Matthew Brzica and his wife hardly noticed when the hospital took a few drops of blood from each of their four newborn children for routine genetic testing. But then they discovered that the state had kept the dried blood samples ever since - and was making them available to scientists for medical research. n "They're just taking DNA from young kids right out of the womb and putting it into a warehouse," said Brzica, of Victoria, Minn. "DNA is what makes us who we are. It's just not right."The couple is among a group of parents challenging Minnesota's practice of storing babies' blood samples and allowing researchers to study them without their permission. The confrontation, and a similar one in Texas, has focused attention on the practice at a time when there is increasing interest in using millions of these collected "blood spots" to study diseases.Michigan, for example, is moving millions of samples from a state warehouse in Lansing to freezers in a new "neonatal biobank" in Detroit in the hopes of helping make the economically downtrodden city a center for biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health is funding a $13.5 million, five-year project aimed at creating a "virtual repository" of blood samples from around the country.The storage and use of the blood is raising many questions, including whether states should be required to get parents' consent before keeping the samples long-term or making them available to scientists, and whether parents should be consulted about the types of studies for which they are used. The concern has prompted a federal advisory panel to begin reviewing such issues.
There has not been a good national discussion about the use of these samples," said Jeffrey Botkin, a pediatrician and bioethicist at the University of Utah who is studying policies and attitudes about the newborn blood samples as part of a federally funded project. " Genetics is an area that touches a nerve. The public is concerned about massive databases."Hospitals prick the heels of more than 4 million babies born each year in the United States to collect a few drops of blood under state programs requiring that all newborns be screened for dozens of genetic disorders. The programs enable doctors to save lives and prevent permanent neurological damage by diagnosing and treating the conditions early.Although parents are usually informed about the tests and often can opt out if they object for religious and other reasons, many give it little thought in the rush and exhaustion of a birth. And parents are generally not asked for permission to store the samples or use them for research. Each state determines what is done with the blood spots afterward.The stored samples are mostly used to validate the accuracy of newborn screening and evaluate new tests. But scientists are also using them for other types of research, including to study specific genetic disorders, explore the frequency and causes of birth defects, decipher how genes and environmental factors interact, and probe whether exposure to chemical pollutants early in development plays a role in cancer and other diseases.Research projects are approved, officials in Maryland and other states said, only after undergoing careful scientific and ethical review. In most cases, all identifying information is stripped from the samples.But the states can still link each sample to an individual child - and that worries some parents, patient groups, bioethicists and privacy advocates, especially with advances in genetics and electronic data banks linking medical information from different sources."It's fine and good to say these can't be identified, but how real is that?" said Hank Greely, a Stanford University bioethicist. "Just because you don't have a name or Social Security number doesn't mean you can't identify it.""I'm not a big scaremonger about the dangers of DNA medicine," Greely said. "But you could use someone's DNA to make some inferences about their future health, about their future behavior, and if you got samples from their parents or a DNA databank, you can make inferences about family relationships."Because of those and other concerns, parents and privacy activists in Minnesota are asking that more than 800,000 blood spots that have been stored without parents' approval since 1997 be destroyed.The Minnesota case prompted a similar parents' lawsuit in March against Texas, which since 2002 has stored an estimated 4 million samples. The litigation spurred the Texas legislature to require the state health department to start getting parents' permission to store the samples and honor requests that samples be destroyed. But the lawsuit is pending over what should be done with the samples on file.Law enforcement agencies have been cataloguing millions of DNA fingerprints in recent years, raising similar concerns.State officials argue that strict safeguards protect the privacy of information associated with the blood samples and say details about a child's medical history are provided to researchers only if parents are contacted individually for approval.Concerned that the debate might undermine the newborn screening programs, the federal Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children will discuss the issue in September."There are obviously legal and ethical issues that need further discussion," said Rodney Howell, who chairs the committee. "Unfortunately we live in a world of conspiracy theories. We want to inform people that these spots are retained in some states and that they are carefully guarded. We want to be totally transparent."
Monday, July 6, 2009
World's Largest Natural Gas Station for Heavy Trucks Opens At L.A. Port Complex
As part of the ongoing effort to clean up the air at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, truckers are being required to get rid of older, dirty diesel tractors and replace them with clean diesel or cleaner natural gas models.
Quite a few are opting for natural gas - which has far fewer particulate pollutants and a lot less carbon content that diesel - and to to serve the growing demand for the fuel, Clean Energy Corp. has just opened what it claims to be the world's largest natural gas truck fueling station
The company, one of the world's largest natural gas retailers, said the station, which is open 'round the clock, seven days a week, can store up to 50,000 gallons of liquefied natural gas (LNG), has eight pumps and can deliver the fuel as a liquid (right) in six of the pumps or as compressed natural gas (CNG) from two pumps, depending on the type of the fuel a truck is set up to use.
Clean Energy expects the station to provide fuel for several hundred trucks a day right now and plans to double the fuel storage capacity as demand increases with the number of natural gas trucks operating at he ports.
An older port-area station also operated by Clean Energy is presently pumping about 10,000 gallons of LNG a day.----------
Quite a few are opting for natural gas - which has far fewer particulate pollutants and a lot less carbon content that diesel - and to to serve the growing demand for the fuel, Clean Energy Corp. has just opened what it claims to be the world's largest natural gas truck fueling station
The company, one of the world's largest natural gas retailers, said the station, which is open 'round the clock, seven days a week, can store up to 50,000 gallons of liquefied natural gas (LNG), has eight pumps and can deliver the fuel as a liquid (right) in six of the pumps or as compressed natural gas (CNG) from two pumps, depending on the type of the fuel a truck is set up to use.
Clean Energy expects the station to provide fuel for several hundred trucks a day right now and plans to double the fuel storage capacity as demand increases with the number of natural gas trucks operating at he ports.
An older port-area station also operated by Clean Energy is presently pumping about 10,000 gallons of LNG a day.----------
Americans are driving less, and that's a good thing
Marylanders who took to their cars over the long July 4th weekend likely noticed the trend -- fewer fellow travelers on the roads. The dip in holiday traffic was a revealing reflection of the bigger picture: On a year-to-year average, Americans are driving about 4 percent less, the biggest drop since the invention of the automobile.A year ago that shift might have been blamed on high gasoline prices, but today a gallon of gas is about $1.45 cheaper than in 2008. The economic downturn and job losses have no doubt been a factor as well, but the U.S. has weathered recessions before -- and oil shortages in the late 1970s that forced rationing at the pump -- with less impact on American's driving habits.Admittedly, there are parts of the U.S. where traffic has been picking up in recent months (at least according to the most recent federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics report), but the shift appears to be a relatively minor blip on the radar compared to the two-year
One of the most immediate effects of the drop in driving has been a corresponding reduction in highway deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last week that about 7,689 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the first three months of the year, a 9 percent decline from one year ago.At the current pace, U.S. highway fatalities could reach their lowest levels in a half-century.Both trends suggest that something noteworthy is going on. Spurred by last year's high gasoline prices, people are economizing. They are combining trips, car-pooling, shopping closer to home, telecommuting and taking alternative forms of transportation when available. The reduction in fatalities suggests they may even be slowing down on the roads, a fuel saving tactic that can also save lives.This is a trend that ought to be cultivated. Fewer vehicle miles traveled translates into less greenhouse gases and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere, less dependence on foreign oil, improved productivity and economic savings, and countless lives and serious injuries spared.Such an approach requires not only a much larger investment in public transit so that alternative modes of transportation are available to all who would choose them. But it also requires public policies that encourage people not to drive so much. That includes a more serious approach to smart growth that directs development (and redevelopment) to cities and towns rather than sprawl that chews up rural greenscape.America's love of the automobile is well-documented, but people have also shown a willingness to change when circumstances require it. Public policy needs to catch up with the transformation in attitudes and behavior that's already so clearly in evidence.
