Tropics: Global Warming Likely to Significantly Affect Rainfall Patterns

Climate models project that the global average temperature will rise about 1°C by the middle of the century, if we continue with business as usual and emit greenhouse gases as we have been. The global average, though, does not tell us anything about what will happen to regional climates, for example rainfall in the western United States or in paradisical islands like Hawai'i.

Analyzing global model warming projections in models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a team of scientists headed by meteorologist Shang-Ping Xie at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa's International Pacific Research Center, finds that ocean temperature patterns in the tropics and subtropics will change in ways that will lead to significant changes in rainfall patterns. The study will be published in the Journal of Climate this month, breaking ground on such regional climate forecasts.

Scientists have mostly assumed that the surfaces of Earth's oceans will warm rather evenly in the tropics. This assumption has led to "wetter-gets-wetter" and "drier-gets-drier" regional rainfall projections. Xie's team has gathered evidence that, although ocean surface temperatures can be expected to increase mostly everywhere by the middle of the century, the increase may differ by up to 1.5°C depending upon the region.

"Compared to the mean projected rise of 1°C, such differences are fairly large and can have a pronounced impact on tropical and subtropical climate by altering atmospheric heating patterns and therefore rainfall," explains Xie. "Our results broadly indicate that regions of peak sea surface temperature will get wetter, and those relatively cool will get drier."

Two patterns stand out. First, the maximum temperature rise in the Pacific is along a broad band at the equator. Already today the equatorial Pacific sets the rhythm of a global climate oscillation as shown by the world-wide impact of El Niño. This broad band of peak temperature on the equator changes the atmospheric heating in the models. By anchoring a rainband similar to that during an El Nino, it influences climate around the world through atmospheric teleconnections.

A second ocean warming pattern with major impact on rainfall noted by Xie and his colleagues occurs in the Indian Ocean and would affect the lives of billions of people. Overlayed on Indian Ocean warming for part of the year is what scientists call the Indian Ocean Dipole that occasionally occurs today once every decade or so. Thus, the models show that warming in the western Indian Ocean is amplified, reaching 1.5°C, while the eastern Indian Ocean it is dampened to around 0.5°C.

"Should this pattern come about," Xie predicts, "it can be expected to dramatically shift rainfall over eastern Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. Droughts could then beset Indonesia and Australia, whereas regions of India and regions of Africa bordering the Arabian Sea could get more rain than today."

Patterns of sea surface temperature warming and precipitation change in 2050 as compared with 2000. Annual mean precipitation change is shown in green/gray shade and white contours in mm/month. Precipitation tends to increase over regions with ocean warming above the tropical mean (contours of warm colors in oC), and to decrease where ocean warming is below the tropical mean (contours of cool colors).

China releases first national pollution census

BEIJING: China has revealed its most ambitious measure of what explosive development has done to its environment, saying Tuesday its first
Twitter Facebook Share
Email Print Save Comment
national pollution census has mapped nearly 6 million sources of industrial, residential and agricultural waste.

The world's largest polluter also said its pollution levels might peak sooner than expected as China tries to balance economic and green concerns.

The central government now has a year to use the census results to shape its next five-year environmental protection plan. Ministries are also studying the possibility of an environmental tax, China's vice minister of environmental protection, Zhang Lijun, told a news conference.

In the meantime, detailed census results remain out of the view of an increasingly vocal Chinese public. Only the government and officials at relevant ministries have access to it.

``This is an incredibly ambitious source survey of pollutants,'' said Deborah Seligsohn, principal adviser for the World Resources Institute on China's climate and energy issues. ``In terms of giving them an excellent basis for being able to manage and track what they're doing, it's a huge step forward.''

The survey, which took two years and 570,000 staff to complete, puts China ahead of other developing countries in having a detailed map of who is polluting and where.

For the first time, China has factored agricultural sources into its pollution studies.

``That's huge,'' Seligsohn said. ``Many challenges China faces in terms of water quality come from organic pollution rather than from chemicals.''

Until now, the foundation of China's policymaking and environmental planning wasn't firm because agricultural pollution wasn't included, said Ma Jun, perhaps China's best-known environmentalist. He led efforts to create the country's first public database on water pollution, now posted online.

China's new government database of 5.9 million pollution sources included in the national census is not yet publicly available, which Ma and environmental groups picked up on right away.

``We urge the government to immediately establish a strong platform through which the public could easily access a wide range of pollution data,'' Sze Pang Cheung, campaign director for Greenpeace China, said in a statement.

Opening up the survey results would let the Chinese public monitor the country's biggest polluters and the worst polluted areas, said Yu Jie, head of policy and research programs for The Climate Group China.

``In this regard, it would be big progress. But if those data are only open to governments, then this civil society function doesn't work,'' she said.

Chinese citizens are more and more outspoken about environmental issues, with a number of recent protests of proposed incinerator projects in the south.

The central government, pressured by years of scandals over lax pollution controls, has been pushing for stronger regulation.

On Tuesday, the vice minister of environmental protection said China's pollution levels might peak sooner than the world expects.

``Because China's path to economic development has been different from that taken by developed nations, China may well pass the peak polluting levels and see marked improvement by the time our per capita income reaches the $3,000 level,'' Zhang said.

Despite the wealth of new information found by the census, Zhang said ``basically, there was nothing that surprised us.''

It was not clear whether China would conduct the survey regularly.

Karnataka working on air quality atlas to locate pollution hotspots

BANGALORE: Karnataka is working on preparing an air quality atlas for the state to generate information on pollution status and locate pollution
Twitter Facebook Share
Email Print Save Comment
hotspots, a senior government official said.

The initiative is being driven jointly by Karnataka's Ecology and Environment Department and Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.

The department Secretary Kanwerpal said the idea was to identify pollution hotspots in the state so that various departments, under State Implementation Plan, could "act upon" and initiate "interventions" to reduce pollution levels.

"We are working with KSPCB", he said at an All-India workshop on "Urban Air Pollution Forecasting, Monitoring and Implementation", here.

An index would be created based on 12 pollutants and "people should know the quality of the air", Kanwerpal said.

He said the Union Government has declared 88 industrial sites in the country, including five in Karnataka -- Mangalore, Bhadrawati, Peenya (Bangalore), Raichur and Bidar -- as being polluted above accepted levels in terms of air, water and land degradation.

Of the five, Mangalore and Bhadrawati industrial hubs had been termed as "critically polluted".

"No more industrialisation of any kind" -- no environmental clearance -- as a moratorium has been declared for eight months in the five hubs, Kanwerpal said, adding, the state had initiated an action plan to reduce pollution levels.

Delhi Sustainable Development Summit (DSDS 2010) - India

Delhi Sustainable Development Summit (DSDS 2010) - India
Beyond Copenhagen: New Pathways to Sustainable Development
banner dsds 2010_new23

The meteoric rise of the DSDS (Delhi Sustainable Development Summit) as a flagship event of TERI, dedicated to the universal cause of environment and sustainable development, is a testimony to its uniqueness and global appeal. Over the years, the summit has enjoyed global support from over 60 countries. Distinguished world leaders, brilliant opinion-makers and high-level global participants have made DSDS a coveted event.

It is a unique global forum for analysis of and debate on some of the most crucial environmental and climate change challenges being faced by humanity at large. Informed discussions among participants from corporates, governments, international agencies, and institutes provide critical mass, for formulation and delineation of strategies to take the sustainable development agenda forward.

TERI would celebrate the 10th anniversary of its widely acknowledged flagship event, from 5-7 February 2010 in hotel Taj Palace, New Delhi focusing on the overarching theme Beyond Copenhagen: new pathways to sustainable development.

The DSDS 2010 would be the first major gathering of leaders drawn from every part of the globe and from every sphere of human endeavour to focus on the new pathways that the world is expected to explore and move along as a consequence of the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties in December 2009. It promises to be packed with great sessions, dynamic speakers from world over and fabulous displays.

Speakers will deliberate on the following sub themes bringing in their expertise and perspective providing in-depth information on.

