Ten Years After
The hot air and cold facts that show we’ve wasted a decade since the Kyoto global warming conference.
July 16th, 2008
Lean, Mean Meat-Free Machine | Portlander Robert Cheeke is the face of vegan bodybuilding.83 comments
July 9th, 2008
The Sopranokovs | The Russian mob comes to town with a new scam—medical identity theft.17 comments
July 2nd, 2008
Manhunter | Almost every state lets bounty hunters chase down its most wanted. Why doesn’t Oregon?102 comments
June 25th, 2008
Get Wet: WW’s Summer Guide 2008 | The rain is finally over. Now let’s get wet!1 comment
June 18th, 2008
New Kids In The Flock | Gresham’s twin teenage sensations go about their Father’s business. And it’s making them superstars.49 comments
June 11th, 2008
The Price is WHAT? | Second-guessing City Hall—it’s more fun than Monopoly! 17 comments
June 4th, 2008
Welcome to Googleville | America’s newest information superhighway begins On Oregon’s Silicon Prairie.18 comments
May 28th, 2008
Fleeced | While students across Oregon celebrate graduation, many are facing a gnawing problem—they’re getting sheared by huge debt.57 comments
May 21st, 2008
A Bridge Over The River Why? | Local pols say global warming is a dire threat. But they want to spend $4.2 billion on a project that makes driving easier.74 comments
May 14th, 2008
Higher Ed | Reed College is exceptional for more than academics. It’s one of America’s most permissive colleges for experimenting with drugs.555 comments
 2007 California Wildfires IMAGE: ap/Mark J. Terrill |
[December 5th, 2007]
Let’s see. In the past three days Portland has been pelted with about three inches of rain and the Oregon Coast was flattened by winds topping 125 mph. Has it ever felt truer that it doesn’t do any good to bitch about the weather?
As a matter of fact, no. We should bitch.
A decade ago, the world’s leaders jetted to Kyoto, Japan, on a mission to do something more than gripe about the weather. They aimed to negotiate a compact to fight global warming.
And this week, 130 nations have sent their reps to Bali, Indonesia, on a similar sortie.
Why? Because the protocol that emerged from the Kyoto conference in 1997 hasn’t come close to turning off the carbon emissions heating our planet. It’s so bad, we’re having post-apocalyptic visions of our great-grandchildren someday splashing about in oceanfront property on Burnside.
Though 169 countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the United States did not. (Australia was the only other developed nation not to do so, though its newly elected prime minister inked it on Monday.)
We continued to emit greenhouse gases on the premise that the science wasn’t quite in on global warming. Meanwhile, developing mega-nations like China and India are, well, developing with all the pollution-belching that growth entails. Both nations ratified the treaty but got “get out of jail free” cards as developing nations that don’t actually have to achieve fixed emissions reduction targets.
The Kyoto Accord will expire in 2012. And we’re marking the 10th anniversary of Kyoto and the occasion of the Bali conference, a.k.a. the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, with a package of stories and sidebars this week.
The collection includes nationally renowned author and environmentalist Bill McKibben analyzing why so little has been accomplished globally in the past decade. All is not gloom and doom: He also posits that the relegation of global warming deniers to the crazies’ corner—along with the creationists and the flat-earthers—might tee up the Bali conference as a last, good chance to change the weather.
And we also report on what Oregon and Portland have—and haven’t—been able to do over that same time span. Hint: We once looked like the Green Hornet when it came to acting locally. Not anymore.
You’re getting Warmer
The kyoto accord began the race to halt global warming. On its 10th annniversary, why are we barely past the starting gate?
By BILL MCkiBBEN
I remember so well the final morning hours of the Kyoto conference. The negotiations had gone on long past their scheduled evening close, and the convention-center management was frantic—a trade show for children’s clothing was about to begin. And every corner of the vast hall was still littered with the carcasses of the sleeping diplomats who had gathered in Japan to draw up a first-ever global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.
But when word finally came that an agreement had been reached, people roused themselves with real enthusiasm—lots of backslapping and hugs.
A long decade after the first powerful warnings had sounded, it seemed that humans were finally rising to the greatest challenge we’d ever faced.
