By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer Sat Nov 17, 4:01 PM ET
VALENCIA, Spain – The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace, a Nobel-winning U.N. scientific panel said in a landmark report released Saturday, warning of inevitable human suffering and the threat of extinction for some species.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said climate change imperils “the most precious treasures of our planet” and called on the United States and China — the world’s two biggest polluters — to do more to fight it.
As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia’s megacities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says.
The potential impact of global warming is “so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do,” Ban told the IPCC after it issued its fourth and final report this year.
The IPCC adopted the report, along with a summary, after five days of sometimes tense negotiations. It lays out blueprints for avoiding the worst catastrophes — and various possible outcomes, depending on how quickly and decisively action is taken.
The document says recent research has heightened concern that the poor and the elderly will suffer most from climate change; that hunger and disease will be more common; that droughts, floods and heat waves will afflict the world’s poorest regions; and that more animal and plant species will vanish.
The Summary for Policymakers, and the longer version, called the synthesis report, distill thousands of pages of data and computer models from six years of research compiled by the IPCC.
The information is expected to guide policy makers meeting in Bali, Indonesia, next month to discuss an agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
The panel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year along with former Vice President Al Gore for their efforts to raise awareness about the effects of climate change.
When has the UN been right about anything?
When have they been successfull in ANY crisis?
My credentials: U.S. Citizen, V.P. of The Renewable Energy Institute; CEO of Managed Energy, a renewable and sustainable energy company. I work with 17 PhDs in a variety of alternative energy and sustainable building technology disciplines, and a rocket scientist (honest-to-God).
OK Let’s look at reality. Discount Al Gore, if you will, but he has exposed/exacerbated a problem. For that we owe him a debt of gratitude, politics set aside because this is larger than political parties or politicians. We may argue about what problem exactly, but his work was well done.
Perhaps one might also argue with the science and the conclusions to one degree or another. For example it has been postulated that IF we remove the greenhouse gases too quickly and the carbon particulate matter that is a part of these emissions we may actually hasten global warming. I’m not sure I’m sold on that idea but it is circulating and the evidence is pretty clear.
However, Peak Oil is inarguable. IF we fail to become 80% renewable and sustainable in production of energy in the U.S., by 2027 Iran and Russia will dictate our foreign policy.
Do I care that 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/100th of the species might perish in a global warming scenario? Any sane person would mourn a loss of that magnitude.
Can an argument be made that this is a cyclical event of climatic change? Yes, but one must also allow for SOME degree of complicity by the way mankind has managed (I use that term in the broadest of meanings) the environment.
Consider China. The widespread use of pulverized coal plants to meet energy needs is poisoning the waterways of the “Central Nation” with mercury and the air with air with CO2, Potassium 40, and other dangerous pollutants.
Let us deal with the issue from economics and perhaps we can wage peace instead of war. The world is facing two crises in this century that are very close to home: 1. availability of energy for power and transportation, and 2. the availability of potable water when the current world population doubles.
Water we can discuss at another time.
Renewable energy will create jobs and revive industry. It will rebuild middle class jobs where they have been stripped away by companies who exported those jobs overseas. We will learn from those who have been a part of the Kyoto Accord.
Two days last week I spoke at the Construction Expo in Houston. Friday I was in Abilene meeting with ranchers about using wind to create electricity and hydrogen. One of these ranchers used to have 100 pump jacks creating oil royalties on his property now only 3 produce. Most wells in the area are “stripper wells”.
National reserves of any comfort to you? How many months do you really think we have in our “reserves” and who do you think will get that oil? Do you really think that deep water oil or shale and sand oil will translate to $3.00/ gallon gasoline?
What happens when, sometime after the next election when we have our artificial energy bubble burst by reality and we pay what Europe has been paying for gasoline – $7-8.00 per gallon before the next president completes his (or her) first term. Electricity will quickly hit .24 /kWh in Texas and increase steadily as the cost of fuel increases. Coal is a great fuel if it is burned in an integrated combined cycle coal plant. Thorium, a nuclear fuel which is in abundance in Norway and the U.S. would be great for fast breeder sodium reactors. BTW Thorium reactions can be turned on and off, and Thorium has very few transuranic elements.
Alternative energy must be technically, economically, socially, and politically feasible. Therefore while Thorium would be a great answer (White Sand testing, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl) will not happen because only a statesman will support logic. IGCC Coal will happen only when the power companies are forced to make the change, not as a pro-active answer.