Sub themes:

- Accelerating socio-economic development: key to adaptation challenge.
- Role of technology in the new development paradigm.
- Building institutions for effective climate governance.
- From sustainable livelihoods to sustainable development.
- Sustaining business in a climate constrained world.
- Financing opportunities post Copenhagen.
- In pursuit of sustainable development: ethics, equity, and social justice.
- Mitigating emissions for climate stabilization: policies, consumption, and lifestyles.
- Indo-US cooperation for climate change and sustainable development.
- Climate challenges in Africa.
- Role of emerging economies in fostering climate cooperation.

Seven Jewish Principles To Heal Planet Earth

As the U.S. Senate is taking up the issue of climate policy, the world’s governments are trying to shape international policy at a crucial conference starting this week in Copenhagen. The governments will take vigorous action only if the grass-roots public insists on serious change.

This year, Chanukah, the festival of energy conservation, overlapped the Copenhagen conference. It is a period when we recall that one day’s oil met eight days’ needs; when we honor grass-roots action that transformed society despite elephantine top-down power centers; when we celebrate “Not by might, not by power, but by the Spirit, Breath of Life.”

We encourage you to take action—before, during and after Chanukah—rooted in the following Seven Principles that should underlie Jewish and interfaith efforts to shape U.S. and world policy on healing the climate crisis.

1. Our planet has always been a living demonstration that “YHWH Echad” (“the Breathing Spirit of the universe is One”)—but the climate crisis invites us into the clearest awareness in all human history of that truth. The planet is in this as One; policy must reflect that. (Underlying Jewish
principle: the Sh’ma, especially the traditional second paragraph on rain and crops, etc.)

2. The cost of spewing carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere must be greatly increased, by taxes and/or “cap & trade” that require payment from the carbon producers according to the damage they are causing. (Underlying Jewish principle: Exodus 21: “If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded.)

3. The pool of money this brings in must be used to prevent damage to the poor and middle class through higher costs of fuel and energy. The climate healing fund should be used in rebates, more for the poorer people, etc. (Underlying Jewish principles: tithing, gleaning and obligatory tzedakah to
assist the poor, orphans, widows, the landless)

4. Big Coal or Big Oil have great political power, but their power must be limited so they cannot distort needed policy in order to expand their own power and profits. Important example, the EPA must continue to have power to enforce carbon dioxide limits upon coal-burning power plants. (Underlying Jewish principle: resistance to top-down unaccountable powers Pharaoh, Antiochus, Rome)

5. Inside the United States, industries and regions that are specially endangered by climate/energy reform (e.g. coal mining, oil drilling, autos) must be given special help for retraining in green jobs. (Underlying Jewish principle: Maimonides’ eighth and highest approach to tzedakah: Help the poor to end their own poverty by providing capital, etc.: a fishing rod, not just a fish.)

6. Outside the United States, poor nations must be given major help by the rich for two purposes: pursuing economic development through non-fossil pathways, and meeting urgent crises already swamping/flooding/scorching them. (Underlying Jewish principles: Again, Maimonides eighth and highest approach to tzedakah: Help the poor to end their own poverty by providing capital, etc.: a fishing rod, not just a fish.)

7. Public policy must start encouraging what we usually think of as “personal” choices for non-climate-destroying practices: Much more restful and reflective time for family and neighborhood, much less “production/consumption” time. Frugality in energy use, eating less meat. Simplicity in life-path. More money for learning, arts, etc.; less for making Things. Taxes, subsidies, wages/hours laws, etc., are all ways of encouraging these directions.

Underlying Jewish principle: Shabbat, traditionally an earth-healing as well as human-healing practice, was a communal commitment, not just individual choice.

Of these principles, we suggest the following yardstick for measuring proposed U.S. policies: Do they promote American energy independence and security, and the healing of our planet by: Immediately ending all governmental subsidies to the production of oil and coal? Radically and swiftly reducing the burning of oil and coal from all sources, foreign and domestic? Simultaneously using all possible measures to build an energy base for the American economy on solar, wind and other sources of waste-free, sustainable energy and on urgent steps for energy conservation? Making “green jobs” and the creation of a green infrastructure the central focus of transition to a new American economy? Giving aid to poor nations to pursue a non-fossil path for economic and social development?

If the Jewish community and other American faith communities undertake this effort, not only Chanukah, which means “dedication,” but our lives as a whole can become a practice of Rededication to the One.

Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a Baltimore native, is the director of The Shalom Center, http://www.theshalomcenter.org/, as well as the author or editor of many books on Jewish practice, eco-Judaism and U.S. public policy.
This story reprinted courtesy of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Climate myths: Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

The chaotic nature of weather makes it impossible to prove that any single event such as Hurricane Katrina is due to global warming. It is also impossible to prove that global warming did not play a part, so debates about the causes of individual events are futile.

It is possible, however, to determine whether global warming is increasing the frequency or intensity of extreme events. It is a bit like throwing dice: getting one six proves nothing, but if sixes keep coming up more often than the other numbers, you know the dice is loaded.

So is global warming loading the dice when it comes to tropical cyclones (also known as hurricanes and typhoons in different parts of the world)? A host of atmospheric factors have to be just right for a cyclone form and grow. Sea surface temperatures play a big role and they are steadily increasing.

But the temperature difference between the sea surface and the air also matters, and global warming might have little effect on this. Then there is the question of how warming will affect factors that weaken storms such as high level winds that chop off the top of developing hurricanes, an effect called wind shear (see Wind shear may cancel climate's effect on hurricanes).
Increasing intensity

General climate models are not detailed enough to accurately predict the effects of warming on hurricane activity. Instead, modellers have tried to feeding in predictions from general models to detailed regional models of hurricanes. This has produced some widely varying results, but the consensus among experts is that global warming will not lead more hurricanes overall, but will increase the average intensity of storms.

A growing number of studies of hurricane records suggest this trend can already be seen. In 2005, for instance, Kerry Emanuel at MIT published a research suggesting that tropical cyclones in the West Pacific and Atlantic have become more powerful over the past 50 years. That same year, another study concluded that the frequency of the strongest tropical cyclones has almost doubled globally since the early 1970s.

There are problems with such studies. For starters, tropical cyclone activity in some regions seems to rise and fall in cycles lasting many decades. "This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult" concluded the 125 members of a World Meteorological Organisation international workshop on tropical cyclones and climate change, held in December 2006 (see pdf report).

Researchers studying past activity are also only too aware of the shortcomings of the databases. For example, the techniques for measuring storm intensity have changed dramatically over the past 30 years. On the fundamental question of whether global warming is affecting tropical cyclones, the WMO group decided: "no firm conclusion can be made at this point".
Stalagmites and coral

More data is needed settle the issue. Some are looking to natural records of past hurricane activity in stalagmites, lake deposits and coral rubble. Others are re-analysing existing databases. In February 2007, one such re-analysis concluded that over the past two decades, hurricane intensity has increased in the Atlantic but not in other parts of the world (pdf format).

Yet another complicating factor is that changes in climate can also change the paths that tropical cyclones tend to take, determining whether they remain over oceans or strike land.

What every one agrees on is that over the past few decades there has been a huge rise in the number of people being killed or injured by hurricanes, and in damage to infrastructure, and this trend looks set to continue. The main reason for this, however, is that more and more people are living and building in hurricane zones.

The Ultimate Plastic Breakdown

You may have seen the plastic resin chart, but what do those numbers actually mean, and why should they be important to you?

The industry calls it the “resin identification coding system.” It indicates the type of plastic your product is made from and is ultimately your guide to recycling that plastic.

While the codes were initially developed to meet the needs of recyclers, they create a uniform system that is now used by curbside communities and other plastic recycling programs. Today, more than 80 percent of Americans have access to a plastics recycling program.