The only long face in the hall belonged to William O’Keefe, chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, otherwise known as the American coal, oil and car lobby. He’d spent the week coordinating the resistance—working with Arab delegates and Russian industrialists to sabotage the emerging plan.
And he’d failed.
“It’s in freefall now,” he said, stricken. But then he straightened his shoulders and said, “I can’t wait to get back to Washington where we can get things under control.”
I thought he was whistling past the graveyard. In fact, he knew far better than the rest of us what the future would hold. He knew it would be at least another decade before anything changed.
The important physical-world reality to know about the 10 years after Kyoto is that they included the warmest years on record. All of the warmest years on record.
In that span, we’ve come to understand that not only is the globe warming, but also that we’d dramatically underestimated the speed and the size of that warming.
By now, the data from the planet outstrips the scientific prediction on an almost daily basis. Earlier this fall, for instance, the melt of Arctic sea ice beat the old record. Beat it in mid-August, and then the ice kept melting for six more weeks, losing an area the size of California every week.
“Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts,” the headline in The New York Times reported. And they were shaken by rapid changes in tundra-permafrost systems, not to mention rainforest systems, temperate-soil carbon-sequestration systems, oceanic-acidity systems.
We’ve gone from a problem for our children to a problem for right about now, as evidenced by, oh, Hurricane Katrina, California wildfires, epic droughts in the Southeast and Southwest. And that’s just the continental United States.
Go to Australia sometime: It’s gotten so dry there that native Aussie Rupert Murdoch recently announced that his News Corp. empire was going carbon neutral.
The important political-world reality to know about the 10 years after Kyoto is that we haven’t done anything.
Oh, we’ve passed all kinds of interesting state and local laws, wonderful experiments that have begun to show just how much progress is possible.
But in Washington, D.C., nothing. No laws at all. Until last year, when the GOP surrendered control of Congress, even the hearings were a joke, with “witnesses” like novelist Michael Crichton.
And as a result, our emissions have continued to increase. Worse, we’ve made not the slightest attempt to shift China and India away from using their coal. Instead of an all-out effort to provide the resources so they could go renewable, we’ve stood quietly by and watched from the sidelines as their energy trajectories shot out of control: The Chinese are now opening a new coal-fired plant every week. History will regard even the horror in Iraq as one more predictable folly next to this novel burst of irresponsibility.
 Scenes From Kyoto: Ten years ago, optimism was high that the world would tackle global warming. IMAGES: aan/ed smeloff |
If you’re looking for good news, there is some.
For one thing, we understand the technologies and the changes in habit that can help. The past 10 years have seen the advent of hybrid cars and the widespread use of compact fluorescent light bulbs. Wind power has been the fastest-growing source of electric generation throughout the period. Japan and then Germany have pioneered with great success the subsidy scheme required to put millions of solar panels up on rooftops.
Even more important, a real movement has begun to emerge in this country. It began with Katrina, which opened eyes. Al Gore gave those eyes something to look at: His movie made millions realize just what a pickle we were in. Many of those, in turn, became political activists. Earlier this year, six college students and I launched stepitup07.org, which has organized almost 2,000 demonstrations in all 50 states. Last month, the student climate movement drew 7,000 hardworking kids from campuses all over the country for a huge conference. We’ve launched a new grassroots coalition, 1sky.org, that will push both Congress and the big Washington environmental groups.
All this work has tilted public opinion—new polls actually show energy and climate change showing up high on the list of issues that voters care about, which in turn has made the candidates take notice. All the Democrats are saying more or less the right things, though none of them, save John Edwards, is saying them with much volume.
Now it’s a numbers game. Can we turn that political energy into change fast enough to matter?
On the domestic front, the numbers look like this: We’ve got to commit to reductions in carbon emissions of 80 percent by 2050, and we’ve got to get those cuts under way fast—10 percent in just the next few years. Markets will help—if we send them the information that carbon carries a cost. Only government can do that.