Alternative energy has made its blunders. Corn to ethanol for fuel is foolish; as is soy beans (a tremendous source of protein for the world) being crushed to make biodiesel. There are many non-food plants which can be used in place of these staple foods.
Politics notwithstanding, we must look at the economics of the future. The demand on the U.S. grid will at least triple by 2020. In 2004 our nation spent $233B on electricity alone, roughly evenly divided between commercial/industrial and residential. 50% of each side of the equation was waste. In 2004 we wasted $117B in electricity because of average construction and second-rate technologies. We build “little house on the prairie” homes with 20th century adaptations. Most commercial architecture is the same.
Yet we are capable of building homes, economically which produce as much or more energy than they use.
Right now a homeowner can become HERS certified, reducing electricity consumption through 21st century technologies by 40-50% with simple 2-4 year paybacks and Federal, State and local incentives.
Businesses can become LEEDS compliant or certified, increasing profits dramatically by controlling fixed expenses. The visionary ones can become grid interdependent.
Micro grids and mini grids will power communities and business centers and the good news is we can do it today. With some greed and manufacturing choke points removed we can agree that the propagation of the technology is more important than individual profits.
Imagine when it is too expensive to light your home, put gasoline in your vehicle. Imagine when, beginning at the poorest segment of society. Markets become non-sustainable. Companies fail. Nations fight over remaining resources.
Yet there will be much profit as we make the change. This is a $Trillion industry growing 20% per year. The propagation of demand-side management renewable energy and sustainable building technologies will dwarf Microsoft as it revolutionizes the world.
Republicans and Democrats will not get the job done. The answer to this problem is found in the first three words of the Constitution of the United States… “We the People…”.
Unfortunately, if we are not careful we are likely to debate the existence of the “global warming” problem until the solution becomes out of reach and we run squarely into the economic problem or the water issue.
Yes, thanks to Mr. Gore we are aware that a problem of enormous proportions is upon us.
What, exactly, that problem is and how we resolve it may determine the survival and thriving of a species in which I have an overwhelming interest – Homo sapiens.
If you are one of “We the People”, you can be part of the problem or part of the solution.
Mike Logan, VP
The Renewable Energy Institute
CEO
Managed Energy
mlogan@managed-energy.us
Well, Jon, I can tell you’re an American who is still pissed-off at the UN for not supporting the US in Iraq. From this I can deduct that you must be a staunch conservative who gobbles up all the anti-science propaganda on Fox News and then asks for more.
Well, the UN was right about that weren’t they? No WMDs, no link to Al Qaeda. The UN is right about a lot of things, despite the fact that the US has been doing its best to undermine it simply because it doesn’t want to just roll over and play the US puppet.
But none of that matters in this case. All the IPCC does is gather the research from thousands of scientists who really have nothing to do with the UN, and then they come up with a consensus that is actually very conservative because countries like the US and China insist on watering down the language of the reports.
And the UN doesn’t pretend or even try to manage this crisis. They are simpling condensing the research and putting out guidance for policy makers.
So your comment is both ignorant and irrelevant.
Thanks for stopping by Mike. I’m a big proponent ofr renewable energy and I find it sad that the USA is letting such a big opportunity to become a technological leader again, and is not taking advantage of a great economic opportunity.
Mike, now lets take your points one by one.
1.What is the most abundant greenhouse gas, and how is that factored into the computer models that predict “catastrophic global warming”?
2.Iran and Russia: Are you clairvoyant and can predict geopolitics 20 years into the future? I doubt it. And, if Russia dictates our foreign policy foreign policy, will it because they drill for oil in the arctic circle when we can’t because it is politically incorrect? (as China drills off the coast of Florida) . By the way, why don’t you protest these actions?
3.Did species perish when the Earth was warmer in the past? Isn’t it true that the earth has been more hospitible to life when it is warm then when it is cold?
4.There HAS been cyclical “climate change”. Are you smart enough to know if that is what is happening now or not?
5.Consider China. Are they not openig a coal fired power plant every two weeks? How does the Kyota Treaty address this?
6.water, please
7.How mucch oil is there in the shale in COlorado? As much as Saudia Arabia has?
8.I heat my home with wood. That is renewable, no? DOes your institute support that?