One of the most immediate effects of the drop in driving has been a corresponding reduction in highway deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last week that about 7,689 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the first three months of the year, a 9 percent decline from one year ago.At the current pace, U.S. highway fatalities could reach their lowest levels in a half-century.Both trends suggest that something noteworthy is going on. Spurred by last year's high gasoline prices, people are economizing. They are combining trips, car-pooling, shopping closer to home, telecommuting and taking alternative forms of transportation when available. The reduction in fatalities suggests they may even be slowing down on the roads, a fuel saving tactic that can also save lives.This is a trend that ought to be cultivated. Fewer vehicle miles traveled translates into less greenhouse gases and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere, less dependence on foreign oil, improved productivity and economic savings, and countless lives and serious injuries spared.Such an approach requires not only a much larger investment in public transit so that alternative modes of transportation are available to all who would choose them. But it also requires public policies that encourage people not to drive so much. That includes a more serious approach to smart growth that directs development (and redevelopment) to cities and towns rather than sprawl that chews up rural greenscape.America's love of the automobile is well-documented, but people have also shown a willingness to change when circumstances require it. Public policy needs to catch up with the transformation in attitudes and behavior that's already so clearly in evidence.
Top UN climate official to AP: G-8 should help poor countries now with global warming
Developing countries need money now to grapple with global warming, and the Group of Eight summit this week could energize troubled climate negotiations if it decided to make "significant" funds available, the top U.N. climate official said Monday.The focus of U.N. climate talks over the past 18 months has been on an agreement to control greenhouse gases after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, including cash for developing countries.But Yvo de Boer, who oversees the talks among 192 nations, says bumping up existing climate funds now would be a "practical, useful, tangible" signal to developing countries that the rich countries are serious about a deal. The accord is due to be completed in Copenhagen in December.De Boer declined to mention figures, but studies by the World Bank and other institutions suggest between $5 billion and $10 billion a year are needed to help countries deal with changing weather patterns affecting agriculture, fishing and the effects of severe storms and drought. That figure could grow to $100 billion annually by 2020.
Accounts in the World Bank and special U.N. facilities now contain a few hundred million dollars.Putting money on the table at the G-8 conference in Italy would allow poor countries "to prepare plans to limit the growth of their emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change," De Boer told The Associated Press from his office in Bonn, Germany.More than 100 countries — many of them among the world's poorest — will suffer severely from climate change, he said."If I look at the magnitude of challenge, I think a significant amount would be important," he added.For many of the poorest countries, climate change will mean more erratic and expensive food supplies, Oxfam International said in a report released Monday as a briefing paper for the G-8 leaders.The British-based charity said chronic hunger may be "the defining human tragedy of this century," as climate change causes growing seasons to shift, crops to fail, and storms and droughts to ravage fields.It predicted that as weather patterns change, farmers will be forced to abandon traditional crops. Water and food scarcity could lead to mass migration and conflict, it said in a study that found striking similarities across geographic zones.More than 1 billion people, or about one in six people on earth, go hungry today. Without action, Oxfam said, most of the gains of fighting poverty in the world's poorest countries over the past 50 years will be wiped out, "irrecoverable for the foreseeable future."Scientists warn that of potentially catastrophic climate change if average global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels. To prevent that, greenhouse gas emissions should peak within the next few years and then rapidly decline by mid-century, according to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.The U.N. climate talks are stuck over demands that the industrial countries commit to specific pollution targets, while the wealthy nations insist that everyone must help limit greenhouse gases. Developing countries have agreed to shift toward low-carbon growth, if the receive technology and funding to help them.Leaders of other major economies such as China, India and Brazil will join the G-8 leaders when climate change comes up on the agenda during the three-day summit at L'Aquila, Italy.De Boer said he hoped the session would deal with "big picture" issues. Besides financing, those might include fixing a firm pollution target for 2050 and setting an objective for 2020."These are the leaders who can make a difference, and this is the time to make a difference," De Boer said.The 1997 Kyoto Protocol required 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. But it made no demands on developing countries, which was one reason the United States rejected the accord.Since then, China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest polluter, and India is rapidly approaching their league. The U.S., in a major policy shift under President Barack Obama, says it wants to be part of the Copenhagen deal.As part of the negotiations, the industrial countries have been asked to say how much further they will reduce emissions by 2020. Russia became the latest to put up numbers, pledging last week to be 10 percent to 15 percent below 1990 levels.Environmentalists denounced that target, since Russia's pollution fell dramatically after the fall of communism and the collapse of its economy in 1989. The World Wide Fund for Nature said it would amount to a "significant acceleration" of Russian emissions over the next decade of 2 to 2.5 percent a year.With the Russian proposal, De Boer said all rich countries except New Zealand have now pledged figures for 2020, and it was time for hard bargaining to begin."Countries will begin examining each other's numbers, comparing them with each other, and seeing how they can show the maximum ambition in Copenhagen," he said.