Two more numbers we’re pushing for: zero, which is how many new coal-fired power plants we can afford to open in America, and 5 million, which is how many green jobs Congress needs to provide for the country’s low-skilled workers. All that insulation isn’t going to stuff itself inside our walls, and those solar panels won’t crawl up on the roofs by themselves. You can’t send the work to China, and you can’t do it with a mouse: This is the last big chance to build an economy that works for most of us.
Internationally, the task is even steeper. The Kyoto Accord, which we ignored, expires in a couple of years.
Negotiations begin this week in Bali to strike a new deal, and it’s likely to be the last bite at the apple we’ll get—miss this chance and the climate probably spirals out of control. We have a number here, too: 450, as in parts-per-million carbon dioxide. It’s the absolute upper limit on what we can pour into the atmosphere, and it will take a heroic effort to keep from exceeding it. This is a big change—even 10 years ago, we thought the safe level might be 550.
But the data is so clear: The Earth is far more finely balanced than we thought, and our peril much greater. Our foremost climate scientist, NASA’s James Hansen, testified under oath in a courtroom last year that if we didn’t stop short of that 450 red line, we could see the sea level rise 20 feet before the century was out. That’s civilization-challenging. That’s a carbon summer to match any nuclear winter that anyone ever dreamed about.
It’s a test, a kind of final exam for our political, economic and spiritual systems. And it’s a fair test, nothing vague or fuzzy about it. Chemistry and physics don’t bargain. They don’t compromise. They don’t meet us halfway. We’ll do it or we won’t. And 10 years from now, we’ll know which path we chose.
Bill McKibben , a scholar in residence at Middlebury College, is an author and environmentalist who frequently writes about global warming. McKibben’s essay was commissioned by the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies.
How Oregon pioneered the fight against climate change—then fell behind.
By James Pitkin
One week before world leaders gathered a decade ago to sign the Kyoto Protocol, Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten was 67 miles away in Nagoya, Japan, at a meeting of local government leaders from around the world.
The powwow focused on what local governments could do to tackle a worldwide environmental crisis. And though Sten was still a political infant—he was 30 years old and it was his first year in office—he felt confident enough to argue that the wonks about to gather at Kyoto weren’t thinking big enough.
“I was actually making the case, based on our experience, that the Protocol could have gone even further than it did,” says Sten, who oversees City Hall’s climate-change policy.
Sten, after all, was from Portland—the first city in America to adopt a global warming strategy, four years earlier in 1993. It was the start of a visionary effort by the state and city to put us at the forefront of the fight against climate change—a race in which we’ve now lost the lead after making admirable gains.
Since Kyoto, Multnomah County emissions have held steady at around 10 million metric tons per year despite the county gaining nearly 17 percent in population over that period. (Similar emissions figures are unavailable for Portland alone. But weather stats are available. They show average temperatures in Portland have gone up 0.02 degrees Fahrenheit since Kyoto.)
Six months before Kyoto, Oregon became the first state in the nation to pass a law aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, by requiring new power plants to offset excess CO2 by investing in programs that reduce carbon emissions elsewhere. From that time until 2004—the most recent data available—statewide emissions stayed roughly the same.
Story continues belowadvertisement
 Erik Sten |
Meanwhile, Portland continued forging ahead with its own sustainability measures.
In 2000, the city created the Office of Sustainable Development, which combined its energy, recycling and green-building programs. That office was the first of its kind in any American city. In 2001, Portland adopted a Green Building Policy that required city-owned buildings—and buildings funded by the Portland Development Commission—to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-certified for energy efficiency.
Jeff Cogen, a current Multnomah County commissioner and former liaison to Portland’s Office of Sustainable Development in City Commissioner Dan Saltzman’s office, says the Green Building Policy boosted Portland’s economy and made the city the epicenter of the cutting-edge new sustainable-building industry. “The market exploded,” Cogen says.
Yet any measurable impact—positive or negative—to the city’s economy remains unclear because there are dozens of factors that drive or retard an economy. By one traditional measure of economic strength, employment, the city has seen only modest gains since passage of the Green Building Policy. Unemployment in the Portland area that year was 6 percent, according to the Oregon Employment Department. The unemployment rate dropped to 4.9 percent in the first 10 months of this year, the most recent data available.
