasting versus plenty, catabolism (breaking down to get energy in fasting circumstances) versus anabolism (building complex molecules using available energy plenty circumstances).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Enzymes are proteins and a key way of controlling rates of enzyme catalyzed reactions is by degrading specific enzymes (less enzyme) or turning on the synthesis of new enzyme (signal molecule switches gene on -> transcription of DNA -> a complementary messenger RNA -> used as a template to make the encoded protein).</span></p> <p><span lang="EN-US">Similar homeostatic mechanisms operate at the macroscopic physiological level. Thus in January 2009 Melbourne had </span><span>successive </span>daily maxima of 43.4, 44.3 and 45.1 degrees Centigrade (corresponding to 110.1, 111.7 and 113.2 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively). The temperature finally reached 45.1 degrees C on Friday 30 January — the first time temperatures had been above 43 degrees for three consecutive days since records began in 1855. The human physiological thermostat attempts to keep us at about 37 degrees C or about 98.6 F , the normal range being 97-100 F - which is why people struggled<span> </span>in Melbourne that week. <span lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span></p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>vii. Planetary homeostasis and the Gaia Hypothesis</b>. Top climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS introduced the Gaia Hypothesis that stated that biological systems have exerted a feedback effect on the climatic régime during which they evolved. </p> <p>His analogy was Daisy World in which white daisies reflected too much sunlight making the world cooler; however mutant black daisies absorbed more sunlight and competed more effectively with the white daisies, thus warming the world up. </p> <p>However in his recent book “The Revenge of Gaia” Dr Lovelock describes how<span> </span>massive damage to inter-connected ecosystems is pushing the earth away from the pre-existing equilibrium and produces a tipping point when it is too late and the existing feedback mechanisms are insufficient to restore equilibrium (his scary analogy is that of a motor boat with failing engines above Niagara Falls – as one engine gradually fails the other can pick up the demand but when the total engine thrust cannot compensate for the current, the boat is doomed.</p> <p>Similarly human bodies operate over a temperature range of 36-40 <sup>o</sup>C to maintain<span> </span>temperature around a thermostat “set point” of about 37 <sup>o</sup>C - but when temperature gets too high the system fails. </p> <p>Positive feedbacks act to make things worse, to reinforce the undesirable trend. A major current threat <span> </span>is the so-called “albedo flip” in which due to exceptional warming in the Arctic light-reflecting white ice and snow is being replaced by black , light-absorbing ice-free sea, this causing temperatures to rise with more loss of albedo. </p> <p>Similar positive feedback comes from methane release from melting Arctic sea bed and tundra permafrost (the released methane is 21 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO<sub>2 </sub>over 100 years), yielding more temperature increase and thence more methane release. </p> <p>Above 500 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> there is massive loss of photosynthetic algae (phytoplankton) in the oceans with resultant less release of cloud-promoting dimethyl sulphide, less<span> </span>reflection of sunlight and accordingly further enhanced temperature.</p> <p><b><span><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span>C. The Climate Emergency, Sustainability Emergency and the Science of Climatic disruption </span></b></p> <p><br /></p><p>Professor<span> </span>John Holdren (Harvard, Director Woods Hole Research Center, former chair, AAAS) has given<span> </span>a cogent June 2008 power point-illustrated<span> </span>lecture<span> </span>“The Science of Climate Disruption” (see: <a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> ) which is used here as a convenient, well-designed, well-illustrated and authoritative <span> </span>basis for the summary below with appropriate expansion, referencing and updating. </p> <p><br /></p><p>1. “Global warming” (e.g. anthropogenic global warming, AGW) is a misnomer because it implies a gradual and even possibly benign change – a more accurate term is “global climatic disruption” which is real, man-made, already harmful and growing more rapidly than expected.</p> <p><br /></p><p>2. The weather is what happens day to day in relation to temperature, precipitation etc ; climate is the pattern of weather. Global average temperature is one index of global climate.</p> <p>3. Climate change threatens<span> </span>water, agriculture, health (e.g. heat waves and via disease geography changes e.g. Dengue, Hanta and malaria), property (storms, floods), coastal regions (hurricanes, storm surges, sea level rises e.g. Island States, Mega-delta States), engineered environments (e.g. Netherlands, New Orleans),<span> </span>biosphere and biodiversity (mass species extinction), net CO<sub>2 </sub>release from vegetation<span> </span>and non-linear, runaway climate change due to positive feedbacks. Mark Lynas (see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas</a> ) in his book “Six degrees: our future on a hotter planet” (see “What will climate change do to our planet”: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.ece" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.ece</a> ) discusses predicted consequences<span> </span>of increasing temperatures (add on about 0.5<sup>o</sup>C to his<span> </span>“<span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T above 1990 value” to get “<span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T above 1900 value”). See also David Spratt and Phillip Sutton “Climate Code Red, The case for emergency action”: <a href="http://www.climatecodered.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatecodered.net/</a> ; for review see: <a href="http://www.green-blog.org/2008/11/01/book-review-climate-code-red-the-case-for-emergency-action/" rel="nofollow">http://www.green-blog.org/2008/11/01/book-review-climate-code-red-the-case-for-emergency-action/</a> ). </p> <p>4. Post-industrial warming of about 0.8<sup>o</sup>C ( rough graph summation: 1880-1910, flattish +/- 0.1 <sup>o</sup>C; 1910-1940, steady increase + 0.4<sup> o</sup>C; 1940-1970, flattish,<span> </span>+/- 0.1 <sup>o</sup>C; 1970-2008, steady increase, + 0.5 <sup>o</sup>C. 14 hottest years since 1990 (see ACIA graphics: <a href="http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/pdfs/ACIAGraphics.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/pdfs/ACIAGraphics.pdf</a> and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Science graphs”: <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/</a> ). </p> <p><br /></p><p>5. Human influences on temperature (forcings) 1750-2005 (watts/m<sup>2</sup>): CO<sub>2</sub> (+ 1.7), other GHGs (CH<sub>4</sub>, N<sub>2</sub>O, CFCs) (+1.0), net ozone (troposphere up, stratosphere down) (+0.3), absorptive particles (soot)<span> </span>(+ 0.3), reflective particles (sulphate aerosols) (-0.7), increased reflectively from land use (-0.2). Natural sunlight changes (+0.1), Man-made warming GHG and soot influence 30 times greater than solar influence. </p> <p><br /></p><p>6. The huge human impact on atmospheric GHGs is revealed by a post-industrial GHG “spike” -<span> </span>atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> changes 10,000 BP (before present) to 1750: 260- 280 ppm versus <span> </span>1750-2000: 280- 380 ppm and<span> </span>atmospheric CH<sub>4</sub> changes from 10,000 BP to 1750: 600-750 ppb (parts per billion)<span> </span>versus 1750-2000: 750-1,800 ppb (measured from <sup>14</sup>C decline since fossil CO<sub>2</sub> – not exposed to solar gamma radiation - lacks <sup>14</sup>C).<span> </span></p> <p><br /></p><p>7. The human influence detailed in #5 above has been confirmed by state-of –the-art modelling that shows that such a model fed these forcings predicts the same temperatures as observed since 1880.</p> <p><br /></p><p>8. The 20-fold increase in world energy since 1850 came mostly from coal (1850-1950) and from oil and gas (1950-2000). However with substantial use of oil and gas reserves, use of the huge remaining coal reserves represents a major threat (see Figure 3, Dr Hansen’s Letter to PM Rudd: <span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf</a><span> </span></span>).</p> <p><br /></p><p>9. Fossil fuels continue to dominate world energy supply as revealed by the following 2006 statistics of fossil fuel-derived energy (%) and fossil CO<sub>2</sub> (MtC)/population (Millions) = tonnes (t) fossil CO<sub>2</sub> per person per year: World<span> </span>( 82%; 8060/6555 = 1.2), USA (88%; 1710/299 = 5.7), China (84%; 1640/1311 = 1.3); India (62%; 380/1122 = 0.3); Brazil (59%; 100/187 = 0.5; however ignoring biofuel and including up to 400 MtC/yr from deforestation we have 500/187 = 2.7); Australia (92%; 402/20.6 = 19.5 i.e.16 times the world average, 15 times that of China and 65 times that of India).</p> <p><br /></p><p>10. Notwithstanding the remarkable disparities in #9 above, gross fossil fuel CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from developing countries are increasing markedly. However, if one considers 1751-2006 cumulative emissions we find US (27.5%), Russia (7.4%), Germany (6.6%), UK (6.0%), Japan (3.9%), Rest of Europe (18%), Canada, Australia (3.1%), Ships/Air (4%) [76.5%; 2005 population 1,228 million] versus China (8.2%), India (2.5%) and Rest of World (12.8%) [23.5%; 2005 population 5,222 million (see Fig. 4, Dr Hansen’s Letter to Australian PM Rudd: <span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf</a><span> </span></span><span> </span>)].</p> <p>11. Tropical deforestation is the second biggest driver of man-made CO<sub>2</sub> pollution: of 510 MtC/yr in 1850 about 90% was from non-tropical regions but by 2000 100% of the 2,300 MtC/yr was from tropical America, Africa and Asia with non-tropical areas net re-afforesting to the tune of 100 MtC/yr. In 2006 World fossil CO<sub>2</sub> pollution totalled 8,060 MtC/yr (see #9). Sir Nicholas Stern has<span> </span>argued for an international programme to combat deforestation, which contributes 15-20% of greenhouse gas emissions: "For $10-15bn (£4.8-7.2bn) per year, a programme could be constructed that could stop up to half the deforestation" (see “Stern: Climate change a “market failure”: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/29/climatechange.carbonemissions" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/29/climatechange.carbonemissions</a> ). According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector is responsible for 18% of GHG emissions <span> </span>as measured in CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent – more than transport and with CH<sub>4 </sub>a major component. It is also a major source of land and water degradation (see FAO 2006 report “Livestock’s Long Shadow Environmental issues and options”: <a href="ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/A0701E/A0701E00.pdf">ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/A0701E/A0701E00.pdf</a> ) .</p> <p>12. Global heating is not uniform. Thus the biggest changes in temperature (<span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T) are in the far North (Arctic) and the Antarctic Peninsular as revealed by thermal imaging of the surface T in 2001-2005 versus 1951-1980 (average 0.53<sup>o</sup>C increase) (see J. Hansen et al., PNAS, 103: 14288-14293, 2006). The heating of the Antarctic is associated with the Wilkins ice shelf melting (see C. Brahic “Antarctic [Wilkins] ice shelf hanging by a thread: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13530-antarctic-ice-shelf-hanging-by-a-thread.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13530-antarctic-ice-shelf-hanging-by-a-thread.html</a> and <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn13530/dn13530-1_700.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn13530/dn13530-1_700.jpg</a> );<span> </span>the heating of the Arctic is associated with record loss of sea ice (see US NSIDC updates: <a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/" rel="nofollow">http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/</a> ); according to Australia’s CSIRO the 2<sup>o</sup>C heating of the Indian Ocean is associated with drought in Southern Australia (see ABC: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1937008.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1937008.htm</a> ). </p> <p><br /></p><p>13. Uneven global heating changes wind patterns. Thus in terms of mean wind speed and windy days the East Asian Monsoon has steadily weakened by about 20% since 1968, the observations matching model predictions from GHG-driven disruption. </p> <p><br /></p><p>14. Glaciers are shrinking all around the world as evidenced by the Muir Glacier, Alaska (1941 versus 2004) (J. Holdren lecture) and New Zealand’s largest glacier the Tasman Glacier (29 kilometers<span> </span>long in 1990 and now 22 kilometers long; see AP<span> </span>“Scientist: New Zealand’s<span> </span>biggest glacier shrinking fast”: <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/24/asia/AS-GEN-New-Zealand-Melting-Glacier.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/24/asia/AS-GEN-New-Zealand-Melting-Glacier.php</a> ) . Of major concern is glacial melting in the Himalaya plateau. Kehrwald, N. M., L. G. Thompson, Y. Tandong, E. Mosley-Thompson, U. Schotterer, V. Alfimov, J. Beer, J. Eikenberg, and M. E. Davis (2008), <span>Mass loss on Himalayan glacier endangers water resources</span>, <span>Geophys. Res. Lett<i>.</i></span>, <span>35</span>, L22503, 2008, doi:10.1029/2008GL035556 (see: <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035556.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035556.shtml</a> ) : “Ice cores drilled from glaciers around the world generally contain horizons with elevated levels of beta radioactivity including <sup>36</sup>Cl and <sup>3</sup>H associated with atmospheric thermonuclear bomb testing in the 1950s and 1960s. Ice cores collected in 2006 from Naimona'nyi Glacier in the Himalaya (Tibet) lack these distinctive marker horizons suggesting no net accumulation of mass (ice) since at least 1950. Naimona'nyi is the highest glacier (6050 masl) documented to be losing mass annually suggesting the possibility of similar mass loss on other high-elevation glaciers in low and mid-latitudes under a warmer Earth scenario. If climatic conditions dominating the mass balance of Naimona'nyi extend to other glaciers in the region, the implications for water resources could be serious as these glaciers feed the headwaters of the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers that sustain one of the world's most populous regions.”</p> <p>15. Permafrost is thawing in Alaska, Canada, Russia and Northern Western Europe. Of major concern is the release of CO<sub>2</sub> and methane from thawing tundra and from huge sea bed methane hydrate deposits (CH<sub>4</sub> being 21 times worse than CO<sub>2</sub> as a GHG averaged over 100 years). Methane is now bubbling out of the Arctic sea bed due to melting of a sub-sea permafrost layer (see Steve Connor, The Independent, “Exclusive: the methane time bomb”: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html</a><span> </span>). At high pressures, such as are found on the bottom of the ocean, methane forms a solid clathrate<span> </span>with water (methane hydrate). Release of methane from ocean methane hydrate has been suggested as a possible cause for rapid global warming in the Paleocene-Eocene<span> </span>Thermal Maximum with attendant mass extinctions (PEMT, 55.8 million years ago: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum</a><span> </span>and G.R Dickens et al: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06588.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06588.html</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/fig_tab/nature06588_F2.html#figure-title" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/fig_tab/nature06588_F2.html#figure-title</a> ) and the Permian-Triassic extinction event, 251 million years ago (the Great Dying, see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Dying" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Dying</a> and The Clathrate gun hypothesis: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis</a> ). </p> <p>16. Arctic summer sea ice is disappearing. For the latest images and analyses see the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC: <a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/" rel="nofollow">http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/</a> ). A December 2008 Arctic Sea Ice Conference was told that all Arctic summer sea ice will be gone in 6 years (see “Scientists say Arctic free of ice by 2015”: <a href="http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2008/12/13/7738376-sun.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2008/12/13/7738376-sun.html</a> ): “Scientists warn climate change is causing ice in the Canadian Arctic to melt so quickly, the region will have an ice-free season in six years. Following a 15-month expedition, scientists from Canada and 15 other countries warn an ice-free Arctic for part of the year will have a major impact on wildlife, Inuit communities and the entire northern ecosystem.” </p> <p><span> </span>17. Surface melting on Greenland is expanding and accelerating (see David Perlman, 2006, Commondreams “Greenland’s ice cap is melting at a frighteningly fast rate”: <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0811-06.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0811-06.htm</a> ). Complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by about 7 metres.</p> <p>18. Changing climate, notably the weakening of the East Asia Monsoon, has caused less moisture flow from South to North, this resulting in more flooding in the South and drought in the North. China has<span> </span>a population of 1.3 billion people.</p> <p>19. The incidence of major floods per decade (1950-2000) markedly increased in America, Europe, Africa and Asia but not in Oceania. However Fiji in 2009 has just experienced its worst floods ever (BBC, “Eyewitness; Fiji’s worst floods”: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7830216.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7830216.stm</a> ). </p> <p>20. Forest fires are being exacerbated by drought and elevated temperatures in America and Europe. The annual acres burned in the Western USA has now increased from about 0.5 million (1960-1980) to 2.5- 4.5 million (21st century).</p> <p>21. The total power released by tropical hurricanes has roughly doubled along with sea surface temperatures (see Kerry Emmanuel, “Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the last 30 years”, <span>Nature </span><span>436</span>, 686-688 , 4 August 2005;<span> </span><span>doi:10.1038/nature03906</span>: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03906.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03906.html</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/fig_tab/nature03906_ft.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/fig_tab/nature03906_ft.html</a><span> </span>) . </p> <p>22. Melting of land ice and thermal expansion of ocean water raised sea level by about 30 mm between 1993 and 2003. The sea level rise was 3 mm/yr (1993-2003) as compared to 1.5 mm/year (1910-1990). <span style="color:navy">Dr Andrew Glikson </span><span style="color:navy">(an </span>Earth and paleo-climate research scientist at Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) <span style="color:navy">in “The Methane Time Bomb and the Triple Melt-down" (see: : <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm</a> ): “</span>For some time now, climate scientists warned that melting of subpolar permafrost and warming of the Arctic Sea (up to 4 degrees C during 2005–2008 relative to the 1951–1980) are likely to result in the dissociation of methane hydrates and the release of this powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (methane: 62 times the infrared warming effect of CO<sub>2</sub> over 20 years and 21 times over 100 years) <span>… </span>The amount of carbon stored in Arctic sediments and permafrost is estimated as 500–2500 Gigaton Carbon (GtC), as compared with the world’s total fossil fuel reserves estimated as 5000 GtC. Compare with the 700 GtC of the atmosphere, which regulate CO<sub>2</sub> levels in the range of 180–300 parts per million and land temperatures in a range of about – 50 to + 50 degrees C, which allowed the evolution of warm blooded mammals. <span>The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.<b> </b></span>There is little evidence for an extinction at 3 Ma. However, by crossing above a CO<sub>2</sub> level of 400 ppm the atmosphere is moving into uncharted territory. At this stage, enhanced methane leaks threaten climate events, such as the massive methane release and fauna extinction of 55 million years ago, which was marked by rise of CO<sub>2</sub> to near-1000 ppm.”</p> <p>23. Predicted 2100 global surface warming above the 1900 level at various IPCC scenarios range up to 4.2<sup>o</sup>C (business as usual, BAU, A2 scenario). Unfortunately (as detailed in #24 below) current GHG emissions are well above the BAU scenario of A2 and the fossil fuel intensive scenario of A1F1. Dr Holdren points out that “ Last time T was 2<sup>o</sup>C above 1900 level was 130,000 yr BP ,with the sea level 4-6 m higher than today” and “Last time T was 3<sup>o</sup>C above 1900 level was ~ 30 million yr BP, with sea level 20-30 m higher than today.” </p> <p>24. The current rates of emissions are much higher than the worst case scenarios of the IPCC (the BAU scenario of A2 and fossil fuel intensive scenario of A1F1). The actual annual increase in CO<sub>2</sub> pollution in 2000-2006 was 3.3% as compared to the IPCC’s estimates of 1.8% for A2 and 2.4% for A1FA. <span>The rate of species extinction is currently 100-1,000 times greater than in the fossil record, this indicating that present global warming (0.8 <sup>o</sup>C temperature increase over the pre-industrial) is unacceptably high. </span>This tells us that (a) we are on track for catastrophic climate change and (b) the world is giving no indication that it going to change its ways. <span>Top UK climate scientists Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester) have recently estimated that an annual 6-8% <b>decrease</b> in greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is required to stabilize atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>-e (carbon dioxide equivalent) at 450 ppm (parts per million), a level at which there is still a 50% probability of exceeding an even more dangerous 2<sup>o</sup>C temperature increase over the pre-industrial (see: K. Anderson & A, Bows “Reframing the climate challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 2008.: <a href="http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf</a> ). Unfortunately, for example, current Australian Federal Government policies mean an essentially indefinite annual 2%<b> increase</b> in Australia’s Domestic and Exported GHG pollution. However the good news is that the best renewable and geothermal power is now competitive with fossil fuel-based power – the World may still be able to avoid catastrophic biosphere destruction through urgent requisite action (see “Good and bad climate news”: <a href="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/">http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/</a> ).</span></p> <p>25. The rate of growth of the atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration is growing<span> </span>(currently 387 ppm): 1970-1979: 1.3 ppm/y; 1980-1989: 1.6 ppm/y; 1990-1999: 1.5 ppm/y; 2000-2006: 1.9 ppm/y; it is currently about 2 ppm/y (see Mauna Loa Observatory data, US NOAA: <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/" rel="nofollow">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/</a> ). </p> <p>26. Consistent with #23-25, the temperature and sea-level rise have been at the high end of IPCC scenarios (S. Rahmstorff, J.E. Hansen et al, Science, Published Online February 1, 2007, <i><span style="font-style:normal">Science</span></i><i> </i>DOI: 10.1126/science.1136843, “Recent climate observations compared to projections”: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1</a> ). </p> <p>27. 2003 Europe heat wave killed 35,000 in Europe and 15,000 in France. Man-made global warming has roughly doubled the current risk for the 2003 conditions (see Stott et al., “Human contribution to the European heat wave of 2003”, <span>Nature</span> <span>432</span>, 610-614 (2 December 2004) : <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03089.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03089.html</a> ). In January 2009 Melbourne experienced its hottest period on record (<span>successive </span>daily maxima of 43.4, 44.3 and 45.1 degrees Centigrade).</p> <p>28. The areas of most severe predicted drought for 2071-2100 as compared to 1961-1990 are Central America, Brazil, Europe, Southern Africa, Central Asia, Australia and South East Asia, with drought also occurring in Siberia, Greenland, Antarctic and China (see #18) . In the case of Australia the present record drought in Southern Australia is associated with the warming of the Indian Ocean and a southward shift of rain-bearing weather patterns (see ABC “Study blames human activity for warming Indian Ocean”: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/30/1937256.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/30/1937256.htm</a> <span> </span>) . In addition Australia and the Pacific region are subject to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. According to the Australian Academy of Science: <a href="http://www.science.org.au/nova/028/028print.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.science.org.au/nova/028/028print.htm</a> ) the Walker Circulation involves hot, moist air arising in the western Pacific and flowing at 10-15 k height eastwards and but at the earth’s surface there is east-to-west trade winds circulation. A breakdown of the Walker circulation typically occurs every 2 to 7 years, leading to ENSO events lasting between 1.5 and 2 years (see: <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/Students_Teachers/elnanim/elani.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/Students_Teachers/elnanim/elani.shtml</a> ). The Southern Oscillation measures the difference in atmospheric pressure between Tahiti and Darwin. When the pressure is persistently low over the mid-Pacific, it is high over Australia and the Indian Ocean. A persistent below average atmospheric pressure in the mid-Pacific is associated with an El Niño, an eastward shift of the pattern,<span> </span>a warmer central to eastern sea, a cooler western sea and dry conditions [in Australia]. The opposite set of conditions to El Niño, known as La Niña, is frequently associated with cooler eastern sea, warmer western sea, heavy rains and flooding. When an El Niño event occurs, eastern Australia, parts of Asia and southern Africa may be plunged into severe drought, while parts of South America and the west coast of the USA may suffer unusually heavy rain and floods. There is some evidence for intensification of ENSO events associated with global warming (e.g. see “El Niño affected by global warming” : <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220133426.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220133426.htm</a> ).</p> <p>29. Melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets would raise the sea level by up to 70 metres but this would probably take thousands of years. However rates of 2-5 m per century as possible. Mega-delta countries (notably India and Bangladesh) and<span> </span>Island States (notably<span> </span>Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific and<span> </span>the<span> </span>Maldives in the Indian Ocean) are variously under threat from sea level rise, inundation, loss of agricultural land, salinization of underground water, more intensive hurricanes and storm surges.<span> </span>Thus, for example, mega-delta Bangladesh is under threat from rising sea level, increased storm effects and increased water carried by rivers from the warming<span> </span>Himalayan region (see: <span> </span>“Bangladesh is set to disappear under the waves by the end of the century”: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-is-set-to-disappear-under-the-waves-by-the-end-of-the-century--a-special-report-by-johann-hari-850938.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-is-set-to-disappear-under-the-waves-by-the-end-of-the-century--a-special-report-by-johann-hari-850938.html</a> ). For my dire predictions about the global warming threat to Bangladesh made in the 1990s see <span>“Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” (see: <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/" title="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/</a> )</span> .</p> <p style="text-align:justify">30. Agricultural productivity will decline, especially in tropical areas, due to increased temperature, drought, salinization and inundation <span> </span>(see: Rosenzweig, C. and Parry, M.L. (1994), Potential impact of climate change on world food supply, Nature vol. 367<i>,</i> 133-138.).<span> </span>Food supply is already compromised because of globalization (competition for food), fuel costs, global warming and the legislatively-mandated biofuel perversion (food for fuel in the US, UK, Brazil and EU) (see “<span>Biofuel famine, biofuel genocide, meat & global food price crisis”</span> : <a href="http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/05/biofuel-famine-biofuel-genocide-meat.html">http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/05/biofuel-famine-biofuel-genocide-meat.html</a> and “<span>Biofuel famine, biofuel genocide and the global food price crisis”<b> </b></span><span> </span>“: <a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html</a><span> </span>).</p> <p style="text-align:justify"><b>However there are some major “Elephant in the room” issues not canvassed above as set out below. </b></p> <p><b>31.</b> <b>“Elephant in the room” #1</b> <b>is mass species extinction</b> that is occurring at a rate variously estimated to be at 100-1,000 times that in the fossil record. 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> may be unavoidable in a grossly insufficiently unresponsive world (see: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html</a> ; <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html</a> ) yet coral reefs will die above 450 ppm atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> due to ocean warming and ocean acidification (see <span>Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg</span> : 2007, Science Show with Robyn Williams: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm</a> ). </p> <p><b>32. “Elephant in the room” #2</b> <b>is ocean heat content</b> that has increased by 10-15 x <span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">10<sup>22</sup> J</span> since 1950 (for a Graph and a cogent discussion of ocean warming – where most of the global warming is going - see Professor Barry Brook: <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/" rel="nofollow">http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/</a> ). Professor Brook: “<i><span style="font-style:normal">Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Centigrade as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere … The record warmth of 1998<span> </span>was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming but to a very strong El Niño (see figure, right). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.</span></i><i> </i><i><span style="font-style:normal">During an El Niño, the winds weaken and the hot water spreads out across the Pacific in a shallow layer, which increases heat transfer to the atmosphere. (During a La Niña, by contrast, as occurred during the early part of 2008, the process is reversed and upwelling cold water in the eastern Pacific soaks up heat from the atmosphere.)</span></i><i> </i><i><span style="font-style:normal">A temporary fall in the heat content of the oceans<span> </span>at this time may have been due to the extra strong El Niño</span> …</i>So, next time a climate sceptic turns to you and says ‘Global warming is nonsense ’cause the Earth hasn’t warmed in the last 10 years’, you can simply reply ‘Errr - why are you ignoring 97% of the problem?”.</p> <p><b>33.</b> <b>“Elephant in the room” #3 is climate racism, biofuel genocide and climate genocide</b>. Already 16 million people (2/3 under-5 year old infants) die avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease on Spaceship Earth with the First World in charge of the flight deck – but this is being impacted by global warming, drought and<span> </span>legislatively-mandated US, UK, and EU<span> </span>biofuel perversion (food for fuel driving up food prices) (see #30). However according to Professor James Lovelock FRS fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed man-made global warming i.e. about<span> </span>10 billion people (mostly non-European) will perish due to First World profligacy (for details of mainly European<span> </span>profligacy see #9 and #10 above) (see <span>New Scientist Environment, 23 January 2009, “One last chance to save mankind“: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html</a> )</span>. <b><span> </span></b>Yet <span> </span>this extraordinary ongoing climate racism, ongoing biofuel genocide and increasing climate genocide is resolutely ignored – just as the world ignores the 9-11 million violent and non-violent excess deaths associated (so far) with the Bush Wars (1990-2009)<span> </span>(see: G. Polya “9-11 excuse for US global genocide. The real 9-11 atrocity: millions dead (9-11 million) in Bush wars (1990-2009)”: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25184/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25184/42/</a> ; <span>G. Polya, “Climate Emergency, Exceptionalism & Ignoring Downunder. Letter to eminent Australians over Public Honesty”: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25702/42/" rel="nofollow" title="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25702/42/">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25702/42/</a> ; G. Polya </span>“Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (see: <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/</a> and <a href="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" rel="nofollow" title="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya">http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya</a> ).</p> <p><b>34. “Elephant in the room” #4 is that it may be too late.</b> Top UK climate scientists, Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, made the following shocking conclusions in a 2008 paper in the prestigious Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: “According to the analysis conducted in this paper, stabilizing at 450 ppmv [carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2-e, atmospheric concentration measured in parts per million by volume] requires, at least, global energy related emissions to peak by 2015, rapidly decline at 6-8% per year between 2020 and 2040, and for full decarbonization sometime soon after 2050 …Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonization (in excess of 6% per year), it is difficult to envisage anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilization at or below 650 ppmv CO<sub>2</sub>-e … Ultimately, the latest scientific understanding of climate change allied with current emissions trends and a commitment to “limiting average global temperature increases to below 4<sup>o</sup>C above pre-industrial levels”, demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda, and the economic characterization of contemporary society” (<span>see: K. Anderson & A, Bows “Reframing the climate challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 2008.: <a href="http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf</a> ).</span></p> <p><b><span>D. Consequences of global warming, mass extinctions and the Great Barrier Reef.</span></b></p> <p><br /></p><p>As outlined in C.3 above,<span> </span>climate change threatens<span> </span>water, agriculture, health (e.g. heat waves and via disease geography changes e.g. Dengue, Hanta and malaria), property (storms, floods), coastal regions (hurricanes, storm surges, sea level rises e.g. Island States, Mega-delta States), engineered environments (e.g. Netherlands, New Orleans),<span> </span>biosphere and biodiversity (mass species extinction), net CO<sub>2 </sub>release from vegetation<span> </span>and non-linear, runaway climate change due to positive feedbacks (se Chapter 16, G. Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”: (see: <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/" title="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/</a> ). Mark Lynas (see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lynas</a> ) in his book “Six degrees: our future on a hotter planet” (see “What will climate change do to our planet”: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.ece" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.ece</a> ) discusses predicted consequences<span> </span>of increasing temperatures (add on about 0.5<sup>o</sup>C to his<span> </span>“<span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T above 1990 value” to get “<span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T above 1900 value”).</p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>The following estimates of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> and </b><b><span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T above 1900 are based on the upper estimate of worst-case global surface warming versus time by the IPCC (2007) as reproduced by J. Holdren (see: </b><a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> ) <b>and assuming 2- 3<span> </span>ppm/y CO<sub>2</sub> increase. </b></p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>At present (atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> at about 390 ppm ; </b><b><span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T 0.8<sup>o</sup>C above 1900; a further </b><b><span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T of about 1<sup>o</sup>C implicit through “thermal inertia”) </b><span> </span>we already have mass species extinctions at a 100-1,000 times greater rate than that indicated by the fossil record;<span> </span>permafrost melting and methane release is occurring; islands have already become uninhabitable (Carteret Islands, Papua New Guinea and Lohachara Island in India); salinization of Kiribati islands and other Pacific islands is occurring; more intense forest fires; heat waves (e.g. the 2003 heat wave that killed 35,000 people in Europe); worsening drought; doubled power of tropical hurricanes with repeated storm surge inundations in the Bay of Bengal and the Gulf of Mexico); a major food crisis due to price rises (this involving a combination of globalization and rich nations outcompeting poor nations; global warming with drought and decreased production in particular areas; and the legislatively-mandated biofuel perversion in the US, UK and EU; see C.30); already 16 million people die avoidably each year (2/3 being under-5 year old infants) from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease – and this is increasingly being climate change-impacted (notably in Africa). </p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>At 400 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> (by about 2015, assuming 2 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>/y )</b> all of the Arctic summer sea ice will be gone (contributing to the “albedo flip” positive feedback to accelerate global warming); the events currently occurring will worsen;<span> </span>we are in “new territory” according to Dr Andrew Glikson<b><span style="color:navy"> </span></b><span style="color:navy">(see “The Methane Time Bomb and the Triple Melt-down" (see: : <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm</a> ): “</span><span>The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres” i.e. the long-term equilibrium situation is dire. </span></p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> (by about 2030, assuming 3 </b><b>ppm CO<sub>2</sub>/y, <span>or earlier due to positive feedbacks; </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T 2<sup>o</sup>C above 1900</b><span>). Above 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> there is intensification of conditions outlined above; major damage to coral reefs – including Australia’s Great Barrier Reef - which will be dying due to ocean warming and acidification above 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>; increasing damage to already stressed fisheries and agriculture; mass starvation.</span></p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>500 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> (by about 2045, assuming 3 </b><b>ppm CO<sub>2</sub>/y, <span> or earlier due to positive feedbacks; </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T about 3<sup>o</sup>C above 1900</b><span>). According to Professor James Lovelock (“The Revenge of Gaia”) above 500 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> there is major loss of phytoplankton and phytoplankton-dependent life in the oceans; major loss of phytoplankton-derived dimethylsulphide (important for cloud formation); and major ice-melting due to exceeding the tipping point for loss of the Greenland ice sheet. Massive forest fires; stressed plants will be losing carbon rather than absorbing it; widening, phytoplankton-free, low oxygen “death zones” in the oceans; catastrophic starvation in Africa and South Asia.</span></p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>600 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> (by about 2080, <span>assuming 3 </span>ppm CO<sub>2</sub>/y, <span> or earlier due to positive feedbacks; </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US">Δ</span>T about 4<sup>o</sup>C above 1900</b><span>). Death and burning of the Amazon rainforest; runaway thaw of permafrost making for unstoppable global warming; massive depopulation of huge coastal areas due to storms and inundation; catastrophic mass starvation and breakdown of human civilization as we know it. Current Mediterranean climate summer heat wave maxima (46<sup>o</sup>C in the city of Adelaide, Australia, January 2009) will now be circa 50<sup> o</sup>C, requiring high technology survival for the privileged few; fewer than1 billion will remain alive. </span></p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>Record species extinctions. </b><span> </span>At current levels of human impact NOW (e.g. 0.8<sup>0</sup>C above pre-industrial, current 387 ppm CO<sub>2 </sub>) we already have an animal extinction rate that is one thousand (1,000) times greater than that of the fossil record (see: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html</a> ; <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>Death of coral and </b><b>Great Barrier Reef</b>. At above about 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> (in about 2030) the world’s coral reefs – including Australia’s Great Barrier Reef – will start dying because of ocean acidification as well as from bleaching due to photosynthetic symbiont expulsion from increased ocean temperature. Top coral scientists say the “tipping point” for world coral death is in the 450-500 ppm atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> zone (see: Science 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1737 – 1742: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737</a> ; <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm</a> ; <a href="http://www.exeter.ac.uk/cornwall/about_the_campus/latest_news/coral.shtml" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.exeter.ac.uk/cornwall/about_the_campus/latest_news/coral.shtml">http://www.exeter.ac.uk/cornwall/about_the_campus/latest_news/coral.shtml</a> ; <span style="color:navy"><a href="http://green-blog.org/tag/the-great-barrier-reef/" rel="nofollow" title="http://green-blog.org/tag/the-great-barrier-reef/">http://green-blog.org/tag/the-great-barrier-reef/</a> ;</span> see: also the latest 2007 IPCC Synthesis Report: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.ipcc.ch/">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a> and <a href="http://green-blog.org/2007/11/21/summary-of-the-summary-of-the-2007-ipcc-ar4-synthesis-report/" rel="nofollow">http://green-blog.org/2007/11/21/summary-of-the-summary-of-the-2007-ipcc-ar4-synthesis-report/</a> ) .</p> <p><b><span>E. Australia’s leading per capita GHG pollution, First World biofuel genocide and climate genocide. </span></b></p> <p><b>1. </b><b>Australia</b> is the world’s #1 Developed Nation CO<sub>2</sub> polluter.</p> <p>Consulting the US Energy Information Administration database (see: <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> ) we obtain the following information on “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) pollution” in “tonnes (t) per person per year” for Australia and other major polluters (2004 data): 19.2 (for Australia; 40 if you include Australia’s coal exports), 19.7 (the US), 18.4 (Canada), 9.9 (Japan), 4.2 (the World), 3.6 (China), 1.0 ( India) and 0.25 (for Bangladesh).</p> <p><b>2. Germanwatch index places </b><b>Australia</b> #54 in the list of the worst CO<sub>2</sub> polluters (#56 being worst).</p> <p>Of course “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO<sub>2</sub> pollution” is but one – albeit a very important – indicator of climate impact. The Germanwatch Climate Change Index 2008, a comparison of the 56 top CO<sub>2</sub> emitting nations (see: <a href="http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm">http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm</a> ), takes other parameters into account in ranking. In this ranking of 56 top CO<sub>2</sub> emitting nations, Sweden and Germany are #1 and #2 for greenhouse responsibility, while shale-oil-rich Canada (a US ally), coal-rich Australia (a US ally), the USA and oil-rich Saudi Arabia (US-linked) rank #53, #54, #55 and #56, respectively (see: <a href="http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm">http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm</a> ) .</p> <p><b>3. In 2004 </b><b>Australia</b> (0.3% world population) gave 3% total fossil fuel CO<sub>2</sub> pollution. Consulting the US Energy Information Administration database (see: <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> ), in 2004 Australia (0.3% world’s population) yielded 1.4% of world’s fossil fuel-derived CO<sub>2</sub> (3% including coal exports). The World’s 27,043 Mt fossil fuel-derived CO<sub>2</sub> (2004) comprised 10,850 Mt (petroleum), 5602 Mt (gas), and 10,592 Mt (coal) with the Australia breakdown being 810 Mt (total), 117 Mt (petroleum), 52 Mt (gas), 217 Mt (coal, domestic), 424 Mt (coal exports).</p> <p><b>4. </b><b>Australia</b> is the world’s largest coal exporter (30% total world coal exports).</p> <p>From Australian Coal Association (see: <a href="http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.htm">http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.htm</a> ) Australia maintained its position as the world's largest coal exporter with exports of 233 Mt in 2005-06 ($A24.5 billion) or 30% of the world total (777 Mt) (M, G, T = million, billion, trillion).</p> <p><b>5. </b><b>Australia</b> produces about 6% of world hard coal (black coal).</p> <p>From World Coal Institute (see: </p> <p><a href="http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188">http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188</a> ) total World: hard coal consumption 5339 Mt (2006); coal production 5370 Mt (2006); World brown coal 914 Mt ; Australia 309 Mt hard coal (5.8% of World production; used for thermal electricity and as coking coal for steel production).</p> <p>From Australian Minerals Index (see: </p> <p><a href="http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/build/common/siteindex.jsp" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/build/common/siteindex.jsp">http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/build/common/siteindex.jsp</a> ) Australia produces about 6% of the world's saleable black coal and is ranked fourth after China (45%), US (19%) and India (8%). </p> <p><b>6. </b><b>Australia</b> has 24% of World’s brown coal and produces 8% of World’s pa.</p> <p>From Australian Minerals Index (see: </p> <p><a href="http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/aimr/commodity/brown_coal.jsp" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/aimr/commodity/brown_coal.jsp">http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/aimr/commodity/brown_coal.jsp</a> )</p> <p>Australian brown coal production for 2005/06 was 67.7 Mt (valued at $849 million) - all was from Victoria and used to generate electricity. Australia has about 24% of World recoverable brown coal and is ranked first. However, Australia produces about 8% of the World's brown coal and is ranked fifth largest producer after Germany (22%), Russia (10%), USA (9%) and Greece (8%).</p> <p><b>7. Australian coal reserves. </b></p> <p>Australia has about 77 billion tonnes of coal resources</p> <p><a href="http://gc3.cqu.edu.au/modern-world/index.php" rel="nofollow" title="http://gc3.cqu.edu.au/modern-world/index.php">http://gc3.cqu.edu.au/modern-world/index.php</a> . There are 909 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide (see: <a href="http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=100" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=100</a> ). The price in 2006 was about US$100/t but is expected to reach US$300/t in 2008.</p> <p><b>8. Coal to CO<sub>2</sub> and coal to kWh conversions.</b></p> <p>Carbon (C, atomic weight 12) to carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>, molecular weight 44 ) conversion involves a stoichiometry of 12 g C -> 44 g CO<sub>2</sub> i.e. 1 g C to 3.7 g CO<sub>2</sub>. 1 g coal yields 1.85 g CO<sub>2</sub>. In a coal-fired power station 0.327 kg coal yields 1 kWh. (kilowatt hour).</p> <p><b>9. Australia gets 77% of its electricity from coal, 92% from fossil fuels.</b></p> <p>According ot the Australian Uranium Association (see: <a href="http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm">http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm</a> ) electricity generation in Australia involves about 51 billion W (51 GW) capacity; the price varies during the day etc at about 4 c /kWh; in 2006 Australia's power stations produced 255 billion kilowatt hours (trillion Wh = TWh) of electricity; the energy source breakdown was 92.2% Carbon-based (black coal 54.8% , brown coal 21.9%, oil 1.3%, gas 14.2%, hydro 6.8%. and renewables 1%; 77% is coal-based electricity.</p> <p><b>10. The true cost of coal energy is 4 times the market cost (</b><b>Ontario</b> Government study) – 4,860 Australians killed by coal annually @ $1.6 million each?</p> <p>In Ontario (see: <a href="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836">http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836</a>) the cost/kWh jumped from $0.04 to $0.164 with environmental and human impacts added; pollution from coal plants producing 27 TWh/year (20% of supply) kill 668 people per year in Ontario (population 12.2 million) suggesting <b>coal plants producing 77% of Australia's annual 255 TWh of electricity (see: </b><span><a href="http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm</a> </span><b>) i.e. 0.77 x 255 = 196.4 TWh/year might kill about 196.4 TWh x 668/27 TWh = 4,859 people annually in Australia</b> (population 21 million); in Australia 255 bn kWh x $0.04/kWh = $10.2 bn; 0.77 (coal-based) x $10.2 bn = $7.85 billion; $7.85 bn /4,859 deaths i.e.<b> Australian electricity consumers pay for electricity @</b> <b>$1.6 million per fellow Australian killed by coal.</b> </p> <p><b>11. Key estimates relating to Australian “annual per capita GHG pollution”</b> and deriving from authoritative primary data provided by the <span>US Energy Information Administration (see: </span><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> <span>) and the UN Population Division (see: <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpp/" rel="nofollow">http://esa.un.org/unpp/</a> ) and taking into account the OFFICIAL Australian 2020 targets of “5% reduction on 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2020” and “60% reduction on 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2050”..</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual LNG exports” (Mt CO<sub>2</sub> produced): 21.8 (2000), 28.4 (2008), 38.2 (2020), 62.8 (2050). </span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual coal exports) (Mt CO<sub>2</sub> produced): 327.6 (2000), 474.3 (2008), 609.7 (2020), 1255.4 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual Domestic GHG pollution) (Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e produced) : 535.3 (2000), 627.2 (2008), 508.5 (2020), 267.7 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e produced): 884.7 (2000), 1129.9 (2008), 1245.4 (2020), 1585.9 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s population (Millions): 19.1 (2000), 21.0 (2008), 23.4 (2020), 28.0 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual per capita Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-e per person per year): 46.3 (2000), 53.8 (2008), 53.2 (2020), 56.6 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution as % of 2000 value”: 100% (2000), 128% (2008), 141% (2020), 179% (2050).</span></p> <p>As indicated above, Australia needs to REDUCE its “annual per capita Domestic & Exported” GHG pollution” by 90% to bring it back to the World average – but, in stark contrast, is set to INCREASE this under its quite FALSELY labelled “GHG pollution reduction” policies.</p> <p><span>According to Professor Andy Pitman (</span>University of New South Wales, a <span>top Australian climate scientist</span> and a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) “The basic science says we need to try to keep CO<sub>2</sub> and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 450 parts per million equivalent, which is the bundle of all the greenhouse gases” (see ABC report: <a href="http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:LaR4V48Pn7gJ:www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl%3Fhttp://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2306464.htm+abc+%22andy+pitman+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au" rel="nofollow">http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:LaR4V48Pn7gJ:www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl%3Fhttp://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2306464.htm+abc+%22andy+pitman+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au</a> ) .</p> <p><b>12. Climate genocide.</b> <span>Top UK climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS (the Gaia hypothesis) (a) says that fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming; (b) says of carbon dioxide sequestration “</span>That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done”; and (c) regards biochar as the last chance to save humanity and the biosphere: “There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal” (see <span>New Scientist Environment, 23 January 2009: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html</a> )</span>. </p> <p>However the Rudd Labor Australian Government (a) is remorselessly committed to an indefinite 2% annual <b>increase</b> in Australian Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution (contrary to top expert UK advice that an annual 6-8% <b>decrease</b> in GHG pollution is urgently needed to avert an atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>-e concentration of 450 ppm) and to Australia as the world’s biggest coal exporter and a World leader in annual per capita GHG pollution, threatening billions of impoverished non-Europeans with climate genocide; (b) is committed to <span>carbon dioxide sequestration (as stated overseas recently by Her Excellency the Governor General); and (c) </span>totally rejects biochar as a solution (as stated recently by Climate Minister Penny Wong). </p> <p>The Australian Government’s falsely named “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” has a highly flawed Emissions Trading System (ETS) as an INDIRECT mechanism of Government intervention in “the market” to supposedly get “the market” (the actual source of the Climate Emergency problem) to move to a solution. The Australian ETS is highly flawed Cap and Trade system and, in short, is based on a Cap that will destroy the Great Barrier Reef, ignores 2/3 of Australian GHG sources, obviates personal energy saving, and absurdly RETURNS a large part of the Government receipts for “licences to pollute” to the major polluters (for detailed critique see “Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will INCREASE Carbon Pollution”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australian-carbon-pollution-reduction-scheme-will-increase-carbon-pollution">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australian-carbon-pollution-reduction-scheme-will-increase-carbon-pollution</a> ) .</p> <p><b><span><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span>F. Current economic renewable and geothermal energy sources. </span></b></p> <p><span>CROSS-OVER POINT: the best renewable and geothermal power are now roughly the same “market price” as fossil fuel-based power and about 4-5 times the “true cost” (taking environmental and human costs into account). </span></p> <p><span> As outlined in the Climate Emergency Fact Sheets of the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home</a> ) and links provided by the Climate Emergency Network (</span>see: <span><a href="http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/">http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/</a> ), man-made (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution from fossil fuel burning, methanogenic livestock production, other agriculture (notably major crop-based biofuel generation) and deforestation have lifted the atmospheric GHG concentration to a dangerous level. </span></p> <p><span> Thus according to top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen (</span>Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; member of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science): “Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO<sub>2</sub> [carbon dioxide; atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> 280 ppm pre-industrial], including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO<sub>2</sub> for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO<sub>2</sub> was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO<sub>2</sub> fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm [parts per million], a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO<sub>2</sub> will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO<sub>2</sub> forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO<sub>2</sub> is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO<sub>2</sub> is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects” (see: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126" rel="nofollow" title="http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126">http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126</a> ).</p> <p>Leading Australian energy options expert Dr Mark Diesendorf (Department of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales) has recently reviewed the situation for Australia in an article entitled “Greenhouse Solutions Need Effective Government Policies”: “The only energy technologies that are capable of reducing greenhouse gas emissions substantially and rapidly are efficient energy use, natural gas [half as CO<sub>2</sub> polluting as coal] and the lower-cost renewable energy sources. However, as oil prices escalate, the limited reserves of natural gas are coming under increasing demand for electricity generation, heat and transportation, and so gas is not a major or long-term part of the solution. Capturing CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from coal burning is an unproven technological system, which could not make a significant contribution until the 2020s. Therefore, the main policy emphasis should be directed to the large-scale deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy” (see: <a href="http://www.politicsinthepub.org/AMWUmag_MD.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.politicsinthepub.org/AMWUmag_MD.pdf">http://www.politicsinthepub.org/AMWUmag_MD.pdf</a> ).</p> <p> </p> <p>In 2007 I published an assessment of the relative costs of power from a variety of sources (see: <a href="http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack" rel="nofollow" title="http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack">http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack</a> ). A key observation was that a Canadian Ontario Government-commissioned study had found that the “true cost” of coal burning-based power (taking the human and environmental impact into account) was 4-5 times the “market price” (see: (see: <a href="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836">http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836</a> ; <a href="http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack" rel="nofollow" title="http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack">http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack</a> ; and <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/pollution-deaths-from-fossil-fuel-based-power-plants" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/pollution-deaths-from-fossil-fuel-based-power-plants">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/pollution-deaths-from-fossil-fuel-based-power-plants</a> ). Already in 2007 it was apparent that the cost of power from all the lower-cost renewable energy systems (in cents per kilowatt hour) was LOWER than the “true cost” of coal burning-based power. </p> <p> However, as documented below, it is NOW apparent that a crucial CROSS-OVER POINT has now been reached at which the cost of power from a range of lower-cost renewable sources is about the SAME as the “market price” of coal burning –based power.</p> <p> </p> <p>In the analysis below the COST OF POWER (e.g. as measured in units such as US cents per kilowatt hour or US$ per megawatt hour) is given for a variety of non-carbon energy sources together with an estimate of the MAGNITUDE of the various renewable and/or non-carbon energy resources.</p> <p><span> <b>1. Wind Power. </b>According to NOVA Science in the News (published by the prestigious Australian Academy of Science, 2008): “</span>advances in wind power science and technology are reducing the cost of wind power to a point at which it is becoming competitive with many other energy sources (at about 8 Australian cents per kilowatt hour)” [i.e. 5.6 US cents per kilowatt hour [kWh] or US$56 per megawatt hour [MWh]) <span>(see: <a href="http://www.science.org.au/nova/037/037key.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.science.org.au/nova/037/037key.htm">http://www.science.org.au/nova/037/037key.htm</a> )</span>. According to the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) the average cost of onshore wind power in the UK (2005) was 3.2 p/kWh [i.e. 5.2 US cents per kilowatt hour or US$52 per megawatt hour (MWh)] . According to the US Energy Information Administration the cost per unit of energy produced from wind was estimated in 2006 to be comparable to the cost of new generating capacity in the United States for coal and natural gas: <b>wind cost was estimated at US$55.80 per MWh [megawatt hour], coal at US$53.10/MWh and natural gas at US$52.50/MWh</b> (see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power" rel="nofollow" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power</a> ).</p> <p>According to a Stanford University study “global wind power generated at locations with mean annual wind speeds ≥ 6.9 m/s at 80 m is found to be ~72 TW (~54,000 Mtoe [million tons of oil equivalent] annually) for the year 2000. Even if only ~20% of this power could be captured, it could satisfy 100% of the world’s energy demand for all purposes (6995-10177 Mtoe) and over seven times the world’s electricity needs (1.6-1.8 TW)” (see: <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html">http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html</a> ). </p> <p> </p> <p>There is huge potential for off-shore wind power. According to Research and Markets (May 2008; summarizing the Global Wind Power Report 2008): “Wind is the world’s fastest-growing energy source with an average annual growth rate of 29% over the last ten years. In 2007, the global wind power generating capacity crossed 94 gigawatts (GW). This represents a twelve-fold increase from a decade ago, when world wind-generating capacity stood at just over 7.6 gigawatts (GW). Being an emerging fuel source a decade ago, wind energy has grown rapidly into a mature and booming global industry. Further, the power generation costs of wind energy have fallen by 50%, moving closer to the cost of conventional energy sources. The future prospects of the global wind industry are very encouraging and it is estimated to grow by more than 70% over the next five years to reach 160 gigawatts (GW) by year 2012” (see: <a href="http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/a1c452/global_wind_power" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/a1c452/global_wind_power">http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/a1c452/global_wind_power</a> ).</p> <p><b> 2. Concentrated Solar Power with Energy Storage. </b><span>The US solar energy company Ausra uses a form of Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) technology called </span>Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) technology. In short, solar energy is collected and concentrated in a sophisticated way and used to generate steam to drive turbines and hence generate electricity. A key feature is that solar energy is stored, enabling Ausra CLFR plants to generate electricity 24 hours per day. An Ausra factory producing 700 megawatt (MW) of solar collectors annually opened in Nevada in 2008. Ausra is involved in joint construction of a 177 megawatt (MW) CLFR plant for California. According to Ausra (2008): <span> “</span>Ausra's innovations in collector design dramatically reduce the cost of solar thermal generation equipment and <b>bring solar power to prices directly competitive with fossil fuel power</b>. Using Ausra's current solar technologies, all U.S. electric power, day and night, can be generated using a land area smaller than 92 by 92 miles” (see: <a href="http://www.ausra.com/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.ausra.com/">http://www.ausra.com/</a> ).</p> <p> </p> <p>Solar energy hitting the Earth is roughly 10,000 times greater than the energy we consume globally (see: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2170327.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2170327.htm</a> ; <a href="http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solen.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solen.html">http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solen.html</a> ; <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html</a> ) . Global electricity production (2005) was 17,400 TWh (see US Energy Information Administration: <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/international/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/international/">http://www.eia.doe.gov/international/</a> ). Exciting new research developments on hydrogen fuel cells (at Monash University, Australia) and efficient electrolysis (at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) presage an efficient, solar energy-based, hydrogen fuel cell-run transportation system within a decade (see: <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i31/8631notw.html" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i31/8631notw.html</a> ; <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/mu-mtl081408.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/mu-mtl081408.php</a> ).</p> <p><b>3. Wave power. </b>The cost of wave power by the CETO system (a sea bed-fixed pump linked to a buoyant actuator) is about that of wind power. There are further big cost efficiencies if wave power is used for cogeneration of potable water. A Carnegie Corporation submission to an Australian Parliamentary Committee (2007) estimates that “CETO can offer <b>zero-emission base-load electricity generation capacity at a cost comparable to existing wind power [i.e. about US$50 per MWh] </b>and the capacity to provide potable water to major population centres using 100% clean energy” ( see: <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/isr/renewables/submissions/sub104.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/isr/renewables/submissions/sub104.pdf">http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/isr/renewables/submissions/sub104.pdf</a> ).</p> <p> </p> <p>Further, this Submission states: “The World Energy Council has estimated that approximately 2 Terawatts (TW), about double current world electricity production, could be produced from oceans via wave power … It is estimated that 1 million gigawatt hours (GWh) of wave energy hits Australian shores annually, or more than four times Australian’s total annual electricity consumption of 210,000 gigawatt hours (2004 figures)” (see: <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/isr/renewables/submissions/sub104.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/isr/renewables/submissions/sub104.pdf">http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/isr/renewables/submissions/sub104.pdf</a> ).</p> <p><b>4. Hydro power.</b> According to the New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development (2002) various New Zealand hydroelectric power systems provided power for 4-10 NZ cents per kilowatt hour [2.4-5.9 US cents per kilowatt hour i.e. <b>US$24-59 per megawatt hour</b>] (see: <a href="http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage____15343.aspx" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage____15343.aspx">http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage____15343.aspx</a> ).</p> <p> </p> <p>According to BNET (2007): “Hydro power currently accounts for approximately 20% of the world's electricity production, with about 650,000 MW (650 GW) installed and approximately 135,000 MW (135 GW) under construction or in the final planning stages … It is estimated that only about a quarter of the economically exploitable water resources has been developed to date” ( see: <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n27296291" rel="nofollow" title="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n27296291">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n27296291</a> ).</p> <p> <b>5. Geothermal power. </b>According to Professor John Veevers (Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia): “The [Australian hot rocks] geothermal resource extends over 1000 square kilometres … Modelled costs are 4 Australian cents per kilowatt hour, plus half to 1 cent for transmission to grid [<b>4.5 Australian cents per kWh = 3.2 US cents per kWh or US$32 per MWh</b>]. This compares with 3.5 cents for black coal, 4 cents for brown coal, 4.2 cents for gas, but all with uncosted emissions. Clean coal, the futuristic technology of coal gasification combined with CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration or burial, yet to be demonstrated, comes in at 6.5 cents, and solar and wind power at 8 cents” see “The Innamincka hot fractured rock project” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics”, editor Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007; also see energy cost-related chapters in this book by Dr Gideon Polya “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality”, Dr Mark Diesendorf “A sustainable energy future for Australia”, and by Martin Mahy “Hydrogen Minibuses”).</p> <p> </p> <p>According to the Report of an interdisciplinary panel of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) experts entitled “The Future of Geothermal Energy” (2006) : “EGS [Enhanced Geothermal Systems] is one of the few renewable energy resources that can provide continuous base-load power with minimal visual and other environmental impacts … The accessible geothermal resource, based on existing extractive technology, is large and contained in a continuum of grades ranging from today’s hydrothermal, convective systems through high- and mid-grade EGS resources located primarily in the western United Sates) to the very large, conduction-dominated contributions in the deep basement and sedimentary rock formations throughout the country. By evaluating an extensive database of bottom-hole temperature and regional geologic data (rock types, stress level, surface temperature etc), we have estimated that the total EGS resource has to be more than 13 million exajoules (EJ) [13 million EJ x 277.8 TWh/EJ = 3611.4 million TWh. Using reasonable assumptions regarding how heat would be used from stimulated EGS reservoirs, we also estimated the extractable portion to exceed 0.2 million EJ (0.2 million EJ x 277.8 TWh/EJ = 55.56 million TWh) ... With technological improvements, the economically extractable amount of useful energy could increase by a factor of 10 or more, thus making EGS sustainable for centuries” (see Cahpter1, p1-4: <a href="http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf">http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf</a> ). </p> <p><b>Nuclear power</b> as a serious future option can be dismissed in this analysis because the overall nuclear power cycle (from mining to waste disposal) currently has a <b>major CO<sub>2</sub>-polluting component</b> (equivalent to that of a modern gas-fired power plant); the cost of nuclear power via the UK's newest Sizewell B plant is 15 Australian cents per kilowatt hour [10.5 US cents per kilowatt hour or US$105 per MWh; required high grade uranium ore is a very limited resource; and long-term safe storage of waste and security issues are unresolved. For a previous, 2007 analysis of these relative power cost issues see “Renewables. How the Numbers Stack Up” by Dr Gideon Polya: <a href="http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack" rel="nofollow" title="http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack">http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack</a> .</p> <p> </p> <p><b>Biofuel</b> from land-based crops (notably canola, palm oil, sugar and corn) is <b>highly CO<sub>2</sub> polluting</b> from mechanisms such as de-forestation and loss of soil carbon. Indeed the biofuel perversion that is legislatively mandated in the US, the UK and the EU is making a huge contribution to global food price rises that in turn are threatening the lives of “billions” of people according to UK Chief Scientific Advisor Professor John Beddington FRS (see “Global Food Crisis. US Biofuel & CO<sub>2</sub> threaten billions”: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/21277/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/21277/42/</a> ). </p> <p> </p> <p><b>Summary. </b>While the World has arguably already reached “peak oil” and uranium, gas and coal resources are limited (for details see Dr James Hansen’s Letter to the PPM of Australia: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf</a> ), the solar energy hitting the Earth is roughly 10,000 times greater than the energy that Man consumes globally (see: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2170327.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2170327.htm</a> ). Geothermal resources are immense. Already developed and implemented geothermal power technologies and low-cost renewable energy technologies directly dependent on solar energy (concentrated solar thermal power) or indirectly dependent on solar energy (hydro, wind and wave power) have reached a CROSS-OVER POINT at which the cost of power in cents per kilowatt hour are COMMENSURATE with the current “market cost” of fossil fuel burning –based power. Further, the “true cost” of coal burning-based power (i.e. taking the environmental and human impact into account) is 4-5 times the “market cost”. Exciting new research developments at Monash University, Australia, and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, presage the possibility of an efficient, solar energy-based, hydrogen fuel cell-run transportation system within a decade (see: <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i31/8631notw.html" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i31/8631notw.html</a> ; <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/mu-mtl081408.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/mu-mtl081408.php</a> ). </p> <p> </p> <p>Former US Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore has recently (mid-2008) called for 100% renewable electric power with ten years: “Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years” (see: <a href="http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/</a> ). Carbon-free power is now technically and economically feasible at a “market cost” commensurate with the “market cost” of fossil fuel burning-based power. </p> <p>The science, technology and economics thus indicate that the urgent need (enunciated by NASA’s Dr James Hansen and his colleagues) to reduce atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration from the current 387 ppm to no more than 350 ppm can be realized NOW with low-cost renewable energy and geothermal energy implementation coupled with cessation of fossil fuel burning and de-forestation, minimization of agricultural methanogenesis, massive re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to the world’s soils. </p> <p><b><span><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span>F. Top scientists’ opinions and need to reduce atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to about 300 ppm.</span></b></p> <p>We are familiar with the notion of getting an expert second opinion when an expert medical specialist has diagnosed life threatening circumstances. However a second opinion that is a bit more optimistic simply decreases the perceived odds of death somewhat and the dire prediction remains. Leading world climate experts offer the EXPERT DIAGNOSIS that the World faces a life-threatening Climate Emergency requiring urgent action to STOP carbon pollution and indeed to REDUCE existing atmosphere greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. However inexpert, non-scientist politicians and corporate spokespersons with vested interests in fossil fuel burning and their inexpert climate sceptic supporters are merely expressing inexpert partisan opinions that would be seen as dishonest and dangerously irresponsible in the context of expert medical specialist diagnosis of life threatening circumstances.</p> <p>Below are some recent, Web-documented, expert opinions of outstanding, world-leading climate change experts and other eminent scientific experts and top scientific organizations with expertise to make authoritative comments about the Climate Emergency and related matters. Links to articles about these outstanding persons are variously given for your convenience. Key quotes are in bold and are presented in a wider educative context.</p> <b> </b> <p><b>1. Dr James Hansen</b> (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; member of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science; see: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/</a> ; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen</a> ; for 1880-present NASA GISS Global Temperature graphed data see: <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/</a> and <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/</a> ): </p> <p>(a) With 8 UK, French and US climate change scientist co-authors (2008): “Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO<sub>2</sub> [carbon dioxide; atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> 280 ppm pre-industrial], including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO<sub>2</sub> for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO<sub>2</sub> was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO<sub>2</sub> fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm [parts per million], a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. <b>If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO<sub>2</sub> will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.</b> The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO<sub>2</sub> forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO<sub>2</sub> is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO<sub>2</sub> is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects” (see: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126</a> ).</p> <p>(b) In relation to the recent book <b>“Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Philip Sutton</b> (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008; see: <a href="http://www.climatecodered.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatecodered.net/</a> ): “<b>A compelling case … we face a climate emergency.</b>”</p> <p>(c) 2007 (Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M. Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. <cite><span style="font-style:normal">Phil. Trans. Royal. Soc. A</span></cite><i>,</i> 365, 1925-1954): “Paleoclimate data show that the Earth's climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks predominate. This allows the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. One feedback, the "albedo flip" property of water substance, provides a powerful trigger mechanism. <b>A climate forcing that "flips" the albedo of a sufficient portion of an ice sheet can spark a cataclysm. Ice sheet and ocean inertia provides only moderate delay to ice sheet disintegration and a burst of added global warming. Recent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of our control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures. Carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) is the largest human-made climate forcing</b>, but other trace constituents are important. Only intense simultaneous efforts to slow CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and reduce non-CO<sub>2</sub> forcings can keep climate within or near the range of the past million years. The most important of the non-CO<sub>2</sub> forcings is methane (CH<sub>4</sub>), as it causes the 2nd largest human-made GHG climate forcing and is the principal cause of increased tropospheric ozone (O<sub>3</sub>), which is the 3rd largest GHG forcing. Nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O) should also be a focus of climate mitigation efforts. Black carbon ("black soot") has a high global warming potential (~2000, 500, and 200 for 20, 100 and 500 years, respectively) and deserves greater attention. Some forcings are especially effective at high latitudes, so concerted efforts to reduce their emissions could still "save the Arctic", while also having major benefits for human health, agricultural productivity, and the global environment” (see: <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_2.html" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_2.html</a> ).</p> <p>(d) 2008, in an address to the US National Press Club and a briefing to the US House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming Congressional Committee: “<b>CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature</b>” (see: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf</a> ).</p> <p>(e) <span>Dr James Hansen et al. (2008): “Stabilization of Arctic sea ice cover requires, to first approximation, restoration of planetary energy balance. Climate models driven by known forcings yield a present planetary energy imbalance of +0.5-1 W/m2. Observed heat increase in the upper 700 m of the ocean confirms the planetary energy imbalance, but observations of the entire ocean are needed for quantification. CO<sub>2</sub> amount must be reduced to 325-355 ppm to increase outgoing flux 0.5-1 W/m2, if other forcings are unchanged. A further imbalance reduction, and thus CO<sub>2</sub> ~300-325 ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago”</span> <span>(see: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf</a> ).</span></p> <p><b>2. Dr Rajendra Pachauri</b> (2008) (economist and environmental scientist; chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri</a> ): “[The UN negotiations] must progress rapidly, otherwise I am afraid that not only future generations but even this generation will treat us as having been irresponsible…The EU has to lead. If the EU does not lead, I am afraid that any attempt to bring about change and to manage the problem of climate change will collapse…Today there is a high level of expectation. If the EU does not lead, you will not be able to bring the US on board, North America, on board. You will not be able to bring on board other countries in the world as well…<b>we would have to stabilise the greenhouse-gas concentration at more or less the level at which we are today. But in order to do that [to limit the overall warming since pre-industrial times to 2 C (3.6 F)], we have a window of opportunity of only seven years because emissions will have to peak by 2015 and reduce after that. We cannot permit a longer delay</b>…The very wise target that the EU had set of 2.0 C (3.6 F) may need to be looked at once more, because the impacts are turning out to be more serious than we had estimated earlier” (see: <a href="http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGxKw2XS4_IHH6Xc7RVAY02dkNBg">http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGxKw2XS4_IHH6Xc7RVAY02dkNBg</a> ).</p> <p><b>3. Dr Graeme Pearman</b> (2008) (top Australian climate scientist; Chief of CSIRO Atmospheric Research in Australia from 1992 to 2002; world expert on increasing levels of CO<sub>2 </sub>and global warming): "This science tells us that the world's climate is changing and that the change is primarily because of an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities. We are changing the climate. <b>Very recent science suggests that climate change may be happening faster than we expected and that we and other species on the planet are more vulnerable to change than we thought. This is now forcing serious consideration of rapid responses by all nations as we work to tackle this shared problem. Challenges in this quest include a general community lack of appreciation of the significance of what appears to be small shifts in global average temperature, incompleteness of the knowledge-base and the need to respond using risk management</b>" (see: <a href="http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20080326/climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20080326/climate-change.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>4. <cite><span style="font-style:normal">Professor David de Kretser, A.C., Governor of Victoria, Australia</span></cite></b><cite><span style="font-style:normal"> (2008) (eminent Australian medical scientist; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_de_Kretser" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_de_Kretser</a> ) <b>in launching the book “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Philip Sutton</b> (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008): “</span></cite>The book draws on a vast array of information to build a cogent and compelling case that we do have a genuine emergency on our hands if we are to limit the rise of greenhouse gas emissions to a level at which we can limit the degradation of our planet to manageable levels …<b> There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency</b>.” (see: <a href="http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered</a> ).</p> <p><b>5. Dr James Lovelock, </b>(top UK climate scientist; Fellow of the Royal Society; proponent of the Gaia hypothesis; <a href="http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/</a> ; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock</a> ). </p> <p>(a) 2006: “In Chapter 1 I describe a simple model where the sensitive part of the Earth system is the ocean; as it warms, so the area of the sea that can support the growth of algae grows smaller as it is driven ever closer to the poles, until algal growth ceases. The discontinuity comes because algae in the ocean both pump down carbon dioxide [by photosynthesis] and produce clouds [through cloud-seeding dimethyl sulphide production]. (Algae floating in the ocean actively remove carbon dioxide from the air and use it for growth; we call the process “pumping down” to distinguish it from the passive and reversible removal of carbon dioxide as it dissolves in rain or sea water). <b>The threshold for the failure of the algae is about 500 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide, about the same as it is for </b><b>Greenland</b>’s unstoppable melting” (See: “The Revenge of Gaia”, Allen Lane, London; p51).</p> <p>(b) 2007: “Most of the large climate models used to predict future climates still rely mainly on atmospheric physics, and this includes the models on which the IPCC report is based. The influence of the clouds and the ocean are incompletely included and that of the Earth's natural ecosystems hardly at all. Present day climate models are good at explaining past climates but seem unable to agree on the course of global heating beyond about 2050, by the end of the century predictions vary over a wide range. This stark view was reinforced in May this year by the publication by Rahmstorf and his colleagues ["Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections", <i>Science</i> 4 May 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5825, p. 709] of high quality measurements of the rise in global mean temperature, sea level and CO<sub>2</sub>. <b>These showed that even the gloomiest predictions of the IPCC were underestimating the severity of climate change now” </b>(see: <a href="http://www.jameslovelock.org/page24.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.jameslovelock.org/page24.html</a> ). </p> <p>(c) 2006: “When Malthus first warned of the overpopulation of the Earth in 1800, there were only one billion of us. He has been derided ever since, yet I think he was right. <b>One billion is about the right number and I fear that we will reach it not by our own choice but by attrition</b>” (see: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/james-lovelock-you-ask-the-questions-411765.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/james-lovelock-you-ask-the-questions-411765.html</a> ; see also: <a href="http://machineslikeus.com/People/Lovelock_James.html" rel="nofollow">http://machineslikeus.com/People/Lovelock_James.html</a> ; <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/15/desertification.ethicalliving" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/15/desertification.ethicalliving</a> and )</p> <p>(d) 2008: “I hate academia. Most of the scientists who work there are not free men any more and they can't speak out. That's no way to do science” (see: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/15/desertification.ethicalliving" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/15/desertification.ethicalliving</a> ).</p> <p>(e) 2009, on <b>biochar</b>: "The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO<sub>2</sub> is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it ... I'm an optimistic pessimist. I think it's wrong to assume we'll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13517-major-food-source-threatened-by-climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">we would not find enough food</a>, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less" (see New Scientist, January 2009: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>6. Professor David Pimentel</b> (1998) (Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Science at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA): “At present, humans face serious malnutrition, land degradation, water pollution and shortages, and declining fossil energy resources. In addition, with related changes in the natural environment, many thousands of species are being lost forever. If the human population increases dramatically over the next several decades, as it is projected to do, the strains on these limited resources will grow as well. Some people are starting to ask just how many people the Earth can support if we want to cease degrading the environment and move to a sustainable solar energy system? <b>There is no solid answer yet, but the best estimate is that Earth can support about 1 to 2 billion people with an American Standard of living, good health, nutrition, prosperity, personal dignity and freedom.</b> This estimate suggests an optimal U.S. population of 100 to 200 million. To achieve this goal, humans must first stabilize their population and then gradually reduce their numbers to achieve a sustainable society in terms of both economics and environmental resources. With fair policies and realistic incentives, such a reduction in the human population can be achieved over the next century” (see: <a href="http://www.populationpress.org/essays/essay-pimentel.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.populationpress.org/essays/essay-pimentel.html</a> ). </p> <p><b>7. Dr</b> <b>Timothy Searchinger</b> and colleagues (“Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change”, Science<i> </i>29 February 2008, Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1238 – 1240: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861</a> ): “Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for<sup> </sup>gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester<sup> </sup>carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have<sup> </sup>failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide<sup> </sup>respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to<sup> </sup>new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to<sup> </sup>biofuels. <b>By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate<sup> </sup>emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol,<sup> </sup>instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse<sup> </sup>emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167<sup> </sup>years</b>. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands,<sup> </sup>increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about<sup> </sup>large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste<sup> </sup>products.”</p> <h2><a name="TOC-8.-Dr-Joseph-Fargione-and-colleague"></a><span style="font-size:12pt">8. Dr Joseph Fargione</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal"> and colleagues (“Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt”</span><span style="font-size:12pt">, </span><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">Science</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal"> 29 February 2008, Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1235 – 1238: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747</a> ): “Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>)<sup> </sup>emissions from fossil fuels make switching to low-carbon fuels<sup> </sup>a high priority. Biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy<sup> </sup>source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on<sup> </sup>how they are produced. </span><span style="font-size:12pt">Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas,<sup> </sup>or grasslands to produce food crop–based biofuels in Brazil,<sup> </sup>Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a "biofuel carbon<sup> </sup>debt" by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO<sub>2</sub> than the annual<sup> </sup>greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide<sup> </sup>by displacing fossil fuels.