So, let’s break down the system into simple, non-industry terms. Once you have a handle on what materials make up your plastic, you can make a better decision from purchase to disposal.
Plastic #1 – PET, PETE
In 2007, About 1/3 of the increased bottle use of plastic was from the growth in the use of post consumer recycled plastic for bottles, according to the ACC's report. Photo: vertycle.com


Nearly eight out of every 10 plastic bottles will end up in a landfill. Photo: vertycle.com

Polyethylene Terephthalate

Where You’ll Find It:

* Bottles for water, soft drinks, juice, sports drinks, mouthwash, ketchup, beer and salad dressings
* Food jars, such as peanut butter, jelly, jam and pickles
* Microwavable food trays

Why They Use It: Plastic #1 is a clear plastic that is ideal for beverages because of its moisture-barrier properties. This material has smooth surfaces and is made for high impact. So drop it, roll it or throw it – the resin will hold its shape and protect the substance inside.

The Lowdown on Recycling: Plastic #1 is one of the most common and highly recycled resins. Most curbside programs will accept this plastic in bottle form. Plastic #1 is also the main resin targeted with container deposit laws, also called bottle bills. A container deposit law requires a minimum refundable deposit on beverage containers in order to ensure a high rate of recycling or reuse. Currently, 11 states have bottle bills in place, including New York, Connecticut and North Carolina.

Need-to-Know Info:

1. Recycling a single plastic bottle can conserve enough energy to light a 60-watt light bulb for up to six hours.

2. Recycled plastic bottles can be made into products such as clothing, carpeting, detergent bottles and lumber for outdoor decking.

3. According to the EPA, while overall recovery of plastics for recycling is relatively small – 2.1 million – recovery of some plastic containers has reached higher levels. PET bottles were recovered at a rate of 27 percent in 2008, according to a recent report.
Plastic #2 – HDPE
Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com


In 2007, more than 830 million pounds of plastic bags and film were recycled, a 27 percent increase from 2005. Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com

High Density Polyethylene

Where You’ll Find It:

* Shopping bags
* Milk jugs
* Bottles for shampoo, dish and laundry detergent, household cleaners
* Water and soda bottles
* Cereal box liners
* Shipping containers

Why They Use It: Plastic #2 is translucent and relatively stiff. These properties create a strong barrier, are suitable for high temperatures and the material is virtually crack-resistant. It is also well-suited for products that have a longer shelf-life. Its chemical resistance make it ideal for bleaches and detergents.

The Lowdown on Recycling: Plastic bags are generally made from plastic #2. The material can hold up to 2,000 times its own weight, making it the perfect product for transport. However, because of their light weight, plastic bags are often hard to recycle and left out of curbside programs. But most major grocery store chains have in-store recycling bins for plastic bags.

There is a high demand for this material, and in most areas, demand exceeds the available supply, because many consumers are not aware that collection programs are available in stores. The trick is actually remembering to take those excess bags with you the next time you go shopping.

Need-to-Know Info:

1. According to the EPA, only about 12 percent of bags and film were recycled in 2007.

2. Recycling or reusing 1 ton of plastic bags saves the energy equivalent of 11 barrels of oil.

3. Recycled plastic #2 content can be found in plastic lumber, buckets and crates, bottles for non-food items (shampoo, detergent, motor oil) and even curbside recycling bins themselves.
Plastic #3 – PVC, Vinyl
Photo: Flickr/incurable_hippie


PVC is considered a difficult and expensive material to recycle. For this reason, much of it ends up in landfills. Photo: Flickr/incurable_hippie

Polyvinyl chloride

Where You’ll Find It:

* Blister packs
* Clamshell containers
* Bags for bedding, medical shrink wrap, deli and meat wrap
* Pipes, siding, window frames, fencing, decking and railing

Why They Use It: PVC is very strong and high-impact. Along with its brilliant clarity, plastic #3 is also resistant to grease, oil and chemicals.

The Lowdown on Recycling: PVC is not commonly recycled or recyclable, nor is it biodegradable. More than 7 billion pounds of PVC are thrown away in the U.S. annually, and only 18 million pounds – barely one-quarter of 1 percent – is recycled. The relatively new mechanical recycling process known as Vinyloop® technology, developed by Solvay Research & Technology, allows the complete separation of PVC material from the non-PVC materials that are often combined with it.

Need-to-Know Info:

1. PVC requires 20 percent less energy to produce than other plastics. It is also thought to save on fossil fuel use, as its principal raw material (nearly 60 percent) is chlorine-derived from common salt.

2. To make vinyl products flexible, controversial plasticizers known as phthalates are used, accounting for nearly 90 percent of total phthalate consumption. This translates into more than 5 million tons used for vinyl every year.

3. Energy-intensive chlorine production for PVC consumes an estimated 47 billion kilowatt hours per year – almost equal to the annual total output of eight medium-sized nuclear power plants.
Plastic #4 – LDPE
Photo: Flickr/46137


The U.S. EPA estimates about 31 percent of all municipal solid waste in 2005 was generated from packaging-related material. Photo: Flickr/46137

Low Density Polythylene

Where You’ll Find It:

* Bags for dry cleaning, newspapers, bread, frozen foods, produce and household garbage
* Shrink wrap and stretch film
* Coating for paper milk cartons and beverage cups
* Container lids
* Squeezable bottles

Why They Use It: LDPE is predominantly used in film and packaging. Its toughness, flexibility and transparency made it ideal for use in products where heat sealing is necessary. It is resistant to acids, bases and vegetable oils as well.

The Lowdown on Recycling: Because plastic #4 is often in film form, it is sometimes not accepted in curbside recycling programs. However, its material is similar to plastic bags, and some major grocery store chains will accept this plastic packaging for recycling. Reducing your plastic packaging waste starts in-store. Go for products with less plastic packaging and film.

Need-to-Know Info:

1. The average growth rate of container and packaging waste through 2010 is estimated to be about 1.8 percent annually.

2. About 3 percent of all U.S. energy consumption comes from the production of packaging materials. Using recycled material for the production of packaging goods takes less energy than creating the product from the material’s natural state.

3. Packaging and containers makes up about 56 percent of all plastic waste. About 75 percent of all of the waste comes from residential households.

Plastic #5 – PP

While most bottles are plastic #1 or #2, most of the bottle caps are polypropylene and cannot be recycled in the same process. Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com

While most bottles are plastic #1 or #2, most of the bottle caps are #5 and cannot be recycled in the same process. Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com

Polypropylene

Where You’ll Find It:

* Yogurt, margarine tubs
* Medicine bottles
* Bottle caps
* Ketchup and syrup bottles
* Reusable plastic containers, such as Tupperware

Why They Use It: Polypropylene has a good chemical resistance, a high melting point and is a strong material. Therefore, it’s ideal for reusable food containers and other packaging that requires durability. But while this resin is as common as a ketchup bottle, it’s still often left out of curbside programs.

The Lowdown on Recycling: According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), plastic #5 is a similar resin to plastic #2, which makes it more appealing to reclaimers who can use the material for water filtration systems, shipping pallets, sheeting and automotive battery casings and garbage and recycling bins. Polypropylene can be recycled back into its original form, or it can be made into products such as buckets, paint pails, automotive bumpers, automotive battery cases, furniture and flower pots. It is also used in many woven reusable bags.

Need-to-Know Info:

1. Sixty-two percent of California communities now have curbside access to non-bottle food container recycling. Out of the 100 largest communities nationwide, about one-third have curbside recycling programs for plastic #5.

2. Even though they typically aren’t printed with a #5 symbol, most plastic bottle caps (like those on water and soda bottles) are made from polypropylene.

3. According to the ACC, at least 325 million pounds of non-bottle plastics were collected for recycling in the U.S.
Plastic #6 – PS
Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com

Polystyrene used for food service packaging represents less than 1 percent by weight and volume of all landfilled materials. Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com

Polystyrene

Where You’ll Find It:

* Food service items (cutlery, plates, cups, bowls)
* Takeout containers
* Foam packaging
* Packing peanuts
* Compact disc cases
* Aspirin bottles

Why They Use It: Polystyrene is a versatile plastic that can be in both foam and rigid forms. As a foam, it is lightweight and comprised of 97 percent air. General purpose polystyrene is clear, hard and brittle. It has a low melting point but has an excellent moisture barrier, making it ideal for short-shelf products. Its low thermal conductivity also makes it perfect for insulation purposes.