If Portland and Oregon were already recognized as leaders on tackling climate change, that role only grew after President Bush and the then-Republican-controlled Congress refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.
In 2003, Sten was again invited to talk climate change, this time by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives on a five-city tour of Australia. America’s shame in spiking Kyoto had only boosted Portland’s standing—making the city an unofficial ambassador for Americans who saw climate change as a threat.
The year after Sten visited Australia saw the birth of the Governor’s Advisory Group on Global Warming —the first of its kind in any state. On April 13, 2005, Gov. Ted Kulongoski—who has staked his political legacy on addressing climate change—became the first governor to announce a greenhouse-gas reduction strategy, beating California’s Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger by exactly seven weeks.
Kulongoski’s plan was an “initiative,” Schwarzenegger’s was a “goal”—neither required legislative approval. Kulongoski’s aim was to cut statewide energy use 20 percent by 2025. The Californator tackled greenhouse-gas emissions themselves, with the goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020—a 15 percent reduction from California’s emissions at the time.
That moment marked the zenith of Oregon’s claim to the No. 1 spot in America’s fight against global warming. California has since taken a clear lead, says Angus Duncan, president of the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, a Portland-based nonprofit that promotes renewable energy.
“There’s no question that, at least legislatively, they moved ahead in Sacramento,” Duncan says. Washington, too, has surpassed Oregon in some respects, putting strict limits this year on carbon emissions from new power plants—a step Oregon has yet to take.
In 2006, the Golden State made history as the first to set into law a firm timeline capping greenhouse gas emissions. Oregon’s Legislature followed suit this year with a less ambitious batch of bills pushed by Kulongoski that promote renewable energy and biofuels.
The effort played well with the public. But critics said it came at the expense of more meaningful legislation that would have put firm limits on emissions or created the West Coast’s first European-style carbon cap-and-trade system. That bill died a quiet death after one committee hearing.
It was a hard fight rallying votes for the renewable-energy bills, and it became clear there wasn’t enough political steam to pass the cap-and-trade bill in the same session, says Jeremiah Baumann, lobbyist for Environment Oregon.
“We went into it knowing full well that this may be too much to ask for,” Baumann says.
David Van’t Hof, Kulongoski’s climate change adviser, defends the choice to delay a vote on a cap-and-trade system, calling the renewable-energy portfolio a crucial step.
A regional cap-and-trade system is in the works among seven Western states plus the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba, using an Oregon-developed proposal as a blueprint. It’s expected to go before the Oregon Legislature in 2009.
Yet the conclusion remains inescapable that Oregon is lagging.
California’s renewable-energy standard takes force in 2010, 15 years sooner than Oregon’s. California’s emissions rules have more teeth (Oregon’s have none). Like Washington, California has a power-plant performance standard. And Oregon’s tailpipe-pollution rule, like Washington’s, was copied from California’s.
Baumann says there are two main reasons Oregon has slipped. First, the Legislature before Democrats took control of both houses in the 2006 election delayed action while California lapped Oregon. Second, lobbyists from the Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, the Oregon Restaurant Association and segments of Associated Oregon Industries have lobbied against renewable energy and climate-change legislation.
ICNU executive director Michael Early says his trade group—whose members include Intel, Weyerhaeuser and Boise Cascade—was concerned that the added costs to utilities of mandated new renewable energy was uncertain.
 Chad Miller , owner of Food Fight Grocery vegan store (IMAGE: stephen voss) and George Taylor, head of the Oregon Climate Service at OSU. (IMAGE: tiffany brown) |
“Our interests were in trying to shape the bill so that it provided meaningful and adequate safeguards for customers,” Early says.
In the end, ICNU got some of its requests added to the bill, but not a proposed cap on added rates from renewable-energy costs, which was the focus of its efforts.
What makes Oregon’s fall from the vanguard particularly hard to accept is that Oregon can boast fighting climate change long before Kyoto.
In 1980, when Congress passed the U.S. Northwest Power Act, it included a first-of-its-kind rule that forced the Bonneville Power Administration to consider long-term costs—including pollution—when making new energy acquisitions.