</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal"> In contrast, biofuels made from<sup> </sup>waste biomass or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned<sup> </sup>agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no<sup> </sup>carbon debt and can offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.”</span></h2> <p><b>9. Professors O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. J. Mumby</b> and colleagues (Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, Science 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1737 – 1742 (see: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737</a> ): “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. <b>Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained. Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse</b>.”</p> <p><b>10. Dr Chris Thomas</b> and numerous colleagues (Extinction risk from climate change, <i>N<span>ature</span></i> 427, 145-148, 2004; see: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html</a> ): “Climate change over the past <img alt="approx" src="javascript:void(0);" height="10" border="0" width="11" />30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species<sup> </sup>and has been implicated in one species-level extinction. Using projections of species' distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth's terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be 'committed to extinction'. <b>When the average of the three methods and two dispersal scenarios is taken, minimal climate-warming scenarios produce lower projections of species committed to extinction (18%) than mid-range (24%) and maximum-change (35%) scenarios. These estimates show the importance of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.”</b></p> <p><b>11. Dr Cynthia Rosenzweig</b>, Professor David D. Karoly and numerous other colleagues (2008) (Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. <cite>Nature</cite>, 453, 353-357, 2008): “Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. <b>Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents</b>” (see: <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html</a> ).</p> <h2><a name="TOC-12.-Dr-Andrew-Balmford-and-numerous"></a><span style="font-size:12pt">12. Dr Andrew Balmford</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal"> and numerous colleagues (<i>Science</i> 9 August 2002, Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature, Science Vol. 297, pp. 950 – 953):</span><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">“On the eve of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, it is timely to assess progress over the 10 years since its predecessor<sup> </sup>in Rio de Janeiro. Loss and degradation of remaining natural habitats<sup> </sup>has continued largely unabated. </span><span style="font-size:12pt">However, evidence has been accumulating<sup> </sup>that such systems generate marked economic benefits, which the<sup> </sup>available data suggest exceed those obtained from continued habitat<sup> </sup>conversion. We estimate that the overall benefit:cost ratio of<sup> </sup>an effective global program for the conservation of remaining<sup> </sup>wild nature is at least 100:1</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">” (see: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950</a> ).</span></h2> <p><b>13. Dr</b> <b><span style="color:black">Phillip S. Levin, Dr Donald A. Levin </span></b><span style="color:black">(2002) (Dr Donald A. Levin is Professor of Biology, University of Texas, Austin; his son Dr Phillip Levin is a biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service): “The numbers are grim: Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the past century. On average, one extinction happens somewhere on earth every 20 minutes. Ecologists estimate that half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years. Although crude and occasionally controversial, such statistics illustrate the extent of the current upheaval, which spans the globe and affects a broad array of plants and animals…<b>The current losses are, however, exceptional. Rates of extinction appear now to be 100 to 1,000 times greater than background levels, qualifying the present as an era of “mass extinction”.</b> The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past” (see: </span><a href="http://www.soc.duke.edu/%7Epmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.soc.duke.edu/~pmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>14. Dr John Holdren</b> (2008) (Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; Director of the Woods Hole Research Center; recent Chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science): “I don’t like the term “global warming,” because it’s misleading. It implies something that’s mainly about temperature, that’s gradual, and that’s uniform across the planet. And in fact, temperature is only one of the things that’s changing. It’s a sort of an index of the state of climate. The whole climate is changing: the winds, the ocean currents, the storm patterns, snow packs, snowmelt, flooding, droughts. Temperature is just a bit of it. <b>It’s also highly non-uniform. The largest changes are occurring in the far north in the Arctic, in the Antarctic Peninsula</b> in the far south. It is certainly not gradual, in the sense that it is rapid compared to the capacity of ecosystems to adjust. It’s rapid compared to the capacity of human systems to adjust… I think that most people, even most scientists, continue to underestimate how far down the path to climate catastrophe we’ve already traveled. We are committed, the United States and 190 other countries are committed, under the Framework Convention on Climate Change to avoid dangerous human interference in the climate system. And the fact is, it’s already too late to do that. We’re already experiencing dangerous interference. Floods, major floods, are up all over the world. Wildfires are up in almost every region of the world where wildfires have been a problem. Wildfires erupt fourfold in the last thirty years in the western United States” (see: <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/3/global_disruption_more_accurately_describes_climate" rel="nofollow">http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/3/global_disruption_more_accurately_describes_climate</a> ).</p> <p><b>15. Professor Tim Flannery</b> (2008) (eminent Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist and climate change activist; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery</a> ): “[inserting global dimming sulphur into the stratosphere] would change the colour of the sky. It's the last resort that we have, it's the last barrier to a climate collapse. We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve…The consequences of doing that are unknown …<b>The current burden of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is in fact more than sufficient to cause catastrophic climate change</b>… Everything's going in the wrong direction at the moment, timelines are getting shorter, the amount of pollution in the atmosphere is growing…It's extremely urgent" (see: <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>16. The UK Royal Society</b> (founded in 1660; “the Royal Society, the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth, is at the cutting edge of scientific progress”; the Royal Society is one of the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies and its members include the most outstanding British and Commonwealth scientists): “Climate change controversies: a simple guide. The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science. <b>This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies</b>” (see: <a href="http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229" rel="nofollow">http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229</a> ).</p> <p><b>17. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007</b> (the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988; it has produced 4 successive Assessment Reports, the last being the Fourth in 2007: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a> ): “<b>Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level … Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is <i>very likely</i> due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations</b>” (see IPCC, 2007 Summary for Policymakers: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf</a> ).</p> <p><b>18. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)</b>, 2006 (founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals; the AAAS journal <i>Science</i> has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of 1 million): “<b>The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now</b>.” (see: <a href="http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml</a> ).</p> <p><b>19. US National Academy of Sciences (US PNAS) and 10 other national science academies</b>, 2005 (the US NAS is one of the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies and its members include the most outstanding US scientists): “The US National Academy of Sciences joined 10 other national science academies today in calling on world leaders, particularly those of the G-8 countries meeting next month in Scotland, to acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing, to address its causes, and to prepare for its consequences. <b>Sufficient scientific understanding of climate change exists for all nations to identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reductions in net global greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. </b>The statement echoes the findings and recommendations of several previous reports by the US National Academies” (see: <a href="http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf</a> ).</p> <p><b>20. Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)</b> (Australia’s premier scientific research organization), Climate Change in Australia Technical Report 2007: “<b>The key findings of this report includes that by 2030, temperatures will rise by about 1 ºC over Australia – a little less in coastal areas, and a little more inland - later in the century, warming depends on the extent of greenhouse gas emissions. </b>If emissions are low, warming of between 1 ºC and 2.5 ºC is likely by around 2070, with a best estimate of 1.8 ºC. Under a high emission scenario, the best estimate warming is 3.4 ºC, with a range of 2.2 ºC to 5 ºC” (see: <a href="http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps3j6.html#2" rel="nofollow">http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps3j6.html#2</a> ).</p> <p><b><span>21. </span><span style="color:navy">Dr Andrew Glikson </span></b><span style="color:navy">(an </span>Earth and paleo-climate research scientist at Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) <span style="color:navy">in “The Methane Time Bomb and the Triple Melt-down" (see: : <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm</a> ): “</span>For some time now, climate scientists warned that melting of subpolar permafrost and warming of the Arctic Sea (up to 4 degrees C during 2005–2008 relative to the 1951–1980) are likely to result in the dissociation of methane hydrates and the release of this powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (methane: 62 times the infrared warming effect of CO<sub>2</sub> over 20 years and 21 times over 100 years) <span>… </span>The amount of carbon stored in Arctic sediments and permafrost is estimated as 500–2500 Gigaton Carbon (GtC), as compared with the world’s total fossil fuel reserves estimated as 5000 GtC. Compare with the 700 GtC of the atmosphere, which regulate CO<sub>2</sub> levels in the range of 180–300 parts per million and land temperatures in a range of about – 50 to + 50 degrees C, which allowed the evolution of warm blooded mammals. <b>The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres. </b>There is little evidence for an extinction at 3 Ma. However, by crossing above a CO<sub>2</sub> level of 400 ppm the atmosphere is moving into uncharted territory. At this stage, enhanced methane leaks threaten climate events, such as the massive methane release and fauna extinction of 55 million years ago, which was marked by rise of CO<sub>2</sub> to near-1000 ppm.” </p> <p><b><span>22. </span>Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber</b>, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research., Germany (see: <a href="http://www.pik-potsdam.de/institute/director" rel="nofollow">http://www.pik-potsdam.de/institute/director</a> ) (2008): “"It is a compromise between ambition and feasibility. A rise of 2<sup>o</sup>C could avoid some of the big environmental disasters, but it is still only a compromise…It is a very sweeping argument, but nobody can say for sure that 330ppm is safe. <b>Perhaps it will not matter whether we have 270ppm or 320ppm, but operating well outside the [historic] realm of carbon dioxide concentrations is risky as long as we have not fully understood the relevant feedback mechanisms</b>" (see: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions</a> ) [280 ppm is the pre-industrial atmospheric CO<sub>2 </sub>concentration]. </p> <p><b>23. Professor Peter Doherty</b> (Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research, 1995; Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1996; Australian of the Year, 1997.Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne; author “A Light History of Hot Air”, Melbourne University Publishing, 2007; see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Doherty" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Doherty</a> ): </p> <p>(a) 2007: “There are a whole lot of good ideas out there to try to deal with global warming. The journal Science had an issue earlier this year that explored 10 or so totally different technologies that are involved in producing clean energy or cleaning up carbon dioxide from coal-fired plants. What makes me sad is that we have been missing the boat in Australia and putting more emphasis on fossil fuels than on renewables where we have enormous potential. Until very recently, our Federal Government has made every wrong decision … Solar, wind and deep geothermal. There are all sorts of other possibilities. Generating hydrogen from algae. There is some carbon capture sequestration work which involves producing hydrogen from coal. There is also discussion of using algae to capture carbon. It is probably inevitable that there is more nuclear power in the Northern Hemisphere. I’m not totally convinced we need it in Australia. Germany has rejected nuclear power and gone for solar and Spain is putting a lot of effort into solar. Denmark has chosen wind power … <b>Everything is about hot air. Political and in the atmosphere. We are in real danger.</b> The recent CSIRO report suggests that temperatures could rise as much as five degrees by 2070. The ice is melting much more quickly than anyone expected. The Himalayas are melting very fast. We are now talking about the Arctic being ice-free by 2030” (see: <a href="http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/unarticleid_4775.html" rel="nofollow">http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/unarticleid_4775.html</a> ).</p> <p>(b) 2007 in “<b>A Light History of Hot Air</b>” (Melbourne University Publishing, 2007): “<b>We are consuming the future and it’s up to us to develop and use renewable resources</b>” (see: <a href="http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/unarticleid_4775.html" rel="nofollow">http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/unarticleid_4775.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>24. Professor Barry Brook</b> (Director, Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, University of Adelaide): “<i><span style="font-style:normal">Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Centigrade as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere … The record warmth of 1998<span> </span>was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming but to a very strong El Niño (see figure, right). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.</span></i><i> </i><i><span style="font-style:normal">During an El Niño, the winds weaken and the hot water spreads out across the Pacific in a shallow layer, which increases heat transfer to the atmosphere. (During a La Niña, by contrast, as occurred during the early part of 2008, the process is reversed and upwelling cold water in the eastern Pacific soaks up heat from the atmosphere.)</span></i><i> </i><i><span style="font-style:normal">A temporary fall in the heat content of the oceans at this time may have been due to the extra strong El Niño</span> …</i>So, next time a climate sceptic turns to you and says ‘Global warming is nonsense ’cause the Earth hasn’t warmed in the last 10 years’, you can simply reply ‘Errr - why are you ignoring 97% of the problem?”(see: <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/" rel="nofollow">http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/</a> ). </p> <p> </p> <p><b><span>H. Acute global warming threat to older people and what older people must do for the Planet. </span></b></p> <b> </b> <p><b>1. The World has already passed a key tipping point for Arctic ice melting and requisite “negative CO<sub>2</sub> emissions”</b> <b>will impact all</b> – According to top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen and colleagues, the world atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentration at 385 ppm has already passed a key tipping point for the melting of Arctic sea ice, with serious implications for <b>human mass mortality and mass species extinctions</b> from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, tundra melting, sea level rises and runaway global warming from potentially devastating “positive feedback” (worsening) effects (e.g. the “albedo flip” involving light-reflecting snow and ice replacement with light-absorbing dark water; melt water lubrication of glacier movement; release of greenhouse gases from melting tundra; burning of major tropical forests stopping CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration and releasing CO<sub>2</sub> ; warming-exacerbated storms limiting ocean CO<sub>2</sub> absorption; global warming limiting phytoplankton productivity and hence diminishing CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration and dimethyl sulphide production needed for “seeding” light-reflecting cloud formation). Dr Hansen and colleagues say that we must return atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of no more than 350 ppm through cessation of fossil fuel burning, replacement of the carbon economy with solar-based renewables and geothermal energy, decrease in atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> through re-afforestation and return of carbon to the soil as pyrolytically-generated biochar (see: <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf">http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf</a> ; see also the latest 2007 IPCC Synthesis Report: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.ipcc.ch/">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a> ). </p> <b> </b> <p><b>2. Heat waves will differentially kill elderly people</b> – In 2003 there was a heatwave in Europe that killed 35,000-50,000 in Europe and nearly 15,000 in France. Older people were differentially affected, the problems being that older people are frailer, more prone to heat stress and have diminished brain signalling of dehydration stress (see: <a href="http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/elderlyheat.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/elderlyheat.asp</a> ; <a href="http://www.medindia.net/news/Brain-Malfunction-Explains-Dehydration-in-Elderly-31069-1.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.medindia.net/news/Brain-Malfunction-Explains-Dehydration-in-Elderly-31069-1.htm</a> ; <a href="http://www.sfbr.org/pages/news_release_detail.php?id=15" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfbr.org/pages/news_release_detail.php?id=15</a> ; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave</a> ; <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm</a> ).</p> <b> </b> <p><b>3. Retirement benefits require GDP growth, carbon-based growth is no longer possible but cheap, non-carbon energy alternatives are already developed </b>– For people who are self-funded retirees on superannuation schemes or government pensions it is necessary for GDP growth to compensate for outlays and inflation. However, as briefly summarized in #1, the <b>Climate Emergency requirement for urgent implementation of “negative CO<sub>2</sub> emissions”</b> means that the present carbon-based energy economy in which GDP is directly promotional to CO<sub>2</sub> pollution has to STOP (for recent reviews of such already developed, low-cost, non-carbon renewable and geothermal energy technologies see items below and : <a href="http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213" rel="nofollow">http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213</a> ; <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/</a> ; <a href="http://www.coolearthsolar.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolearthsolar.com/</a> ; <a href="http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf</a> ).</p> <p><b>4. The true cost of coal burning-based energy is 4-5 times the market</b> <b>cost (greater impact on investment-dependent retirees)</b> - A study for the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Energy has found that the “true cost” in cents/kWh of coal burning-based electricity with environmental and human impacts added is 4-5-fold greater than the “market cost”. This estimate makes all the latest renewable and geothermal energy provision technologies CHEAPER than the “true cost” of coal-based electricity. Investment-dependent retirees are differentially impacted (see: <a href="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836">http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836</a> ; ).</p> <p><b>5. Pollutants from fossil fuel-based electricity generation kill 0.3 million people annually world-wide</b> <b>(greater risk to older people) </b>- Toxic pollutants are produced from fossil fuel-based electricity generation, notably carbon monoxide, particulates, sulphur dioxide, heavy metals (notably mercury, Hg), and volatile organics. Pollution from coal plants producing 27 TWh/year (20% of supply) kill 668 people per year in Ontario (population 12 million) suggesting coal plants producing 77% of Australia's annual 255 TWh of electricity (see: <a href="http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm</a><span> </span>; i.e. 0.77 x 255 = 196.4 TWh/year) might kill about 196.4 TWh x 668/27 TWh = 4,859 people annually in Australia (population 21 million). “Annual coal-based electricity deaths” [“total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”] are 170,000 [283,000] (the World), 11,000 [13,000] (India), 47,000 [47,500] (China), 49,000 [72,000] (the US), 3,400 [6,900] (the UK), 4,900 [5,400] (Australia) and 2,700 [3,800](Canada) as compared to 110 [360] (heavily renewable-based New Zealand). There is a much greater life-time and old-age impact on older people (see: <a href="http://green-blog.org/2008/06/14/pollutants-from-coal-based-electricity-generation-kill-170000-people-annually/" rel="nofollow">http://green-blog.org/2008/06/14/pollutants-from-coal-based-electricity-generation-kill-170000-people-annually/</a> ; <a href="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836">http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836</a> ). </p> <p><b>6. Already developed renewable and geothermal energy is CHEAPER than the “true cost” of coal-based electricity</b> – Some 2007 figures in Australian cents/kWh for tradable electricity: 4 (coal “market cost”); 8 (likely coal-based under an ETS or emissions trading scheme); 16-20 (coal “true cost” taking environmental and human cost into account); 15 nuclear (via the UK's newest Sizewell B plant); 5 (geothermal); 8 (wind power); 15 (concentrated solar); 25-45 (standard silicon-based photovoltaics or PVs) (<a href="http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213" rel="nofollow">http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213</a> ). However sliver technology will reduce PV costs 3-fold (<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1805365.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1805365.htm</a> ) and tidal and wave power are established local possibilities. CIGS non-silicon thin film (<a href="http://www.globalsolar.com/content/view/25/49/" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalsolar.com/content/view/25/49/</a> ; <a href="http://www.thinfilmsblog.com/2007/12/157-efficient-thin-films-cigs-solar.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thinfilmsblog.com/2007/12/157-efficient-thin-films-cigs-solar.html</a> ; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_indium_gallium_selenide" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_indium_gallium_selenide</a> ), thin balloon-based concentrated photovoltaics (CPV) (<a href="http://www.coolearthsolar.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolearthsolar.com/</a> ; <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/05/rethinking_the.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/05/rethinking_the.html</a> ) and large-scale concentrated solar power (CSP) with efficient energy storage (<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/" rel="nofollow">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/</a> ; <a href="http://www.ausra.com/news/releases/080306.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ausra.com/news/releases/080306.html</a> ) are CURRENTLY approaching cost-competitiveness with the “market price” of coal-based power. Plus plug-in electric cars, local electricity plus usable heat generation, energy efficiency, vast energy solar resource … </p> <p><b>7. Older people want to leave the world a better place</b> (but see #1). </p> <p><b>8. Older people must be acutely concerned over the fate of their children and grandchildren</b> (see #1). </p> <p><b>9. Older people have enjoyed the benefits of the profligate carbon economy and are obliged to “put back”</b> (see #1). </p> <p><b>10. Older people have the accumulated experience, money and time to make a difference</b> – join with other like-minded people and help save the Planet: <b>CONTACT:</b> Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (YVCAG): <a href="mailto:mawj@bigpond.com">mawj@bigpond.com</a> ; Climate Emergency Network (CEN): <a href="http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/</a> . </p> <p><b>PLEASE DISTRIBUTE the following 1-page Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions sheet to everyone you can </b>(see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions</a> ).</p> <p><b><span>Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions</span></b></p> <p><span>Just as we turn to top medical specialists for advice on life-threatening disease, so we turn to the opinions of top scientists and in particular top biological and climate scientists for Climate Change risk assessment and Climate Emergency Facts and requisite Actions as exampled below (for detailed documentation of everything below see the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home</a> ). </span></p> <p><b><span>Professor James Hansen</span></b><span> (top US climate scientist, head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies): “We face a climate emergency”. </span></p> <p><b><span>Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty:</span></b><span> “We are in real danger.”</span></p> <p><b><span>Professor David de Kretser AC</span></b><span> (eminent medical scientist and Governor of Victoria, Australia) “There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency.”</span></p> <p><b><span>Dr Andrew Glikson</span></b><span> (palaeo-climate scientist, ANU): “The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has … raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.”</span></p> <p><b><span>Major Climate Emergency Facts</span></b></p> <p><b><span>1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentration has increased</span></b><span> to 387 parts per million (ppm) as compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial and is increasing at about 2.5 ppm per year with average global temperature about 0.8 degrees C above the pre-industrial. </span></p> <p><b><span>2. Man-made global warming due to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution</span></b><span> from carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides is already associated with major ecosystem damage (Arctic, ocean, coral reefs), melting of glaciers and Arctic sea ice, sea level rise, methane release from melting tundra and positive feed-back effects accelerating GHG pollution and warming.</span></p> <p><b><span>3. Consequences of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration increase and warming to current 387 ppm:</span></b><span> major ecosystem damage; current species extinction rates are 100-1,000 times greater than previously; <b>to over 400 ppm:</b> “new territory” not seen for millions of years with acute dangers from positive feedbacks; <b>to over 450 ppm:</b> major damage and death to coral reefs and associated fisheries; <b>to over 500 ppm:</b> major loss of ocean phytoplankton, ocean life, cloud seeding, the Greenland ice sheet and densely populated global coastal regions due to massive sea level rises.</span></p> <p><span> </span><b><span>Climate Emergency Actions URGENTLY Required</span></b></p> <p><span> </span><b><span>1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability</span></b><span> with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying.</span></p> <p><b><span>2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of about 300 ppm</span></b><span> as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists.</span></p> <p><b><span>3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy</span></b><span> (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils <b>coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation </b>of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.</span></p> <p><b>I. Reference list</b>.</p> <p><b>Key websites</b></p> <p>ACIA climate change graphics: <a href="http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/pdfs/ACIAGraphics.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/pdfs/ACIAGraphics.pdf</a> .</p> <p>Professor Barry Brook’s “Brave New Climate” (see: <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">http://bravenewclimate.com/</a> ) provides expert, critical, climate sceptic-debunking articles on climate change issues from one of Australia’s top climate scientists.</p> <p>Climate Emergency Network (see: <span><a href="http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/</a> </span>)<span> </span>has many useful links.</p> <p>IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a> .</p> <p>NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS) analyses and graphs: <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/</a> ).</p> <p>New Scientist Environment (see: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/section/environment" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/section/environment</a> ).</p> <p>Planet Extinction: <a href="http://www.planetextinction.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.planetextinction.com/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya, Climate Emergency, Sustainability Emergency: <a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya, “Rational risk management , science and denial”: <a href="http://rationalriskmanagement.blogspot.com/">http://rationalriskmanagement.blogspot.com/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya, “Global avoidable mortality”: <a href="http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/">http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/</a> .</p> <p>US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) updates: <a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/" rel="nofollow">http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/</a> .</p> <p>US Energy Information Administration database: : <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> .</p> <p>Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home</a> ) has placed a series of carefully researched and documented articles and Fact Sheets on the Web (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/system/app/pages/sitemap/hierarchy">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/system/app/pages/sitemap/hierarchy</a> ).</p> <p>Green Blog (see: <a href="http://www.green-blog.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.green-blog.org/</a> ) and MWC News (see: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/HomePage" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/HomePage</a><span> </span>and <a href="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya</a> ) provide well-researched analyses not usually found in the mainstream media.</p> <p><b>Books</b></p> <p><span>Peter Doherty</span> “A Light History of Hot Air” (Melbourne University Publishing, 2007).</p> <p>Jared Diamond “Collapse” (Penguin, 2005).</p> <p>James Lovelock “The Revenge of Gaia” (Allen Lane- Penguin, London, 2006).</p> <p>Mark Lynas “Six degrees: our future on a hotter planet” (see “What will climate change do to our planet”: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.ece" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.ece</a> ).</p> <p>Gideon Polya <span>"Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003) [Chapter 2 is a succinct summary of Biochemistry].</span></p> <p>Gideon Polya “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (Polya, 2007).</p> <p>Gideon Polya “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainablity” (Polya, 2008).” </p> <p>David Spratt & Phillip Sutton “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008).</p> <p><b>Key reviews and articles</b></p> <p><span>K. Anderson & A, Bows “Reframing the climate challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 2008.: <a href="http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf</a> ).</span></p> <p>Barry Brook on Ocean warming: <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/" rel="nofollow">http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/</a> ).</p> <p>FAO 2006 report “Livestock’s Long Shadow Environmental issues and options”: <a href="ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/A0701E/A0701E00.pdf">ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/A0701E/A0701E00.pdf</a> ).</p> <p>Andrew Glikson (2008), “Milestones in the evolution of the atmosphere with reference to climate change”, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 55, 125-139: <a href="http://www.zeroemissionnetwork.org/files/MILESTONES_19-6-07.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.zeroemissionnetwork.org/files/MILESTONES_19-6-07.pdf</a> .</p> <p><span style="color:navy">Andrew Glikson (2008) </span><span style="color:navy">“The Methane Time Bomb and the Triple Melt-down" (see: : <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm</a> ).</span></p> <p><span style="color:navy">Andrew Glikson (2008), “21st century climate tipping points”, Oped News, 2008: <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/21st-century-climate-tippi-by-Andrew-Glikson-081121-208.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/21st-century-climate-tippi-by-Andrew-Glikson-081121-208.html</a><span> </span>and <a href="http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2008/11/andrew-glikson-21st-century-climate.html">http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2008/11/andrew-glikson-21st-century-climate.html</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:navy">J. Hansen et al, “Climate change and trace gases”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., 365, 1925-1954, 2007: <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:navy">James Hansen et al (2008), “Target atmospheric CO2: where should Humanity aim?”: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf</a> . </span></p> <p>Dr Hansen’s Letter to PM Rudd: <span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf</a></span></p> <p>John Holdren, June 2008 power point-illustrated<span> </span>lecture<span> </span>“The Science of Climate Disruption” (see: <a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> ).</p> <p>IPCC Climate Change 2007, AR4 Synthesis report, Summary for policy makers: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf</a> </p> <p>Mauna Loa Observatory data, US NOAA: <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/" rel="nofollow">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/</a> .</p> <p><span>J. Lovelock interview, New Scientist Environment, 23 January 2009, “One last chance to save mankind“: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html</a> )</span>.</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2007) “<span>Formal complaint to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reAustralian Government involvement in Aboriginal Genocide, Iraqi Genocide, Afghan Genocide and Climate Genocide”: <a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html</a> .</span></p> <p>Gideon Polya (2007) “Renewables. How the Numbers Stack Up”, New Matilda:<span> </span><a href="http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack" rel="nofollow" title="http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack">http://newmatilda.com/2007/08/08/how-numbers-stack</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2007) Climate criminals and climate genocide. Anglo-Celtia threatens final Bengali Holocaust”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/13576/26/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/13576/26/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2007) “War on Terra, climate criminals. :Terra” painting”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/15671/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/15671/42/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2007), “US nuclear, greenhouse and poverty threats. “Apocalypse Now” painting”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/17652/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/17652/42/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2008) “Climate emergency, exceptionalism and ignoring Downunder. Letter to eminent Australians over public honesty”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25702/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25702/42/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2008) “Clean energy world painting, NASA’s Dr Hansen pleads for Negative CO<sub>2</sub> emissions”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23119/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23119/42/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2008) “Global food crisis. US Biofuel and CO2 threaten world”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/21277/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/21277/42/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2008) “Solar energy and the end of war. US balloon technology to slash solar energy cost 90% by 2010”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2008) “HOPE: best renewables now cost the same as coal power. “One Day Pathétique” Symphony Painting”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26137/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26137/42/</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2008) “Ecocide, terracide and climate genocide. Huge GHG polluter Australia opts for national and global climate suicide”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/27313/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/27313/42/</a> </p> <p>Gideon Polya (2008)“<span>Biofuel famine, biofuel genocide, meat & global food price crisis”</span> : <a href="http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/05/biofuel-famine-biofuel-genocide-meat.html">http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/05/biofuel-famine-biofuel-genocide-meat.html</a> .</p> <p>Gideon Polya (2008) “<span>Biofuel famine, biofuel genocide and the global food price crisis”<b> </b></span><span> </span>“: <a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html</a><span> </span>).</p> <p><span>Gideon Polya (2009) “Good and bad climate news”: <a href="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/">http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/</a> ).</span></p> <p><span>Gideon Polya (2009) “9-11 excuse for US global genocide. The real 9-11 atrocity: millions dead (9-11 million) in Bush wars (1990-2009)”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25184/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25184/42/</a> .</span></p> <p><span>Gideon Polya (2009) “First World climate genocide – global warming to kill 2 billion Indians this century”, Sulekha: <a href="http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/01/first-world-climate-genocide-global-warming-to-kill.htm" rel="nofollow">http://gideon.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/01/first-world-climate-genocide-global-warming-to-kill.htm</a> .</span></p> <p>S. Rahmstorf, J.E. Hansen et al, Science, Published Online February 1, 2007, <i><span style="font-style:normal">Science</span></i><i> </i>DOI: 10.1126/science.1136843, “Recent climate observations compared to projections”: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1</a> ).</p> <p>S. Rahmstorf, J.E. Hansen et al, “Recent climate observations compared to projections”, Science express, 2008: <a href="http://usclimatenetwork.org/science-impacts/ipcc/general-ipcc-background/RahmstorfAnalysis.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://usclimatenetwork.org/science-impacts/ipcc/general-ipcc-background/RahmstorfAnalysis.pdf</a> .</p> <p>Rosenzweig, C. and Parry, M.L. (1994), Potential impact of climate change on world food supply, Nature vol. 367<i>,</i> 133-138.</p> <p>J.C. Zachos, G.R.<span> </span>Dickens & R.E. Zeebe (2008)<span> </span>“An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics”, Nature<span> </span>451, January 17: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06588.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06588.html</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/fig_tab/nature06588_F2.html#figure-title" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/fig_tab/nature06588_F2.html#figure-title</a> .</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>Excellent Climate Change power point lectures.</b></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The following excellent power point lectures on climate change are accessible via the links below. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Barry Brook</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia), <b>“Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies” (2008)</b>, an outline of <span> </span>paleoclimate history, climatic disruption and mitigation and adaptation strategies [40 pages]: <a href="http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Professor_Barry_Brook_-_2008_Climate_Change_Summit_-_PowerPoint_Presentation.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Professor_Barry_Brook_-_2008_Climate_Change_Summit_-_PowerPoint_Presentation.pdf</a> . </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span><b>Dr Andrew Glikson (</b><span>Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology & Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia<b>), </b></span><b>"Human evolution and the atmosphere: return of the Pliocene?" (2008)</b>, <span> </span>illustrating the global temperature, methane and CO<sub>2</sub> levels in the generally cooling period since the Pliocene (3 Mya, million years ago) during which time the genus <i>Homo</i> evolved to yield <i>Homo sapiens</i> (us) about 100,000 years ago.<b> </b>However, massive man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution in the industrial era (post-1750) has pushed atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration outside the range of 180-300 ppm obtaining during the final evolution of <i>Homo sapiens</i> from his immediate precursors over the last 600,000 years [46 pages]: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/dr-andrew-glikson-human-evolution-and-the-atmosphere-return-to-the-pliocene">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/dr-andrew-glikson-human-evolution-and-the-atmosphere-return-to-the-pliocene</a> <span> </span>.</p> <p><br /></p><p><b>Dr James Hansen</b> (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University; member of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science), <b>“Global warming 20 years later: tipping points near” (2008)</b> - <span> </span>address to National Press Club, and House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global warming, Washington DC – 44 page presentation: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2008/TippingPointsNear_20080623.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TippingPointsNear_20080623.pdf</a> <span> </span>.</p> <p><b>Dr James Hansen</b> (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University; member of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science), <b>“<a name="OLE_LINK1"><span>Climate threat to the planet. Implications for energy policy and intergenerational justice</span></a>”</b>, Bjerknes Lecture, American Biophysical Union, San Francisco, California, 17 December, 2008 – 39 page power point-illustrated lecture: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/</a> .</p> <p>[For a series of other <span> </span>incisive writings by Dr James Hansen see: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/</a> , most notably Dr James Hansen, “Carbon Tax and 100% dividend vs. Tax and Trade”, Committee on Ways & Means, US House of Representatives, February 2009: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf</a> <span> </span>].</p> <p><b>Professor John Holdren</b> (Professor of Environmental Policy and Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University; Director, Woods Hole Research Center; former president, American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS; President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser), <b>“The Science of Climate Disruption” (2008)</b> – a summary of the basis of man-made global warming and the climatic disruption that has already occurred – a 32 page presentation : <a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> .</p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Dr Graeme Pearman</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> (former CSIRO Climate director; GP Consulting; interim director, MSI; Monash University Sustainability Group), <b>“Climate change: the evidence, science and current projections” (2008)</b> [37 pages]: <span> </span> <a href="http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/126569/graeme-pearman-monash-university-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/126569/graeme-pearman-monash-university-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf">http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/126569/graeme-pearman-monash-university-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><b>Dr Peter Seligman </b>(Bionic Ear engineer, Cochlear and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia)<b>, “Bang for Buck in CO<sub>2</sub> abatement” (2008) </b>discusses where you can invest your money most effectively to reduce your Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions; some of our favourite solutions do not bear up under his analysis [43 pages]: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/dr-peter-seligman-the-bang-for-buck-approach-to-co2-abatement">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/dr-peter-seligman-the-bang-for-buck-approach-to-co2-abatement</a> .</p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">David Spratt and Phillip Sutton, Climate Emergency Network, “A Safe Climate Future”, (2008)</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">,<b> </b></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">based on the book “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Phillip Sutton (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008: <a href="http://www.climatecodered.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatecodered.net/</a> ), a powerful summary of the latest climate science results by 2 leading non-scientist climate activists heavily informed by top climate scientists such as NASA’s Dr James Hansen who indeed endorsed “Climate Code Red” as <b>“a</b> </span><b><span> </span>compelling case … we face a climate emergency</b>”<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> <span> </span>[95 pages]: <a href="http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/images/stories/cen/ccr_pp.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/images/stories/cen/ccr_pp.pdf">http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/images/stories/cen/ccr_pp.pdf</a> .</span></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>LATEST KEY SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY: for the latest authoritative summary of the Climate Emergency</b> see the <b>Synthesis Report </b></span><b> from the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference</b> (“Climate Change, Global risks, challenges & decisions”, Copenhagen 10-12 March, 2009, University of Copenhagen, Denmark) - it contains numerous tables and graphs summarizing the worsening climate disruption due to man-made global warming and concludes "inaction is inexcusable": <a href="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis Report Web.pdf">http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads//Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf</a>. A Summary of this Synthesis Report is available on the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website here: </p><p><a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/synthesis-report-of-the-2009-copenhagen-climate-change-conference">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/synthesis-report-of-the-2009-copenhagen-climate-change-conference</a> .</p> <p><br /></p> </div>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-75354034577624949972011-06-24T00:19:00.000-07:002011-07-08T07:52:51.449-07:00Experts: Carbon Tax needed and not ETS<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)</span> </h3> <b>The following eminent scientists, economists and writers variously argue strongly FOR a global Carbon Tax that will directly put a price on greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution and enable urgently required rapid transformation to a non-carbon economy. </b>They variously argue <b>AGAINST</b> carbon pricing based on a Kyoto Protocol-based Cap-and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) (of which the pro-coal Australian Government's carbon pollution-increasing and accordingly oxymoronic Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is a particularly flawed and disastrous example: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere</a> ).<br /><br /><p><span><b>1. Professor James Hansen</b> <b>(top US climate scientist; Head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; adjunct professor, Columbia; University, New York, USA)</b>, February 2009: </span>“The most honest effective way to achieve a carbon price capable of driving our economy and our society to the clean world of the future is “Carbon Tax with 100% Dividend” … This tax, and the knowledge that it would continue to increase in the future, would spur innovations in energy efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. The dividend would put money in the hands of the public, allowing them to purchase vehicles and other products that reduce their carbon footprint and thus their taxes. The person doing better than average would obtain more from the dividend than paid in the tax. The tax would affect building designs and serve as an effective enforcer of energy efficient building codes that are now widely ignored. The need to replace inefficient infrastructure would spur the economy. <b><span style="font-weight:normal">Tax and 100% dividend can drive innovation and economic growth with a snowballing effect.</span></b> Carbon emissions will plummet far faster than alternative top-down regulations. Our infrastructure will be modernized for the clean energy future. There will be no need to go the most extreme environments on Earth for the last drop of fossil fuel, to squeeze oil from tar shale, or develop other unconventional fossil fuels.A tax on coal, oil and gas is simple. It can be collected easily and reliably at the first point of sale, at the mine or oil well, or at the port of entry. This approach also implies the fastest most effective way to international agreements … The abject failure of Cap & Trade was illuminated for all to see by the Kyoto Protocol, the granddaddy of all Cap & Trade schemes. Even countries that accepted the toughest emission reduction targets, such as Japan, saw their emissions actually increase. The problem is the inevitable loopholes in such complex approaches, which take years to negotiate and implement. The Congressional Budget Office provides a comparison of carbon taxes to cap-and-trade. That report concludes that a given emission reduction could be achieved at a fraction of the cost via a carbon tax, as opposed to cap-and-trade. Another useful comparison is also available. The worst thing about cap-and-trade [ETS], from a climate standpoint, is that it will surely be inadequate to achieve the sharp reduction of emissions that is needed. Thus cap-and-trade would practically guarantee disastrous climate change for our children and grandchildren. <i><span style="font-style:normal">The only solution to the climate problem is to leave much of the fossil fuels in the ground. That requires a high enough carbon price that we move on to our energy future beyond fossil fuels.</span></i><i> </i>Summary. The honest approach, the effective approach, for solving the global warming problem would be a tax with 100% dividend. The public is not stupid. They will understand that the hooks and eyes of a less comprehensive more dissembling approach will be put there for some reason other than saving the future for their children. One of the biggest advantages of the Tax and Dividend approach is its simplicity, which would allow it to be introduced quickly. The Kyoto-like Cap & Trade is notoriously slow to negotiate and implement, as well as being ineffective in the end. A related point is that an effective international accord could be implemented with only a few of the major economies. Import duties on countries not imposing a comparable tax would surely bring broad rapid compliance.” <span>[1]. </span></p> <p><b>2. Jonathan Leake</b> <b>(<i><span style="font-style:normal">science and environment editor of the UK Sunday Times</span></i>)</b>, March 2009: “Britain’s faith in carbon trading as a way of reducing greenhouse gases could be dangerously misplaced, according to an independent academic working with the Department of Energy and Climate Change. <b>Dr Chris Hope of the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School</b> … [has] a far wider conclusion: the current European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is deeply flawed and should be replaced – or at least augmented – with a green tax … For the ETS to work, the price has to be set at a level that makes it worthwhile for consumers to cut their energy use. According to Hope’s research, the minimum price needed is about £85 per tonne [A$173] , rising at roughly 2 to 3 per cent a year … Prices now stand at roughly £9.50 [A$19] per tonne of CO<sub>2</sub> – less than 12 per cent of what Hope’s calculations show is needed.… He believes a market-based trading system such as the ETS is very unlikely to generate consistent high prices, and this instability could undermine the whole point of the scheme”. [2]. </p> <p><b>3. Professor William Nordhaus (Sterling Professor of Economics, </b><b>Yale</b> University, USA), March 2009 “The international community is making huge wager on the Kyoto model. The wager is that the cap-and-trade structure contained in the model will do the job of slowing global warming. The new United States Administration advocated that the U.S. adopt this system as its contribution top solving the global problem, and the primary legislation in the U.S. Congress is firmly a cap-and-trade proposal. But, as I have suggested above, the cap-and-trade approach is a poor choice of mechanism. It is untested in the international context; it has been unable to attain anything close to universal participation; and it has the inherent flaws just described. It is unlikely that the Kyoto model, even if strengthened, can achieve its climate objectives in an efficient and effective manner. To bet the world’s climate system and global environment on an untested approach with such clear structural flaws would appear a reckless gamble. History is lettered with failed institutions. You need only to look today at the wreckage of the current financial system to see the latest example of the effects of failed regulatory and risk-management design. So, if the Kyoto model turns out to be another failed model, it has lots of company. But it would be better to recognize and change it now, rather than in one or two more decades of ineffective and inefficient efforts to slow emissions. The international community should move quickly to replace the current cap-and-trade structure with one in which the central economic mechanism is a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions.” [3]. </p> <p><b>4. Professor Jacqueline McGlade (Director of the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, marine biologist and Professor of Environmental Informatics in the Department of Mathematics at University College London, UK)</b>, March 2009: "His [Nordhaus’] idea is very sensible. We need to move the burden of taxation away from labour to resources — and tax not just on carbon but other resources such as water to tackle the far wider environmental and resource problems we face." [4]. </p> <p><b>5. Professor Daniel M. Kammen, (Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley), March 2009</b>: <span> </span>“Evolving the filed of climate solutions science: the economics of clean and sustainable energy must be supported for individuals and companies to achieve a shared vision; a price on greenhouse gas emissions is essential (but alone it is not sufficient); innovative financing is needed to advantage clean energy; innovation and implementation is needed in the North and South; scientific, and policy innovations open the door for quantified cases of clean development that, in turn, can reset the political landscape in favour of a low carbon future.” [5]. </p> <p><b>6. Professor Barry Brook (<span>Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia</span>, Australia)</b>, 2009: “1. A cap and trade mechanism is by its nature, an all consuming policy instrument that extinguishes the effectiveness of voluntary actions, harming rather than enhancing the evolution of a low carbon economy. 2. With a cap and trade approach, the target is everything as both the emissions cap and emissions floor are locked in. No one can do better than the cap, and so the cap must be a science based all consuming sustainable target pathway that won’t lock in failure. As we don’t yet have the widespread political and economic preparedness to commit to an all consuming sustainable target pathway (either nationally or internationally), the cap and trade mechanism is the wrong approach and we should instead focus on a carbon tax with complementary mechanisms that would transform the economy more effectively than the [Australian] proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).” [6]. </p><p> </p><p><b>7. Larry Lohmann (climate economist, The Corner House, London, UK); summary of book “Carbon Trading”, by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006 [implicit in the GHG pollution cessation argument is taxing GHG pollution out of existence]:</b> “The main cause of global warming is rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions -- primarily the result of burning fossil fuels. Some responses to the crisis, however, are causing new and severe problems -- and may even increase global warming. This seems to be the case with carbon trading -- the main current international response to climate change and the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon trading has two parts. First, governments hand out free tradable rights to emit carbon dioxide to big industrial polluters, allowing them to make money from business as usual. Second, companies buy additional pollution credits from projects in the South that claim to emit less greenhouse gas than they would have without the investment. Most of the carbon credits being sold to industrialized countries come from polluting projects, such as schemes that burn methane from coal mines or waste dumps, which do little to wean the world off fossil fuels. Tree plantations claimed to absorb carbon dioxide, in addition, often drive people off their lands and destroy biological diversity without resulting in progress toward alternative energy systems. This exhaustively-documented but highly-readable book takes a broad look at the social, political and environmental dimensions of carbon trading and investigates climate mitigation alternatives. It provides a short history of carbon trading and discusses a number of 'lessons unlearned'. Detailed case studies from ten Third World countries -- Guatemala, Ecuador, Uganda, Tanzania, Costa Rica, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, South Africa and Brazil -- expose the outcomes on the ground of various carbon 'offset' schemes. The book concludes that the 'carbon trading' approach to the problem of rapid climate change is both ineffective and unjust. The bulk of fossil fuels must be left in the ground if climate chaos is to be avoided.” [7]. </p><p> </p><p><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">8. Dr Robert J. Shapiro (Chair, U.S. Climate Task Force and finance consultancy firm Sonecon; </span>undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton Administration</b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b>)</b>, January 2009: “</span>A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new, trillion-dollar risks for the financial system. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme, based on the Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office, there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. Another factor is the “offset” permits that European “transition” economies, themselves exempt from caps, can sell to other ETS members. According to a recent study in Nature, once we set aside those offsets, emissions under the ETS have actually increased by 10 percent. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. To the contrary, the prices for ETS permits are highly volatile ... Volatility like the kind experienced in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices, unsettling everyone’s markets and undermining investment. And the volatile prices for the permits themselves, traded on financial markets, would attract speculation and new financial derivatives, putting us at risk for another crisis. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of cap-and-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants, including governments, to evade or manipulate the system. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics, Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. A carbon tax system would apply a stable price to carbon, creating direct incentives to develop and use less carbon-intensive fuels and more energy-efficient technologies. President-elect Barack Obama is committed equally to fighting climate change and restoring economic growth. The best way to do both is to give up cap-and-trade and learn to love carbon-based taxes." [8]. </p><p><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">9. Dr Robert J. Shapiro (Chair, U.S. Climate Task Force and finance consultancy firm Sonecon; </span>undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton Administration</b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b>)</b>, March 2009: "</span>The proper approach here is a straightforward one. First, enact a carbon-based tax to move people and firms to prefer and choose less-carbon-intensive fuels and technologies. Second, as we change the relative prices of different forms of energy based on their effects on the climate, protect people’s incomes and the overall economy by returning all or virtually all of the revenues through payroll tax cuts or lump-sum payments to households. Third, use the certainty of a substantial tax on carbon, along with additional subsidies, to promote the development of new climate-friendly fuels and technologies that can capture a new and fast-growing global market.I recently co-authored a study that used the same modeling system as the Department of Energy to estimate the environmental and economic consequences of applying this specific approach. We found that we can effectively address climate change without harming our economy ... And after the carnage of Wall Street’s recent rounds of malfeasance, it is painfully clear that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department simply lack the ability (and the resources) to effectively police complex, fast-moving markets involving many, many thousands or millions of trades per day. Despite its advocates’ good intentions, cap-and-trade could put America at risk of another meltdown — one originally created and financed by the government itself. None of these painful and difficult issues arise with a carbon tax-shift. Rather, it could enable us to effectively do our part in addressing climate change, while protecting or even enhancing our economic prospects. That’s a deal Congress cannot afford to pass up." [9].</p><p> </p><h4><a name="TOC-10.-Public-Citizen-Public-Citizen-i"></a><span style="font-weight:normal"><b>10. Public Citizen (Public Citizen is a US national, non-profit consumer advocacy organization founded in 1971 to represent consumer interests in Congress, the executive branch and the courts)</b>, <span> </span>27 June 2009: “Climate change legislation that narrowly passed the House of Representatives late Friday must be strengthened. The legislation will not solve our climate crisis but will enrich already powerful oil, coal and nuclear power companies. President Obama got it right when he announced in February his plan to impose strict new limits on greenhouse gas emissions and require polluters to pay. But HR 2454 enshrines a new legal right to pollute and gives away 85 percent of the credits to that right to polluters.” [10].<span> </span></span></h4> <p><b>11. Stephen Lendman (leading liberal </b><b>US</b> analyst and commentator), 8 July 2009: “On May 15, HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) was introduced in the House purportedly "To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy." In fact, it's to let corporate polluters reap huge windfall profits by charging consumers more for energy and fuel as well as create a new bubble through carbon trading derivatives speculation. It does nothing to address environmental issues, yet on June 26 the House narrowly passed (229 - 212) and sent it to the Senate to be debated and voted on… Strong-arm pressure, threats and bribes got the bill through the House. Forty-four Democrats opposed it. Eight Republicans backed it. Over 1200 pages long, few if any lawmakers read it… It contains enough loopholes to make its claimed performance standards worthless, one of which prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate future greenhouse gas emissions. That alone means they'll proliferate beyond what new technology reduces on its own, and only then if it's profitable to do it… Overall, carbon trading is a scam, first promoted in the 1980s under Reagan. Clinton made it a key provision of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. He signed it in 1998, but it was never ratified. As of February 2009, 183 nations did both, but independent scientists call it "miserable failure" needing to be scrapped and replaced by a meaningful alternative… Contributing $4,452,585 to Democrats in 2008 (around $1 million to Obama) was mere pocket change for what it can reap from scams like cap and trade disguised as an environmental plan. The scheme was devised. GS [Goldman Sachs] helped write it. The House passed it and sent it to the Senate. Unless stopped, it will transfer more of our wealth to corporate polluters and Wall Street on top of all they've stolen so far from derivatives fraud and the imploded housing and other bubbles. And Goldman will lead the way finding new ways to do it until there's nothing left to extract.” [11]. </p> <p><b>12. Catherine Austin Fitts (US commentator)</b>, 1 July 2009: "If you think the housing and credit bubble diminished your financial security and your community, or the bailouts, or the rising gas prices did as well, hold on to your hat. The worst may be yet to come. Carbon trading is gearing up to make the housing and derivatives bubbles look like target practice. Here are some comments on H.R. 2454, the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act" rel="nofollow"> American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009</a>: “economic colonization of the heartland”-Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Kentucky); “a scam” -Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California); “massive transfer of wealth” -Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin); “Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis.” -Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).” [12]. </p> <p><b>13. Greenpeace (leading global environment protection organization)</b>, 25 June 2009: “As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.” [13].</p><p> </p><p><span><b>14. Kenneth Davidson (respected economics columnist for “The Age” newspaper, </b><b>Melbourne</b>; co-editor of “Dissent”), 2009: “</span>The [Australian] Rudd Government's environmental credentials are in tatters: the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme has been exposed as sham. This shouldn't be surprising. There isn't one cap-and-trade scheme in the world that has resulted in a reduction in carbon emissions. Instead, such schemes have made money for the biggest polluters and created a new branch of the derivatives industry that creates new wealth opportunities for brokers and financiers. Rudd's cap and trade scheme benefits the worst polluters. But the Australian scheme is special. It has been rorted at the planning stage … The carbon scheme is not simply weak. It is fraudulent. In his new Quarterly Essay: <i>Quarry Vision, Coal, Climate Change and the End of the Resources Boom</i>, Guy Pearse shows that Australia's biggest emitters will be able to meet their targets by buying emission permits from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea in return for promises by these countries to reduce the rate of deforestation ... opaque government built on unnecessary complexity, like its close relative, secrecy, is a one-way street to corruption, especially when the government faces an incompetent opposition. Carbon taxes were imposed by Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and Italy in the 1990s. Sweden is the most successful country in the world in reducing its carbon footprint, according to the German environmental group Germanwatch. Between 1990 and 2006 Sweden cut its emissions by 9 per cent, exceeding the target set by Kyoto, while at the same time real growth increased 44 per cent.” [14]. </p> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:10pt;"><b>15. Guy Pearse (Australian climate and energy commentator):</b> “[Australian government <span> </span>commissioned economist] Garnaut had recognized Indonesian and PNG rainforests as the perfect place to hide greenhouse pollution on the cheap and avoid emission cuts in Australia. Annual emissions from deforestation in these two countries alone were 3 times Australia’s total emissions. Paying landholders not to log could effectively offset pollution in Australia – and various estimates cited by Garnaut – from the Stern Report and the World Bank – suggested the price might be US$1-3$ - perhaps less than 1/10th of the price of a tonne of carbon otherwise … Having allowed Australia to outsource all its emissions cuts [overseas], Rudd nationalized the cost with a spectatcular money-go-round of compensation payments: to small businesses, householders, and dozens of adjusted welfare payments. The ostensible aim was to help offset the impact of emissions trading on energy costs – estimated at A$312 per household per year [Australia population 21 million]. The real was ensuring that in the flurry of cheques, people couldn’t properly identify the winners and losers. “No-one gets a free ride”, said the government. Their glossy PR material claimed that “under the scheme, <span> </span>Australia’s biggest polluters will<span> </span>pay for the pollution they generate”. But, what the government carefully didn’t say was that the biggest polluters would only pay for on average one tonne in every 5 tonnes of their pollution – the rest of us paid for the other 4 tonnes.” [15].<br /><br /></span><b>16. Professor Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University; 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate; former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank)</b>, December 2007: “The only principle that has some ethical basis is equal emission rights per capita (with some adjustments - for instance, the US has already used up its share of the global atmosphere, so it should have fewer emission allowances). But adopting this principle would entail such huge payments from developed countries to developing countries, that, regrettably, the former are unlikely to accept it. Economic efficiency requires that those who generate emissions pay the cost, and the simplest way of forcing them to do so is through a carbon tax. There could be an international agreement that every country would impose a carbon tax at an agreed rate (reflecting the global social cost). Indeed, it makes far more sense to tax bad things, like pollution, than to tax good things like work and savings. Such a tax would increase global efficiency. Of course, polluting industries like the cap-and-trade system. While it provides them an incentive not to pollute, emission allowances offset much of what they would have to pay under a tax system. Some firms can even make money off the deal. Moreover, Europe has grown used to the concept of cap-and-trade, and many are loathe to try an alternative. Yet, no one has proposed an acceptable set of principles for assigning emission rights.” [16].<br /><br /><p><b>17. Professor James Hansen</b> <b>(top </b><b>US</b> <b>climate scientist; Head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; adjunct professor, Columbia; University, New York, USA)</b>, February 2009: “The essential step, then, is to phase out coal emissions over the next two decades. And to declare off limits artificial high-carbon fuels such as tar sands and shale while moving to phase out dependence on conventional petroleum as well. This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won't get there with the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests. For all its "green" aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like "cap-and-trade" [ETS] scheme … There is an alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source (mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the "fee-and-dividend" version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead … The fact is that the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions. It's less than worthless, because it will delay by at least a decade starting on a path that is fundamentally sound from the standpoints of both economics and climate preservation”. [17]. [17]. James Hansen, “G-8 failure reflects failure on climate change”, The Huffington Post, 9 July 2009: <span> </span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/g-8-failure-reflects-us-f_b_228597.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/g-8-failure-reflects-us-f_b_228597.html</a> .</p><p> </p><p><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">18. Carbon</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b> </b><b>Tax</b> Center (US organization demanding the pricing of carbon efficiently and equitably), 2009: “</span><b><span style="font-weight:normal">Why revenue-neutral carbon taxes are essential,</span></b><b><span style="font-weight:normal"> what's happening now, and how you can help.</span></b><b><span style="font-weight:normal"> </span></b>The Obama Administration and the new Congress are being called upon to address 21st Century climate realities.<b> </b>In a carbon-constrained world, <b><span style="font-weight:normal">a permanent and increasing U.S. carbon tax is essential</span></b> to reduce the emissions that are driving global warming. <b> </b>A carbon tax is a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas). A carbon tax is the most economically efficient means <span> </span>to convey crucial price signals and spur carbon-reducing investment and low-carbon behavior. Our spreadsheet <span> </span>shows how fast emissions will fall. Carbon taxes should be phased in so businesses and households have time to adapt. A carbon tax should be revenue neutral: <span> </span>government can soften the impacts of added costs by paying back the tax revenues ("dividends") or reducing other taxes ("tax-shifting"). Support for a carbon tax is growing steadily among public officials; economists; scientists; policy experts; business, religious, and environmental leaders; and ordinary citizens (see: <a href="http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/" rel="nofollow">http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/</a> )”. [18]. </p> <p><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">19. Carbon</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b> </b><b>Tax</b> <b>Center </b>(</span><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">US organization demanding the pricing of carbon efficiently and equitably)</span></b><b><span style="font-weight:normal"> lists of quotations supporting a Carbon Tax from numerous public officials; scientists and economists; environmental, business and religious leaders; corporate editorial positions; authors, writers, pundits and newspaper columnists. [19].<br /></span></b></p><p> </p><p><i><span style="font-style:normal"><b>20. Richard Denniss (executive director of the Australia Institute, Canberra, Australia)</b>, 18 February 2009: </span><span> </span></i><i><span style="font-style:normal">“</span></i>Many Australians have waited a long time for a government to do something about climate change and no doubt some of them would be reluctant to see the CPRS [proposed the Australian ETS] fail for that reason. However, most of these people are unlikely to understand that the 5 per cent emissions reduction target is not a step in the right direction but a legislative barrier to reducing emissions any further. The CPRS [ETS] locks us into failure, in that it will prevent emissions falling below the timid targets proposed by the Rudd Government. So, where to from here? A simple way to get the ball rolling without locking in the worst features of the CPRS {ETS] is to introduce a carbon levy of $25 a tonne. This is the same price the Rudd Government expects to flow from its CPRS [ETS] and it has already done the work figuring out how to provide compensation. An important benefit of such an approach is that we don't need to start from scratch. The administrative capacity required to collect a carbon levy is consistent with that required to introduce the CPRS [ETS]. That is, both systems require the monitoring of emission levels, the determination of liability and the reconciliation of who has paid their carbon bills. The other benefits of a carbon levy are its simplicity, its compatibility with simple measures such as investment in household energy efficiency, and the fact we don't have to set our targets until international agreement is reached in Copenhagen. Unlike the CPRS [ETS] , a carbon levy would not discourage individual action.” <span>[20].<br /></span></p><p> </p><p><span><b>21. Paul Taylor (Reuters economics columnist)</b>, 22 July 2009: "</span>Cynics say the French never saw a market they didn’t want to regulate, or an economic activity they didn’t want to tax. Now this levy-happy nation, with one of the highest fiscal burdens in the world, is eying a new target for taxation: carbon. And in this case, they may just be right …<span>Most experts agree that a carbon tax, based on a global price for carbon, would be the simplest and most logical way to use market forces to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. But it is not politically feasible in most countries. The French, with their Cartesian logic and their tradition of a strong, dirigiste state, are among the few nations outside the Nordic area with the political will to impose one. We can only hope that other countries will follow in their slipstream." [21].</span></p><p> </p><p><span><b>22. John Humphreys (Economist, Research Fellow, Centre for Independent Studies, </b><b>Sydney</b>, Australia), 2007: “With growing public concern and constant calls for action on climate change, it is important that we have a full debate about what is the best response. Many politicians have rushed to support poor climate change policy. Our government is currently using an approach of regulation and subsidy while considering the possibility of implementing a carbon trading scheme. We would be better served if the government replaced all of these options with a revenue-neutral carbon tax. A carbon tax is preferable to a carbon trading system because it is more efficient, effective, simple, flexible and transparent . More importantly, a carbon tax has the added benefit of providing revenue that can be used to cut other taxes. Indeed a revenue-neutral carbon tax may have little or no economic cost.” [22].</span></p><p> </p><p><b>23. ACT New Zealand Finance Spokesman Sir Roger Douglas (Father of Rogernomics”; urging <span> </span>the Government and the Emissions Trading Scheme Select Committee to read Centre of Independent Studies Report)</b>: "The report states, quite rightly, that an ETS is the wrong approach and advocates a carbon tax – not as the best option but, rather as the best option currently available. At least a carbon tax would result in revenue for the Government, which can be used to reduce company and personal income tax rates. Linking climate change policy to tax cuts will ensure that it does not significantly damage the economy. The report also outlines that agriculture should be excluded. Taxing agriculture does little to facilitate a sustainable low-emission economy. A carbon tax which excluded agriculture would still provide important incentives toward new technology without harming the economy. If the Government feels it must be seen to be addressing climate change, it must do so in a manner that causes the least possible harm to New Zealand’s economy and those who drive it – especially our farmers and other primary producers." [23].<br /></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b>24. Dr Vandana Shiva (Indian physicist, feminist, founder of eco-feminism, author of several books and of hundreds of scientific and technical papers, and a very prominent environmental analyst and activist)</b>: “</span>The science of climate change is now clear, but the politics is very muddy. Historically, the major polluters were the rich, industrialised countries, so it made sense that they should pay the highest price… Such [Carbon Trading ETS] schemes are more about privatising the atmosphere than about preventing climate change; the emissions rights established by the Kyoto Protocol are several times higher than the levels needed to prevent a 2°C rise in global temperatures… Carbon trading uses the resources of poorer people and poorer regions as "offsets" for richer countries: it is between 50 and 200 times cheaper to plant trees in poor countries to absorb CO2 than it is to reduce emissions at source. In other words, the burden of "clean-up" falls on the poor… Thanks to industrialisation, the rural poor in China and India are losing out on their land and livelihood. To count them as polluters is doubly criminal. When global firms outsource to China or India, they need to be responsible for the pollution they carry overseas. Regulating by carbon trading is like fiddling as Rome burns… We face a stark choice: we can destroy the conditions for human life on the planet by clinging to "free-market" fundamentalism, or we can secure our future by bringing commerce within the laws of ecological sustainability and social justice”.<span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> [24].</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">25. </span></b><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">Dave Massen (Convenor of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) Stop Global Warming Issue Organizing Team (IOT); </span>active member in the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter energy and climate committee) re PDA <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">Stop Global Warming Issue Organizing Team support for Carbon Tax with revenue recycling</span></b>: “When we began the process, individual team members supported several different mechanisms for reducing CO2. But in view of the recent economic meltdown, we became concerned that even with some proposed new regulations, a large market for trading carbon derivatives would also be vulnerable to a collapse with global repercussions, especially since hard-to-verify offsets are likely to be part of any trading scheme. Additionally, it seemed that paying Wall Street traders would add unnecessarily to the costs of reducing carbon.”<span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> [25].</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">26. </span></b><b>Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) Stop Global Warming Issue Organizing Team, </b><b><span style="font-weight:normal">Global Warming Policy Statement</span></b>, <b>adopted Oct. 19, 2009. </b>(Footnotes omitted.): </p><p>"No issue is more of a threat to civilization than the accelerating menace of catastrophic climate destabilization. To avert this disaster, we must make a collective, long-term investment in a new energy infrastructure in order to protect the welfare of future generations.</p> <p><span> </span>Focus group research shows that the “…public has come to view clean energy as an immediate and long lasting economic driver,…something that is vitally important to the health of our economy.” Scientists call for urgent action: “Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.”</p> <p>PDA calls on the President and Congress to lead boldly in reducing our country’s oil dependence and use of fossil fuels by investing in walkable, bikeable communities, efficient public transportation, energy conservation technologies and alternative energy development, which all create good-paying and dependable jobs.</p> <p>PDA supported 2008’s “climate principles letter” circulated in the House of Representatives. To repeat and expand upon its goals, we agree that climate/energy legislation should meet these criteria:</p> <p>1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a long-term trajectory that will avoid the worst effects of global warming;</p> <p>2. Transition the United States to an efficient, clean energy economy by putting a price on carbon that will guide investment and personal decisions on every level and lead the world with both incentives and example;</p> <p>3. Recognize and minimize any adverse economic impacts from global warming legislation and build political support for a price on carbon pollution by “recycling” carbon pricing revenues directly to households; and</p> <p>4. Aid communities and ecosystems vulnerable to harm from global warming.</p> <p>To help achieve these goals, PDA supports revenue-neutral direct carbon pricing over carbon trading.</p> <p>Direct carbon pricing:</p> <ol><li>Can push America toward an efficient, clean energy economy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a long-term trajectory, by providing a gradually-increasing price on carbon pollution;</li><li>Can minimize adverse economic impacts of legislation by “recycling” a substantial portion of carbon revenue to households through a direct “carbon dividend” or a payroll tax reduction;</li><li>Can provide revenue to aid communities and ecosystems vulnerable to harm from global warming;</li><li>Reduces the need for complex and difficult-to-verify regulations and cannot be gamed in a multi-trillion dollar unregulated secondary energy trading market;</li><li>Eliminates offsets, which are difficult to measure and substantiate;</li><li>With WTO-sanctioned border tax adjustments would create immediate incentives for international implementation, as all countries have a taxing mechanism in place but few (if any) can manage a complex carbon trading system;</li><li>Can be set at levels to form the basis for international cooperation and treaties to reduce greenhouse gases to levels consistent with the findings of the IPCC; and</li><li>Would maintain the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions.". [26]. </li></ol> <p><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">27. </span></b><b>Dr Clive Spash (top Australian ecological economist at CSIRO, former <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">head of the European Society for Ecological Economics, author of numerous scholarly publications)</span>, 2009</b>: "While carbon trading and offset schemes seem set to spread, they so far appear ineffective in terms of actually reducing GHGs (greenhouse gases). Despite this apparent failure, ETS [emission trading schemes] remain politically popular amongst the industrialised polluters. The public appearance is that action is being undertaken. The reality is that GHGs are increasing and society is avoiding the need for substantive proposals to address the problem of behavioural and structural change." [27].</p><p><b>28. </b><b>Professor Tony Owen (international energy economist, University College of London), in arguing that most economists believe a carbon tax would much more effectively reduce emissions than an Australian-style ETS:</b> "Use the tax very similar to a GST. You can give rebates at the border, so the export industry doesn't suffer. The way this would work for the customer. If they thought the carbon content was high, they would realise they were paying fairly high tax component on the price of the good. Then they can modify their consumption behaviour accordingly." [28].</p><p><b>29. </b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b>Dr Richard Dennis (excecutive director, Australia Institute) on Australian Treasury modelling indicating little impact of the Australian ETS known as the CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme):</b> “</span>After the 20 per cent renewable energy target is achieved in 2020 there is no further reduction in the amount of electricity generated by black and brown coal-fired power stations. This is because the CPRS has no effect on the competitiveness of coal-fired power stations.The projected carbon price of around $20-$25 per tonne is significantly less than the cost difference between renewable electricity and coal-fired electricity. While the introduction of a carbon price will reduce the profits of the coal-fired power stations, it will not reduce the amount of electricity they generate…The CPRS is complex, expensive and ineffective. The government's strategy is to suggest to voters that they are taking significant action on climate change while simultaneously allowing them to assure industry that they aren't really doing anything. It may or not turn out to be a well-designed political tool, but as a policy tool it is an enormous distraction." [29]. </p><p><b>30. Kenneth Davidson (leading Australian economic commentator) re the proposed Rudd Labor Government Australian </b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b> ETS known as the CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme): </b>"</span>Under the CPRS rules, they [the coal burning electricity generators] can buy unlimited supplies of cheap, dodgy carbon offsets from Indonesia and PNG to avoid using any of their free permits to actually produce electricity. In other words they will be able to sell their free permits by simply replicating, with minor variations, the multibillion-dollar rort by EU generators of the EU carbon trading system since its establishment. The flawed CPRS should be replaced with a broad-based carbon tax. If it was set initially at $10 a tonne it would be hardly noticed, it would raise $5 billion a year and all the money could be spent on green infrastructure instead of the financial bubble if the CPRS goes ahead." [30].</p><p><b>31. </b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;color:navy;"><b>Dr James Hansen (top US climate scientist, head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) in answer to the question “Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis?”</b>: “</span>Absolutely. It is possible [to avert climate crisis] – if we give politicians a cold, hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – "goals" for emission reductions, "offsets" that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual "cap-and-trade" mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual. Science reveals that climate is close to tipping points. It is a dead certainty that continued high emissions will create a chaotic dynamic situation for young people, with deteriorating climate conditions out of their control. Science also reveals what is needed to stabilise atmospheric composition and climate… Cap and trade with offsets, in contrast, is astoundingly ineffective. Global emissions rose rapidly in response to Kyoto, as expected, because fossil fuels remained the cheapest energy. Cap and trade is an inefficient compromise, paying off numerous special interests.<b> It must be replaced with an honest approach, raising the price of carbon emissions and leaving the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground. Are we going to stand up and give global politicians a hard slap in the face, to make them face the truth? It will take a lot of us – probably in the streets. Or are we going to let them continue to kid themselves and us and cheat our children and grandchildren? Intergenerational inequity is a moral issue.</b> Just as when Abraham Lincoln faced slavery and when Winston Churchill faced Nazism, the time for compromises and half-measures is over. Can we find a leader who understands the core issue and will lead?” [31].</p><p><b><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;">32. Dr James Lovelock FRS (</span></b><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;"><b>in</b><b> response to the New Scientist interviewer question “Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?”) (January 2009): “</b>Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.” [32].</span></p><p> </p><p><b>33. Dr Vandana Shiva (physicist and ecofeminist) (2007)</b>: " Kyoto totally avoided the material challenge of stopping activities that lead to higher emissions and the political challenge of regulation of the polluters and making the polluters pay in accordance with principles adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio. Instead, Kyoto put in place the mechanism of emissions trading which in effect rewarded the polluters by assigning them rights to the atmosphere and trading in these rights to pollute. Today, the emissions trading market has reached $ 30 billion and is expected to go up to $ 1 trillion. Carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase, while profits from "hot air" also increase. I call it "hot air" both because it is literally hot air leading to global warming and because it is metaphorically hot air, based on the fictitious economy of finance which has overtaken the real economy, both in size and in our perception. A casino economy has allowed corporations and their owners to multiply their wealth without limit, and without any relationship to the real world. Yet this hungry money then seeks to own the real resources of people - the land and the forests, the farms and the food, and turn them into cash. Unless we return to the real world, we will not find the solutions that will help mitigate climate change. Another false solution to climate change is the promotion of biofuels based on corn and soya, palmoil and jatropha.” [33].