The Lowdown on Recycling: According to a report by the Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers (AFPR), more than 65 million pounds of expanded polystyrene (EPS) packaging were recycled in 2007, while the number grew to 69 million pounds in 2008.

While most curbside programs do not accept plastic #6 or EPS, there are several community programs that will recycle the material. If there are no programs that fit your specific needs or are near your location, AFPR offers a mail-in program for consumers. Average shipping fees range from $1.50 to $9, based on the total packaging weight and volume.

Need-to-Know Info:

1. According to Virginia Lyle, deputy director of AFPR, all foam peanuts have recycled content, and most shape-molded polystyrene has at least 25 percent recycled content.

2. In the early 1900s, The Dow Chemical Company invented a process for extruding polystyrene to achieve a closed cell foam that resists moisture. Commercially known as Styrofoam, the material is the most widely recognized brand in insulation today.

3. Several cities and programs are against using polystyrene foam. In fact, San Fransisco initiated a ban against all food service EPS containers.
Plastic #7 – Other
Products carrying the term "biodegradable" are only compostable in a commercial composting system. Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com

Products carrying the term "biodegradable" are only compostable in a commercial composting system. Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com

Where You’ll Find It:

* Bio-based plastics made from corn, potato or sugar derivatives
* Three- and five-gallon reusable water bottles
* Some citrus juice and ketchup bottles
* Oven-baking bags, barrier layers and custom packaging
* Any plastic product that does not fit into resin categories 1-6

Why They Use It: Plastic #7 the catch-all category for those plastic products that do not fit into 1-6. These plastics are multi-layered combinations of more than one plastic resin. Its usage and properties depend on the types of resins used to produce it.

The Lowdown on Recycling: Programs for the “other” category vary greatly by location. Since it is such a broad category, many curbside programs will not accept plastic #7 at all. Bio-based plastics are often lumped into this category as well. These plastics are often touted as more eco-friendly because they will degrade faster than other resins.

However, consumers should keep in mind that these plastics are only biodegradable in a commercial composting system. Generally, the plastic will not degrade in backyard compost piles because the temperature isn’t high enough.

Need-to-Know Info:

1. The presence of BPA (bisphenol A) is a controversial issue for plastic #7. BPA is typically used as an additive in plastics manufacturing, as it makes the plastic more shatter-proof.

2. Plastic #7 includes two main types: acrylonitrile styrene or styrene acrylonitrile (referred to as AS/SAN), and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). Both are prolific and are used to make high quality, strong plastics.

3. In the few instances when it can be recycled, plastic #7 quickly downcycles to non-renewable plastic. However, some plastic #7 products are considered to be e-waste and can be properly disposed of in an electronics recycling program.

Hurricanes getting stronger due to global warming says study

SUMMARY: Late last month an atmospheric scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a study in Nature that found hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the past three decades. Kerry Emanuel, the author of the study, warns that since hurricanes depend on warm water to form and build, global climate change might increase the effect of hurricanes still further in coming years.


Hurricane Katrina moved ashore over southeast Louisiana and southern Mississippi early on August 29, 2005, as an extremely dangerous Category 4 storm. With winds of 135 miles per hour (217 kilometers per hour), a powerful storm surge, and heavy rains, Katrina pounded the U.S. Gulf Coast, triggering extensive life-threatening flooding. This GOES image shows the storm as it moved over southern Mississippi at 9:02 a.m. The eye of the storm was due east of New Orleans, Louisiana. Katrina moved north into Mississippi, and was expected to track quickly northeast across the United States into Eastern Canada over the first part of the week. (Image courtesy of the NASA Earth Observatory.)



Hurricanes Growing More Fierce Over Past 30 Years
National Science Foundation release
Original July 31, 2005 release


Hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the past three decades, according to atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


In his new analysis of tropical hurricane records, which he reports online today in the journal Nature, Emanuel finds that both the duration of the storms and their maximum wind speeds have increased by about 50 per cent since the mid-1970s. Moreover, this marked increase in the energy release has occurred in both the north Atlantic and the north Pacific Oceans.

Unlike previous studies, which have focused on whether hurricanes are becoming more frequent, Emanuel's study is one of the first to ask whether they are becoming more fierce.

"It's an innovative application of a theoretical concept, and has produced a new analysis of hurricanes' strength and destructive potential," says Jay Fein, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s climate dynamics program, which funded the research. And that analysis, in turn, "has resulted in an important measure of the potential impact of hurricanes on social, economic and ecological systems,"

Indeed, as Emanuel himself says, "the near doubling of hurricane's power over the period of record should be a matter of some concern, as it's a measure of the [future] destructive potential of these storms."

Also of concern, he says, is that the increases in storm intensity are mirrored by increases in the average temperatures at the surface of the tropical oceans, suggesting that this warming is responsible for the hurricanes' greater power. Since hurricanes depend on warm water to form and build, Emanuel warns that global climate change might increase the effect of hurricanes still further in coming years.

In addition, he says, recent research suggests that global tropical hurricane activity may play a role in driving the oceans' circulation, which in turn has important "feedbacks" to regional and global climate.

Fluctuations in tropical hurricane activity "are of obvious importance to society," he adds, "especially as populations of affected areas increase. Hurricanes account for a significant fraction of damage, injury and loss of life from natural hazards, and are the costliest natural catastrophes in the United States. As the human population in coastal regions gets denser, the damage and casualties produced by more intense storms could increase considerably in the future."


Hurricanes growing fiercer with global warming
Elizabeth A. Thomson, MIT News Office
Original July 31, 2005 release


Hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the last three decades due in part to global warming, says an MIT professor who warns that this trend could continue.

"My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in [hurricanes'] destructive potential, and--taking into account an increasing coastal population--a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the 21st century," reports Kerry Emanuel in a paper appearing in the July 31 online edition of the journal Nature.

Emanuel is a professor of meteorology in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.

Theories and computer simulations of climate indicate that warming should generate an increase in storm intensity. In other words, they should hit harder, produce higher winds and last longer.

To explore that premise, Emanuel analyzed records of tropical cyclones--commonly called hurricanes or typhoons--since the middle of the 20th century. He found that the amount of energy released in these events in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. Both the duration of the cyclones and the largest wind speeds they produce have increased by about 50 percent over the past 50 years.

He further reports that these increases in storm intensity are mirrored by increases in the average temperature at the surface of the tropical oceans, suggesting that this warming--some of which can be ascribed to global warming--is responsible for the greater power of the cyclones.

According to Jay Fein, director of the National Science Foundation's climate dynamics program, which funded the research, Emanuel's work "has resulted in an important measure of the potential impact of hurricanes on social, economic and ecological systems. It's an innovative application of a theoretical concept, and has produced a new analysis of hurricanes' strength and destructive potential."

Rainwater Harvesting

Saves you and the environment some green

Rainwater harvesting is “the process of intercepting storm-water runoff and putting it to beneficial use.” Pretty simple concept. Oddly enough, it is illegal in some states. The Colorado legislature, in its 2009 session, legalized rainwater harvesting for residents with private wells. Other states and municipalities are in the process of changing their laws. You’ll need to do a little research to determine what is lawful in your state. Whatever the case, I don’t think the police are going to show up at your door if you choose to harvest rainwater.

Why would I want to harvest rainwater anyway?

According to the EPA, a homeowner can save 1,300 gallons of water a month. That will help with your water bills or reduce stress on your well. You can use the water in your evaporative coolers, to water plants, your lawn, your pets or livestock. It reduces your carbon footprint by saving on electricity to pump water and then deliver it to your home. Besides, it simply makes good sense to have water stored to guard against times of drought or emergency.

rainwater harvesting diagramSo I’m building or rebuilding a home and want to incorporate this. How?

You can begin by designing your home, buildings, and surrounding landscape to maximize the amount of rainwater catchment. You can do it like Jerry Brock of Monte Sereno, California and use four gravity-fed 5,000 gallon tanks. Or, there are companies like Rain Harvesting Systems (RHS) that specialize in elaborate and wonderful systems for your home or commercial building.