That rule spread to other utilities around the country, and eventually took into account pollution from greenhouse gases. But it was only included in the first place because the city of Portland and the state of Oregon insisted, says Duncan, who lobbied for the rule as then-Mayor Neil Goldschmidt’s administrative assistant for policy.
“I spent a lot of time on red-eye flights in the mid- to late-’70s negotiating that,” Duncan recalls.
As the Bali conference begins this week, what Portland and Oregon have done locally are nowhere near what we need to do to meet last month’s recommendations by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which called for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. It’s not even on track to meet goals set by the 2007 Legislature—to cut emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
“We know that this is nowhere close to adequate to solve the problem,” says Bob Doppelt, director of the University of Oregon’s Climate Leadership Initiative. “Oregon is a leader, but it’s still figuring out how to make this happen.”
BLOWING STEAM
The amount of verbal hot air about climate change emitted by politicians and policy wonks at international meet-ups is probably a major contributor to global warming in itself. But the issue also affects Oregonians in all walks of life—from the vegan in line at Whole Foods, to the Salem lobbyist who just blew by you in a Lexus. We talked to a few of them about how global warming has changed their lives—or hasn’t.
Harry Peterson-Nedry , owner of Chehalem Winery in Newberg
“We have over the last decade or so seen the climate change, and it actually has been a positive thing at this point. Over the last 11 years we have had enough heat during the growing season to where things have ripened predictably and early. We know at the same time that if things continue to creep [upward], we have to investigate new sites for planting (pinot noir and riesling) or plant different varieties.”
Chad Miller , owner of Food Fight Grocery vegan store
“I think that people are aware [that veganism is touted as a solution to global warming]. That’s not my motivating factor for being a vegan, but a lot of big groups are using that as an emphasis point right now, when people are giving a shit about their carbon footprint and all that. ‘Look, it’s not just a bunch of animal-rights people! It’s the U.N.!’ I think for the most part, it’s not the people I know’s main reason for doing it. It’s just kind of an added bonus.”
Michael Davis , coastal real-estate broker in Gearhart
“I hear more concern about tsunami things after that thing happened in Indonesia, but I haven’t heard anything about rising sea levels. Still, the most valuable properties are the stuff that’s oceanfront. They’re right on the beach. The only ones that express any kind of concern are the ones that have maybe some concern about tsunamis.”
Dave Tragethon , spokesman for Mount Hood Meadows ski area
“We’re concerned about the long-term effects of climate change, but we believe there are a lot stronger weather influencers in our location, being so close to the ocean, so close to the gorge. We have our own micro-climate here. So the impact of climate change on a global basis is very subtle. We’re much more affected by the La Niñas and El Niños and those types of patterns.”
Scott Bolton , lobbyist for PacifiCorp
“California and Washington have basically abandoned coal. Two of three coastal states have said they don’t want this. That’s changed our perspective pretty dramatically. As a six-state utility, it’s not the optimal environment, where we have different state policies. Definitely we would like to see a more comprehensive federal approach to carbon regulation. It becomes a real balancing act to try to meet each state’s interests and keep costs as low as possible.”
Brian Doherty , Oregon lobbyist for the Western States Petroleum Association
“We are investing in biodiesel refineries, we are investing in wind farms. We need every molecule of energy we can find, wherever it is. There is definitely a lot of change going on; we are trying to adapt to that. What is the best answer? How are we going to be getting around in 2030? We want to be the answer.”
George Taylor, head of the Oregon Climate Service at OSU (and former “state climatologist,” until he was unceremoniously and very publicly dumped from that post—which may or may not have ever officially existed—by Gov. Ted Kulongoski early this year for questioning the science behind global warming)
“I’m not a policy guy, I’m a scientist. I’m also being very cautious about saying anything because the publicity—beginning with that article two years ago [“Hot or Not,” WW , Aug. 24, 2005]—has been very, very damaging to me.”
Developing countries, like India and China, are not required to meet specific emission targets during Kyoto’s first compliance period (2008-12).
Although the United States never officially withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty was never sent to the Senate for ratification. From 1990 to 2005, U.S. emissions have increased by 16.3 percent. The Kyoto Protocol requires a U.S. reduction to 7 percent below 1990 levels.