</p><p><b>34. </b><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">Professor Joseph Stiglitz </span>(Columbia University, New York, author of “</b><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393324397?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0393324397&adid=01DZ1EMVKR7FY3GY30ED&" rel="nofollow"><b><span style="font-weight:normal;text-decoration:nonecolor:windowtext;" >Globalization and Its Discontents</span></b></a></b><b>”. He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for research on the economics of information. Most recently, he co-authored with Professor Linda Bilmes, Harvard. “</b><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393334171?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0393334171&adid=1EPR7E8Z8Z0H7HHZN6Y5&" rel="nofollow"><b><span style="font-weight:normal;text-decoration:nonecolor:windowtext;" >The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict</span></b></a></b><b>”) </b>: “<span>P</span>retty speeches can take you only so far. A month after the Copenhagen climate conference, it is clear that the world’s leaders were unable to translate rhetoric about global warming into action. It was, of course, nice that world leaders could agree that it would be bad to risk the devastation that could be wrought by an increase in global temperatures of more than two degrees Celsius. At least they paid some attention to the mounting scientific evidence… </p><p>The failure of Copenhagen was not the absence of a legally binding agreement. The real failure was that there was no agreement about how to achieve the lofty goal of saving the planet, no agreement about reductions in carbon emissions, no agreement on how to share the burden, and no agreement on help for developing countries…</p> <p>The consequences of the failure are already apparent: The price of emission rights in the European Union Emission Trading System has fallen, which means that firms will have less incentive to reduce emissions now and less incentive to invest in innovations that will reduce emissions in the future. Firms that wanted to do the right thing, to spend the money to reduce their emissions, now worry that doing so would put them at a competitive disadvantage as others continue to emit without restraint. European firms will continue to be at a competitive disadvantage relative to American firms, which bear no cost for their emissions…</p> <p>Clearly, the idea that those who emitted more in the past should get more emission rights for the future is unacceptable. The “minimally” fair allocation to the developing countries requires equal emission rights per capita…</p> <p><b>Perhaps it is time to try another approach: a commitment by each country to raise the price of emissions (whether through a carbon tax or emissions caps) to an agreed level, say, $80 per ton. Countries could use the revenues as an alternative to other taxes -- it makes much more sense to tax bad things than good things… A system of border taxes -- imposed on imports from countries where firms do not have to pay appropriately for carbon emissions -- would level the playing field and provide economic and political incentives for countries to adopt a carbon tax or emission caps. That, in turn, would provide economic incentives for firms to reduce their emissions</b>.” [34].</p><p align="justify"><b>35. Dr Hansen, NASA (2010)</b>: "Cap and trade with offsets, in contrast, is astoundingly ineffective. Global emissions rose rapidly in response to Kyoto, as expected, because fossil fuels remained the cheapest energy.</p> <p align="justify">Cap and trade is an inefficient compromise, paying off numerous special interests. It must be replaced with an honest approach, raising the price of carbon emissions and leaving the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground.</p> <p align="justify">Are we going to stand up and give global politicians a hard slap in the face, to make them face the truth? It will take a lot of us – probably in the streets. Or are we going to let them continue to kid themselves and us and cheat our children and grandchildren?</p> Intergenerational inequity is a moral issue." [35].<br /><br /><b>36. </b><b>Dr James Lovelock FRS, eminent UK climate scientist famous for atmospheric monitoring technology and the Gaia Hypothesis, <span> </span>commenting Carbon Trading (23 January 2009)</b>: “Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, <span> </span>with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.” [36].<br /><br /><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b>37. Dr Cameron Hepburn, Fellow, Oxford University, UK 2010)</b>: “ And by and large, the economists who’ve looked at the kind of science and pulled it all together say, and here’s the big answer, it’s what you’ve been waiting for, the marginal damage curve we think of climate change is fairly flat, relatively flat and so a carbon tax is the most efficient answer. <span> </span>“ [37].</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b>38. John Daley & Tristan Edis, Grattan Institute (economics think-tank </b></span><b>involving links with Melbourne University, the Victorian Government, and corporate Australia</b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b>), April 2010 , “Restructuring <span> </span>the Australian economy to emit less carbon – a Grattan report”</b>: “</span>Like much of the world, Australia has debated putting a price on carbon emissions (a “carbon price”) with an emissions trading scheme or tax. A carbon price aims to induce structural change in the economy that will reduce emissions and consequently the risks of global warming. The Australian debate has been dominated by concerns that Australia might lose industry and jobs offshore if it has a carbon price when competitor countries do not. If Australian production moves to countries with higher emissions, this would defeat the purpose of carbon pricing. To avoid this possibility, and protect industry from such an event, government plans to provide some industries with free carbon permits. The report is a detailed industry by industry analysis of the impact of carbon pricing. We find that much of the protection proposed for the major emissions-intensive industries is unnecessary or poorly targeted. It would delay the structural adjustment required to move to a lower carbon economy. Using industry data, the report finds that many of the recipient companies will be internationally competitive even if they receive no free permits. Many of the industries that would not be competitive would emit less carbon if they moved offshore, which is the purpose of carbon pricing. The proposed free permits will mute the incentives to reduce carbon emissions. They are also very expensive for other Australian taxpayers.” [38].</p><b>39. Steve Stoft and Dan Kirshner (Steve Stoft is an economist and Dan Kirshner an analyst, both in Berkeley CA. Stoft’s new book (with which Kirshner assisted) is Carbonomics: How to Fix the Climate and Charge It to OPEC; available on Amazon, and downloaded free from <a href="http://www.stoft.com/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.stoft.com">http://www.stoft.com</a>.)</b>: “OK, we’re agreed: the revenues from carbon pricing—whether from cap and trade or from a carbon tax—should be returned, not kept by the government. It’s good politics—t-a-x is a four-letter word—and it’s good government—we don’t need to entice special interests with more revenue. Once that’s settled, however, a new issue arises: how should the revenues be returned? Renowned climate scientist James Hansen advocates a 100 percent dividend—a check to your mailbox. Al Gore favors reducing the payroll tax. Economists will tell you it’s more efficient to reduce an existing tax; that’s their preference. We’re here to tell you that they’re wrong. In fact, they’ll prefer a 100 percent dividend once they think about it for a moment. It is good news to find that a dividend is good economics in addition to what we already knew: that a dividend is good politics… We can use the universal rejection of a capitation tax as unfair to prove to economists that they prefer dividends. In fact, pricing carbon plus dividend refunds meets the economists’ gold standard of fairness: it’s equivalent to giving everyone their own “atmospheric climate right,” which they are free to sell…. Bottom line: a dividend is good politics and good economics. However carbon pricing is implemented—cap and trade or carbon tax—let’s go for the gold: 100 percent dividend refunds.” [39]. <p><b>40. Carbon Tax Center, demolishing the ETS myth:</b> “<strong><span style="font-weight:normal">Myth #7. A carbon cap-and-trade system is as good as a carbon tax, and is far more politically feasible.</span></strong><em><span style="font-style:normal">Who says? Many “Big Green” groups, business organizations and corporations seeking a less transparent way to put a price on a carbon. </span></em>Click <a href="http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/" rel="nofollow">here</a> for CTC’s dissection of the logistical and strategic differences between carbon taxes and cap-and-trade (they’re not minor). As for political feasibility, the landscape has changed radically in the few years since some prominent environmental lobby groups threw in their lot with cap-and-trade. Public concern over climate is at critical mass, complex financial instruments have been discredited, and the rise of populist sentiment is making the notion of “revenue return” politically appealing. Congress is starting to take carbon tax proposals seriously. Acceding to cap-and-trade may have seemed necessary several years ago, but it now looks to be a case of setting the bar too low, as well as an idea whose time has passed.” [40].</p> <p><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;" ><b>41. Carbon Tax Center, compendium of scientist and economist critics of Cap-and-Trade ETS:</b> “</span><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;" >Scientists and Economists. This page, featuring <u>Scientists</u> and <u>Economists</u>, is one of half-a-dozen compiling expressions of support for carbon taxes (or more targeted taxes, e.g., on gasoline) by notable individuals and organizations. Use Navigation Bar at top of page to access other pages.” [41]</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: normal;font-size:12pt;" ><b>42. Ian Dunlop (<span>a CPD Fellow, a contributing author to the CPD book, <a href="http://morethanluck.cpd.org.au/" rel="nofollow">More than Luck: Ideas Australia Needs Now</a> and chaired the AGO Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998 to 2000</span>) , “Demolishing myths on emissions trading” (2010)</b>: “One of the great myths being perpetuated in this election campaign is that the Greens, by refusing to support the Government's CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme), prevented the introduction of effective emissions trading in this country, thus blocking serious action on climate change. Penny Wong was at it again on ABC's Q&A on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2958214.htm?clip=rtmp://cp44823.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flash/tv/streams/qanda/qanda_2010_ep25.flv" rel="nofollow">Monday night</a>. Utter nonsense! The CPRS is appalling policy. By weakening the underlying emissions trading mechanism with multiple escape clauses and compensation, it runs counter to all the recommendations of the sound policy design work that had been carried out in Australia, ranging from the AGO 1998 National Emissions Trading framework to the 2008 Garnaut Review, as well as practical overseas experience…Turnbull deserves credit for standing up to the climate luddites in the Coalition, but he is still not prepared to honestly acknowledge the nonsense which the CPRS represents and, more importantly, the size of the problem we now face. The only political party to do so are the Greens… Put bluntly, we face a global climate change emergency, which requires an emergency response; both major parties are well aware of this from their scientific briefings. In this context, the emission reduction target of 5 per cent by 2020, which they are so graciously offering is derisory. The only possible conclusion is that both parties do not believe in human-induced climate change and are going through the motions purely to placate the electorate. I, for one, object in the strongest possible terms to the future of my children and grandchildren being thrown away by such irresponsibility from those who would profess to be our "leaders". Christine Milne is quite right to hold out for serious climate change policy rather than this "Clayton's" variety offered by the major parties' deniers.” [42].<br /></span></p><p><br /></p><p><b><span>43. Prins, Gwyn</span> and <span> </span><span>Galiana, Isabel</span> and <span>Green, Christopher</span> and <span>Grundmann, Reiner</span> and <span>Korhola, Atte</span> and <span>Laird, Frank</span> and <span>Nordhaus, Ted</span> and <span>Pielke Jnr, Roger</span> and <span>Rayner, Steve</span> and <span>Sarewitz, Daniel</span> and <span>Shellenberger, Michael</span> and <span>Stehr, Nico</span> and <span>Tezuko, Hiroyuki</span> (2010)</b> “<i><span style="font-style:normal">The Hartwell Paper: a new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009”,</span></i><i> </i>Institute for Science, Innovation & Society, University of Oxford; LSE Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK: “Climate policy, as it has been understood and practised by many governments of the world under the Kyoto Protocol approach, has failed to produce any discernible real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in 15 years. The underlying reason for this is that the UNFCCC/Kyoto model [Carbon Trading] was structurally flawed and doomed to fail because it systematically misunderstood the nature of climate change as a policy issue between 1985 and 2009…But above all, it emphasizes the primacy if accelerating decarbonisation of energy supply. This calls for very substantially increased investment in innovation in non-carbon energy sources in order to diversify energy supply technologies. The ultimate goal of doing this is to develop non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidized costs less than those using fossil fuels. The Hartwell Paper advocates funding this work by low hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes. It opens discussion on how to channel such money productively. To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness – which has failed and will continue to fail. The Hartwell Paper follows the advice that a good crisis should not be wasted.” [43]. </p><p> </p><p><b>44. Steve Rayner </b>( a professor at Oxford University and a member of the eminent and international Hartwell<span> </span>Group) (2010): "I think we have been over-enamored of the economists' argument that if we get the right price, the problem will fix itself. The notion that we can force up the price of carbon-based fuels and thus facilitate a move away from them is not taking adequate account to the political resistance from rising energy costs." [44].</p><b> </b><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>45. Gwyn Prins (Research Professor at the London School of Economics & Political Science and a member of the eminent and international Hartwell<span> </span>Group) (2011):</b> <span> </span>“It is now plain that something has gone badly awry with the European Union’s policies and views on the issue of climate change. Plain to any observer, it seems, other than the EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard, and her colleagues inside the shiny towers of the Brussels <i>quartier européen</i>. They continue to assert in a triumph of hope over experience that it will all come good with more of the same polices that have just failed. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme and associated promotion of so-called “cap and trade” carbon trading has crashed and is burning. The carbon price had already crashed twice before the present time. That isn’t to say that nothing is happening: much is. A false market in the non-emission of carbon has been created by fiat and is having a dampening effect on already fragile EU economic recovery. But it is fertilising a luxuriant undergrowth of consultants and ‘carbon traders’, rather in the way that speculators in other classic ‘bubble’ markets have been enriched in the past… To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity and political pragmatism is not just noble and necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness—which has failed. Securing access to low-cost energy for all, including the very poor, is truly and literally liberating. Building resilience to surprise and to extremes of weather is a practical expression of true global solidarity. Improving the quality of the air that people breathe is an undeniable public good. Significant public investment in direct decarbonisation of the global energy system is the most ambitious goal but is, in the Hartwellite view, only likely to be attained by an indirect approach. The good news is that there are good reasons to believe that such a radically reframed policy can work where the current EU policies have failed. But that depends entirely upon accepting that this is the case. So my plea to Ms Hedegaard and her colleagues is the same that Oliver Cromwell made to the Church of Scotland in 1650. “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” [45].</p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="slug-pages"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style:italic">46. William Nordhaus (</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="st">Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University</span><span class="slug-pages"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight: bold;">) (2101): </span>“</span></span>The present study examines alternative outcomes for emissions, climate change, and damages under different policy scenarios. It uses an updated version of the regional integrated model of climate and the economy (RICE model). Recent projections suggest that substantial future warming will occur if no abatement policies are implemented. The model also calculates the path of carbon prices necessary to keep the increase in global mean temperature to 2 °C or less in an efficient manner. The carbon price for 2010 associated with that goal is estimated to be $59 per ton (at 2005 prices), compared with an effective global average price today of around $5 per ton. However, it is unlikely that the Copenhagen temperature goal will be attained even if countries meet their ambitious stated objectives under the Copenhagen Accord…. A final difficulty arises because the Kyoto and Copenhagen regimes have adopted a cap-and-trade structure. These have the theoretical advantage that they can coordinate emissions reductions across countries in an efficient manner. However, these theoretical advantages have proved illusory to date. Analysts who have examined the actual functioning of similar quantitative restrictions in different sectors note many difficulties with cap-and-trade that are not fully appreciated in the scientific community (33, 34). Economists often point to harmonized carbon taxes as a more efficient and attractive regime, but these have been generally shunned in negotiations, particularly in the United States, because of the taboo on considering tax-based systems (35).”. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>[46].</p> <p><b>References.</b><br /></p><p><span>[1]. </span>Dr James Hansen, “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade”, Committee on Ways & Means, US House of Representatives, February 2009:<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;"><a href="http://www.cleanenergy-project.de/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-100-dividend-vs-tax-trade/" rel="nofollow"> http://www.cleanenergy-project.de/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-100-dividend-vs-tax-trade/</a> ;</span> <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf</a> .</p><p>[2]. Tricia Holly Davis & Jonathan Leake, New Statesman, 26 March 2009: <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2009/03/carbon-price-climate-hope-co2" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2009/03/carbon-price-climate-hope-co2">http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2009/03/carbon-price-climate-hope-co2</a> .</p><p>[3]. Professor William Nordhaus, “Economic issues in designing a global agreement on global warming”, Keynote plenary address for the 10-12 March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”: <a href="http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/professorwilliamnordhaus-plenaryspeaker-11march2009.pdf/" rel="nofollow" title="http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/professorwilliamnordhaus-plenaryspeaker-11march2009.pdf/">http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/professorwilliamnordhaus-plenaryspeaker-11march2009.pdf/</a> ; for this and other plenary lectures see: <a href="http://climatecongress.ku.dk/presentations/congresspresentations/" rel="nofollow">http://climatecongress.ku.dk/presentations/congresspresentations/</a> .</p><p>[4]. Oliver Tickel, “Replace Kyoto Protocol with global carbon tax, says Yale economist”, Guardian, 12 March 2009: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/carbon-tax-should-replace-kyoto-protocol" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/carbon-tax-should-replace-kyoto-protocol</a> <span> </span>.</p><p>[5]. Professor Daniel M. Kammen, “From climate science to solutions: shared agendas in the North and South”, <span> </span>Keynote plenary address for the 10-12 March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”: <a href="http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/danielkammen-plenaryspeaker-11march2009.pdf/" rel="nofollow">http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/danielkammen-plenaryspeaker-11march2009.pdf/</a> ; for this and other plenary lectures see: <a href="http://climatecongress.ku.dk/presentations/congresspresentations/" rel="nofollow">http://climatecongress.ku.dk/presentations/congresspresentations/</a> . </p><p>[6]. Professor Barry Brook, “CPRS versus carbon tax: Senate Inquiry”, 30 March 2009: <span> </span>“ <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/03/30/cprs-vs-carbon-tax-senate-inquiry/" rel="nofollow">http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/03/30/cprs-vs-carbon-tax-senate-inquiry/</a> <span> </span>.</p><p>[7]. Larry Lohmann, summary of book “Carbon Trading. A critical conversation on climate change, privatisation and power” by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006, published by Dag Hammarskold Foundation, Durban Group for Climate Justice and The Corner House, 2006: <a href="http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=544225" rel="nofollow">http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=544225</a> .</p><p>[8]. Dr Robert J. Shapiro, “The real choice between Cap-and Trade and Carbon-based taxes”, Roll Call, 15 January 2009: <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/31397-1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rollcall.com/news/31397-1.html</a> .</p><p>[9]. Dr Robert J. Shapiro, "Shapiro: economy will force quick action on climate change", Roll Call, 30 March 2009: </p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><a href="http://www.rollcall.com/features/Mission-Ahead_2009/ma_energy/33565-1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rollcall.com/features/Mission-Ahead_2009/ma_energy/33565-1.html</a> .</span></p><h4><a name="TOC-10-.-Public-Citizen-statement-Obama"></a><span style="font-weight:normal"><span> </span>[10]. Public Citizen statement, “[Obama] Climate change bill must be strengthened”, 27 June 2009): <span> </span><span> </span><a href="http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2913" rel="nofollow">http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2913</a> .</span></h4>[11]. Stephen Lendman,“Obama’s cap and trade emissions bill – a stealth scheme to license pollution and fraud”, MWC News, 8 July 2009: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/31742/26/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/31742/26/</a> <span> </span>.<br /><br />[12]. Catherine Austin Fitts, “The next really scary bubble”, Solari, 1 July 2009: <a href="http://solari.com/blog/?p=3360" rel="nofollow">http://solari.com/blog/?p=3360</a> .<br /><br />[13]. Greenpeace, “ Greenpeace opposes Waxman-Markey. Climate Bill not science based; benefits polluters”, 25 June 2009: <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-opposes-waxman-mark" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-opposes-waxman-mark</a> .<br /><br />[14]. Kenneth Davidson, “A carbon tax is the way to cut emissions”, The Age, 19 March 2009: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/a-carbon-tax-is-the-way-to-cut-emissions-20090318-923b.html?page=-1" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/a-carbon-tax-is-the-way-to-cut-emissions-20090318-923b.html?page=-1</a> .<br /><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:10pt;">[15]. Guy Pearse, “Quarry vision: coal, climate change & the end of the resources boom”, speech, March-April 2009: <a href="http://www.guypearse.com/docs/guypearse.com/Pearse%20Quarry%20Vision%20Speech.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.guypearse.com/docs/guypearse.com/Pearse%20Quarry%20Vision%20Speech.pdf</a> ; see also Guy Pearse, “<span>Quarry Vision, Coal, Climate Change and the End of the Resources Boom”,<i> </i></span>Quarterly Essay 33, 2009. </span><br /><br />[16]. Professor Joseph Stiglitz, “Carbon-taxing the rich”, UK Guardian Comment is Free, 7 December 2007: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/07/carbontaxingtherich" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/07/carbontaxingtherich</a> .<br /><br />[17]. James Hansen, “G-8 failure reflects failure on climate change”, The Huffington Post, 9 July 2009: <span> </span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/g-8-failure-reflects-us-f_b_228597.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/g-8-failure-reflects-us-f_b_228597.html</a> .<br /><br />[18]. Carbon Tax Center, “<b><span style="font-weight:normal">Why revenue-neutral carbon taxes are essential,</span></b><b><span> </span></b><b><span style="font-weight:normal">what's happening now, and how you can help”, 2009: <a href="http://www.carbontax.org/" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.carbontax.org/</span></a> .<br /><br /></span></b><b><span style="font-weight:normal">[19] Carbon Tax Center, “Carbon Tax supporters”, 2009: <a href="http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/</span></a> .</span></b><br /><br />[20]. Richard Denniss, “Left and Right agree on Carbon Tax”, The Australian, <i><span style="font-style:normal">18 February 2009: <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25070069-7583,00.html" rel="nofollow"><span><br /></span></a></span></i> <p><i><span style="font-style:normal"><a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25070069-7583,00.html" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25070069-7583,00.html</span></a> .</span></i></p><p><span>[21]. Paul Taylor, Tax-happy French eye Carbon Tax”, Reuters, Commentaries, 22 July 2009: <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/07/22/tax-happy-french-eye-carbon-tax/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/07/22/tax-happy-french-eye-carbon-tax/</a> .</span> </p><p> </p><p><span>[22]. John Humphreys, “Exploring a Carbon Tax for Australia”, Perspectives on Tax reform (14), Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) Monograph 80, 2007, Executive Summary, p ix: <a href="http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm80.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm80.pdf</a> .</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[23]. ACT New Zealand, “ETS the wrong approach”, 21 July 2009: <a href="http://www.act.org.nz/news/ets-the-wrong-approach" rel="nofollow">http://www.act.org.nz/news/ets-the-wrong-approach</a> .</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[24]. Vandana Shiva, “The poor are burdened twice “, New Statesman, 17 September 2009 : <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2009/09/china-emissions-carbon-levels" rel="nofollow">http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2009/09/china-emissions-carbon-levels</a> .</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[25]. David Massen, quoted by PDA, “PDA endorses direct carbon pricing with revenue recycling”, PDA, 22 October 2009: <a href="http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-10-22-17-25-09-news.php" rel="nofollow">http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-10-22-17-25-09-news.php</a> .</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[26]. Progressive Democrats of America Stop Global warming/Environmental Issues Organizing Team, </span><b><span style="font-weight:normal">Global Warming Policy Statement</span></b>, adopted Oct. 19, 2009<span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">: <a href="http://pdamerica.org/pdacms/sites/default/files/GWIOT.policy.statement-US.climate.legislation.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://pdamerica.org/pdacms/sites/default/files/GWIOT.policy.statement-US.climate.legislation.pdf</a> .</span></p><p>[27]. Dr Clive Spash quoted in Nicola Berkovic, “CSIRO bid to gag emissions trading scheme<span> </span>policy attack”, The Australian, 2 November 2009: <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-601,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-601,00.html</a> .</p><p>[28]. “Economist says carbon tax better than an ETS”, ABC Rural, 26 October 2009: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200910/s2723836.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200910/s2723836.htm</a> .</p><p>[29]. Glenn Milne, “Wong’s ETS unites foes on Left and Right”, The Australian, 19 October 2009: <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/wongs-ets-unites-foes-on-left-right/story-e6frg75x-1225788112150" rel="nofollow">http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/wongs-ets-unites-foes-on-left-right/story-e6frg75x-1225788112150</a> .</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[30]. Kenneth Davidson, "Power giants crying foul? What a joke!”. The Age, 30 November 2009: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/power-giants-crying-foul-what-a-joke-20091129-jyqx.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/power-giants-crying-foul-what-a-joke-20091129-jyqx.html</a> .</span></p><p>[31]. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;color:navy;">James Hansen in “Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis?” , UK Guardian, Comment is Free, 7-18 December: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/copenhagen-summit-climate-change" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/copenhagen-summit-climate-change">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/copenhagen-summit-climate-change</a> .</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p><p> [32]. Gaia Vince, “One last chance to save mankind”, New Scientist, 23 January 2009: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true</a> .<br /></p><p>[33]. Vandana Shiva,”Food, forests and fuel: from false to real solutions for the climate change”, ZSpace, 13 December 2007: <a href="http://www.ww.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3285" rel="nofollow">http://www.ww.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3285</a> .</p><p>[34]. Joseph Stiglitz, “Overcoming the Copenhagen failure”, Countercurrents, 9 January 2010: <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/stiglitz090110.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/stiglitz090110.htm</a> .</p><p> </p><p>[35]. James Hansen, “<span>It's Possible To Avert The Climate Crisis</span>”, Countercurrents, 27 November 2009: <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/hansen291109.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/hansen291109.htm</a> .</p><p>[36]. Dr James Lovelock, in interview with Gaia Vince, “One last chance to save mankind”, New Scientist, 23 January 2009: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true</a> .</p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[37]. Dr Cameron Hepburn, Fellow, Oxford University, UK, “Is a Tax better than an Emissions Trading Scheme”, transcript of lecture, Grattan Institute (economcs think-tank </span>involving links with Melbourne University, the Victorian Government, and corporate Australia)<span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">, 25 March 2010: <a href="http://www.grattan.edu.au/assets/linked_docs/100325_Hepburn_Transcript.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.grattan.edu.au/assets/linked_docs/100325_Hepburn_Transcript.pdf</a> .</span></p><p>[38]. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">John Daley & Tristan Edis, <span> </span>Grattan Institute, <span> </span>“Restructuring <span> </span>the Australian economy to emit less carbon – a Grattan report”, Grattan Institute, April 2010: <a href="http://www.grattan.edu.au/pub_page/report_energy1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.grattan.edu.au/pub_page/report_energy1.html</a> .</span></p><p>[39]. Steve Stoft and Dan Kirshner, “Dividend or tax shift: which is better?”, Capanddividend: <a href="http://www.capanddividend.org/?q=node/214" rel="nofollow">http://www.capanddividend.org/?q=node/214</a> .</p><p>[40].Carbon Tax Center (CTC), Myths, CTC, 10 July 2010: <a href="http://www.carbontax.org/myths/" rel="nofollow">http://www.carbontax.org/myths/</a> . <span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;" >[41]. Carbon Tax Center, “Scientists an economists”, CTC: <a href="http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/scientists-and-economists/" rel="nofollow">http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/scientists-and-economists/</a> .</span><span style="font-weight:normal;font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;" >[42].</span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;" ><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-weight: normal;font-size:12pt;" >[42]. Ian Dunlop, “Demolishing myths on emissions trading”, The Drum Unleashed, ABC, 2 August 2010: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2969273.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2969273.htm</a> .</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt;" >[43]. </span><span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12.0pt;">Prins, Gwyn</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;"> and <span> </span><span>Galiana, Isabel</span> and <span>Green, Christopher</span> and <span>Grundmann, Reiner</span> and <span>Korhola, Atte</span> and <span>Laird, Frank</span> and <span>Nordhaus, Ted</span> and <span>Pielke Jnr, Roger</span> and <span>Rayner, Steve</span> and <span>Sarewitz, Daniel</span> and <span>Shellenberger, Michael</span> and <span>Stehr, Nico</span> and <span>Tezuko, Hiroyuki</span> (2010) “<i><span style="font-style:normal">The Hartwell Paper: a new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009”,</span></i><i> </i>Institute for Science, Innovation & Society, University of Oxford; LSE Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK : <a href="http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf</a> .</span></p><p>[44]. Ben Schiller “Is it time to overhaul Europe’ carbon trading scheme? Europe's seven year-old emissions trading scheme needs reforming - or even scrapping - for its failure to control CO2 emissions”, UK Guardian, 28 April 2011: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/28/overhaul-europe-carbon-trading-scheme" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/28/overhaul-europe-carbon-trading-scheme</a> .</p> <p>[45]. Gwyn Prins, “EU climate policy after the crash of 09”, The European Business <span> </span>Review (2011): <a href="http://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/?p=2303" rel="nofollow">http://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/?p=2303</a> . </p><p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> </p><p>[46]. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>William Nordhaus, “Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, <span class="slug-vol"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style:italic">vol. 107</span></span><span class="slug-issue"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style:italic">, </span></span><span class="slug-pages"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style:italic">11721-11726, 2010: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/26/11721.full">http://www.pnas.org/content/107/26/11721.full</a> .</span></span></p> <p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> </p><b><span style="font-weight:normal"><br /><br /></span></b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-1493976882992502372011-06-24T00:18:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:19:45.742-07:00Global warming and Victorian bushfire tragedy<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Global warming and Victorian bushfire tragedy</span> </h3> <p><b>The State of Victoria, Australia, has just suffered record-breaking heat wave temperatures and a tragic bushfire disaster (209 people dead, 500 injured, 100 in hospital with burns, over 1,834 homes destroyed, thousands of homes damaged, over 450,000 hectares (1.1 million acres) burned) (see Wikipedia "2009 Victorian bushfires": </b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Victorian_bushfires" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Victorian_bushfires</a> </span> <b> ). This tragedy has occurred on top of a contributory background of sustained drought, man-made global warming and global government inaction as set out below with reference to EXPERT SCIENTIFIC OPINION from before and after the Victorian bushfire tragedy.</b></p> <b>1.</b> According to the seminal 2006 study by <b>Dr A.L. Westerling et al.</b> ( Scripps Institute of Oceanography and other prestigious US institutions; published in the top science journal Science): “Western United States forest wildfire activity is widely thought<sup> </sup>to have increased in recent decades, yet neither the extent<sup> </sup>of recent changes nor the degree to which climate may be driving<sup> </sup>regional changes in wildfire has been systematically documented.<sup> </sup>Much of the public and scientific discussion of changes in western<sup> </sup>United States wildfire has focused instead on the effects of<sup> </sup>19th- and 20th-century land-use history. We compiled a comprehensive<sup> </sup>database of large wildfires in western United States forests<sup> </sup>since 1970 and compared it with hydroclimatic and land-surface<sup> </sup>data. Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly<sup> </sup>and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency,<sup> </sup>longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The<sup> </sup>greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies<sup> </sup>forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect<sup> </sup>on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring<sup> </sup>and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt … <b>Increased forest wildfire activity.</b> We found that the incidence<sup> </sup>of large wildfires in western forests increased in the mid-1980s (Fig. 1) [hereafter, "wildfires" refers to large-fire events<sup> </sup>(>400 ha) within forested areas only]. Subsequently,<sup> </sup>wildfire frequency was nearly four times the average of 1970<sup> </sup>to 1986, and the total area burned by these fires was more than<sup> </sup>six and a half times its previous level. … Temperature affects summer drought, and thus flammability of<sup> </sup>live and dead fuels in forests through its effect on evapotranspiration<sup> </sup>and, at higher elevations, on snow. Additionally, warm spring<sup> </sup>and summer temperatures were strongly associated with reduced<sup> </sup>winter precipitation over much of the western United States”. [1]. <b> 2.</b> According to <b>Professor John </b><span style="color:black"><b>Holdren</b> (Harvard University, former Chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Director of the Woods Hole Research Center, and President Obama’s chief scientific adviser) in a recent lecture entitled “The Science of Climatic Disruption”, forest fires are being exacerbated by drought and elevated temperatures in America and Europe; the annual acres burned in the Western USA have now increased from about 0.5 million (1960-1980) to 2.5- 4.5 million (21st century); and the 14 hottest years on record have been since 1990. [2].</span> <b> 3.</b> According to <b>NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)</b> the global mean surface temperature increase since about 1970 has been about 0.6 <sup>o</sup>C (the temperature increase since about 1890 has been about 0.8 <sup>o</sup>C) . [3]. <p><b>4.</b> In response to a record heat wave in the State of Victoria, Australia, and its capital Melbourne (on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, January 28-30, 2009, <span> </span><span> </span>the Melbourne temperature was unprecedently in excess of 43<sup> o</sup>C), <b>Professor David Karoly </b>(meteorologist, University of Melbourne; <span> </span>chairman of the Victorian government's climate change reference group; shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with others connected with the IPCC) stated: "This week is unusual but it (the heat) will become much more like the normal experience, in the range of normal heatwaves, in 10-20 years …[Within 30 years, the number of daily temperatures above 35 <sup>o</sup>C is expected to double in Melbourne]… It is clear that the current (Victorian) public transport system is not able to cope and it is also clear that the water supply system is stretched ... The health services and the road system are also obviously stretched to their limits… The system can't cope now, and it is just going to get much worse”. [4].</p> <p><b>5. After the subsequent <span> </span>record temperature for any Australian capital city of <span> </span>46.4 <sup>o</sup>C in Melbourne (47.8 <sup>o</sup>C at Avalon, the location of Melbourne’s second major airport) and the coincident horrendous bushfire disaster on Black Saturday February 7, <span> </span>2009 (over 180 dead, over 1,000 homes destroyed, over 300,000 hectares burnt)</b>, expert comment connecting this disaster with climate change has been limited although there has been much comment on other aspects risk management <span> </span>and preparedness (e.g. fight or flee, bunkers, fuel reduction, tree reduction around homes, warning sirens).</p> <p>Thus according to some leading Australian bushfire researchers (psychologist <b>Professor Douglas Paton</b> of the University of Tasmania<span> </span>and the <span> </span>Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), Bushfire CRC chief executive officer Gary Morgan, and bushfire and <span> </span>urban design expert Justin Leonard of the CSIRO) Australians need to be better educated about how to deal with bushfires. The current “prepare, stay and defend” or “leave early” policy may have to be modified in view of this latest tragedy and global warming. [5].</p> <p><b>6.</b> However <span> </span><b>Professor Will Steffen </b>(director, Climate Change Institute, Australian National University , ANU) has commented : "Events like this, severe heatwaves and severe fires, become more likely with an underlying change in climate …People better prepare for the fact that the risk is increasing ... (for) more frequent extreme events that are related to temperature, like heatwaves, like bushfires … Our climate is getting warmer, as it is in the rest of the world, and I think there's no doubt about that”. [6].</p> <p><b>7.</b> Australian Greens Senator <b>Dr Bob <span> </span>Brown</b> : “Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 per cent, 50 per cent more". [6].</p> <p><b>8.</b> Greenpeace climate campaigner <b>Trish Harrup</b>: “The scale of this catastrophe, coupled with severe floods in Queensland, should be a clarion call to politicians for the need to begin treating climate change as a national emergency”. [6].</p> <p><b>9.</b> Climatologist <b>Professor David Karoly</b> (University of Melbourne) (ABC Lateline interview): “[hot temperatures] unprecedented .... The records were broken by a large amount and you cannot explain that just by natural variability … What we are seeing now is that the chances of these sorts of extreme fire weather situations are occurring much more rapidly in the last ten years due to climate change." [7]. </p> <p><b>10.</b> Scientist <b>Dr Greg Holland </b>(US National Center for Atmospheric Research): “[high levels of greenhouse gases would] be with us for decades …We definitely need to change our habits so that we can leave our children and our children's children with a better world to live in … In the meantime we are going to have to adapt, we are going to have to accept that it is not going to be six days per summer of extreme temperatures. It may be 20 days per summer of extreme temperatures. And we have to take the appropriate actions to actually live with those conditions." [7].</p><p><b>11.</b> <b>Susan Solomon, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Reto Knutti & Pierre Friedlingstein</b>, (in Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, , February 10 2009): </p> "The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450–600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the “dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise. Thermal expansion of the warming ocean provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average sea level rise of at least 0.4–1.0 m if 21st century CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and 0.6–1.9 m for peak CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations exceeding ≈1,000 ppmv. Additional contributions from glaciers and ice sheet contributions to future sea level rise are uncertain but may equal or exceed several meters over the next millennium or longer... The spatial changes in precipitation as shown in Fig. 3 imply greater challenges in the distribution of food and water supplies than those with which the world has had difficulty coping in the past. Such changes occurring not just for a few decades but over centuries are expected to have a range of impacts that differ by region [SW and NE Australia badly affected] . These include, e.g., human water supplies [25], effects on dry-season wheat and maize agriculture in certain regions of rain-fed farming such as Africa [33, 34], increased fire frequency, ecosystem change, and desertification [24, 35-38].” [8]. <b>12.</b> According to <b>Dr Andrew Glikson </b>(earth and paleo-climate scientist, Australian National University, Canberra), “The Global warming connection of SE Australia’s heat wave” (Group e-mail): “The near-18 degrees C temperature spike (relative to mean base period 1971-2000) in southern Victoria on the 7 February, 2009 (<a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/" title="http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/" rel="nofollow">http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/</a>), needs to be looked at in a global as well as an Australian perspective. The concentration of large warm moist air masses over northern Australia and the Timor Sea results in: (A) North Queensland cyclones;<br /><p> (B) Air currents emanating from the Timor Sea, related to the Indian Ocean Dipole (<a href="http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/" title="http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/" rel="nofollow">http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/</a>), directed toward the southeast, dry over central Australia to reach SE Australia as heat waves.<br /></p><p>The increase in atmospheric energy (heat) by 1.6 Watt/m2 due to emission of >305 Gigaton Carbon since 1750, an increase of near-38% in atmospheric CO2 levels, enhances the heating of the cross-continental air current, reaching heavily timbered regions of SE Australia where vegetation, not acclimatized to extreme heat waves of 45 degrees C and higher and reaching tinder box conditions, as on the 7th February, 09 (<a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=maxave&area=nat&period=daily&time=history&steps=4" title="http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=maxave&area=nat&period=daily&time=history&steps=4" rel="nofollow">http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=maxave&area=nat&period=daily&time=history&steps=4</a>). A new study by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicates the consequences of continued CO2 emissions, currently rising at 1.8-2.2 ppm/year, will persist on a time scale of about 1000 Years (<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127163403.htm%29" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127163403.htm)</a>.” [9].</p> <p><b>13.</b> According to <b>Professor Barry Brook</b> (holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide), “Is there a link between Adelaide’s heatwave [January-February 2009] and global warming?”: “[Yes] …So, in Adelaide we have two freakishly rare extreme events happening with a 10 month period. How likely is that? Well, if the events are totally independent, we’d expect the joint likelihood of two such heatwaves (of 0.25% probability per year [the 2009 event] and 0.033% per year [2008 event], respectively), occurring within the same 12 month period, to happen about <b>once</b> <b>every 1,200,000 years</b>. Is that unlikely enough for you? But if there is ‘autocorrelation’ (dependencies between the two events due to a linked cause — such as climate change), this calculated probability is not valid. What exactly do I mean by this? Well, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave" rel="nofollow">heatwave that struck Europe is 2003</a> provides a good way to illustrate my final point, thanks to a neat analysis <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03089.html" rel="nofollow">published in <i>Nature</i></a> in 2004. The authors of this study estimate that warming to date has at least doubled the probability of such an extreme heatwave occurring. Moreover, under ongoing heating, climate models suggest that by 2040, this extraordinarily hot summer (in historical terms) will be just a run-of-the-mill average summer. By 2060, it will be among the coolest of summers the future residents of Europe will thereafter ever experience.” [10].</p> <p><b>14. Professor James Hansen</b>, leading US climate scientist and chief scientist of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Research, GISS) in a 2008 letter to Australian PM Rudd: “<i><span style="font-style:normal">Global climate is near critical tipping points that could lead to loss of all summer sea ice in the Arctic with detrimental effects on wildlife, initiation of ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica and Greenland with progressive, unstoppable global sea level rise, shifting of climatic zones with extermination of many animal and plant species, reduction of freshwater supplies for hundreds of millions of people, and a more intense hydrologic cycle with stronger droughts and forest fires, but also heavier rains and floods, and stronger storms driven by latent heat, including tropical storms, tornados and thunderstorms</span></i>”. [11].</p> <p><b>15. According to Dr Andrew Glikson in an Open Letter to Australian PM Kevin Rudd </b>(9 February 2009): “Less than one year elapsed since Hansen’s letter was sent, and while isolated weather events are not necessarily related to climate change, a dangerous trend has developed consistent with projections of atmospheric science, relegating southern Australia to droughts and fire and the north to intense cyclones and floods. Given the gravity of the matter, I suggest you consider to urgently convene a climate summit, where your government can listen to reports of severe climate disruption around the globe and in Australia, and to what the science says regarding future generations your government was entrusted to protect.” [12]. </p> <p><b>18.</b> According to <b>Professor David Karoly</b> (University of Melbourne; Victorian Government's chief climate change adviser; interviewed on ABC TV Lateline, February 9, 2009): “Look, it's really hard to tell how radical would the changes need to be in the emergency services to cope with the firestorms that were experienced on Saturday. It's quite likely that almost nothing could cope with that sort of intense fire. But it is clear that things can be done to slow down climate change, and we certainly know that climate change will bring higher frequencies of the extreme fire weather that was experienced on Saturday … There is certainly evidence that a number of things, particularly rainfall declines in the south east of Australia, other things like retreat of arctic sea ice are happening much faster than the best estimate, if you like, the mid-range estimate of climate change from the intergovernmental panel on climate change. They're probably - some of those things are happening at the highest range or at the upper limit of what the climate models would project. And even for things like arctic sea ice are happening faster than even climate models would predict. So, yes, we are seeing many changes that are occurring faster than the IPCC climate models would've projected … It's very difficult to attribute a single event to climate change or to natural variability. What we have to do is really look at the balance of probabilities or the risk or likelihood of these events. And what we can say is it is possible to get extreme events like this, like the firestorms, just due to natural variability. But what we're seeing now is that the dice have been heavily loaded so that the chances of these sorts of extreme fire weather situations are occurring much more rapidly in the last 10 years due to climate change. So climate change has loaded the dice. And what we're seeing is a much greater occurrence of this extreme fire weather. And certainly in some situations, we're seeing unprecedented extremes. The hot temperatures on Saturday in Melbourne and in many parts in south eastern Australia were unprecedented. The records were broken by large amount and you cannot explain that just by natural variability. And climate change due to increasing greenhouse gases has been a major factor in increasing the temperatures and likely contributing to the drought in south eastern Australia … Well, I'm sure that there will be expert meteorologists and fire weather experts, both from the Bureau of Meteorology, from the Country Fire Authority, who will be analysing the weather situations. As I said before, it is not possible to attribute any single event to climate change. However, climate change, as I said, has loaded the dice and has increased the probability of these sorts of events occurring. So what we're seeing is a shift in the climate that allows these sorts of severe fire weather events to occur much more commonly. And unfortunately, the changes that are in train already mean that they'll become much more common over the next 10 and 20 years in addition to what we've seen in the last 10 years… We certainly warned of increases in climate extremes, but it's not that these warnings are new. In fact more than a decade ago, climate scientists have been warning of increased occurrence of climate extremes including fire weather in south eastern Australia….Well, I'd hate to say that it requires a disaster to draw the attention - or focus the attention of ministers, but it's certainly clear that the economic disaster focused the attention of the world. And perhaps it requires disasters like Hurricane Katrina in the United States or fire disasters like we've experienced to focus the attention on issues like climate change.” [13]. </p> <p><b>19. Dr Greg Holland</b> (US National Centre for Atmospheric Research): “I think there is no question you can't attribute to any one event climate change or indeed climate variability. But the way I would put it - I think David's [Professor David Kasroly’s] comparison with loaded dice is a very good one. I would put it in a slightly different fashion, though; that is that it's not that the last couple of days, or indeed the last two or three weeks can be directly attributed to climate change. What we have to accept is that is going to happen a lot more often. So it's not gonna be 30 years before the next one, it's going to be 15 years before the next one. And another important factor that gets left out of a lot of the meteorological discussion is that, like it or not, there are a lot more of us nowadays, and so there are a lot more people in the way of these systems, so the danger keeps getting amplified by the combination of these factors. There is no good story here, I'm afraid …" [13]. </p> <p><b>20. The following is a statement from 200 intellectual and scientist delegates to the <span> </span>June 2008 Manning Clark House Conference:</b><span style="font-weight:normal"><b> “Imagining the Real Life on a Greenhouse Earth”,</b></span><b><span style="font-weight:normal"> 11-12 June, Australian National University, Canberra</span></b> (e.g. <b><span style="font-weight:normal">climate scientists</span><br />Prof Barry Brook, Prof Ian Enting, Prof Janette Lindesay, Prof Graeme Pearman, Dr Barrie Pittock, Prof Will Steffen; </b><b><span style="font-weight:normal">Earth and prehistory scientists</span></b><b><br />Dr Geoff Davies, Dr David Denham, Dr Andrew Glikson (conference convenor), Dr Geoffrey Hope, Prof Malcolm McCulloch, Dr Bradley Opdyke;<br /></b> <b><span style="font-weight:normal">health and population experts</span></b><b> Prof Stephen Boyden, Dr Bryan Furnass (conference co-convenor), Prof Tony McMichael, Dr Sue Wareham) and<br />Mark O’Connor</b>).</p><p><b> “</b>Global warming is accelerating. The Arctic summer sea ice is expected to melt entirely within the next five years, - decades earlier than predicted in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report.</p> <p>Scientists judge the risks to humanity of dangerous global warming to be high. The Great Barrier Reef faces devastation. Extreme weather events, such as storm surges adding to rising sea levels and threatening coastal cities, will become increasingly frequent.</p> <p>There is a real danger that we have reached or will soon reach critical tipping points and the future will be taken out of our hands. The melting Arctic sea ice could be the first such tipping point.</p> <p>Beyond 2ºC of warming, seemingly inevitable unless greenhouse gas reduction targets are tightened, we risk huge human and societal costs and perhaps even the effective end of industrial civilisation. We need to cease our assault on our own life support system, and that of millions of species. Global warming is only one of many symptoms of that assault.</p> <p>Peak oil, global warming and long term sustainability pressures all require that we reduce energy needs and switch to alternative energy sources. Many credible studies show that Australia can quickly and cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions through dramatic improvements in energy efficiency and by increasing our investment in solar, wind and other renewable sources. </p> <p>The need for action is extremely urgent and our window of opportunity for avoiding severe impacts is rapidly closing. Yet the obstacles to change are not technical or economic, they are political and social.</p> <p>We know democratic societies have responded successfully to dire and immediate threats, as was demonstrated in World War II. This is a last call for an effective response to global warming.” [14].</p> <p><b>21.</b> We can realistically expect <span>450 ppm atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> by about 2030 (i.e. in about 20 years’ time assuming 3 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>/y, or earlier due to positive feedbacks) with a change in temperature ( </span><span lang="EN-US">Δ</span><span>T) 2<sup>o</sup>C above that in 1900</span>. Above 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> there is intensification of existing conditions (all Arctic summer sea ice will have gone by 2015, massive hurricanes, storm surges, droughts, mega bushfires, coastal and inland flooding, food shortages, huge mass mortality) plus <span> </span>increasingly <span> </span>major damage to coral reefs – including Australia’s Great Barrier Reef - which will be dying due to ocean warming and acidification above 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> - with increasing damage to already stressed fisheries and agriculture with consequent mass starvation. [15].</p> <p><b>22.</b> This is inexorably happening due to inaction of governments around the world who are simply ignoring top scientific advice in the interests of short-term business profits. Yet it doesn’t have to happen if appropriate actions are urgently taken as summarized below from the <b>1-page Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions statement of the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (please send to everyone you can)</b>. [16].</p> <p><b><span>Climate Emergency Actions URGENTLY Required.</span></b></p> <p><b><span>1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability</span></b><span> with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying.</span></p> <p><b><span>2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of about 300 ppm</span></b><span> as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists.</span></p> <p><b><span>3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy</span></b><span> (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils <b>coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation </b>of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth. [16]</span></p><p><b>23.</b> Further articles about the connection between climate change and the Victorian bushfire tragedy will be linked as they appear. Thus see "Australian bushfire inferno. Global warming impacting humanity": <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/28518/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/28518/42/</a> .[17].</p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>24.</b> <b>Professor Barry Brook</b> (University of Adelaide) in presenting data on the extraordinary February 7, 2009 weather event, quoted a Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) colleague on the connection between man-made global warming and the Victorian bushfire tragedy: “</span>The Australian <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/" rel="nofollow">Bureau of Meteorology</a> (BOM) has released a <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs17c.pdf" rel="nofollow">detailed analysis of the 2009 southern Australian heatwave</a>. Some of the figures presented are staggering, with numerous temperature records smashed. Indeed, a colleague at BOM pointed out just how exceptional this event was: “<i>Given that this was the </i><b><i>hottest day on record</i></b><i> on top of the </i><b><i>driest start to a year on record</i></b><i> on top of the </i><b><i>longest driest drought on record</i></b><i> on top of the </i><b><i>hottest drought on record</i></b><i> the implications are clear. It is clear to me that climate change is now becoming such a strong contributor to these hitherto unimaginable events that the language starts to change from one of “</i><i><span style="font-style:normal">climate change increased the chances of an event</span>” to “</i><i><span style="font-style:normal">without climate change this event could not have occurred.”</span></i> I couldn’t have said it better. With the shifting climate we are rapidly moving into uncharted territory with unknown return times (but surely already well above what the long-term records might lead us to expect)”. [18].<br /></p> <p><b>25. Professor Neville Nicholls </b>(top climate scientist, Monash University) estimated from before and after Monday and Tuesday death notices that over 100 people died in Melbourne in late January 2009, a period in which there were 3 days of over 43C heat in Melbourne (Wednesday January 28, Thursday January 29 and Friday January 30) preceding the February 7 bushfires and that over 200 had died in South East Australia (Victoria, South Australia and Northern Tasmania) in that period : "‘‘By any reckoning, the heatwave at the end of January was a human tragedy.’’ The article reporting this also stated "The heatwave began on January 28, a 43.4 degree day. The next day was 44.3 and the Friday topped 45.1. It was the first time Melbourne had endured three days in a row above 43 degrees, and temperature records were also set across South Australia and northern Tasmania. It is not so much the maximum temperature that is harmful, but the average daily temperature, a calculation of the minimum of the day and the maximum. In a paper published last year, Professor Nicholls and his Monash colleagues analysed Melbourne data and found that deaths among people aged over 65 jumped by at least 15 per cent when the average daily temperature was more than 30 degrees." [19].<br /></p> <p><span><b>References.</b><br /></span></p> <p><b><span style="font-weight:normal">[1]. A.L. Westerling, H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, T. W. Swetnam </span>,</b><b><span style="font-weight:normal"> </span></b>Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity, <i>Science</i> 18 August 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5789, pp. 940 - 943<br />(DOI: 10.1126/science.1128834; see: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/940" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/940" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/940</a> ).</p> <p>[2]. <span style="color:black">Dr </span>John Holdren (2008), “The Science of Climatic Disruption”: <a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" title="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> .</p> <p>[3]. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS): <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/</a> . See also IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers: <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf</a></span> and Chapter 5, “Projecting Australian climate change”, The Garnaut Climate Change Review (2008): <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp5.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp5.htm</a> .</p> [4]. Professor David Karoly quoted by AAP via TVNZ, New Zealand “Southeast under strain from heatwave” (2009): <a href="http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/southeast-under-strain-heatwave-2457490" rel="nofollow">http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/southeast-under-strain-heatwave-2457490</a> . [5]. Professor Douglas Paton et al, quoted by Dani Cooper, ABC, Science online (2009): <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/10/2487088.htm?site=centralvic" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/10/2487088.htm?site=centralvic</a><p><span style="color:black"> </span></p> <p><span style="color:black">[6]. Professor Will Steffen, Dr Brown and Trish Harrup quoted by Cathy Alexander, “ Expert predicts more mega-bushfires”, Channel 9 News (2009): <a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=749141" rel="nofollow">http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=749141</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:black">[7]. Professor David Karoly and Dr Greg Holland, interviewed by ABC Lateline, “More severe weather forecast, David Karoly warns”: <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25033531-421,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25033531-421,00.html</a> .</span></p><p>[8]. Susan Solomon, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Reto Knutti & Pierre Friedlingstein, PNAS, Feb 10 2009, vol 106 (6) “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions” (<span>Published online before print </span><span>January 28, 2009</span><span>, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106 ; </span>see: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract" rel="nofollow">http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract</a> and <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html" rel="nofollow">http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html</a> ).</p><p>[9]. Dr Andrew Glikson (earth and paleo-climate scientist, Australian National University, Canberra), “The Global warming connection of SE Australia’s heat wave” (Group e-mail, February 13, 2009).</p><p>[10]. Professor Barry Brook, “Is there a link between Adelaide’s heatwave [January-February 2009] and global warming?”: <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/03/is-there-a-link-between-adelaides-heatwave-and-global-warming/#more-1017" rel="nofollow">http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/03/is-there-a-link-between-adelaides-heatwave-and-global-warming/#more-1017</a> <span>.</span></p><p>[11]. Professor James Hansen, Letter to Australian PM Rudd <span>(2008)</span>: <a href="http://www.aussmc.org.au/Hansen_letter_to_Rudd.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.aussmc.org.au/Hansen_letter_to_Rudd.php</a> .<br /></p><p>[12]. Dr Andrew Glikson, Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Australia” (February 9, 2009) : <a href="http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/australian-january-february-2009.html">http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/australian-january-february-2009.html</a> .</p><p>[13]. Professor <span> </span>David Karoly, Dr Greg Holland, ABC TV Lateline Interview, February 9, 2009: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2486757.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2486757.htm</a> . </p> <p><span style="color:black">[14]. Statement of the </span>June 2008 <b><span style="font-weight:normal">Manning Clark House Conference: “Imagining the Real Life on a Greenhouse Earth”, 11-12 June, Australian National University, Canberra: <a href="http://www.aussmc.org/Climate_joint_statement.php" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.aussmc.org/Climate_joint_statement.php</span></a> .</span></b></p> <p><b><span style="font-weight:normal">[15]. Dr Gideon Polya, </span></b><span style="color:black">“Global warming, climate emergency” course notes, U3A (2009): <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming--global-emergency-course" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming--global-emergency-course">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming--global-emergency-course</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:black">[16]. </span><span>Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions, Yarra </span>Valley Climate Action Group (2008): <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions</a> .</p><p>[17]. Dr Gideon Polya "Australian bushfire inferno. Global warming impacting humanity", MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/28518/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/28518/42/</a> .</p><p>[18]. Professor Barry Brook, “Heatwave update and [Dr Andrew Glikson’s] Open Letter to the [Australian] PM”: <a href="http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/australian-january-february-2009.html">http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/australian-january-february-2009.html</a> .</p><p>[19]. Professor Neville Nicholls, quoted in Melissa Fyfe, "Heatwave left hundreds dead ", The Age: </p><p><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/heatwave-left-hundreds-dead-20090221-8ea4.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/national/heatwave-left-hundreds-dead-20090221-8ea4.html</a> .<br /></p>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-79654536967904673372011-06-24T00:15:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:18:36.611-07:00Forest biomass-derived Biochar<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Forest biomass-derived Biochar can profitably reduce global warming and bushfire risk</span> </h3> <p><b><span>Forest</span></b><b><span> biomass-derived Biochar can profitably reduce global warming and bushfire risk</span></b></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span> In late January 2009 SE Australia suffered a record-breaking heatwave (3 days in Melbourne with temperatures over 43<sup>o</sup>C) that killed over 200 Australians in SE Australia and a consequent devastating bushfire tragedy in Victoria on Saturday February 7 that killed 209 people, </span>with 500 injured, 100 in hospital with burns, over 1,834 homes destroyed, thousands of homes damaged, and over 450,000 hectares burned. [1, 2].</p> <p>Top Australian climate scientists are saying that this dual tragedy is associated with man-made global warming due to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution as summarized by the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group in “Global warming and Victorian bush-fire tragedy” and elsewhere. [3, 4].</p> <p>Unfortunately, while top UK climate scientists have calculated that a 6-8% annual reduction in GHG pollution is needed to avert a catastrophic 450 ppm atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, Australia (the world’s biggest coal exporter and a world leading per capita GHG polluter) is committed to increasing Domestic and Exported GHG pollution by 2% annually and ignores pleas by top climate scientists for an urgent global reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to about 300 ppm. [5, 6]</p> <p><span>Biochar is a major component of reducing atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, global warming and bushfire risk. Biochar can be made from pyrolysis of biomass from expertly-advised bushland fuel hazard reduction harvesting (e.g. straw, wood waste, woody weeds) and thus (a) reduce bushfire threat; (b) provide a valuable, soil-enriching and crop productivity-enhancing product for producing “terra preta” soil; (c) help combat man-made global warming by drawing down atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>; and (d) provide rural employment and farm income supplementation. [7]</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>It has been long recognized that man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, AGW) has been due to increased greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide, CO<sub>2</sub>) in the atmosphere. Data from the US NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies shows a 0.8<sup>o</sup>C rise in average global surface temperature since 1880. [8, 9].</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>This has paralleled increased atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration from 280 (pre-industrial) to a current 387 ppm. [9].</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span style="color:navy">Dr Andrew Glikson (an </span>Earth and paleo-climate research scientist at Australian National University, Canberra, Australia)<span style="color:navy">: “</span>The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres”. [10].</p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>Professor John Holdren (Harvard University, former chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Director of the Woods Hole Research Center, Chief Science Adviser to President Barack Obama) uses the term “climate disruption” to describe the worsening impact of AGW on the Planet. In particular AGW has been associated with a greatly increased impact of forest fires, from 0.5 million acres burned in the Western US in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to 2.5-4.5 million acres burned in the 21st century. Further, </span><span style="color:black">the 14 hottest years on record have been since 1990 and recent decades have seen a huge increase in the severity of flooding in particular zones around the world. [11, 12].</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>According to a seminal study on forest fires in the Western US by Dr A. L. Westerling and colleagues: “</span>large wildfire activity increased suddenly<sup> </sup>and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency,<sup> </sup>longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The<sup> </sup>greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies<sup> </sup>forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect<sup> </sup>on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring<sup> </sup>and summer temperatures”.<span> [13]. </span></p> <p>The State of Victoria, Australia, has just suffered record-breaking heat wave temperatures (100 excess deaths in Melbourne and over 200 SE Australia excess deaths in late January 2009) and a tragic bushfire disaster (209 people dead, 500 injured, 100 in hospital with burns, over 1,834 homes destroyed, thousands of homes damaged, over 450,000 hectares (1.1 million acres) burned). [1, 2]. </p> <p>The week before the Black Saturday February 7 bushfire disaster saw a sustained heat wave in SE Australia with temperatures exceeding 43<sup>o</sup>C for 3 successive days in Melbourne (Wednesday January 28, Thursday January 29 and Friday January 30) - in the late January 2009 heatwave over 100 people died in Melbourne and over 200 died in South East Australia (Victoria, South Australia and Northern Tasmania) as determined by Professor Neville Nicholls, Monash University, by comparing before and after Monday and Tuesday Death Notices. [2].</p> <p>These tragedies occurred on top of a contributory background of sustained drought, man-made global warming and global and Australian government inaction. A detailed list of comments from leading climate scientists on climate change and <span> </span>the Victorian bushfire tragedy has been placed on the Web by the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group. [14].</p> <p><span>Thus </span>Dr Andrew Glikson<b> </b>(earth and paleo-climate scientist, Australian National University, Canberra): “The near-18 degrees C temperature spike (relative to mean base period 1971-2000) in southern Victoria on the 7 February, 2009 (<a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/" rel="nofollow" title="http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/">http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/</a>), needs to be looked at in a global as well as an Australian perspective…The increase in atmospheric energy (heat) by 1.6 Watt/m2 due to emission of >305 Gigaton Carbon since 1750, an increase of near-38% in atmospheric CO2 levels, enhances the heating of the cross-continental air current, reaching heavily timbered regions of SE Australia where vegetation, not acclimatized to extreme heat waves of 45 degrees C and higher and reaching tinder box conditions, as on the 7th February, 2009 (<a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=maxave&area=nat&period=daily&time=history&steps=4%29" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=maxave&area=nat&period=daily&time=history&steps=4)">http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=maxave&area=nat&period=daily&time=history&steps=4)</a>”. [15].</p> <p><span>Professor Barry Brook (University of Adelaide) (re the January-February 2009 weather event and the Victorian bushfire tragedy): “</span>The Australian <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.bom.gov.au/">Bureau of Meteorology</a> (BOM) has released a <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs17c.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs17c.pdf">detailed analysis of the 2009 southern Australian heatwave</a>. Some of the figures presented are staggering, with numerous temperature records smashed. Indeed, a colleague at BOM pointed out just how exceptional this event was: “<i>Given that this was the <b>hottest day on record</b> on top of the <b>driest start to a year on record</b> on top of the <b>longest driest drought on record</b> on top of the <b>hottest drought on record</b> the implications are clear. It is clear to me that climate change is now becoming such a strong contributor to these hitherto unimaginable events that the language starts to change from one of “</i>climate change increased the chances of an event<i>” to “</i>without climate change this event could not have occurred.” I couldn’t have said it better. With the shifting climate we are rapidly moving into uncharted territory with unknown return times (but surely already well above what the long-term records might lead us to expect)”. [16].</p> <p>Professor David Karoly (University of Melbourne; Victorian Government's chief climate change adviser): “It's very difficult to attribute a single event to climate change or to natural variability. What we have to do is really look at the balance of probabilities or the risk or likelihood of these events. And what we can say is it is possible to get extreme events like this, like the firestorms, just due to natural variability. But what we're seeing now is that the dice have been heavily loaded so that the chances of these sorts of extreme fire weather situations are occurring much more rapidly in the last 10 years due to climate change. So climate change has loaded the dice. And what we're seeing is a much greater occurrence of this extreme fire weather. And certainly in some situations, we're seeing unprecedented extremes. The hot temperatures on Saturday in Melbourne and in many parts in south eastern Australia were unprecedented. The records were broken by large amount and you cannot explain that just by natural variability. And climate change due to increasing greenhouse gases has been a major factor in increasing the temperatures and likely contributing to the drought in south eastern Australia.” [17].</p> <p>Professor Will Steffen<b> </b>(director, Climate Change Institute, Australian National University , ANU) has commented : "Events like this, severe heatwaves and severe fires, become more likely with an underlying change in climate …People better prepare for the fact that the risk is increasing ... (for) more frequent extreme events that are related to temperature, like heatwaves, like bushfires … Our climate is getting warmer, as it is in the rest of the world, and I think there's no doubt about that”. [18].</p> <p>Despite the warnings from top climate scientists around the world, governments are failing to respond to the climate emergency. Thus the Australian Rudd Labor Government has failed to take requisite action in response to the 2008 letter to PM Rudd from top US climate scientist Professor James Hansen. [19].</p> <p>Australian climate scientist Dr Andrew Gliksen has written an Open Letter to PM Rudd (9 February 2009), stating: “Less than one year elapsed since Hansen’s letter was sent, and while isolated weather events are not necessarily related to climate change, a dangerous trend has developed consistent with projections of atmospheric science, relegating southern Australia to droughts and fire and the north to intense cyclones and floods [these events occurring simultaneously in January-February 2009 in Australia]. Given the gravity of the matter, I suggest you consider to urgently convene a climate summit, where your government can listen to reports of severe climate disruption around the globe and in Australia, and to what the science says regarding future generations your government was entrusted to protect.” [20]. </p> <p>The actions required in this mounting Climate Emergency include the following set out by the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <b><span>1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability</span></b><span> with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying; <b>2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of about 300 ppm</b> as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists; and</span> <b><span>3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy</span></b><span> (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils <b>coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation </b>of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth. [21].</span></p> <p><b><span>Biochar. </span></b></p> <p><b><span>Biochar</span></b><span> is a major element of required actions to draw down atmospheric CO2 concentration to a safe and sustainable level of about 300 ppm, as perceived by top US climate scientist Professor James Hansen and his colleagues: “Carbon sequestration in soil also has significant potential. Biochar, produced in pyrolysis of residues from crops, forestry, and animal wastes, can be used to restore soil fertility while storing carbon from centuries to millennia . Biochar helps soil retain nutrients and fertilizers, reducing emissions of GHGs such as N<sub>2</sub>O. Replacing slash-and-burn agriculture with slash-and-char and use of agricultural and forestry wastes for biochar production could provide a CO<sub>2</sub> drawdown of ~8 ppm in half a century.” [22].</span></p> <p><span>Professor James Hansen and colleagues cogently state the urgency of the problem “</span>If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO<sub>2</sub> will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm [i.e. to about 300 ppm]. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO<sub>2</sub> forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO<sub>2</sub> is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon [e.g. return of carbon to the soil as as biochar as well as fallow, minimum tillage, and reforestation]. If the present overshoot of this target CO<sub>2</sub> is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.<span> “ [22]</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>Unfortunately Federal Government policy is for (a) an indirect Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme (RTS) “market forces mechanism” (notwithstanding the current market failure and Sir Nicholas Stern’s description of man-made global warming as the greatest failure of market forces) and (b) the as yet hypothetical proposition of sequestration of CO<sub>2</sub> from coal burning, while (c) rejecting biochar. However top UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS strongly contradicts Australian policy on (a) carbon emissions trading: “</span>Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.<span> “; (b) on carbon sequestration: “</span>That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done.<span> “; and (c) on biochar: “</span>There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal [biochar]”.<span> [23].</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>Professor James Lovelock FRS holds out some hope for the planet through returning carbon fixed by plants to the soil as biochar (charcoal produced through oxygen-free pyrolysis e.g. in non-polluting electric furnaces): “</span>There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO<sub>2</sub> down quite fast … The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes [550 billion tonnes] of carbon [carbon dioxide, CO<sub>2</sub>] yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes [CO<sub>2</sub>]. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO<sub>2</sub> is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.<span> “. [23]</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>Professor Lovelock’s estimates are consonant with those of Dr J.A. Harrison, specifically a terrestrial carbon fixation of 121.3 GtC/y (449 Gt CO2 = 449 billion tonnes of CO2) of which about half returns annually to the atmosphere through respiration and most of the remaining half returns to the air through the action of soil fungi and bacteria . [24]. </span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>Similarly, Dr J. Schloerer estimates that about 120 Gt C (444 Gt CO2) is fixed by terrestrial vegetation each year and 99% of this is returned to the atmosphere through plant, animal, fungal and bacterial respiration. [25]. </span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>The agricultural efficacy of biochar was well established by pre-Columbian Amazonian Indians and the European settlers referred to biochar-enriched soil as as Terra Preta. [7].</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>The technology for biochar generation by pyrolysis of biomass waste in the absence of oxygen (O<sub>2</sub>) is well established. [26-33].</span></p> <p><span>Extensive research shows that biochar addition improves soils and agricultural productivity in the following ways: </span>increases the cation exchange capacity (CEC) in soils; enhances soil microbial functions (the porous structure of char forms a safe haven for microbes that make nutrients available to crops); improves the nutrient retention capacity of soils by preventing leaching and erosion (allowing farmers to use organic and inorganic fertilizers cost-effectively); improves water retention; capacity of soils (the porous structure of the material holds water and prevents the moisture from evaporating);and increases the pH of acidic soils (depending upon soil type, similar to the effect of adding of lime). [31].</p> <p><span>“Best Energies” has a biochar pilot plant in NSW, Australia ) and has provided details of its system for low oxygen pyrolysis of all kinds of biomass (including straw, wood waste, woody weeds) with generation of biochar (charcoal, including mineral nutrients) and syngas generation (CO, N<sub>2</sub>O, CH<sub>4</sub>, H<sub>2</sub>, lower molecular weight hydrocarbons, N<sub>2</sub>, and CO<sub>2</sub>). [26, 27].</span></p> <p>Debbie Reed, executive director of the International Biochar Initiative (IBI; a US-based non-profit organisation, headquartered in Bowdoinham, Maine): “It’s a carbon-negative technology … and while removing carbon from the atmosphere, you are also helping food production.” [28].</p> <p>Dr Evelyn Krull (CSIRO, Australia): “Other countries have taken a lot more action with regard to biochar research, for example the New Zealand Government had put about $3.12 million into Massey University. [33]<br /><br />Dr Stephen Joseph (University of NSW, Australia): “Realistically we could pack a big tonne of carbon out of the atmosphere every year. And what I'm doing is to analyse the composition of the biochar. I'm finding it has a high carbon content, mineral matter and clay on the surface…Our research is to come up with a range of product that use wastes that can be put on very low application rates to improve the yields from different crops, and that are a stable carbon that can take carbon out of the atmosphere. And more importantly is to help farmers overcome the problems of reduction in rainfall and increase in temperatures”. [33]<br /><br />Professor Tim Flannery (palaeontologist, mammalogist, climate activist, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia): “You can quantify it [biochar] to the nearest kilogram as you make it, put it in the soil, we know it will stay there for thousands of years, we know it's safe, good for agriculture. Why wouldn't you recognise that when you're happy to recognise a technology [CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration from coal-fired power stations] that isn't in existence yet? Which, you're spending $600 million on just to develop. I see it as being one of the most significant things Australia can do. We should be seeking to offset our emissions, I would argue using these technologies to repay our historic debt to the world, calculate how much carbon pollution we've put in the atmosphere over the last century and seek to repay it using biochar and other biological carbon options”. [33]</p> <p>Adriana Downie (Chemical Engineer, Best Energies biochar compoany, NSW, Australia): “Feeds in through a conveyer into the main dryer which is a rotary dryer you can see they’re spinning around … The volatile gases come off, we use that for energy generation, we're left with a very high carbon stable product we call biochar. It looks black like charcoal essentially … If biochar were to become accredited and be able to generate permits within the scheme that would be a real benefit to us to be able to justify the economics of rolling out the technology”. [33]</p> <p><b><span>What Australian non-scientist politicians and other laypersons are saying about biochar.</span></b></p> <p><span>Federal Government Agriculture Minister Tony Burke: “</span>Mr Burke said the government was examining "soil carbon", but [incorrectly] stressed biochar was an untested and unproven technology. "In terms of the importance of sequestering carbon in soil, we've been absolutely on the front foot on this the whole way through," he told Sky News on Friday. "Biochar is but one of those technologies, and Malcolm has certainly decided to put all of his eggs in one basket very early on, and certainly a long way in advance of where the scientists are at."” [34]. <span> </span></p> <p>Climate Change Minister <i><span style="font-style:normal">Penny Wong : “</span></i>Soil carbon (including biochar) does not fit within the scope of the current Kyoto Protocol accounts, so is not included at this time in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme … [biochar] It's a policy without costings, without detail and without hard data [incorrect]. It's policy which does not deal with what Mr Turnbull himself when a minister said was the best thing to do. That is emissions trading”. [33]. </p> <p><i><span style="font-style:normal">Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull: “</span></i><span>The Minister for Climate Change, Senator Wong, has dismissed the Coalition’s Green Carbon Initiative on the grounds that “soil carbon (including biochar) does not fit within the scope of the current Kyoto protocol accounts”. The objective of Australian Government policy in this area must be to address climate change as soon and effectively as possible at the lowest possible cost. That means pursuing the best available options for abating greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of whether they are referenced by current international agreements or not.</span> <span>The task is to </span><i>reduce emissions</i><span> – not to adhere to arbitrary and outdated constraints contained in a complex treaty negotiated more than a decade ago.</span> <span>Does Senator Wong really believe it is in the national interest to completely ignore low-cost, high-impact, job-creating opportunities to improve the environment simply because they fall outside her narrow focus on an emissions trading scheme?</span> <span>Does Senator Wong really believe it is in the national interest for her backward-looking, bureaucratic mindset to limit the practical tools available to Australia to address climate change? Rather than glibly dismissing the Coalition’s approach, Senator Wong would be better off educating herself on the immense potential for biochar to contribute to lower emissions and a better Australian environment by speaking to the many experts who believe this to be true.</span> <span>Rather than using the narrow scope of previous international agreements as an excuse for inaction, Senator Wong should be working to ensure future agreements recognise that a broad range of tools can contribute to greenhouse gas abatement.” [35].