Accounts in the World Bank and special U.N. facilities now contain a few hundred million dollars.Putting money on the table at the G-8 conference in Italy would allow poor countries "to prepare plans to limit the growth of their emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change," De Boer told The Associated Press from his office in Bonn, Germany.More than 100 countries — many of them among the world's poorest — will suffer severely from climate change, he said."If I look at the magnitude of challenge, I think a significant amount would be important," he added.For many of the poorest countries, climate change will mean more erratic and expensive food supplies, Oxfam International said in a report released Monday as a briefing paper for the G-8 leaders.The British-based charity said chronic hunger may be "the defining human tragedy of this century," as climate change causes growing seasons to shift, crops to fail, and storms and droughts to ravage fields.It predicted that as weather patterns change, farmers will be forced to abandon traditional crops. Water and food scarcity could lead to mass migration and conflict, it said in a study that found striking similarities across geographic zones.More than 1 billion people, or about one in six people on earth, go hungry today. Without action, Oxfam said, most of the gains of fighting poverty in the world's poorest countries over the past 50 years will be wiped out, "irrecoverable for the foreseeable future."Scientists warn that of potentially catastrophic climate change if average global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels. To prevent that, greenhouse gas emissions should peak within the next few years and then rapidly decline by mid-century, according to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.The U.N. climate talks are stuck over demands that the industrial countries commit to specific pollution targets, while the wealthy nations insist that everyone must help limit greenhouse gases. Developing countries have agreed to shift toward low-carbon growth, if the receive technology and funding to help them.Leaders of other major economies such as China, India and Brazil will join the G-8 leaders when climate change comes up on the agenda during the three-day summit at L'Aquila, Italy.De Boer said he hoped the session would deal with "big picture" issues. Besides financing, those might include fixing a firm pollution target for 2050 and setting an objective for 2020."These are the leaders who can make a difference, and this is the time to make a difference," De Boer said.The 1997 Kyoto Protocol required 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. But it made no demands on developing countries, which was one reason the United States rejected the accord.Since then, China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest polluter, and India is rapidly approaching their league. The U.S., in a major policy shift under President Barack Obama, says it wants to be part of the Copenhagen deal.As part of the negotiations, the industrial countries have been asked to say how much further they will reduce emissions by 2020. Russia became the latest to put up numbers, pledging last week to be 10 percent to 15 percent below 1990 levels.Environmentalists denounced that target, since Russia's pollution fell dramatically after the fall of communism and the collapse of its economy in 1989. The World Wide Fund for Nature said it would amount to a "significant acceleration" of Russian emissions over the next decade of 2 to 2.5 percent a year.With the Russian proposal, De Boer said all rich countries except New Zealand have now pledged figures for 2020, and it was time for hard bargaining to begin."Countries will begin examining each other's numbers, comparing them with each other, and seeing how they can show the maximum ambition in Copenhagen," he said.
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WHO works on aspects of water, sanitation and hygiene where the health burden is high, where interventions could make a major difference and where the present state of knowledge is poor: :: Drinking-water quality :: Bathing waters :: Water resources :: Water supply and sanitation monitoring :: Water, sanitation and hygiene development :: Wastewater use :: Water-related disease :: Healthcare waste :: Emerging issues in water and infectious disease
Our work on water sanitation and hygiene includes the six core functions of WHO:
articulating consistent, ethical and evidence-based policy and advocacy positions;
managing information by assessing trends and comparing performance; setting the agenda for, and stimulating, research and development;
catalysing change through technical and policy support, in ways that stimulate cooperation and action and help to build sustainable national and intercountry capacity;
negotiating and sustaining national and global partnerships;
setting, validating, monitoring and pursuing the proper implementation of norms and standards;
stimulating the development and testing of new technologies, tools and guidelines.
All current information on water, sanitation and health is available on the internet. :: Browse the WSH catalogue of information products [pdf 4.17Mb] :: Browse the alphabetical list of documents available online
In addition, information is available here on: :: Our aim and objectives :: Our present plan of work :: Our collaborating centres :: Water-related work of WHO Regional Offices
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations
Our work on water sanitation and hygiene includes the six core functions of WHO:
articulating consistent, ethical and evidence-based policy and advocacy positions;
managing information by assessing trends and comparing performance; setting the agenda for, and stimulating, research and development;
catalysing change through technical and policy support, in ways that stimulate cooperation and action and help to build sustainable national and intercountry capacity;
negotiating and sustaining national and global partnerships;
setting, validating, monitoring and pursuing the proper implementation of norms and standards;
stimulating the development and testing of new technologies, tools and guidelines.
All current information on water, sanitation and health is available on the internet. :: Browse the WSH catalogue of information products [pdf 4.17Mb] :: Browse the alphabetical list of documents available online
In addition, information is available here on: :: Our aim and objectives :: Our present plan of work :: Our collaborating centres :: Water-related work of WHO Regional Offices
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations
Indoor air pollution
More than three billion people worldwide continue to depend on solid fuels, including biomass fuels (wood, dung, agricultural residues) and coal, for their energy needs.
Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution. Indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants, such as small particles and carbon monoxide, and particulate pollution levels may be 20 times higher than accepted guideline values.
According to The world health report 2002 indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease.
WHO’s Programme on Indoor Air Pollution
To combat this substantial and growing burden of disease, WHO has developed a comprehensive programme to support developing countries. WHO's Programme on Indoor Air Pollution focuses on:- Research and evaluation - Capacity building - Evidence for policy-makers
Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution. Indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants, such as small particles and carbon monoxide, and particulate pollution levels may be 20 times higher than accepted guideline values.
According to The world health report 2002 indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease.
WHO’s Programme on Indoor Air Pollution
To combat this substantial and growing burden of disease, WHO has developed a comprehensive programme to support developing countries. WHO's Programme on Indoor Air Pollution focuses on:- Research and evaluation - Capacity building - Evidence for policy-makers
Meat vs. Climate: The Debate Continues
At least since a 2006 United Nations report asserted that livestock is responsible for a full 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions — a higher percentage than that caused by transportation — a debate over meat consumption and climate change has been cooking.
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts
Marketing Solar Panels to Fifth-Graders
Employees of the Sharp Electronics Corporation were at Joyce Kilmer Elementary School in Mahwah, N.J., recently to teach a lesson on climate change and renewable energy. The cartoon image of an ailing Earth — a thermometer sticking out of its mouth — was the opening slide in their presentation.
Climate change and energy are complex issues, so I was interested to observe how they would be distilled by the Japanese electronics giant — and one of the world’s largest makers of solar panels — to an audience of 10- and 11-year-olds. I recently sat in the back of a fifth-grade class and listened in.
Martha Harvey, an associate manager in Sharp’s strategic marketing division, started the class by asking, “Who knows what climate change is?” She called on a few raised hands and received guesses of “A change of weather?” and “A change of climate?” before offering her own answer:
“It turns out that the temperature of the Earth is actually rising,” she said.
Ms. Harvey then asked if anyone knew what C02 is.
“Carbon dioxide,” a student answered.
Ms. Harvey explained that carbon dioxide is actually a good thing, because it helps keep the Earth’s atmosphere warm, but the problem is that there’s now too much of it.
Sharp began its Solar Academy program in the United States in October 2008 (PDF) and so far has presented it at a handful of elementary schools in California (near the company’s solar division in Huntington Beach), and in New York and New Jersey (Sharp’s corporate headquarters in the United States are in Mahwah).
The initiative is based on a similar program in Japan that, since 2007, has been presented at 700 schools and to 50,000 students.
It makes business sense, according to Stewart Mitchell, the chief strategy officer for Sharp, who started the American version of the program.
“The big picture is, you really want to try to tie your focus on social responsibility as a company into your business model,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The more that students learn about climate change, and the more they learn about the importance of renewable energy — it ties back to feeding into our business model of being in the solar business.”
The renewable energy portion of the presentation mentions several technologies –- including hydro, wind, and ocean power –- but solar quickly becomes the focus. The students watched a short video about how solar panels work, and then tried a hands-on activity in which they discovered how much work is required to power a 60-watt light bulb with hand cranks, compared with using a small solar panel.
At the end of the class, the students were given workbooks and Sharp-brand solar-powered calculators to take home with them.