9.Isn’t your life invested in “renewable energy”, and aren’t you as biased as the scientist that are “bought off” by the evil Oil Companies?
And, how many of your colleagues have given up their cars? And, if Al GOre, your hero, is such a great leader, why doesnt he downsize his multiple homes, give up limos, and fly commercial. Isn’t that what a true leader would do?
and sduford, why don’t you go back to the daily cos, where you can freely vent your anger and hate.
I, by the way, am not angry
Actually Jon, don’t know where you detected anger in my comment. However, your own comments are full of anger, and you better change your tone or I will have to remove your right to comment.
With many of your comments you are demonstrating your ignorance and that you are buying a lot of the denial crap being peddled out there.
1. Yes, water vapour is the number 1 greenhouse gas. So what? There are a whole bunch of gases that compose the atmosphere and create the greenhouse effect which is vital to keeping our planet warm and habitable. The point is that we are changing that balance by increasing CO2 and methane. We can measure how much CO2 we’re adding and we know how effect it has on the greenhouse effect. Just a 1% increase in greenhouse effect means a huge amount of energy added to the atmosphere. And yes, the models do take into consideration all the significant atmospheric gases, including water vapour. If you believe the deniers who say they don’t, you are being misled.
2, 5. And your reaction to “they are not doing the right thing” is to also not do the right thing? That is both juvenile and nonsensical. If they keep destroying the planet your reaction is to do the same thing? I’m afraid that’s not very smart. The only way to get them to do something about it is for the leading nations to lead by example.
3. Yes, lots of species have died in the past but what’s your point? Whether or not lots of species died in the past doesn’t make letting it happen again any better. The species currently living on the planet are not adapted to a warmer climate. Many are already being displaced or eliminated. Our biosphere is a complex web of interdependencies. When a specie dies, there is no telling what repercussions it will have on the rest of the biosphere.
4. Actually yes. Scientists have used several “proxies” (ice cores, mud beds, etc.) to partly reconstruct the climate of the pas several 100 thousand years. There has never been such a rapid warming as we are currently experiencing.
8. Yes, wood is renewable and if heated efficiently it is in fact a good source of energy.
9. And I suppose you subscribe to the theory that the vast majority of climate scientists are part of a vast global conspiracy to get more grant money? That is ludicrous and shows a complete lack of understanding of how the scientific community works. How about the scientists at NASA and NOAA who are going against the wishes of their government and who are seeing themselves censored? Many of them have quit over this, what’s in it for them? And what’s wrong with earning aliving while doing what’s right for the environment? A rather noble occupation in my book. Also notice how Mike was very upfront about who he is and what he does. That’s a far cry from the pseudo-scientists like Fred Singer and Tim Ball who pretend to be actual climate scientists when they haven’t done any research in 20 years and are in fact funded by the oil industry and their PR agencies and so-called think-tanks. They deny their funding sources even though they are well documented, why are they trying to hide this fact? I’m sure you know very well why. Fred Singer is actually a serial denialist, having in the past worked to deny the health effects of tobacco smoke, and the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer, two facts that are no longer contested.
I will challenge you to the following: show me a single paper written in the last 5 years by an actual climate scientist who is doing real research and was published in a major peer-reviewed science journal and shows that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. I can think of one or two such papers out of the thousands in the other camp. Can you even find them?
And since you are challenging the intelligence of Mike, how are you smart enough to deny the thousands of research studies that have been conducted in the last 25 years? You’re just repeating the old denialist arguments that have been debunked many times over. You don’t actually understand what you are talking about, you don’t even understand the basics of science.
I am sorry mommy; Please don’t take my right to comment!
(God forbide that someone question your dogmatic beliefs. Please don’t tell my boss, I don’t want to lose my job!!
I am absolutely open to and encourage constructive criticism and counter-arguments that are based in fact and science. You on the other hand seem to only be interested in making mis-informed and politically tainted comments. This is not a democrat vs republican website.
However, in typical republican fashion you contribute nothing to the conversation and you accuse others of the very things you are doing: being dogmatic, angry, impolite, and purely politically motivated in this debate.
Since you seem incapable of doing anything other than ridicule those you disagree with and politically taint what should be a factual debate, I’m cutting you off.
I couldn’t care less about either of your two highly polarized American political ideologies, so go take your anger to a US political website.