Posted by Kelly Smith on Wed, Jul 14, 2010
Seven months ago, the Climategate email scandal broke. Emails that described some statistical methods used with the climate data were made public. To many climate change skeptics, these emails seemed to bring the validity of some climate change research into question and suggest fraudulent or unscientific research methods.
Now an independent review panel has released their findings in this matter to the general public. This 160-page report does not find any problem with the scientists or the data that should cause anyone to question the validity of the climate change research conducted at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, or the data they contributed to reports made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The panel did find that researchers should be more open with the public when they receive requests for information, and they should make it more clear to the general public how they used the data to create various graphic organizers and climate predictions.
Climate change skeptics can no longer legitimately hold onto this scandal as a means to deny climate change.
Record heat waves on the East Coast of the US add to the list of recent extreme weather events that will become more common as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increase.
Meanwhile, oil is still spilling and cleanup and containment efforts are still going on in the Gulf of Mexico months after an explosion caused oil to start spewing into the water at a rate of 60,000 barrels each day.
Now is not the time to make petty arguments about statistics. Now is the time to find alternatives to the dirty fossil fuels of the past. Investing in energy efficiency, purchasing renewable green power, and conserving conventional energy use are a good way to start turning to clean energy.
Photo via .Martin.
Posted by Rahul Chitrapu on Sun, Jul 11, 2010
"We don't have a long-term plan for humanity," Ted Turner said during the 2010 Summit Series in DC. "Global warming is by far the most complex problem facing us today and we need to phase out fossil fuels...," Ted said. Check out the video.
Posted by Hudson DeWeese on Wed, Jun 23, 2010
The particles released into the atmosphere from aerosols and planes are actually reflecting sunlight back into space which is found to have the effect of cooling the earth. During the three days that followed September 11th, 2001, it was noticed that the average daytime temperature increased by 1.8°F, which proves the significance of what is called global dimming. Some believe that global dimming can be used to as a geoengineering technique to reduce the impact of global warming when in reality it is a cheap and temporary fix to combat global warming.
The full temperature effects of global dimming are not yet fully understood due to the challenge of recording the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere. Regions that are downwind from major sources of air pollution have generally cooled, which makes global dimming intriguing. This may also explain why the eastern United States is cooling compared to the warming western part.
Aerosols generally have a life of one week until they get collected by rain and fall to the earth's surface. While in the atmosphere, aerosols have a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight back into space while during the nighttime it actually prevents the earth from cooling by trapping the heat in. It has also been noticed that aerosols can decrease rain fall which interferes with the hydrological cycle. In general, most techniques of temporarily cooling the earth's atmosphere have a cooling effect in some regions but a heating effect in others giving no overall change in the earth's climate. For example, volcanic ash has been shown to cool down the atmosphere in a similar way aerosols do, but once the ash settles it absorbs sunlight which in return heats the atmosphere.
The use of green energy reduces the amount of sulfides and CO2 in the atmosphere which has a direct relationship to global warming, which as a result is cooling the earth. Where global dimming is just masking these effects for a temporary amount of time and has yet to be proven effective past regional effects. Although green energy doesn't have an immediate effect on the climate like a volcanic eruption does, there is proof that green energy works with no repercussions of having the earth warm in any other areas.
Posted by Kelly Smith on Tue, Jun 15, 2010
The new attorney general in the state of Virginia is out to get scientists who have studied climate change using state tax dollars under the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. He alleges that research dollars used to study what he considers to be a false science have been spent in a fraudulent manner.
Former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann is being subpoenaed in regards to five university research grants. Mann, who now works at Penn State University, has drawn ire from the climate-change skeptic Cucinelli for being a “leading proponent of the theory” and using state money to further his research.
Cucinelli is a leading climate change skeptic who has gone so far as to sue the federal government over greenhouse gas regulations. Cucinelli is not the first person to target Mann and his scientific research.
According to a recent Washington Post article, Dr. Mann is one of the scientists who helped create a graph compiling different types of data to show a large recent change in the Earth’s climate. One of his emails to a professor in the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit was involved in the Climategate leak. In this email, Mann referred to a mathematical trick he used while creating his model, which climate change skeptics jumped all over as evidence of fraud.
Mann insists that “the email was taken out of context,” and he feels that he is being targeted solely as a means for fueling further skepticism of climate science. Penn State investigations have shown that they cannot find any evidence that Mann has been dishonest in his research.
Many people are concerned about Cucinelli’s attack on Mann. If the lawsuit is successful, it will likely set a legal precedent that is a danger to academic freedom in general and the study of climate change specifically.