Bill Howe, a fifth-grade science teacher, told the Sharp instructors afterward that they should make the curriculum available to teachers everywhere and that he would be happy to help in any way possible. “I think my students are excited by the idea that there’s a huge change going on,” Mr. Howe said. “I think they’re intrigued by the new technology.”
Don Chiossi, another fifth-grade science teacher, also gave the program a thumbs-up. “We cover forms of energy in our classroom, but to have people come in from the community to talk about it helps even more,” he said. “Plus, the kids like the calculators.”
The students, for their part, did seem to enjoy the class — though they were not without questions for the Sharp team: “If you used only solar power,” asked one student, “wouldn’t you not be able to use it at nighttime?”
Climate change and energy are complex issues, so I was interested to observe how they would be distilled by the Japanese electronics giant — and one of the world’s largest makers of solar panels — to an audience of 10- and 11-year-olds. I recently sat in the back of a fifth-grade class and listened in.
Martha Harvey, an associate manager in Sharp’s strategic marketing division, started the class by asking, “Who knows what climate change is?” She called on a few raised hands and received guesses of “A change of weather?” and “A change of climate?” before offering her own answer:
“It turns out that the temperature of the Earth is actually rising,” she said.
Ms. Harvey then asked if anyone knew what C02 is.
“Carbon dioxide,” a student answered.
Ms. Harvey explained that carbon dioxide is actually a good thing, because it helps keep the Earth’s atmosphere warm, but the problem is that there’s now too much of it.
Sharp began its Solar Academy program in the United States in October 2008 (PDF) and so far has presented it at a handful of elementary schools in California (near the company’s solar division in Huntington Beach), and in New York and New Jersey (Sharp’s corporate headquarters in the United States are in Mahwah).
The initiative is based on a similar program in Japan that, since 2007, has been presented at 700 schools and to 50,000 students.
It makes business sense, according to Stewart Mitchell, the chief strategy officer for Sharp, who started the American version of the program.
“The big picture is, you really want to try to tie your focus on social responsibility as a company into your business model,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The more that students learn about climate change, and the more they learn about the importance of renewable energy — it ties back to feeding into our business model of being in the solar business.”
The renewable energy portion of the presentation mentions several technologies –- including hydro, wind, and ocean power –- but solar quickly becomes the focus. The students watched a short video about how solar panels work, and then tried a hands-on activity in which they discovered how much work is required to power a 60-watt light bulb with hand cranks, compared with using a small solar panel.
At the end of the class, the students were given workbooks and Sharp-brand solar-powered calculators to take home with them.
Bill Howe, a fifth-grade science teacher, told the Sharp instructors afterward that they should make the curriculum available to teachers everywhere and that he would be happy to help in any way possible. “I think my students are excited by the idea that there’s a huge change going on,” Mr. Howe said. “I think they’re intrigued by the new technology.”
Don Chiossi, another fifth-grade science teacher, also gave the program a thumbs-up. “We cover forms of energy in our classroom, but to have people come in from the community to talk about it helps even more,” he said. “Plus, the kids like the calculators.”
The students, for their part, did seem to enjoy the class — though they were not without questions for the Sharp team: “If you used only solar power,” asked one student, “wouldn’t you not be able to use it at nighttime?”
Cities Mull How to Sell ‘Green’ Agendas
City officials, urban planners, architects and a variety of advocacy groups gathered in Portland, Ore., over the weekend for the National League of Cities’ first conference devoted entirely to sustainability.
In addition to providing cities with ideas for sustainable planning, the “Green Cities Conference” has highlighted opportunities for economic development, improved quality of life, urban renewal and historic preservation that can come with sustainable design, public transportation and high-density development.
Prominent among the bits of advice being doled out to city leaders at the conference: ditch the climate-change talk and focus instead on the more concrete benefits of a green agenda.
“If you go at it as a climate change issue, you won’t get anywhere,” said Christine McEntee, an executive vice president at the American Institute of Architects. “I believe it’s a huge moral problem, but not everybody does,” she said. “But everyone wants to see their energy bills lower and see daylight in their buildings and have more walking opportunities.”
Meanwhile, the AARP, which lobbies Congress on behalf of citizens age 50 and older on issues like Medicare funding, appeared to recognize the sustainability movement as an opportunity to reframe some of the community-access issues they’ve long fought to change.
AARP ” isn’t a green organization,” said Elinor Ginzler, the group’s spokeswoman for housing and mobility issues. But, she said, AARP discourages car-centric planning and promotes walkable neighborhoods and public transportation as a means to help maintain independence for citizens who can no longer drive. Sustainability, she said, is also a “legacy issue” for the organization’s members, who are interested in creating communities for future generations.
Kathie Novak, mayor of Northglenn, Colo., and president of the National League of Cities, echoed that sentiment. “We’re all going to be old whether we like it or not,” she said. “If we can use that as the impetus for making our communities more sustainable, I think it’s wonderful.”
Historic preservation and rehabilitation can also provide a lens for promoting sustainability, but green reasoning isn’t usually what wins community support for a project, said Art DeMuro, a Portland developer and a member of the city’s Historic Landmarks Commission. Projects happen because they also boost property values in blighted neighborhoods, spur revitalization in the urban core and maintain a city’s cultural heritage, he said.
“Setting aside material conservation issues,” said Mr. DeMuro, “these buildings are irreplaceable gifts from past generations and we have an obligation to protect those cultural resources.”
In addition to providing cities with ideas for sustainable planning, the “Green Cities Conference” has highlighted opportunities for economic development, improved quality of life, urban renewal and historic preservation that can come with sustainable design, public transportation and high-density development.
Prominent among the bits of advice being doled out to city leaders at the conference: ditch the climate-change talk and focus instead on the more concrete benefits of a green agenda.
“If you go at it as a climate change issue, you won’t get anywhere,” said Christine McEntee, an executive vice president at the American Institute of Architects. “I believe it’s a huge moral problem, but not everybody does,” she said. “But everyone wants to see their energy bills lower and see daylight in their buildings and have more walking opportunities.”
Meanwhile, the AARP, which lobbies Congress on behalf of citizens age 50 and older on issues like Medicare funding, appeared to recognize the sustainability movement as an opportunity to reframe some of the community-access issues they’ve long fought to change.
AARP ” isn’t a green organization,” said Elinor Ginzler, the group’s spokeswoman for housing and mobility issues. But, she said, AARP discourages car-centric planning and promotes walkable neighborhoods and public transportation as a means to help maintain independence for citizens who can no longer drive. Sustainability, she said, is also a “legacy issue” for the organization’s members, who are interested in creating communities for future generations.
Kathie Novak, mayor of Northglenn, Colo., and president of the National League of Cities, echoed that sentiment. “We’re all going to be old whether we like it or not,” she said. “If we can use that as the impetus for making our communities more sustainable, I think it’s wonderful.”
Historic preservation and rehabilitation can also provide a lens for promoting sustainability, but green reasoning isn’t usually what wins community support for a project, said Art DeMuro, a Portland developer and a member of the city’s Historic Landmarks Commission. Projects happen because they also boost property values in blighted neighborhoods, spur revitalization in the urban core and maintain a city’s cultural heritage, he said.