You can do it like people have been doing it for thousands of years—with some type of cistern. Cisterns, now, aren’t some Biblical clay container thing , but are usually some type of composite plastic. Here are some links to places you can buy one and also some “do it yourself” harvesting systems.

http://www.plastic-mart.com/class.php?cat=187

http://www.rain-barrel.net/category/rainwater-harvesting

http://www.ehow.com/how_5126202_harvest-rain-water.html

http://www.off-grid.net/2009/06/20/how-to-harvest-rainwater/

Bottom line: it can be as simple as putting a big bucket out under your rain gutter and using the water for dry spots on your lawn. Get an elaborate rainwater harvesting system or get a container with a cover (keeps mosquitoes from breeding and slows evaporation) and do your part to help your budget and your planet.

Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal?

Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal?

The summit failed to deliver a way to halt dangerous climate change

About 45,000 travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen - the vast majority convinced of the need for a new global agreement on climate change.

So why did the summit end without one, just an acknowledgement of a deal struck by five nations, led by the US.

And why did delegates leave the Danish capital without agreement that something significantly stronger should emerge next year?

Our environment correspondent Richard Black looks at eight reasons that might have played a part.

1. KEY GOVERNMENTS DO NOT WANT A GLOBAL DEAL

Until the end of this summit, it appeared that all governments wanted to keep the keys to combating climate change within the UN climate convention.

In the end, a deal was struck behind closed doors, not by the conference

Implicit in the convention, though, is the idea that governments take account of each others' positions and actually negotiate.

That happened at the Kyoto summit. Developed nations arrived arguing for a wide range of desired outcomes; during negotiations, positions converged, and a negotiated deal was done.

In Copenhagen, everyone talked; but no-one really listened.

The end of the meeting saw leaders of the US and the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) hammering out a last-minute deal in a back room as though the nine months of talks leading up to this summit, and the Bali Action Plan to which they had all committed two years previously, did not exist.

THE COPENHAGEN ACCORD


Over the last few years, statements on climate change have been made in other bodies such as the G8, Major Economies Forum (MEF) and Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (APEC), which do not have formal negotiations, and where outcomes are not legally binding.

It appears now that this is the arrangement preferred by the big countries (meaning the US and the BASIC group). Language in the "Copenhagen Accord" could have been taken from - indeed, some passages were reportedly taken from, via the mechanism of copying and pasting - G8 and MEF declarations.

The logical conclusion is that this is the arrangement that the big players now prefer - an informal setting, where each country says what it is prepared to do - where nothing is negotiated and nothing is legally binding.

2. THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM

Just about every other country involved in the UN talks has a single chain of command; when the president or prime minister speaks, he or she is able to make commitments for the entire government.

Not so the US. The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support, and his inability to step up the US offer in Copenhagen was probably the single biggest impediment to other parties improving theirs.

Viewed internationally, the US effectively has two governments, each with power of veto over the other.

Doubtless the founding fathers had their reasons. But it makes the US a nation apart in these processes, often unable to state what its position is or to move that position - a nightmare for other countries' negotiators.

3. BAD TIMING

Although the Bali Action Plan was drawn up two years ago, it is only one year since Barack Obama entered the White House and initiated attempts to curb US carbon emissions.

Copenhagen probably came a year too early in Barack Obama's presidency

He is also attempting major healthcare reforms; and both measures are proving highly difficult.

If the Copenhagen summit had come a year later, perhaps Mr Obama would have been able to speak from firmer ground, and perhaps offer some indication of further action down the line - indications that might have induced other countries to step up their own offers.

As it is, he was in a position to offer nothing - and other countries responded in kind.

4. THE HOST GOVERNMENT

In many ways, Denmark was an excellent summit host. Copenhagen was a friendly and capable city, transport links worked, Bella Center food outlets remained open through the long negotiating nights.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen (left) chats with fellow ormer COP15 President Connie Hedegaard
Developing nations accused the hosts of holding talks behind closed doors

Climate negotiations 'suspended'

But the government of Lars Lokke Rasmussen got things badly, badly wrong.

Even before the summit began, his office put forward a draft political declaration to a select group of "important countries" - thereby annoying every country not on the list, including most of the ones that feel seriously threatened by climate impacts.

The chief Danish negotiator Thomas Becker was sacked just weeks before the summit amid tales of a huge rift between Mr Rasmussen's office and the climate department of minister Connie Hedegaard. This destroyed the atmosphere of trust that developing country negotiators had established with Mr Becker.

Procedurally, the summit was a farce, with the Danes trying to hurry things along so that a conclusion could be reached, bringing protest after protest from some of the developing countries that had presumed everything on the table would be properly negotiated. Suspensions of sessions became routine.

Despite the roasting they had received over the first "Danish text", repeatedly the hosts said they were preparing new documents - which should have been the job of the independent chairs of the various negotiating strands.

China's chief negotiator was barred by security for the first three days of the meeting - a serious issue that should have been sorted out after day one. This was said to have left the Chinese delegation in high dudgeon.

When Mr Rasmussen took over for the high-level talks, it became quickly evident that he understood neither the climate convention itself nor the politics of the issue. Experienced observers said they had rarely seen a UN summit more ineptly chaired.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the prime minister's office envisaged the summit as an opportunity to cover Denmark and Mr Rasmussen in glory - a "made in Denmark" pact that would solve climate change.

Most of us, I suspect, will remember the city and people of Copenhagen with some affection. But it is likely that history will judge that the government's political handling of the summit covered the prime minister in something markedly less fragrant than glory.

5. THE WEATHER

Although "climate sceptical" issues made hardly a stir in the plenary sessions, any delegate wavering as to the scientific credibility of the "climate threat" would hardly have been convinced by the freezing weather and - on the last few days - the snow that blanketed routes from city centre to Bella Center.

Reporting that the "noughties" had been the warmest decade since instrumental records began, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) noted "except in parts of North America".

If the US public had experienced the searing heat and prolonged droughts and seriously perturbed rainfall patterns seen in other corners of the globe, would they have pressed their senators harder on climate action over the past few years?

6. 24-HOUR NEWS CULTURE

The way this deal was concocted and announced was perhaps the logical conclusion of a news culture wherein it is more important to beam a speaking president live into peoples' homes from the other side of the world than it is to evaluate what has happened and give a balanced account.
Thousands of journalists covered every twist and turn at the summit

The Obama White House mounted a surgical strike of astounding effectiveness (and astounding cynicism) that saw the president announcing a deal live on TV before anyone - even most of the governments involved in the talks - knew a deal had been done.

The news went first to the White House lobby journalists travelling with the president. With due respect, they are not as well equipped to ask critical questions as the environment specialists who had spent the previous two weeks at the Bella Center.

After the event, of course, journalists pored over the details. But the agenda had already been set; by the time those articles emerged, anyone who was not particularly interested in the issue would have come to believe that a deal on climate change had been done, with the US providing leadership to the global community.

The 24-hour live news culture did not make the Copenhagen Accord. But its existence offered the White House a way to keep the accord's chief architect away from all meaningful scrutiny while telling the world of his triumph.

7. EU POLITICS

For about two hours on Friday night, the EU held the fate of the Obama-BASIC "accord" in its hands, as leaders who had been sideswiped by the afternoon's diplomatic coup d'etat struggled to make sense of what had happened and decide the appropriate response.

The EU called the deal disappointing, so why did the 27-nation bloc accept it?

If the EU had declined to endorse the deal at that point, a substantial number of developing countries would have followed suit, and the accord would now be simply an informal agreement between a handful of countries - symbolising the failure of the summit to agree anything close to the EU's minimum requirements, and putting some beef behind Europe's insistence that something significant must be achieved next time around.

So why did the EU endorse such an emasculated document, given that several leaders beforehand had declared that no deal would be better than a weak deal?