<br /></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>Green Carbon, carbon sequestration by natural forests, bushfires & biochar</b></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Deforestation and forest degradation are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus Sir Nicholas Stern (the Stern Review) has estimated that 18% of annual man-made GHG emissions derive from de-forestation but that it would cost relatively trivial amounts to reduce this problem e.g. as summarized by Lisa Bachelor in the UK Guardian: “</span>One major source of global emissions that needs to be tackled was identified by the Stern review: deforestation. This accounts for the equivalent of 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions - more than the transport sector. Stern believes that the costs of preventing further deforestation 'would be relatively cheap' compared with other types of mitigation. If deforestation were to cease in the eight countries (Cameroon, Congo, Ghana, Bolivia, Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Malaysia) responsible for 70 per cent of land-use emissions, he said, it would cost them around $5bn to $10bn a year. Action to address deforestation would also incur monitoring and enforcement costs, estimated to be around $12m to $93m”. [36].</p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><span> </span>According to Sir Nicholas Stern: </span>"The problem of climate change involves a fundamental failure of markets: those who damage others by emitting greenhouse gases generally do not pay. Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen. The evidence on the seriousness of the risks from inaction or delayed action is now overwhelming. We risk damages on a scale larger than the two world wars of the last century. The problem is global and the response must be a collaboration on a global scale… For $10-15bn (£4.8-7.2bn) per year, a programme could be constructed that could stop up to half the deforestation [that contributes 15-20% of annual GHG emissions]". [37]. </p> <p>Sir Nicholas Stern: “The problem of climate change involves a fundamental failure of markets: those who damage others by emitting greenhouse gases generally do not pay. Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen. The evidence on the seriousness of the risks from inaction is now overwhelming. We risk damage on a scale larger than the two world wars of the past century. The problem is global and the response must be collaboration on a global scale. The rich countries must lead the way in taking action … there should be an international programme to combat deforestation, which contributes 15-20% of emissions. For $10bn-$15bn per year, half the deforestation could be stopped<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">“. [37]. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">It should be noted that other man-made (anthropogenic) damage to forests in addition to deforestation (e.g. man-made climate change, drought, disease burden, biodiversity loss) could substantially increase this estimate of 15-20% of GHG emissions due to deforestation.. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p>A very important scientific contribution to Carbon Accounting is “Green Carbon” by Mackey (2008) as summarized by the publisher, ANU E Press: “The colour of carbon matters. Green carbon is the carbon stored in the plants and soil of natural ecosystems and is a vital part of the global carbon cycle. This report is the first in a series that examines the role of natural forests in the storage of carbon, the impacts of human land use activities, and the implications for climate change policy nationally and internationally. REDD (“reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation”) is now part of the agenda for the “Bali Action Plan” being debated in the lead-up to the Copenhagen climate change conference in 2009. Currently, international rules are blind to the colour of carbon so that the green carbon in natural forests is not recognized, resulting in perverse outcomes including ongoing deforestation and forest degradation, and the conversion of extensive areas of land to industrial plantations. This report examines REDD policy from a green carbon scientific perspective. Subsequent reports will focus on issues concerning the carbon sequestration potential of commercially logged natural forests, methods for monitoring REDD, and the long term implications of forest policy and management for the global carbon cycle and climate change.” [38, 39, 40].</p> <p>Some of the key findings of this scientific study are “that (1) Australia’s <span> </span>remaining intact natural forests constitute a significant standing stock of carbon that should be protected from carbon-emitting land use activities; and (2) there is substantial potential for carbon sequestration in forest areas that have been logged if they are allowed to re-grow undisturbed by further intensive human land use activities.” [39, 40].</p> <p>Some of the key numerical findings of the “Green Carbon” Report are “the effect of retaining the current carbon stock [in the 14.5 million ha of eucalyptus forest in SE Australia] (equivalent to 25.5 Gt CO<sub>2</sub> (carbon dioxide) is equivalent to avoided emissions of 460 Mt CO<sub>2</sub> yr<sup>-1</sup> for the next 100 years. Allowing logged forests to realize their sequestration potential to store 7.5 Gt CO<sub>2</sub> is equivalent to avoiding emissions of 136 Mt CO<sub>2</sub> yr<sup>-1</sup> for the next 100 years. This is equal to 24 per cent of the 2005 Australian net greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors which were 559 Mt CO<sub>2</sub> in that year [excluding the Exported GHG pollution, notably the Australia’s world leading coal exports of 426 Mt CO<sub>2</sub> in 2005-2006 as compared to 559 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e domestically]”. [39, 40].</p> <p>To put this 25.5 Gt CO<sub>2</sub> in the 14.5 million ha of eucalyptus forest in SE Australia] on a global scale, the total post-industrial release of soil carbon due to new agricultural practices since the Industrial Revolution has been about 200 Gt Gt CO<sub>2</sub>; the annual world fossil fuel pollution is 8.06 Gt CO<sub>2</sub> (of which Brazil annually produces 0.1 Gt CO<sub>2 </sub>plus a further 0.2-0.4 Gt CO<sub>2</sub>from deforestation). [4, 11].</p> <p>The “Green Carbon” Report has some astonishing findings on the much greater carbon storage by Australian forests than hitherto realized “The report draws an interesting comparison with th estimated carbon stocks from the National Carbon Accounting System and also with the default estimates by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . Stocks of carbon in Australia’s native forests are on average three <span> </span>times grater than the IPCC estimates and can be sas muchj as twenty times greater in the most carbon dense forests”. <span> </span>[38].</p> <p>According to the <span> </span>“Green Carbon” summary flier: “analysis shows that the stock of carbon for intact natural forests in south eastern Australia is on average about 640 tC ha-1 of total carbon (biomass plus soil) . The average net primary production (NPP) of these undisturbed, natural forests was 12.1 Gt<span> </span>C ha-1”. [38].</p> <p>According to the “Green Carbon” Report: “[Natural forests] are more resilient to to climate change and disturbances than plantations because of their genetic, taxonomic and functional biodiversity … The carbon stock of forests subject to commercial logging, and of monoculture plantations in particular, will always bee significantly less on average (~40 to 60 percent depending upon the intensity if land us and forest types) than the carbon stock of natural, undisturbed forests. …The highest biomass carbon stocks, with an average of more than 1,200 t C ha-1 and maximum of over 2,000 t C ha-1, are in the mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forests of Victoria and Tasmania. This is cool temperature evergreen forest with a tall eucalypt overstorey and a dense Acaciaa spp. (wattle) and temperate-rainforest tree understorey”. [39].</p> <p>Crucial to such discussions are the extraordinary findings by top biologists and environmental economists and published in the top scientific journal Science that the total economic return from major biomes (ecological systems) studied can be typically about 50% greater when there is sustainable use and that the economic return from preserving what is left of wild nature is over 100 times the cost of so doing. The total economic value (TEV) of wild nature (e.g. pollination, forestry, fisheries, tourism) was estimated in 1997 as about $18-$60 trillion (average <span> </span>$38 trillion) <span> </span>as compared to a total World GDP (2007) of about $55 trillion . [40]. </p> <p>A major issue in bushfire management is fuel reduction, noting that logging, other land use, fuel reduction burning and post-fire salvage logging can impact upon the fuel load. The Wilderness Society has argued in a submission to the 2002/2003 Victorian Bushfire Inquiry for the importance of expert scientific assessment. [41]. </p> <p>The Wilderness Society argues for science-based assessment of forest management “<b><span style="font-weight:normal">Australia</span></b><b><span style="font-weight:normal"> has some of the most magnificent and biodiverse forests in the world.</span></b><span> New science also shows they are some of the largest carbon banks on Earth, helping to reduce climate change as well as maintain our water supplies. Yet many of these ancient forests, particularly in Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales, are clearfelled, burnt, and turned into millions of tonnes of woodchips for paper and cardboard every year … </span>More native forest is logged in Tasmania than the rest of Australia combined - including some of the tallest old growth forests in the world ... Victoria's forests are some of the most effective carbon stores in the world, and provide crucial water supply areas …Along the Murray River are the largest remaining red gum forests on Earth. With 75% stressed, dead or dying, these Australian icons urgently need to be protected <span>”. [42].</span> </p> <p>In response to the devastating Black Saturday 7 February <span> </span>Bushfires, The Wilderness Society <span> </span>has reiterated the importance of <span> </span>scientifically-based fuel reduction: “<b>Fuel reduction burning has an important place in the fire management toolbox, and we support its place in scientifically underpinned fire management for the protection of life, property and the environment. </b><span> </span>The issue of fuel reduction burning often dominates the fire debate, as if it is the only fire management tool. But it’s important to remember that this is only one tool in fire management, and not the silver bullet that will fire proof the landscape.<br />Environmental groups want to see the science that supports the current fuel reduction program, including a scientific justification for so-called hazard reduction burns in specific areas and the scientific justification for the route and extent of fire break establishment. Environmental groups are particularly concerned about the lack of impact assessment of these programs on biodiversity, particularly given their uncertain benefits to reduce the extent, frequency and severity of fire. Views on these measures tend towards two extremes. One extreme is that we should fuel reduction burn all forest areas every 20 years and carve out thousands of kilometres of fire breaks, the other is that all our forests are wilderness areas which should just be allowed to burn and not manage our forests for fire at all.<br />For the Australian bush to be healthy and to protect people, property and nature we need a scientifically based balance between these extremes”. [43]. </p> <p>Professor Jared Diamond in his important book “Collapse” has argued (p437) that “ The problem of catastrophic forest fires in dry parts of the U.S. Intermontane West [an order of magnitude greater now than in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s] could probably brought under control by management techniques that reduce the fuel load, such as by mechanically thinning out new growth in th understorey and removing fallen dead timber. Unfortunately carrying out that solution on a large scale is considered prohibitively expensive.” [44].</p> <p>Biomass for Biochar would be <span> </span>more efficiently generated from economcally “best case” crop agriculture-based biomass production from growth region-adapted plants (photosynthetically Crassulacean Acid Metabolism or CAM plants in deserts, photosynthetically C4 plants in the tropics, photosynthetically C3 plants in temperature zones, arid zone-adapted plants in arid zones and in general plants growing in climes and ecosystems to which they have been evolutionarily adapted). Further, such biomass production <span> </span>could be coupled to collateral production of valuable plant products <span> </span>- indeed my encyclopaedic pharmacological reference text “Biochemical targets of plant bioactive compounds. A pharmacological reference guide to sites of action and biological effects” is a key reference world to such “high value” natural ecosystem or plantation crops. <span> </span>Thus, for example, <span> </span>growing indigenous, arid zone-adapted <span> </span>sandal wood [<i>Santalum</i>] species for timber, oil and biochar would be vastly <span> </span>more cost-effective in terms of financial return and environmental benefit <span> </span>than growing water use-intensive cotton or rice in Australian arid zones; harvesting of introduced pests such as <i>Mimosa pigra</i> could have the dual benefit or pest eradication as well as biochar production, especially if biochar production was effectively “on-site”by biomass low oxygen smouldering combustion or by renewable energy-run furnaces. <span> </span>[45]. </p> <p>The use of forest biomass to reduce forest fire <span> </span>hazard and to produce biochar is being actively pursued in the US and can be economic depending on circumstances and proper social costing of the value of biochar and bushfire mitigation. Thus Sustainable Obtainable Solutions: “Biochar is made by pyrolysis: heating biomass (wood chips or pellets, bark, manure, crop residues, etc.) with limited oxygen. Energy crops, such as short rotation woody plants or grasses, can be grown for biomass, or biomass waste can be collected. In the West, insects are killing trees in unprecedented numbers. This build-up of forest fuels increases wildfire risk dramatically. In the wildland/urban interface, converting dead and dying forest biomass to biochar can improve forest health while reducing fire hazards, sequestering carbon and producing energy”. [46]. </p> <p>According to Guillermo Rein (BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering, University of Edinburgh) “One process that promotes biochar conversion with the advantage of minimal or zero energy costs is the [low oxygen] smouldering process where the energy supply is released from the slow oxidation of a part of the biomass itself. Small, easy to operate and maintain reactors can be designed to be run by small local communities.” [47].<br /></p><p> </p><p><span>A number of geo-engineering proposals to lower atmospheric CO2 have been compared </span><span>by Lenton and Vaughan at the University of East Anglia (UEA). “By 2050, only stratospheric aerosol injections or sunshades in space have the potential to cool the climate back toward the back toward the pre-industrial state , but some land carbon cycle geoengineering options are of comparable magnitude to mitigation “wedges”. Strong mitigation, i.e. large reduction in CO2 emissions, combined with global-scale air capture and storage, afforestation, and biochar production, i.e. enhanced CO2 sinks, might be able to bring CO2 back to its pre-industrial level by 2100, thus removing the need for other geoengineering. Alternatively, strong mitigation stabilising CO2 at 500 ppm [dangerous], combined with geoengineered increases in the albedo of marine stratiform clouds, grasslands, croplands and human settlements might achieve a patchy cancellation of radiative forcing. Ocean fertilisation options are only worthwhile if sustained on a millennial timescale and phosphorus addition probably has greater long-term potential than iron or nitrogen fertilisation. Enhancing ocean upwelling or downwelling have trivial effects on any meaningful timescale”.[48, 49]. </span></p> <p>According to a recent report in the UK Guardian, Professor Chris Turney (professor of geography at the University of Exeter, UK; founder of biochar company Carbonscape) has built a 5m-long prototype microwave, which “produces a tonne of CO<sub>2</sub> [carbon i.e. biochar?] for $65”. Tim Lenton (UEA) calculated that by 2100 a quarter of the effect of human-induced emissions of CO<sub>2</sub> could be sequestered with biochar production from waste organic matter, giving a net reduction of 40ppm in CO<sub>2</sub> concentration. Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University has calculated that it is realistically possible to fix 9.5bn tonnes of carbon per year using biochar, noting that global annual production of carbon from fossil fuels is 8.5bn tonnes. [50, 51].</p> <span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">In an Australian context, Crucible Carbon is developing high efficiency pyrolysis technology for the mass production of biochar. According to Inside Waste Weekly: “Managing director Matthew Warnken says … potential carbon abatement of 100-200 million tonnes annually is “extremely reasonable and would be very achievable”… first commercial demonstration plant, with construction to begin at a site in regional NSW early next year. That plant will process around 20,000-40,000 tonnes of feedstock annually, producing electricity and a biochar product that would be used to improve degraded soils … assuming realistic prices for the value of the biochar and energy outputs of the plant, a value of $20-30 per tonne of carbon sequestered would allow commercial biochar plants to be built with a three-year payback period”. [52]. </span> <p><b><span>Summary</span></b></p> <p><span>Man-made global warming from greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution has increased average global temperature by 0.8<sup>o</sup>C since 1900. Top climate scientist say that there is an urgent need to cut GHG pollution and reduce atmospheric CO2 from the present dangerous 387 ppm to a safe and sustainable level of about 300 ppm. Unfortunately Australia </span>(the world’s biggest coal exporter and a world leading per capita GHG polluter) is committed to increasing Domestic and Exported GHG pollution by 2% annually whereas top UK climate scientists say that an annual GHG pollution reduction of 6-8% is needed to avoid a catastrophic 450 ppm CO<sub>2.</sub> <span>. Top climate scientists say that global warming has contributed to the January-February 2009 SE Australia heatwave that killed over 200 people and the consequent February 7 2009 Victorian bushfire tragedy that killed 209 people and burned 450,000 hectares.<br /></span></p><p><span>Generation of biochar (charcoal from oxygen-free pyrolysis of waste biomass) is a major component of reducing atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, global warming and bushfire risk. Biochar can be made from low oxygen pyrolysis of biomass from various sources including expertly-advised bushland fuel hazard reduction harvesting (e.g. straw, wood waste, woody weeds) and thus (a) reduce bushfire threat; (b) provide a valuable, soil-enriching and crop productivity-enhancing product for producing “terra preta” soil; (c) help combat man-made global warming by drawing down atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>; and (d) provide rural employment and farm income supplementation. </span></p> <p><i><span style="font-style:normal"><br /></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-style:normal">[1]. </span></i>Wikipedia "2009 Victorian bushfires":<b> </b><span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Victorian_bushfires" rel="nofollow" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Victorian_bushfires">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Victorian_bushfires</a> .</span></p> <p><i><span style="font-style:normal">[2]. </span></i>Melissa Fyfe (2009), quoting results of research by Professor Neville Nicholls, Monash University, in "Heatwave left hundreds dead ", The Age: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/heatwave-left-hundreds-dead-20090221-8ea4.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.theage.com.au/national/heatwave-left-hundreds-dead-20090221-8ea4.html">http://www.theage.com.au/national/heatwave-left-hundreds-dead-20090221-8ea4.html</a> .</p> <p>[3]. Gideon Polya (2009) “Global warming and Victorian bushfire tragedy”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-and-victorian-bushfire-tragedy" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-and-victorian-bushfire-tragedy">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-and-victorian-bushfire-tragedy</a> .</p> <p>[4]. Gideon Polya (2009), “Australian bushfire inferno. Global warming impacting humanity”, MWC News: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/28518/42/" rel="nofollow" title="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/28518/42/">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/28518/42/</a> .</p> <p>[5].Gideon Polya (2009), Green Blog, “Gaza, lying and climate genocide”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-and-victorian-bushfire-tragedy" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-and-victorian-bushfire-tragedy">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-and-victorian-bushfire-tragedy</a> .</p> <p>[6].Gideon Polya (2009). Green Blog, “Letter to ALL Federal MPs over Climate Emergency and LYING”: <a href="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/02/03/letter-to-all-australian-federal-mps-over-climate-emergency-and-lying/#more-1056" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/02/03/letter-to-all-australian-federal-mps-over-climate-emergency-and-lying/#more-1056">http://www.green-blog.org/2009/02/03/letter-to-all-australian-federal-mps-over-climate-emergency-and-lying/#more-1056</a> .</p> <p>[7]. “Biochar”, Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar" rel="nofollow" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar</a> .</p> <p>[8]. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) (2008): <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" rel="nofollow" title="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/</a> . </p> <p>[9]. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007): <span><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf</a> .</span> </p> <p>[10]. Andrew Glikson (2008),<b> </b><span style="color:navy">“The Methane Time Bomb and the Triple Melt-down": <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm">http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm</a> ).</span></p> <p><span style="color:navy">[11]. John Holdren (2008), “The Science of Climatic Disruption” (power point lecture): </span><a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> .</p> <p><span style="color:navy">[12]. Gideon Polya (2009), “Global warming,climate emergency” U3A course notes: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming--global-emergency-course">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming--global-emergency-course</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:navy">[13]. </span>A.L. Westerling, H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, T. W. Swetnam <b>,</b> Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity, <i>Science</i> 18 August 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5789, pp. 940 – 943 (DOI: 10.1126/science.1128834; see: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/940" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/940">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/940</a> .</p> <p>[14]. Gideon Polya (2009), “Global warming and Victorian bushfire tragedy”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-and-victorian-bushfire-tragedy">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-and-victorian-bushfire-tragedy</a> : </p> <p>[15]. Dr Andrew Glikson (earth and paleo-climate scientist, Australian National University, Canberra), “The Global warming connection of SE Australia’s heat wave” (Group e-mail, February 13, 2009).</p> <p>[16]. Professor Barry Brook (2009), “Heatwave update and [Dr Andrew Glikson’s] Open Letter to the [Australian] PM”: <a href="http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/australian-january-february-2009.html">http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/australian-january-february-2009.html</a> .</p> <p>[17]. <span style="color:black">Professor David Karoly and Dr Greg Holland, interviewed by ABC Lateline (2008), “More severe weather forecast, David Karoly warns”: <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25033531-421,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25033531-421,00.html</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:black">[18]. </span><span>James Hansen et al. (2008), “Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim?” , </span>Open Atmos. Sci. J. (2008), vol. 2, pp. 217-231: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126" rel="nofollow" title="http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126">http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126</a> .</p> <p><span style="color:black">[19]. James Hansen (2008), </span>Professor James Hansen, Letter to Australian PM Rudd (2008): <a href="http://www.aussmc.org.au/Hansen_letter_to_Rudd.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.aussmc.org.au/Hansen_letter_to_Rudd.php</a> .</p> <p><span style="color:black">[20]. </span>Dr Andrew Glikson (2009), Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Australia” (February 9, 2009) : <a href="http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/australian-january-february-2009.html">http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/australian-january-february-2009.html</a> .</p> <p><span style="color:black">[21]. Gideon Polya (2009), “Climate emergency facts and required actions”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:black">[22]. James Hansen et al, (2007), “Target atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>: where should humanity aim?”, </span>Open Atmos. Sci. J. (2008), vol. 2, pp. 217-231<span style="color:black"> <span> </span>: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126</a> <span> </span>and <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:black">[23]. </span><span>Gaia Vince (2009), “One last chance to save mankind“, New Scientist, 23 January 2009: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true</a> and <a href="http://biocharfund.com/images/hansen%2C%20target%20atmospheric%20c02.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://biocharfund.com/images/hansen, target atmospheric c02.pdf">http://biocharfund.com/images/hansen%2C%20target%20atmospheric%20c02.pdf</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:black">[24]. </span><span>J.A. Harrison, “The carbon cycle “, Vision Learning: <a href="http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer2.php?mid=95&l=&let1=Ear" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer2.php?mid=95&l=&let1=Ear">http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer2.php?mid=95&l=&let1=Ear</a> .</span></p> <p><span>[25]. J. Schloerer, 1996: <a href="http://www.radix.net/%7Ebobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html">http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html</a> .</span></p> <p><span>[26]. “Adriana Downie talks about Best Energies pyolysis gasifier and making biochar (terra preta) “, Beyond Zero Emissions (2008): <a href="http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/2008/06/03/adriana-downie-best-energies-bio-char-agri-char-pyrolysis" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/2008/06/03/adriana-downie-best-energies-bio-char-agri-char-pyrolysis">http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/2008/06/03/adriana-downie-best-energies-bio-char-agri-char-pyrolysis</a> .</span></p> <p><span>[27]. “Best energies” (pilot plant, NSW) on biochar: <a href="http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html">http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html</a> . </span></p> <p><span>[28]. “Biochar industry seeks backing for climate-saving process”, Bioenergy Business, 10 December 2008: <a href="http://www.bioenergy-business.com/index.cfm?section=international&action=view&id=11751" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.bioenergy-business.com/index.cfm?section=international&action=view&id=11751">http://www.bioenergy-business.com/index.cfm?section=international&action=view&id=11751</a> .</span></p> <p><span>[29]. Dr Evelyn Krull, “Biochar”, CSIRO Land and Water: <a href="http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pnzp.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pnzp.pdf">http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pnzp.pdf</a> .</span></p> <p><span>[30]. Chris Goodall “Ten technologies to save the Planet” (Green Profile, 2008).</span></p> <p><span>[31]. Biochar Fund – fighting hunger, energy poverty, deforestation and climate change simultaneously: <a href="http://biocharfund.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=37" rel="nofollow" title="http://biocharfund.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=37">http://biocharfund.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=37</a> .</span></p> <p><span>[32]. USDA, Bioenergy Lists, “Sustainable forest bioenergy production using in-woods fast-pyrolysis conversion including bio-oil production and bio-char”: <a href="http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/usfsewnewsrmrs" rel="nofollow" title="http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/usfsewnewsrmrs">http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/usfsewnewsrmrs</a> . </span></p> <p><span>[33]. <i><span style="font-style:normal">“Opposition supports biochar research”, 7.30 Report, 26 January 2009: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2474577.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2474577.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2474577.htm</a> .</span></i></span></p> <p>[34]. <span>Sydney Morning Herald, January 30, 2009“Govt is not ignoring biochar says Burke”: <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/govt-is-not-ignoring-biochar-says-burke-20090130-7tcd.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/govt-is-not-ignoring-biochar-says-burke-20090130-7tcd.html">http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/govt-is-not-ignoring-biochar-says-burke-20090130-7tcd.html</a> )</span></p> <p><span>[35]. Malcolm Turnbull, “<i><span style="font-style:normal">Why is Wong ignoring biochar?”: <a href="http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=97947" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=97947">http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=97947</a> ).</span></i></span></p><p> </p><p>[36]. Lisa Bachelor, “The cost of compliance: will Stern Report hurt the developing world? “, The Guardian”, 2007: <a href="http://business.guardian.co.uk/windofchange/story/0,,2217315,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://business.guardian.co.uk/windofchange/story/0,,2217315,00.html</a> .</p> [37]. Alison Benjamin (2007), “Stern: Climate change a “market failure””, The Guardian, on Sir Nichols Stern’s Royal Economic Society (RES) lecture in Manchester: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/29/climatechange.carbonemissions" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/29/climatechange.carbonemissions</a> and Nicholas Stern (2007) “Bali: now the rich must pay”, The Guardian,: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/30/comment.climatechange" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/30/comment.climatechange</a> . <br /><br />[38]. ANU E Press (2008), press release re Mackey et al. (2008) “Green Carbon. The role of natural forests in carbon storage<br /><p> Part 1. A green carbon account of Australia’s south-eastern Eucalypt forests, and policy implications”: <a href="http://epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon_citation.html" rel="nofollow">http://epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon_citation.html</a> .</p> <h2><a name="TOC-39-.-Brendan-G.-Mackey-Heather-Keit"></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">[39]. Brendan G. Mackey, Heather Keith, Sandra L. Berry and David B. Lindenmayer</span> <span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">(2008),</span> <span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">“Green Carbon. The role of natural forests in carbon storage. Part 1. A green carbon account of Australia’s south-eastern Eucalypt forests, and policy implications” (ANU E-Press, Canberra) (see: <a href="http://epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon_citation.html" rel="nofollow">http://epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon_citation.html</a> ).</span></h2> <h2><a name="TOC-40-.-Andrew-Balmford-et-al-:Economi"></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">[40]. Andrew Balmford et al, :Economic reasons for conserving wild nature”, Science, 9 August 2002:<br />Vol. 297. no. 5583, pp. 950 – 953, DOI: 10.1126/science.1073947: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950</a> and <a href="http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Balmford_et_al.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Balmford_et_al.pdf</a> .</span></h2> <h2><a name="TOC-41-.-The-Wilderness-Society-Submiss"></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">[41]. The Wilderness Society Submission to the Victorian [2002/03] Bushfire Inquiry: <a href="http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/Bushfires/101-McFadzean,%20G.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/Bushfires/101-McFadzean,%20G.pdf</a> . </span></h2> <h2><a name="TOC-42-.-The-Wilderness-Society-Austral"></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">[42]. The Wilderness Society, “Australia’s Forests”: <a href="http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests" rel="nofollow">http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests</a> .</span></h2> <h2><a name="TOC-43-.-The-Wildernness-Society-A-bush"></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">[43]. The Wildernness Society”, “A bushfire action plan that protects people, property and nature” (20 February 2009): <a href="http://www.wilderness.org.au/articles/bushfire-action-plan" rel="nofollow">http://www.wilderness.org.au/articles/bushfire-action-plan</a> . <span> </span></span></h2> <h2><a name="TOC-44-.-Jared-Diamond-Collapse-Penguin"></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">[44]. Jared Diamond, “Collapse” (Penguin, 2005). </span></h2> <h2><a name="TOC-45-.-Gideon-Polya-Biochemical-targe"></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">[45]. Gideon Polya, “Biochemical targets of plant bioactive compounds. A pharmacological reference guide to sites of action and biological effects”(Taylor & Francis/CRC Press, London & New York, 2003).</span></h2> <h2><a name="TOC-46-.-Sustainable-Obtainable-Solutio"></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">[46]. Sustainable Obtainable Solutions, “Biochar”: <a href="http://www.s-o-solutions.org/biochar.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.s-o-solutions.org/biochar.html</a> . </span></h2> <p>[47]. Guillermo Rein, “Gains and threats from smouldering combustion to biochar production and storage”, BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering, University of Edinburgh: <a href="http://www.biochar-international.org/images/Session_1_Rein.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.biochar-international.org/images/Session_1_Rein.pdf</a> .</p><p><span>[48]. T.M. Lenton & N.E. Vaughan, The radiative forcing potential of various climate geoengineering options, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, 9, 2559-2608, 2009: </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009-print.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009-print.pdf</a></span><span> .<br /></span></p><p><span><br /></span></p><p><span>[49]. </span><span>Biochar and reforestation may offer better global cooling potential than ocean fertilization, Mongabay (28 January 2009): <a href="http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0128-geoengineering.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0128-geoengineering.html</a> .</span></p><p><br /></p><p> [50]. Alok Jha, “”Biochar’ goes industrial with giant microwaves to lock carbon in charcoal”, Guardian (13 March 2009): <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/charcoal-carbon" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/charcoal-carbon</a> <span> </span>.<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[51]. <span> </span>Johannes Lehmann, Biochar for mitigating climate change: carbon sequestration in the black”: <a href="http://www.geooekologie.de/download_forum/forum_2007_2_spfo072b.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.geooekologie.de/download_forum/forum_2007_2_spfo072b.pdf</a> .</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">[52]. Opposition throws support behind biochar, Inside Waste Weekly (27 January 2009): <a href="http://www.insidewaste.com.au/StoryView.asp?StoryID=892422" rel="nofollow">http://www.insidewaste.com.au/StoryView.asp?StoryID=892422</a> .</span></p> <p><span>For more on Carbon cycle and Biomass see “Carbon cycle”: <a href="http://www.atmos.washington.edu/%7Ebitz/111/L2_Carbon_cycle.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~bitz/111/L2_Carbon_cycle.pdf">http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~bitz/111/L2_Carbon_cycle.pdf</a> and D.S. Chahal (editor) (1991) “Food Feed and Fuel from Biomass”, Oxford & IBH Publishing, New Delhi).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>Postscript - further comments by top scientists re global warming and bushfires.</b><br /></span></p><p> </p><p><b>Professor Will Steffen </b>(Executive Director of the Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Canberra and contributor to IPCC reports), March 2009: “But nevertheless, all the modelling suggests, and indeed the observations suggest in the other parts of the world as well, that as the climate warms - and particularly in those areas where it is drying as well as warming - the risk of severe fires goes up. We've always had severe fires in Australia, but I think the likelihood of them is increasing. We'll see more of them. We saw a really bad one in the Canberra area in 2003; now we see Victorian fires in 2009. That's only a six year interval. That's not a long interval at all. And the likelihood of these big fires continues to go up so long as the climate shifts that we're seeing continue… Now just to put this in context, we're now seeing since pre-industrial temperatures arise of between 0.7 and 0.8 degrees. So we're coming up on one degree already. Now there's already, as I mentioned, inertia in the climate system, so we're committed to further change even if we cut emissions tomorrow. Now that further temperature rise will bring us to about 1.3 or so, so we're already getting right up to the 1.5 that some people are getting - are considering to be dangerous, and we're pushing - now pushing pretty hard at the two degrees… But the longer we wait and the longer we put in new carbon emitting infrastructure, the worse the problem is gonna get. Now, in terms of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, what does two degrees mean? It means we need to cap carbon dioxide at somewhere around 350 to 400 parts per million, and we're sitting at about 385 now. And we need to cap carbon dioxide equivalent, which means we take into account the other greenhouse gases - somewhere around 450 to 500, and we're sitting about 440. So, that really, really does put the accelerator on in terms of getting to grips with the problem”. <span> </span>(see ABC TV Lateline , 11 March 2009: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2513666.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2513666.htm</a> ).</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"><b>Further Postscript - George Monbiot</b> (see “Woodchips with everything” “: <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/03/24/woodchips-with-everything/" rel="nofollow">http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/03/24/woodchips-with-everything/</a> <span> </span>) has set up an <b>incorrect</b> “straw man” argument against a global biochar solution based on asserted huge areas of land required for biomass for biochar production. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">Thus the key argument of Monbiot is as follows and implies that virtually ALL the arable land of the world would have to be used.: “</span>But that’s just the start of it. Carbonscape, a company which hopes to be among the first to commercialise the technique, talks of planting 930 million hectares(8). The energy lecturer Peter Read proposes new biomass plantations of trees and sugar covering 1.4 billion ha (9). The arable area of the United Kingdom is 5.7m hectares, or one 245th of Read’s figure. China has 104m ha of cropland. The US has 174m. The global total is 1.36 billion(10)”.</p> <p>However is George Monbiot correct? NO – he ignores a potential total GtC (billions of tonnes of C) from forestry, grassland and agricultural waste (from 1.34 billion ha of arable land).</p> <p>Thus p224, Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, volume 1, IAE Bioenergy, ed. A,V, Bridgewater (Blackwell Science) (see:<span> </span><a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rdqGX0LEg7sC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=Gt++biomass+%22arable+land%22&source=bl&ots=KfEmoUUg6T&sig=EuLvPTf4uJHK6Wq7jbpQ3WLHcnM&hl=en&ei=UdzISZXlDpmMsQPH3cyMAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1">http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rdqGX0LEg7sC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=Gt++biomass+%22arable+land%22&source=bl&ots=KfEmoUUg6T&sig=EuLvPTf4uJHK6Wq7jbpQ3WLHcnM&hl=en&ei=UdzISZXlDpmMsQPH3cyMAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1</a> ) <span> </span>informs us that we could obtain 1.7 GtC/yr <span> </span>(straw from agriculture) + <span> </span>4.2 GtC/yr <span> </span>(total grass upgrowth from grasslands upgrowth) <span> </span>+ 6 GtC/yr (possible sustainable woodharvest) = 11.9 GtC/yr. </p> <p>From this one can see why biochar expert Professor Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University is correct <span> </span>calculating that it is realistically possible to fix 9.5bn tonnes of carbon per year using biochar, noting that global annual production of carbon from fossil fuels is 8.5bn tonnes. According to a UK Guardian report: "Johannes Lehmann of Cornell university has calculated that it is realistically possible to fix 9.5bn tonnes of carbon per year using biochar. The global production of carbon from fossil fuels stands at 8.5bn tonnes" (see: Alok Jha, “”Biochar’ goes industrial with giant microwaves to lock carbon in charcoal”, Guardian (13 March 2009): <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/charcoal-carbon" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/charcoal-carbon</a> and <span> </span> Johannes Lehmann, Biochar for mitigating climate change: carbon sequestration in the black”: <a href="http://www.geooekologie.de/download_forum/forum_2007_2_spfo072b.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.geooekologie.de/download_forum/forum_2007_2_spfo072b.pdf</a> <span> </span>).</p> <p>One can see also why Professor Lovelock FRS is also correct in his assessment: ““There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO<sub>2</sub> down quite fast … The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes [550 billion tonnes] of carbon [carbon dioxide, CO<sub>2</sub>] yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes [CO<sub>2</sub>]. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO<sub>2</sub> is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it” (see Gaia Vince (2009), “One last chance to save mankind“, New Scientist, 23 January 2009: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true</a> and <a href="http://biocharfund.com/images/hansen%2C%20target%20atmospheric%20c02.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://biocharfund.com/images/hansen, target atmospheric c02.pdf">http://biocharfund.com/images/hansen%2C%20target%20atmospheric%20c02.pdf</a> <span> </span>). <span> </span></p> <p> Professor Lovelock’s estimates are consonant with those of Dr J.A. Harrison, specifically a terrestrial carbon fixation of 121.3 GtC/y (449 Gt CO2 = 449 billion tonnes of CO2) of which about half returns annually to the atmosphere through respiration and most of the remaining half returns to the air through the action of soil fungi and bacteria <span> </span>(see J.A. Harrison, “The carbon cycle “, Vision Learning: <a href="http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer2.php?mid=95&l=&let1=Ear" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer2.php?mid=95&l=&let1=Ear">http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer2.php?mid=95&l=&let1=Ear</a> ).. </p> <p><b>In short, George Monbiot is INCORRECT in this instance through setting up a “straw man” argument (pun intended).</b></p><p><b>PPS.</b> Dr James Lovelock FRS has recently said what I have said above: "I usually agree with George Monbiot and love the way he says it but this time – with his assertion that thelatstmiracle mass fuel cure, biochar, doses not stand up – he has got it only half right.</p><p>Yes, it is silly to rename charcoal as biochar and yes, it would be wrong to plant anything specifically to make charcoal. So I agree, George, it would be wrong to have plantations in the tropics just to make charcoal.</p><p>I said in my recent book that perhaps the only tool we had to bring carbon dioxide back to pre-industrial levels was to let the biosphere pump it from the air for us. It currently removes 550bn tons a year, about 18 times more than we emit, but 99.9% of the carbon captured this way goes back to the air as CO2 when things are eaten.</p><p>What we have to do is turn a portion of all the waste of agriculture into charcoal and bury it. Consider grain like wheat or rice; most of the plant mass is in the stems, stalks and roots and we only eat the seeds. So instead of just ploughing in the stalks or turning them into cardboard, make it into charcoal and bury it or sink it in the ocean. We don't need plantations or crops planted for biochar, what we need is a charcoal maker on every farm so the farmer can turn his waste into carbon. Charcoal making might even work instead of landfill for waste paper and plastic " (see "James Lovelock on Biochar: let the Earth remove CO2 for us", UK Guardian, 24 March 2009: <span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/biochar-earth-c02" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/biochar-earth-c02</a></span> .</p><p><b>PPPS.</b> In my view biochar (charcoal) is very likely what can save the Planet's biosphere.</p><p>The technology is straightforward and has been used by charcoal makers for thousands of years, specifically heating plant material to 400-700 degrees Centigrade in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic pyrolysis) to generate carbon (C) from plant cellulose (roughly (CHO)n) .</p><p>Carbon (C) is stable (unless you set fire to it and have plenty of oxygen - neither being likely underground) whereas plant cellulose (roughly (CH20)n) is oxidized by soil organisms to yield the GHGs CO2 and H2O or worse still, converted by anaerobic bacteria to methane, CH4, which is about 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 100 year time scale.</p>The amount of biochar that can be made from plant waste each year is roughly the same as the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere each year from carbon burningby man.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Jim Amonette, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Richland, Washington, USA) , PNW Biochar Initiative Meeting, 21 May 2009: “29% of all C fixed by photosynthesis aboveground (ca. 10.2 GtC/yr) is currently used by humans! Of this 1.5 GtC/yr is unused crop residues, manures, etc. An additional 1.8 GtC/yr) is not fixed due to prior human activities (e.g., land degradation) and current land use. </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Current fossil-C emissions are ca. 8 GtC/yr. Increased productivity and expanded use of residues from biochar production could have a significant impact on global C budget…</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">To balance the C cycle, annual human harvest of fixed biomass would have to double from about 8.2 Gt C currently (Haberl et al., 2007) to more than 15 Gt C.<span> </span>This would amount to harvesting about 40% of above-ground biomass C, and is comparable to levels of biomass C appropriation seen in India today (Haberl et al., 2008). The annual diversion of 11.3% of global biomass carbon (7 Gt C, roughly one-fifth of all above-ground biomass C produced) to a pyrolysis industry would have a profound impact on the global ecology and would be considered a last resort.” (see </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Jim Amonette, “An introduction to biochar with an emphasis on its properties and potential for climate change mitigation”, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNW Biochar Initiative Meeting, 21 May 2009: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/23611995/An-Introduction-to-Biochar-With-an-Emphasis-on-Its-Properties" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/23611995/An-Introduction-to-Biochar-With-an-Emphasis-on-Its-Properties</a> ; Haberl, H. Heinz Erb, K., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Bondeau, A., Plutzar, C., Gingrich, S., Lucht, W., and Fischer-Kowalski, M.<span> </span>2007.<br />‘Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems.’</span><span style="word-spacing:0em"><span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:Times New Roman">Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci</span></span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman">.104, pp12942-12947.</span><br /><p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-24715386078651236842011-06-24T00:14:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:15:30.284-07:00Climate Justice & Oz Climate Injustice<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Climate Justice & Climate Injustice: Australia wants a 2020 per capita GHG pollution 15 times greater than Developing World's</span> </h3> <div dir="ltr"> <p><b>We are all familiar with the great assertion of the American Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal and have an unalienable right to life,, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Climate Justice demands that “annual per capita GHG emissions” should be the same for “all men” on the way to zero emissions and thence a requisite urgent return of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (or the greenhouse gas (GHG) CO2-e concentration) from the current 390 ppm CO2 (corresponding to 475 ppm CO2-e) to a safe and sustainable pre-industrial level of 300 ppm CO2 (corresponding to circa 350 ppm CO2-e)</b> (for detailed assessments see 300.org: <span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"><a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org</a> .</span>). As explained carefully below, the Australian Government's latest demands mean that it will only agree to “annual per capita GHG emissions” of 17.2 (Domestic ) and 44.8 (Domestic plus Exported) tonnes CO2-e per person per year in 2020 provided the Developed World achieves 8.9 and the Developing World 3.0 - this is clearly Climate Injustice.</p><p>Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water, stated in May 2009: “The Rudd Government has today committed to reduce Australia’s [domestic] carbon pollution by 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal to stabilise levels of CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent [CO2-e] at 450 parts per million or lower.” (see Penny Wong, media release, “A new target for reducing Australia’s carbon pollution”, May 2009: <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/mr20090504c.html" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/mr20090504c.html">http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/mr20090504c.html</a> ).</p> <p>Prime Minster, Treasurer, and Minister for Climate Change and Water, in “A new target for reducing Australia’s carbon pollution”, May 2009, set out their conditions for limited GHG polution cutbacks: “The Rudd Government has today committed to reduce Australia’s [domestic] carbon pollution by 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal to stabilise levels of CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent at 450 parts per million or lower… 5% [if no agreement] … 15% [if] global action on track to stabilisation between 510-540 ppm CO2-e; advanced economy reductions on aggregate, in the range of 15-25% below 1990 levels … 25% (up to 5 percentage points through Government [international carbon credits] purchases … This would involve … advanced economy reductions, in aggregate, of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020; major developing economy commitments that slow emissions growth and then reduce their absolute level of emissions over time, with a collective reduction of at least 20% below business-as-usual by 2020 and a nomination of a peaking year for individual major developing economies; global action which mobilizes greater financial resources, including from major developing economies, and results in fully functional global carbon markets” (see Prime Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Climate Change and Water, “A new target for reducing Australia’s carbon pollution”, May 2009: <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/pubs/mr20090504c.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/pubs/mr20090504c.pdf">http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/pubs/mr20090504c.pdf</a> ).</p> <p><b>What does this Australian Government position actually mean in relation to the projected “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” of Australia and of <span> </span>Developed and Developing countries in 2020?</b></p> <p>We must turn to key sources of GHG emissions and population statistics for the basic data. To assist public understanding of the issue here are some key estimates relating to “annual per capita GHG pollution” and deriving from authoritative primary data provided by the <span>US Energy Information Administration (see: </span><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> <span>) and the UN Population Division (see: <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpp/" rel="nofollow"><span>http://esa.un.org/unpp/</span></a> ) and taking into account the OFFICIAL Australian 2020 targets of “25% reduction on 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2020” (subject to global agreements and with an in-built fiddle involving international carbon credits that I will simply ignore) and “60% reduction on 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2050” (2007 election policy: <a href="http://www.voteclimate.org.au/FED07-Polsum-Labor" rel="nofollow">http://www.voteclimate.org.au/FED07-Polsum-Labor</a> ). For related analysis see “<span>Australia</span><span>’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere</span>“, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere</a> . </span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual LNG exports” (Mt CO<sub>2</sub> produced): 21.8 (2000), 28.4 (2008), 38.2 (2020), 62.8 (2050). </span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual coal exports) (Mt CO<sub>2</sub> produced): 327.6 (2000), 474.3 (2008), 609.7 (2020), 1255.4 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual LNG and coal exports” (Mt CO2 produced): 349.4 (2000), 502.7 (2008), 647.9 (2020), 1318.2 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual Domestic GHG pollution) (Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e produced): 535.3 (2000), 627.2 (2008), 401.5 (2020: 75% of 2000 value), 214.1 (2050; 40% of 2000 value).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e produced): 884.7 (2000), 1129.9 (2008), 1049.4 (2020), 1532.3 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s population (Millions): 19.1 (2000), 21.0 (2008), 23.4 (2020), 28.0 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual per capita Domestic GHG pollution” (tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-e per person per year): 28.0 (2000), 29.9 (2008), 17.2 (2020), 7.6 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual per capita Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-e per person per year): 46.3 (2000), 53.8 (2008), 44.8 (2020), 54.7 (2050).</span></p> <p><span>Australia</span><span>’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution as % of 2000 value”: 100% (2000), 128% (2008), 119% (2020), 173% (2050).</span></p> <p>As indicated above, Australia needs to REDUCE its “annual per capita Domestic & Exported” GHG pollution” by 90% to bring it back to the World average – but, in stark contrast, is set to INCREASE this under its quite FALSELY labelled “GHG pollution reduction” policies.</p> <p>Data on the past and projected <span> </span>populations of Developed and Developing countries <span> </span>is available from the UN Population Division (see: <span><a href="http://esa.un.org/unpp/" rel="nofollow"><span>http://esa.un.org/unpp/</span></a> </span><span> </span>).</p> <p><b>Data on the past and projected greenhouse gas emissions of Developed and Developing countries is conveniently summarized by the US Environmental Protection Agency</b> (see “Global Greenhouse Gas Data”: <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html</a> ) and is set out below (Gt CO2-e = billions of tonnes of GHGs measured as CO2-equivalent).</p> <p>Developed country GHG emissions (Gt CO2-e): 15.0 (1990), 16.5 (1995), 18.0 (2000), 19 (2005), 20.0 (2010), 21.0 (2015), 22.0 (2020).</p> <p>Developed country population (billions): 1.147 (1990), 1.175 (1995), 1.195 (2000), 1,217 (2005), 1.237 (2010), 1,255 (2015), 1.268 (2020).</p> <p>Developed country “annual per capita GHG pollution” (tonnes CO2-e per person per year”: 13.1 (1990), 14.0 (1995), 15.1 (2000), 15.6 (2005), 16.2 (2010), 16.7 (2015), 17.4 (2020).</p> <p>“Advanced economy reductions, in aggregate, of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020” as demanded by the Australian Government would mean Developed country 2020 emissions of 0.75 x 15.0 = 11.3 Gt CO2-e, this corresponding to an “annual per capita GHG emission” of 11.3 Gt CO2-e/ 1.268 billion people = 8.9 tonnes CO2-e per person per year (as compared to Australia’s proposed 2020 values for itself of 17.2 (Domestic ) and 44.8 (Domestic plus Exported) tonnes CO2-3 per person per year).</p> <p>Developing country GHG emissions (Gt CO2-e): 10.0 (1990), 12.0 (1995), 14.5 (2000), 16.0 (2005), 18.5 (2010), 21.0 (2015), 24.0 (2020).</p> <p>Developing country population (billions): 4.143 (1990), 4.538 (1995), 4.920 (2000), 5.296 (2005), 5.671 (2010), 6.071 (2015), 6.406 (2020).</p> <p>Developing country “annual per capita GHG pollution” (tonnes CO2-e per person per year”: 2.41 (1990), 2.64 (1995), 2.95 (2000), 3.02 (2005), 3.26 (2010), 3.46 (2015), 3.75 (2020).</p> <p>“Major developing economy commitments that slow emissions growth and then reduce their absolute level of emissions over time, with a collective reduction of at least 20% below business-as-usual by 2020” as demanded by the Australian Government would mean Developing country 2020 emissions of 0.8 x 24.0 = 19.2 Gt CO2-e, this corresponding to an “annual per capita GHG emission” of 19.2 Gt CO2-e/ 6.406 billion people = 3.0 tonnes CO2-e per person per year (as compared to Australia’s proposed 2020 values for itself of 17.2 (Domestic ) and 44.8 (Domestic plus Exported) tonnes CO2 per person per year).</p> <p><span>As of 2008, </span> “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution is included (see <span>Wikipedia, “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita</a> ; </span>Dr Gideon Polya, “Pro-coal Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) devalues Australian lives, threatens Biosphere and ignores Science”, 2009: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/latest-pro-coal-australian-emissions-trading-scheme-ets-devalues-australian-lives-threatens-biosphere-and-ignores-science-and-climate-emergency">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/latest-pro-coal-australian-emissions-trading-scheme-ets-devalues-australian-lives-threatens-biosphere-and-ignores-science-and-climate-emergency</a> ; Michael Szabo, “Cut CO<sub>2</sub> to India’s level, top scientist urges”, Reuters, 28 May 2008: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL28290944" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL28290944</a> ; Ross Garnaut, The Garnaut Climate Change Review, Chapter 7: <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm</a> ).</p><p><b>Summary.</b><br /></p> <p><b>Informed by “all men are created equal and have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, <span> </span>Climate Justice demands that “annual per capita GHG emissions” should be the same for “all men”</b>. Australia’s demand that it will only agree to “annual per capita GHG emissions” of 17.2 (Domestic ) and 44.8 (Domestic plus Exported) tonnes CO2-e per person per year in 2020 provided the Developed World achieves 8.9 and the Developing World 3.0 is clearly <b>Climate Injustice</b>.</p><p><b>PS. It has got far, far worse due to a deal between the pro-coal Rudd Labor Goverment and the pro-coal Turnbull Liberal Opposition. </b> </p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The Rudd Labor-Turnbull Liberal Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will actually INCREASE Australia’s domestic and exported GHG pollution to 173% of 2000 levels by 2050 (as estimated from linear extrapolation of US Energy Information Administration data: </span><span>see: </span><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> ) - howevr, by permanently excluding agriculture from a GHG cap, it also commits Australia to over 50% of its current huge domestic GHG pollution (World Bank analysts having recently determined that livestock contribute over 51% of annual man-made GHG pollution; see </span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> "Livestock and climate change": <a href="http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294" title="http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294</a> </span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">). For details of what top climate scientists say needs to be done ASAP see </span>"300.org - return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm": <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm" title="http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm</a> . For scathing condemnation of cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Schenes (ETSs) by top climate scientists, climate analysts and climate economists see “Experts: carbon tax needed and NOT cap-and-trade ETS”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/carbon-tax-needed-not-cap-and-trade-emission-trading-scheme-ets" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/carbon-tax-needed-not-cap-and-trade-emission-trading-scheme-ets">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/carbon-tax-needed-not-cap-and-trade-emission-trading-scheme-ets</a> .</p> </div>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-13133423756111828522011-06-24T00:13:00.001-07:002011-06-24T00:13:30.032-07:00CLIMATE EMERGENCY: What Top World Scientific Experts Say<p><b>CLIMATE EMERGENCY: What Top World Scientific Experts Say</b></p> <p>We are familiar with the notion of getting an expert second opinion when an expert medical specialist has diagnosed life threatening circumstances. However a second opinion that is a bit more optimistic simply decreases the perceived odds of death somewhat and the dire prediction remains. Leading world climate experts offer the EXPERT DIAGNOSIS that the World faces a life-threatening Climate Emergency requiring urgent action to STOP carbon pollution and indeed to REDUCE existing atmosphere greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. However inexpert, non-scientist politicians and corporate spokespersons with vested interests in fossil fuel burning and their inexpert climate sceptic supporters are merely expressing inexpert partisan opinions that would be seen as dishonest and dangerously irresponsible in the context of expert medical specialist diagnosis of life threatening circumstances.</p> Below are some recent, Web-documented, expert opinions of outstanding, world-leading climate change experts and other eminent scientific experts and top scientific organizations with expertise to make authoritative comments about the Climate Emergency and related matters. Links to articles about these outstanding persons are variously given for your convenience. Key quotes are in bold and are presented in a wider educative context. <b>1. Dr James Hansen</b> <span> </span>(top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; member of the prestigious<span> </span>US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science; see: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/</a> ; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen</a> ; for 1880-present NASA GISS Global Temperature graphed data see: <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/</a> and <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/" rel="nofollow">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/</a> ): (a) With 8 UK, French and US climate change scientist co-authors (2008): <span> </span>“Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO<sub>2</sub> [carbon dioxide; atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> 280 ppm pre-industrial], including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO<sub>2</sub> for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO<sub>2</sub> was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO<sub>2</sub> fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm [parts per million], a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. <b>If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO<sub>2</sub> will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.</b> The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO<sub>2</sub> forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO<sub>2</sub> is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO<sub>2</sub> is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects” (see: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126</a> ). (b) In relation to the recent book <b>“Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Philip Sutton</b> (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008; see: <a href="http://www.climatecodered.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatecodered.net/</a> ): “<b>A compelling case … we face a climate emergency.</b>” <p>(c) <span> </span>2007 (Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M. Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. <cite>Phil. Trans. Royal. Soc. A</cite>, <span>365</span>, 1925-1954): “Paleoclimate data show that the Earth's climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks predominate. This allows the entire planet to be whipsawed between climate states. One feedback, the "albedo flip" property of water substance, provides a powerful trigger mechanism. <b>A climate forcing that "flips" the albedo of a sufficient portion of an ice sheet can spark a cataclysm. Ice sheet and ocean inertia provides only moderate delay to ice sheet disintegration and a burst of added global warming. Recent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of our control, with great </b><b>dangers for humans and other creatures. Carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) is the largest human-made climate forcing</b>, but other trace constituents are important. Only intense simultaneous efforts to slow CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and reduce non-CO<sub>2</sub> forcings can keep climate within or near the range of the past million years. The most important of the non-CO<sub>2</sub> forcings is methane (CH<sub>4</sub>), as it causes the 2nd largest human-made GHG climate forcing and is the principal cause of increased tropospheric ozone (O<sub>3</sub>), which is the 3rd largest GHG forcing. Nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O) should also be a focus of climate mitigation efforts. Black carbon ("black soot") has a high global warming potential (~2000, 500, and 200 for 20, 100 and 500 years, respectively) and deserves greater attention. Some forcings are especially effective at high latitudes, so concerted efforts to reduce their emissions could still "save the Arctic", while also having major benefits for human health, agricultural productivity, and the global environment” (see: <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_2.html" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_2.html</a> ).</p> <p>(d) 2008, in an address to the US National Press Club and a briefing to the US House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming Congressional Committee: “<b>CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature</b>” (see: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf</a> ).</p><p>(e) <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Dr James Hansen et al. (2008): “Stabilization of Arctic sea ice cover requires, to first approximation, restoration of planetary energy balance. Climate models driven by known forcings yield a present planetary energy imbalance of +0.5-1 W/m2. Observed heat increase in the upper 700 m of the ocean confirms the planetary energy imbalance, but observations of the entire ocean are needed for quantification. CO<sub>2</sub> amount must be reduced to 325-355 ppm to increase outgoing flux 0.5-1 W/m2, if other forcings are unchanged. A further imbalance reduction, and thus CO<sub>2</sub> ~300-325 ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago”</span> </p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">(see: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf</a> ).</span></p> <p><b>2. Dr Rajendra Pachauri</b> (2008) (economist and environmental scientist; chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri</a> ): “[The UN negotiations] must progress rapidly, otherwise I am afraid that not only future generations but even this generation will treat us as having been irresponsible…The EU has to lead. If the EU does not lead, I am afraid that any attempt to bring about change and to manage the problem of climate change will collapse…Today there is a high level of expectation. If the EU does not lead, you will not be able to bring the US on board, North America, on board. You will not be able to bring on board other countries in the world as well…<b>we would have to stabilise the greenhouse-gas concentration at more or less the level at which we are today. But in order to do that [to limit the overall warming since pre-industrial times to 2 C (3.6 F)], we have a window of opportunity of only seven years because emissions will have to peak by 2015 and reduce after that. We cannot permit a longer delay</b>…The very wise target that the EU had set of 2.0 C (3.6 F) may need to be looked at once more, because the impacts are turning out to be more serious than we had estimated earlier” (see: <a href="http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGxKw2XS4_IHH6Xc7RVAY02dkNBg">http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGxKw2XS4_IHH6Xc7RVAY02dkNBg</a> ).</p> <p><b>3. Dr Graeme Pearman</b> (2008) (top Australian climate scientist; Chief of CSIRO Atmospheric Research in Australia from 1992 to 2002; world expert on increasing levels of CO<sub>2 </sub>and global warming): "This science tells us that the world's climate is changing and that the change is primarily because of an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities. We are changing the climate. <b>Very recent science suggests that climate change may be happening faster than we expected and that we and other species on the planet are more vulnerable to change than we thought. This is now forcing serious consideration of rapid responses by all nations as we work to tackle this shared problem. Challenges in this quest include a general community lack of appreciation of the significance of what appears to be small shifts in global average temperature, incompleteness of the knowledge-base and the need to respond using risk management</b>" (see: <a href="http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20080326/climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20080326/climate-change.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>4. <cite><span style="font-style:normal">Professor David de Kretser, A.C., Governor of Victoria, Australia</span></cite></b><cite><span style="font-style:normal"> (2008) (eminent Australian medical scientist; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_de_Kretser" rel="nofollow"><span>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_de_Kretser</span></a> ) <b>in launching the book “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Philip Sutton</b> (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008): “</span></cite>The book draws on a vast array of information to build a cogent and compelling case that we do have a genuine emergency on our hands if we are to limit the rise of greenhouse gas emissions to a level at which we can limit the degradation of our planet to manageable levels …<b> There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency</b>.” (see: <a href="http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered</a> ).</p> <p><b>5. Dr James Lovelock, </b>(top UK climate scientist; Fellow of the Royal Society; proponent of the Gaia hypothesis; <a href="http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/</a> ;<span> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock</a> ), </p> <p>(a) 2006: “In Chapter 1<span> </span>I describe a simple model where the sensitive part of the Earth system is the ocean; as it warms, so the area of the sea that can support the growth of algae grows smaller as it is driven ever closer to the poles, until algal growth ceases. The discontinuity comes because algae in the ocean both pump down carbon dioxide [by photosynthesis] and produce clouds [through cloud-seeding dimethyl sulphide production]. (Algae floating in the ocean actively remove carbon dioxide from the air and use it for growth; we call the process “pumping down” to distinguish it from the passive and reversible removal of carbon dioxide as it dissolves in rain or sea water). <b>The threshold for the failure of the algae is about 500 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide, about the same as it is for </b><b>Greenland</b>’s unstoppable melting” (See: “The Revenge of Gaia”, Allen Lane, London; p51).</p> <p>(b) 2007: “Most of the large climate models used to predict future climates still rely mainly on atmospheric physics, and this includes the models on which the IPCC report is based. The influence of the clouds and the ocean are incompletely included and that of the Earth's natural ecosystems hardly at all. Present day climate models are good at explaining past climates but seem unable to agree on the course of global heating beyond about 2050, by the end of the century predictions vary over a wide range. This stark view was reinforced in May this year by the publication by Rahmstorf and his colleagues ["Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections", <i>Science</i> 4 May 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5825, p. 709] of high quality measurements of the rise in global mean temperature, sea level and CO<sub>2</sub>. <b>These showed that even the gloomiest predictions of the IPCC were underestimating the severity of climate change now” </b>(see:<span> </span><a href="http://www.jameslovelock.org/page24.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.jameslovelock.org/page24.html</a> ). </p> <p>(c) 2006: “When Malthus first warned of the overpopulation of the Earth in 1800, there were only one billion of us. He has been derided ever since, yet I think he was right. <b>One billion is about the right number and I fear that we will reach it not by our own choice but by attrition</b>” (see: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/james-lovelock-you-ask-the-questions-411765.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/james-lovelock-you-ask-the-questions-411765.html</a> ; see also: <a href="http://machineslikeus.com/People/Lovelock_James.html" rel="nofollow">http://machineslikeus.com/People/Lovelock_James.html</a> ; <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/15/desertification.ethicalliving" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/15/desertification.ethicalliving</a> and )</p> <p>(d) 2008: “I hate academia. Most of the scientists who work there are not free men any more and they can't speak out. That's no way to do science” (see: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/15/desertification.ethicalliving" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/15/desertification.ethicalliving</a> ).</p><p>(e) 2009, on <b>biochar</b>: "The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO<sub>2</sub> is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it ... I'm an optimistic pessimist. I think it's wrong to assume we'll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13517-major-food-source-threatened-by-climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">we would not find enough food</a>, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less" </p><p>(see New Scientist, January 2009: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html</a> <span> </span>).</p> <p><b>6. Professor <span> </span>David Pimentel</b> (1998) (<span>Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Science at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA</span>): “At present, humans face serious malnutrition, land degradation, water pollution and shortages, and declining fossil energy resources. In addition, with related changes in the natural environment, many thousands of species are being lost forever. If the human population increases dramatically over the next several decades, as it is projected to do, the strains on these limited resources will grow as well. Some people are starting to ask just how many people the Earth can support if we want to cease degrading the environment and move to a sustainable solar energy system? <b>There is no solid answer yet, but the best estimate is that Earth can support about 1 to 2 billion people with an American Standard of living, good health, nutrition, prosperity, personal dignity and freedom.</b> This estimate suggests an optimal U.S. population of 100 to 200 million. To achieve this goal, humans must first stabilize their population and then gradually reduce their numbers to achieve a sustainable society in terms of both economics and environmental resources. With fair policies and realistic incentives, such a reduction in the human population can be achieved over the next century” (see: <a href="http://www.populationpress.org/essays/essay-pimentel.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.populationpress.org/essays/essay-pimentel.html</a> ). </p> <p><b>7. Dr</b> <b><span>Timothy Searchinger</span></b><b><span style="font-weight:normal"> and colleagues (</span></b>“Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change”, <b><span style="font-weight:normal">S</span></b><i><span style="font-style:normal">cience</span></i><i> </i>29 February 2008, Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1238 – 1240: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861</span></a> ): “Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for<sup> </sup>gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester<sup> </sup>carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have<sup> </sup>failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide<sup> </sup>respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to<sup> </sup>new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to<sup> </sup>biofuels. <b>By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate<sup> </sup>emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol,<sup> </sup>instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse<sup> </sup>emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167<sup> </sup>years</b>. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands,<sup> </sup>increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about<sup> </sup>large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste<sup> </sup>products.”</p> <h2><a name="TOC-8.-Dr-Joseph-Fargione-and-colleague"></a><span style="font-size:12pt">8. Dr </span><b><span style="font-size:12pt">Joseph Fargione</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal"> and colleagues (</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">“Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt”</span><b><span style="font-size:12pt">, </span></b><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">Science</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal"> 29 February 2008, Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1235 – 1238: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747</a> ): “Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>)<sup> </sup>emissions from fossil fuels make switching to low-carbon fuels<sup> </sup>a high priority. Biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy<sup> </sup>source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on<sup> </sup>how they are produced. </span><span style="font-size:12pt">Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas,<sup> </sup>or grasslands to produce food crop–based biofuels in Brazil,<sup> </sup>Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a "biofuel carbon<sup> </sup>debt" by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO<sub>2</sub> than the annual<sup> </sup>greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide<sup> </sup>by displacing fossil fuels.</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal"> In contrast, biofuels made from<sup> </sup>waste biomass or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned<sup> </sup>agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no<sup> </sup>carbon debt and can offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.”</span></h2> <p><b><span>9. </span></b><b><span>Professors O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. J. Mumby</span></b><span> and colleagues (Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, Science 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1737 – 1742 (see: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737</a> ): “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. <b>Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained. Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse</b>.”</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><b><span>10. Dr Chris Thomas</span></b><span> and numerous colleagues (Extinction risk from climate change, N</span><i>ature</i> <span>427</span>, 145-148, 2004; see: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html</a> ): “Climate change over the past <img alt="approx" src="javascript:void(0);" height="10" border="0" width="11" />30 years has produced numerous shifts in the distributions and abundances of species<sup> </sup>and has been implicated in one species-level extinction. Using projections of species' distributions for future climate scenarios, we assess extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20% of the Earth's terrestrial surface. Exploring three approaches in which the estimated probability of extinction shows a power-law relationship with geographical range size, we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be 'committed to extinction'. <b>When the average of the three methods and two dispersal scenarios is taken, minimal climate-warming scenarios produce lower projections of species committed to extinction (<img alt="approx" src="javascript:void(0);" height="10" border="0" width="11" />18%) than mid-range (<img alt="approx" src="javascript:void(0);" height="10" border="0" width="11" />24%) and maximum-change (<img alt="approx" src="javascript:void(0);" height="10" border="0" width="11" />35%) scenarios. These estimates show the importance of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.”</b></p> <p><b>11. Dr Cynthia Rosenzweig</b>, Professor David D. Karoly and numerous other colleagues (2008) (Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. <cite>Nature</cite>, <span>453</span>, 353-357, 2008): “Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. <b>Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents</b>” (see: <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html</a> ).</p> <h2><a name="TOC-12.-Dr-Andrew-Balmford-and-numerous"></a><b><span style="font-size:12pt">12. Dr Andrew Balmford</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal"> and numerous colleagues (</span></b><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">Science</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal"> 9 August 2002, Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature, Science Vol. 297, pp. 950 – 953):</span><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">“On the eve of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, it is timely to assess progress over the 10 years since its predecessor<sup> </sup>in Rio de Janeiro. Loss and degradation of remaining natural habitats<sup> </sup>has continued largely unabated. </span><span style="font-size:12pt">However, evidence has been accumulating<sup> </sup>that such systems generate marked economic benefits, which the<sup> </sup>available data suggest exceed those obtained from continued habitat<sup> </sup>conversion. We estimate that the overall benefit:cost ratio of<sup> </sup>an effective global program for the conservation of remaining<sup> </sup>wild nature is at least 100:1</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">” (see: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950</a> ).</span></h2> <p><b>13. Dr</b> <b><span style="color:black">Phillip S. Levin, <span> </span>Dr Donald A. Levin </span></b><b><span style="color:black;font-weight:normal">(2002) (Dr </span></b><b><span style="color:black;font-weight:normal">Donald A. Levin is P</span></b><b><span style="color:black;font-weight:normal">rofessor of Biology</span></b><b><span style="color:black;font-weight:normal">, University of Texas, Austin; his son Dr Phillip Levin is a biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service): “</span></b><span style="color:black">The numbers are grim: Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the past century. On average, one extinction happens somewhere on earth every 20 minutes. Ecologists estimate that half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years. Although crude and occasionally controversial, such statistics illustrate the extent of the current upheaval, which spans the globe and affects a broad array of plants and animals…<b>The current losses are, however, exceptional. Rates of extinction appear now to be 100 to 1,000 times greater than background levels, qualifying the present as an era of </b></span><b><span style="color:black">“mass extinction”.</span></b><span style="color:black"> The globe has</span><span style="color:black"> experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past” <b><span style="font-weight:normal">(see: </span></b></span><a href="http://www.soc.duke.edu/%7Epmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.soc.duke.edu/~pmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>14. Dr John Holdren</b> (2008) (Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; Director of the Woods Hole Research Center;<span> </span>recent Chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science): “I don’t like the term “global warming,” because it’s misleading. It implies something that’s mainly about temperature, that’s gradual, and that’s uniform across the planet. And in fact, temperature is only one of the things that’s changing. It’s a sort of an index of the state of climate. The whole climate is changing: the winds, the ocean currents, the storm patterns, snow packs, snowmelt, flooding, droughts. Temperature is just a bit of it. <b>It’s also highly non-uniform. The largest changes are occurring in the far north in the Arctic, in the </b><b>Antarctic Peninsula</b> in the far south. It is certainly not gradual, in the sense that it is rapid compared to the capacity of ecosystems to adjust. It’s rapid compared to the capacity of human systems to adjust… I think that most people, even most scientists, continue to underestimate how far down the path to climate catastrophe we’ve already traveled. We are committed, the United States and 190 other countries are committed, under the Framework Convention on Climate Change to avoid dangerous human interference in the climate system. And the fact is, it’s already too late to do that. We’re already experiencing dangerous interference. Floods, major floods, are up all over the world. Wildfires are up in almost every region of the world where wildfires have been a problem. Wildfires erupt fourfold in the last thirty years in the western United States” (see: <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/3/global_disruption_more_accurately_describes_climate" rel="nofollow">http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/3/global_disruption_more_accurately_describes_climate</a> ).</p> <p><b>15. Professor Tim Flannery</b> (2008) (eminent Australian mammalogist, <span> </span><span> </span>palaeontologist and climate change activist; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery</a> ): “[inserting global dimming sulphur into the stratosphere] would change the colour of the sky. It's the last resort that we have, it's the last barrier to a climate collapse. We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve…The consequences of doing that are unknown …<b>The current burden of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is in fact more than sufficient to cause catastrophic climate change</b>… Everything's going in the wrong direction at the moment, timelines are getting shorter, the amount of pollution in the atmosphere is growing…It's extremely urgent" (see: <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>16. The UK Royal Society</b> (founded in 1660; “the Royal Society, the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth, is at the cutting edge of scientific progress”; the Royal Society is one of the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies and its members include the most outstanding British and Commonwealth scientists): “Climate change controversies: a simple guide. The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science. <b>This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies</b>” (see: <a href="http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229" rel="nofollow">http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229</a> ).</p> <p><b>17. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007</b> (the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988; it has produced 4 successive Assessment Reports, the last being the Fourth in 2007: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a> ): “<b>Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level … Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is <i>very likely</i> due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations</b>” (see IPCC, 2007 Summary for Policymakers: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf</a> ).</p> <p><b>18. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)</b>, 2006 (founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals; the AAAS journal <i>Science</i> has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of 1 million): “<b>The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now</b>.” (see: <a href="http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml</a> ).</p> <p><b>19. US National Academy of Sciences (US PNAS) and 10 other national science academies</b>, 2005 (the US PNAS is one of the world’s most prestigious scientific bodies and its members include the most outstanding US scientists): “The US National Academy of Sciences joined 10 other national science academies today in calling on world leaders, particularly those of the G-8 countries meeting next month in Scotland, to acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing, to address its causes, and to prepare for its consequences. <b>Sufficient scientific understanding of climate change exists for all nations to identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reductions in net global greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. </b>The statement echoes the findings and recommendations of several previous reports by the US National Academies” (see: <a href="http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf</a> ).</p> <p><b>20. Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)</b> (Australia’s premier scientific research organization), Climate Change in Australia Technical Report 2007: “<b>The key findings of this report includes that by 2030, temperatures will rise by about 1 ºC over Australia – a little less in coastal areas, and a little more inland - later in the century, warming depends on the extent of greenhouse gas emissions. </b>If emissions are low, warming of between 1 ºC and 2.5 ºC is likely by around 2070, with a best estimate of 1.8 ºC. Under a high emission scenario, the best estimate warming is 3.4 ºC, with a range of 2.2 ºC to 5 ºC” <span> </span>(see: <a href="http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps3j6.html#2" rel="nofollow">http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps3j6.html#2</a> ).</p><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">21. </span></b><span style="color:navy"><b>Dr Andrew Glikson </b>(an </span><span>Earth and paleo-climate research scientist at Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) </span><span style="color:navy">in “The Methane Time Bomb and the Triple Melt-down" (see: </span><span style="color:navy">: <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm</a> ): </span><span style="color:navy">“</span><span>For some time now, climate scientists warned that melting of subpolar permafrost and warming of the Arctic Sea (up to 4 degrees C during 2005–2008 relative to the 1951–1980) are likely to result in the dissociation of methane hydrates and the release of this powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (methane: 62 times the infrared warming effect of CO2 over 20 years and 21 times over 100 years) </span><span style="font-family:Arial">… </span><span>The amount of carbon stored in Arctic sediments and permafrost is estimated as 500–2500 Gigaton Carbon (GtC), as compared with the world’s total fossil fuel reserves estimated as 5000 GtC. Compare with the 700 GtC of the atmosphere, which regulate CO2 levels in the range of 180–300 parts per million and land temperatures in a range of about – 50 to + 50 degrees C, which allowed the evolution of warm blooded mammals. <b>The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO2 levels to 387 ppm CO2 to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO2 levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres. </b>There is little evidence for an extinction at 3 Ma. However, by crossing above a CO2 level of 400 ppm the atmosphere is moving into uncharted territory. At this stage, enhanced methane leaks threaten climate events, such as the massive methane release and fauna extinction of 55 million years ago, which was marked by rise of CO2 to near-1000 ppm.”<br /></span></p><p> </p><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">22. </span>Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber</b>, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research., Germany <span> </span>(see: <a href="http://www.pik-potsdam.de/institute/director" rel="nofollow">http://www.pik-potsdam.de/institute/director</a> ) (2008): “"It is a compromise between ambition and feasibility. A rise of 2<sup>o</sup>C could avoid some of the big environmental disasters, but it is still only a compromise…It is a very sweeping argument, but nobody can say for sure that 330ppm is safe. <b>Perhaps it will not matter whether we have 270ppm or 320ppm, but operating well outside the [historic] realm of carbon dioxide concentrations is risky as long as we have not fully understood the relevant feedback mechanisms</b>" (see: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions</a> ) [280 ppm is the pre-industrial atmospheric CO<sub>2 </sub>concentration].