Among European nations, only the United Kingdom and Sweden are now achieving real reductions in greenhouse gases. The most significant emissions reductions in the last 10 years have come from the collapse of industrial enterprises in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Fun fact:
The last time an interglacial cycle completed was _before_ the human race populated the planet and brought about the automobile and exorbitant usage of fossil fuels along with mass industrialization.
For how many years now have we heard the lame and inane tell us we have 10 years left to live? How many years must pass with no rise in sea levels before the inquisitive mind says gee, maybe this is more about control (of people's lives) than the alarm that is associated with it? And when will serious minds realize that carbon dioxide follows climate changes; it doesn't lead them. And the only reason one must be so adamant in all this is the culture smog from the loud voices of American 'popular' culture. They even lie about polar bears!
Here are the real inconvenient truths:
* Some Viking farms are still under Greenland Ice. (We are probably not as warm now as when the Vikings populated Greenland.
* 1998 is no longer shown to be the warmest year, using the best historic data in the world, maintained by one of Al Gore’s advisors: The USHCN at data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/U.... Look at the numbers - 1998 is tied with 1934 (after which the earth cooled, producing stories of the coming ice age - see New York Times May 21, 1975.). 1998 was only tied for warmest with a year 54 years earlier - hardly runaway warming in the USA.
Ten warmest years by decade: 1910s...2, 1920s...1, 1930s...2, 1950s...1, 1990s...2, 2000s...1 Please note that this is USA data and is considered the best in the world - the data for the rest of the world, which does show warming, is of much lower reliability.
* The same data shows cooling since 1998 - we are 9 years into cooling. (Some say, based on solar cycles, that the cooling may get serious in just a few years.)
* Water vapor is responsible for far more warming than CO2. (Admitted by Al Gore’s science advisor at realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)
* That CO2 causes temperature to rise is unproven. Historically it was temperature that rose first, then CO2. See realclimate.org/index.php?p=13, a site run by Al Gore’s science advisor.
* Man only emits a small portion of total CO2 emission.
* Remember the famous “hockey stick” temperature chart, that features so prominently in Al’s movie, which showed us that temperatures were stable for 1000 years then suddenly, recently rose. Well, it was verified faulty by the National Acadamy of Sciences’ Wegman report (climateaudit.org/pdf/others/0714200...) and National Acadamy of Sciences Study. Here is what statistics expert, Wegman said:
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete ... Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. page 4
CommentThat is harsh criticism in the understated world of real science. MBH98, MBH99 are the papers that gave us Al Gore’s hockey stick temperature curve. Wegman called them somewhat obscure and incomplete .... leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. In ordinary English they are crap.
Critic, McIntyre pointed out that:
You can take red noise and put it into the algorithm used in MBH98 and get the famous hockey stick.
You can remove the bristle cone pines from the data set and the hockey stick disappears.
If you use the correct data centering methodology, the hockey stick disappears.
Wegman described the criticisms in MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling
* Many Peer reviewed papers about global warming aren’t really peer reviewed. Several articles promoting Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick passed the peer review process. Here is what a National Academy of Sciences statistical expert had to say: Wegman report, page 4: In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
Is there anything left that shows global warming is man caused and something to worry about?
Thanks
JK
Look at people like George Taylor. For years he is a respected authority on NW climate. He annually provides agencies like BPA his views of the coming water and snowpack. Then some political hack like Ted Kulingowski rips his title, just because its the PC thing to do. Enough of this political correctness! I am sick of it turning liberals into fascists and thought police. Just look at what they are doing in Bali - refusing to let global warming skeptics to attend. Closed minds are like lead parachutes.
All the glorious conferences in the world will not solve global warming.
As for mans part, the best we can do is:
1. Switch to nuclear power as our primary energy source as rapidly as possible.
2.Continue to develop the hydrogen (fuel-cell) vehicle as rapidly as possible.
3. Shut down all coal and natural gas
generating plants as rapidly as emergy demands will allow.