“Setting aside material conservation issues,” said Mr. DeMuro, “these buildings are irreplaceable gifts from past generations and we have an obligation to protect those cultural resources.”
Spam and Global Warming?
Last week, “The Carbon Footprint of E-mail Spam Report” made the rounds on the Internet thanks in part to write-ups at various news Web sites.
The study — conducted by the research firm I.C.F. International, and commissioned by the security company McAfee (which, as it happens, also sells one of the leading anti-virus and anti-spam software suites) — examined the environmental impact of junk e-mail.
Among the findings:
• An estimated 62 trillion spam e-mail messages were sent worldwide in 2008.• The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam worldwide totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours, equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes.• A single spam message produces the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving three feet.
The solution? Not surprisingly, Jeff Green, a senior vice president for product development at McAfee Avert Labs, said in a statement on the McAfee Web site, “Stopping spam at its source, as well investing in state-of-the-art spam filtering technology, will save time and money, and will pay dividends to the planet by reducing carbon emissions as well.”
It remains unclear whether global warming is a concern among spammers themselves.
The study — conducted by the research firm I.C.F. International, and commissioned by the security company McAfee (which, as it happens, also sells one of the leading anti-virus and anti-spam software suites) — examined the environmental impact of junk e-mail.
Among the findings:
• An estimated 62 trillion spam e-mail messages were sent worldwide in 2008.• The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam worldwide totals 33 billion kilowatt-hours, equivalent to the electricity used in 2.4 million homes.• A single spam message produces the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving three feet.
The solution? Not surprisingly, Jeff Green, a senior vice president for product development at McAfee Avert Labs, said in a statement on the McAfee Web site, “Stopping spam at its source, as well investing in state-of-the-art spam filtering technology, will save time and money, and will pay dividends to the planet by reducing carbon emissions as well.”
It remains unclear whether global warming is a concern among spammers themselves.
Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?
THE rush to go on a carbon diet,even by proxy is in overdrive.In addition to the celebrities — Leo, Brad, George — politicians like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are now running, at least part of the time, carbon-neutral campaigns. A lengthening list of big businesses — international banks, London’s taxi fleet, luxury airlines — also claim “carbon neutrality.” Silverjet, a plush new trans-Atlantic carrier, bills itself as the first fully carbon-neutral airline. It puts about $28 of each round-trip ticket into a fund for global projects that, in theory, squelch as much carbon dioxide as the airline generates — about 1.2 tons per passenger, the airline says.
Also, a largely unregulated carbon-cutting business has sprung up. In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.
But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?
On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree. Some believe it helps build support, but others argue that these purchases don’t accomplish anything meaningful — other than giving someone a slightly better feeling (or greener reputation) after buying a 6,000-square-foot house or passing the million-mile mark in a frequent-flier program. In fact, to many environmentalists, the carbon-neutral campaign is a sign of the times — easy on the sacrifice and big on the consumerism.
As long as the use of fossil fuels keeps climbing — which is happening relentlessly around the world — the emission of greenhouse gases will keep rising. The average American, by several estimates, generates more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide or related gases a year; the average resident of the planet about 4.5 tons.
At this rate, environmentalists say, buying someone else’s squelched emissions is all but insignificant.
“The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”
“This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.
Some environmental campaigners defend this marketplace as a legitimate, if imperfect, way to support an environmental ethic and political movement, even if the numbers don’t all add up.
“We can’t stop global warming with voluntary offsets, but they offer an option for individuals looking for a way to contribute to the solution in addition to reducing their own emissions and urging their elected representatives to support good policy,” said Daniel A. Lashof, the science director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But he and others agree that more oversight is needed. Voluntary standards and codes of conduct are evolving in Europe and the United States to ensure that a ton of carbon dioxide purchased is actually a ton of carbon dioxide avoided.
The first attempt at an industry report card, commissioned by the environmental group Clean Air/Cool Planet (which has some involvement in the business), gave decidedly mixed reviews to the field, selecting eight sellers of carbon offsets that it concluded were reasonably reliable.
But the report, “A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon-Offset Providers,” concluded that this market was no different than any other, saying, “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Prices vary widely for offsetting the carbon dioxide tonnage released by a long plane flight, S.U.V. commute or energy-hungry house. The report suggested that the cheapest offsets may not be legitimate.
For example, depending on where you shop for carbon credits, avoiding the ton of carbon dioxide released by driving a midsize car about 2,000 miles could cost $5 or $25, according to data in the report.
Mr. Hayes said there were legitimate companies and organizations that help people and companies measure their emissions and find ways to cut them, both directly and indirectly by purchasing certain kinds of credits. But overall, he said, an investment in such credits — given the questions about their reliability — should be looked at more as conventional charity (presuming you check to be sure the projects are real) and less as something like a license to binge on private jet travel.y proxy, is in overdrive
Also, a largely unregulated carbon-cutting business has sprung up. In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.
But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?
On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree. Some believe it helps build support, but others argue that these purchases don’t accomplish anything meaningful — other than giving someone a slightly better feeling (or greener reputation) after buying a 6,000-square-foot house or passing the million-mile mark in a frequent-flier program. In fact, to many environmentalists, the carbon-neutral campaign is a sign of the times — easy on the sacrifice and big on the consumerism.
As long as the use of fossil fuels keeps climbing — which is happening relentlessly around the world — the emission of greenhouse gases will keep rising. The average American, by several estimates, generates more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide or related gases a year; the average resident of the planet about 4.5 tons.
At this rate, environmentalists say, buying someone else’s squelched emissions is all but insignificant.
“The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”
“This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.
Some environmental campaigners defend this marketplace as a legitimate, if imperfect, way to support an environmental ethic and political movement, even if the numbers don’t all add up.
“We can’t stop global warming with voluntary offsets, but they offer an option for individuals looking for a way to contribute to the solution in addition to reducing their own emissions and urging their elected representatives to support good policy,” said Daniel A. Lashof, the science director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But he and others agree that more oversight is needed. Voluntary standards and codes of conduct are evolving in Europe and the United States to ensure that a ton of carbon dioxide purchased is actually a ton of carbon dioxide avoided.
The first attempt at an industry report card, commissioned by the environmental group Clean Air/Cool Planet (which has some involvement in the business), gave decidedly mixed reviews to the field, selecting eight sellers of carbon offsets that it concluded were reasonably reliable.
But the report, “A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon-Offset Providers,” concluded that this market was no different than any other, saying, “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Prices vary widely for offsetting the carbon dioxide tonnage released by a long plane flight, S.U.V. commute or energy-hungry house. The report suggested that the cheapest offsets may not be legitimate.
For example, depending on where you shop for carbon credits, avoiding the ton of carbon dioxide released by driving a midsize car about 2,000 miles could cost $5 or $25, according to data in the report.