The answer probably lies in a mixture - in proportions that can only be guessed at - of three factors:

• Politics as usual - ie never go against the US, particularly the Obama US, and always emerge with something to claim as a success

• EU expansion, which has increased the proportion of governments in the bloc that are unconvinced of the arguments for constraining emissions

• The fact that important EU nations, in particular France and the UK, had invested significant political capital in preparing the ground for a deal - tying up a pact on finance with Ethiopia's President Meles Zenawi, and mounting a major diplomatic push on Thursday when it appeared things might unravel.

Having prepared the bed for US and Chinese leaders and having hoped to share it with them as equal partners, acquiescing to an outcome that it did not want announced in a manner that gave it no respect arguably leaves the EU cast in a role rather less dignified that it might have imagined.

8. CAMPAIGNERS GOT THEIR STRATEGIES WRONG

An incredible amount of messaging and consultation went on behind the scenes in the run-up to this meeting, as vast numbers of campaign groups from all over the planet strived to co-ordinate their "messaging" in order to maximise the chances of achieving their desired outcome.

The messaging had been - in its broadest terms - to praise China, India, Brazil and the other major developing countries that pledged to constrain the growth in their emissions; to go easy on Barack Obama; and to lambast the countries (Canada, Russia, the EU) that campaigners felt could and should do more.

Now, post-mortems are being held, and all those positions are up for review. US groups are still giving Mr Obama more brickbats than bouquets, for fear of wrecking Congressional legislation - but a change of stance is possible.

Having seen the deal emerge that the real leaders of China, India and the other large developing countries evidently wanted, how will those countries now be treated?

How do you campaign in China - or in Saudi Arabia, another influential country that emerged with a favourable outcome?

The situation is especially demanding for those organisations that have traditionally supported the developing world on a range of issues against what they see as the west's damaging dominance.

After Copenhagen, there is no "developing world" - there are several. Responding to this new world order is a challenge for campaign groups, as it will be for politicians in the old centres of world power.

Scientists are reporting that "biochar" -- a material that the Amazonian Indians used to enhance soil fertility centuries ago -- has potential in the modern world to help slow global climate change. Mass production of biochar could capture and sock away carbon that otherwise would wind up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.


Their report appears in ACS' Environmental Science & Technology, a bi-weekly journal.

Kelli Roberts and colleagues note that biochar is charcoal produced by heating wood, grass, cornstalks or other organic matter in the absence of oxygen. The heat drives off gases that can be collected and burned to produce energy. It leaves behind charcoal rich in carbon.

Amazonian Indians mixed a combination of charcoal and organic matter into the soil to improve soil fertility, a fact that got the scientists interested in studying biochar's modern potential.

The study involved a "life-cycle analysis" of biochar production, a comprehensive cradle-to-grave look at its potential in fighting global climate change and all the possible consequences of using the material. It concludes that several biochar production systems have the potential for being an economically viable way of sequestering carbon -- permanently storing it -- while producing renewable energy and enhancing soil fertility.
Email or share this story:
| More

Story Source:

Adapted from materials provided by American Chemical Society, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Journal Reference:

1. Roberts et al. Life Cycle Assessment of Biochar Systems: Estimating the Energetic, Economic, and Climate Change Potential. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010; 44 (2): 827 DOI: 10.1021/es902266r

Water quality in Ganga at Haridwar poor: NGO

DEHRA DUN: Water quality of the river Ganga in Haridwar is below the standards set by the Central Pollution Control Board for bathing, a recent
Twitter Facebook Share
Email Print Save Comment
study by an NGO says.

Water has been polluted due to continuous discharge of untreated waste and effluents from various drains directly into the river Ganga, a Dehra Dun-based NGO People's Science Institute said in its study.

Sewage treatment plant (STP) at Jagjeetpur releases about 129 million litres daily (MLD) into the Ganga with a fecal coliform concentration of about 34 million/100ml.

Fecal coliforms are non-sporulating bacteria. Scientists from People's Science Institute (PSI) took samples from 10 drains falling into the river Ganga at different locations in Haridwar on January 2 and 3 this year along with samples of the river water at three locations.

The fecal coliform count of the waste water discharged by the 10 drains ranges from 2.35 million/100ml to 40.6 million/100ml.

The worst situation is the sewer drain at Jwalapur in Balmiki Nagar in the holy town which releases an estimated 15 MLD containing 40.6 million fecal coliforms per 100 ml.

Water samples of Ganga river taken from Saptrishi, Har-Ki-Pauri and Jagjeetpur showed fecal coliforms counts of 1000, 1500 and 7.5 million per 100 ml.

These are well above the prescribed CPCB standard of 500 MPN/100 ml and they pose a health hazard to millions of devotees who are likely to bathe in the river during the Kumbh Mela, PSI Environmental Quality Monitoring Group Head Dr Anil Gautam said.

"The present results do not show any significant improvement in the waste water draining into the Ganga, or the treated effluents emerging from the STP at Jagjeetpur, compared to the results we obtained in July 2009," he said.

"We had circulated our results of July 2009 to all the state legislators and ministers. We received acknowledgements from only two of them, Matbar Singh Kandari and Amrita Rawat, both of whom wrote letters to the Chief Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal," Gautam claimed.

However, no steps have been taken to clean Ganga before the Kumbh Mela, he said.

Lessons Learned from Copenhagen... What you need to know following the Copenhagen climate summit

Co-authored by Rebecca Lefton.

The international negotiations on climate change wrapped up Dec. 19 in Copenhagen. The conference achieved an interim agreement, known as the Copenhagen Accord, which could put the major polluting nations on a pathway to reducing global warming pollution, and it continues to set the expectation for U.S. domestic action on climate change.

Much work remains, but there were also numerous notable achievements and meaningful insights into how the United States can gain from leading the world toward a new international clean-energy agreement.

A “meaningful” deal on climate mitigation

President Barack Obama left Copenhagen Friday night after personally working to secure agreement from China, South Africa, Brazil, and India on a “meaningful and unprecedented” climate change agreement. The president played a major role in crafting the Copenhagen Accord that was hammered out by 28 countries and accepted by 188 by the end of the meeting. Only five countries -- Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Sudan -- refused the accord.

The Accord will go forward with committed parties now required to submit national action plans for emission reductions by the end of January 2010 that are consistent with the agreement’s stated goal of limiting global temperature increases from carbon pollution from rising to more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Farenheit) over pre-industrial levels.

The Accord stipulates that countries should consider further strengthening this goal by limiting temperature increases to 1.5 degrees C. Further, specific targets are not iterated in the accord and need to be added as soon as possible, but most parties are committed to strengthening it and taking the next step to turn it into a binding agreement by the 2010 U.N. climate summit in Mexico City.

The existing and proposed policies by the nations that produce large amounts of greenhouse gas pollution provide a good start toward the pollution cuts that we need. The Accord allows nations to undertake a full range of policies that reduce pollution, rather than limiting qualifying policies to economy-wide pollution caps. Preliminary results from a Center for American Progress report on carbon cap equivalents using recent data from Project Catalyst finds that current and pending policies among the world’s 17 major carbon polluters will yield 65 percent of reductions needed by 2020 if all parties succeed in doing what they have promised to do as of today.

Responsibility from developing countries

The Kyoto Protocol called on developed countries to reduce emissions but did not demand reductions from developing countries. Major polluting developing countries, including China, India, South Africa, and Brazil, are now poised to make transparent emissions reductions or reductions in pollution rates. This is the first time that developing countries have agreed to binding emission reductions in an international agreement. This represents a major shift from the schism between developed and developing countries that blocked progress in the past.

First-ever compromise to measure, report, and verify pollution reductions

The Accord includes a compromise between the United States and China to verify pollution reductions according to rigorous and transparent guidelines depending on the source of financing for the reductions. All reductions are subject to “international consultation and analysis.” As a New York Times editorial observed, “China is now a player in the effort to combat climate change in a way it has never been, putting measurable emissions reductions targets on the table and accepting verification.”