4. Send Al Gore packing to the moon with the Sierra Club and the California Air Resources Board under each arm.
WAG
I think it is interesting that astronomers report the Martian polar ice caps are receeding also. It's also interesting that the atmosphere of Venus, surface temp 800F, is mostly carbon dioxide.
I guess you can pick your conclusion.
CT wrote:
> How many years must pass with no rise > in sea levels before the inquisitive
> mind says gee, maybe this is more
> about control (of people's lives) than > the alarm that is associated with it?
CT, you're wrong. Sea-level has been rising each and every year for about a century now, about 2 mm/year. All projections are for this to continue, and to accelerate over time.
I wonder were you get your facts?
I'm no expert and don't claim to be, but I've read a number of articles by geologists who are. They all say that the warming trend is caused by the wandering of the magnetic poles. That's what's triggered various ice ages and warming periods throughout the earth's history. At one time, the earth was literally a snowball.
By the way, what ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us about 20 years ago? Is that no longer in vogue?
Dave:
That would mean persistent flooding in low lying areas. It would even mean the Willamette as far as Portland would be affected. Don't see that happening. So are you still at Al Gore's movie? or give me a credible source. I mean the people that measure, not some green newspaper.
Dave:
That would mean persistent flooding in low lying areas. It would even mean the Willamette as far as Portland would be affected. Don't see that happening. So are you still at Al Gore's movie? or give me a credible source. I mean the people that measure, not some green newspaper.
Australia's new green Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has suddenly done an about-face on cutting green house gas emissions. I love to see a leader with convictions. Just days after Rudd said Australia would back a 25-40% cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020, he has suddenly decided that it is unrealistic.
Pseudo-science at it's best. Keynes and the Fabians clap their hands. All hail the omnipotent all seeing eye.
CT, here is your source (among literally thousands):
"Ocean Freshening, Sea Level Rising,"
Walter Munk, Science 27 June 2003:
Vol. 300. no. 5628, pp. 2041 - 2043
Ret :
> By the way, what ever happened
> to the hole in the ozone layer
> that was going to kill us
> about 20 years ago? Is that
> no longer in vogue?
The size of the southern ozone hole was somewhat mitigated by the Montreal Protocol of 1989, an agreement among world governments to eliminate CFC emissions.
The hole shrunk some since then, though in recent years have been about constant with a slight increase in its size. It is still a problem -- ask any Australian.
Thank you for this article. It brings to the front page of day-to-day life in Portland something that many people of this time and place are slowly confronting, but maybe not talking about as much as we should.
I feel it is generally understood that people of our generation care. We do! We want a better world, but we feel helpless, frustrated and pretty much doomed. Does this ring true for anyone else? Crushing cynicism reigns and its getting to the point where I don't even feel worth saving.
I don't know how to make or bring about legislation that will solve the problems the natural and social world is facing. I hope that there are people out there that will, but at this point I'm not really banking on that.
Instead I'm putting everything I've got into the idea that I can make choices about how I live that will change and effect the world around me. To deny this only make things that much worse--for everyone else, and for me.
The most important choice that I have made is to be vegetarian and vegan. Please look it up and see that the production of animals and animal products for human consumption is the largest waste of resources and energy in the world--more so than energy production, even (www.goveg.com/environment.asp).
Not eating meat or animal products is such a simple way to start that larger change. This is a way that I've embraced my personal responsibility and power, and I hope that every caring and capable person will consider it.
Or do something else just as rad and easy, but please--do something! (and please, something other than accuse me of being a lame-ass hippie). This is all I've got: we can't save the world single-handedly. Rather than give up altogether, choose how to live in your part of it, and hope for other people to become conscious and empowered enough to do the same.
I'm working on it. I hope you are, too. What the fuck else would we ever do?