Mr. Hayes said there were legitimate companies and organizations that help people and companies measure their emissions and find ways to cut them, both directly and indirectly by purchasing certain kinds of credits. But overall, he said, an investment in such credits — given the questions about their reliability — should be looked at more as conventional charity (presuming you check to be sure the projects are real) and less as something like a license to binge on private jet travel.y proxy, is in overdrive
Global Warming
On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.
The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.
The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.
NASA Expert Criticizes Bush on Global Warming Policy
top NASA climate expert who twice briefed Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming plans to criticize the administration's approach to the issue in a lecture at the University of Iowa tonight and say that a senior administration official told him last year not to discuss dangerous consequences of rising temperaturesThe expert, Dr. James E. Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, expects to say that the Bush administration has ignored growing evidence that sea levels could rise significantly unless prompt action is taken to reduce heat-trapping emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes.
Many academic scientists, including dozens of Nobel laureates, have been criticizing the administration over its handling of climate change and other complex scientific issues. But Dr. Hansen, first in an interview with The New York Times a week ago and again in his planned lecture today, is the only leading scientist to speak out so publicly while still in the employ of the government.
In the talk, Dr. Hansen, who describes himself as "moderately conservative, middle-of-the-road" and registered in Pennsylvania as an independent, plans to say that he will vote for Senator John Kerry, while also criticizing some of Mr. Kerry's positions, particularly his pledge to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada.
He will acknowledge that one of the accolades he has received for his work on climate change is a $250,000 Heinz Award, given in 2001 by a foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, Mr. Kerry's wife. The awards are given to people who advance causes promoted by Senator John Heinz, the Pennsylvania Republican who was Mrs. Heinz Kerry's first husband.
But in an interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen said he was confident that the award had had "no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings."
In a draft of the talk, a copy of which Dr. Hansen provided to The Times yesterday, he wrote that President Bush's climate policy, which puts off consideration of binding cuts in such emissions until 2012, was likely to be too little too late.
Actions to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions "are not only feasible but make sense for other reasons, including our economic well-being and national security," Dr. Hansen wrote. "Delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk."
In the speech, Dr. Hansen also says that last year, after he gave a presentation on the dangers of human-caused, or anthropogenic, climate shifts to Sean O'Keefe, the NASA administrator, "the administrator interrupted me; he told me that I should not talk about dangerous anthropogenic interference, because we do not know enough or have enough evidence for what would constitute dangerous anthropogenic interference."
After conferring with Mr. O'Keefe, Glenn Mahone, the administrator's spokesman, said Mr. O'Keefe had a completely different recollection of the meeting. "To say the least, Sean is certain that he did not admonish or even suggest that there be a throttling back of research efforts" by Dr. Hansen or his team, Mr. Mahone said.
Dr. Franco Einaudi, director of the NASA Earth Sciences Directorate at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and Dr. Hansen's supervisor, said he was at the meeting between Dr. Hansen and Mr. O'Keefe. Dr. Einaudi confirmed that Mr. O'Keefe had interrupted the presentation to say that these were "delicate issues" and there was a lot of uncertainty about them. But, he added: "Whether it is obvious to take that as an order or not is a question of judgment. Personally, I did not take it as an order."
Dr. John H. Marburger III, the science adviser to the president, said he was not privy to any exchanges between Dr. Hansen and the administrator of NASA. But he denied that the White House was playing down the risks posed by climate change.
"President Bush has long recognized the serious implications of climate change, the role of human activity, and our responsibility to reduce emissions,'' Dr. Marburger said in an e-mailed statement. "He has put forward a series of policy initiatives including a commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy.''
In the interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen stood by his assertions and said the administration risked disaster by discouraging scientists from discussing unwelcome findings.
Dr. Hansen, 63, acknowledged that he imperiled his credibility and perhaps his job by criticizing Mr. Bush's policies in the final days of a tight presidential campaign. He said he decided to speak out after months of deliberation because he was convinced the country needed to change course on climate policy.
Many academic scientists, including dozens of Nobel laureates, have been criticizing the administration over its handling of climate change and other complex scientific issues. But Dr. Hansen, first in an interview with The New York Times a week ago and again in his planned lecture today, is the only leading scientist to speak out so publicly while still in the employ of the government.
In the talk, Dr. Hansen, who describes himself as "moderately conservative, middle-of-the-road" and registered in Pennsylvania as an independent, plans to say that he will vote for Senator John Kerry, while also criticizing some of Mr. Kerry's positions, particularly his pledge to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada.
He will acknowledge that one of the accolades he has received for his work on climate change is a $250,000 Heinz Award, given in 2001 by a foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, Mr. Kerry's wife. The awards are given to people who advance causes promoted by Senator John Heinz, the Pennsylvania Republican who was Mrs. Heinz Kerry's first husband.
But in an interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen said he was confident that the award had had "no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings."
In a draft of the talk, a copy of which Dr. Hansen provided to The Times yesterday, he wrote that President Bush's climate policy, which puts off consideration of binding cuts in such emissions until 2012, was likely to be too little too late.
Actions to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions "are not only feasible but make sense for other reasons, including our economic well-being and national security," Dr. Hansen wrote. "Delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk."
In the speech, Dr. Hansen also says that last year, after he gave a presentation on the dangers of human-caused, or anthropogenic, climate shifts to Sean O'Keefe, the NASA administrator, "the administrator interrupted me; he told me that I should not talk about dangerous anthropogenic interference, because we do not know enough or have enough evidence for what would constitute dangerous anthropogenic interference."
After conferring with Mr. O'Keefe, Glenn Mahone, the administrator's spokesman, said Mr. O'Keefe had a completely different recollection of the meeting. "To say the least, Sean is certain that he did not admonish or even suggest that there be a throttling back of research efforts" by Dr. Hansen or his team, Mr. Mahone said.
Dr. Franco Einaudi, director of the NASA Earth Sciences Directorate at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and Dr. Hansen's supervisor, said he was at the meeting between Dr. Hansen and Mr. O'Keefe. Dr. Einaudi confirmed that Mr. O'Keefe had interrupted the presentation to say that these were "delicate issues" and there was a lot of uncertainty about them. But, he added: "Whether it is obvious to take that as an order or not is a question of judgment. Personally, I did not take it as an order."
Dr. John H. Marburger III, the science adviser to the president, said he was not privy to any exchanges between Dr. Hansen and the administrator of NASA. But he denied that the White House was playing down the risks posed by climate change.
"President Bush has long recognized the serious implications of climate change, the role of human activity, and our responsibility to reduce emissions,'' Dr. Marburger said in an e-mailed statement. "He has put forward a series of policy initiatives including a commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy.''
In the interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen stood by his assertions and said the administration risked disaster by discouraging scientists from discussing unwelcome findings.
Dr. Hansen, 63, acknowledged that he imperiled his credibility and perhaps his job by criticizing Mr. Bush's policies in the final days of a tight presidential campaign. He said he decided to speak out after months of deliberation because he was convinced the country needed to change course on climate policy.