Posted by Kelly Smith on Wed, Jun 02, 2010
Britain's former Prime Minister Gordon Brown stepped down in early May when his Labour government did not win a majority of seats in Parliament in the May 6 election. For the first time since World War II, no party won an outright majority, so a coalition was formed by the two leading parties. Britain's new government is a coalition government formed by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and Liberal Democrat deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.
The UK's governmental shift comes just as the news has been released by Cambridge Econometrics that although Britain is set to meet preliminary carbon dioxide reduction targets due to the economic downturn and a switch from coal power to nuclear power, it is going to fall short of its goal to reduce carbon emissions 34 percent by 2020 if nothing changes. Carbon emissions in the UK are decreasing, but they are decreasing by a smaller percentage as the economy improves.
In order to meet its 2020 carbon budget, the UK's new coalition government will need to continue to invest in both energy efficiency and renewable energy in many sectors of the economy. In the meantime, Chancellor George Osborne has begun to outline the financial budget cuts which the new government finds necessary to chip away at the British deficit. Spending cuts worth 6.2 billion British pounds are proposed. It is unclear whether the new government is committed to investment in green power innovations or whether the government will follow through on the Labour government's green investment bank. Some experts believe that the government can reach climate change targets without cuts if they focus investment in and regulations on the transportation industry and the heating industry.
Posted by Kelly Smith on Mon, May 31, 2010
When most of us think about reducing our carbon footprint these days, we think about things like driving less, using less electricity,purchasing green power, or planting trees. We are aware of recycling as something that is good for the planet, but many do not make the connection between recycling and climate change.
In fact, it takes much less energy to make a product from recycled materials rather than freshly chopped trees or newly mined metal ores. According to the state of Minnesota’s environmental website doitgreen.org, “Production of recycled paper uses 65 percent less energy than paper production using raw materials.”
Less energy usage means less carbon dioxide pollution, and that means less climate change. Energy conservation and energy efficiency, together with renewable energy, are some of the best things we can work on to improve our energy future.
Paper recycling is especially important to reducing climate change, because it reduces the need to cut down carbon dioxide-absorbing trees to make more paper. And doesn’t it just make more sense to recycle resources we already have rather than let them sit for hundreds of years in a landfill?
Fortunately, people are catching on. According to a recent Mother Nature Network article, “The American Forest & Paper Association reports that in 2008, a record high 57.4 percent of the paper consumed in the U.S. was recovered for recycling.” That is a good jump from 53 percent in 2006.
The U.S. paper industry hopes to continue the growth trend in paper recycling to collect and use 60 percent of American waste paper in the next two years. Since 86 percent of Americans have access to paper recycling facilities of some kind, this seems like a very achievable goal. Every home and business should think more seriously about how to make the easy commitment to recycling.
Posted by Kelly Smith on Wed, May 26, 2010
A report last week from the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences takes the worst-case scenario for climate change to paint a rather gloomy picture: if average global temperatures rise 21 degrees, then half of the world's people will need to find a new place to live. In addition to
extreme weather, stressed agriculture, various
health problems, rising sea levels, and the like, there may reach a time in the next 300 years when much of the planet is just too hot for human habitation.
The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that average global temperatures will rise about 7 degrees by the year 2100 if we don't clean up our act. At temperatures of 12 degrees above the current average, heat stress may become a serious problem. Humans will be too hot at those temperatures even if they are standing naked in the shade, drenched in cold water and being blown on by a fan.
This is a frightening prospect, especially since the year 2100 is within the scope of our children's lifetimes. The negative effects of fossil fuel usage, such as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the recent coal mining disasters, have gotten a lot of press lately. Predictions of the stress of climate change on human life make change even more urgent.
Fortunately, it is not too late to make a difference. We can work together with our children and our communities to create a brighter future for us all. There are easy ways to reduce our carbon footprints at home and at work. We can turn off and unplug electronic devices that we are not using. We can purchase green power. We can shop at sustainable businesses and research green investments. We can drive less and bike more. We can recycle. We can be sure to only run full loads in the washing machine or the dishwasher. We can adjust the thermostat a few degrees. We can dress appropriately for the weather. We can eat seasonal produce. As we make these lifestyle changes, we need to keep a positive attitude and work together.
Posted by Kelly Smith on Wed, May 12, 2010
“Clean coal” is a term used to describe technologies that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions while still using coal as a fuel. The most common technique described as a clean coal technology is carbon sequestration, which condenses carbon dioxide gas and stores it underground to keep it out of the atmosphere. Another clean coal technology involves converting coal into a gaseous form before burning it to produce a cleaner burn with fewer carbon emissions.