It is interesting that most of the hot air eminating from the global warming crowd comes not from actual scientists, but from journalistic hacks, politicians,and supposedly independent activists. These mouths prattle on about the "consensus of scientific opinion" regarding the reality of man- caused global warming without ever informing the interested reader that, for the most part these "scientists" are COMPUTER MODELERS who rarely, if ever leave their computer terminals to gather emperical evidence. They, and the rest of this clown chorus are motivated by self interest,and seek above all to keep government, and tax free foundation grant money coming in, that they might not be faced with the disasterous necessity of finding a real job somewhere in the real world. So, what would motivate the deep pockets to so lavishly support this Falstaffian battalion of fools? Try this quote of French President Jacques Chirac at the Hague in 2000: "Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance". There you have it boys and girls; the global warming issue, with all it's bogus science is not about saving the planet, it is about world government and global control of industry and trade. Are any of you vegans out there paying attention to anything outside your digestive tracts? The more recent your graduation from public school, the less able you are likely to be to cogitate ideas that lie outside your politically correct indoctrination; not to mention your ability to actually comprehend what you read, and to become proactive in following up on information gathered so as to be able to make intelligent assessments of all the blather you read in rags like the Willamette Week.
Shit, man. I asked that you do something *other* than insult me/my comments. But oh well, I can hack it.
Trust me, I am just as sorry as you for the failings of my public education.Despite my declared ineffectiveness and ineptitude, I'm trying to create a different world than the one Jacques Chirac & the guys in suits are setting up, while acknowledging that theirs is the world we live in and there's a lot of shit to deal with.
Although we obviously have different ways of doing things, I hope you're working on it, too. Until then, I'm glad that rags like the WW are around and encouraging discourse that, although considered "blather" by someone of your privilege, provides far more pertinent information than that which many people have access to. Thanks for that and keep it up, everybody.
What is global warming really about? Try this statement by French President Jaques Chirac delivered at the Hague in November of 2000: "Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance". There you have it boys and girls; all the bogus science and the media hype is about global regulation of industry and trade. World government. Think not? Stay tuned.
Thank you for bringing up the real problem with the Kyoto Protocol. One of it's most key underlying purposes is to fiscally punish the USA so that the rest of the world can catch up with the progress we have made.
Wow, look at all the global warming haters... Where's the other WW sidebar? "Deniers of Global Warming: Free-Thinking Mavericks or Doom-Hungering Madmen?"
The latter. See this 2005 story: wweek.com/story.php?story=6655h
Correct reference regarding ligeti42's sidebar as suggested by Ben Waterhouse is wweek.com/story.php?story=6655
It is really amazing that in this "information age" we can't distill any fragment of truth or accuracy out of published science or out of "the news." Maybe try wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmin... or at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmin... If these aren't "reputable" what is?
The population of this planet "increases" by about 90 MILLION each 12 months. There are more people alive at this moment than all of the people that have ever lived in human history. The 240,000 people that were killed by the Indonesian Sunami were all replaced in "less than 24 hours". There really is only one problem facing humans and that is human population. Pogo said, "We have seen the enemy and it is us."
Is anyone else old enough to remember the late 60's and 70's when the world was coming to an end because of coming ice age and "The Population Bomb" (Paul Ehrlich)? Had the internet and 24 hr cable TV been around then, the hysteria would have matched what is going on now with global warming.
Now we all laugh at those past doomsday predictions. I will be doing it in future when Florida and Manhattan do not disappear under water.
Mandee, honey. Take a deep breath. You sound young and I am sure you mean well. But relax. Take it from an older person...the world is not coming to an end because of this.
The day I see Babs Streisand and the other celebutards who live on the coast move to higher ground, then I might take this worth a grain of salt. Until then, it's just politics.
It's refreshing to see so many people wising up to the never ending anti-Capitalist alarmism spewed by those who want The West regressed back to the pre-industrial era. If environmentalists get their way, we'll be burning cow dung for heat. They're opposed to energy generated from hydro-electric dams, nuke plants, oil, coal. Wind farms kill birds, so that's out. What's left? Solar panels? How many would it take to run America?
In 20 years or so, after we have spent 30 Trillion Dollars on the farce that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, there will be collective embarrassment at our global warming correction hysteria.
Is wise use of energy resources beneficial? Yes. Will the sea level rise more than 8" by 2100? No. Are we at the tail end of a roughly 15,000 year interglacial cycle? Yes. Is the most common state of the earth above 50 degrees latitude a mile or more thick slab of ice? Yes.
Drive a full blown Hummer - Forestall the coming Ice Age.