Serious emissions reductions targets for developing countries

The ramp up to Copenhagen and the United States’ decision to put midterm emission reductions targets and immediate financing numbers on the table prior to the start of the summit stimulated unprecedented national commitments from key countries. China announced on Nov. 26 a target of reducing carbon pollution per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. Soon after the U.S.-India summit in Washington, India announced on Dec. 2 that it intends to decrease its carbon intensity 24 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. More importantly, other clean-energy and climate policies in both countries will result in reductions in China of 13 percent below business-as-usual emissions by 2020 and 19 percent below business-as-usual emissions in India by 2020.

Major financial commitments

Developed countries committed significantly more financial resources than ever before to developing countries for mitigation, adaptation, and forest conservation. This was despite disappointments in negotiations over an international forestry deal and an international technology transfer regime. Developments include:

* The Accord establishes a “fast start” fund to provide $30 billion from 2010-2012 for assistance to developing countries, including funds for forestry and a commitment to mobilizing $100 billion a year to address the needs of developing countries by 2020. Japan said that it will provide $15 billion through 2012 toward the fast start fund, contingent on achieving an international agreement. And E.U. leaders will provide $10.5 billion over the next three years as part of the fund. The United States promised a fair share of meeting this goal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States' funding is contingent on a commitment by developing nations to make emission reductions transparent.
* The United States will finance $1 billion for avoided deforestation that will be matched by other countries for a total of $3.5 billion to prevent the destruction of tropical forests. The global goal is to cut deforestation by half by 2020, which would be equal to eliminating emissions from the entire global transportation sector.
* Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the launch of the Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative, or Climate REDI, which will contribute $85 million to a global fund of $350 million over five years to assist developing nations with adoption of clean-energy technology. Secretary Chu also announced 10 new clean-energy technology road maps under the Global Partnership, which was launched during the Major Economies Forum in July in L’Aquila, Italy.

A boost to passage of U.S. climate change legislation

As the Washington Post editorial board observed, the Copenhagen Accord “should prod the U.S. Senate to take up climate-change legislation.” President Obama said that we should meet our commitment to reduce pollution, not only because the science demands it, but because it offers enormous economic opportunity to build new clean-energy companies. This first step in Copenhagen commits the United States to passing legislation to make way for an international binding agreement. It is time for the U.S. Senate to continue its international leadership role by acting in 2010, which would create millions of jobs, secure energy independence, and boost the economy.

The primary international opponents of the Copenhagen Accord are oil states

The leading voices of opposition to the Accord came from Venezuela, Sudan, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Cuba. The first three nations are oil-producing states that would lose major revenue if countries reduce their global warming pollution by using less oil. The latter two nations are clients of Venezuela that must curry favor with their patron. The ability of a handful of petro-states to block the Accord from being endorsed by the entire U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change at Copenhagen suggests the flawed nature of the United Nations process that requires unanimity among 193 nations. Their opposition will not stop those signing onto the Accord from moving forward and carrying out its mandate, but many observers believe that the outcome of this meeting suggests that alternative venues, such as the Major Economies Forum, which includes the world's largest developed and developing nations polluters, can and should play a larger role in the design and implementation of future agreements.

Rebecca Lefton is a Researcher for Progressive Media, Andrew Light is a Senior Fellow, and Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress.

Pollution control: India ranks 123rd

WASHINGTON: India and China rank 123rd and 121st in pollution control respectively, reflecting the strain rapid economic growth imposes on the
Twitter Facebook Share
Email Print Save Comment
environment, according to the 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI).

However, among the other newly industrialised nations Brazil and Russia rank 62nd and 69th, suggesting that the level of development is just one of many factors affecting pollution control.

Iceland leads the world in addressing pollution control and natural resource management challenges, according to the index produced by a team of environmental experts at Yale University and Columbia University.

Presented Thursday at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010, the EPI ranks 163 countries on their performance across 25 metrics aggregated into ten categories including environmental health, air quality, water resource management, biodiversity and habitat, forestry, fisheries, agriculture, and climate change.

Iceland's top-notch performance derives from its high scores on environmental public health, controlling greenhouse gas emissions, and reforestation, according to a media release from Yale University. Other high performers include Switzerland, Costa Rica, Sweden, and Norway.

Copenhagen Summit Summary

Fifteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
and
Fifth Session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
December 7-18, 2009
Copenhagen, Denmark


Download this document as PDF file:
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/copenhagen-cop15-summary.pdf

A new political accord struck by world leaders at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen provides for explicit emission pledges by all the major economies – including, for the first time, China and other major developing countries – but charts no clear path toward a treaty with binding commitments.

The basic terms of the Copenhagen Accord were brokered directly by President Obama and a handful of key developing country leaders on the final day of the conference, capping two weeks of harsh rhetoric and pitched procedural battles that made the prospect of any agreement highly uncertain. It then took nearly another full day of tense negotiations to arrive at a procedural compromise allowing the leaders’ deal to be formalized over the bitter objections of a few governments.

In the end, parties adopted parallel decisions under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol that “take note” of the political accord and open the way for governments to individually sign on. In separate decisions, parties extended Ad Hoc Working Groups under both the Convention and the Protocol to continue negotiating toward a fuller agreement in late 2010 in Mexico. The unusual set of outcomes leaves uncertainty, however, about the formal standing of the Copenhagen Accord under the U.N. climate process and about the nature of any future agreement. The aim of a “legally binding instrument,” which appeared part of the deal when President Obama first announced it, was later stripped out.

Key elements of the Copenhagen Accord include: an aspirational goal of limiting global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius; a process for countries to enter their specific mitigation pledges by January 31, 2010; broad terms for the reporting and verification of countries’ actions; a collective commitment by developed countries for $30 billion in “new and additional” resources in 2010-2012 to help developing countries reduce emissions, preserve forests, and adapt to climate change; and a goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in public and private finance by 2020 to address developing county needs. The accord also calls for the establishment of a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, a High Level Panel to examine ways of meeting the 2020 finance goal, a new Technology Mechanism, and a mechanism to channel incentives for reduced deforestation. (See details below).

The Copenhagen conference culminated two years of intense negotiations launched with the 2007 Bali Action Plan. Known formally as the Fifteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 15) and the Fifth Session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 5), the gathering drew a level of political attention well beyond that of any previous climate meeting. Ministers, who ordinarily attend only the final days of the annual COP, arrived the first week hoping to unlock the stalled talks. By its closing days, the summit had drawn well over 100 heads of state and government.

Yet from its opening the conference was marked by bitter divisions, confusion, and setbacks. The Danish government, which had invested extraordinary effort to ensure Copenhagen’s success, found itself undermined from the start by the “leak” of a draft text opposed by developing countries. Though President Obama and other leaders had indicated weeks earlier that they foresaw only a political agreement, the talks were bottled up for days by Tuvalu’s adamant but unsuccessful demand for immediate consideration of a legally binding outcome. A new draft political agreement finally tabled late in the first week was roundly rejected by developed countries. Attempts to break the impasse by referring core issues to smaller groups of countries, rather than continuing to negotiate all issues with all parties, were repeatedly rebuffed by many developing countries, who insisted on full “transparency” and “inclusiveness.”

Those issues continued to dominate in a bitter closing debate as Venezuela, Sudan, Nicaragua, Bolivia and a few others fought to block the leaders’ agreement because most parties were outside the room when it was negotiated. Venezuela declared the agreement a “coup d’etat against the United Nations,” and Sudan likened its effects on poor nations to those of the Holocaust, prompting a round of angry demands that the comment be withdrawn. Though the accord ultimately won formal recognition despite the lack of full consensus, the episode left many privately questioning the prospects for significant further progress within a fully global, procedurally bound U.N. process.

Other dramas in Copenhagen included open squabbling among the typically unified developing country Group of 77, and the struggle between the issue’s two lead protagonists – the United States and China. The two sparred before the press and remained deadlocked behind closed doors until nearly the end. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who arrived ahead of President Obama, upped the pressure by declaring U.S. support for the goal of $100 billion a year for developing countries, an offer that many African and small-island countries did not want to let slip by. It was only then that Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei appeared to concede on U.S. demands that its actions be open to some form of international scrutiny.