On the downside, clean coal technology will take years to be fully developed, and it is uncertain whether carbon storage will be successful in the long term. Currently, about half of the energy in the United States comes from coal power plants, but the shift to clean coal is expensive. Old coal power plants will not support the new technology, so brand new coal power plants need to be built. This uses energy and emits carbon dioxide starting from the construction stage. Clean coal technology also does not solve any of the problems associated with coal mining.
Mississippi recently brought proposals to build a new clean coal plant to a halt. Officials decided that the costs and risks were too high and the technologies were too uncertain to make the project feasible without a long list of conditions. Mississippi Power thinks that the conditions imposed by state regulators make the project impossible. Similar project proposals have been shut down all over the country in the last few years for many of the same reasons.
Investing a lot of money in an uncertain technology that continues to use a problematic fossil fuel doesn’t seem very smart, especially since coal is not a renewable resource and will not be a viable long-term energy source. Finding a marginally cleaner way to use fossil fuels does not eliminate all of the problems associated with the use of fossil fuels. From the mining to the burning, there is not very much that is clean about coal. It makes far more sense to invest money in new renewable energy projects. We have the technology to harness more green power, so our focus should be on making green energy a more abundant and cost-effective option to power our future and counteract climate change.
Posted by Kelly Smith on Tue, May 11, 2010
Since the dawn of the industrial revolution almost two centuries ago, we have powered our homes and businesses with fossil fuels more and more. Coal, oil, and natural gas have become increasingly important to maintaining our lifestyles and our standard of living. If I want to buy a small swimming pool for my son to play with in the backyard, fossil fuels are used to power the factory that makes swimming pools. Fossil fuels are used to transport the swimming pools from the factory to my local store. I use fossil fuels in my car as I drive to the store to pick out a swimming pool. I use fossil fuels to cool my home so that we are comfortable when we come inside from playing with the swimming pool on a hot day.
The burning of these fossil fuels creates pollution in our atmosphere. One of the pollutants released is carbon dioxide gas, which helps to trap the sun's heat and raise our global temperature. Some people are confused by the term ‘global warming.' Didn't it snow a few times in balmy Mississippi this year? Didn't they get a blizzard in Texas?
As average global temperatures rise with increased fossil fuel usage, the climate starts to change. We start to experience more severe or unusual weather events, such as snow in the southeastern United States. A more accurate term to use is ‘climate change.' Climate change can cause stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, increased allergies and asthma, and even increased volcanic activity. Climate change can cause food shortages around the world. It can contribute to poverty and disease in many ways. The more we continue to power our economies with the use of traditional fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, the more dangerous carbon dioxide gas builds up and heats our planet.
Fortunately, there is another way. Choosing to purchase green power such as wind power or low impact hydroelectricity through companies such as EcoElectrons can make a big difference. Green energy is a superior energy product that provides renewable, planet-friendly electricity to power our homes and businesses. Businesses can purchase green electricity as a way to counteract the emissions they make through their traditional power supplier and inject green fuel into the power grid.
Businesses that are serious about becoming a sustainable businesses should consider purchasing green power as a means of protecting the earth, attracting customers, and turning away from business as usual. The industrial revolution has long past, and the green revolution is here. The fuel of the future is renewable energy, and the time to invest is now. Green energy can cool our planet better than any swimming pool I might find at the store.
Posted by Kelly Smith on Wed, Apr 28, 2010
What we eat has a significant effect on our carbon footprint. Green restaurants with sustainable business plans are doing things like serving less meat and buying locally grown food. For example, New York's new vegetarian fast food chain, Otarian, is the first restaurant chain to keep customers informed about the carbon footprints of their menu choices based on a specific international standard.
The carbon footprint of the food we eat incorporates both the energy needed to produce the food and the energy needed to ship the food to its final destination. Long-distance food shipping is a little more intuitive as far as carbon emissions are concerned. What many consumers are not as aware of is the high carbon cost of eating meat. It takes at least ten pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, meaning that farmers use ten times more cropland, fossil fuel, and fertilizers to produce beef rather than corn or wheat. In addition, cows emit methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.
Cattle farmers often ship their cows around the country to find the best grazing land, which also contributes to the great inefficiency of raising beef. It actually takes 78 fossil fuel calories to produce just one pound of hamburger, making beef one of the most inefficient foods that a person can eat. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, Americans ate an average of 100 pounds of beef per person in 2007. That is a lot of waste.
The smaller the animal, the smaller the carbon footprint, but the most planet-friendly diet is one comprised of plant-based foods. Some people find it challenging to know what to eat without meat as a centerpiece of a meal. However, sustainable restaurants such as Otarian, which has three locations opening in the next few months, are making sustainable dining both cooler and more approachable to the average person.
Photo via Skinnyde