<br /></p><p><b>23.</b> <span><b>Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows </b>(</span><span>UK climate scientists,<b> </b></span><span>Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester) have recently estimated that an annual 6-8% DECREASE in greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is required to stabilize atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>-e (carbon dioxide equivalent) at a still catastrophic 450 ppm (parts per million). Unfortunately, the best Obama and Brown can offer is 2% annual GHG pollution DECREASE and the current policies of huge per capita GHG polluter Australia mean, subject to transient recession effects) an annual 2%<b> </b>INCREASE in Australia’s Domestic and Exported GHG pollution (subject to recession effects). </span> </p><p><span><b>Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows:</b> “</span>According to the analysis conducted in this paper, stabilizing at 450 ppmv [carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2-e, atmospheric concentration measured in parts per million by volume] requires, at least, global energy related emissions to peak by 2015, rapidly decline at 6-8% per year between 2020 and 2040, and for full decarbonization sometime soon after 2050 …Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonization (in excess of 6% per year), it is difficult to envisage anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilization at or below 650 ppmv CO2-e ... Ultimately, the latest scientific understanding of climate change allied with current emissions trends and a commitment to “limiting average global temperature increases to below 4<sup>o</sup>C above pre-industrial levels”, demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda, and the economic characterization of contemporary society” (see: Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows, “Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc, A, 2008: <a href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/3863.full" rel="nofollow">http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/3863.full</a> ; <span style="font-size:11pt"> Gideon Polya, “Good and bad climate news”, Green Blog, 2009: <a href="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/">http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/</a> ; and George Monbiot, “One shot left”, Monbiot.com (also published in the UK Guardian, 2008): <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/">http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/</a> ).</span></p> <p><b>24. Myles R. Allen, David J. Frame, Chris Huntingford, Chris D. Jones, Jason A. Lowe, Malte Meinshausen & Nicolai Meinshausen (2009)</b>: “Global efforts to mitigate climate change are guided by projections of future temperatures<sup><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08019.html#B1" rel="nofollow">1</a></sup>. But the eventual equilibrium global mean temperature associated with a given stabilization level of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations remains uncertain, complicating the setting of stabilization targets to avoid potentially dangerous levels of global warming. Similar problems apply to the carbon cycle: observations currently provide only a weak constraint on the response to future emissions. Here we use ensemble simulations of simple climate-carbon-cycle models constrained by observations and projections from more comprehensive models to simulate the temperature response to a broad range of carbon dioxide emission pathways. We find that the peak warming caused by a given cumulative carbon dioxide emission is better constrained than the warming response to a stabilization scenario. Furthermore, the relationship between cumulative emissions and peak warming is remarkably insensitive to the emission pathway (timing of emissions or peak emission rate). Hence policy targets based on limiting cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide are likely to be more robust to scientific uncertainty than emission-rate or concentration targets. Total anthropogenic emissions of one trillion tonnes of carbon (3.67 trillion tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub>), about half of which has already been emitted since industrialization began, results in a most likely peak carbon-dioxide-induced warming of 2<span> </span>°C above pre-industrial temperatures, with a 5–95% confidence interval of 1.3–3.9°C.” (Myles R. Allen, David J. Frame, Chris Huntingford, Chris D. Jones, Jason A. Lowe, Malte Meinshausen & Nicolai Meinshausen,<b> </b><span>Nature</span> <span>458</span>, 1163-1166, 30 April 2009: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08019.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08019.html</a> ).</p> <p> </p><p><b>25. Peter A. Stott (Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (Reading Unit), Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK), D. A. Stone<sup> </sup>(Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK) & M. R. Allen (Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK) (2004)</b> on the 2003 European heatwave: “The summer of 2003 was probably the hottest in Europe since at latest <span>AD</span> 1500, and unusually large numbers of heat-related deaths were reported in France, Germany and Italy. It is an ill-posed question whether the 2003 heatwave was caused, in a simple deterministic sense, by a modification of the external influences on climate—for example, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere—because almost any such weather event might have occurred by chance in an unmodified climate. However, it is possible to estimate by how much human activities may have increased the risk of the occurrence of such a heatwave. Here we use this conceptual framework to estimate the contribution of human-induced increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and other pollutants to the risk of the occurrence of unusually high mean summer temperatures throughout a large region of continental Europe. Using a threshold for mean summer temperature that was exceeded in 2003, but in no other year since the start of the instrumental record in 1851, we estimate it is very likely (confidence level >90%) that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave exceeding this threshold magnitude.” (P.A. Stott, D.A. Stone and M.R. Allen “Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003”, <span> </span><span>Nature</span> <span>432</span>, 610-614 (<span>2004</span>): <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/full/nature03089.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/full/nature03089.html</a> .</p>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-57376310533978813032011-06-24T00:05:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:12:22.668-07:00<p><b>CLIMATE EMERGENCY: What Outstanding Australian Scientists Say</b></p> <p>Whether it is climate change risks or major disease risks (e.g. from influenza, smoking, alcohol, obesity etc), <b>responsible risk management</b> means that we take very seriously the advice from <span> </span>top scientific experts at the cutting edge of research in these areas and ALSO from other outstanding scientists and top scientific bodies able to make authoritative statements about such risks. </p> <p><b>Below are quotes from such outstanding Australian scientists about the risks from the Climate Emergency – links to key biographical details and sources are given and key statements in a wider context are emphasized for clarity, especially for non-scientist readers.</b></p> <p><b>1. Professor Peter Doherty</b> (Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research, 1995; Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1996; <span> </span>Australian of the Year, 1997.Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne; author “A Light History of Hot Air”, Melbourne University Publishing, 2007; see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Doherty" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Doherty</a> ): </p> <p>(a) 2007: “There are a whole lot of good ideas out there to try to deal with global warming. The journal Science had an issue earlier this year that explored 10 or so totally different technologies that are involved in producing clean energy or cleaning up carbon dioxide from coal-fired plants. What makes me sad is that we have been missing the boat in Australia and putting more emphasis on fossil fuels than on renewables where we have enormous potential. Until very recently, our Federal Government has made every wrong decision … Solar, wind and deep geothermal. There are all sorts of other possibilities. Generating hydrogen from algae. There is some carbon capture sequestration work which involves producing hydrogen from coal. There is also discussion of using algae to capture carbon. It is probably inevitable that there is more nuclear power in the Northern Hemisphere. I’m not totally convinced we need it in Australia. Germany has rejected nuclear power and gone for solar and Spain is putting a lot of effort into solar. Denmark has chosen wind power … <b>Everything is about hot air. Political and in the atmosphere. We are in real </b><b>danger.</b> The recent CSIRO report suggests that temperatures could rise as much as five degrees by 2070. The ice is melting much more quickly than anyone expected. The Himalayas are melting very fast. We are now talking about the Arctic being ice-free by 2030” (see: <a href="http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/unarticleid_4775.html" rel="nofollow">http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/unarticleid_4775.html</a> ).</p> <p>(b) 2007 in “<b>A Light History of Hot Air</b>” (Melbourne University Publishing, 2007): “<b>We are consuming the future and it’s up to us to develop and use renewable resources</b>” (see: <a href="http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/unarticleid_4775.html" rel="nofollow">http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/unarticleid_4775.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>2<span>. <cite><span style="font-style:normal">Professor David de Kretser, A.C., Governor of Victoria, Australia</span></cite></span></b><cite><span style="font-style:normal"> (2008) (eminent Australian medical scientist; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_de_Kretser" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_de_Kretser</a> ) <b>in launching the book “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Philip Sutton</b> (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008): “</span></cite>The book draws on a vast array of information to build a cogent and compelling case that we do have a genuine emergency on our hands if we are to limit the rise of greenhouse gas emissions to a level at which we can limit the degradation of our planet to manageable levels …<b> There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency</b>” (see: <a href="http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered</a> ).</p> <p><b>3<span>. Professor Tim Flannery</span></b> (2008) (eminent Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist and climate change activist; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery</a> ): </p> <p>(a) “[inserting global dimming sulphur into the stratosphere] would change the colour of the sky. It's the last resort that we have, it's the last barrier to a climate collapse. We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve…The consequences of doing that are unknown …<b>The current burden of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is in fact more than sufficient to cause catastrophic climate change</b>… Everything's going in the wrong direction at the moment, timelines are getting shorter, the amount of pollution in the atmosphere is growing…It's extremely urgent" (see: <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html</a> ).</p> <p>(b) 2007: “Because methane is more than 20 times as powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, scientists have been watching methane emissions carefully. The gas is abundant in permafrost, so as the Arctic warms it is escaping in great volume. More emissions come from new gas fields, leaky gas infrastructure, and industrial processes, particularly in Asia. Because all of these sources are producing ever more methane, almost everyone expected that methane levels in the atmosphere would escalate dramatically. But mysteriously, for the past seven years there has been no increase in atmospheric methane at all. The reason for this, the climatologists discovered, is that much of Earth's tropical and subtropical areas are drying out, and the dryness is draining lakes, swamps and other wet areas worldwide. In times past, these wetlands were the largest source of methane on the planet, and so prodigious is their loss that it is counterbalancing the mighty increase in methane emissions from other sources. <b>What this tells us is that </b><b>Australia's extraordinary drought is part of a global phenomenon: it simply cannot be part of some local natural cycle. The one-in-1000-years drought is, in fact, Australia's manifestation of the global fingerprint of drought caused by climate change</b>” (see “Whither our weather?”: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/whither-our-weather/2007/01/01/1167500057951.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/whither-our-weather/2007/01/01/1167500057951.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>4<span>. Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)</span></b> (Australia’s premier scientific research organization), Climate Change in Australia Technical Report 2007: “<b>The key findings of this report includes that by 2030, temperatures will rise by about 1 ºC over Australia – a little less in coastal areas, and a little more inland - later in the century, warming depends on the extent of greenhouse gas emissions. </b>If emissions are low, warming of between 1 ºC and 2.5 ºC is likely by around 2070, with a best estimate of 1.8 ºC. Under a high emission scenario, the best estimate warming is 3.4 ºC, with a range of 2.2 ºC to 5 ºC” (see: <a href="http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps3j6.html#2" rel="nofollow">http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps3j6.html#2</a> ).</p> <p><b>5.<span> Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg</span></b> (top world expert on climate change and coral; University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ove_Hoegh-Guldberg_%28biologist%29" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ove_Hoegh-Guldberg_(biologist)</a> ): </p> <p>(a) with 16 international scientist colleagues (Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, Science 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1737 – 1742 (see: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737</a> ), 2007: “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. <b>Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained. Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse</b>.”</p> <p>(b) 2007 (Science Show with Robyn Williams: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm</a> ): This is a paper [see (a)] that's really wrapping up essentially ten years of science. It's bringing together the two great threats to coral reefs, global warming and ocean acidification. What we find out is that the threat is much closer than we thought in the past, and in fact the magic number may be 450. When I say '450'; 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide and we lose them. [<b><span style="font-weight:normal">Robyn Williams:</span></b> Do you mean you lose the shellfish, and you lose the reefs?] <b>Lose coral reefs. If you look around </b><b>Australia</b> <b>today, in fact the world, you find that coral reefs only prosper when you've got a certain amount of carbonate ions in the water. The level at which the carbonate ion drops below that level is when you've got 450 parts per million, and of course we know that we haven't actually had that concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for possibly 20 million years, so this does make sense. So once we've identified this number, I get the feeling that our politicians, even with their best intentions in Bali, are still flailing around trying to identify the target. And I think that everything, and this goes for not only coral reefs but for rainforest, for the breakdown of the Greenland ice sheet and all of these other issues, 450 is going to be what we must at all costs aim for.</b>”</p> <p><b>6<span>. Dr Graeme Pearman</span></b> (top Australian climate scientist; Chief of CSIRO Atmospheric Research in Australia from 1992 to 2002; world expert on increasing levels of CO<sub>2 </sub>and global warming):</p> <p>(a) 2008: <span> </span>"This science tells us that the world's climate is changing and that the change is primarily because of an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities. We are changing the climate. <b>Very recent science suggests that climate change may be happening faster than we expected and that we and other species on the planet are more vulnerable to change than we thought. This is now forcing serious consideration of rapid responses by all nations as we work to tackle this shared problem. Challenges in this quest include a general community lack of appreciation of the significance of what appears to be small shifts in global average temperature, incompleteness of the knowledge-base and the need to respond using risk management</b>" (see: <a href="http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20080326/climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20080326/climate-change.html</a> ).</p> <p>(b) 2008: “Climate change: the evidence, science and current projections …CONCLUSIONS: <b>recent science strongly reinforces the views that: global warming is occurring; it is primarily the result of human activities. </b><b>Australia, particularly south of 30<sup>o</sup>S is likely to:<span> </span>lose 10-30% precipitation through the 21st century; experience a drier climate. Tertiary effects of climate trends have probably been grossly under-stated. There is a rapidly emerging urgency for both adaptive and mitigative action.</b> Challenges exist in how we manage the sheer complexity of climate change and the response options – coping with sustainability” (see the very useful, extensive, well-illustrated and highly-informative document “<b>Climate change: the evidence, science and current projections</b>” : <a href="http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/126569/graeme-pearman-monash-university-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/126569/graeme-pearman-monash-university-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf</a> ).</p> <p><b>7. Professor Barry Brook</b> (Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia.), 2008: “<i>The Washington Post</i> recently reported Walter Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center about the parlous state of Arctic sea ice: “Flying over the Arctic, one might perceive the sea ice cover as broad, Meier said, but that apparent breadth hides the fact that the ice is so thin. ‘It’s a façade, like a Hollywood set,’ he said. ‘There’s no building behind it’.” Joseph Romm, who writes a blog on climate change and denialism (<a href="http://www.climateprogress.org/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">www.climateprogress.org</a>), commented: “What a perfect metaphor for the delayers. Their arguments seem solid and impressive, but it’s a façade.” Scientists should beware of feeding [climate sceptic] trolls by engaging them on their terms. Instead be strong, well-informed advocates for good science! Don’t think that it is enough to be merely passive bystanders. <b>Good science alone invariably wins these silly debates, but usually not before denialist spin does much damage. Active and forthright public communication of science is not only an obligation of scientists, but a critical necessity. This is especially true for climate change and environmental sustainability, where we are perilously close to running out of time</b>” (see: <a href="http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7335" rel="nofollow">http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7335</a> ).</p> <p><b>8. Professor David Karoly</b> (Federation fellow at Melbourne University; head of the Victorian Premier's climate change advisory group; wants a 25-40% cut below 2000 GHG pollution level by 2020; member of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 2; School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne; a top Australian and world climate scientist: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Karoly" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Karoly</a> ):</p> <p>(a) <span> </span>2007: “There is no doubt in my mind that the climate change we’ve seen over the last 50 years is primarily due to human activity… Australia has the highest per person emissions in the world. It is critically important for the government to take leadership in setting emission reduction targets, irrespective of which political party is in government. <b>It’s not too late to do something now because we can still reduce the worst impacts of climate change, but it is too late to slow down climate change for the next 30 years because for the next 30 years, the warming is committed. What I’m trying to do as much as possible, is communicate the seriousness of this and the urgency</b>” (see: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2091117.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2091117.htm</a> ). </p> <p>(b) June, 2008: “<b>We have far less time to minimize </b><b>dangerous anthropogenic climate change than previously thought. Observations of the climate system indicate that the impacts of atmospheric warming are at the upper end of the range predicted by the IPCC. This puts us in an extremely precarious and urgent situation that compels immediate action</b>” (see his Forward to Greenpeace’s “Energy [R]evolution. A sustainable Australian energy outlook”: <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-revolution-scenario-full.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-revolution-scenario-full.pdf</a> ).</p><p>(c) September, 2008, re Australian Government Climate Change <span> </span>Adviser <span> </span>Professor Garnaut’s <span> </span>2008 advice of “10% decrease below 2000 GHG level by 2020”): </p>"I thought Australia wanted to be a leader on the international scene … [a minimum 20% cut below 2000 GHG pollution level by 2020] should be done to try and encourage the other countries around the world to join in. Within Europe, that's what the emissions reductions are aiming at … <b>I would anticipate the Government would take an even weaker approach than Garnaut, which is going to essentially be no change whatsoever</b>" (see “The Age”: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/garnaut-is-wrong-say-scientists-20080908-4c9l.html?page=-1" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/national/garnaut-is-wrong-say-scientists-20080908-4c9l.html?page=-1</a> ). <p><b>9. Dr Hugh Saddler</b> (leading Australian energy expert; modelled Greenpeace’s “ Energy [R]evolution. A sustainable Australian energy outlook”: <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-r-evolution-scenario.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-r-evolution-scenario.pdf</a> and<span> </span><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-revolution-scenario-full.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-revolution-scenario-full.pdf</a> ; see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Saddler" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Saddler</a> ), with Julien Vincent and Sven Teske (Greenpeace), 2008: “<b>The risk of passing the threshold of runaway climate change is not one that humankind can afford to take. The Energy [R]evolution Scenario demonstrates that making the necessary transformation in how we use energy is achievable, and provides a wealth of opportunities to stimulate economic growth and ensure social stability</b>” (see: <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-revolution-scenario-full.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-revolution-scenario-full.pdf</a> ). </p> <p><b>10. Dr Mark Diesendorf</b> (Environmental Studies, University of NSW; author of “<b>Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy</b>”, UNSW Press, Sydney; leading environmental policy and renewable energy expert: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Diesendorf" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Diesendorf</a> ):</p> <p>(a) 2008: “To conclude, wind power, with a small amount of peak-load back-up, which is operated infrequently, could substitute for several of Australia’s coal-fired power stations. Several additional base-load coal-fired power stations could be retired by implementing efficient energy use and solar hot water, while banning electric resistance hot water systems. <b>A little further down the time track, bioelectricity, generated from combusting the residues of existing crops, and hot rock geothermal power could replace the remaining coal-fired power stations. The barriers to this transition are not primarily technological or even, with a significant carbon price, economic. They are the political power of the big greenhouse gas emitting industries</b>” (see: <a href="http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6958" rel="nofollow">http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6958</a> ).</p> <p>(b) 2008, in response to the Question: “<span>What is it that, if anything, really proves to the average man or woman that Climate Change demands immediate attention?”:</span> “I can only offer my own view. I cannot speak for the ‘average man or woman’. <b>In public addresses, my main argument for URGENT action is based on stopping the positive feedback processes that are amplifying and accelerating global warming:</b> melting of north polar cap; melting of permafrost, which releases greenhouse gases; warming of soils which emit greenhouse gases; warming of the lower atmosphere which takes up more water vapour, a greenhouse gas; warming of sea-water which then absorbs less CO<sub>2</sub>; increased prevalence and severity of bushfires, which release more CO<sub>2</sub>. Most audiences understand very well the dangers of these positive feedback processes” (see: <a href="http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/guest-speaker-forum/11183-interview-mark-diesendorf-transcript.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/guest-speaker-forum/11183-interview-mark-diesendorf-transcript.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>11. Professor Neville Nicholls</b> (School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University; a lead author of the 2007 Report of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC):<br /></p><p>(a) 2007: “<b><span style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)">Warming, especially accelerated warming, can lead to large underestimates in the probability of exceeding high temperatures over future multi-decadal periods, if historical records are used to estimate probabilities</span></b><span style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)">” (see Scott Power & Neville Nichols, “Temperature variability in a changing climate”, Aust. Met. Mag,, 56, 105-110, 2007: <a href="http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=cache:Zm84zIfN1eYJ:134.178.63.140/amm/200702/power_hres.pdf+neville+nichols" rel="nofollow">http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=cache:Zm84zIfN1eYJ:134.178.63.140/amm/200702/power_hres.pdf+neville+nichols</a> ).<br /></span></p><p><span style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)">(b) 2009, </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">quoted by Adam Morton in “The state must brace for more heat waves, deaths”, The Age, 8 June, 2009, [commenting on the </span>State Government estimation that <span> </span>374 Victorians may have died because of extreme heat in the final week of January, specifically the final week of January Melbourne had three consecutive days topping 43 degrees - Melbourne had never before experienced a run of three days hotter than 42 degrees]: “With heatwaves it is not [happening later this century]. Climate change is happening now and will happen all through the rest of our lifetimes … The old records are not just being broken by increments, they are being smashed.” (see: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/environment/state-must-brace-for-more-heatwaves-deaths-20090607-bztr.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/environment/state-must-brace-for-more-heatwaves-deaths-20090607-bztr.html</a> ). <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><span> </span></span></p> <span style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)"> "<br /></span> <p><span style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)"> </span><b><span style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)">12. Dr Paul Steele</span></b><span style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)"> (</span>Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO); 2001 Victoria Prize<span style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)">): </span></p> (a) 2006: “Methane is an important greenhouse gas, and its atmospheric concentration has nearly tripled since pre-industrial times. The growth rate of atmospheric methane is determined by the balance between surface emissions and photochemical destruction by the hydroxyl radical, the major atmospheric oxidant. Remarkably, this growth rate has decreased markedly since the early 1990s, and the level of methane has remained relatively constant since 1999, leading to a downward revision of its projected influence on global temperatures … On longer timescales, our results show that the decrease in atmospheric methane growth during the 1990s was caused by a decline in anthropogenic emissions. <b>Since 1999, however, they indicate that anthropogenic emissions of methane have risen again. The effect of this increase on the growth rate of atmospheric methane has been masked by a coincident decrease in wetland emissions, but atmospheric methane levels may increase in the near future if wetland emissions return to their mean 1990s levels</b>” (co-author together with Dr P. Bousquet and an international group of scientists, “Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric methane variability. <cite>Nature</cite>, <b>443</b>, 439-443, 2006 : <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Bousquet_etal.html" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Bousquet_etal.html</a> ). <p>(b) 2006: "<b>Had it not been for this reduction in methane emissions from wetlands, atmospheric levels of methane would most likely have continued rising. This suggests that if the drying trend is reversed and emissions from wetlands return to normal, atmospheric methane levels may increase again, worsening the problem of climate change</b>" (see: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/methane-emissions-soar-as-china-booms-417807.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/methane-emissions-soar-as-china-booms-417807.html</a> ) [indeed there was a disturbing increase in atmospheric methane in 2007 that has been linked to tundra permafrost melting as well as increased industrial activity: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/7408808.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/7408808.stm</a> ].</p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">13. </span>Dr Bill Hare</b> (based at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, an author with the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; wants a 25-40% cut below 2000 GHG pollution by 2020), re Australian Government Climate Change Adviser Professor Garnaut’s recommendation of “10% cut on 2000 GHG pollution level by 2020”, 2008: “<b>Ross Garnaut's report is effectively putting off the cost of climate change to another generation, who will have to deal with a three-degree rise in temperature as well as sucking carbon dioxide out of the air </b>… It has failed to face up to this risk issue - in some ways it has dodged the bullet. As a highly vulnerable country, I would have thought it would have been better for Australia to be going forward with a more aggressive position" <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">(see “The Age”: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/garnaut-is-wrong-say-scientists-20080908-4c9l.html?page=-1" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/national/garnaut-is-wrong-say-scientists-20080908-4c9l.html?page=-1</a> ).</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">14. </span>Professor Amanda Lynch</b> (a Federation fellow at Monash University; an author with the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; wants a 25-40% cut below 2000 GHG pollution by 2020) re Australian Government Climate Change Adviser Professor Garnaut’s recommendation of “10% cut below 2000 GHG pollution level by 2020”: "<b>I think they will take it as another piece of evidence that Australia is not really interested in walking the walk …How much is it worth to us to have a Great Barrier Reef? </b>How much is it worth to us to be self-sufficient in food? These are the sort of things where setting a value on it are quite challenging, and he largely skirted those issues" <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">(see “The Age”: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/garnaut-is-wrong-say-scientists-20080908-4c9l.html?page=-1" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/national/garnaut-is-wrong-say-scientists-20080908-4c9l.html?page=-1</a> ).</span></p><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">15. </span></b><span style="color:navy"><b>Dr Andrew Glikson </b>(an </span><span>Earth and paleo-climate research scientist at Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) </span><span style="color:navy">in “The Methane Time Bomb and the Triple Melt-down" (see: </span><span style="color:navy">: <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm</a> ): </span><span style="color:navy">“</span><span>For some time now, climate scientists warned that melting of subpolar permafrost and warming of the Arctic Sea (up to 4 degrees C during 2005–2008 relative to the 1951–1980) are likely to result in the dissociation of methane hydrates and the release of this powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (methane: 62 times the infrared warming effect of CO2 over 20 years and 21 times over 100 years) </span><span style="font-family:Arial">… </span><span>The amount of carbon stored in Arctic sediments and permafrost is estimated as 500–2500 Gigaton Carbon (GtC), as compared with the world’s total fossil fuel reserves estimated as 5000 GtC. Compare with the 700 GtC of the atmosphere, which regulate CO2 levels in the range of 180–300 parts per million and land temperatures in a range of about – 50 to + 50 degrees C, which allowed the evolution of warm blooded mammals. <b>The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO2 levels to 387 ppm CO2 to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO2 levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres. </b>There is little evidence for an extinction at 3 Ma. However, by crossing above a CO2 level of 400 ppm the atmosphere is moving into uncharted territory. At this stage, enhanced methane leaks threaten climate events, such as the massive methane release and fauna extinction of 55 million years ago, which was marked by rise of CO2 to near-1000 ppm.”<br /></span></p><p><b><span>16. </span></b><b>Professor Will Steffen</b> (Executive Director of the Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Canberra and contributor to IPCC reports), 2009: “We now have very good evidence that temperatures, sea level rise and so on are right at the top of the IPCC projections, and that is indeed a cause for concern. One of the big ticket items of course is the sea level rise issue, and we had a lot of discussion, a lot of presentations on that yesterday. And they were pretty sobering indeed. <b>The best estimate we can give you now is that the sea level rise is gonna be above the IPCC fourth assessment reports, in the order of half a metre to a metre by 2100. And a lot of speakers, very eminent people, were saying we're gonna hit very close to a metre and we may indeed go across a metre by 2100.</b> And that indeed is very sobering news… But nevertheless, all the modelling suggests, and indeed the observations suggest in the other parts of the world as well, that as the climate warms - and particularly in those areas where it is drying as well as warming - the risk of severe fires goes up. We've always had severe fires in Australia, but I think the likelihood of them is increasing. We'll see more of them. We saw a really bad one in the Canberra area in 2003; now we see Victorian fires in 2009. That's only a six year interval. That's not a long interval at all. And the likelihood of these big fires continues to go up so long as the climate shifts that we're seeing continue… Now just to put this in context, <b>we're now seeing since pre-industrial temperatures arise of between 0.7 and 0.8 degrees. So we're coming up on one degree already. Now there's already, as I mentioned, inertia in the climate system, so we're committed to further change even if we cut emissions tomorrow. Now that further temperature rise will bring us to about 1.3 or so, so we're already getting right up to the 1.5 that some people are getting - are considering to be dangerous, and we're pushing - now pushing pretty hard at the two degrees</b>… But the longer we wait and the longer we put in new carbon emitting infrastructure, the worse the problem is gonna get. <b>Now, in terms of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, what does two degrees mean? It means we need to cap carbon dioxide at somewhere around 350 to 400 parts per million, and we're sitting at about 385 now. And we need to cap carbon dioxide equivalent, which means we take into account the other greenhouse gases - somewhere around 450 to 500, and we're sitting about 440.</b> So, that really, really does put the accelerator on in terms of getting to grips with the problem. “ (see ABC TV Lateline , 11 March 2009: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2513666.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2513666.htm</a> ).<br /></p><p><b>17. </b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><b>Dr Graeme Pearman</b> (former CSIRO Climate director; GP Consulting; interim director, MSI): Monash University Sustainaibility Group), “Climate change: the evidence, science and current projections”, (2007) (see: <a href="http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/126569/graeme-pearman-monash-university-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/126569/graeme-pearman-monash-university-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf</a> <span> </span>): “The Earth is deglaciating. Since 1979, more than 20% of the Polar Ice Cap has melted away … <span> </span>Over the last century: global temperatures risen by 0.74 +/- 0.18<sup>o</sup>C; 11 of last 12 years rank as amongst the 12 warmest years; snow cover decreased in most regions, especially in spring and summer; summer period extended 12.3 days … Arctic sea-ice decline of 2.7 +/- 0.6 per cent per decade; sea levels have risen at a rate of 1 .9 +/- 0.5 mm yr-1 (1961-2000), 1.7+/- 0.5 mm yr-1</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> (1900-2000)</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">; ocean acidification 0.1 pH unit so far … Gases: current carbon dioxide and methane concentrations far exceed those of the last 600,000 years; increases primarily die to fossil fuel use, agriculture and land-use changes; Warming: unequivocal, evident in air and ocean temperatures, melting of snow and ice and rising sea levels; warming an effect of human activities – at least 5 times greater than that due to solar output change … extreme temperatures – more frequent, intense, longer-lived heat waves … Recent science strongly reinforces the views that: global warming is occurring; it is primarily a result of human activities; Australia, particularly south of 30<sup>o</sup>S is likely to: lose 10-30% precipitation through the 21st century, experience a drier climate; tertiary effects of climate change have probably been grossly understated; there is a rapidly emerging urgency for both adaptive and mitigative action; challenges exist in how we manage the sheer complexity of climate change and tth eresponse options – coping with sustainability.” <span> </span></span> </p><p><span><br /></span></p> <b>For other Climate Emergency Fact Sheets see the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group Website:</b> <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home</a> .Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-8820015659265385322011-06-24T00:03:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:05:01.769-07:00Climate Disruption & Penultimate Bengali Holocaust through Sea Level Rise<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Climate Disruption, Climate Emergency, Climate Genocide & Penultimate Bengali Holocaust through Sea Level Rise</span> </h3> <div dir="ltr"> <p><span><b>Climate Disruption, Climate Emergency, Climate Genocide & Penultimate Bengali Holocaust through Sea Level Rise.</b></span></p> <p><span><b>Mega-delta Bengal (Bangladesh and India’s West Bengal) is acutely threatened by man-made global warming</b> (anthropogenic global warming, AGW) due to inundation due sea level rise (SLR) and storm surges from greatly more energetic hurricanes. I warned of this impending disaster a decade ago in a book entitled “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British history. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 1998; an updated 2008 has been published). The following review of the latest findings by top climate scientists concludes that Bangladesh - one of the world’s lowest annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters - faces inundation from a circa 1 metre sea level rise this century that will submerge </span>about 20% of Bangladesh, displacing tens of millions of people, and reducing its rice-farming land by 50 percent. Globally, a 1 metre SLR would create more than 100 million environmental refugees, notably from the <b>inundation of mega-delta regions of countries such as Nigeria, Egypt, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Cambodia. Burma, Vietnam, China, the Netherlands, Brazil and the United States</b>. </p> <b> Deliberate, knowing, man-made GHG pollution by European countries</b> in the full knowledge of the mass mortality consequences for vulnerable, non-polluting, non-European countries such as Bangladesh (10 billion non-Europeans are predicted to perish this century due to AGW) gives rise to the self-explanatory terms of climate racism, climate injustice, climate terror, climate terrorism, climate holocaust, climate genocide and climate justice. The following update about this impending latest Bengali Holocaust from man-made global warming is carefully documented with the very latest 2007-2009 data from authoritative sources. <p><span>Science is about the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses. Such scientific hypotheses can be about (a) present physical and biological realities (e.g. various greenhouse gas and other contributions or “forcings” toward global warming), (b) past events (e.g. sea levels 14,000 years Before Present or 3 million years BP) and (c) future events (e.g. global warming effects on sea level this century and beyond). </span></p> <p><span>Scientific hypotheses about past, present and future sea levels are extremely important for humanity because such a high proportion of humanity live near the sea. According to Michael Le Page in the New Scientist: “</span>While a mere 2 per cent of the world's land is less than 10 metres above the mid-tide sea level, it is home to 10 % of the world's population - 630 million and counting - and much valuable property and vital infrastructure. Without mega-engineering projects to protect them, a 5-metre rise would inundate large parts of many cities - including New York, London, Sydney, Vancouver, Mumbai and Tokyo - and leave surrounding areas vulnerable to storm surges. In Florida, Louisiana, the Netherlands, Bangladesh and elsewhere, whole regions and cities may vanish. China's economic powerhouse, Shanghai, has an average elevation of just 4 metres”. [1]. </p> <p>According to top US scientist <b>Professor John Holdren</b> (Harvard University, Director of the Woods Hole Research Centre, former chairperson of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and newly-appointed as President Obama’s chief science adviser) climate disruption from global warming is already happening around the world: “Melting land ice and thermal expansion of ocean water are raising sea level … 1993-2003 ~ 30mm=3.0 mm/yr; compare 1910-1990 = 1.5 +/- 0.5 mm/yr”. However sea level rise is but one parameter in an increasing burden of what Professor Holdren calls “climatic disruption” e.g. (1) the extraordinary post-industrial spikes in the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) and methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) concentration in the atmosphere (from 280 ppm to 397 ppm and from 750 ppb to 1800 ppb, respectively); (2) increase in global average surface temperature (0.8<sup>o</sup>C since 1890, noting that 90% of the extra heat has gone into the oceans and that the biggest surface temperature changes are in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsular); (3) massive shrinking of glaciers (with the melting of Himalaya glaciers having serious implications for major river water flows in South Asia, South East Asia and East Asia); (4) weakening of the East Asia Monsoon (with northern drought and southern floods in China); (5) increasing permafrost thawing (with attendant CO<sub>2</sub> and methane – 21 times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO<sub>2</sub> on a 100 year basis release - and accelerated global warming); (6) “the incidence of floods is up almost everywhere”; (7) “wildfires in the Western USA have increased 4-fold in the last 30 years” (acres burnt in the 1960s and 1970s averaged about 0.5-1 million annually; acres burnt in the 21st century range from 2.5 -4.5 million); (8) over the last half century “total power released by tropical cyclones has increased [roughly doubled] along with sea surface temperature”; (9) “arctic sea ice is disappearing” (Arctic ice experts now say that all summer sea ice will be gone in 2015); and “under BAU [business as usual] much bigger disruption is coming” and “past IPCC assessments have underestimated the rate of growth of emissions” (indeed the actual CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in GtC/yr [gigatonnes carbon per year = billions of tonnes of carbon per year] are well above the worst IPCC scenarios). [2, 3]. </p> <p><span style="color:navy">South Asia (2005 population 1.5 billion) is acutely threatened by global warming and the already evident “climate disruption” as set out by Professor John Holdren (President Obama’s chief scientific adviser), noting that, for example, </span>Bangladesh has 2.4% of the world’s population but contributes only 0.1% of the world’s GHG emissions whereas the US with about 5% of the world’s population <span style="color:navy">is responsible for 25% of global GHG emissions. The key environmental and economic threats to South Asia include (1) inundation and salinization of mega-delta coastal areas due to sea level rise; (2) exacerbation of coastal flooding by storm surges from more frequent and more energetic hurricanes; (3) increased river flooding (compounded by sea level rise in mega-delta coastal areas); (4) landslides (e.g. in Assam and due to flooding and compounded by deforestation); (5) changes in monsoon and other weather patterns variously resulting in drought and flooding ; (6) melting of Himalaya glaciers threatening water supply to major South Asian rivers; (7) increased temperature threatening increased heat stress to humans, animals and plants; (8) decreased agricultural production due to increased temperature, changes in weather patterns, river flooding, drought, coastal salinization, coastal inundation from sea level rises and storm surges; (9) health threats from flooding, disease spread, pollution from fossil fuel burning and forest fires and from potable water shortages; (10) mass starvation due to production deficit, legislatively mandated US and EU biofuel perversion and a globalized food market; (11) huge threat to remaining wild nature (notably to coral reefs due to increased ocean acidification and ocean warming); (12) increased conflict threats over climate refugees (climate change refugees) and decreased water supply. Many of these threats are being partly realized already. [4]. </span></p> <p><span style="color:navy">In relation to sea level rises all South Asian countries with mega-delta regions (Pakistan, India and Bangladesh) are threatened already. Bangladesh is most acutely threatened because about half of the country is threatened with inundation due to river floods or sea level rise. The Maldives are threatened by coral reef destruction, sea level rise and storm surges (and indeed is reported to be investing in land in other countries). The World Development Movement provides the following sober assessments of the threat to Bangladesh : “”Severe floods with devastating effects on people’s livelihoods used to happen once every twenty years. They are now occurring every five t seven years, taking place in 1987, 1988, 1998 and 2004 … The increased flooding corresponds with what climate scientists predict will happen to Bangladesh as the world gets warmer. Higher sea temperatures will make cyclones more frequent and intense, rising sea levels will both flood low-lying land and slows the speed at which rivers can remove water from the land, and rainfall could increase by 10 to 15 percent by 2030. All of which will mean increased flooding across the country. Floods in 2004 were some of the severest in decades leaving 1,000 people dead and 30 million homeless.” [5]. </span></p> <p><span style="color:navy">The World Development Movement estimates that “Alongside yearly floods, rising sea-levels could be calamitous. A 45 cm sea level rise would reduce Bangladesh’s land area by 11 per cent and force 5.5 million people to migrate. A 100 cm rise would remove 20 per cent of the land area, causing 15 million people to migrate. And millions more people will be forced to live in flood endangered areas”. [5]. </span></p> <p><span><b>Moudud Ahmed (Minister for Law and Justice, Bangladesh):</b> “The developing countries like Bangladesh are facing detrimental and hazaerdous sutitation due to unbridled emissions of industrialized countries”. </span><b>Bangladesh High Commissioner to the UK:</b> “Lives in Bangladesh will be devastated through no fault of the people concerned. We are not causing the climate change that is killing our people. The average Bangladeshi produces 0.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum” [as compared (2004 values) to 10 by the UK, 18 by Canada, 19 by Australia (40 if you include Australia’s world-leading coal exports), and 20 by the US]. [5-6]. </p> <p><span>In 2000 Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution (tonnes CO2-e per person per year) was 44.2 versus 3.9 for the annual per capita GHG pollution by China. Based on US EIA data projections and Labor GHG pollution policy (and assuming population stasis at 21 million) Australia’s Domestic plus Exported CO2-e pollution will reach 59 in 2020 (15 times China’s 2000 annual per capita GHG pollution value) and 75.5 by 2050 (19 times China’s 2000 value of 3.9; 33 times Pakistan’s 2000 value of 2.3; 40 times India’s 2000 value of 1.9; and 84 times Bangladesh’s 2000 value of 0.9) [6, 7]. </span></p> <p><span>For what we can expect in terms of sea level rises this century - given the “business as usual” GHG pollution of the world - we must turn to top climate scientists, noting that the IPCC Report (2007) has clearly under-estimated the severity of the problem due to . non-linear increases in global warming due to “positive feedback” mechanisms. Thus such accelerating, positive feedback mechanisms include the “albedo flip” that involves converting light-reflecting ice and snow to light-absorbing dark sea water; the release from thawing tundra permafrost of methane which is 21 times worse than CO<sub>2</sub> on a 100 year time frame; the lubrication of glacier movement to the sea by melt water; greatly decreased net absorption of CO<sub>2</sub> by the Southern Ocean due to increased storms; and compounding effects of drought and fires on net CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration by forests. [3]. </span></p> <p><span><b>Top US climate scientist Professor James Hansen (Head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and adjunct professor, Columbia University) </b>offered this assessment in 2007: “</span>I find it almost inconceivable that "business as usual" climate change will not result in a rise in sea level measured in metres within a century … So why do I think a sea level rise of metres would be a near certainty if greenhouse gas emissions keep increasing? Because while the growth of great ice sheets takes millennia, the disintegration of ice sheets is a wet process that can proceed rapidly. Sea level is already rising at a moderate rate. In the past decade, it increased by 3 centimetres, about double the average rate during the preceding century. The rate of sea level rise over the 20th century was itself probably greater than the rate in the prior millennium, and this is due at least in part to human activity. About half of the increase is accounted for by thermal expansion of ocean water as a result of global warming. Melting mountain glaciers worldwide are responsible for several centimetres of the increase … As an example, let us say that ice sheet melting adds 1 centimetre to sea level for the decade 2005 to 2015, and that this doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. This would yield a rise in sea level of more than 5 metres by 2095 … Of course, I cannot prove that my choice of a 10-year doubling time is accurate but I'd bet $1000 to a doughnut that it provides a far better estimate of the ice sheet's contribution to sea level rise than a linear response. In my opinion, if the world warms by 2 °C to 3 °C, such massive sea level rise is inevitable, and a substantial fraction of the rise would occur within a century. Business-as-usual global warming would almost surely send the planet beyond a tipping point, guaranteeing a disastrous degree of sea level rise … Indeed, the palaeoclimate record contains numerous examples of ice sheets yielding sea level rises of several metres per century when forcings were smaller than that of the business-as-usual scenario. For example, about 14,000 years ago, sea level rose approximately 20 metres in 400 years, or about 1 metre every 20 years … the Earth is gaining more heat than it is losing: currently 0.5 to 1 watts per square metre. This planetary energy imbalance is sufficient to melt ice corresponding to 1 metre of sea level rise per decade, if the extra energy were used entirely for that purpose - and the energy imbalance could double if emissions keep growing … The threat of large sea level change is a principal element in my argument that the global community must aim to restrict any further global warming to less than 1 °C above the temperature in 2000. This implies a CO<sub>2</sub> limit of about 450 parts per million or less. Such scenarios require almost immediate changes to get energy and greenhouse gas emissions onto a fundamentally different path.” [8]. </p> <p><b><span style="color:navy">Dr Andrew Glikson (an </span>Earth and paleo-climate research scientist at Australian National University, Canberra, Australia)</b><span style="color:navy"><b>:</b> “</span>For some time now, climate scientists warned that melting of subpolar permafrost and warming of the Arctic Sea (up to 4 degrees C during 2005–2008 relative to the 1951–1980) are likely to result in the dissociation of methane hydrates and the release of this powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (methane: 62 times the infrared warming effect of CO<sub>2</sub> over 20 years and 21 times over 100 years) <span>… </span>The amount of carbon stored in Arctic sediments and permafrost is estimated as 500–2500 Gigaton Carbon (GtC), as compared with the world’s total fossil fuel reserves estimated as 5000 GtC. Compare with the 700 GtC of the atmosphere, which regulate CO<sub>2</sub> levels in the range of 180–300 parts per million and land temperatures in a range of about – 50 to + 50 degrees C, which allowed the evolution of warm blooded mammals. The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres” [noting that part of this sea level rise might occur over several centuries]. [9]. </p> <p><b>Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research., Germany):</b> "It is a compromise between ambition and feasibility. A rise of 2<sup>o</sup>C could avoid some of the big environmental disasters, but it is still only a compromise…It is a very sweeping argument, but nobody can say for sure that 330ppm is safe. Perhaps it will not matter whether we have 270ppm or 320ppm, but operating well outside the [historic] realm of carbon dioxide concentrations is risky as long as we have not fully understood the relevant feedback mechanisms" [280 ppm is the pre-industrial atmospheric CO<sub>2 </sub>concentration]. [10]. </p> <p>For the most recent estimations one turns to a report from the 2009 International Scientific Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen at which estimates of over 1 metre rise in sea level were given. [11].</p> <p>Thus <b>Professor Stefan Rahmstorf ( Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany), 2009:</b> "The sea-level rise may well exceed one meter [3.28 feet] by 2100 if we continue on our path of increasing emissions. Even for a low emission scenario, the best estimate is about one meter…With stiff reductions in 2050 you can end the temperature curve [rise] quite quickly, but there's not much you can do to the sea-level rise anymore. We are setting in motion processes that will lead to sea levels rising for centuries to come." [11].</p> <p><b>Professor Konrad Steffen (Greenland researcher, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA), 2009:</b> "The ice loss in Greenland shows an acceleration during the last decade. The upper range of sea-level rise by 2100 might be above one meter or more on a global average, with large regional differences depending where the source of ice loss occurs.” [11].</p> <p><span><b>Dr John Church (Center for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia), 2009:</b> "We could pass a threshold during the 21st century that can commit the world to meters of sea-level rise. Short-term emission goals are critical." [11].</span></p> <p><b>Drs Pfeffer, Harper and O’Neal (Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA; Department of Geosciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT USA; and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA) :</b> “On the basis of climate modeling and analogies with past conditions,<sup> </sup>the potential for multimeter increases in sea level by the end<sup> </sup>of the 21st century has been proposed. We consider glaciological<sup> </sup>conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100<sup> </sup>and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically<sup> </sup>untenable. We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters<sup> </sup>by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological<sup> </sup>conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated<sup> </sup>to extremely high limits. More plausible but still accelerated<sup> </sup>conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8<sup> </sup>meter. These roughly constrained scenarios provide a "most likely"<sup> </sup>starting point for refinements in sea-level forecasts that include<sup> </sup>ice flow dynamics… <b><span style="font-weight:normal">On the basis of calculations presented here, we suggest that<sup> </sup>an improved estimate of the range of SLR to 2100 including increased<sup> </sup>ice dynamics lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m.… these values<sup> </sup>give a context and starting point for refinements in SLR [sea level rise] forecasts<sup> </sup>on the basis of clearly defined assumptions and offer </span></b><i><span style="font-style:normal">a more<sup> </sup>plausible range of estimates than those neglecting the dominant<sup> </sup>ice dynamics term”</span></i><b><i><span style="font-weight:normal">. </span></i></b>[12]. </p> <h2><a name="TOC-A-recent-summary-of-the-latest-esti"></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">A recent summary of the latest estimates of SLR states: “Needless to say, a sea level rise of one meter by 2100 would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the planet, even if sea levels didn’t keep rising several inches a decade for centuries, which they inevitably would. The first meter of SLR would flood 17% of Bangladesh displacing tens of millions of people, and reducing its rice-farming land by 50 percent. Globally, it would create more than 100 million environmental refugees and inundate over 13,000 square miles of this country [the US]. Southern Louisiana and South Florida would inevitably be abandoned, especially in the face of a steadily increasing number of killer super-hurricanes”. [13]. </span></h2> <h2><a name="TOC-The-inundation-effect-of-sea-level-"></a><span style="font-size:12pt;font-weight:normal">The inundation effect of sea level rise is exacerbated due to the impact of salinization on coastal agriculture (most notably in rich meg-a-dleta regions) and the effect of cyclones (hurricanes) that are increasing in intensity. [2, 3]. The latest scientific estimation of the increased ferocity of tropical storms is quoted below.</span></h2> <p><b>Drs Elsner, Kossin and Jagger (Department of Geography, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA [1 and 3] and Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA [2]), 2008:</b> “Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere. Over the rest of the tropics, however, possible trends in tropical cyclone intensity are less obvious, owing to the unreliability and incompleteness of the observational record and to a restricted focus, in previous trend analyses, on changes in average intensity. Here we overcome these two limitations by examining trends in the upper quantiles of per-cyclone maximum wind speeds (that is, the maximum intensities that cyclones achieve during their lifetimes), estimated from homogeneous data derived from an archive of satellite records. We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3 <img alt="plusminus" src="javascript:void(0);" style="border-width:0pt;vertical-align:baseline" height="7" border="0" width="7" /> 0.09 m s<sup>-1</sup> yr<sup>-1</sup> (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones. We note separate upward trends in the estimated lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones (99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic, although not all basins show statistically significant increases. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind”. [14]. </p> <p><span>Given these sobering prognostications, how likely is it that the world will take appropriate action in a timely fashion? Some authoritative comments about the gulf between “what is needed” and the current “business as usual” are given below.</span></p> <p><b>Vickie Pope (head of Climate Change Advice, Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office):</b> “Even with large and early cuts in emissions, the indications are that temperatures are likely to rise to around 2 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. If action is delayed or not quick enough, there is a large risk of much bigger increases in temperature, with some severe impacts. In a worst-case scenario, where no action is taken to check the rise in Greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures would most likely rise by more than 5 °C by the end of the century… Today, plants, soils and oceans absorb about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by man’s activities, limiting rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide, slowing global warming. But as temperatures increase the rate of absorption is very likely to decrease, a process called the ‘carbon cycle effect’. At higher temperatures plant matter in the soil breaks down more quickly releasing carbon more quickly and amplifying any warming. In addition methane and carbon dioxide released from the thawing of permafrost will add to the warming. Hence the risks of dangerous climate change will not increase slowly as Greenhouse gases increase. Instead, the risks will multiply if we do not reduce emissions fast enough”. [15].</p> <p>Urgent action is needed to stop the catastrophic 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> (2<sup>o</sup>C temperature rise over the preindustrial) that will lead to the destruction of world’s coral reefs, increased damage to of ocean fisheries, forests, ecosystems and agriculture, and worsening global avoidable mortality from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease. Unfortunately it appears that present socio-political-economic arrangements in the world are unable to meet the challenge. <span>Thus </span><span><b>top UK climate scientists Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester)</b> have recently estimated that an annual 6-8% decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is required to stabilize atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>-e (carbon dioxide equivalent) at a still catastrophic 450 ppm (parts per million). Unfortunately, the best Obama and Brown can offer is 2% annual GHG pollution decrease and the current policies of huge per capita GHG polluter Australia mean an annual 2%<b> </b>increase in Australia’s Domestic and Exported GHG pollution (subject to recession effects). [16-18]. </span></p> <p><span>Indeed Anderson and Bows say their data argue for a radical change in national and global arrangements: “</span>According to the analysis conducted in this paper, stabilizing at 450 ppmv [carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2-e, atmospheric concentration measured in parts per million by volume] requires, at least, global energy related emissions to peak by 2015, rapidly decline at 6-8% per year between 2020 and 2040, and for full decarbonization sometime soon after 2050 …Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonization (in excess of 6% per year), it is difficult to envisage anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilization at or below 650 ppmv CO2-e ... Ultimately, the latest scientific understanding of climate change allied with current emissions trends and a commitment to “limiting average global temperature increases to below 4<sup>o</sup>C above pre-industrial levels”, demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda, and the economic characterization of contemporary society” [16-18].</p> <b>George Monbiot (2008) in relation to “Is it too late?”:</b> “Can we do it? Search me. Reviewing the new evidence, I have to admit that we might have left it too late. But there is another question I can answer more easily. Can we afford not to try? No we can’t.” [18]. <b>Professor James Lovelock (2009) being interviews for New Scientist: </b>[do we have time … carbon emissions control?] “Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning … [sequester carbon dioxide?] That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done… [nuclear power] It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction measures… [so are we doomed?] There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO<sub>2</sub> down quite fast… Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO<sub>2</sub> is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it…. [will we survive?] I'm an optimistic pessimist. I think it's wrong to assume we'll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It's happening again.” [19]. <p>For a detailed and carefully documented analysis of the potential contribution of biochar to reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentration (the “one last chance” according to Professor James Lovelock FRS) see the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group review entitled “Forest biomass-derived Biochar can profitably reduce global warming and bushfire risk”. [20]. </p> <p><span>A decade ago I published a huge and exhaustively referenced book entitled “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British history. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 1998). The simple thesis was “history ignored yields history repeated” with Bengal as an example. In 2 centuries of British rule Bengal suffered immense man-made famine disasters, beginning with the man-made Great Bengal Famine (1769-1770, 10 million dead) and terminating with the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust (the World War 2 man-made Bengal Famine in which 6-7 million Indians were deliberately starved to death in British India for strategic reasons). However these atrocities have been largely deleted from history with the already-realized consequence of “history ignored yield history repeated”. I warned of a terminal Bengali catastrophe in the 21st century due to greenhouse gas pollution by profligate First World countries. I recently published an updated 2008 edition of this book after making a BBC broadcast on the subject (together with <b>1998 Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen, Harvard University, medical historian Dr Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Wellcome Institute, University College London</b>, and other scholars). [21, 22]. </span></p> <p><span>As outlined in this review, this terminal Bengali Holocaust for the circa 250 million people of Bengal (West Bengal and Bangladesh) has already begun with devastating storms in the Bay of Bengal and the disappearance of Bengali islands (e.g. Lohachara Island, once home to 10,000 people).[23-25]. </span></p> <p><span>Already 16 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease (0.6 million in Bangladesh, 3.7 million in India and 0.9 million in Pakistan) but Professor Lovelock’s estimation of circa 10 billion excess deaths (mostly non-European) due to global warming by the end of the century lifts the average 21st century global annual death rate to an horrendous 10,000 million/100 years = 100 million per year. [19, 26].</span></p> <p>Notwithstanding <span> </span>the well-founded pessimism of leading scientists (see above) there is some residual hope that this horrendous catastrophe can be averted by requisite vigorous action. <span> </span>The Yarra Valley Climate Action Group has placed a 1-sheet Statement of Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions on the Web which is reproduced below – please inform everyone you can. [27]. </p> <b><span style="font-size:14pt">Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions</span></b> <p>Just as we turn to top medical specialists for advice on life-threatening disease, so we turn to the opinions of top scientists and in particular top biological and climate scientists for Climate Change risk assessment and Climate Emergency Facts and requisite Actions as exampled below (for detailed documentation of everything below see the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home"><span style="font-size:11pt">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home</span></a> ). </p> <p><b>Professor James Hansen</b> (top US climate scientist, head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies): “We face a climate emergency”. </p> <p><b>Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty:</b> “We are in real danger.</p> <p><b>Professor David de Kretser AC</b> (eminent medical scientist and Governor of Victoria, Australia) “There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency.”</p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">Dr Andrew Glikson</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> (palaeo-climate scientist, ANU): “The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has … raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.” </span><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Please inform everyone you can. </span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt"> </span><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Major Climate Emergency Facts</span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt"> </span><b><span style="font-size:11pt">1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentration has increased</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> to 387 parts per million (ppm) as compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial and is increasing at about 2.5 ppm per year with average global temperature about 0.8 degrees C above the pre-industrial. </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">2. Man-made global warming due to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> from carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides is already associated with major ecosystem damage (Arctic, ocean, coral reefs), melting of glaciers and Arctic sea ice, sea level rise, methane release from melting tundra and positive feed-back effects accelerating GHG pollution and warming.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">3. Consequences of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration increase and warming to current 387 ppm:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> major ecosystem damage; current species extinction rates are 100-1,000 times greater than previously; <b>to over 400 ppm:</b> “new territory” not seen for millions of years with acute dangers from positive feedbacks; <b>to over 450 ppm:</b> major damage and death to coral reefs and associated fisheries; <b>to over 500 ppm:</b> major loss of ocean phytoplankton, ocean life, cloud seeding, the Greenland ice sheet and densely populated global coastal regions due to massive sea level rises.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Climate Emergency Actions URGENTLY Required</span></b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of about 300 ppm</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"> <b>3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy</b> (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils <b>coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation </b>of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">How can decent humanity get requisite timely action?</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> I advocate a 3-fold plan involving a <span> </span><b>Badge</b> (I wear a Climate Emergency Network badge wherever I go); a <b>Credo</b> (e.g. the above 1-sheet Statement </span>of Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions); and <b>Accountability</b>: <span> </span>those climate criminals responsible for the looming Climate Genocide must be identified and brought to National and International account by voter and consumer education, Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs, Reparations Demands and national and international<i> </i>prosecutions. </p> <p><b>References.</b></p> <p>[1]. Footnote to James Hansen (2007), Huge sea level rises are coming – unless we act now”, New Scientist, 2614, 26 July 2007: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526141.600-huge-sea-level-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html?page=1" title="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526141.600-huge-sea-level-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html?page=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526141.600-huge-sea-level-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html?page=1</a> .</p> <p>[2]. John Holdren <span style="color:navy">(2008), “The Science of Climatic Disruption” (power point lecture): </span><a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" title="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> .</p> <p>[3] <span style="color:navy">Gideon Polya (2009), “Global warming, climate emergency” U3A course notes: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming--global-emergency-course" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming--global-emergency-course">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming--global-emergency-course</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:navy">[4]. Wikipedia “Global warming in India”: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_India" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_India" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_India</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="color:navy">[5]. World Development Movement, “Sea change: flooding in Bangladesh”: <a href="http://www.wdm.org.uk/resources/briefings/climate/bangladeshflooding13112006.pdf" title="http://www.wdm.org.uk/resources/briefings/climate/bangladeshflooding13112006.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.wdm.org.uk/resources/briefings/climate/bangladeshflooding13112006.pdf</a> .</span></p> <p>[6]. Gideon Polya, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group, “<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Australia</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-s-5-off-2000-ghg-pollution-by-2020-endangers-australia-humanity-and-biosphere</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[7]. Wikipedia, “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita</a> ).</span></p> <p>[8]. James Hansen (2007), Huge sea level rises are coming – unless we act now”, New Scientist, 2614, 26 July 2007: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526141.600-huge-sea-level-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html?page=1" title="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526141.600-huge-sea-level-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html?page=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526141.600-huge-sea-level-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html?page=1</a> and “Climate catastrophe”: <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_2.pdf" title="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_2.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_2.pdf</a> .</p> <p>[9]. <span style="color:navy">Dr Andrew Glikson, “The Methane Time Bomb and the Triple Melt-down", Countercurrents : <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm" title="http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm</a> .</span></p> <p>[10]. Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber quoted by The Guardian (2008), “Rollback time to safeguard climate, expert warns”: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions</a> .</p> <p>[11]. Gelu Sulugiuc, Reuters, “Sea levels rising faster than expected: scientists”, 10 March 2009: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5295EO20090310?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews" title="http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5295EO20090310?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5295EO20090310?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews</a> .</p> <p>[12]. W.T. Pfeffer, J.T. Harper and S. O’Neal, “Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to 21-st century sea-level rise”,<i><span style="font-style:normal"> Science</span></i> 5 September 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5894, pp. 1340 – 1343, DOI: 10.1126/science.1159099: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5894/1340" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5894/1340" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5894/1340</a> .</p> <p>[13]. Climate Progress, “Stunning new sea level rise research, Part 1: “Most likely” 0.8-2.0 metres by 2100”: <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/05/stunning-new-sea-level-rise-research-part-1-most-likely-08-to-20-meters-by-2100/" rel="nofollow"><span>http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/05/stunning-new-sea-level-rise-research-part-1-most-likely-08-to-20-meters-by-2100/</span></a> .</p> <p>[14].James B. Elsner, James P. Kossin & Thomas H. Jagger “The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones”, Nature 455, 92-95 (4 September 2008), <span>doi:10.1038/nature07234: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07234.html" title="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07234.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07234.html</a> .</span></p> <p>[15]. Vickie Pope, “Met Office warn of “catastrophic” rise in temperature”, Times On-line, 19 December, 2008: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5371682.ece" title="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5371682.ece" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5371682.ece</a> .</p> <p>[16]. Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows, “Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc, A, 2008: <a href="http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf" title="http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf</a> .</p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt">[17]. Gideon Polya, “Good and bad climate news”, Green Blog, 2009: <a href="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/" title="http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/" rel="nofollow">http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/</a> . </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt">[18]. George Monbiot, “One shot left”, Monbiot.com (also published in the UK Guardian, 2008): <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/" title="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/" rel="nofollow">http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/</a> .</span></p> <p>[19]. Gaia Vince (2009), “One last chance to save mankind“, New Scientist, 23 January 2009: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true" title="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true</a> .</p> <p>[20]. Gideon Polya (2009), “Forest biomass-derived Biochar can profitably reduce global warming and bushfire risk”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/forest-biomass-derived-biochar-can-profitably-reduce-global-warming-and-bushfire-risk" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/forest-biomass-derived-biochar-can-profitably-reduce-global-warming-and-bushfire-risk">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/forest-biomass-derived-biochar-can-profitably-reduce-global-warming-and-bushfire-risk</a> .</p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[21]. Michael Portillo, Gideon Polya, Amartya Sen, Sanjoy Bhattacharya et al, Bengal Famine, BBC Radio 4 broadcast, 4 January, 2008: <a href="http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html</a> . </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[22]. Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British history. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 1998 & 2008): <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/2008/09/jane-austen-and-black-hole-of-british.html">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/2008/09/jane-austen-and-black-hole-of-british.html</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[23]. Wilkipedia, “Lohachara Island”: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohachara_Island" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohachara_Island</a> . </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[24]. Geoffrey Lean, “Disappearing world: global warming claims tropical island”, The Independent, 24 December 2006: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/disappearing-world-global-warming-claims-tropical-island-429764.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/disappearing-world-global-warming-claims-tropical-island-429764.html</a> <span> </span><span> </span>. <span> </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[25]. Johann Hari, ”Bangladesh is set to disappear under the waves by the end of the <span> </span>century”, The Independent, 20 June 2008: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-is-set-to-disappear-under-the-waves-by-the-end-of-the-century--a-special-report-by-johann-hari-850938.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bangladesh-is-set-to-disappear-under-the-waves-by-the-end-of-the-century--a-special-report-by-johann-hari-850938.html</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[26]. Gideon Polya, ““Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” , G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: </span><b><span style="font-weight:normal"><a href="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" title="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya</a></span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> and <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/</a> .</span></p> <p>[27]. Yarra Valley Climate Action Group 1-sheet Statement of Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions</a> .</p> </div>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-37733297585429699032011-06-24T00:01:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:02:51.781-07:00Climate Crisis Facts & Required Actions<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Climate Crisis Facts & Required Actions</span> </h3> <p><b><span style="font-size:20pt">Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions</span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt">Just as we turn to top medical specialists for advice on life-threatening disease, so we turn to the opinions of top scientists and in particular top biological and climate scientists for Climate Change risk assessment and Climate Emergency Facts and requisite Actions as exampled below (for detailed documentation of everything below see the <b>Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website</b>: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home</a> ). <b>Professor James Hansen</b> (top US climate scientist, head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies): “We face a climate emergency”. <b>Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty:</b> “We are in real danger.” <b>Professor David de Kretser AC</b> (eminent medical scientist and Governor of Victoria, Australia) “There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency.” <b>Dr Andrew Glikson</b> (palaeo-climate scientist, ANU): “The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has … raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.” </span><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Please tell everyone you can.</span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Major Climate Emergency Facts</span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt"> </span><b><span style="font-size:11pt">1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentration has increased</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> to 390 parts per million (ppm) as compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial and is increasing at about 2.5 ppm per year with average global temperature about 0.8 degrees C above the pre-industrial. </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">2. Man-made global warming due to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> from carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides is already associated with major ecosystem damage (Arctic, ocean, coral reefs), melting of glaciers and Arctic sea ice, sea level rise, methane release from melting tundra and positive feed-back effects accelerating GHG pollution and warming.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">3. Consequences of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration increase and warming to current 390 ppm:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> major ecosystem damage; current species extinction rates are 100-1,000 times greater than previously; <b>to over 400 ppm:</b> “new territory” not seen for millions of years with acute dangers from positive feedbacks; <b>to over 450 ppm:</b> major damage and death to coral reefs and associated fisheries; <b>to over 500 ppm:</b> major loss of ocean phytoplankton, ocean life, cloud seeding, the Greenland ice sheet and densely populated global coastal regions due to massive sea level rises.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Climate Emergency Actions URGENTLY Required</span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt"> </span><b><span style="font-size:11pt">1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of about 300 ppm</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists.</span></p> <p><b>3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy</b> (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils <b>coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation </b>of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.</p> <p><b>1. “All men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” … “Love thy neighbour as thyself”</b> <b>... YET:</b></p> <p> </p> <p><b>“Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent per person per year”</b> is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution is included).</p> <p> </p> <p><b><span>Professors<span> </span>James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre, UK) estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming </span></b><span>– noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a <b>Climate Genocide</b> involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis.</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><b>In 2003 16 million people (about 9.5 million of them under-5 year old infants) died annually due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease</b>, this already impacted by global warming.<span> </span><b>In 2009<span> </span>22 million died avoidably annually</b> - 10 billion avoidable deaths this century due to global warming yields an average annual avoidable death rate of 100 million per year.<span> </span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><b><span>2. ABC of tackling climate change:</span></b><span> <b>(A) Accountability</b> – hold products, politicians and polluters accountable; <b>(B)<span> </span>Badge</b><span> </span>e.g.<span> </span>bear witness with a “300 ppm CO2” badge; and <b>(C ) Credo</b> e.g. “Return atmospheric CO2 to 300 ppm for a safe planet for all peoples and all species”<b>.</b></span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><b><span>3. Three Ds<span> </span>for Older people and Climate Change Action:</span></b><span> <b>Devaluation</b> (of pensions,<span> </span>superannuation and savings in a non-sustainable carbon economy yet continued growth is possible with renewable energy); <b>Death</b> (older people<span> </span>frailer, more susceptible to heat stress through deficient signalling); and <b>Descendants</b> (they will hate us for what we have done to their Planet).</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><b><span>4. Respect Science</span></b><span> ( take advice from top climate scientists, top scientific<span> </span>bodies; science is about disproving through the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses); <b>inform others</b> (silence kills and silence is complicity); and have <b>zero tolerance for lying</b><span> </span>e.g. under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or ETS Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG will increase by 80% by 2050.</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><b><span>5. Rational risk management</span></b><span> successively involves (a) accurate data; (b) scientific analysis; (c) informed systemic change to minimize risk (<b>obverse</b>: (a) lies; (b) spin, selectively using facts to support a partisan position; and<span> </span>(c) blame and shame).<span> </span></span></p> <p><span> </span></p>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-17256541313673093382011-06-24T00:00:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:01:37.432-07:00Climate Change Power Point Lectures<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Climate Change Power Point Lectures</span> </h3> <p> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The following excellent, must-see power point lectures on climate change are accessible via the links provided. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Professor Barry Brook</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia), <b>“Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies” (2008)</b>, an outline of <span> </span>paleoclimate history, climatic disruption and mitigation and adaptation strategies [40 pages]: <a href="http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Professor_Barry_Brook_-_2008_Climate_Change_Summit_-_PowerPoint_Presentation.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Professor_Barry_Brook_-_2008_Climate_Change_Summit_-_PowerPoint_Presentation.pdf</a> . </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><b>Dr Andrew Glikson (</b><span>Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology & Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia<b>), </b></span><b>"Human evolution and the atmosphere: return of the Pliocene?" (2008)</b>, <span> </span>illustrating the global temperature, methane and CO<sub>2</sub> levels in the generally cooling period since the Pliocene (3 Mya, million years ago) during which time the genus <i>Homo</i> evolved to yield <i>Homo sapiens</i> (us) about 100,000 years ago.<b> </b>However, massive man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution in the industrial era (post-1750) has pushed atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration outside the range of 180-300 ppm obtaining during the final evolution of <i>Homo sapiens</i> from his immediate precursors over the last 600,000 years [46 pages]: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/dr-andrew-glikson-human-evolution-and-the-atmosphere-return-to-the-pliocene">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/dr-andrew-glikson-human-evolution-and-the-atmosphere-return-to-the-pliocene</a> <span> </span>.</p> <p><b>Dr James Hansen</b> (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University, New York; member of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science), <b>“Global warming 20 years later: tipping points near” (2008)</b> - <span> </span>address to National Press Club, and House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global warming, Washington DC [44 pages]: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2008/TippingPointsNear_20080623.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TippingPointsNear_20080623.pdf</a> <span> </span>.</p> <p><b>Dr James Hansen</b> (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University, New York), <b>“<a name="OLE_LINK1"><span>Climate threat to the planet. Implications for energy policy and intergenerational justice</span></a>”</b>, Bjerknes Lecture, American Biophysical Union, San Francisco, California, 17 December, 2008 [39 pages]: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/</a> .</p> <p>[For a series of other incisive writings by Dr James Hansen see: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/</a> , most notably Dr James Hansen, “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade”, Committee on Ways & Means, US House of Representatives, February 2009: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf</a> <span> </span>].