President Obama closed the deal the next day in a meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula, and South African President Jacob Zuma, He then announced the tentative agreement to the press and headed home, leaving other leaders to consider the terms, and weary negotiators to devise the final procedural maneuvers.

Following is a summary of the core outcomes of the Copenhagen conference (full text of all decisions is available at http://unfccc.int/2860.php):

Copenhagen Accord

The Copenhagen Accord is a political (as opposed to legal) agreement of a novel form. Formal decisions under the U.N. climate process are typically taken by consensus. As some parties opposed the accord, the decision entering it into the conference’s proceedings is not technically an acceptance of its substantive content by the Conference of the Parties (or by the parallel Meeting of the Parties under Kyoto). Rather, the decisions by the two bodies only “take note” of the attached accord. Individual countries, in all likelihood a strong majority of the Convention’s 192 parties, will affix their names to the accord in the coming weeks. The accord declares itself “operational immediately,” although many of its provisions will require further elaboration (in some cases explicitly, and in other cases presumably, by the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties). The timeline for doing so is not specified.

In substance, the accord speaks to all of the core elements of the Bali Action Plan: a long-term goal; mitigation; adaptation; finance; technology; forests; and measurement, reporting and verification.

Long-Term Goal – The agreement “recogniz[es] the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius.” It also calls for a review of the accord by 2015, including a consideration of strengthening the long-term goal “in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

Mitigation – Under the accord, Annex I (developed) countries “commit to implement” economy-wide emissions targets for 2020, and non-Annex I (developing) countries “will implement mitigation actions.” (Least developed and small island countries “may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support.”)

The developed country targets and an initial set of developing country actions are to be entered into two appendices by January 31, 2010. It is widely expected, although not specified in the accord, that the targets and actions entered will be consistent with those floated by governments in the run-up to Copenhagen. Additional developing country actions can be added to the appendix on an ongoing basis. Actions for which developing countries are seeking support are to be recorded in a registry, and those receiving support will later be listed in the developing country appendix.

Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) – The emission targets of Annex I countries, and their delivery of finance for developing countries, will be MRV’d “in accordance with existing and any further guidelines” from the COP. These guidelines are to ensure “rigorous, robust and transparent” accounting of both targets and finance.

Actions by developing countries “will be subject to their domestic” MRV, with the results reported in biennial national communications. The information reported will be subject to “international consultation and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected.” Developing country actions receiving international support will be subject to international MRV under guidelines adopted by the COP.

Adaptation – Developed countries “shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable” finance, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation actions in developing countries.

Forestry – The accord declares the “immediate establishment of a mechanism…to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries” to support efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to enhance forest sinks.

Finance – “Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding” is to be provided to developing countries to support mitigation efforts (including forest-related), adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building. For the period 2010-2012, developed countries have a “collective commitment” to provide “new and additional resources…approaching USD 30 billion.” Developed countries also commit to a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020, “in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation.” The long-term finance is to be a mix of public (bilateral and multilateral) and private resources.

The accord calls for a new Copenhagen Green Climate Fund as one channel for delivering finance and a High Level Panel “to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue” toward the long-term funding goal.

Technology – The agreement establishes a new Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer for both adaptation and mitigation.

Relation to UNFCCC and Kyoto – The accord endorses two parallel decisions under the Convention and the Protocol (see below) extending the two formal negotiating tracks that existed prior to Copenhagen. Those decisions, however, do not cross-reference the accord. Thus, while some parties will likely look to those negotiating processes to elaborate and fully operationalize the accord, no formal link was established.

Ad Hoc Working Group under the Convention

Two years ago in Bali, the COP launched the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) as the forum for negotiating the “agreed outcome” to be adopted in Copenhagen. A set of decisions addressing the core elements of the Bali Action Plan, and a core decision tying them together, were not completed. While parties made modest progress in some areas, many of the draft texts remain heavily bracketed.

The COP adopted a decision forwarding the texts and extending the mandate of the AWG-LCA “with a view to presenting the outcome of its work…for adoption” next year at COP 16. A draft decision circulated at the time President Obama announced the tentative deal described the intended outcome next year as “a legally binding instrument.” However, the phrase did not appear in the text presented at the closing plenary. A number of countries including the United States argued for is reinsertion, but were opposed by others including India and Saudi Arabia.

Ad Hoc Working Group under the Protocol

A parallel Ad Hoc Working Group, the AWG-KP, was established under the Kyoto Protocol in 2005 to consider post-2012 emission targets for developed countries that are party to Kyoto. As with the AWG-LCA, its work remained uncompleted. The Kyoto parties adopted a decision forwarding the incomplete texts and calling on the AWG-KP to complete its work for adoption next year at the meeting of the Kyoto parties to be held in parallel with COP 16.

Dates and Venues of Future Meetings

Parties decided that COP 16/CMP 6 will be held November 29 to December 10, 2010, in Mexico, and that COP 17/CMP 7 will be held November 29 to December 10, 2011, in South Africa.

This summary was written by Elliot Diringer, Vice President for International Strategies, with contributions from International Fellows Kate Cecys and Namrata Patodia, and Daniel Bodansky of the University of Georgia School of Law.

Green Flooring Options

When it’s time to replace flooring, think outside the big box stores. Sustainable flooring is both durable and beautiful.

Cork



Cork is made from the peeled bark of Cork Oak trees, which can be sustainably harvested every nine years without harming the tree. It is naturally resistant to fire, insects, and microbes. Cork is available in snap-together floating floor systems or adhered tile. Showercork is made from ¼” slices of wine cork adhered to a paper backing. It’s designed to be grouted in place and then coated with urethane finish, so it’s especially appropriate for wet areas. Cork flooring is foot-friendly, sound-dampening, and durable.

Earthen Floors



Earthen flooring is earth mixed with fibers, compacted by hand and trowel, and then coated with a natural sealant like hemp or linseed oil. Very high traffic areas may require a flagstone inset. Earthen floors are durable, easily repaired, and kind to feet. Because they are made primarily with materials straight from the building site, their resource impact is near zero. Earthen floors are most often installed over a bed of gravel, but they can be even be layered on top of pre-existing flooring such as concrete or wood, as long as the structure can support the weight of the earth. Because of their high thermal mass, they are ideal for the passive solar home.

Linoleum


Contemporary MarmoleumNatural linoleum is a sustainable alternative to vinyl flooring and requires little maintenance apart from regular sweeping and mopping. A linoleum floor will last 30-40 years, compared to 10-20 years for vinyl flooring. At the end of its lifespan, it is fully biodegradable. Marmoleum, the most popular brand of linoleum, is made of linseed oil from flaxseeds, rosin from pine trees, wood and cork flours, limestone, metal-free pigments, and jute, in a waste-free process. Natural linoleum is available in a rainbow of colors in sheet, tile, or click-style flooring.

Local, Sustainably Harvested or Reclaimed Wood
LemRusticHemlockWant a wood floor? First check with local green builders, who may know locals harvesting their wood sustainably. A local builder may also know sources of reclaimed materials close to home. If you’re looking for a rustic look, try aged wood from barns. Reclaimed wood tells a story, whether it’s maple from a factory floor or flooring from an old bowling alley. Very often, the same dealers who sell reclaimed wood also sell sustainably harvested wood. Forest Stewardship Council certification gives you a starting point for learning about how wood is harvested, although there is the predictable controversy about whether or not their standards are stringent enough.

Woven Bamboo Flooring

Bamboo




Bamboo’s advantage over wood is its fast renewability. It is a grass ready for harvest within three to six years that regenerates without replanting and requires little chemical input. However, due to the recent popularity of bamboo,


corporations are clearing forests in China to plant it. Monocrops of bamboo decrease biodiversity and increase erosion in these clearcut areas. The more industrial bamboo farming becomes, the more chemicals are used to manage the crops. The lesson here is that not all bamboo is created equal. Look for companies like Teragren, who explicitly detail their commitment to sustainability.