Oxfam Details Economic Impact of Warming
Cities like New Delhi in India could see as much as a 30 percent drop in worker productivity because rising temperatures will make it impossible for people to work at the same rate on hot summer days without serious health impacts, Oxfam, the international aid group, warned on Monday.
Oxfam laid out warnings about the effects of climate change on poorer regions of the world as global leaders prepare to meet at the G8 summit later this week. Oxfam said it was seeking to rally leaders to agree to help developing nations adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. Those effects, groups like Oxfam say, are likely to happen even if a global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions is reached later this year.
In a report, Suffering the Science - Climate Change, People and Poverty, Oxfam used information gathered from the insurance industry to warn that “mega fires” and storms are on the rise, and it noted that people in poor parts of the world have no access to insurance.
In addition, Oxfam highlighted how trade patterns are likely shift as climate change takes hold, with many richer parts of the world receiving a boost while many poor regions become even more disadvantaged.
The group, which has posted related images and stories here, said American agricultural profits were set to rise by $1.3 billion annually because of climate change, while sub-Saharan Africa would lose $2 billion annually as the viability of one of the region’s staple crops, maize, declined.
Keeping the rise in global temperature to two degrees above pre-industrial levels (a level the United States may agree to at the G8 meeting later this week) was “economically acceptable” for rich countries, said Oxfam — though such a rise in temperature would still mean “a devastating future for 660 million people,” the group warned.
Oxfam laid out warnings about the effects of climate change on poorer regions of the world as global leaders prepare to meet at the G8 summit later this week. Oxfam said it was seeking to rally leaders to agree to help developing nations adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. Those effects, groups like Oxfam say, are likely to happen even if a global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions is reached later this year.
In a report, Suffering the Science - Climate Change, People and Poverty, Oxfam used information gathered from the insurance industry to warn that “mega fires” and storms are on the rise, and it noted that people in poor parts of the world have no access to insurance.
In addition, Oxfam highlighted how trade patterns are likely shift as climate change takes hold, with many richer parts of the world receiving a boost while many poor regions become even more disadvantaged.
The group, which has posted related images and stories here, said American agricultural profits were set to rise by $1.3 billion annually because of climate change, while sub-Saharan Africa would lose $2 billion annually as the viability of one of the region’s staple crops, maize, declined.
Keeping the rise in global temperature to two degrees above pre-industrial levels (a level the United States may agree to at the G8 meeting later this week) was “economically acceptable” for rich countries, said Oxfam — though such a rise in temperature would still mean “a devastating future for 660 million people,” the group warned.
USDA organic label comes under fire
Three years ago, U.S. Department of Agriculture employees determined that synthetic additives in organic baby formula violated federal standards and should be banned from products carrying the federal organic label. Today those same additives, purported to boost brainpower and vision, can be found in 90% of organic baby formula.The government's about-face came after a USDA program manager was lobbied by the formula makers and overruled her staff. That decision and others by a handful of USDA employees, along with an advisory board's approval of a growing list of non-organic ingredients, have helped companies secure a coveted green-and-white "USDA Organic" seal for their products.
Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Relaxed federal standards -- and a surge in consumer demand -- have helped the organics market become a $23-billion-a-year business, the fastest-growing segment of the food industry. Half of the nation's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes, according to a survey last year by the Harvard School of Public Health.But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who oftentimes pay more for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in environmentally friendly ways.
That has fueled debate over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of organic or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to protect the label, even as he acknowledged the pressure to lower standards to certify more products as organic.In response to complaints, the USDA inspector general's office has widened an investigation of whether products carrying the label meet national standards. The probe is also looking into the department's oversight of private certifiers hired by farmers and food producers to inspect products and determine whether they can use the label.Some consumer groups and members of Congress worry that the program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the law itself."It will unravel everything we've done if the standards can no longer be trusted," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Vt.), who sponsored the federal organics legislation. "If we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight."Congress adopted the organics law after farmers and consumers demanded uniform standards for produce, dairy and meat. The law banned synthetics, pesticides and genetic engineering from foods that would bear a federal organic label. It also required annual testing for pesticides. And it was aimed at preventing producers from falsely claiming their foods were organic.The USDA created the National Organic Program in 2002 to implement the law. But by then, major food companies had bought up most small, independent organic companies. Kraft Foods, for example, owns Boca Foods. Kellogg Co. owns Morningstar Farms, and Coca-Cola Co. owns 40% of Honest Tea, maker of the organic beverage favored by President Obama.That corporate firepower has added to pressure on the government to expand the definition of what is organic, in part because processed foods offered by big industry often require ingredients, additives or processing agents that either do not exist in organic form or are not available in large enough quantities for mass production.Under the original organics law, 5% of a USDA-certified organic product can consist of non-organic substances, provided they are approved by the National Organic Standards Board. That list has grown from 77 to 245 substances since it was created in 2002. Companies must appeal to the board every five years to keep a substance on the list, explaining why an organic alternative has not been found. The goal was to shrink the list over time, but only one item has been removed so far.
The original law's mandate for annual pesticide testing was also never implemented -- the agency left that optional
Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Relaxed federal standards -- and a surge in consumer demand -- have helped the organics market become a $23-billion-a-year business, the fastest-growing segment of the food industry. Half of the nation's adults say they buy organic food often or sometimes, according to a survey last year by the Harvard School of Public Health.But the USDA program's shortcomings mean that consumers, who oftentimes pay more for organic products, are not always getting what they expect: foods without pesticides and other chemicals, produced in environmentally friendly ways.
That has fueled debate over whether the federal program should be governed by a strict interpretation of organic or broadened to include more products by allowing trace elements of non-organic substances. The argument is not over whether the non-organics pose a health threat, but whether they weaken the integrity of the federal organic label.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has pledged to protect the label, even as he acknowledged the pressure to lower standards to certify more products as organic.In response to complaints, the USDA inspector general's office has widened an investigation of whether products carrying the label meet national standards. The probe is also looking into the department's oversight of private certifiers hired by farmers and food producers to inspect products and determine whether they can use the label.Some consumer groups and members of Congress worry that the program's lax standards are undermining the federal program and the law itself."It will unravel everything we've done if the standards can no longer be trusted," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Vt.), who sponsored the federal organics legislation. "If we don't protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight."Congress adopted the organics law after farmers and consumers demanded uniform standards for produce, dairy and meat. The law banned synthetics, pesticides and genetic engineering from foods that would bear a federal organic label. It also required annual testing for pesticides. And it was aimed at preventing producers from falsely claiming their foods were organic.The USDA created the National Organic Program in 2002 to implement the law. But by then, major food companies had bought up most small, independent organic companies. Kraft Foods, for example, owns Boca Foods. Kellogg Co. owns Morningstar Farms, and Coca-Cola Co. owns 40% of Honest Tea, maker of the organic beverage favored by President Obama.That corporate firepower has added to pressure on the government to expand the definition of what is organic, in part because processed foods offered by big industry often require ingredients, additives or processing agents that either do not exist in organic form or are not available in large enough quantities for mass production.Under the original organics law, 5% of a USDA-certified organic product can consist of non-organic substances, provided they are approved by the National Organic Standards Board. That list has grown from 77 to 245 substances since it was created in 2002. Companies must appeal to the board every five years to keep a substance on the list, explaining why an organic alternative has not been found. The goal was to shrink the list over time, but only one item has been removed so far.