</p> <p><b>Professor John Holdren</b> (Professor of Environmental Policy and Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University; Director, Woods Hole Research Center; former president, American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS; President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser), <b>“The Science of Climate Disruption” (2008)</b> – a summary of the basis of man-made global warming and the climatic disruption that has already occurred [32 pages]: <a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> .</p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Dr Graeme Pearman</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> (former CSIRO Climate director; GP Consulting; interim director, MSI; Monash University Sustainability Group), <b>“Climate change: the evidence, science and current projections” (2008)</b> [37 pages]: <span> </span> <a href="http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/126569/graeme-pearman-monash-university-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf" title="http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/126569/graeme-pearman-monash-university-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/126569/graeme-pearman-monash-university-namoi-climate-change-forums.pdf</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><b>Dr Peter Seligman </b>(Bionic Ear engineer, Cochlear and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia)<b>, “Bang for Buck in CO<sub>2</sub> abatement” (2008) </b>discusses where you can invest your money most effectively to reduce your Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions; some of our favourite solutions do not bear up under his analysis [43 pages]: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/dr-peter-seligman-the-bang-for-buck-approach-to-co2-abatement">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/dr-peter-seligman-the-bang-for-buck-approach-to-co2-abatement</a> .</p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">David Spratt and Phillip Sutton, Climate Emergency Network, “A Safe Climate Future”, (2008)</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">,<b> </b></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">based on the book “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Phillip Sutton (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008: <a href="http://www.climatecodered.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatecodered.net/</a> ), a powerful summary of the latest climate science results by 2 leading non-scientist climate activists heavily informed by top climate scientists such as NASA’s Dr James Hansen who indeed endorsed “Climate Code Red” as <b>“a</b> </span><b><span> </span>compelling case … we face a climate emergency</b>”<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> <span> </span>[95 pages]: <a href="http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/images/stories/cen/ccr_pp.pdf" title="http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/images/stories/cen/ccr_pp.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/images/stories/cen/ccr_pp.pdf</a> .</span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">For the latest authoritative summary of the Climate Emergency see the <b>Synthesis Report </b></span><b> from the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference</b> (“Climate Change, Global risks, challenges & decisions”, Copenhagen 10-12 March, 2009, University of Copenhagen, Denmark) - it contains numerous tables and graphs summarizing the worsening climate disruption due to man-made global warming and concludes "inaction is inexcusable": <a href="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf" title="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis Report Web.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads//Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf</a>.</p> <p><b>All of the above are referred to </b><b>by Dr Gideon Polya</b> (biochemist, teacher, La Trobe University and U3A, Melbourne), “<b>Global Warming, Climate Emergency Course” (2009), </b><span> </span>detailed course notes for an 8 x 2 hour course for the Yarra Valley University of the Third Age (U3A) on global warming, the present climatic disruption and what we can do about it [<b>Semester 2, <span> </span>St. Andrew’s Hall, Rosanna, Melbourne, 1.30-3.30 pm, each Tuesday, 7 July 2009 onwards; one semester course attendance cost A$15 for non-U3A members, A$7.50 for members of another U3A branch;</b> <b>downloading lecture notes: FREE</b> ] – 52 pages of carefully documented notes: <span> </span><span> </span><a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming--global-emergency-course">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming--global-emergency-course</a> <span> </span>. </p>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-43501970816432998882011-06-23T23:52:00.000-07:002011-06-24T00:00:23.041-07:00Australia's Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution has increased under Labor<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Australia's Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution has increased under Labor</span> </h3> <div dir="ltr"> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><b>Australia's Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution has increased under Labor.</b><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">In November 2007 the Australian Labor Government was elected in part on the promise to “tackle climate change”. Unfortunately nearly 2 and a half years later and despite the global economic downturn, Australia’s Domestic plus Exported greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution in the last complete financial year <span> </span>of the Labor Government (2009-2010) is on track to be over 5% bigger than that in the last complete financial year of the previous Liberal-National Party Coalition Government<span> </span>(2006-2007).</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">The following data for Australian GHG pollution largely derive from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) [1], the US Energy Information Administration (US EIA) [2], : , the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) [3], the World Coal Institute [4], Greenlivingpedia [5], the UN Population Division [6] and the Australian Government Department of Climate Change Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts [7].</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;color:navy;">According to the Quarterly update of the Australian National Greenhouse accounts for September 2009 [7], </span><span style="color:navy;">Australia</span><span style="color:navy;">’s Domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution dropped to 539 Mt CO2-e (million tonnes CO2 equivalent) for the 4 quarters to the September 2009 quarter. This fall in Australia’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution (from 598 Mt CO2-e in 2006-2007) was associated with the global economic downturn and is presumably now being reversed with the increase in economic activity. </span><span>However this fall in Domestic GHG pollution has been more than compensated for by a huge increase in Australia’s Exported GHG pollution as tabulated below. </span> </p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p style="margin-left:30pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>2000; <span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>2003-04;<span> </span><span> </span>2004-05;<span> </span><span> </span>2005-06;<span> </span><span> </span>2006-07;<span> </span><span> </span>2007-08; 2008-09; <span> </span><span> </span>2009-10</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">1. Coal exports (Mt, millions of tonnes)<span> </span>186.3;<span> </span><span> </span>218.4;<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>231.3;<span> </span>231.3;<span> </span><span> </span>243.6;<span> </span>252.1;<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>261.4;<span> </span>291.6</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">2. Coal exports (Mt CO2)<span> </span>372.6;<span> </span><span> </span>436.8;<span> </span>462.6;<span> </span>462.6<span>; </span>487.2;<span> </span>504.2;<span> </span>522.8;<span> </span>583.2 <span> </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">3. LNG exports (Mt)<span> </span>7.2<span> </span><span> </span>7; 4<span> </span>8.7<span> </span>11.0;<span> </span>13.1;<span> </span>13.7;<span> </span>15.4<span>; </span>17.4</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">4. LNG exports (Mt CO2)<span> </span>20.4;<span> </span><span> </span>20.3;<span> </span>24.0<span>; </span>30.1;<span> </span>36.1;<span> </span>37.6;<span> </span>42.4;<span> </span>47.8</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">5. Exported CO2 (Mt CO2)<span> </span>393.1;<span> </span>457.1;<span> </span><span> </span>486.7;<span> </span>492.7;<span> </span>523.3; <span> </span>541.8;<span> </span>565.2;<span> </span>631.0</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">6. Domestic GHG (Mt CO2-e)<span> </span>552.7;<span> </span>559.0;<span> </span>575.0<span>; </span>593.0;<span> </span>598.0;<span> </span>592.5;<span> </span>555.0;<span> </span>&>539.0</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">7. Domestic + Exported GHG (Mt CO2-e)<span> </span><span> </span>945.7;<span> </span>1016.1;<span> </span>1061.7;<span> </span>1085.7;<span> </span>1121.3<span>; </span>1134.3;<span> </span>1120.2;<span> </span>>1170.0</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">8. Population (millions)<span> </span>19.2;<span> </span><span> </span>20.0;<span> </span><span> </span>20.3;<span> </span><span> </span>20.5;<span> </span><span> </span>20.7;<span> </span><span> </span>21.0;<span> </span><span> </span>21.2;<span> </span><span> </span>21.5</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">9. Domestic per capita GHG<span> </span><span> </span>28.8;<span> </span>27.9;<span> </span>28.3;<span> </span>28.9;<span> </span>28.9;<span> </span>28.2;<span> </span>26.2;<span> </span>25.1</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">(t CO2-e per person per year)</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">10. Domestic + Exported per capita GHG<span> </span>49.3;<span> </span>50.8;<span> </span>52.3;<span> </span>53.0;<span> </span>54.2;<span> </span>54.0;<span> </span>52.8;<span> </span>>54.4</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">(t CO2-e per person per year)</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><br /></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming – noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. [8-10].</span></p> <p>Already 16 million people (about 9.5 million of them under-5 year old infants) die avoidably every year due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease – and man-made global warming is already clearly worsening this global avoidable mortality holocaust. However 10 billion avoidable deaths due to global warming this century yields an average annual avoidable death rate of 100 million per year. [11]. </p> <p>Collective, national responsibility for this already commenced Climate Holocaust is in direct proportion to per capita national pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (GHGs). Indeed, f<span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">undamental to any international agreement on national rights to pollute our common atmosphere and oceans should be the belief that “all men are created equal”. However reality is otherwise: </span>“annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution is included). [12-14]. </p> <p>However there is also a past carbon pollution debt for carbon pollution from the start of the Industrial Revolution 2 centuries ago. European First World countries are responsible for about 73% of historical carbon pollution of the atmosphere from 1751-2006,with India, Japan and China contributing 2.5%, 3.9% and 8.2%, respectively. [15]. </p> <p><span>There must be a safe and sustainable existence for all peoples and all species on our warming-threatened Planet and according to many top scientists this requires a rapid reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to about 300 parts per million</span>. It is unfortunate that Australia, a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution, is still heading in the wrong direction and increasing GHG pollution. <span> </span>[16, 17].</p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[1]. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS): <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4613.0Chapter50Jan+2010" title="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4613.0Chapter50Jan+2010" rel="nofollow">http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4613.0Chapter50Jan+2010</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[2]. US Energy Information Administration (US EIA): <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html</a> , <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1114.html" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1114.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1114.html</a> , </span> </p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"><a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=AS" rel="nofollow">http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=AS</a> </span></p> <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">and <a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/environment_faqs.asp#source_by_fuel" title="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/environment_faqs.asp#source_by_fuel" rel="nofollow">http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/environment_faqs.asp#source_by_fuel</a> ).</span> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[3]. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE: <a href="http://www.abare.gov.au/interactive/09ac_dec/htm/coal.htm" title="http://www.abare.gov.au/interactive/09ac_dec/htm/coal.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abare.gov.au/interactive/09ac_dec/htm/coal.htm</a> and <a href="http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/09_auEnergy/htm/chapter_5.htm" title="http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/09_auEnergy/htm/chapter_5.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/09_auEnergy/htm/chapter_5.htm</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[4]. World Coal Institute: <a href="http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/" title="http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/</a> , </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[5]. Greenlivingpedia: <a href="http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Australian_coal_exports" title="http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Australian_coal_exports" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Australian_coal_exports</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[6]. UN Population Division (see: <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp" rel="nofollow">http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp</a> ).<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[7]. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;color:navy;">Australian Government, Department of Climate Changge, Quarterly update of the Australian National Greenhouse accounts for September 2009: <span> </span><span> </span><a href="http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/%7E/media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/national-greenhouse-accounts-september-2009.ashx" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/~/media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/national-greenhouse-accounts-september-2009.ashx</a> .<br /></span></p> <p>[8]. “Climate racism, climate injustice & climate genocide – Australia, US and EU sabotage Copenhagen COP15”: <a href="http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article19422" title="http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article19422" rel="nofollow">http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article19422</a> .</p> <p>[9]. Climate Genocide: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/">http://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/</a> .</p> <p>[10]. Climate Crisis articles: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/climatecrisisarticles/">http://sites.google.com/site/climatecrisisarticles/</a> .</p> <p>[11]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007; see: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" title="http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya</a><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;"> and <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/</span></a> ).</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[12]. “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita" rel="nofollow"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita</span></a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[13].Gideon Polya, <span> </span>“Climate justice & climate injustice: Australia wants a 2020 per capita GHG pollution 15 times greater than Developing World’s”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-justice" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-justice"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-justice</span></a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt;">[14]. Gideon Polya, “Post-Copenhagen Australia will increase its Domestic plus Exported per capita GHG pollution”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/post-copenhagen-australia">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/post-copenhagen-australia</a> .</span></p> <p>[15]. Letter to PM Rudd by Dr James Hansen (Head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies): <a href="http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf</a> .</p> <p>[16]. “300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm</a> .</p> <p>[17]. 300.org: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/Home</a> .</p> </div>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-25538233397891855022011-06-23T23:50:00.000-07:002011-06-23T23:51:47.390-07:00Australia's "5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and Biosphere</span> </h3> <div dir="ltr"> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Australia</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere.</span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">According to data from “Coal Facts Australia 2008” of the Australian Coal Association (see: <a href="http://www.australiancoal.com.au/resources.ashx/Publications/7/Publication/6C91AB6A13D9D31F5D15F5A816354C7A/COAL_FACTS_AUSTRALIA_2008_Feb08-4.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.australiancoal.com.au/resources.ashx/Publications/7/Publication/6C91AB6A13D9D31F5D15F5A816354C7A/COAL_FACTS_AUSTRALIA_2008_Feb08-4.pdf">http://www.australiancoal.com.au/resources.ashx/Publications/7/Publication/6C91AB6A13D9D31F5D15F5A816354C7A/COAL_FACTS_AUSTRALIA_2008_Feb08-4.pdf</a> ). Australia’s Domestic greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 totalled 559 million tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent (Mt CO2-e) or about 1.24% of estimated global emissions (45 Gt CO2-e = 45,000 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Australia</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">’s greenhouse gas production in CO<sub>2</sub>-e in 2000 was 535.3 million tonnes (Mt) according to “Greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries. Where does Australia stand?” by Hal Turton (Discussion Paper 66, The Australia Institute, June 2004). Based on an annual growth rate of 2% this indicates a 2008 value of 627 Mt.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">However Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and is also a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) that is Exported and thence burned to produce CO<sub>2 </sub>. Using a 2008 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimate of 627 Mt (derived from the 2000 value and assuming an annual growth rate of 2%) plus CO<sub>2</sub> emissions estimates from exported coal and LNG in 2008 of 474.3 Mt and 28.4 Mt, respectively (see US Energy Information Administration data: </span><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> ), one can estimate that Australia’s 2008 Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas emissions totalled 1130 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e or 2.5% of estimated global emissions and 1130 Mt/21 million people = 53.8 tonnes </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">CO<sub>2</sub></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> per person per year as compared to the World value of 6.8 (2000).<br /></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Extrapolating from US Energy Information Administration data (see: </span><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">) on Australian coal and liquid natural gas exports in the last decade (beautifully LINEAR and UPWARDS when plotted versus time and hence permitting qualified extrapolation), this decision of "5% decrease on the Domestic 2000 GHG pollution value by 2020" and official Labor policy of "60% decrease on the Domestic 2000 GHG pollution value by 2050” means that Australia's annual Domestic plus Exported greenhouse gas pollution (in Mt CO2-e = million tonnes of CO2-e) will INCREASE from 885 Mt (2000) and 1130 Mt (2008) to 1245 Mt (2020; an INCREASE of 41% over the 2000 value) to 1532 Mt (2050; an INCREASE of 73% over the 2000 value). </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">If one supposed that sanity broke out globally and that the rest of the world, except for Australia, immediately stopped any increase in greenhouse gas emissions, then it is estimated that Australia’s share of annual global GHG pollution would increase from 2.5% (2008) to 1245 x100 /44,115 = 2.8% (2020) and to 1586 x 100/44,456 = 3.6% (2050).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">2000 Domestic per capita greenhouse gas production with land use change considered (or without land use change) was 25.9 (25.6) for Australia (i.e. ignoring Australia's huge coal Exports) versus 3.9 (3.9) for China and 6.8 (5.6) for the World (see “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita" rel="nofollow" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas</a> ).</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">As of 2008, </span> “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 2.2 (India), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution is included (see <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Wikipedia, “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”: <span> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita</a> ; </span><span>Dr Gideon Polya, “Pro-coal Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) devalues Australian lives, threatens Biosphere and ignores Science”, 2009: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/latest-pro-coal-australian-emissions-trading-scheme-ets-devalues-australian-lives-threatens-biosphere-and-ignores-science-and-climate-emergency">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/latest-pro-coal-australian-emissions-trading-scheme-ets-devalues-australian-lives-threatens-biosphere-and-ignores-science-and-climate-emergency</a> ; </span>Michael Szabo, “Cut CO<sub>2</sub> to India’s level, top scientist urges”, Reuters, 28 May 2008: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL28290944" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL28290944</a> ; Ross Garnaut, The Garnaut Climate Change Review, Chapter 7: <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm</a> ).</p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> However Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter, the worst per capita greenhouse gas polluter in the developed world, and one of the worst annual per capita greenhouse polluters in the world as a whole – and it accordingly would be disingenuous and indeed dishonest to IGNORE Australia’s huge Exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution in calculating Australia’s annual per capita GHG pollution. Thus if Australia didn’t extract fossil fuel and sell it then it this fuel wouldn’t get burned - <span> </span>we are responsible for our actions and the only way Australia would be innocent of the GHG pollution consequences of coal and LNG burning would be if it sold the coal and LNG overseas on the strict condition that it would NOT be burned). </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Accordingly, in 2000 Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution (tonnes CO2-e per person per year) was 44.2 versus 3.9 for the annual per capita GHG pollution by China. Based on US EIA data projections and Labor GHG pollution policy (and assuming population stasis at 21 million) Australia’s Domestic plus Exported CO2-e pollution will reach 59 in 2020 (15 times China’s 2000 annual per capita GHG pollution value) and 75.5 by 2050 (19 times China’s 2000 value of 3.9; 33 times Pakistan’s 2000 value of 2.3; 40 times India’s 2000 value of 1.9; and 84 times Bangladesh’s 2000 value of 0.9) (see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita</a> ).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The extraordinary international disparity and the extraordinary current Australian “exceptionalism” (it is operationally OK for Australia but not for others; Australia will reduce its per capita GHG pollution only if China reduces its too) brings to mind other extraordinary mathematical statements of White Australian “exceptionalism” in relation to Chinese from Australia’s non-politically correct (non-PC) past. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Thus in 1947 then Labor Immigration Minister (and later Labor leader) Arthur Calwell notoriously stated that <span> </span>“Two Wongs do not make a White” (for context and documentation see p183, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability“:<a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/" title="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/</a> )– however, as indicated above, current Australian Labor is evidently aiming for a circa twenty (20)-fold disparity.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Indeed way back in 1901, Edmund Barton (Australia’s first Prime Minister and Father of the notorious White Australia Policy aka the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act that was finally abolished by the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act) stated: “The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of an Englishman and a Chinaman” (for context and documentation see p179, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability“:<a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/" title="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/</a> ).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The effectively “business as usual” “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution level by 2020” must be unequivocally seen in the context that 16 million people already die avoidably annually due to increasingly global warming-impacted deprivation (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”: ) and that, according to top <span> </span>UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS (the Gaia hypothesis, “The Revenge of Gaia”), over 6 billion people will perish this century due to unaddressed man-made climate change (see: <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock</a> ).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Indeed the scale of the actual and potential lethality of First World tardiness in response to the Climate Emergency – exemplified by the appalling conduct of Australia, the worst First World per capita GHG polluter - <span> </span>and First World demands that <span> </span>they will reduce their extremely high per capita GHG pollution if Developing countries reduce their already very low per capita GHG pollution, demands a new Climate Lexicon e.g. Climate Racism, Climate Politically-correct Racism, Climate PC Racism, Climate Exceptionalism, Climate Terrorism, Climate Terrorists, Climate Terror, Climate Criminal, Climate Crime, Climate Criminality, Climate Injustice, Climate Justice and Climate Genocide.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Indeed in 2008 a formal complaint was sent to the International Criminal Court in relation to Australian involvement in Climate Genocide (see: <a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html</a> ).<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Thus </span>Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention (see: <a href="http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/convention.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/convention.html</a> ) states that <i>“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”</i><span> </span></p> <p><span><br /></span></p><p><span>This formal complaint pointed out that “</span>Australia is steadfast in its refusal to reduce its world leading annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution and has a major responsibility for the accelerating Climate Genocide that, as estimated by outstanding UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS, will affect billions; as reported by the Royal Society: <i>“Even if we act now Professor Lovelock believes that six to eight billion humans will be faced with ever diminishing supplies of food and water in an increasingly intolerable climate and wildlife and whole ecosystems will become extinct” </i>(see his recent lecture at the Royal Society: <a href="http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=7226" rel="nofollow">http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=7226</a> )”<span> and that “</span>Countries at major risk from sea level rises due to climate change include island nations in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific (some of which face total extinction) and countries with mega-deltas in Europe, Africa, the Americas and Asia (of which some face catastrophic loss of agriculture and massive population displacements). Such Nations will be receiving copies of this formal complaint and are urged to transmit formal complaints to the International Criminal Court”.</p> <p><br /></p><p>Australian “exceptionalism” is put into stark contrast by the following values of “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO<sub>2</sub> pollution” (tonnes per person per year) estimated for 2004 using data from the <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">US Energy Information Administration (see: </span><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">): </span>19.2 (for Australia; 40 if you include Australia’s coal exports), 19.7 (the US), 18.4 (Canada), 9.9 (Japan), 4.2 (the World), 3.6 (China), 1.0 ( India),Pakistan (0.7) and 0.25 (for Bangladesh).</p> <p>Of course “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO<sub>2</sub> pollution” is but one – albeit a very important – indicator of climate impact. The Germanwatch Climate Change Index 2008, a comparison of the 56 top CO<sub>2</sub> emitting nations (see: <a href="http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm">http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm</a> ), takes other parameters into account in ranking. In this ranking of 56 top CO<sub>2</sub> emitting nations, Sweden and Germany are #1 and #2 for greenhouse responsibility, while shale-oil-rich Canada (a US ally), coal-rich Australia (a US ally), the USA and oil-rich Saudi Arabia (US-linked) rank #53, #54, #55 and #56, respectively (see: <a href="http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm">http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm</a> ) .</p> <p>To assist public understanding of the issue here are some key estimates relating to “annual per capita GHG pollution” and deriving <span> </span>from authoritative primary data provided by the <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">US Energy Information Administration (see: </span><a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow" title="http://www.eia.doe.gov/">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">) and the UN Population Division (see: <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpp/" rel="nofollow">http://esa.un.org/unpp/</a> ) and taking into account the OFFICIAL Australian 2020 targets of “5% reduction on 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2020” and “60% reduction on 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2050”..</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Australia</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">’s “annual LNG exports” (Mt CO<sub>2</sub> produced): 21.8 (2000), 28.4 (2008), 38.2 (2020), 62.8 (2050). </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Australia</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">’s “annual coal exports) (Mt CO<sub>2</sub> produced): 327.6 (2000), 474.3 (2008), 609.7 (2020), 1255.4 (2050).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Australia</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">’s “annual Domestic GHG pollution) (Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e produced) : 535.3 (2000), 627.2 (2008), 508.5 (2020), 214.1 (2050).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Australia</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e produced): 884.7 (2000), 1129.9 (2008), 1245.4 (2020), 1532.3 (2050).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Australia</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">’s population (Millions): 19.1 (2000), 21.0 (2008), 23.4 (2020), 28.0 (2050).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Australia</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">’s “annual per capita Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-e per person per year): 46.3 (2000), 53.8 (2008), 53.2 (2020), 54.7 (2050).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Australia</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution as % of 2000 value”: 100% (2000), 128% (2008), 141% (2020), 173% (2050).</span></p> <p>As indicated above, Australia needs to REDUCE its “annual per capita Domestic & Exported” GHG pollution” by 90% to bring it back to the World average – but, in stark contrast, is set to INCREASE this under its quite FALSELY labelled “GHG pollution reduction” policies.</p><p><b>*** In 2010 the Victorian and Federal Labor Governments approved brown coal exports from Victoria that are expected to reach 20 million tonnes (74 million tonnes CO2) . If this is achieved by 2020 then Australia's Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 will be 1245.4 + 74 = 1319.4 Mt = 149% of that in 2000.<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman"> Based on UN Population Division population projections, Australia’s 2020 annual per capita Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution is accordingly projected to reach 1319 Mt CO2-e/ 23.4 million people = 56 tonnes CO2-e per person per year, 62 times that of Bangladesh, a densely populated country acutely threatened by inundation from mainly First World-imposed <span> </span>GHG pollution. </span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">According to Professor Andy Pitman (</span>University of New South Wales, a <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">top Australian climate scientist</span> and a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) “The basic science says we need to try to keep CO<sub>2</sub> and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 450 parts per million equivalent, which is the bundle of all the greenhouse gases” (see ABC report: <a href="http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:LaR4V48Pn7gJ:www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl%3Fhttp://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2306464.htm+abc+%22andy+pitman+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au" rel="nofollow">http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:LaR4V48Pn7gJ:www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl%3Fhttp://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2306464.htm+abc+%22andy+pitman+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au</a> ) . In response to the Labor Government announcement of “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” Professor Pitman has stated on Australia’s ABC Radio National that we need to keep atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to below 450 ppm to avoid a catastrophic 2 degrees C temperature rise and that means global 25%-50% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020. </p> <p>The Australian Government’s falsely named “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” has a highly flawed Emissions Trading System (ETS) as an INDIRECT mechanism of Government intervention in “the market” to supposedly get “the market” (the actual source of the Climate Emergency problem) to moved to a solution. The Australian ETS is highly flawed Cap and Trade system and, in short, <span> </span>is based on a Cap that will destroy the Great Barrier Reef , ignores 2/3 of Australian GHG sources and absurdly RETURNS a large part of <span> </span>the Government receipts <span> </span>for “licences to pollute” to the major polluters (for detailed critique see “Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will INCREASE Carbon Pollution”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australian-carbon-pollution-reduction-scheme-will-increase-carbon-pollution">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australian-carbon-pollution-reduction-scheme-will-increase-carbon-pollution</a> ) .</p> <p>The self-absorbed and <span> </span>“exceptionalist” Australian Government, media, politicians and people simply don’t understand the International Legal principle that just as we are held responsible for out actions that damage others at a national level, so this also applies at an International level (as exampled by huge compensation cases for disasters associated with pollution from mining). Thus a UK organization Bring Climate Criminals to Justice (BCCJ) has an aim “To establish a legal process in the UK and abroad to facilitate the criminal prosecution of Government Ministers and key business leaders whose policies and activities contribute to the mass loss of life which Climate Change is certain to now cause” and is particularly concerned with ALREADY HAPPENING damage to Bangladesh and “Working to ensure UK environmental campaign groups re-focus campaigning, uniting to call for the criminal prosecution and imprisonment of the worst offenders” (see: <a href="http://www.climate-criminals.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climate-criminals.co.uk/</a> ). As outlined above, a formal complaint outlining Australian complicity in Climate Genocide was sent to the International Criminal Court in 2008 (see: <a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html</a> ). </p> <p>Sanctions and Boycotts were successfully applied to the Apartheid régime of South Africa for denying equal rights and one-man-one-vite to Africans, Chinese and <span> </span>Indians in South Africa. Australia, accordingly, must be at serious risk of Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariff and Reparations Demands over the damage it is already causing and the huge threat it poses to billions <span> </span>of people and the very existence of some Island States through its remorseless, world leading per capita greenhouse gas pollution.</p> <p>A fundamental key issue is Public Honesty <span> </span>in Word and Deed. Thus it is egregiously dishonest for the Australian Government to call a scheme that will INCREASE Australia’s GHG pollution as a “”Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. Further, the Rudd Labor Government was elected in 2007 with Climate Change as a major public concern – however, in 2008 Australia’s annual Domestic and Exported Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollution INCREASED by 2.1% from that in 2007 under the Coalition Federal Government and , barring recession effects, is expected in 2009 to have increased by 6.5% over that in 2007 (see “Australia INCREASED Greenhouse Gas <span> </span>pollution in 2008 by 2% over 2007”: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-increased-greenhouse-pollution-in-2008">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/australia-increased-greenhouse-pollution-in-2008</a> ).</p> <p>Even if we set aside the argument about required GHG pollution reduction between expert scientists VERSUS industry, the coal industry and the Liberal-Labor (lib-Lab) political consensus, there is a fundamental issue of public honesty and zero tolerance for lying (by omission or commission) that is absolutely required for rational risk management in the interests of public safety and national security. Unfortunately a Letter <span> </span>recently sent to about 3,000 State and Federal MPs, many non-science academics, media and other influential Australians – a Letter that made this fundamental risk management point with numerous <span> </span>examples of huge realities (including Climate Emergency realities such as the likely destruction of the Great Barrier Reef) that are IGNORED by Mainstream media, politicians and academics and pleaded for them to inform others (see “Climate Emergency, Exceptionalism & Ignoring Downunder. Letter to eminent Australians over public honesty”: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25702/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25702/42/</a> ) – resulted in a mere 0.2% of recipients responding by saying that they would inform others about the shocking but IGNORED facts I reported.</p> <p>Finally, the sheer IRRESPONSIBILITY, GREED and <span> </span>policy FAILURE implicit in the Developed World’s worst per capita GHG polluter, Australia, <span> </span>committing to a derisory “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” is in STARK CONTRAST to the Climate Emergency Facts (from top Australian and world climate scientists) and the Climate Emergency Actions required to deal with the Climate Emergency that are summarized below (see “<span style="font-size:11pt">Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions” on the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group’s website: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions</a> ; for other detailed, quantitative and well-referenced <span> </span>analyses relating to the Climate Emergency see the following articles and fact sheets placed on the Web by the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/system/app/pages/sitemap/hierarchy">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/system/app/pages/sitemap/hierarchy</a> ).</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions</span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt">Just as we turn to top medical specialists for advice on life-threatening disease, so we turn to the opinions of top scientists and in particular top biological and climate scientists for Climate Change risk assessment and Climate Emergency Facts and requisite Actions as exampled below (for detailed documentation of everything below see the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home" title="http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home</a> ). </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">Professor James Hansen</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> (top US climate scientist, head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies): “We face a climate emergency”. </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> “We are in real danger.”</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">Professor David de Kretser AC</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> (eminent medical scientist and Governor of Victoria, Australia) “There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency.”</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">Dr Andrew Glikson</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> (palaeo-climate scientist, ANU): “The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has … raised CO<sub>2</sub> levels to 387 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO<sub>2</sub> levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.”</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Major Climate Emergency Facts</span></b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentration has increased</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> to 387 parts per million (ppm) as compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial and is increasing at about 2.5 ppm per year with average global temperature about 0.8 degrees C above the pre-industrial. </span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">2. Man-made global warming due to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> from carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides is already associated with major ecosystem damage (Arctic, ocean, coral reefs), melting of glaciers and Arctic sea ice, sea level rise, methane release from melting tundra and positive feed-back effects accelerating GHG pollution and warming.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">3. Consequences of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration increase and warming to current 387 ppm:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> major ecosystem damage; current species extinction rates are 100-1,000 times greater than previously; <b>to over 400 ppm:</b> “new territory” not seen for millions of years with acute dangers from positive feedbacks; <b>to over 450 ppm:</b> major damage and death to coral reefs and associated fisheries; <b>to over 500 ppm:</b> major loss of ocean phytoplankton, ocean life, cloud seeding, the Greenland ice sheet and densely populated global coastal regions due to massive sea level rises.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Climate Emergency Actions URGENTLY Required</span></b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to a safe level of less than 350 ppm</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils <b>coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation </b>of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.</span></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">PLEASE TELL EVERYONE YOU CAN.</span></b></p> </div>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-22571246375624958412011-06-23T23:48:00.000-07:002011-06-23T23:49:37.727-07:00Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will INCREASE Carbon Pollution<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will INCREASE Carbon Pollution</span> </h3> <p>Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will INCREASE Carbon Pollution</p><p>by Dr Gideon Polya<br /></p> <p>Only a few weeks after the release of the Draft Report of the seriously flawed, pro-coal Garnaut Climate Change Review (4 July, 2008: <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf" rel="nofollow">http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf</a> ), the Australian Federal Government has released a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper (16 July, 2008: <a href="http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/greenpaper/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/greenpaper/index.html</a> ). </p> <p>Unfortunately the Australian Federal Government Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) Green Paper (GP) is FATALLY FLAWED and if adopted globally would be a DEATH SENTENCE for the planet’s biosphere.</p> <p>In short, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: </p> <p>(a) massively ignores leading scientific and economic advice on the urgent need stop greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution and indeed to REDUCE atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> from 387 ppm to a safe level of no more than 350 ppm; </p> <p>(b) ignores two thirds of Australia-responsible greenhouse gas emission sources, notably coal exports (43% of the total Domestic plus Exported emissions); </p> <p>(c) adopts a “cap and trade” Emissions Trading Scheme <span> </span>with an atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration “cap” above 450 ppm (450-500 ppm will kill world coral reefs including the Great Barrier Reef); <span> </span>and </p> <p>(d) hands nearly all of the collected pollution licence fees back to polluters, “dirty energy” users and the poor - rather than using it to urgently construct clean energy power stations using current technologies that can ALREADY provide power at a cost LOWER than the “true cost” of coal-based electricity (taking environmental and human costs into account).</p> <p>Fundamentally, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) FAILS because it will actually INCREASE Carbon Pollution in both the short-term and the long-term. The expected impact of the “tax-pollution-and-return-taxes-to-polluters-and-consumers” CPRS on domestic pollution will be small compared to the effect of currently huge global fossil fuel price increases because the CPRS taxes only ONE THIRD of emissions sources (at a once-off circa 17% level vastly lower than the continuing 1999-2008 world 5-8-fold fossil fuel price escalation) and then hands nearly all of the taxes back as subsidies. In contrast, Australia’s world -leading coal exports (43% of <a name="OLE_LINK1"><span>Australia’s 2006 Total Domestic and Exported GHG emissions</span></a> of about 1,000 million tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-e) <span> </span>are expected to increase massively in the short-term due to new infrastructure in Queensland and New South Wales (Queensland Government estimate: 40% increase in Queensland coal exports: <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24024305-36418,00.html" title="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24024305-36418,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24024305-36418,00.html</a> ). </p> <p>Using US Energy Information Administration data (see: <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> ), and ignoring huge new Australian coal export infrastructure developments, Australia’s total Domestic and Exported CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from fossil fuel burning in millions of tonnes (Mt) are expected to climb from 698 Mt (2000) and 910 Mt (2007) to 1,277 Mt (2020, no mitigation) or<span> </span>1,165 Mt (2020, based on “20% renewable by 2020”; an INCREASE of 67% over 2000) and thence to 1,371 Mt (2050, based on “60% reduction of 2000 Domestic pollution by 2050”; an INCREASE of<span> </span>96% over 2000 CO<sub>2</sub> pollution ).</p> <p><span> </span>The following 24 major criticisms are of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme <span> </span>Green Paper (GP) Summary and appended Fact Sheets.</p> <p><b>1. Coal exports ignored.</b> The GP completely IGNORES the GHG pollution due to Australia’s world leading coal exports (426 million tonnes [Mt] CO<sub>2</sub> in 2005-2006 as compared to 560 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e domestically i.e. it completely ignores 43% of the GHG pollution for which Australia is responsible each year and which is predicted by the Queensland Government to hugely increase by 40% in the short-term in Queensland alone: <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24024305-36418,00.html" title="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24024305-36418,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24024305-36418,00.html</a> ; <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/%E2%80%9Ccoal-is-king%E2%80%9D-australia-co2-pollution-fact-sheet">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/%E2%80%9Ccoal-is-king%E2%80%9D-australia-co2-pollution-fact-sheet</a> ). Elementary considerations of causality and culpability mean that Australia's coal exports cannot be ignored (just a law enforcement cannot ignore the robbery co-conspirator or the get-away driver).<br /></p> <p><b>2. NASA experts ignored over 350 ppm CO<sub>2</sub> limit.</b> In advocating continued, high level, GHG emissions the GP IGNORES the acute seriousness of anthropogenic climate change due to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution (in contrast, top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies demands an urgent “negative CO<sub>2</sub> emissions” policy to reduce atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration from a present dangerous and environmentally damaging level of 387 parts per million [ppm]<span> </span>to a safe and sustainable level of no more than 350 ppm: <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf" title="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf</a> ; <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23119/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23119/42/</a> ).<br /></p> <p><b>3. EPA-style regulation ignored.</b> The GP IGNORES a “regulatory” course (e.g. it does not even consider actually progressively banning GHG pollution in the context of a Climate Emergency transition period and making GHG polluters pay the “true” environmental and human cost of pollution, a course which is responsibly adopted and EPA-inspected<span> </span>in relation to OTHER major industrial sources of environmentally and socially damaging pollution e.g. asbestos, heavy metals, heavy oils, acids, toxic organics, microorganisms) (e.g. see US EPA: <a href="http://www.epa.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://www.epa.gov/</a><span> </span>).</p> <p><b>4. <span> </span>Flawed quasi-market proposal despite “greatest market failure</b>”. While both the Garnaut Report (see: <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf" rel="nofollow">http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf</a> ) and top UK climate economist Professor Nicholas Stern (see: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/30/economy.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/30/economy.uk</a> ) describe the climate change crisis as the “greatest ever market failure”, the GP opts for a highly-compromised and flawed<span> </span>“claimed market<span> </span>mechanism” to discourage GHG pollution – rather than “direct action” of regulation of GHG pollution and emergency implementation action to dramatically speed conversion to “clean energy”.</p> <p><b>5. Biologically disastrous CPRS “cap” – Carbon Tax & new technology needed.</b> The GP opts for a flawed “cap and trade” Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) with a “cap” (at least 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>)<span> disastrously higher </span>than that recommended for a safe environment by top climate scientists (less than 350 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>) and<span> </span>IGNORES active government involvement in actually building or promoting renewable or other non-carbon power plants (top US climate economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute, <span> </span>Columbia University, rejects the ETS approach and has advocated that Australia should introduce a carbon tax as a simpler and less rort-prone system, and invest the proceeds in the development of new technology”: </p> <p><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/environment/alarm-on-carbon-trading-scheme-20080714-3f3w.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/environment/alarm-on-carbon-trading-scheme-20080714-3f3w.html</a> ).</p> <p><b>6. Coral goes above 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>, ocean phytoplankton go above 500 ppm CO<sub>2</sub></b> . The GP is based one supposes on the immediately prior Garnaut Report which was predicated on an Australian Government proposed outcome of an atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> of 450-550 ppm. However world coral dies above 450 ppm, the phytoplankton and the Greenland ice sheet go above 500 ppm and the world is devastated at 550 ppm (see <a href="http://green-blog.org/2007/11/21/summary-of-the-summary-of-the-2007-ipcc-ar4-synthesis-report/" rel="nofollow">http://green-blog.org/2007/11/21/summary-of-the-summary-of-the-2007-ipcc-ar4-synthesis-report/</a> ).</p> <p><b>7. Australia per capita 10 times worse than China and World, 40 times worse than </b><b>India</b>. The GP admits that Australia’s world-leading coal exports represent a major component of Australian coal mining but extraordinarily IGNORES the contribution this makes to Australia’s annual per capita CO<sub>2</sub> pollution (27 tonnes CO<sub>2 </sub>per person per year domestically but 47 tonnes CO<sub>2</sub> per person per year including CO<sub>2</sub> from coal exports) – 10 times worse than China and the World and 40 times worse than India (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/%E2%80%9Ccoal-is-king%E2%80%9D-australia-co2-pollution-fact-sheet">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/%E2%80%9Ccoal-is-king%E2%80%9D-australia-co2-pollution-fact-sheet</a> ) . </p> <p><b>8. Estimated 5,000 </b><b>Australia</b> deaths annually from coal-based power. The GP IGNORES the estimated huge annual deaths from coal-burning and fossil fuel-burning for electricity in Australia (4,900 and 5,400, respectively) and the World (170,000 and 283,000, respectively) (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/pollution-deaths-from-fossil-fuel-based-power-plants">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/pollution-deaths-from-fossil-fuel-based-power-plants</a> ). This carnage carries an economist-estimated price tag e.g. the US Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has recently re-estimated the risk-avoidance–based valuation of American lives at US$6.9 million each (US$ and A$ are close to parity) yielding 5,400 persons x $6.9 million per person = $37 billion (see: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23939/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23939/42/</a> ).</p> <p> </p> <p><b>9. “True cost” of coal-based power 4-5 times “market” cost.</b> The GP IGNORES the “true cost” of coal-based electricity generation which is estimated from an Ontario, Canada Government study to be 4-5 times the “market cost” – a reality that makes all existing, best-practice non-carbon energy sources cheaper than fossil fuel-based power (see: <a href="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" title="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" rel="nofollow">http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836</a> ; <a href="http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213" rel="nofollow">http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213</a> ; <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/</a> ; <a href="http://www.coolearthsolar.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolearthsolar.com/</a> ; <a href="http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf</a> ).</p> <p> </p> <p><b>10. Morbidity and mortality cost due to coal burning-based power generation.</b> The GP ignores the huge annually added cost to Australia due to coal burning-and fossil fuel-burning-related deaths (at $5 million per person [EU estimate], $25 billion and $27 billion, respectively) and the 6-fold greater cost of morbidity (illness) (see: <a href="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" title="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" rel="nofollow">http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836</a> and <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-dangers--solutions-for-older-people">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-dangers--solutions-for-older-people</a> ).</p> <p><b>11. <span> </span>Top US, UK, </b><b>France</b><span> </span>climate scientists want “negative CO2 emissions” policy. There are 3 clear options: (a) negative CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, (b) zero emissions and (c) positive emissions (more emissions).<span> </span>The GP prescribes MORE CO<sub>2</sub> pollution and IGNORES the position of top UK, US and French climate scientists from top institutions who argue that we have already reached a disastrous “tipping point” and must reduce atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> from the current 387 ppm to no more than 350 ppm i.e. a “negative CO2 pollution” policy that can be implemented by energy efficiency, cessation of fossil fuel burning, implementation of best-practice existing non-carbon energy sources, re-afforestation, return of biochar to soils, and (if necessary) use of global dimming sulphur oxide aerosols (see: <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf" title="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf</a> ; <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23119/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23119/42/</a> ). </p> <p><b>12. Huge total economic value of sustainable biosphere use.</b> The GP IGNORES Agriculture (9% of Total GHG Emissions) and Forestry and Land Use (4% of Total Emissions). The GP specifically excludes de-forestation from consideration (p18) and the findings of top biologists and environmental economists that the total economic return from major biomes (ecological systems) studied can be typically about 50% greater when there is sustainable use and that the economic return from preserving what is left of wild nature is over 100 times the cost of so doing (see: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950</a> ) (see item #13 below in relation to the total economic value of the climate change-threatened Great Barrier Reef).</p> <p> </p> <p><b>13. Huge economic and irreversible ecosystem and species loss from </b><b>Great Barrier Reef</b> destruction. The GP IGNORES the enormous current rate of species extinction that is ALREADY 100-1,000 times greater than normal and which is impacted severely by climate change(see: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm" title="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm</a> ; <a href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/" rel="nofollow">http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/</a> ). Irreversible environmental vandalism aside, the adumbrated destruction of the Great Barrier Reef (i.e. above the Government proposed minimum target of 450 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>) has been estimated by a prestigious Access Economics report prepared for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. <span> </span>Access Economics<span> </span>provides quantitative estimates of the economic and financial value of tourism, commercial fishing and recreational activities undertaken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Catchment during 2005/06. The Great Barrier Reef is a significant element in the Australian economy which, along with other attractions in the region, contributes $6.9 billion annually. This comprises $6 billion from the tourism industry, $544 million from recreational activity and $251 million from commercial fishing. This economic activity generates about 66 000 jobs, mostly in the tourism industry, which brings over 1.8 million visitors to the Reef each year (see: <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/research_publications/rp087/access_economics_report_0607" rel="nofollow">http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/research_publications/rp087/access_economics_report_0607</a> ). A 1997 report in the prestigious science journal Nature estimated that the resources and economic benefits derived world-wide from coral reefs are worth $375 billion a year (see: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=5321360&page=2" rel="nofollow">http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=5321360&page=2</a> ).</p> <p> </p> <p><b>14. International and National legal implications of GHG pollution.</b> The Review IGNORES International and National Law in relation to illegitimate commercial impositions on other people (especially when mass suffering and death are involved) and IGNORES the real prospect of litigation, Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs, Reparations Demands and national and international criminal prosecutions (e.g. see: <a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html</a> ) (however the GP does advert to the possibility of international Tariffs).</p> <p><b>15. Moral and legal implications of incorrectness by omission or commission.<span> </span></b>People are “entitled to their opinion” as with politics (political freedom), religion (religious freedom) and scholars (academic freedom). However there are certainly moral constraints in relation to statements that are incorrect by omission or commission.<span> </span>Further, legal constraints on “freedom of speech” exist in relation to Courts (e.g. perjury), other law enforcement (e.g. perverting the course of justice) and in commercial law. Thus insider-trading and anti-price collusion legislation prohibit deception of investors and consumers and indeed apply draconian penalties. Similar legislation would dramatically clarify the Climate Emergency debate in Australia which is heavily influenced by industry and politicians to the exclusion of expert climate scientists. Indeed Dr James Hansen in a recent address to the US National Press Club and a briefing to the US House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming Congressional Committee raised the issue of criminal prosecutions: “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature” (see: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf</a> ). </p> <p> </p> <p><b>16. Major technological advances in low-cost solar and other non-carbon technologies.</b> The pro-coal GP Summary IGNORES the enormous advances made in already commercial solar energy technology, notably silicon-based photovoltaics (notably improved efficiency, sliver technology, balloon-based solar energy collection), CIGS and other non-silicon thin film photovoltaics (California, Switzerland) and Concentrated Solar Power or Solar Thermal – all of which yield power at a cost LESS than the “true cost” of coal-based power and in many cases approaching the 4-5 times lower current, heavily subsidized “market cost” of the coal-based power favoured by the GP. Thus the new, large-scale, commercialized, Ausra Concentrated Solar Power (Solar Thermal) Compact Linear Fresnel (CLFR) system technology is already HALF the "true cost" of coal-based power with lower cost to come with economies of scale: “Ausra claims that It can generate electricity for 10 cents/kWh now, under 8 cents/kWh in 3 yrs. It also claims that using Ausra’s current solar technologies, all U.S. electric power, day and night, can be generated using a land area smaller than 92 by 92 miles” (see: <a href="http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/12/ausra-building.html" rel="nofollow">http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/12/ausra-building.html</a> ; <a href="http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213" rel="nofollow">http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213</a> ; <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/</a> ; <a href="http://www.coolearthsolar.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolearthsolar.com/</a> ; <a href="http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf</a> ; <a href="http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/PP/article.asp?doi=b715013j" rel="nofollow">http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/PP/article.asp?doi=b715013j</a> ). </p> <p> </p> <p><b>17. Top scientific and economist advice ignored.</b> The GP has clearly IGNORED detailed, expert, well-documented, scientific and economic representations about most of the above issues (e.g. see: <a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html</a> ; <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf" rel="nofollow">http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf</a> ; <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/critical-scientific-review-of-badly-flawed-australian-garnaut-climate-change-review">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/critical-scientific-review-of-badly-flawed-australian-garnaut-climate-change-review</a> ). It is extremely<span> </span>unfortunate and indeed very dangerous<span> </span>that the expert, public interest views of<span> </span>top economists and scientists on man-made climate change can be simply ignored and sidelined. For an important analysis of this general problem (that in my view acutely endangers our society and the world in relation to the key problems of nuclear, greenhouse and poverty threats: <a href="http://www.google.com.au/">http://www.google.com.au/</a> ) see “Scientists know better than you – even when they’re wrong” in Scientific American: <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-know-better-than-you&page=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-know-better-than-you&page=2</a> .</p> <p><b>18. CPRS selectively ignores two thirds of Australia-responsible GHG emissions.</b> The GP is absurdly INEQUITABLE in its selective targeting of sources of GHG pollution. Thus major areas excluded or effectively excluded from the CPRS are Agriculture (90 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>-e, 9.0% of Total Domestic and Exported GHG emissions), Forestry and Land Use (40 Mt, 4.0% of Total), Transport (tax and re-pay cent-for-cent; 80 Mt, 8.0%) and Coal Exports (426 Mt, 42.5% of 1002 Mt total). This goes against considerations of reasons, equity and economic advice (e.g. from the Garnaut Review: <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf" rel="nofollow">http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf</a> ). </p> <p><b>19. Counterproductive and inequitable in return of licence fees to polluters and consumers.</b> The GP is absurdly discriminatory and INEQUITABLE in its return of nearly all the GHG pollution licence fee monies to domestic and industry participants. Thus those FAVOURED by the GP through subsidies (variously including “free permits”) are the “dirty” energy providers, “dirty power” users, “emission-intensive trade-exposed industries” (this could conceivably include the un-taxed coal and liquefied natural gas exporters!)<span> </span>and the poor and elderly (who are acutely discriminated against<span> </span>through resolute non-provision of cheap, renewable technologies that are much cheaper than the “true” cost of coal-based electricity (see: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-dangers--solutions-for-older-people">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-dangers--solutions-for-older-people</a> ). Unjustly,<span> </span>absurdly and counterproductively,<span> </span>those NOT receiving non-transport subsidies include “clean” industries (including renewable energy industries) and middle-to-higher income consumers (who are generally opposed to GHG pollution).</p> <p><b>20. GP damaging to Older Australians.</b> In its resolute commitment to fossil fuel-burning at all costs, the GP is highly discriminatory towards older Australians in many ways, most notably because they are differentially threatened by elevated temperatures (see: <a href="http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/elderlyheat.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/elderlyheat.asp</a> ; <a href="http://www.medindia.net/news/Brain-Malfunction-Explains-Dehydration-in-Elderly-31069-1.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.medindia.net/news/Brain-Malfunction-Explains-Dehydration-in-Elderly-31069-1.htm</a> ; <a href="http://www.sfbr.org/pages/news_release_detail.php?id=15" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfbr.org/pages/news_release_detail.php?id=15</a> ; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave</a> ; <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm</a> ) and because they are threatened by the impossibility<span> </span>of GDP growth in a continuing carbon-based<span> </span>economy. Thus <span>retirement benefits require GDP growth, carbon-based growth is no longer possible but cheap, non-carbon energy alternatives are already developed</span>. For people who are self-funded retirees on superannuation schemes or government pensions it is necessary for GDP growth to compensate for outlays and inflation. However, the <span>Climate Emergency requirement for urgent implementation of “negative CO<sub>2</sub> emissions”</span> means that the present carbon-based energy economy in which GDP is directly proportional to CO<sub>2</sub> pollution has to STOP. However the solar energy hitting the earth each day is 10,000 times the energy currently used by man and can ALREADY be cheaply accessed<span> </span>at a cost much lower than the “true cost” of coal-based electricity (for recent reviews of such already developed, low-cost, non-carbon solar and geothermal energy technologies see : <a href="http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213" rel="nofollow">http://www.newmatilda.com/node/2398?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213</a> ; <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/</a> ; <a href="http://www.coolearthsolar.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolearthsolar.com/</a> ; <a href="http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf</a> ). For a detailed account of climate change impacts on older people see the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website Fact Sheet “Global warming dangers and solutions for Older People”: . <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-dangers--solutions-for-older-people">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/global-warming-dangers--solutions-for-older-people</a> .</p> <p><b>21. CPRS details not known till after Submission deadline.</b> The GP is a fore-runner of more detailed document but more precise details from Treasury will apparently only be available in October i.e. AFTER the deadline for Submissions has closed in September 2008 (see: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/17/2306158.htm?section=justin" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/17/2306158.htm?section=justin</a> ).</p> <p><b>22. GP policies reverse sensible feed-back inhibition and feed-forward activation.</b> The GP Summary (p29) states that “The Government proposes to provide a limited amount of direct assistance to existing coal-fired electricity generators” but will effectively punish “non-carbon energy generators”, other “clean” industries and middle-to-higher income consumers who will bear the burden of increased costs due to the CPRS. This and other GP pro-coal policies are mathematically absurd and CONTRARY to sensible models of “feed-back inhibition” in relation to undesirable outcomes (e.g. <span> </span>inhibition of GHG pollution by constraining polluters by the amount they pollute) and “feed-forward activation” to achieve desirable outcomes (e.g. promoting renewable and geothermal energy to achieve lowered GHG pollution, and lowered atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>).</p> <p><b>23. GP favours “dirty energy” and fossil fuel exports over “clean energy”.</b> While the urgently-needed installation of “clean energy” is left up to “market forces” the GP departs from a “level playing field” “market forces” game by supporting “dirty energy” and coal exports on the one hand while imposing increased costs on the renewable energy industry and middle-to-higher-income anti-pollution consumers on the other.</p> <p><b>24. GP violates Rational Risk Management.</b> Rational Risk Management (that, for example, has made aviation so safe) successively involves (a) getting accurate information; (b) scientific analysis (science involving the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses); and (c) systemic change to minimize risk. Unfortunately this <span> </span>protocol is typically perverted at all levels of society through (a) lying and incorrectness by omission and commission, censorship, intimidation, and propaganda;(b) anti-science spin involving the selective use of asserted facts to support a partisan position; and (c) blame and shame (which discourages requisite reportage) with typically no systemic change (which greatly increases the risk of adverse outcomes).<span> </span>A fundamental flaw of the Green Paper lies in its departure from Rational Risk Management.</p> <p>The Adverse Outcomes associated with man-made global warming are already happening (to the Arctic, Antarctic, the Tundra, Greenland, the Himalaya plateau, coral, ocean fisheries, tropical and sub-tropical agriculture, other systems and ecosystems). <span>Biofuel diversion and famine are a reality. C</span>rop-based biofuels are highly CO<sub>2</sub> polluting and the global food price crisis (driven in part by US-, UK- and EU- mandated food diversion for biofuel, oil price rises, globalization, global warming and speculation) threatens “billions” with biofuel-driven famine according to UK Chief Scientist Professor John Beddington FRS (see: <span><a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23336840-11949,00.html" title="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23336840-11949,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23336840-11949,00.html</a> ; </span><a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/</a> ; <a href="http://www.liberalati.com/?q=node/261" rel="nofollow">http://www.liberalati.com/?q=node/261</a> ). </p> <p>16 million people already die avoidably in the world each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease (see <span>“Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/" title="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/</a> and <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/</a> )</span><span> </span>and this is already being significantly impacted by global warming according to the UN (see; <a href="http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000877/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000877/index.html</a> and <a href="http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000876/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000876/index.html</a> ). In December 2007 in Bali the three Rome-based UN Agencies – FAO, the World Food Programme and the International Fund for Agricultural Development – warned that climate change is a major challenge to world food security and will increase hunger and malnutrition unless immediate action is taken (see: <a href="http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000731/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000731/index.html</a> ) . Unaddressed <span> </span>climate change already threatens billions and will kill over 6 billion people this century according to Professor James Lovelock FRS) (see: <a href="http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=7226" rel="nofollow">http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=7226</a> ; <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock" rel="nofollow">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock</a> ; <a href="http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html">http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html</a> ). </p> <p>The Green Paper departs from the above Rational Risk Management protocol in all 3 key areas as described above: (a) it ignores major realities (e.g. Australia’s world leading coal exports that contribute 43% of Australia’s annual contribution to global GHG pollution; the estimated 5,000 Australians who die annually from coal burning-based power generation; the reality that the “true cost” of coal burning-based power generation is 4-5 times the “market cost”; the urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> from the present damaging 387 ppm to a safe and sustainable level of less than 350 ppm (according to top US climate scientist Professor James Hansen); the need for a carbon pollution tax and urgent implementation of clean technologies (according to top world economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs); and makes INCORRECT assertions (e.g. “the scheme will cover the bulk of Australia’s emissions” (p15)).</p> <p>(b) as outlined<span> </span>in (a) above, the GP has used information selectively to support a partisan pro-coal position; and </p> <p>(c) the GP Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme fails to significantly alter the system to the extent that “Carbon Pollution” from Australia’s domestic and exported GHG emissions is predicted to actually INCREASE <span> </span>67% by 2020 under this prescription (see above). The GP fails to provide any substantial change in response to what eminent people now describe as a Climate Emergency. Thus on 17 July 2008 an outstanding Australian book entitled “Climate Code Red. The Case for Emergency Action” by David Spratt and Philip Sutton (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008) was launched in the Queen’s <span>all of the plarlimanet House Hall </span>Hall of Victoria’s Parliament House by the Governor of Victoria, the eminent medical scientist Professor David de Kretser, who warned of the acute seriousness of man-made global warming (see: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/environment/code-red-climate-skating-on-thin-ice-authors-say-20080717-3gxq.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/environment/code-red-climate-skating-on-thin-ice-authors-say-20080717-3gxq.html</a><span> </span>).</p> <p>“Climate Code Red” (see: <a href="http://www.climatecodered.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatecodered.net/</a> ) sets out the details of the Climate Emergency facing the world: at 387 ppm atmospheric CO2 we face the loss of all Arctic sea ice in several years’ time with huge “positive feedback” implications for the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, the tundra, global warming, sea level rise, mass extinctions and horrendous human mass mortality.<span> </span>The authors advocate declaration of a Climate State of Emergency and urgent national action akin to that which galvanized the US, British and Australian economies in World War 2. </p> <p>The first draft of this<span> </span>very important book has already galvanized dozens of Australian Climate Action Groups (including the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group of which I am a member: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home">http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home</a> )<span> </span>to form a Climate Emergency Network (see:<span> </span><span><a href="http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/</a> ) with the core values that “</span>We have no right to bargain away the lives of others. Our goal is a safe climate future for all people, all species, and all generations” and an Action Plan for the Planet that “The Global Community must concurrently halt man-made greenhouse gas emissions, remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and actively cool the Earth.” The required global action requires Declaration of a Climate Emergency<span> </span>and, underpinned by legislation, governments must lead a large scale transformation of the economy to a post-carbon society.</p> <p>Top US and World climate scientist Dr James Hansen is the Head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York; adjunct professor, Columbia University; member of the prestigious US National Academy of Science; was recently awarded the 2007 AAAS Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (for speaking out forcefully about human influence on global climate despite pressure to alter his message: <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/aaft-ahc020808.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/aaft-ahc020808.php</a> ); and <span> </span>recently sent a detailed letter (with a very detailed scientific summary appendix) to the Prime Minister of Australia advocating urgent action to address climate change (see: <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/aaft-ahc020808.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/aaft-ahc020808.php</a> ). Dr James Hansen commented thus about “Climate Code Red”: “A compelling case … we face a climate emergency.”</p> <p>This has been written in the public interest.</p> <p><span>Dr Gideon Polya</span></p> <p><span>Macleod, Melbourne, Victoria 3085, Australia</span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <span>Credentials: Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003) of acute relevance to preservation of biological diversity and all existing species and ecosystems. He has just published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: <a href="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/" title="http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/" rel="nofollow">http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/</a> and <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/" title="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/</a> ); see also his contribution “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007): <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm" title="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm</a> ). He is currently preparing a revised and updated version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (see: <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/" title="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/</a> ) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a possibly 100-fold greater famine catastrophe (see: <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/polya310308.htm" title="http://www.countercurrents.org/polya310308.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.countercurrents.org/polya310308.htm</a> ) than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others: <a href="http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html" title="http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html</a> ). <br /></span>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-40879542935639318882011-06-23T23:20:00.000-07:002011-06-23T23:48:22.478-07:00Australia increasing GHG pollution<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"> <span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Australia INCREASED Greenhouse Gas Pollution in 2008 by 2% over 2007 value</span> </h3> <p><span> Australia went to the polls in November 2007 with Climate Change being a major issue. However 1 year later under a new administration, it is estimated that Australia has INCREASED annual Domestic and Exported Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollution by 2% over the 2007 value - this being indicative of a mounting threat to Australia's (and the World's) Great Barrier Reef, the Kakadu wetlands, the Murray Darling River System ... and indeed to the Biosphere.<br /></span></p><p><span>Australia’s coal exports (roughly equivalent thermal and coking coal exports) increased under Rudd Government from 247 mt (2007) to 260 mt (2008), this corresponding to a 5% increase in coal-based exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution from 499 mt (million tonnes) to 525 mt ; this corresponds to an increase in “annual per capita coal-based exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution” in Australia (population 21.4 million) from to 499 mt/21.4 million persons = 23.3 tonnes per person per year in 2007 to 525 mt/21.4 million persons = 24.5 tonnes per person per year in 2008 (see “Australian coal exports”, Greenlivingpedia: <a href="http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Australian_coal_exports" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Australian_coal_exports</a> quoting ABARE, </span>Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics<span>). </span></p> <p><span> </span>ABARE forecast Australian Coal Exports to increase from 250 mt (2007), to 258 mt (2008) to 275 mt (2009), corresponding to estimates of <span>“annual per capita coal-based exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution” of 23.5 (2007), 24.2 (2008) and 25.8 t per person per year (assuming a population of 21.4 million; </span>Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), Australian commodities, September quarter, volume 5, #3, <span> </span>2008, <span> </span>“Thermal coal”: <a href="http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/08ac_Sept/htm/coal.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/08ac_Sept/htm/coal.htm</a> <span> </span>and “Steel and steel-making raw materials”: <a href="http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/08ac_Sept/htm/steel.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/08ac_Sept/htm/steel.htm</a> ).</p> Australia’s Natural Gas Exports in terms of mt CO<sub>2</sub> were projected from linear extrapolation of US IAE data (see: <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> ) to be 27.5 (2007), 28.3 (2008) and 29.2 mt CO<sub>2</sub> (2009), corresponding to an “annual per capita <span>natural gas-based exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution” of 1.3 (2007), 1.3 (2008) and 1.4 t CO<sub>2</sub> per person per year (assuming a population of 21.4 million). </span> Australia’s “annual per capita Domestic greenhouse gas pollution” in CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent (CO<sub>2</sub>-e) was 28.1 mt per person per year in 2006 according to Australian Government climate change economics adviser Professor Ross Garnaut (see: <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter7.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter7.pdf</a> ; <span> </span>DCC (Department of Climate Change), Australian National Greenhouse Accounts (as of May 2008), Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System: <a href="http://www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/</a> ; <span> </span><a href="http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/environment/australias-greenhouse-timebomb/1324899.aspx?page=0" rel="nofollow">http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/environment/australias-greenhouse-timebomb/1324899.aspx?page=0</a> ) . Assuming that the 2% annual growth in Australia’s fossil fuel-derived CO<sub>2</sub> pollution (see US Energy Information Administration: <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/" rel="nofollow">http://www.eia.doe.gov/</a> ) also applies to Australia’s domestic greenhouse gas pollution, then 28.1 (2006) would imply 28.7 (2007), 29.2 (2008) and 29.8 t CO<sub>2</sub>-e per person per year (2009). Using the US IAE and ABARE projections above, we can see that Australia’s “annual per capita Domestic plus Exported greenhouse gas emissions” in t CO<sub>2</sub>-e <span> </span>per person per year totalled 53.5 (2007) and 54.6 (2008) – and are projected to increase to 57.0 t CO<sub>2</sub>-e <span> </span>per person per year in 2009 <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;">as compared to the 2005 OECD average of 14.0 and the World average of 6.6 t CO<sub>2</sub>-e <span> </span>per person per year (see Figure 7.1, p154, Garnaut Report: <a href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter7.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter7.pdf</a> ) .</span> On the first anniversary of the accession to power of the new Labor Federal Government in November 2007, Australia’s annual Domestic and Exported Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollution has INCREASED from that in 2007 under the Coalition Federal Government by 2.1% - but based on the above trends, by the second anniversary in 2009 Australia’s annual GHG pollution is expected to have increased by 6.5% over that in 2007. The only thing on current trends that might diminish Australia’s appalling greenhouse gas pollution (0.3% of global population, 3% of global fossil fuel-derived CO<sub>2</sub> pollution) will be the current global recession. <p><span>According to Dr James Hansen (Head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) : “we face a climate emergency” (see: </span><a href="http://www.climatecodered.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatecodered.net/</a> <span>) ; Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty “we are in real danger” (</span>see: <a href="http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/4775/" title="http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/4775/" rel="nofollow">http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/4775/</a> <span>); Professor David de Kretser AC: “There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency” (see: </span><a href="http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered</a> <span>).</span></p> <p><span>According to Dr Hansen and 8 UK, French and US climate change scientist co-authors (2008): “Decreasing CO<sub>2</sub> was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO<sub>2</sub> fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm [parts per million], a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO<sub>2</sub> will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm” (see: </span><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126</a> <span>).</span></p> <p><span>With atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> at 387 ppm (versus 280 ppm pre-industrial and presently increasing at 2.5 ppm per year) and global average temperature 0.8 degree C above pre-industrial, the World is already seeing mass species extinction at rates 100-1,000 times that in the fossil record (see: </span><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html</a> and <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html</a><span>); major ecosystems are being destroyed due to drought, deforestation, Arctic ice melting, tundra melting, glacier melting, and ocean warming and acidification (see IPCC: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a> ); world coral reefs have already been severely damaged and will die above 450 ppm CO<sub>2 </sub>from ocean warming and acidification (see: </span><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737" title="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm" title="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm</a><span>); ocean phytoplankton and the Greenland ice sheet go above 500 ppm CO<sub>2</sub>; (see Dr James Lovelock’s book “The Revenge of Gaia”); already 16 million people die avoidably each year due to increasingly climate-impacted deprivation (see my books </span><span>“Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”: <a href="http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/">http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/</a> and “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”: <a href="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/" title="http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/">http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/</a> </span><span>); and according to top UK climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS over 6 billion people will perish this century due to unaddressed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) (see: <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock" rel="nofollow">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock</a> ).</span></p> <p><span>Yet for “Coal is King” Australia it is “business as usual” – DESPITE the clear and repeated warnings by leading scientists and economists about the impending loss of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef at atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> levels above the Australia Government’s minimum target of 450 parts per million and catastrophic damage to the Australian Northern Territory Kakadu wetlands, the Murray –Darling River System and Australian agriculture, fisheries and tourism. </span></p> <p><span>Professor Jared Diamond’s seminal book “Collapse. How societies choose to fail or succeed” (Penguin, 2005: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0670033375" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0670033375</a> ) brilliantly analyses the economic and social collapse of a variety of civilizations due to environmental degradation and other causes. He devotes the final chapter of the “Modern Societies” section to contemporary Australia and concludes by outlining a race between exponentially increasing environmental damage and societal responses, finally observing (p416): “Which horse will win the race? Many readers of this book are young enough, and will live long enough, to see the outcome.”</span></p> <p><span>Australia is currently on a path to ecocide (destruction of ecosystems) and terracide (destruction of the biosphere as a whole) that prompted outstanding Australian climate scientist Professor David Karoly (</span>(Federation fellow at Melbourne University; head of the Victorian Premier's climate change advisory group; member of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 2; School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne; a top Australian and world climate scientist: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Karoly" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Karoly</a> ) to comment <span> recently on the Australian national ABC TV Lateline program: “</span>The only way that I could see the climate system in 50 years time or 100 years time being cooler than at present is if the earth got hit by an asteroid and basically human civilisation was destroyed.” (see: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399646.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399646.htm</a> ).</p> <p>Australia is currently on a path to national and global suicide.</p>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-59296974280335725872011-06-23T23:18:00.002-07:002011-06-23T23:20:00.042-07:00Floods and man-made climate change<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"><span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Floods and man-made climate change: expert science-informed views on the link between man-made climate change and floods</span> </h3> <div id="sites-canvas-main" class="sites-canvas-main"> <div id="sites-canvas-main-content"> <table class="sites-layout-name-one-column sites-layout-hbox" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="sites-layout-tile sites-tile-name-content-1"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"> <p><b>Floods and man-made climate change.</b><br /></p><p>Because the day to day weather is highly variable one cannot attribute any specific weather event (such as the current Asian, South American and Australian floods) to man-made global warming. <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">However increased greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution leads successively to global warming, increased sea temperature, increased evaporation and thence to increased precipitation. Indeed the incidence of floods has greatly increased throughout the world over the last 60 years. Accordingly one cannot exclude the likelihood of a contribution of man-made global warming to extreme precipitation events. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">The 2010-2011 Queensland, Australia, flood disaster has so far killed 16 (40 missing), forced thousands from their homes, adversely affected 70 towns and 200,000 people, flooded major parts of the capital city Brisbane, including the Central Business District, and cost circa $13 billion. [1].</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">This present Queensland and Eastern Australian disaster - coming shortly after the disastrous 2010 Russian heat wave (1/3 of the Russian wheat crop destroyed in fires) and the horrendous 2010 Pakistani floods (24 million homeless) and contemporaneous with the Brazil floods (500 dead, thousands homeless), Sri Lanka floods (23 dead, 1 million homeless) and Philippines floods (42 dead, 400,000 displaced) - has again raised concerns about the connection between man-made global warming from greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution and extreme weather events such as floods and drought. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New"><b>For advice we must turn to expert climate scientists, meteorologists and other science-informed citizens.</b> At the outset it must be clearly re-iterated that weather is variable and accordingly one cannot say that the severity of a specific event such as the La Ni</span>ñ<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">a-associated Queensland floods can be attributed to climate change. However increased precipitation derives from increased sea temperature and increased evaporation and accordingly man-made global warming to a global average of +0.8C above the 1900 value is contributing to extreme precipitation events (more heat means more evaporation and hence more precipitation).<b> </b></span></p> <p> </p><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">Set out below in the public interest are 90 expert, informed, referenced opinions about the link between man-made global warming and increased precipitation events.<br /></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">Please use this as a resource and tell everyone you can.<br /></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">The bottom-line message: stop burning fossil fuels and otherwise generating greenhouse gases ASAP and we must return the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration from the current dangerous and damaging 392 parts per million (ppm) to about 300 ppm for a safe planet for all peoples and all species (see 300.org: </span></b><a href="https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm">https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm</a> ).</p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New"><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">1. </span><span>The </span><i><span style="font-style:normal">US</span></i></b><i><span style="font-style:normal"><b> National Academy of Sciences (2010)</b>: “Extreme precipitation is likely to increase</span></i> as the atmospheric moisture content increases in a warming climate. Typical magnitudes are 3-10per cent per degree C warming, with potentially larger values in the tropics, and in the most extreme events globally.” [2].</p> <p><b>2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007</b>: “<span>Observations are consistent with physical understanding regarding the expected linkage between water vapour and temperature, and with intensification of precipitation events in a warmer world.</span> Column and upper-tropospheric water vapour have increased, providing important support for the hypothesis of simple physical models that specific humidity increases in a warming world and represents an important positive feedback to climate change. Consistent with rising amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere, there are widespread increases in the numbers of heavy precipitation events and increased likelihood of flooding events in many land regions, even those where there has been a reduction in total precipitation. Observations of changes in ocean salinity independently support the view that the Earth’s hydrologic cycle has changed, in a manner consistent with observations showing greater precipitation and river runoff outside the tropics and subtropics, and increased transfer of freshwater from the ocean to the atmosphere at lower latitudes.” [3].</p> <p> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New"><b>3. Queensland Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) Report.</b> In 2010 the Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) Report to the Queensland Government and the Local Government Association of Queensland advised that "a. an increase in rainfall intensity is likely; b. the available scientific literature indicates this increased rainfall intensity to be in the range of 3-10 per cent per degree of global warming; c. the SAG understands the preference for a single figure to support policy development. More detailed analysis is required to firmly establish such a figure and this work will be undertaken as part of the review of <i>Australia</i><i>’s Rainfall and Runoff </i>[AR&R]. This document will become the authoritative source of information on the issue when released in 2014. However the SAG would consider a figure of 5% increase in rainfall intensity per degree of global warming reasonable for informing policy development in the interim... </span><i><span style="font-style:normal">Extreme precipitation is likely to increase</span></i> as the atmospheric moisture content increases in a warming climate…<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">If this recommendation turns out to underestimate the changes (and the evidence produced to date would suggest it will) then further increases will be recommended through revision of the AR&R. Taking this first step now will make these increases more acceptable in the future.” [4].</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New"><b>4. Final Report of the Queensland Inland Flooding Study (2010):</b> “</span><i><span style="font-style:normal"> Executive summary. Flooding causes significant impacts on Queensland communities and the economy- and with our changing climate, flooding events are likely to become more frequent and more intense. Effective land use planning will ensure that our communities are ready for the impacts of climate change… Various scientific methodologies were examined to identify benchmark figures fro planning to take account of the projected impacts of climate change on flood risks. These methods were based on the theory that precipitable water in the atmosphere will increase as global temperature increases. Analysis was undertaken to determine the extent of evidence in the Queensland historical record for this physical relationship. This analysis included both land surface temperature and sea surface temperatures. The recent wok of Rafter and Abbes (2010) was also considered, which uses extreme value analyses to calculate the percentage increases of intense rainfall from a suite of Global Climate Models. The project also took into account the recently released report from the US National Academy of Sciences (2010) which concludes that: “Extreme precipitation is likely to increase</span></i> as the atmospheric moisture content increases in a warming climate. Typical magnitudes are 3-10per cent per degree C warming, with potentially larger values in the tropics, and in the most extreme events globally.” [5].</p> <p><b>5. The Queensland Government</b> itself understands the connection between <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">global warming and increased precipitation events while remaining notoriously committed to fossil fuel burning and methanogenic livestock production. </span> The <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">Final Report of the Inland Flooding Study, 2010, </span>was released by Queensland Climate Change and Sustainability Minister Kate Jones at the Local Government Association of Queensland's (LGAQ) annual environment conference on the Gold Coast. "What we're asking is that councils use this science to build into their flood risks an increase in flooding as a consequence of climate change. What we'll see is rainfall intensity increasing by five per cent, which will mean they'll need to build that into their flood planning… [ planning for a once-in-a-century flood isn't enough to protect inland areas in the future]…Instead we're recommending local governments adopt a climate-change factor for increased rainfall intensity of five per cent per degree of global warming, and incorporate this into local flood studies and planning schemes. This will increase the amount of land considered flood prone over time and enable councils to make informed decisions and provide better advice to residents. This is the first time definitive advice on how to plan for more intense flooding under climate change has been provided in Queensland."<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">[6].</span></p> <p><b>6. Australian Bureau of Meteorology (2010):</b> " Data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology show that the Australian mean rainfall total for 2010 was 690 mm, well above the long-term average of 465 mm. As a result, 2010 was Australia’s wettest year since 2000 and the third-wettest year on record (records commence in 1900). The only month to record a national monthly total below the long term average during 2010 was June. This means that 11 months of the year experienced above average rainfall, an occurrence observed only once previously, in 1973... Based on preliminary data (to November 30), sea surface temperatures in the Australian region during 2010 were +0.54 °C above the 1961 to 1990 average. This is the warmest value on record for the Australian region. Individual high monthly sea surface temperature records were also set during 2010 in March, April, June, September, October and November. Along with favourable hemispheric circulation associated with the 2010 La Niña, very warm sea surface temperatures contributed to the record rainfall and very high humidity across eastern Australia during winter and spring." [7].</p> <p><b>7. Professor David Karoly</b> (Professor of Meteorology and an ARC Federation Fellow, University of Melbourne School of Earth Sciences and a lead author of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC) commenting on the 2011 La Niña-connected Queensland floods and climate change: ''Australia has been known for more than a hundred years as a land of droughts and flooding rains, but what climate change means is Australia becomes a land of more droughts and worse flooding rains… On some measures, it's the strongest La Niña in recorded history … [but] we also have record-high ocean temperatures in northern Australia, which means more moisture evaporating into the air. And that means lots of heavy rain.'' [8]. </p> <p><b>8. Professor David Karoly</b> (Professor of Meteorology and an ARC Federation Fellow in the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, and a lead author of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC) on Queensland floods, climate change and extreme precipitation: “What gives very heavy rainfall is high Indian Ocean temperatures and La Niña in the Pacific. This year we have both of those, and both are at record highs… (presented data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology shows a marked increase in Australian region December sea temperature: <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=sst&area=aus&season=12&ave_yr=11" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=sst&area=aus&season=12&ave_yr=11">http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=sst&area=aus&season=12&ave_yr=11</a> ) …This (pronounced long-term warming trend in the waters near Australia) isn’t just climate variability. This is man-made climate change… we can’t say this individual event [in Queensland] is due to long term climate change, but we can say the overall global sea surface temperature increases are due to anthropogenic [man-made] forcings.” [9].</p> <p><b>9. Professor David Karoly </b>(Professor of Meteorology and an ARC Federation Fellow in the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, and a lead author of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC) on Queensland floods, climate change and extreme precipitation: “"What we are seeing over the last 50 years and over the last 100 years is a change in this pattern of extremes with more hot and more wet extremes in northern Australia and more hot and more dry extremes in southern Australia and that pattern is exactly what we would expect from climate change due to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” [10].</p> <p><b>10. Professor Ian Lowe </b>on the Queensland floods, extreme weather events and man-made global warming: “The Queensland floods are another reminder of what climate science has been telling us for 25 years. As well as a general warming and increasing sea levels, it predicted more frequent extreme events: floods, droughts, heatwaves and severe bushfires. The decline in rainfall in south-western WA and the increasing rainfall in the tropics are exactly what the science has been telling us to expect. It is still too early to say with certainty that climate change is responsible for the strong El Nino event which brought devastating drought to eastern Australia and the equally strong La Niña event which has produced the terrible floods. But they are exactly what climate science has been warning us about. If we don’t want to see more events like the 2009 Victorian bushfires and the floods now happening, we need a concerted program of action to reduce greenhouse pollution.” [11].</p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>11. Professor Ian Lowe</b> (</span><i><span style="font-style:normal">president of the Australian Conservation Foundation; </span></i>Professor of Science, Technology and Society and former Head of the School of Science at Griffith University, as well as an adjunct professor at Sunshine Coast University and Flinders University<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">) on the Queensland floods: “</span>The Queensland floods are another reminder of what climate science has been telling us for 25 years, like the recent long-running drought, the 2009 heatwaves and the dreadful Victorian bushfires. As well as a general warming, increasing sea levels and altered rainfall patterns, climate modellers confidently predicted more frequent extreme events: floods, droughts, heatwaves and severe bushfires. The decline in rainfall in Western Australia's south-west and the increasing rainfall in the tropics are exactly what the science has been telling us to expect. It is still too early to say with certainty that climate change is responsible for the strong El Niño event that brought devastating drought to eastern Australia and the equally strong La Niña event that has produced the terrible floods. But they are exactly what climate science has been warning us about since the 1980s.’ [12]. </p> <p><b>12. Professor Neville Nicholls </b>(an Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow, Monash University, Melbourne): "Is the [current] La Nina that strong because of global warming, or is global warming exacerbating the effect of La Niña? Honestly, we don't know. But just because we don't now doesn't mean it's not happening. You'd have to be a brave person to say it [climate change] is not having some sort of effect. I can guarantee you in the next couple of years people will start looking back at this event and asking was it so unusually strong because of global warming." [13].</p> <p><b>13. Professor Will Steffen </b>(executive director of the ANU Climate Change Institute; Australian Government Climate Change Committee member): "As the climate warms, there is more water vapour in the atmosphere. This means that there is a probability that there will more intense rainfall events around the world. There is some evidence that we can see them now. I think the place where the best data is the US." [13].</p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>14, Professor Will Steffen </b>(</span>executive director of the Australian National University's (ANU) Climate Change Institute) on Queensland floods and global warming: "What we can say about the Queensland floods is there is a strong La Niña, which tends to give this heavy rainfall, but in addition to that there are very high sea surface temperatures… "(In a US study of rainfall in a heavily saturated area over the past 100 years) there's been a significant increase (in rain in the area) since 1980 consistent with a strong warming. There's definitely a risk and a growing risk that events of this type will become more frequent as the climate warms. One-in-100-year events would become a one-in-20 or one-in-30-year event as the climate shifts ... we say with some confidence they are becoming more frequent and they will become more frequent in future." [14].</p> <p><b>15, Professor Matthew England</b> (joint director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW) on record high temperatures and Queensland floods: “Climate change has seen a warming of waters globally, and the waters north of Australia are an important part of the climate system for Australia's monsoon rains. They are at their warmest ever measured and we cannot exclude climate change from contributing to this warmth, (and) if it is very warm there this enhances evaporation into the atmosphere, creating moist air… Climate change projections are pointing to more frequent extreme events, that's to say more flooding events, more droughts and fires, but whether Australia as a nation sees many more flooding events or not is still a little bit more complex to pin down." [14].</p> <p><b>16. Professor Barry Brook</b> (Foundation <i><span style="font-style:normal">Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change</span></i> and Director of Climate Science at <i><span style="font-style:normal">The Environment Institute</span></i>, University of Adelaide) on the Queensland disaster and global warming: “The period 2010-2011 has seen record rainfall and rural flooding events in Australia. This has culminated this week with the 3rd largest city, Brisbane, being struck by severely damaging and costly urban floods, inundating the central business district and overwhelming many thousands of homes and businesses…:The point of this post is not to try to attribute these extreme weather events directly to climate change, although I think there is a real influence at work here. A major factor is one of the strongest La Niñas on record… Climate change, left unabated, will increase the frequency and severity of natural disasters. More and more energy is being trapped within the Earth system (see figure to the right), and it has to be expressed somewhere, sometime. The laws of physical science dictate nothing less. And it will, in turn, hit the Australian and World economy hard. Those economic rationalists among us should heed the reminder that these latest natural events have delivered. <i><span style="font-style:normal">Avoided global heating is avoided cost</span> </i>(with the worst-case scenarios being incalculable). For the general populace’s opinion on climate change, what will the latest events do? I can’t be sure of course, but I suspect that it will, in many, awaken within them a deep-seated horror — <i>“</i><b>.</b><i><span style="font-style:normal">..this could happen to me</span></i>”. This personal demon, fed by the graphic reporting we now get on such events, might well do more than anything else to catalyse a community consensus for real, effective and urgent action to eliminate fossil fuels.” [15, 16].</p> <p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">17. Ellen Sandell</span></b><i><b> </b>(</i><i><span style="font-style:normal">national director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and joint Banksia young environmentalist of the year in 2009</span></i>) re the Queensland flood disaster:<i> </i><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">“</span>We know that any one single extreme weather event cannot be attributed just to climate change. But we can look at the climate models and predictions, which all say that in a climate-changed world extreme weather events will become more frequent and intense. The La Niña phenomenon, the major cause of the increased rain in south-east Queensland, gets stronger as sea surface temperatures increase. Warmer air also holds more water than colder air, and this water eventually has to come down somewhere. Hence increased rain and floods…I don't want to live in the kind of world we are previewing right now. We need fundamental change, and it starts with a price on pollution that rids our economy of polluting energy and creates clean energy instead. It starts with increased funding for healthy, renewable energy. It starts with a serious commitment from all political parties to do what is right and significantly reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.I hope some good can come out of this tragedy, and that we use it to have the conversation about what we are going to do this year to make these solutions a reality.” [17].</p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>18. Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library </b>(that provides carefully researched infomation to members of the Australian Federal Parliament) : “</span>Are extreme weather events—severe storms, flooding, droughts, heat waves or extremely violent cyclones—becoming more common? The answer appears to be 'yes'. Trends towards more powerful storms and hotter, longer dry periods have been observed, according to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, and this trend is projected to continue.<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">” [18].</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>19. Professor John Holdren</b> (</span>Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; Director of the Woods Hole Research Center; recent Chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and President Obama’s chief scientific adviser<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">) on climatic disruption (2008): “”Incidence of floods is up almost everywhere…(figure: Major floods per decade 1950-2000; number of events per decade on a 0 to 350 scale plotted by decade) …There’s a consistent 50-year upward trend in every region except Oceania” [note: data source Milennium Ecosystem Assessment; histograms show that 2000s/1950s ratio about 10 (Americas), 4 (Europe), 10 (Africa), 6.5 (Asia); not shown, Fiji suffered its worst floods in decades in January 2009 with 11 dead and 9,000 evacuated]. [19].</span></p> <p><b>20. GRID-Arendal (a collaborating centre of the United Nations Environment Programme ,UNEP):</b> “<b><span style="font-weight:normal">Number of flood events by continent and decade since 1950</span></b>. Roughly 17% of all the urban land in the United States is located in the 100-year flood zone. Likewise, in Japan about 50% of the population lives on floodplains, which cover only 10% of the land area. In Bangladesh, the percentage of floodprone areas is much higher and inundation of more than half of the country is not uncommon.”<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> [note: data source Milennium Ecosystem Assessment; histograms show that 2000s/1950s ratio about 10 (Americas), 4 (Europe), 10 (Africa), 6.5 (Asia)]. [20].</span></p> <p><b>21. GRID-Arendal (a collaborating centre of the United Nations Environment Programme ,UNEP):</b> <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">“ </span><b><span style="font-weight:normal">Number of Disasters per Year</span></b>. Trends in number of reported disasters. Much of the increase in the number of hazardous events reported is probably due to significant improvements in information access and also to population growth, but the number of floods and cyclones reported is still rising compared to earthquakes. Is global warming affecting the frequency of natural hazards? (Sources CRED Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2006, 2007) [note: Figure shows that floods increased 6 fold from 1980 to 2007 whereas earthquakes scarcely increased at all). [21].</p> <p><b>22. Professor Vicky Pope </b>(head of climate change advice at the Met Office, UK) explains how a warmer world is a wetter world (2011): "As the average global temperature increases one would expect the moisture content of the atmosphere to rise, due to more evaporation from the sea surface. For every 1C sea surface temperature rise, atmospheric moisture over the oceans increases by 6-8%. Also in general, as more energy and moisture is put into the atmosphere [by warming], the likelihood of storms, hurricanes and tornadoes increases." [22].</p> <p><b>23. Australian CSIRO-Bureau of Meteorology report “The State of the Climate” (2010).</b> The present Australian floods have been caused by the current La Niña phenomenon but have occurred in the context of an increase in sea surface temperature due to man-made global warming. Thus the Australian CSIRO-Bureau of Meteorology report “The State of the Climate” (2010) states that “Sea surface temperatures around Australia have increased by about 0.4<sup>o</sup>C in the past 50 years… Australian average temperatures are projected t rise buy 0.6<sup>o</sup>C to 1.5<sup>o</sup>C by 2030. If global greenhouse emissions continue to grow at rates consistent with past trends, warming is projected to be in the range of 2.2<sup>o</sup>C to 5.0<sup>o</sup>C by 2070… there is a greater than 90% certainty that increase in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has found that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia.” [23]. </p> <p><b>24. Phillip Sutton (convenor of the Climate Emergency Network (CEN) and author with David Spratt of “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action”</b>: <a href="http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered">http://www.scribepublications.com.au/book/climatecodered</a> ) has commented thus on the Queensland flood disaster and man-made global warming on behalf of CEN: “<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">“The Climate Emergency Network is calling on the Australian Federal and State governments to heed the message of the current disastrous Queensland floods and commit to urgent and effective action to end the plunge into catastrophic climate change and to restore a safe climate. Failure to do so will lead to a future of even more extreme floods, droughts and bushfires, occurring more often. Australia’s weather has always been highly variable but climate change is exaggerating the extremes. Hot weather is becoming hotter and dry weather is becoming drier. More water is taken from the land and sea into the atmosphere, so that when it does rain, it rains harder. It’s time for Australian politicians, and the public, to stop ignoring the undeniable evidence and to join the dots. Climate change is not the sole cause of these events but it is certainly increasing their devastating effects. For several decades extreme weather events have become more common and more intense – exactly as climate scientists predicted. And now across the world communities are suffering not just extreme but catastrophic weather-driven disasters. And what is really scary is that this is all happening with a global temperature increase of less than 1°C. World leaders have agreed to limit climate change to an increase of 2 degrees but have failed to take action that can achieve even that. It is generally acknowledged that the world is currently on track to an increase of at least 4 degrees, unless strong action is taken. We are facing a climate emergency now with a warming of less than 1°C and emergency action needs to be taken without further delay to cool the earth. To cool the earth we need to stop adding greenhouse gases to the air and we need to take the excess carbon dioxide out of the air. </span>Such action will have to be taken urgently, on a national and global scale.” [24].</p> <p><b>25. Professor Matthew England</b> (Climate Change Research Center, University of New South Wales, Sydney): "I think people will end up concluding that at least some of the intensity of the monsoon in Queensland can be attributed to climate change. The waters off Australia are the warmest ever measured and those waters provide moisture to the atmosphere for the Queensland and northern Australia monsoon.” [25]. (cf. #15).</p> <p><b>26. Dr David Jones</b> (head of climate monitoring and prediction, Australia Bureau of Meteorology, <span> </span>Melbourne): "We've always had El Ninos and we've had natural variability but the background which is now operating is different,. The first thing we can say with La Nina and El Nino is it is now happening in a hotter world…So the El Nino droughts would be expected to be exacerbated and also La Nina floods because rainfall would be exacerbated [more evaporation, more atmospheric moisture]." [25].</p> <p><b>27. Dr Kevin Trenberth </b>(head, Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA.): “The rapid onset of La Nina meant the Asian monsoon was enhanced and the over 1 degree Celsius anomalies in sea surface temperatures led to the flooding in India and China in July and Pakistan in August…[ about 0.5C of 1.5C above pre-1970 levels <span> </span>attributed to global warming]… The extra water vapor fuels the monsoon and thus alters the winds and the monsoon itself and so this likely increases the rainfall further. So it is easy to argue that 1 degree Celsius sea surface temperature anomalies gives 10 to 15 percent increase in rainfall." [25].</p> <p><b>28. Professor Neville Nicholls</b> (Monash University, Melbourne, <span> </span>president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society): "It's a natural phenomena. We have no strong reason at the moment for saying this La Nina is any stronger than it would be even without humans. It [atmospheric warming of about 0.75C over the past half century] has to be affecting the climate, regionally and globally. It has to be affecting things like La Nina. But can you find a credible argument which says it's made it worse? I can't at the moment." [25]. (cf # 12).</p> <p><b>29. Dr. Kevin Trenberth</b> (head, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA): I find it systematically tends to get underplayed and it often gets underplayed by my fellow scientists. Because one of the opening statements, which I’m sure you’ve probably heard is “Well you can’t attribute a single event to climate change.” But there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future." [26].</p> <p><b>30. Dr Debbie Abbs</b> (climate scientist, <span> </span>CSIRO Atmospheric Research, <span> </span>Melbourne): "Global climate models simulate rainfall over areas as wide as 200 kilometres. Extreme rainfall over small areas is much more than that found over large areas where results are averaged out. This means there is a need to provide extreme rainfall scenarios at regional scales so projected climate change can be factored into major infrastructure projects that are being designed to last for decades to come… [high-resolution model to focus the results from CSIRO's Global climate model down to 7.5 kilometre-wide areas over southern Queensland and northern New South Wales]… "The most extreme rainfall events we currently experience become more frequent in 2040, with the 1-in-40 year event of today corresponding with a 1-in-15 year event in future. The areas of greatest increase in intensity occur over mountainous terrain, inland from Coffs Harbour, Coolangatta and north of Brisbane… [26% increase in flooding leads to a 60% increase in damage costs]…. With projected increases in the intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation events, the community's exposure to extreme rainfall events is growing rapidly." [27].</p> <p><b>31. Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) (2011):</b> “"Recent scientific advice to the Queensland Government warned that the state would be threatened by higher flood levels from intense torrential downpours brought on by climate change. In 2010 the Scientific Advisory Group to the Queensland Government’s Inland Flooding Study advised that “an increase in rainfall intensity is likely” and “the available scientific literature indicates this increased rainfall intensity to be in the range of 3–10 per cent per degree of global warming”. [28].</p> <p><b>32. Professor David Karoly</b> (Melbourne School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne) (2011): <span> </span>''Australia has been known for more than 100 years as a land of droughts and flooding rains, but what climate change means is Australia becomes a land of more droughts and worse flooding rains…[ individual events could not be attributed to climate change]…on <span> </span>some measures it's the strongest La Nina in recorded history … [but] we also have record-high ocean temperatures in northern Australia which means more moisture evaporating into the air. that means lots of heavy rain…in Victoria we had heavy rainfall but the run-off hasn't been as high because after 10 years of drought the ground wasn't as saturated.” [29].</p> <p><b>33. Dr David Jones</b> (climate analyst, Bureau of Meteorology (2011) on current floods (Australia; Brazil 500 dead, 2,700 lost houses; Philippines, 42 dead, 400,000 displaced; Sri Lanka, 23 dead, <span> </span>325,000 displaced) : "There is definitely a link between our weather and eastern Brazil's. La Niña sets the atmosphere up for floods. It doesn't mean you get them, but certainly it makes the floods more likely, both in eastern Australia and in the north-east of Brazil where we do see usually above average rainfall during La Niña events…[US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 2010 was the wettest ever recorded on the planet]… That tells you the hydrological cycle is very, very active at the moment. We've seen a lot of evaporation, we've seen a lot of rainfall around the planet and as best as we can tell, the highest rainfall on record. It was also the hottest year on record, 2010. At a whole range of different levels there's certainly drivers which would support this view that the world is seeing a lot of extreme weather at the moment." [30].</p><p> </p><p><b>34. Professor Ed Blakely </b>(disaster expert, <span> </span>professor of urban policy, US Studies Centre, Sydney University) <span> </span>re Queensland floods: “''We shouldn't regard this [flood] as freakish…should assume they [such disasters] are going to occur because of climate change. They are becoming increasingly frequent and far more devastating… [examine need of Queenslanders to] retreat from the coast… It will take 60-75 years, so we have got to start now. It's very important for us to see not just this incident but the long-term trend and learn from it and plan for it. I <span> </span>warned people in Brisbane before hurricane Katrina that this could happen. I had all the CSIRO data that showed a flood that looked very much like the flood that happened. They scoffed.'' [31]. </p> <p><b>35. Dr Andrew Glikson</b> (former Principal Research Scientist, Australian Geological Survey Organization, Earth and paleoclimate scientist. School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science, Planetary Science Institute, Australian National University) on Queensland floods [noting according to the report, that<b> </b>climate scientists were careful never to point to a single event as evidence of climate change but to examine medium and long-term trends<b>] : “</b>'Cyclones have increased twofold over the past 20 years. Floods have increased threefold. It's happening now, and it's happening faster than some of the climate-change scientists have dared to predict” [31].</p> <p><b>36. William Cosgrove</b> (vice president, World Water Council), 3rd World Water Forum, 2003: "Extreme weather records are [already] being broken every year and the resulting hydro-meteorological disasters claim thousands of lives and disrupt national economies," said of the Marseille-based think tank made up of users and suppliers of water for social and economic development. The big problem is that most countries aren't ready to deal adequately with the severe natural disasters that we get now, a situation that will become much worse as storms and droughts become more pervasive. Ignoring the problem is no longer an option… The increasing incidence of extreme events provides a convincing argument to continue looking into building partnerships between science, water managers and the disaster preparedness communities, including the development and dissemination of capacity development packages and methodologies. It is telling that disaster reduction has been recognized since 2000 an issue central to poverty reduction. ” [32, 33].</p> <p><b>37. World Water Council</b> press release from the 3rd World Water Forum re climate change, droughts and floods (February 2003): “Economic loses from weather and flood catastrophes have increased ten-fold over the past 50 years, partially the result of rapid climate changes, the World Water Council (WWC) says. These rapid climate changes are seen in more intense rainy seasons, longer dry seasons, stronger storms, shifts in rainfall and rising sea levels,. More disastrous floods and droughts have been the most visible manifestations of these changes. From 1971 to 1995, floods affected more than 1.5 billion people worldwide, or 100 million people per year, according to experts. This total includes 318,000 killed, and more than 81 million left homeless. Major floods that left at least 1,000 people dead and caused $1 billion in damages per episode have been the most destructive… According to climate experts, the expected climatic change during the 21st century will further intensify the hydrological cycle – with rainy seasons becoming shorter and more intense in some regions, while droughts in other areas will grow longer in duration, which could endanger species and crops and lead to drops in food production globally. Evidence for the link between climate change and increasing climate variability is mounting rapidly. For example, scientific research has linked the recent droughts in the USA and Afghanistan to the effects of global warming… These climate disasters stemming from climate variability include: Floods [and Droughts] - <span> </span>Based on data for ther period 1950 to 1998, the number of major flood disasters has grown considerably world-wide from decade to decade – six cases in the 1950s, seven in the 1960s, eight in the 1970s, 18 in the 1980s, and 26 in the 1990s. The number of significant flood disasters in the 1990s was higher than in the three previous decades combined. Overall, global precipitation is estimated to have increased by about two percent since 1900, though not on a uniform basis. This disparity in new rainfall caused some places to become wetter and others<span> </span>to get drier, such as North Africa south of the Sahara. In the most calamitous storm surge, the flood in Bangladesh in April 1991 killed 141,000 people. Two floods in China, one in 1996 and the second in 1998, caused the highest material losses of the decade, of the order of $30 billion and $26.5 billion, respectively. Floods also destroy the hard-won economic advances that many in the the deveklo0jg world have accomplished, such as the Mozambique floods of 2000, which left nearly 1 million homeless, and Hurricane Mitch in Central America [1998]. Comparing the economic impacts of the 2000 flood in Mozambique with the 2002 flood in Central Europe clearly illustrates the disparity in how national economies are impacted by extreme events. The cost of damages reflects the income levels of the countries. According to officials at the World Bank, the Mozambique flood resulted in a 45 percent drop in GDP in 2000, whereas in Germany, the 2002 flood is estimated to have caused less than a one percent drop in GDP…Hurricane Mitch [1998] killed 11,000 people, with thousands of others missing. More than 3 million people were either homeless or severely affected. In this extremely poor regions, estimates of the total damage from the storm surpassed $5 billion. The President of Honduras, Carlos Flores Facusse, claimed the storm destroyed 50 years of progress. As far as the geographic distribution odf the worst floods, the majority occurred in Asian countries … In addition, the impact of floods has had increasingly detrimental and disruptive effects on human health. In flooded areas, some diseases such as diarrhea, which kills 2.2 million children under th4 age of five per year, or leptospirosis (a systemic infection that can lead to meningitis and hemorrhagic jaundice) spread more rapidly… Many countries in Africa have been suffering from unprecedented droughts that may signal widespread climate change … Sea level rise is a concern in coastal and low-lying areas, including small islands. In addition to coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers present a threat to water supplies. The average global sea level rise from 1900 to the year 2100 is expected to be 0.48 meters (19 inches), between twice and four times the rate of rise over the 20th century. The main effect on humans will be to confront extreme events such as storm surges. Areas of greatest danger include Small islands in the Pacific, mainly the Atolls; Coastal low-lying countries like Bangladesh and the Netherlands; Coastal mega-cities like Tokyo, Lagos, Beuenos Aires and New York.” [32, 33]. </p> <p><b>38. Hideaki Oda </b>(director of the secretariat of the 3rd World Water Forum) (2003): “Devastating floods seem to be getting worse. In 2002, many floods ravaged part so ft he world, especially in Asia and Europe. More than 4,200 people in the world died as a result of flooding, and more than 16 million people have been affected by floods in that year .” [32, 33].</p> <p><b>39. Greens leader and Senator Dr Bob Brown</b> in demanding that the <span> </span>Federal Government should impose the original version of the Resources Super Profits Tax, and use the funds to pay for the floods clean-up: “It's the single biggest cause - burning coal - for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now. We know that the oceans around Australia are at record high temperatures, and that's causing the moisture in the air which is leading to these catastrophic floods. It is costing billions of dollars, besides the pain, the anguish, the loss of life, the destruction and it should not be left to ordinary taxpayers to bear the full brunt of that." [34]. </p> <p><b>40. The Age, Melbourne</b> (arguably the most progressive of Australia’s mainstream media), in an Editorial on man-made climate change and the Queensland and Eastern Australia flood disaster (2011): “Calls have begun for the Queensland government to conduct a royal commission into the floods, similar in scope to Victoria's Bushfires Royal Commission. The Victorian inquiry examined the circumstances of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, including the impact of climate change. Climate scientists were disappointed its report did not sufficiently emphasise the unique weather contributing to the disaster. Victoria had never had three consecutive days above 42 degrees until January 2009, when there were three above 43 degrees. The heatwave is believed to be responsible for 500 deaths in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, but was largely forgotten after the tragic fires… Australian weather is believed to be particularly sensitive to climate change. Like Victoria's fires, floods are part of a natural cycle. La Nina, the periodic oceanic cooling phenomenon, is far more directly to blame for the weather Australia is now experiencing. But it would be shortsighted not to take into account the role of global warming in these catastrophes. Professor David Karoly, from Melbourne University's School of Earth Sciences, says while individual events cannot be attributed to climate change, the extreme weather patterns are in line with scientific predictions that a warmer world will mean more severe droughts, more fires and flooding rains… So far, our political leaders have postponed making difficult decisions about the need to tackle climate change - such as setting a carbon price - because of fears they will be punished by a sceptical electorate. A great effort is required, with no immediate return guaranteed. More investment and better planning are necessary (in public transport, in alternative forms of energy and to compensate low-income earners when energy prices rise) to take into account the effects of drought, floods and rising sea levels. The band of environmentally aware voters is growing; the major parties can make gains by tackling their legitimate concerns.” [35].<br /></p><p> </p><p><b>41. Professor Will Steffen</b> (a member of the climate change and carbon pricing committee set up by the Gillard government in September 2010 and who is working on a report about the floods) stated: “"We are getting more intense rainfall events as the earth warms, but it's difficult to pin down any individual event. Rainfall events like the type we've seen in Queensland are becoming more likely as the earth warms. There is a long-term warming trend with or without La Nina…We've now got a problem on our hands [re increasing burning of fossil fuels]." [36]</p> <p><b>42. Chris Cocklin</b> (environmental scientist, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland) re La Nina. Climate change and the Queensland floods (2011): “You've got to be very careful about saying that ... the intensity of La Nina ... is a product of climate change. But more intense weather patterns is certainly one of the strong predictions of climate science. If you look at one of the significant predictions throughout many parts of Australia - it's that rainfall will become more intensified. So all of that will add up to patterns that we have got to get used to." [37].</p> <p><b>43. Clem Davis</b> ( former weather bureau meteorologist, visiting fellow at Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University) re la Nina, Queensland floods and climate change (2011): “It's the strongest La Nina episode since 1974, when Brisbane flooded the last time. It is probably within the top five events over ... 130 years of records. You've got natural variability and you've got what global warming may be impacting… The records aren't long enough [in Australia back to 1876] , so it's hard to see which is impacting on the other. [That's why] researchers are looking at paleoclimate records to see what the cycles may have been in the past." [37].</p> <p><b>44. <span>Long Cao</span>, <span>Govindasamy Bala, </span><span> </span><span>Ken Caldeira</span>, <span>Ramakrishna Nemani</span>, and </b><span><b>George Ban-Weiss</b> on the importance of carbon dioxide physiological forcing to future climate change (at doubled CO2 a total 15% increase in precipitation run-off due to increased precipitation <span> </span>due to increased CO2 plus reduced transpiration from decreased plant leaf stomatal aperture) (2010): “</span>An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) concentration influences climate both directly through its radiative effect (i.e., trapping longwave radiation) and indirectly through its physiological effect (i.e., reducing transpiration of land plants). Here we compare the climate response to radiative and physiological effects of increased CO<sub>2</sub> using the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) coupled Community Land and Community Atmosphere Model. In response to a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub>, the radiative effect of CO<sub>2</sub> causes mean surface air temperature over land to increase by 2.86 ± 0.02 K (± 1 standard error), whereas the physiological effects of CO<sub>2</sub> on land plants alone causes air temperature over land to increase by 0.42 ± 0.02 K. Combined, these two effects cause a land surface warming of 3.33 ± 0.03 K. The radiative effect of doubling CO<sub>2</sub> increases global runoff by 5.2 ± 0.6%, primarily by increasing precipitation over the continents. The physiological effect increases runoff by 8.4 ± 0.6%, primarily by diminishing evapotranspiration from the continents. Combined, these two effects cause a 14.9 ± 0.7% increase in runoff. Relative humidity remains roughly constant in response to CO<sub>2</sub>-radiative forcing, whereas relative humidity over land decreases in response to CO<sub>2</sub>-physiological forcing as a result of reduced plant transpiration. Our study points to an emerging consensus that the physiological effects of increasing atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> on land plants will increase global warming beyond that caused by the radiative effects of CO<sub>2</sub>.<span>” [38].</span></p> <p><b><span>45. </span></b><span><b>Dr Richard Betts</b> (the Met Office, UK; he and his colleagues have modelled the effect of plants opening leaf <span> </span>stomata less widely when CO2 is high, losing less water and hence causing increased run-off): <span> </span>"It's a double-edged sword; it means that increases in drought due to climate change could be less severe as plants lose less water. On the other hand, if the land is saturated more often, you might expect that intense rainfall events are more likely to cause flooding." [39].</span></p> <p><b><span>46. Richard</span> A. Betts, Olivier Boucher, Matthew Collins, Peter M. Cox, Peter D. Falloon, Nicola Gedney, Deborah L. Hemming, Chris Huntingford, Chris D. Jones, David M. H. Sexton & Mark J. Webb</b> (Met Office Hadley Centre and other institutions) on projected increase in continental runoff due to plant responses to increasing carbon dioxide (2007): “In addition to influencing climatic conditions directly through radiative forcing, increasing carbon dioxide concentration influences the climate system through its effects on plant physiology<sup><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7157/full/nature06045.html#B1" rel="nofollow">1</a></sup>. Plant stomata generally open less widely under increased carbon dioxide concentration<sup><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7157/full/nature06045.html#B2" rel="nofollow">2</a></sup>, which reduces transpiration and thus leaves more water at the land surface<sup><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7157/full/nature06045.html#B7" rel="nofollow">7</a></sup>. This driver of change in the climate system, which we term 'physiological forcing', has been detected in observational records of increasing average continental runoff over the twentieth century<sup><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7157/full/nature06045.html#B8" rel="nofollow">8</a></sup>. Here we use an ensemble of experiments with a global climate model that includes a vegetation component to assess the contribution of physiological forcing to future changes in continental runoff, in the context of uncertainties in future precipitation. We find that the physiological effect of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations on plant transpiration increases simulated global mean runoff by 6 per cent relative to pre-industrial levels; an increase that is comparable to that simulated in response to radiatively forced climate change (11 <img alt="plusminus" src="javascript:void(0);" style="border-style:none;border-width:0pt;vertical-align:baseline" height="7" border="0" width="7" /> 6 per cent). Assessments of the effect of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations on the hydrological cycle that only consider radiative forcing will therefore tend to underestimate future increases in runoff and overestimate decreases. This suggests that freshwater resources may be less limited than previously assumed under scenarios of future global warming, although there is still an increased risk of drought. Moreover, our results highlight that the practice of assessing the climate-forcing potential of all greenhouse gases in terms of their radiative forcing potential relative to carbon dioxide does not accurately reflect the relative effects of different greenhouse gases on freshwater resources.” [40].</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>47. IPCC (2001)</b>: “</span>The most widespread direct risk to human settlements from climate change is flooding and landslides, driven by projected increases in rainfall intensity and, in coastal areas, sea-level rise. Riverine and coastal settlements are particularly at risk (high confidence<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/Footnote" rel="nofollow"><sup><span style="font-size:10pt">6</span></sup></a>), but urban flooding could be a problem anywhere that storm drains, water supply, and waste management systems have inadequate capacity. In such areas, squatter and other informal urban settlements with high population density, poor shelter, little or no access to resources such as safe water and public health services, and low adaptive capacity are highly vulnerable. Human settlements currently experience other significant environmental problems which could be exacerbated under higher temperature/increased precipitation regimes, including water and energy resources and infrastructure, waste treatment, and transportation.<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">” [41]. </span></p> <p><b>48. Global Greenhouse Warming.com</b> on climate and floods: "Meteorologic floods are by far the most common of the types of floods in the human experience, affecting parts of the globe every year. Such floods can bring good, such as the fertile soils formerly brought to the Nile Delta by annual flooding. However, large floods are mostly known for their catastrophic loss of life and property, such as in China and Bangladesh which repeatedly devastated by floods - Bangladesh lost 300,000 people in November 1970 and more than 130,000 in April 1991, from cyclone-induced flooding, and the massive flooding of the Yangtze River in China in 1931 caused more than 3 million deaths with a further 2 million in 1959 from flooding and starvation. …By 2025, half the world's population will be living in areas that are at risk from storms and other weather extremes," the World Water Council said, citing evidence gathered by U.N. and other experts. The economic cost of changes in climate and floods will be huge, especially for poor countries that are likely to bear the brunt of these events. The phrase Climate and Floods is something we will hear more of in the years ahead.”[42].</p> <p><b>49. Dr James Hansen</b> (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; member of the prestigious<span> </span>US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science; adjunct professor, 75-Nobel-Laureate Columbia University) on climate change and extreme floods in “Storms of My Grandchildren” (2009): “A warming atmosphere causes greater desiccation, but at other times and places it can deliver heavier rain and cause larger floods… Increased warming’s greatest impact on storms will occur through its influence on atmospheric water vapor. The amount of <span> </span>water vapor that the air can hold is a strong function of temperature. <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The fact that atmospheric water vapor increases rapidly with only a small temperature rise is the basis for the runaway greenhouse effect. But the storms of our grandchildren will begin long before the planet approaches the runaway greenhouse effect… Latent heat is the energy that water vapor acquires when it evaporates from the liquid state or sublimates from ice. To evaporate water requires a lot of energy – more than 500 calories per gram of water at normal atmospheric pressure – which is needed to break the strong forces of attraction [hydrogen bonds] between water molecules <span> </span>When the water vapor condenses, that latent energy is released as heat that is potentially available to fuel a storm … Because a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor and thus has greater latent heat, the strength of the strongest <span> </span>storms will increase as global warming increases. The greater moisture content of the air also increases the amount of rainfall and the magnitude of floods. Already, as we’ve seen, <span> </span>many places around the world have experienced an unnatural increase of “hundred-year” floods, which are occurring more often than their names would imply. In some places the effect of increased rainfall amounts is exacerbated by deforestation or other human activities that reduce the ability of the surface to retain water.” [43].</span></p><p> </p><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">50. </span>Julian C. R. Hunt Department of Earth Sciences, UCL, UK) , Mark Maslin (Environment Institute, UCL, UK), Peter Backlund (National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA), Tim Killeen (National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA) and H. John Schellnhuber (Potsdam Institute for Klimatology, Potsdam, Germany) </b>on urban threat from and contribution to extreme weather events (2007): “In 2005, 50% of the world’s population lived in cities consuming over 75% of the world’s energy use; as human development (as measured by the UN index) energy use will increase faster than the increase in population. By 2030, it is predicted that over 60% of the world’s population will live in cities with this percentage continuing to rise to the end of the century. Urban areas are particularly vulnerable to the effects of global; warming, particularly extreme weather events such as floods, storm surges, drought and heat waves (Stern et al. 2006; IPCC 2007), For example, <span> </span>it is estimated that the 2003 heat wave in Europe killed as many as 35,000 people. With modern urban lifestyles citi4s are consuming ever more power, which is still largely generated by fossil fuel combustion; the main uses are heating or air conditioning homes and buildings and powering vehicles, with industry in cities now taking a relatively small proportion. In fact cities discharge an amount of heat comparable to that received from solar radiation. Inevitably they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and also from waste disposal management practices. As rapidly growing cities are clearing forests and vegetated areas, they are reducing the surface absorption of greenhouse gases and thereby further increasing their concentration in the atmosphere. Therefore, cities <span> </span>have special responsibilities both to their own citizens and to everyone else to mitigate future climate change, at the same time helping their communities to adapt to the growing seriousness of the consequences for people’s heath and welfare. Since the planning of such policies is complex as well as politically difficult, decision makers responsible for the future of cities require the best expert knowledge available. Hence the importance and timeliness of the papers in this special issue, which are a selection from those presented at a conference held at University College London [UCL] in April 2006.” <span> </span>[44].</p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><b>51. Professor David de Kretser (Governor of Victoria, Australia, and eminent IVF scientist)</b> interviewed about the devastating Victorian floods coming 2 years after the January 2009 heat wave that killed 374 Victorians and the 7 February 2009 Black Saturday bushfires that killed 173 Victorians): </span>"I'm sorry, I'm one of these believers in climate change I'm afraid and if its doesn't get that message out I don't think its going to go away. There's too many of these events, not only in Australia but throughout the whole world that are happening now, which everyone says this week (is a) one in 100, one in 200 years (event) but they are happening pretty much more frequently now.'' [45, 46].</p><p> </p><p><b>52. Elizabeth Farrelly </b>(Sydney Morning Herald columnist, author and architect) re responses to the Queensland floods (2011): "To blame Bob Brown [for blaming man-made global warming for extreme floods] is to shoot the messenger. As we ache for Queensland's losses and rightly look to recovery, we must also heed the cataclysm's larger lesson... Global energy demand is about 13 terawatts (a terawatt is a trillion watts; a watt is a joule per second). Eighty per cent of this is fossil-derived. For civilisation to survive, a California Institute of Technology chemist, Nathan Lewis, calculates, 90 per cent must be carbon-free by 2050. To do it with nuclear power would mean building a reactor every two days for the next four decades. Yet if we don't do it, melting ice caps will be the least of our worries. Melting the permafrost, with its vast reserves of carbon dioxide and methane, will turn global warming, and its weather extremes, exponential...The sun pours 120,000 terawatts of energy onto Earth; 10,000 times what we need. With solar technology only 10 per cent efficient, calculates Lewis (and efficiencies now are often 15 per cent or higher), the entire energy needs of the US could be generated from a 400-kilometre square of Earth's crust...Melbourne University's Zero Carbon Australia plan insists that, using only wind, solar, biomass and hydro, we could be carbon-free by 2020. Crazy not to try. Don't blame Bob Brown. This is Gaia's lesson. Children, learn your cataclysm!" [47].</p><p><b>53. Adam Bandt</b> (Australian Federal Greens MP) has backed yesterday's comments from the Victorian Governor (see #51) on the relationship between climate change and flooding and has said Premier Baillieu is being irresponsible in denying the link: "The immediate task is to ensure the safety and welfare of Victorians affected by the floods. But this should not prevent us from having a discussion about the impact of climate change and the likelihood of these extreme events recurring, Scientists have been warning for some time that global warming would lead to more extreme weather events including more intense and widespread flooding. Increased ocean temperatures lead to more moisture in the atmosphere and more energy in the storms. This is basic physics."All the Governor was doing was pointing out the facts. If we don't want more of these disasters to become regular events, we have to take urgent action to combat climate change. Here in Melbourne there are reports of advice to Melbourne Water that we face an increased in area of flooding of up to 25% because of climate change.Ted Baillieu is being irresponsible in denying the link between climate change and extreme weather. And the Premier's assertion that engineers managed to set levees at the appropriate height have been proven to be untrue on the Loddon River.If he doesn't understand the climate problem he needs to get properly briefed because we will be facing this for a long time to come. He also needs to tell Victorians what he is going to do to both cut Victoria's carbon pollution and prepare for rising sea levels and more extreme weather including bushfires and heatwaves as well as floods." [48].<br /></p><p><i style="font-weight:bold"><span style="font-style:normal">54. </span></i><span style="font-weight:bold">Ewan Saunders</span>, Socialist Alliance Queensland co-convenor, <span> </span>January 4. <i><span style="font-style:normal">“</span></i>The latest flood crisis in Queensland underlines the urgent need for serious action on climate change. This flood disaster is the greatest for decades, now covering an area bigger than all of NSW, and affecting more than 200,000 people. The repair bill will amount to billions of dollars. Worse still is the suffering of the people of this state, and the loss of irreplaceable belongings, heritage and livelihoods.While floods are periodic natural occurrences here and throughout Australia, the size and severity of this flood exceeds any on record in recent times. Why? There is ample evidence that the wild swings in weather we have experienced in Australia lately are linked to worldwide, human-caused climate change. How can it be an accident of nature that Queensland's most devastating floods closely follow on the worst bush fires in Victorian history near Melbourne in February 2009. Yet, the elephant in the room -- climate change -- is rarely mentioned in official reports of these events. The recent findings of the Royal Commission into the Victorian bush fires failed to mention climate change as a factor in the disaster, which cost nearly 200 lives. Climate change is causing a noticeable rise in overall ocean temperatures and levels. This will undoubtedly contribute to even worse flood disasters in future, in Australia and elsewhere. Far from being sheltered from the worst effects of climate change, Australia will be one of the countries most seriously hit -- by both fire and flood. Our governments need to heed the message, and take radical action to tackle climate change -- by rapidly phasing out reliance on coal, and urgently changing to renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal. Moreover, federal and state governments need to urgently expand and co-ordinate national emergency action to combat fire and flood by creating a National Emergency Rapid Response Council, combining firefighting, SES, medical, police and military forces, under the control of expert officials elected by workers and volunteers in the various fields. In this way, the vast good will and energies of the dedicated people who staff our disaster relief agencies can be best mobilised to confront this growing threat to our society.<i><span style="font-style:normal">” [49].</span></i></p> <p><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">55. Don Henry</span>, executive director, Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF): “It’s right for the government to help people rebuild after these devastating floods, but it should use fossil fuel subsidies [circa $10 billion pa] to fund the work. There are a number of tax breaks and concessions that drain the Federal Budget, while promoting fossil fuel use and greenhouse pollution. The largest of these fossil fuel subsidies is the Fuel Tax Credits program, which costs taxpayers more than $5 billion a year, the vast majority of which goes to mining companies as credits for use of diesel fuel. Another is the Fringe Benefits Tax concession for personal use of company cars, which is set up so that if you drive a company car, the benefits increase the more you drive it and the more you pollute the atmosphere. US President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address this week, made a commitment to fund the development of clean technology by ending $4 billion a year of tax subsidies to oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers. Australia should take a leaf out of Obama’s book. While no single extreme weather event can be directly attributed to climate change, this summer’s floods are entirely consistent with what climate scientists have been warning for decades. By cutting greenhouse pollution we can reduce the severity of extreme weather events and help protect our people and our economy.” [50]. </p> <p><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">56. Greens leader and senator Dr Bob Brown</span>: "coal barons [should be made to pay]… <span> </span>Burning coal is a major cause of global warming. This industry, which is 75 per cent owned outside Australia, should help pay the cost of the predicted more severe and more frequent floods, droughts and bushfires in coming decades. It is unfair that the cost is put on all taxpayers, not the culprits.” [51].</p> <p><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">57. Greens leader and senator Dr Bob Brown</span>: “After the hottest and wettest year in recorded history, the seas off northern Australia are also currently warmer than ever before. This heat has led to increased evaporation and so, rainfall. Sceptics and defenders of the coal industry may dispute this scientific data, but they don’t. Instead, they are arguing that there should be no debate – not, at least, until some undefined time in the future when the cataclysm has passed and its injuries are behind us. A week after the “inland tsunami” struck the Toowoomba region, with the flood crest having passed in Brisbane, and Rockhampton beginning to recover, Australia’s newspapers are now carrying letters expressing frustration at the absence of debate on the causes of the floods across the nation and, indeed, in Brazil, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Like the drought, heatwaves and bushfires, these floods are predictable calamities and worse is in store as the planet is heated by human actions. We may collectively choose to do nothing about the rapidly increasing of burning of coal, here and overseas, from coal being mined in Australia by wealthy corporations largely owned overseas. However, that choice should not be made without informed debate. If there is a later time better for this crucial debate to begin, let the critics name it.” [52].</p> <p><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">58. Dr Gideon Polya</span> re floods levy: “<span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt">Because of weather variability one cannot attribute a specific flood event to man-made global warming. However global warming has been associated with a 4- to 10-fold increase in floods since the 1950s. The floods will cost more than Gillard's measly $1.8 billion but pro-oil, pro-gas, pro-coal, pro-war, pro-Big Business Gillard won't make the greenhouse gas polluters pay for the disasters they are causing to ordinary Australians. It will only get worse (Google man-made climate change and floods)… [submitted] We should all contribute our fair share but since income directly relates to carbon pollution and hence impact on flood disasters, the rich should pay more. Further, as stated by the Greens, we need a disaster fund in the face of worsening climate change; stop wasting money on the Afghan War (Afghan Genocide); and tax the largely foreign-owned coal, gas and oil companies who have disproportionately contributed to the floods disaster through greenhouse gas pollution and consequent global warming.” [53].</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">59. Dr Gideon Polya</span> re Neil Mitchell interview with PM Gillard over levy: “A good, strong, polite interview by Neil Mitchell that could indeed have been stronger. Thus if we are looking for savings, pro-war PM Gillard spends about $1 billion annually on the unwinnable war in Afghanistan that is associated with 280,000 avoidable under-5 year old Afghan infant deaths annually (2.3 million since 2001) and 350 avoidable Australian opiate drug-related deaths annually due to US Alliance restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry (3,000 such Australian deaths since 2001). Value for money?... Some good ideas on how to pay for floods reconstruction: Ewan Saunders (Socialist Alliance) says stop wasting billions on the Afghan War and bring soldiers home to help with reconstruction; Don Henry (ACF) says abolish the circa $10 billion pa in<span> </span>fossil fuel subsidies; Senator Bob Brown (Greens)says tax the largely foreign owned coal companies who have contributed to the floods<span> </span>via global warming; and Senator Christine Milne (Greens) advocates a disaster relief fund to deal with disasters in the face of climate change.” [54].</span></p> <p><i><span style="font-style:normal"><span style="font-weight:bold">60. Gideon Polya</span>: “</span></i>Greens leader Bob Brown is essentially correct in alleging coal industry complicity in current flood disasters. We know that breathing in pollutants from the burning of coal, gas, oil and cigarettes is associated with lung disease (carbon fuel pollutants and smoking kill about 13,000 and 18,000 Australians, respectively, each year) but we cannot prove that a specific case of lung cancer is due to any of these causes. Similarly, while human-made global warming has been associated with a huge increase in extreme flood events throughout the world, because the weather is variable one cannot attribute a particular event such as the La Nina-linked Queensland floods to climate change. However, the scientific message is that to minimise both deadly lung disease and extreme weather events such as the disastrous current floods we must stop burning coal, gas and oil and remove the resultant atmospheric pollution. Top climate scientists instruct that atmospheric CO2 must be urgently reduced to about 300 parts per million from the current dangerous 392 ppm for a safe planet for all people and all species.<i><span style="font-style:normal">” [55].</span></i></p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold">61. Greens acting leader, Senator Christine Milne</span>: “Helping to rebuild shattered communities left in the wake of these devastating floods is a top priority for Australians and the Greens firmly stand behind that goal. But it does a disservice to all those tragically affected by these floods - and all those whose lives will be thrown into turmoil by more floods, fires, storms and droughts in years to come - to keep insisting that these are one off events and ignore the role of climate change. It beggars belief that the government would choose to cut climate change programs like Solar Flagships, energy efficiency and the solar hot water rebate to fund disaster relief when such disasters will be made worse by climate change. We must recognise that less than 1C of global warming is making these human, economic and environmental disasters a part of life this century. We need to start planning now for the reality of climate change and redouble our efforts to return to a safe climate, not cut back on that effort. Contrary to speculation this morning by Saul Eslake, the Greens have had no discussions with the government about the proposed flood levy as yet, but we will be seeking to start those discussions as soon as possible. The Greens have proposed deferring the top end corporate tax cuts planned for July 1 2013, while keeping the cuts for small business. This would net the government around $1.7 billion in the forward estimates, protect low income earners and small businesses and enable the government to reverse its decision to cut critical climate programs. While we are open to the idea of a levy, the Greens see establishing a long-term, well-resourced disaster relief fund as a high priority in the face of climate change. Rebuilding in the wake of a climate-related disaster presents an opportunity to make sure new infrastructure is built with climate change in mind. This means building in resilience to worse disasters to come by reviewing planning laws and building standards as well as focussing on high efficiency, low emissions options like public transport and renewable energy infrastructure. Public funds from this levy or elsewhere should not be spent on more coal infrastructure that will only make the situation worse for all of us. The Greens' final position on the levy will be considered by the party room.” [56].</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">62. Bob Carr</span> (former Labor premier of New South Wales, Australia): “</span>My sympathies are extended to all the Australian families affected by these savage floods. But I want to push the debate on climate change because most of the sources I’ve consulted over the years have discussed more serious flooding as one of the accompaniments of global warming… <span>But savage floods are absolutely consistent with all that has been speculated about and predicted in the context of “mankind’s craziest experiment” of global warming.</span><span>” [57].</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold">63. </span><span><span style="font-weight:bold">Bill McKibben</span> (founder of 350.org) in the Preface to his book “Eaarth” (2010):</span> “<span>Much more quickly than we would have guessed in the late 1980s, global warming has dramatically altered, among many other things, hydrological cycles. One of the key facts of the twenty-first century turns out to be that warm air holds more water vapour than cold: in arid areas this means increased evaporation and hence drought. And once that water is in the atmosphere, it will come down, which in moist areas like Vermont means increased deluge and flood… [re increased precipitation] Not gentle rain but damaging gully washers: across the planet, flood damage is increasing by five pecent a year. Data show dramatic increases – 20 percent or more – on the most extreme weather events across the eastern United States, the kind of storms that drop many inches of rain in a single day. Vermont saw three flood emergencies in the 1960s, two in the 1970s, three in the 1980s – and ten in the 1990s and ten so far in the first decade of the new century</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">.</span><span>” [57, 58].</span></p> <p><span><span style="font-weight:bold">64. CSIRO</span> on man-made climate change and rainfall in Australia (2007): “The global climate has warmed by one degree on average since 1950. This trend is mirrored over all of <span> </span>Australia with the exception of the northwest corner. The global climate models find that this trend cannot be accounted for by natural variation. The global<span> </span>temperature trend is overwhelmingly attributed to greenhouse gases … [re SW Australian rainfall] Attribution studies of the changes suggest that natural variability, along with anthropogenic climate change caused by the Asian haze, are dominant causes with a possible contribution from land clearing as well. There is thus a signal that we are already seeing <span> </span>the consequences of anthropogenic climate change not just climate variability. A similar picture is beginning to emerge fro the rest of southern Australia as well… There is early evidence that the relationship between the SOI [Southern Oscillation<span> </span>Index] and Australian climate is changing. The tropical Pacific Ocean has warmed to historically unprecedented levels, and the SOI has dropped to unprecedented levels. There is some evidence that the amplitudes of rainfall variations have increased as a consequence… A feature of Australian hydrology is that it is more highly variable from year to year than on any other continent. The difference between a one year flood and a one in a hundred years flood is larger than anywhere else.” [59].</span></p> <p><span><span style="font-weight:bold">65. Dr James Hansen</span> in “Storms of My Grandchildren” (2010): “Global warming does increase the intensity of droughts and heat waves, and thus the area of forest fires. However, because a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour, global warming must also increase the intensity of the other extreme of the hydrological cycle – meaning heavier rains, more extreme floods, and more intense storms driven by latent heat, including thunderstorms, tornadoes, and tropical storms. I realized that I should have emphasized more strongly [in his 1988 testimony to a US Senate Committee] that both extremes increase with global warming.” [60].</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">67. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)</span>, 2006 (founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals; the AAAS journal Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of 1 million): “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now… In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations.” [62].</p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold">68. Omar Baddour</span> ( chief of climate data management applications at the Geneva <span> </span>headquarters of <span> </span>the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, WMO) on extreme floods and drought: "We will always have climate extremes. But it looks like climate change is exacerbating the intensity of the extremes. It is too early to point to a human fingerprint" behind individual weather events.” [63].</p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold">69. Professor Andrew Watson</span> (a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, UK): “[extreme events are] fairly consistent with the IPCC reports and what 99 per cent of the scientists believe to be happening. I'm quite sure that the increased frequency of these kind of summers over the last few decades is linked to climate change." [64].</p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold">70. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele </span>(vice-president of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) on Pakistan floods: “These are events which reproduce and intensify in a climate disturbed by greenhouse gas pollution. Extreme events are one of the ways in which climatic changes become dramatically visible.” [64].</p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold">71. Dr Peter Stott </span>(head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office) re Pakistan floods (saying it was impossible to attribute any one of these particular weather events to global warming alone): “ The odds of such extreme events are rapidly shortening and could become considered the norm by the middle of this century," [64].</p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold">72. Ghassem Asrar</span> (director of the World Climate Research Programme and the WMO) on Pakistan floods: “There's no doubt that clearly the climate change is contributing, a major contributing factor… [re China mudslides, Russian fires, Pakistan floods] The connecting factor is that clearly the warming is a driver for all these events.” [65].</p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold">73. </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">World Meteorological Organization (WMO)</span> re China mudslides, Russian fires, Pakistan floods: “The occurrence of all these events at almost the same time raises questions about their possible linkages to the predicted increase in intensity and frequency of extreme events, for example as stipulated in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007.” [65].</p><p>74. <b>Professor Peter Grace </b>(Global Change, <span> </span>Queensland University of Technology (QUT)) says greenhouse gases and global warning are contributing factors to extreme floods: "We will have an increased frequency of quite major events similar to what we had, particularly the flooding event in south-east Queensland. It means a bipartisan approach to climate change. Without that we are not going to go much further in terms of preparing ourselves for climate change in the future." [66].</p><p><b>75. Experts from the German Weather Service (DWD), the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), the Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW) and <span> </span>the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK)</b> called a joint press conference in Berlin on Tuesday 15 February 2011 to highlight the dangers climate change could pose to Germany and warned that, already living in a damp climate, Germans should expect a lot more precipitation (reported by The Local, Germany’s news in English. [67]<br /><br /><b>76. Paul Becker (vice president of the German Weather Service, DWD)</b> at a joint news conference of experts from the German Weather Service (DWD), the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), the Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW) and the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) (2011): “Particularly in coastal areas, the amount of (heavy rainfall and flooding) could double compared to the period between 1960 and 2000. By the year 2100 we expect torrential rains in winter, that is in the months of December, January, and February, across much of Germany (the DWD defined heavy precipitation as a downpour of up to 100 litres of rain per square metre in 24 hours).” [67].<br /><br /><b>77. Jochen Flasbarth (head of the German Federal Environment Agency, UBA),</b> at a joint news conference of experts from the German Weather Service (DWD), the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), the Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW) and the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) (2011), underscored the threat to Germany's infrastructure including water supplies, energy and transportation from extreme weather: “These findings increase pressure to do something to counteract the unavoidable impact from climate change. Protecting our climate should be priority number one.” [67].<br /><br /><b>78. Christoph Unger (president of the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance, BBK),</b> at a joint news conference of experts from the German Weather Service (DWD), the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), the Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW) and the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) (2011) said that due to Germany's demographic decline, fewer volunteers would be available to cope in the event of a extreme weather natural disasters: "If we want to keep our current high level of civil protection measures in Germany, we'll have to spot changing threats and react beforehand.” [67].</p> <p><b>79. Volker Strotmann (German <span> </span>Federal Agency for Technical Relief, THW),</b> at a joint news conference of experts from the German Weather Service (DWD), the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), the Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW) and the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) (2011) is quoted as saying that <span> </span>German disaster relief agencies were already seeing a surge in incidents related to the changing weather and that the <span> </span>THW put in twice as many man hours in 2010 compared to 2009. [67].</p><p> </p> <p><b>80. Dr Michael Oppenheimer (climate-policy researcher, <span> </span>Princeton University, <span> </span>New Jersey, US) </b>(commenting on findings published in Nature that climate warming is already causing extreme weather events that affect the lives of millions and that <span> </span>rising greenhouse-gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the Northern Hemisphere, and the increased risk of flooding in the United Kingdom) (2011): “This [finding of climate change link to extreme weather] has immense importance not just as a further justification for emissions reduction, but also for adaptation planning.” [68].</p> <p><b>81. Quirin Schiermeier (Nature News analyst) (2011)</b>: “Likelihood of extreme rainfall may have been doubled by rising greenhouse-gas levels. Climate change may be hitting home. Rises in global average temperature are remote from most people's experience, but two studies in this week's <span>Nature</span> conclude that climate warming is already causing extreme weather events that affect the lives of millions. The research directly links rising greenhouse-gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the Northern Hemisphere, and the increased risk of flooding in the United Kingdom… There is no doubt that humans are altering the climate, but the implications for regional weather are less clear. No computer simulation can conclusively attribute a given snowstorm or flood to global warming. But with a combination of climate models, weather observations and a good dose of probability theory, scientists may be able to determine how climate warming changes the odds. An earlier study, for example, found that global warming has at least doubled the likelihood of extreme events such as the 2003 European heatwave… By running thousands of high-resolution seasonal forecast simulations with or without the effect of greenhouse gases, Myles Allen of the University of Oxford, UK, and his colleagues found that anthropogenic climate change may have almost doubled the risk of the extremely wet weather that caused the floods” [68].</p> <p><b>82. Dr Gabriele Hegerl (climate researcher at the University of Edinburgh, UK)</b>, commenting on research by herself and her colleagues linking climate change to floods (2011): “We can now say with some confidence that the increased rainfall intensity in the latter half of the twentieth century cannot be explained by our estimates of internal climate variability”. [68].</p> <p><b>83. Dr Myles Allen (University of Oxford, UK) </b>commenting on research by himself and his colleagues linking climate change to floods (2011): “What has been considered a 1-in-100-years event in a stationary climate may actually occur twice as often in the future… Governments plan to spend some US$100 billion on climate adaptation by 2020, although presently no one has an idea of what is an impact of climate change and what is just bad weather… If rich countries are to financially compensate the losers of climate change, as some poorer countries would expect, you'd like to have an objective scientific basis for it.” [68].</p> <p><b>84. Robert Muir-Wood (chief research officer with RMS, a company headquartered in Newark, California, that constructs risk models for the insurance industry)</b> (2011). "This is a key part of our research agenda and insurance companies do accept the premise [that there could be a link between climate change and extreme weather]. If there's evidence that risk is changing, then this is something we need to incorporate in our models.” [68].</p> <p><b>85. Seung-Ki Min, Xuebin Zhang, Francis W. Zwiers (Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario M3H5T4, Canada) and Gabriele C. Hegerl (School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JW, UK)</b> (2011): “Extremes of weather and climate can have devastating effects on human society and the environment. Understanding past changes in the characteristics of such events, including recent increases in the intensity of heavy precipitation events over a large part of the Northern Hemisphere land area, is critical for reliable projections of future changes. Given that atmospheric water-holding capacity is expected to increase roughly exponentially with temperature—and that atmospheric water content is increasing in accord with this theoretical expectation—it has been suggested that human-influenced global warming may be partly responsible for increases in heavy precipitation. Because of the limited availability of daily observations, however, most previous studies have examined only the potential detectability of changes in extreme precipitation through model–model comparisons. Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas. These results are based on a comparison of observed and multi-model simulated changes in extreme precipitation over the latter half of the twentieth century analysed with an optimal fingerprinting technique. Changes in extreme precipitation projected by models, and thus the impacts of future changes in extreme precipitation, may be underestimated because models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming.” [69].</p> <p><b>86. Pardeep Pall, Dáithí A. Stone & Myles R. Allen (Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland), Tolu Aina (Tyndall Centre Oxford, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK) , Peter A, Stott (Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK), Toru Nozawa (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan), Arno G. J. Hilberts & Dag Lohmann (Risk Management Solutions Ltd, London EC3R 8NB, UK)</b> (2011): “Interest in attributing the risk of damaging weather-related events to anthropogenic climate change is increasing. Yet climate models used to study the attribution problem typically do not resolve the weather systems associated with damaging events such as the UK floods of October and November 2000. Occurring during the wettest autumn in England and Wales since records began in 1766, these floods damaged nearly 10,000 properties across that region, disrupted services severely, and caused insured losses estimated at £1.3<span> </span>billion. Although the flooding was deemed a ‘wake-up call’ to the impacts of climate change at the time, such claims are typically supported only by general thermodynamic arguments that suggest increased extreme precipitation under global warming, but fail to account fully for the complex hydrometeorology associated with flooding. Here we present a multi-step, physically based ‘probabilistic event attribution’ framework showing that it is very likely that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence in England and Wales in autumn 2000. Using publicly volunteered distributed computing, we generate several thousand seasonal-forecast-resolution climate model simulations of autumn 2000 weather, both under realistic conditions, and under conditions as they might have been had these greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting large-scale warming never occurred. Results are fed into a precipitation-runoff model that is used to simulate severe daily river runoff events in England and Wales (proxy indicators of flood events). The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.” [70].</p> <p> <b>87. Dr Pardeep Pall ( researcher at the University of Oxford and the lead author of a key study published in Nature linking climate change to floods) </b>(2011): "We found that emissions substantially increased the odds of floods occurring in ... the record wet autumn of 2000 [in UK], with a likely increase in odds of about a doubling or more.” [71] .</p> <p><b>88. Dr Francis Zwiers (director of the Climate Research Division of Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada) </b>commenting on key research published himself and colleagues in Nature linking climate change to floods (2011) <span> </span>“It takes a long time to determine whether human influence on the climate system was a factor in any particular event… Warmer air contains more moisture and leads to more extreme precipitation.” [71].</p> <p><b>89. Xuebin Zhang (</b><b>Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario M3H5T4, Canada</b>), commenting on key research published by himself and colleagues in Nature linking climate change to floods (2011) <span> </span>"Our research provides the first scientific evidence that human-induced greenhouse gas increases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events over large parts of the northern hemisphere.” [71].</p><p> </p><p><b>90. Sinclair, Knight and Merz (SKM, a leading projects firm, with global capability in strategic consulting, design and delivery) </b>(2011): “The damage to public and private infrastructure caused by recent flooding across eastern Australia highlights the vulnerability of the built environment to extreme weather events. Flooding is part of the natural cycle of climate variability in Australia so the current discussion about whether the recent floods (or the record breaking drought that preceded them) were caused by climate change unnecessarily diverts attention away from the urgent need to adapt to climate extremes. The best available scientific information indicates that climate change may amplify some aspects of natural climate variability, resulting in the normalisation of weather events currently considered extreme. There is a growing body of empirical evidence (especially extreme temperatures, rainfall and sea levels) suggesting that climate change is already having this effect. In this context, government and industry need to consider whether current approaches to infrastructure and settlement planning and design provide an adequate basis for cost effectively managing the extreme weather events that might occur in future.” [72]. </p><b><br />In conclusion, because the day to day weather is highly variable one cannot attribute any specific weather event (such as the current Queensland and Eastern Australian floods) to man-made global warming. <span>However increased precipitation will derive from increased sea temperature and consequently increased evaporation and increased atmospheric moisture - and accordingly one cannot exclude the likelihood of a major contribution of man-made global warming to such extreme precipitation events. Man-made global warming has already been associated with huge increases in the incidence of flooding and other climatic disruptions around the world over the last half century or so. The message is clear: what is needed, as stated by Professor Barry Brook, is “</span>real, effective and urgent action to eliminate fossil fuels”</b> <span>(see #16)</span>.<br /><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>References.</b> <br /></p> <p> [1]. 2010-2011 Queensland floods, Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Queensland_floods" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010â2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Q"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New"><span title="blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010â2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods"><span title="blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010â2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods"><span title="blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010â2011_Queensland_floods"><span title="blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010â2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods"><span title="blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010â2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Queensland_floods">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Queensland_floods</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> . </p> <p> [2]. US National Academy of Sciences, quoted in “<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New">Increasing Queensland’s resilience to inland flooding in a changing climate: Final Report of the Inland Flooding Study”, 2010: <a href="http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf">http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf</a> .</span></p> <p>[3]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, Climate Change 2007: Working Party 1: The Physical Science Basis, T.3.4 Consistency Among Observations, <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-4.html" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-4.html">http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-4.html</a> .</p> <p><span>[4]. Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) report “Increasing Queensland’s resilience to inland flooding in a changing climate. Derivation of a rainfall intensity figure to inform an effective interim policy approach to managing inland flooding risks in a changing climate”, November 2010: <a href="http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/sag-report.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/sag-report.pdf">http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/sag-report.pdf</a> .</span></p> <p>[5]. Increasing Queensland’s resilience to inland flooding in a changing climate: Final Report of the Inland Flooding Study, 2010: <a href="http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New"><span title="blocked::http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf"><span title="blocked::http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf"><span title="blocked::http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf"><span title="blocked::http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf"><span title="blocked::http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf">http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/inlandfloodstudy.pdf</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> .</p> <p>[6]. Tony Bartlett, “Climate change the new flood risk for Qld”, Sydney Morning Herald, 10 November 2010: <u><span style="color:blue"><a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-change-the-new-flood-risk-for-qld-20101110-17nb6.html" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-change-the-new-flood-risk-for-qld-20101110-17nb6.html"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Courier New"><span title="blocked::http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-change-the-new-flood-risk-for-qld-20101110-17nb6.html"><span title="blocked::http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-change-the-new-flood-risk-for-qld-20101110-17nb6.html"><span title="blocked::http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-change-the-new-flood-risk-for-qld-20101110-17nb6.html"><span title="blocked::http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-change-the-new-flood-risk-for-qld-20101110-17nb6.html"><span title="blocked::http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-change-the-new-flood-risk-for-qld-20101110-17nb6.html">http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-change-the-new-flood-risk-for-qld-20101110-17nb6.html</span></span></span></span></span></span></a></span></u> .<br /></p><p>[7]. Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Annual Australian Climate Statement 2011, 5 January 2011: <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20110105.shtml" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20110105.shtml">http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20110105.shtml</a> .</p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[8]. David Karoly quoted in Bridie Smith, “Fates conspire to concoct a recipe for disaster”, The Age, 12 January 2010: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/environment/fates-conspire-to-concoct-a-recipe-for-disaster-20110111-19mp7.html" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.theage.com.au/environment/fates-conspire-to-concoct-a-recipe-for-disaster-20110111-19mp7.html">http://www.theage.com.au/environment/fates-conspire-to-concoct-a-recipe-for-disaster-20110111-19mp7.html</a> .</span></p> <p>[9]. David Karoly quoted in Alyson Kenward, “Ocean temperatures show possible climate change connection to Australian flooding”, Global Climate Change (GCC) News Brief, 13 January 2011: <a href="http://hendrawanm.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/ocean-temperatures-show-possible-climate-change-connection-to-australian-flooding/" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://hendrawanm.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/ocean-temperatures-show-possible-climate-change-connection-to-australian-flooding/">http://hendrawanm.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/ocean-temperatures-show-possible-climate-change-connection-to-australian-flooding/</a> .</p> <p>[10]. Professor David Karoly interviewed by ABC News on Queensland floods, “Climate expert says more extreme weather likely”, ABC News, 31 December 2010: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/12/31/3104537.htm" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/12/31/3104537.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/12/31/3104537.htm</a> .</p> <p>[11]. Ian Lowe, “Queensland floods: a message from our president Professor Ian Lowe”, Australian Conservation Foundation, 12 January 2011: <a href="http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3281" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3281">http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3281</a> .</p> <p>[12]. Ian Lowe, “Drowning in a hothouse”, <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The Age On-line National Times, 14 January 2011: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/drowning-in-a-hothouse-20110113-19pr1.html" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/drowning-in-a-hothouse-20110113-19pr1.html">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/drowning-in-a-hothouse-20110113-19pr1.html</a> .</span></p> <p>[13]. Neville Nicholls and Will Steffen quoted in Joe Kelly, “Global warming will cause further extreme weather events, climate change chief says”, The Australian, 11 January 2011: <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/global-warming-will-cause-further-extreme-weather-patterns-climate-change-chief-says/story-e6frg6xf-1225985772600" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/global-warming-will-cause-further-extreme-weather-patterns-climate-change-chief-says/story-e6frg6xf-1225985772600">http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/global-warming-will-cause-further-extreme-weather-patterns-climate-change-chief-says/story-e6frg6xf-1225985772600</a> .</p> <p>[14].<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> Will Steffen and </span> Matthew England quoted in La Nina, global warming to blame for floods, NZ Herald, 13 January 2011: <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10699504" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10699504">http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10699504</a> .</p> <p>[15]. Barry Brook, “Qld floods highlight the cost of climate extremes”, Brave New Climate, 12 January 2011: <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/01/12/qld-floods-highlight-cost-of-climate-extremes/" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/01/12/qld-floods-highlight-cost-of-climate-extremes/">http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/01/12/qld-floods-highlight-cost-of-climate-extremes/</a> .</p> <p> [16]. Barry Brook, “Queensland floods highlight the cost of climate extremes”, Energy Collective, 12 January 2011: <a href="http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/49704/qld-floods-highlight-cost-climate-extremes" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/49704/qld-floods-highlight-cost-climate-extremes">http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/49704/qld-floods-highlight-cost-climate-extremes</a> .</p> <p>[17]. <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Ellen Sandell, “It’s time to talk of climate change”, The Age On-line National Times, 14 January 2011: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-time-to-talk-of-climate-change-20110113-19pr3.html" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-time-to-talk-of-climate-change-20110113-19pr3.html">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-time-to-talk-of-climate-change-20110113-19pr3.html</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[18]. Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library, “More extreme weather”: <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/ClimateChange/theClimate/moreExtreme.htm" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/ClimateChange/theClimate/moreExtreme.htm">http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/ClimateChange/theClimate/moreExtreme.htm</a> .</span></p> <p>[19]. Dr John Holdren (2008), “The Science of Climatic Disruption” (power point lecture): <a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> .</p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[20]. </span>GRID-Arendal (a collaborating centre of the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP): “<b><span style="font-weight:normal">Number of flood events by continent and decade since 1950”: <a href="http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/number-of-flood-events-by-continent-and-decade-since-1950" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/number-of-flood-events-by-continent-and-decade-since-1950">http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/number-of-flood-events-by-continent-and-decade-since-1950</a> .</span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[21]. </span>GRID-Arendal (a collaborating centre of the United Nations Environment Programme , UNEP): <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">“</span><b><span style="font-weight:normal">Number of Disasters per Year”: <a href="http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/number-of-disasters-per-year" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/number-of-disasters-per-year">http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/number-of-disasters-per-year</a> .</span></b></p> <p><b><span style="font-weight:normal">[22]. Vicky Pope, quoted in Damien Carrington, “”Australian floods: La Nina to blame”, Guardian, 11 January 2011: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/11/australia-floods-la-nina" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/11/australia-floods-la-nina">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/11/australia-floods-la-nina</a> .</span></b></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[23]. </span>see CSIRO-Bureau of Meteorology , “The State of the Climate”, 2010: <a href="http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf">http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf</a> .</p> <p>[24]. Phillip Sutton, Climate Emergency Network media release, quoted by Gideon Polya, “Climate Emergency Network, La Niña, Climate Change & Queensland flood disaster - stop burning coal & gas”, Bellaciao, 15 January 2011: <a href="http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20440" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20440"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20440</span></a> . </p> <p>[25]. “Qld floods linked to climate change”, SBS World News, 14 January 2011: <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1464847/Qld-floods-%27linked-to-climate-change%27b" rel="nofollow">http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1464847/Qld-floods-%27linked-to-climate-change%27b</a> .</p> <p>[26]. “Extreme floods and climate change”, Climate Action Centre, 2011: <a href="http://climateactioncentre.org/floodsclimatechange" rel="nofollow">http://climateactioncentre.org/floodsclimatechange</a> .</p> <p>[27]. CSIRO, Dr Debbie Abbs, “Climate change to increase extreme rainfall”, CSIRO media release, 9 November 2004: <a href="http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2004/rain2040.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2004/rain2040.htm</a> .</p> <p>[28]. Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) Fact Sheet, “Flooding and climate change”, 12 January 2011: <a href="http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/Flooding_fact_sheet_12-1-11.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/Flooding_fact_sheet_12-1-11.pdf</a> .</p> <p>[29]. David Karoly quoted in Bridie Smith, “All the wrong stars aligned for perfect storms”, The Age, 12 January 2011: <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/all-the-wrong-stars-aligned-for-perfect-storms-20110111-19mrr.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/all-the-wrong-stars-aligned-for-perfect-storms-20110111-19mrr.html</a> . </p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[30]. Dr David Jones quoted by Megan Levy, “”Climate chaos across world as :La Nina makes her mark”, WA Today, 14 January 2011: <a href="http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/weather/climate-chaos-across-world-as-la-nina-makes-her-mark-20110114-19qfs.html?from=age_ft" rel="nofollow">http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/weather/climate-chaos-across-world-as-la-nina-makes-her-mark-20110114-19qfs.html?from=age_ft</a> .</span></p><p>[31]. Karen Kissane, “Disaster expert urges a retreat from the coast”, The Age, 15 January 2011: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/disaster-expert-urges-a-retreat-from-the-coast-20110114-19rcg.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/national/disaster-expert-urges-a-retreat-from-the-coast-20110114-19rcg.html</a> . </p> <p>[32]. World Water Council 3rd World Water Forum, Press release, 27 February 2003: <a href="http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/News/WWC_News/News_2003/PR_climate_27.02.03.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/News/WWC_News/News_2003/PR_climate_27.02.03.pdf</a> .</p> <p>[33]. “Climate change boosting floods, drought: experts”, News in Science, 3 March 2003: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s796319.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s796319.htm</a> .</p> <p>[34]. Dr Bob Brown, quoted in “Coal miners to blame for Queensland floods, say Australian Greens leader Bob Brown”, Courier-mail (Brisbane), 16 January 2011: <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-e6freoof-1225988809313" rel="nofollow">http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-e6freoof-1225988809313</a> .</p> <p>[35]. “Of droughts, flooding rains and climate change”, Editorial, 16 January 2011: </p><p><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/of-droughts-flooding-rains-and-climate-change-20110115-19rt7.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/of-droughts-flooding-rains-and-climate-change-20110115-19rt7.html</a> .</p> <p>[36]. Will Steffen, quoted in “Floods report to go to carbon price committee”, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 January 2011: <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/floods-report-to-go-to-carbon-price-committee-20110117-19trl.html" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.smh.com.au/business/floods-report-to-go-to-carbon-price-committee-20110117-19trl.html">http://www.smh.com.au/business/floods-report-to-go-to-carbon-price-committee-20110117-19trl.html</a> .</p> <p>[37]. Glenda Kwek, “Drought and floods: what’s coming next?”, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 January 2011: <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/drought-and-floods-whats-coming-next-20110118-19ust.html" rel="nofollow" title="blocked::http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/drought-and-floods-whats-coming-next-20110118-19ust.html">http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/drought-and-floods-whats-coming-next-20110118-19ust.html</a> . </p> <p><span>[38]. Long Cao</span>, <span>Govindasamy Bala, </span><span> </span><span>Ken Caldeira</span>, <span>Ramakrishna Nemani</span>, and <span>George Ban-Weiss, “Importance of carbon dioxide physiological forcing to future climate change”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 107, pp 9513-9518, 2010: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9513.full" rel="nofollow">http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9513.full</a> .</span></p> <p><span>[39]. Dr Richard Betts, quoted in “Climate flooding risk “misjudged””, BBC News, 29 August 2007: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6969122.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6969122.stm</a> .</span></p> <p><span>[40]. Richard</span> A. Betts, Olivier Boucher, Matthew Collins, Peter M. Cox, Peter D. Falloon, Nicola Gedney, Deborah L. Hemming, Chris Huntingford, Chris D. Jones, David M. H. Sexton & Mark J. Webb (Met Office Hadley Centre and other institutions), “Projected increase in continental runoff due to plant responses to increasing carbon dioxide”, Nature, vol. 448, pp 1037-1041 (2007): <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7157/abs/nature06045.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7157/abs/nature06045.html</a> .</p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[41]. IPCC, “3.6 Human settlements, energy and industry”, Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability”, 2001: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/index.php?idp=119" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/index.php?idp=119</a> . </span></p> <p>[42]. Global Greenhouse Warming.com, “Climate and floods” (2003): <a href="http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-and-floods.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-and-floods.html</a> .</p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[43]. </span>James Hansen, “Storms of My Grandchildren. The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity”, Bloomsbury, London, 2009 (pp253-254; for further details see: <a href="http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/</a> ).</p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[44]. </span>Julian C. R. Hunt, Mark Maslin, Peter Backlund, Tim Killeen and H. John Schellnhuber, “Introduction. Climate change and urban areas: research dialogue in a policy framework”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: vol. <span>365</span>, pp2615–2629, 2007: <a href="http://pubget.com/search?q=authors%3A%22J%20C%20R%20Hunt%22" rel="nofollow">http://pubget.com/search?q=authors%3A%22J%20C%20R%20Hunt%22</a> <span> </span>and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.106/abstract" rel="nofollow">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.106/abstract</a> .</p><p>[45]. Professor de Kretsaer quoted by Mark Dunn, <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">“Victorian Governor David de Kretser blames floods on climate change”, Herald Sun, 18 January 2011: <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/victorian-governor-david-de-kretser-blames-floods-on-climate-change/story-e6frf7kx-1225990433262" rel="nofollow">http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/victorian-governor-david-de-kretser-blames-floods-on-climate-change/story-e6frf7kx-1225990433262</a> .</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[46]. </span>Professor David de Kretser, <span> </span>interview with Neil Mitchell, <span> </span>“De Kretser blames “climate change””, 3AW, 18 January 2011: <a href="http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/de-kretser-blames-climate-change/20110118-19ulb.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/de-kretser-blames-climate-change/20110118-19ulb.html</a> and <a href="http://www.3aw.com.au/displayPopUpPlayerAction.action?&url=http://media.mytalk.com.au/3AW/AUDIO/180111_State_Governor.mp3" rel="nofollow">http://www.3aw.com.au/displayPopUpPlayerAction.action?&url=http://media.mytalk.com.au/3AW/AUDIO/180111_State_Governor.mp3</a> (Professor David de Kretser’s <span> </span>comments come right at the end).</p><p> </p><p>[47]. Elizabeth Farrelly, "Clean energy alternatives to allay Big Coal's flood of tears", The Age On-line National Times, 20 January 2011: </p> <p><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/clean-energy-alternatives-to-allay-big-coals-flood-of-tears-20110119-19wj0.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/clean-energy-alternatives-to-allay-big-coals-flood-of-tears-20110119-19wj0.html</a> .</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">[48]. Adam Bandt, “De Kretser is right on floods: Bandt”, The Greens, January 2011: <a href="http://vic.greens.org.au/content/de-kretser-right-floods-bandt" rel="nofollow">http://vic.greens.org.au/content/de-kretser-right-floods-bandt</a> .</span></p><p><i><span style="font-style:normal">[49]. </span></i>Ewan Saunders, “Qld flood crisis shows urgent need<span> </span>for action on climate change”, Socialist alliance, 4 January 2011: <a href="http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=1073" rel="nofollow">http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=1073</a> .</p> <p>[50]. Don Henry, quoted in “”Cut fossil fuel subsides to pay for flood recovery”, ACF, 28 January 2011: <a href="http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3290&eid=14125" rel="nofollow">http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3290&eid=14125</a> .</p> <p>[51]. Dr Bob Brown quoted in David Uren, “Coal barons must pay for flood damage, says Bob Brown”, The Australian, 17 January 2011: <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/coal-barons-must-pay-for-flood-damage-says-bob-brown/story-fn7iwx3v-1225989034396" rel="nofollow">http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/coal-barons-must-pay-for-flood-damage-says-bob-brown/story-fn7iwx3v-1225989034396</a> .</p> <p>[52]. Bob Brown, “The role of global warming”, The Greens, 17 January 2011: <a href="http://greens.org.au/content/role-global-warming" rel="nofollow">http://greens.org.au/content/role-global-warming</a> .</p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt">53]. “Do you support a flood levy?”, Radio 3AW, 18 January 2011: <a href="http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/do-you-support-a-flood-levy/20110118-19up3.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/do-you-support-a-flood-levy/20110118-19up3.html</a> . </span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt">[54]. Neil Mitchell interview with PM Gillard, “Gillard backs levy to the hilt”, Radio 3AW radio, 28 January 2011: <a href="http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/gillard-defends-flood-levy-to-the-hilt/20110128-1a7hu.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/gillard-defends-flood-levy-to-the-hilt/20110128-1a7hu.html</a> : </span></p> <p><i><span style="font-style:normal">[55]. Dr Gideon Polya, “Qld floods linked to climate”, Green Left Weekly, Letters to the editor, 23 January 2011: <a href="http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46469" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46469</span></a> .</span></i></p> <p>[56]. Senator Christine Milne, Greens press release, 27 January 2011: <a href="http://greens.org.au/content/greens-remain-open-flood-levy-climate-program-cuts-make-no-sense" rel="nofollow">http://greens.org.au/content/greens-remain-open-flood-levy-climate-program-cuts-make-no-sense</a> .</p><p><span>[57]. Bob Carr, “Climate change and floods”, Thoughtlines with Bob Carr, 21 January 2011: <a href="http://bobcarrblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/climate-change-and-floods/#comment-421" rel="nofollow">http://bobcarrblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/climate-change-and-floods/#comment-421</a> .</span><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt">[58]. </span><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt">Bill McKibben, Preface, “Eaarth : Making a Life on a Tough New Planet </span>”, Times Books, New York, 2010): <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eaarth-Making-Life-Tough-Planet/dp/0805090568/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271192669&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Eaarth-Making-Life-Tough-Planet/dp/0805090568/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271192669&sr=1-1</a> and <a href="http://www.billmckibben.com/eaarth/eaarthbook.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.billmckibben.com/eaarth/eaarthbook.html</a> .<span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt">[59]. CSIRO, meeting summary, “The Australian Climate”, Hydrological consequences of climate change meeting, CSIRO Discovery Centre, Canberra, November 15-15, 2007:</span><span><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt"><a href="http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pkmh.pdf" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pkmh.pdf</span></a></span></span><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt"> .</span><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt">[60]. James Hansen, “Storms of My Grandchildren. The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity”, Bloomsbury, London, 2009, pxv.</span></p> [61]. Executive summary, March 2009, International Alliance of Research Universities held an international congress on climate change, Copenhagen, “Synthesis Report from Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decision”: <a href="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads//Synthesis%20Report%20Web.pdf</a> <span> </span> <p>[62]. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), AAAS Resolution: Statement on Climate Change”, 2006: <a href="http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=447" rel="nofollow">http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=447</a> .</p> <p>[63]. Alister Doyle, “Analysis: Pakistan floods, Russia heat fit climate trend”, Reuters, 9 August 2010: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/09/us-climate-extreme-idUSTRE6782DU20100809" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/09/us-climate-extreme-idUSTRE6782DU20100809</a> .</p> <p>[64]. Louise Gray, “Pakistan floods: climate change experts say global warming could be the cause”, The Telegraph, 10 August 2010: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7937269/Pakistan-floods-Climate-change-experts-say-global-warming-could-be-the-cause.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7937269/Pakistan-floods-Climate-change-experts-say-global-warming-could-be-the-cause.html</a> . </p> <p>[65]. SciDevNet, “Pakistan floods driven by climate change, say UN officials”, 19 August 2010: <a href="http://www.scidev.net/en/news/pakistan-floods-driven-by-climate-change-say-un-officials.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.scidev.net/en/news/pakistan-floods-driven-by-climate-change-say-un-officials.html</a> .</p><p>[66]. Francis Tapim and Bruce Woolley, “More natural disasters on Australia’s radar”, ABC News, 23 January 2011: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/23/3119109.htm?site=news" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/23/3119109.htm?site=news</a> .</p><p>[67]. “Torrential rain clouds Germany’s future”, The Local, 16 February 2011: <a href="http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110216-33143.html?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=177" rel="nofollow">http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110216-33143.html?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=177</a> . </p> <p> </p><p>[68]. Quirin Schiermeier, “Increased flood risk linked top global warming”, Nature News, <span> </span><span>470</span>, 316, , 16 February 2011: <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html</a> .</p> <p>[69]. Seung-Ki Min, Xuebin Zhang, Francis W. Zwiers, Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes”, Nature, 470, 378-381, 17 February 2011: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html</a> .</p> <p>[70]. Pardeep Pall, Tolu Aina, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A, Stott, <span> </span>Toru Nozawa, Arno G. J. Hilberts & Dag Lohmann & Myles R. Allen, “”, Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000”, Nature 470, 382–385, 17 February 2011: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html</a> .</p><p>[71]. Deborah Smith, “Flood risk “doubled” by greenhouse pollution”, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 February 2011: <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/flood-risk-doubled-by-greenhouse-pollution-20110217-1awuz.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter" rel="nofollow">http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/flood-risk-doubled-by-greenhouse-pollution-20110217-1awuz.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter</a> <span>.</span></p><p>[72]. Sinclair, Knight and Merz, “Climate change and the January 2011 floods”, SKM, 2011: <a href="http://www.skmconsulting.com/Knowledge-and-Insights/News/2011/Climatechangesfloods.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.skmconsulting.com/Knowledge-and-Insights/News/2011/Climatechangesfloods.aspx</a> .</p> </div></div></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-60850404709417254532011-06-23T23:18:00.001-07:002011-06-23T23:18:32.385-07:00Cyclones and man-made climate change<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"><span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Cyclones and man-made climate change</span> </h3> <div id="sites-canvas-main" class="sites-canvas-main"> <div id="sites-canvas-main-content"> <table class="sites-layout-name-one-column sites-layout-hbox" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="sites-layout-tile sites-tile-name-content-1"><div dir="ltr"><p style="font-weight:bold">Cyclones and man-made climate change.<br /></p><p style="font-weight:bold">This is a compendium of recent scientist and science-informed views about the connection between man-made global warming and increased cyclone (hurricane) intensity. </p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">As will become apparent from the quotations below, there have been different views at the cutting edge of research in this area of science (as is normal in science) but a recent international consensus has been established as set out in item #1 (Knutson et al, 2010)</span>: “Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.”<br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">1. Thomas R. Knutson, John L. McBride, Johnny Chan, Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Chris Landsea, Isaac Held, James P. Kossin, A. K. Srivastava & Masato Sugi </span>(from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA, 201 Forrestal Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08542, USA; <span> </span>Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Melbourne 3001, Australia; Guy Carpenter Asia-Pacific Climate Impact Centre, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China; <span> </span>Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 54-1620 MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA; National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA; <span> </span>National Hurricane Center/NWS/NOAA, 11691 SW 17th Street, Miami, Florida 33165, USA; National Climatic Data Center/NOAA, 1225 W Dayton Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA; <span> </span>India Meteorological Department, Shivajinagar, Pune 411005, India; and <span> </span>Research Institute for Global Change, JAMSTEC, 3173-25 Showa-machi, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0001 Kanagawa, Japan, respectively): “Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.” [1].</p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">2. Climate change, MSNBC, commenting on Knutson et al (2010) (item #1)</span>: “Top researchers now agree that the world is likely to get stronger but fewer hurricanes in the future because of global warming, seeming to settle a scientific debate on the subject. But they say there's not enough evidence yet to tell whether that effect has already begun. Since just before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005, dueling scientific papers have clashed about whether global warming is worsening hurricanes and will do so in the future. The new study seems to split the difference. A special World Meteorological Organization panel of 10 experts in both hurricanes and climate change — including leading scientists from both sides — came up with a consensus, which is published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience… The study offers projections for tropical cyclones worldwide by the end of this century, and some experts said the bad news outweighs the good. Overall strength of storms as measured in wind speed would rise by 2 to 11 percent, but there would be between 6 and 34 percent fewer storms in number. Essentially, there would be fewer weak and moderate storms and more of the big damaging ones, which also are projected to be stronger due to warming… An 11 percent increase in wind speed translates to roughly a 60 percent increase in damage… The storms also would carry more rain, another indicator of damage… study suggests category 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes — those with winds more than 130 mph — would nearly double by the end of the century.” [2].</p> <p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">3. Greg Holland </span>( National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado) and<span style="font-weight:bold"> Peter Webster </span>(Georgia Institute of Technology)(2007): “We find that long-period variations in tropical cyclone and hurricane frequency over the past century in the North Atlantic Ocean have occurred as three relatively stable regimes separated by sharp transitions. Each regime has seen 50% more cyclones and hurricanes than the previous regime and is associated with a distinct range of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Overall, there appears to have been a substantial 100-year trend leading to related increases of over 0.7°C in SST and over 100% in tropical cyclone and hurricane numbers. It is concluded that the overall trend in SSTs, and tropical cyclone and hurricane numbers is substantially influenced by greenhouse warming. Superimposed on the evolving tropical cyclone and hurricane climatology is a completely independent oscillation manifested in the proportions of tropical cyclones that become major and minor hurricanes. This characteristic has no distinguishable net trend and appears to be associated with concomitant variations in the proportion of equatorial and higher latitude hurricane developments, perhaps arising from internal oscillations of the climate system. The period of enhanced major hurricane activity during 1945–1964 is consistent with a peak period in major hurricane proportions.” [3].</p> <p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">4. US Today, commenting on Holland and Webster (2007) (item #3) </span>[with a graph of number of North Atlantic hurricanes per year versus time from 1850 to 2007]): “The number of hurricanes that develop each year has more than doubled over the past century, an increase tied to global warming, according to a study released Sunday."We're seeing a quite substantial increase in hurricanes over the last century, very closely related to increases in sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean," says study author Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. Working with hurricane researcher Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, Holland looked at sea records from 1855 to 2005 in a study published in the British journal <i>Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A</i>. The researchers found that average hurricane numbers jumped sharply during the 20th century, from 3.5 per year in the first 30 years to 8.4 in the earliest years of the 21st century. Over that time, Atlantic Ocean surface temperatures increased .65 degrees, which experts call a significant increase… The new study drew criticism from experts who dispute the merits of combining data from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when hurricane-tracking satellites didn't exist, with statistics gleaned from more modern technology.” [4].</p> <p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">5. Dr Andrew Ash</span> (director, CSIRO’s <em><span style="font-style:normal">Climate Adaptation Flagship) re climate change, floods and cyclones (2011): “</span></em>We have had stronger cyclones in history and we have had cyclones just as large in size, but it is rare to get both a very large and intense cyclone. The flooding we have experienced to date on the whole has been within the bounds of historical events though in some areas, such as the Western Downs in Queensland and parts of Victoria, all time records have been broken. While extreme events like flooding and cyclones are an expected feature of La Nina events, the oceans around eastern and northern Australia are particularly warm at present. It is usual for the ocean in the Western Pacific to be warm during a La Nina event but the ocean temperatures are currently the highest on record…[In December 2010 the Southern Oscillation Index, a measure of the extent of La Nina, recorded a level of 27.1... the highest recorded December value in history] … The record warm temperatures are most likely a combination of La Nina and additional warming from human activities. While the flooding events and cyclones experienced this year aren't caused by climate change, the record warm ocean temperatures provide conditions more conducive to exacerbating these naturally occurring events associated with La Nina." [5]. </p> <p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">6. Professor Tim Flannery </span>(mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and 2007 Australian of the Year) re climate change, floods and cyclones (2011): “The individual severe weather events you point to are the kind of thing climate modelling predicts will become more frequent as greenhouse gas concentrations increase.” [5].</p> <p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">7. Australian Bureau of Meteorology (2006)</span> re Tropical cyclones and climate change: “<span>Leading scientists provide an expert view of the current state of knowledge. They note that there has been a high level of interest in the topic and that substantial debate is still occurring within the scientific community. With regard to the recent tropical cyclone seasons they conclude: "No single high impact tropical cyclone event of 2004 and 2005 can be directly attributed to global warming, though there may be an impact on the group as a whole.”</span> Dr Geoff Love, the Australian Director of Meteorology, has submitted to the World Meteorological Organization's Commission for Atmospheric Sciences, meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, a "Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change". The Statement was prepared by an expert group of scientists comprising Dr John McBride and Dr Jeff Kepert of the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, Professor Johnny Chan of China, Julian Heming of the UK, and Dr Greg Holland, Professor Kerry Emanuel, Thomas Knutson, Dr Hugh Willoughby and Dr Chris Landsea of the US. The paper reaffirms the finding of a 1998 study saying that any change in the <u>frequency</u> of tropical cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons) due to climate change cannot be determined due to a lack of knowledge and limitations of the available observing technologies. The little evidence that does exist indicates little or no change in global frequency. It also says that while some recent studies have suggested the <u>intensity</u> of tropical cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons) has increased substantially over the past 50 years due to climate change, the scientific community is "deeply divided". Some researchers believe the climate record is too inconsistent to draw such a conclusion due to changes in observations equipment and methods over time. The panel says it cannot come to a definitive conclusion in this "hotly debated area"… No single disaster caused by a tropical cyclone (hurricane/typhoon) in 2004 or 2005 - including Hurricane Katrina in the US - can be directly attributed to global warming. Rather, climate change may have an impact on the group as a whole. Further research is needed.” [6, 7].</p> <p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">8. Dr John McBride and Dr Jeff Kepert ( Bureau of Meteorology in Australia), Professor Johnny Chan (China), Julian Heming (UK), and Dr Greg Holland, Professor Kerry Emanuel, Thomas Knutson, Dr Hugh Willoughby and Dr Chris Landsea (US), “Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change" (2006)</span>: “<span>No single high impact tropical cyclone event of 2004 and 2005 can be directly attributed to global warming, though there may be an impact on the group as a whole; Emanuel (2005) has produced evidence for a substantial increase in the power of tropical cyclones (denoted by the integral of the cube of the maximum winds over time) </span>over the last 50 years. This result is supported by the findings of Webster et al <span> </span>(2005) that there has been a substantial global increase (nearly 100%) in the proportion of the most severe tropical cyclones (category 4 and <span> </span>5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale), from the period from 1970 to 10995, which has been accompanied by a similar decrease in weaker systems. The research community is deeply divided over whether the results of these studies are due, at least in part, to problems in the tropical cyclone data base. Precisely, the historical record of tropical cyclone tracks and intensities is a product of real-time operations. Thus its accuracy and completeness changes continuously through the record as a result of the continuous changes and improvements in data density and quality, changes in satellite remote sensing retrieval and dissemination, and changes in training. In particular a step-function change <span> </span>in methodologies for determination of satellite intensity occurred with introduction of geosynchronous satellites in the mid to late 1970s. The division of the community on the Webster et al and Emanuel papers is not as to whether Global warming can cause a trend in tropical cyclone intensities. <span> </span>Rather it is on whether such a signal can be can be detected in the historical data base.” [6, 7, 8].</p> <p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">9. Quirin Schiermeier</span> (writer for Nature, cartographer, <span> </span>graduate in geography, statistics and economics from the University of Munich) on global warming and hurricane intensity (2008): “As this year's Atlantic hurricane season becomes ever more violent, scientists have come up with the firmest evidence so far that global warming will significantly increase the intensity of the most extreme storms worldwide. The maximum wind speeds of the strongest tropical cyclones have increased significantly since 1981, according to research published in <span>Nature </span>this week [see #]. And the upward trend, thought to be driven by rising ocean temperatures, is unlikely to stop at any time soon… One of the most contentious issues in the climate-change debate has been whether the strength, number and duration of tropical cyclones will increase in a warmer world. Basic physics and modelling studies do suggest that tropical storms will become more intense, because warmer oceans provide more energy that can be converted into cyclone wind. But others believe that atmospheric changes might have an inhibiting role. Increasing shearing winds - another predicted consequence of global warming - are thought to suppress the cyclonic rotation of the storms, for example… The team statistically analysed satellite-derived data of cyclone wind speeds. Although there was hardly any increase in the average number or intensity of all storms, the team found a significant shift in distribution towards stronger storms that wreak the greatest havoc. This meant that, overall, there were more storms with a maximum wind speed exceeding 210 kilometres per hour (category 4 and 5 storms on the Saffir–Simpson scale). Rising ocean temperatures are thought to be the main cause of the observed shift. The team calculates that a 1 ºC increase in sea-surface temperatures would result in a 31% increase in the global frequency of category 4 and 5 storms per year: from 13 of those storms to 17. Since 1970, the tropical oceans have warmed on average by around 0.5 ºC. Computer models suggest they may warm by a further 2 ºC by 2100.” [9].</p> <p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">10. Elsner, J., Kossin, J. P. & Jagger, T. H. on global warming and increased tropical cyclone intensity (2008)</span>: “Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere. Over the rest of the tropics, however, possible trends in tropical cyclone intensity are less obvious, owing to the unreliability and incompleteness of the observational record and to a restricted focus, in previous trend analyses, on changes in average intensity. Here we overcome these two limitations by examining trends in the upper quantiles of per-cyclone maximum wind speeds (that is, the maximum intensities that cyclones achieve during their lifetimes), estimated from homogeneous data derived from an archive of satellite records. We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3±0.09ms<sup>-1</sup>yr<sup>-1</sup> (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones. We note separate upward trends in the estimated lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones (99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic, although not all basins show statistically significant increases. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind.” [10].</p> <p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">11. Mark A. Saunders and Adam S. Lea</span> (Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre, Department of Space and Climate Physics, University College London, Holmbury St Mary, Dorking, Surrey RH5 6NT, UK) on sea surface warming and increased Atlantic hurricane activity (2009): “Atlantic hurricane activity has increased significantly since 1995, but the underlying causes of this increase remain uncertain. It is widely thought that rising Atlantic sea surface temperatures have had a role in this<sup><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7178/full/nature06422.html#B16" rel="nofollow">16, </a><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7178/full/nature06422.html#B17" rel="nofollow">17</a></sup>, but the magnitude of this contribution is not known. Here we quantify this contribution for storms that formed in the tropical North Atlantic, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico; these regions together account for most of the hurricanes that make landfall in the United States. We show that a statistical model based on two environmental variables—local sea surface temperature and an atmospheric wind field—can replicate a large proportion of the variance in tropical Atlantic hurricane frequency and activity between 1965 and 2005. We then remove the influence of the atmospheric wind field to assess the contribution of sea surface temperature. Our results indicate that the sensitivity of tropical Atlantic hurricane activity to August–September sea surface temperature over the period we consider is such that a 0.5°C increase in sea surface temperature is associated with a ~40% increase in hurricane frequency and activity. The results also indicate that local sea surface warming was responsible for ~40% of the increase in hurricane activity relative to the 1950–2000 average between 1996 and 2005. Our analysis does not identify whether warming induced by greenhouse gases contributed to the increase in hurricane activity, but the ability of climate models to reproduce the observed relationship between hurricanes and sea surface temperature will serve as a useful means of assessing whether they are likely to provide reliable projections of future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity.” [11].</p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold">12. Webster, P. J., Holland, G. J., Curry, J. A. & Chang, H.-R. </span>on changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment (2005): “We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade… We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment. This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO<sub>2</sub> may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones, although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.” [12].</p> <p><span style="font-weight:bold">13. Professor Kerry Emanuel</span> (Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA) <span> </span>on warming and increased cyclone intensity (2005): “Theory and modelling predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency and shows no trend. Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.” [13].</p> <p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">14. Professor K</span><strong><span style="font-weight:normal"><span style="font-weight:bold">erry Emanuel, Ragoth Sundararajan, and John Williams</span> (</span></strong>Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts}<span> </span>on modeling showing cyclone storm intensity generally increases with global warming (2008): “Changes in tropical cyclone activity are among the more potentially consequential results of global climate change, and it is therefore of considerable interest to understand how anthropogenic climate change may affect such storms. Global climate models are currently used to estimate future climate change, but the current generation of models lacks the horizontal resolution necessary to resolve the intense inner core of tropical cyclones. Here we review a new technique for inferring tropical cyclone climatology from the output of global models, extend it to predict genesis climatologies (rather than relying on historical climatology), and apply it to current and future climate states simulated by a suite of global models developed in support of the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. This new technique attacks the horizontal resolution problem by using a specialized, coupled ocean–atmosphere hurricane model phrased in angular momentum coordinates, which provide a high resolution of the core at low cost. This model is run along each of 2,000 storm tracks generated using an advection-and-beta model, which is, in turn, driven by large-scale winds derived from the global models. In an extension to this method, tracks are initiated by randomly seeding large areas of the tropics with weak vortices and then allowing the intensity model to determine their survival, based on large-scale environmental conditions. We show that this method is largely successful in reproducing the observed seasonal cycle and interannual variability of tropical cyclones in the present climate, and that it is more modestly successful in simulating their spatial distribution. When applied to simulations of global climate with double the present concentration of carbon dioxide, this method predicts substantial changes and geographic shifts in tropical cyclone activity, but with much variation among the global climate models used. Basinwide power dissipation and storm intensity generally increase with global warming, but the results vary from model to model and from basin to basin. Storm frequency decreases in the Southern Hemisphere and north Indian Ocean, increases in the western North Pacific, and is indeterminate elsewhere. We demonstrate that in these simulations, the change in tropical cyclone activity is greatly influenced by the increasing difference between the moist entropy of the boundary layer and that of the middle troposphere as the climate warms.” [14].</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">15. Professor Ross Garnaut</span> (climate change economist and Australian Federal Government climate change adviser) warning that <span> </span>floods and cyclones like those experienced by Australian in 2011 will get more extreme as global warming increases (2011): “[while climate change cannot be directly blamed for the recent flooding, or for Cyclone Yasi] the greater energy in the atmosphere and the seas can intensify extreme events and I'm afraid that we're feeling some of that today, and we're feeling that at a time when global warming is in its early stages… [re carbon tax and climate change action] "Getting back in the saddle, I would like a result this time… We've taught ourselves that we're capable of making quite a big mess of dealing with this diabolical policy problem, I hope we've learnt something along the way…We haven't played our proportionate part amongst developed countries so far. We've talked about it from time to time, but we haven't done much…It will be quite important for the international effort that Australia ceases to be a drag on the international effort…I'm not talking about us leading the world, I'm talking about our catching up." [15].</p><p> </p><p><b>16. Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library</b> (that provides carefully researched infomation to members of the Australian Federal Parliament) : “Are extreme weather events—severe storms, flooding, droughts, heat waves or extremely violent cyclones—becoming more common? The answer appears to be 'yes'. Trends towards more powerful storms and hotter, longer dry periods have been observed, according to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, and this trend is projected to continue.” [16].</p> <p> </p><p><b>17. Professor John Holdren </b>(Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; Director of the Woods Hole Research Center; recent Chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and President Obama’s chief scientific adviser) on climatic disruption (2008):<span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt"> “Harm is already occurring (continued). (Figure) Total power released by tropical cyclones (green: Annual mean HADISST 30S-30N) has increased (circa 2-fold 1990-2003) along with sea surface temperatures (blue: West Pac + East Pac + Atlantic); Kerry Emanuel, MIT, 2006”. [17].</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt"> </span></p> <p><b>18. Professor Vicky Pope</b> (head of climate change advice at the Met Office, UK) explains how a warmer world is a wetter world (2011): "As the average global temperature increases one would expect the moisture content of the atmosphere to rise, due to more evaporation from the sea surface. For every 1C sea surface temperature rise, atmospheric moisture over the oceans increases by 6-8%. Also in general, as more energy and moisture is put into the atmosphere [by warming], the likelihood of storms, hurricanes and tornadoes increases." [18].</p> <p> </p> <p><b>19. Dr Andrew Glikson</b> (former Principal Research Scientist, Australian Geological Survey Organization, Earth and paleoclimate scientist. School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science, Planetary Science Institute, Australian National University) on Queensland floods [noting according to the report, that climate scientists were careful never to point to a single event as evidence of climate change but to examine medium and long-term trends] : “'Cyclones have increased twofold over the past 20 years. Floods have increased threefold. It's happening now, and it's happening faster than some of the climate-change scientists have dared to predict” [19].</p> <p> </p> <p><b>20. William Cosgrove</b> (vice president, World Water Council), 3rd World Water Forum, 2003: "Extreme weather records are [already] being broken every year and the resulting hydro-meteorological disasters claim thousands of lives and disrupt national economies," said of the Marseille-based think tank made up of users and suppliers of water for social and economic development. The big problem is that most countries aren't ready to deal adequately with the severe natural disasters that we get now, a situation that will become much worse as storms and droughts become more pervasive. Ignoring the problem is no longer an option… The increasing incidence of extreme events provides a convincing argument to continue looking into building partnerships between science, water managers and the disaster preparedness communities, including the development and dissemination of capacity development packages and methodologies. It is telling that disaster reduction has been recognized since 2000 an issue central to poverty reduction. ” [20, 21].<br /><br /><b>21. World Water Council </b>press release from the 3rd World Water Forum re climate change, droughts and floods (February 2003): “Economic loses from weather and flood catastrophes have increased ten-fold over the past 50 years, partially the result of rapid climate changes, the World Water Council (WWC) says. These rapid climate changes are seen in more intense rainy seasons, longer dry seasons, stronger storms, shifts in rainfall and rising sea levels,. More disastrous floods and droughts have been the most visible manifestations of these changes. From 1971 to 1995, floods affected more than 1.5 billion people worldwide, or 100 million people per year, according to experts. This total includes 318,000 killed, and more than 81 million left homeless. Major floods that left at least 1,000 people dead and caused $1 billion in damages per episode have been the most destructive… According to climate experts, the expected climatic change during the 21st century will further intensify the hydrological cycle – with rainy seasons becoming shorter and more intense in some regions, while droughts in other areas will grow longer in duration, which could endanger species and crops and lead to drops in food production globally. Evidence for the link between climate change and increasing climate variability is mounting rapidly. For example, scientific research has linked the recent droughts in the USA and Afghanistan to the effects of global warming… These climate disasters stemming from climate variability include: Floods [and Droughts] - Based on data for ther period 1950 to 1998, the number of major flood disasters has grown considerably world-wide from decade to decade – six cases in the 1950s, seven in the 1960s, eight in the 1970s, 18 in the 1980s, and 26 in the 1990s. The number of significant flood disasters in the 1990s was higher than in the three previous decades combined. Overall, global precipitation is estimated to have increased by about two percent since 1900, though not on a uniform basis. This disparity in new rainfall caused some places to become wetter and others to get drier, such as North Africa south of the Sahara. In the most calamitous storm surge, the flood in Bangladesh in April 1991 killed 141,000 people. Two floods in China, one in 1996 and the second in 1998, caused the highest material losses of the decade, of the order of $30 billion and $26.5 billion, respectively. Floods also destroy the hard-won economic advances that many in the developing world have accomplished, such as the Mozambique floods of 2000, which left nearly 1 million homeless, and Hurricane Mitch in Central America [1998]. Comparing the economic impacts of the 2000 flood in Mozambique with the 2002 flood in Central Europe clearly illustrates the disparity in how national economies are impacted by extreme events. The cost of damages reflects the income levels of the countries. According to officials at the World Bank, the Mozambique flood resulted in a 45 percent drop in GDP in 2000, whereas in Germany, the 2002 flood is estimated to have caused less than a one percent drop in GDP…Hurricane Mitch [1998] killed 11,000 people, with thousands of others missing. More than 3 million people were either homeless or severely affected. In this extremely poor regions, estimates of the total damage from the storm surpassed $5 billion. The President of Honduras, Carlos Flores Facusse, claimed the storm destroyed 50 years of progress. As far as the geographic distribution of the worst floods, the majority occurred in Asian countries … In addition, the impact of floods has had increasingly detrimental and disruptive effects on human health. In flooded areas, some diseases such as diarrhea, which kills 2.2 million children under th4 age of five per year, or leptospirosis (a systemic infection that can lead to meningitis and hemorrhagic jaundice) spread more rapidly… Many countries in Africa have been suffering from unprecedented droughts that may signal widespread climate change … Sea level rise is a concern in coastal and low-lying areas, including small islands. In addition to coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers present a threat to water supplies. The average global sea level rise from 1900 to the year 2100 is expected to be 0.48 meters (19 inches), between twice and four times the rate of rise over the 20th century. The main effect on humans will be to confront extreme events such as storm surges. Areas of greatest danger include Small islands in the Pacific, mainly the Atolls; Coastal low-lying countries like Bangladesh and the Netherlands; Coastal mega-cities like Tokyo, Lagos, Buenos Aires and New York.” [20, 21].</p> <p> </p> <p><b>22. Global Greenhouse Warming.com</b> on climate and floods: "Meteorologic floods are by far the most common of the types of floods in the human experience, affecting parts of the globe every year. Such floods can bring good, such as the fertile soils formerly brought to the Nile Delta by annual flooding. However, large floods are mostly known for their catastrophic loss of life and property, such as in China and Bangladesh which repeatedly devastated by floods - Bangladesh lost 300,000 people in November 1970 and more than 130,000 in April 1991, from cyclone-induced flooding, and the massive flooding of the Yangtze River in China in 1931 caused more than 3 million deaths with a further 2 million in 1959 from flooding and starvation. …By 2025, half the world's population will be living in areas that are at risk from storms and other weather extremes," the World Water Council said, citing evidence gathered by U.N. and other experts. The economic cost of changes in climate and floods will be huge, especially for poor countries that are likely to bear the brunt of these events. The phrase Climate and Floods is something we will hear more of in the years ahead.”[22].</p> <p> </p> <p><b>23. Dr James Hansen</b> in “Storms of My Grandchildren” (2010): “Global warming does increase the intensity of droughts and heat waves, and thus the area of forest fires. However, because a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour, global warming must also increase the intensity of the other extreme of the hydrological cycle – meaning heavier rains, more extreme floods, and more intense storms driven by latent heat, including thunderstorms, tornadoes, and tropical storms. I realized that I should have emphasized more strongly [in his 1988 testimony to a US Senate Committee] that both extremes increase with global warming.” [23].</p> <p> </p> <p><b>24. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)</b>, 2006 (founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals; the AAAS journal Science has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of 1 million): “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now… In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities more resilient to future changes. The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations.” [24].</p><p><span style="font-weight:bold">25. Senator Christine Milne</span> (Australian Greens deputy leader; Tasmanian Greens senator) on man-made climate change and Cyclone Yasi (2011): “This is a tragedy, but it is a tragedy of climate change. The scientists have been saying that we are going to experience more extreme weather events, that their intensity is going to increase, their frequency.” [25]</p> <p><br /></p> <span style="font-weight:bold"><br />References.</span><br /><p><br /></p><p>[1]. Thomas R. Knutson, John L. McBride, Johnny Chan, Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Chris Landsea, Isaac Held, James P. Kossin, A. K. Srivastava & Masato Sugi, “Tropical cyclones and climate change”, Nature Geosciences, <span>3</span>, 157 - 163 (2010): <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo779.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo779.html</a> .</p> <p>[2]. Climate change, MSNBC, “Study: stronger hurricanes loom. Fewer expected but bigger storms to bring more damage”, commenting on Knutson et al (2010), Climate change, MSNBC, 21 February 2010: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35506750/ns/us_news-environment/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35506750/ns/us_news-environment/</a> . </p> <p>[3]. Greg Holland and Peter Webster, “Heightened tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic: natural variability or climate trend?”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, <span><span>vol. 365, </span></span><span><span>no. 1860. pp </span></span><span><span>2695-2716</span></span>, 2007: <a href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1860/2695.short" rel="nofollow">http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1860/2695.short</a> .</p> <p>[4]. US Today, “Study links more hurricanes, climate change”, 30 July 2007: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/2007-07-29-more-hurricanes_N.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/2007-07-29-more-hurricanes_N.htm</a> .</p> <p>[5]. Matt Granfield, “Coincidence or climate change?’, ABC Drum Unleashed, 3 February 2011: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43560.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43560.html</a> .</p> <p>[6]. Australian Bureau of Meteorology, “Tropical cyclones and climate change”, media release, 20 February 2006: <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20060220.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20060220.shtml</a> .</p> <p>[7]. Dr John McBride and Dr Jeff Kepert ( Bureau of Meteorology in Australia), Professor Johnny Chan (China), Julian Heming (UK), and Dr Greg Holland, Professor Kerry Emanuel, Thomas Knutson, Dr Hugh Willoughby and Dr Chris Landsea (US), “Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change", submitted to the World Meteorological Organization's Commission for Atmospheric Sciences, meeting in Cape Town, South Africa by Dr Geoff Love ( Australian Director of Meteorology), 2006: <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/info/CAS-statement.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.bom.gov.au/info/CAS-statement.pdf</a> .</p> <p>[8]. Tropical cyclone, subsection Global warming,<span> </span>Wikipedia: <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:41B86CUK98wJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone+%22tropical+cyclones+and+climate+change%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:41B86CUK98wJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone+%22tropical+cyclones+and+climate+change%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au</a> .</p> <p>[9]. Quirin Schiermieier, “Hurricanes are getting fiercer. Global warming blamed for growth in storm intensity”, Nature News, <span> </span>3 September 2008: <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/news.2008.1079.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/news.2008.1079.html</a> .</p> <p>[10]. Elsner, J., Kossin, J. P. & Jagger, T. H., “The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones”, <span> </span><span>Nature</span> <span>445,</span> 92–95 (<span>2008</span>): <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/nature07234.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/nature07234.html</a> .</p> <p>[11]. Mark A. Saunders and <span> </span>Adam S. Lea, “Large contribution of sea surface<span> </span>warming to recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity”, Nature, vol 451,<b> </b>pp 557-560, 2008: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7178/full/nature06422.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7178/full/nature06422.html</a> .</p> <p><a name="B2"></a>[12]. Webster, P. J., Holland, G. J., Curry, J. A. & Chang, H.-R., “Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. ” <span> </span><span>Science</span> <span>309</span>, 1844–1846 (<span>2005</span>): <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full</a> .</p> <p>[13] Kerry Emanuel, “Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years”. <span>Nature</span> vol. <span>436</span>, pp686-688, 2005: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/abs/nature03906.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/abs/nature03906.html</a> .</p> <p>[14]. <span> </span>K<strong><span style="font-weight:normal">erry Emanuel, Ragoth Sundararajan, and John Williams, </span></strong>“Hurricanes and Global Warming: Results from Downscaling IPCC AR4 Simulations”, <span>Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc<i>.</i></span>, vol. <span>89</span>, pp347–367, 2008: <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-89-3-347" rel="nofollow">http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-89-3-347</a> .</p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt">[15]. Professor Ross Garnaut quoited in “Cyclones, floods to get worse as warming increases: Garnaut”, ABC News, 3 February 2011: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/03/3129424.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/03/3129424.htm</a> .</span></p><p> </p> <p> </p> <p>[16]. Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library, “More extreme weather”: <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt"><a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/ClimateChange/theClimate/moreExtreme.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/ClimateChange/theClimate/moreExtreme.htm</a> .</span></p> <p> </p> <p>[17]. Dr John Holdren (2008), “The Science of Climatic Disruption” (power point lecture): <a href="http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.usclimateaction.org/userfiles/JohnHoldren.pdf</a> .</p> <p> </p> <p>[18]. Vicky Pope, quoted in Damien Carrington, “”Australian floods: La Nina to blame”, Guardian, 11 January 2011: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/11/australia-floods-la-nina" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/11/australia-floods-la-nina</a> .</p> <p> </p> <p>[19]. Karen Kissane, “Disaster expert urges a retreat from the coast”, The Age, 15 January 2011: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/disaster-expert-urges-a-retreat-from-the-coast-20110114-19rcg.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/national/disaster-expert-urges-a-retreat-from-the-coast-20110114-19rcg.html</a> .</p> <p>[20]. World Water Council 3rd World Water Forum, Press release, 27 February 2003: <a href="http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/News/WWC_News/News_2003/PR_climate_27.02.03.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/News/WWC_News/News_2003/PR_climate_27.02.03.pdf</a> .<br /><br />[21]. “Climate change boosting floods, drought: experts”, News in Science, 3 March 2003: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s796319.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s796319.htm</a> .</p> <p>[22]. Global Greenhouse Warming.com, “Climate and floods” (2003): <a href="http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-and-floods.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-and-floods.html</a> .</p> <h1><a name="TOC-23-.-James-Hansen-Storms-of-My-Gran"></a><span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:12pt">[23]. James Hansen, “Storms of My Grandchildren. The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity”, Bloomsbury, London, 2009, pxv.</span></h1> <p>[24]. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), AAAS Resolution: Statement on Climate Change”, 2006: <a href="http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=447" rel="nofollow">http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=447</a> .</p><p>[25]. “TC Yasi caused by climate change: Greens”, ABC News, 1 February 2011: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/01/3127184.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/01/3127184.htm</a> .</p></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-45242336180811825572011-06-23T23:15:00.000-07:002011-06-23T23:17:19.251-07:00Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) ZCA2020 Plan<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"><span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 Plan (ZCA2020)</span> </h3> <div id="sites-canvas-main" class="sites-canvas-main"> <div id="sites-canvas-main-content"> <table class="sites-layout-name-one-column sites-layout-hbox" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="sites-layout-tile sites-tile-name-content-1"><div dir="ltr"> <p><b><span style="font-size:20pt">Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) ZCA2020 Plan <span> </span><span> </span></span></b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:16pt"> </span></b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:16pt">100% Renewable Stationary Energy for Australia by 2020 </span></b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">BZE</span> has 20 volunteer engineers plus numerous volunteer supporters (presenters, office, IT, design): “Our goal is to facilitate the implementation of the social changes and technologies that will reduce the impacts of climate change and give our society and global ecosystems a chance of surviving into the future.”</b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">BZE</span> launched the ZCA2020 Plan in 2010 in conjunction with the University of Melbourne Energy Institute. It has received wide scientific, academic and business support and some tripartisan commendation (Bob Carr, Malcolm Turnbull, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam). </b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Google BZE</span> for free download of the ZCA2020 Report or the much shorter ZCA2020 Synopsis. You can buy hard copies of the ZCA2020 Report from the University of Melbourne Energy Institute. </b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">BZE</span> is currently working on further Reports in relation to Transport, Agriculture and Land Use, Buildings and Industry. </b></p> <p> </p> <p><b><span style="font-size:20pt">Key features of the ZCA2020 Plan</span></b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:16pt">A. Why Australia must get to zero CO<sub>2</sub> emissions by 2020.</span></b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Professor Hans Joachim<span> </span>Schellnhuber CBE</span> (Potsdam Institute, Germany) says that for a 67% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree C temperature rise (EU policy), the world must cease carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions by 2050 (not good odds: would you board a plane that had a 33% chance of crashing?). If we accept that “all men are created equal” then we must have equal shares in polluting the atmosphere until 2050. This means that high annual per capita CO<sub>2</sub> polluters such as the US and Australia must cease by 2020 whereas India and Burkina Faso can actually increase CO<sub>2 </sub>pollution before finally ceasing in 2050.</b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">Greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution</span> largely involves CO<sub>2</sub> but also includes other GHGs such as methane (CH<sub>4</sub>), nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O) and man-made chorofluorohydrocarbons (CFCs), the total GHG pollution being measured as CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent (CO<sub>2</sub>-e). <span> </span>“Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO<sub>2</sub> pollution is included) (Google “Climate Genocide”).</b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:16pt">B. ZCA2020 Plan:<span> </span>60% Concentrated Solar Thermal with molten salts energy storage, 40% Wind plus HVAC/HVDC grid & biomass and hydroelectric backup.</span></b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">1. BZE deliberately chose 2 established, commercial, <span> </span>renewable technologies</span>,<span> </span>specifically Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) with molten salts energy storage and Wind turbines <span> </span>(that are being widely applied commercially already) in order to establish a “proof of principle” i.e. we can achieve 100% renewable energy by 2020 for Australia using existing commercially-applied technologies.</b></p> <p><b><span> </span></b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">2. CST with molten salts energy storage</span> involves a Power Tower surrounded by a field of mirrors (heliostats) that concentrate the solar radiation at the top of the Power Tower where it heats molten salts (potassium and sodium nitrate, melting point 220C) from a “cold” tank (290C) to 565C, this heated solution being stored in a “hot” tank. The heat is used to generate steam which drives a turbine and thence generates electricity. Molten salts storage means that the system can operate 24/7. Such systems are already supplying commercial power in the US and Spain. Nineteen (19) 220MW (million watt) modules will form each of twelve (12)<span> </span>3,500 MW solar regions (42,000 MW capacity in total; capacity factor 75%)</b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">3. Wind turbines</span> would be used in 23 regions for a total of 6,400 turbines (28,000 MW; capacity factor 30%). </b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">4. High voltage direct current (HVDC) and high voltage alternating current (HVAC)</span> links would make up an efficient national<span> </span>grid. </b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">5. Extensive modeling</span> based on real meteorological data shows that in this system solar energy would supplement available wind energy to achieve required power. Biomass and hydrolelectric backup would be available for those rare occasions of low wind and low sunshine. </b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">6. $370 billion cost over 10 years.</span> Australia has the steel, concrete and labor resources to enable implementation and there would be 40,000 ongoing new jobs in maintenance and operations of the system (peak construction labor force 75,000).<span> </span></b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">7. Increased energy efficiency</span> (e.g. in transport, buildings, heating and cooling) is a key part of the scheme. Indeed the power capacity would increase by 40% (from 50,000 MW now to 70,000 MW under ZCA2020) to enable electrified transport. </b></p> <p><b> </b></p> <p><b><span style="font-size:14pt">NB. This is just the beginning.</span> Top scientists say that we must urgently reduce atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentration from the current 392 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm for a safe planet for all peoples and all species (e.g. by biochar production,<span> </span>re-afforestation and ceasing livestock GHG pollution) (Google 300.org).</b></p> </div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6953542882257378647.post-29780518514532533802011-06-23T23:12:00.000-07:002011-06-23T23:15:25.974-07:00Carbon burning-related deaths<h3 id="sites-page-title-header" style="" align="left"><span id="sites-page-title" dir="ltr">Australian carbon burning-related deaths and carbon burning subsidies => minimum Carbon Price of A$554 per tonne carbon</span> </h3> <div id="sites-canvas-main" class="sites-canvas-main"> <div id="sites-canvas-main-content"> <table class="sites-layout-name-one-column sites-layout-hbox" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="sites-layout-tile sites-tile-name-content-1"><div dir="ltr"><div> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt"><b> How many Australians die each year from the effects of pollutants from vehicles, coal burning for electricity and other carbon burning? Answer: about 2,200, 4,600 and 2,800, respectively. At a "value of a statistical life" (VOSL) of $7.6 million per person ($73 billion pa for Australian carbon burning-related deaths) and $9 billion pa in fossil fuel subsidies, the minimum Carbon Price to cover carbon burning-derived deaths and carbon burning subsidies is $554 per tonne of carbon as compared to the best political offer yet of $20 per tonne of carbon. </b><br /></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt">G.W. Fisher et al.in a report to the New Zealand Government (2002) : “The most likely estimate of the number of people above 30 years of age who experience premature mortality in New Zealand due to exposure to emissions of PM10 particulates from vehicles is 399 per year (with a 95% confidence range of 241-566 people) . This compares to 970 people above age 30 experiencing pre-mature mortality due to particulate pollution from all sources (including burning for home heating), and with 502 people dying from road accidents (all ages).” [1]. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt">This data is from 2001. The New Zealand population in 2001 was 3.9 million; the Australian population was 21.5 million in 2010. [2]. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt">Assuming identical demographics and other circumstances, then the Australian over-30 deaths from PM10 particulates from vehicles (2010) = 399 x 21.5/3.9 = 2,200. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">Paul Gipes on Ontario coal burning-based deaths (2005): “Ontario's ruling party swept to power in the fall of 2003 on a series of promises. One of the most far reaching was its proposal to close the provinces coal-fired power plants by 2007. They argued that it was necessary to close the plants to protect the health of Ontario residents who lived downwind. Critics, notably in North America's fossil-fuel industry, have labeled this unrealistic if not foolhardy. Ontario generates nearly 27 TWh per year from 6,450 MW of coal-fired power plants, almost one-fifth of total provincial generation… Despite these and other limitations, the study provides sufficient economic grounds for the province to close the coal plants because of the plants' excessive environmental and social costs. Coal plants kill 668 people per year in Ontario, says the report, and cause 1,100 emergency room visits, and more than 300,000 minor illnesses per year. These and previous findings by the Ontario Medical Association were the rationale used by Ontario's ruling party in arriving at its campaign promise.” [3, 4]. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">Accordingly deaths from coal burning-based power generation in New Zealand 2001 were 668 x 2.28 TWh/ 27 TWh = 56.4 or about 56. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">New Zealand</span></span> non-coal, non-vehicle pollutant deaths in 2001 = 970 – 56.4 (coal-fired power) – 399 (vehicle exhaust) = 514.6 i.e. about 515 deaths. </p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">Accordingly, from New Zealand data one can estimate that Australian over 30 deaths from PM<sub>10</sub> particulates other than from vehicles and coal-fired power stations = 514.6 x 21.5/3.9 = 2,837. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">Based on Treasury estimates “In 2010 when the RET begins, and a year before the emissions trading scheme, black (140.7 TWh) and brown (45.6 TWh) coal make up most [186.3 TWh or 73.1%] of Australia’s electricity (overall 254.9 TWh)”. [7]. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">We can accordingly estimate Australian deaths from coal in 2010 = 668 x 186.3 TWh/ 27 TWh = 4609 deaths.</span></span></p> <p><b><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">In summary, from Canadian and New Zealand epidemiological data one can estimate that currently deaths from pollutants from the burning of carbonaceous materials currently totals 9,646 or about 10,000 annually, the breakdown being 4,600 (coal–fired power stations), 2,200 (vehicle particulate emissions) and 2,800 (particulates from other burning).</span></span></b></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">In 2008 the US EPA estimated that the risk avoidance-based value of a “statistical human life” was US$6.9 million, then about A$10 million [8]. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">According to Peter Abelson of Macquarie University in a detailed review (2002): “Many studies of the value of a statistical life have now been carried out, mainly using wage-risk or CV approaches, though apparently only one substantive study for Australia. The average VOSL [value of a statistical life] to emerge from these studies is in the order of A$3.5 to A$4.0 million. However, some recent reviews suggest that these results might be on the high side.” [9].</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">Peter Abelson (2007) wrote that “In Australia we spend about one-sixth of GDP to protect life and health in one way or the other”. Australia has a population of 22 million and a GDP of $1,000 billion and accordingly we could estimate the “value of a statistical life” as $1,000 billion / (22 million persons x 6) = A$7.6 million. [10]. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">Accordingly we can see that there is a “hidden subsidy” of fossil fuel and biomass burning in Australia = 9,646 persons x $7.6 million/person = $73 billion annually. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">However there is a legislated annual subsidy of about $9 billion for fossil fuel burning in Australia. Thus there is a total of $73 billion + $9 billion = $82 billion pa in legislated and “hidden” subsidies for fossil fuel and biomass burning in Australia. [11, 12]. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">There is currently considerable speculation about a carbon price for Australia and the pro-environment Australian Greens have suggested an interim price of $20 per tonne of carbon. [13].</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt"><b>What is a minimum Australian carbon price required to cover the cost of carbon burning subsidies and carbon burning-based deaths? Australia’s annual greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is 542 million tonnes CO2-equivalent or 542 x 12/44 = 148 million tonnes carbon (C). Accordingly, this minimum price on carbon should be $82 billion / 148 million tonnes C = $554 per tonne carbon, 28 times higher than the best interim figure suggested so far by a major Australian political party. </b><br /></span></span></p> <p><b><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:12pt"> References.</span></span></b></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt">[1]. G.W. Fisher et al., “Health effects due to moor vehicle pollution in New Zealand”, Report to NZ Government, 20 January 2002: <a href="http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/health-effects-of-vehicle-emissions.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/health-effects-of-vehicle-emissions.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/health-effects-of-vehicle-emissions.pdf</a> .</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:10pt">[2]. UN Population Division, 2008 revision: <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=1" title="blocked::http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=1" rel="nofollow">http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=1</a> ) .</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[3]. Paul Gipe, “Ontario study identifies social costs of coal-fired power plants”, EV World, : <a href="http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" title="blocked::http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836" rel="nofollow">http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836</a> .</span></span></p> <p><i><i><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style:normal;font-size:12pt">[4]. DSS Management Consultants Inc. and RWDI Air Inc., for the Ontario Ministry of Energy, "Cost Benefit Analysis: Replacing Ontario's Coal-Fired Electricity Generation" by April, 2005, 93 pages:</span></span></i></i><i><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></i><a href="http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/english/pdf/electricity/coal_cost_benefit_analysis_april2005.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/english/pdf/electricity/coal_cost_benefit_analysis_april2005.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/english/pdf/electricity/coal_cost_benefit_analysis_april2005.pdf</a> .</p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[5]. US Energy Information Administration: <a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12" title="blocked::http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12" rel="nofollow">http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12</a> .</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[6]. “Electricity production from coal sources (% of total) in New Zealand”, Trading Economics, 2008: <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/electricity-production-from-coal-sources-percent-of-total-wb-data.html" title="blocked::http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/electricity-production-from-coal-sources-percent-of-total-wb-data.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/electricity-production-from-coal-sources-percent-of-total-wb-data.html</a> . </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[7]. “A long life for coal”, The Age On-line, National Times, 2 November 209: <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/blogs/greenlines/a-long-life-for-coal/20091102-htbb.html" title="blocked::http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/blogs/greenlines/a-long-life-for-coal/20091102-htbb.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/blogs/greenlines/a-long-life-for-coal/20091102-htbb.html</a> .</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[8]. AP, MSNBC, “How to value a life? EPA devalues its estimate”, MSNBC, 10 July 2008: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25626294/ns/us_news-environment/" title="blocked::http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25626294/ns/us_news-environment/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25626294/ns/us_news-environment/</a> .</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[9]. Peter Abelson, “The value of life and health for public policy”, Applied Economics, 2002: <a href="http://www.appliedeconomics.com.au/pubs/papers/pa03_health.htm" title="blocked::http://www.appliedeconomics.com.au/pubs/papers/pa03_health.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.appliedeconomics.com.au/pubs/papers/pa03_health.htm</a> .</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[10]. Peter Abelson (2007), “Establishing a monetary value for lives saved: issues and controversies”, 2007. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[11]. Chris Riedy, "Energy and transport subsidies in Australia”, Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS, 2007: <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-and-transport-subsidies.pdf" title="blocked::http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-and-transport-subsidies.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-and-transport-subsidies.pdf</a> .</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[12]. "Energy and transport subsides in Australia”, Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_transport_subsidies_in_Australia" title="blocked::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_transport_subsidies_in_Australia" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_transport_subsidies_in_Australia</a> .</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[13]. “Greens propose interim carbon price”, ABC News, 21 January 2010: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797559.htm" title="blocked::http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797559.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797559.htm</a> .</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:12pt"> [14]. March quarter, 2010, Australian National Greenhouse Accounts: <a href="http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/emissions/%7E/media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/national-greenhouse-inventory-march-2010.ashx" title="blocked::http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/emissions/~/media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/national-greenhouse-inventory-march-2010.ashx" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/emissions/~/media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/national-greenhouse-inventory-march-2010.ashx</a> .</span></span></p></div></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>Dr Gideon Polyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04156886772294243824noreply@blogger.com0