The original law's mandate for annual pesticide testing was also never implemented -- the agency left that optional
California solar-power subsidy program approaches its limit
Lis Sines of Hermosa Beach loves watching her electric meter run backward.When that happens, she knows that the 20 solar panels on her roof are producing more power than she needs to run her 3,800-square-foot home. The excess electricity flows to the electric company's grid, and she gets its full retail value credited to her utility bill.
Sines' electric bill has plunged since she and her husband, William, installed a photovoltaic system on their roof three months ago. In June the bill totaled just $1.26, compared to about $100 a year earlier.But the Sineses' subsidy may not be available to future solar-power users for long.The state's $3.3-billion solar subsidy program has become so popular that the state utilities are approaching the legal limit for how much power they can buy from customers.
The limit could be reached in parts of northern and central California served by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. by the end of this year. The state's other two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., are proceeding somewhat more slowly. Eager to keep the program growing, the solar industry is pushing for approval of legislation in Sacramento that would quadruple the amount allowed. The state's for-profit utilities oppose the higher cap in the bill AB 560 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley).A key Senate utilities committee vote on the measure is expected this week. Currently, utilities are limited by state law from buying from its customers more than 2.5% of a utility's maximum generating capacity. Skinner's bill would lift the cap to 10%. All three companies oppose Skinner's bill. They do not want lawmakers to raise the limit until next year at the earliest, after the California Public Utilities Commission tallies up the program's costs and benefits.Utilities say they strongly support solar power but want more information about whether it's fair to further increase financial incentives for solar-panel ownership. Such incentives, they point out, would come at the expense of most of the utilities' other customers, who don't want or can't afford to invest in the costly panels."We want to make sure there isn't an unfair level of cost-shifting," said Jennifer Briscoe, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric.Fairness issues were also raised in a report on Skinner's bill by the staff of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, which will review the bill this week. The report pointed out that California solar-panel owners already benefit from a variety of subsidies approved in recent years -- even without this "net metering" program, which allows people to sell power to the utilities.Solar power users get a state subsidy of about 20% of the purchase and installation cost and a federal income tax credit of 30%. Adding more incentives could be going too far, the committee staff analysis suggested. The staff report also takes issue with the amount of credit that solar users get when they sell power to the utilities. "By compensating the solar or wind customer at the full retail rate" for energy sold to the grid, "the utility is using ratepayer funds to pay the solar or wind customer at a rate well above the value of the generated power, which is about one-third of the total cost of a typical residential customer's bill," it said. The other two-thirds of the bill covers utilities' fixed expenses for building power plants and transmission lines, buying electricity from independent generators and meeting a variety of state mandates, including the cost of subsidizing low-income customers and solar-power system owners.Supporters of solar-power systems say the net metering program and other subsidies are essential. And many would like to see no caps at all. "Without net metering we're not going to see a lot more people" buy expensive solar systems, said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, a San Francisco advocacy group. "If we hit the net metering cap, the California solar industry grinds to a halt."Caps are an impediment to fully developing solar power's potential and its ability to provide clean energy that can be tapped in urban areas, where it is most needed, during peak demand on hot summer afternoons, Browning said. Eighteen states allow net metering without any caps, he noted.The appeal of lower electric bills appears to be persuading more people to go solar. Legislation, approved in 2007 and known as the Million Solar Roofs program, has spurred the production of solar-generated electricity to rise 78%. That's equivalent to the power generated by a modern power plant, the Public Utilities Commission reported last week. Consumer demand continues to grow despite the recession. Applications for state subsidies hit a record high in May, the commission said.The commission's first solar program assessment recommends raising the net metering cap "to prevent a stall in the solar market," and the commission endorses the Skinner bill. One solar booster is Harry Pope, a retired Edison executive who bought a large system for his Long Beach home after the energy crisis of 2000-01. He said he needs the state's incentives to make his investment pay off."I probably put in $30,000 and got half back. Maybe over 15 years I might achieve total payback," he said. Without people like him, Pope said, the state will have to build more power plants. "I'm preventing the utilities from having to build that next-generation power plant . . . the most expensive power plant you ever saw."
Sines' electric bill has plunged since she and her husband, William, installed a photovoltaic system on their roof three months ago. In June the bill totaled just $1.26, compared to about $100 a year earlier.But the Sineses' subsidy may not be available to future solar-power users for long.The state's $3.3-billion solar subsidy program has become so popular that the state utilities are approaching the legal limit for how much power they can buy from customers.
The limit could be reached in parts of northern and central California served by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. by the end of this year. The state's other two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., are proceeding somewhat more slowly. Eager to keep the program growing, the solar industry is pushing for approval of legislation in Sacramento that would quadruple the amount allowed. The state's for-profit utilities oppose the higher cap in the bill AB 560 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley).A key Senate utilities committee vote on the measure is expected this week. Currently, utilities are limited by state law from buying from its customers more than 2.5% of a utility's maximum generating capacity. Skinner's bill would lift the cap to 10%. All three companies oppose Skinner's bill. They do not want lawmakers to raise the limit until next year at the earliest, after the California Public Utilities Commission tallies up the program's costs and benefits.Utilities say they strongly support solar power but want more information about whether it's fair to further increase financial incentives for solar-panel ownership. Such incentives, they point out, would come at the expense of most of the utilities' other customers, who don't want or can't afford to invest in the costly panels."We want to make sure there isn't an unfair level of cost-shifting," said Jennifer Briscoe, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric.Fairness issues were also raised in a report on Skinner's bill by the staff of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, which will review the bill this week. The report pointed out that California solar-panel owners already benefit from a variety of subsidies approved in recent years -- even without this "net metering" program, which allows people to sell power to the utilities.Solar power users get a state subsidy of about 20% of the purchase and installation cost and a federal income tax credit of 30%. Adding more incentives could be going too far, the committee staff analysis suggested. The staff report also takes issue with the amount of credit that solar users get when they sell power to the utilities. "By compensating the solar or wind customer at the full retail rate" for energy sold to the grid, "the utility is using ratepayer funds to pay the solar or wind customer at a rate well above the value of the generated power, which is about one-third of the total cost of a typical residential customer's bill," it said. The other two-thirds of the bill covers utilities' fixed expenses for building power plants and transmission lines, buying electricity from independent generators and meeting a variety of state mandates, including the cost of subsidizing low-income customers and solar-power system owners.Supporters of solar-power systems say the net metering program and other subsidies are essential. And many would like to see no caps at all. "Without net metering we're not going to see a lot more people" buy expensive solar systems, said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, a San Francisco advocacy group. "If we hit the net metering cap, the California solar industry grinds to a halt."Caps are an impediment to fully developing solar power's potential and its ability to provide clean energy that can be tapped in urban areas, where it is most needed, during peak demand on hot summer afternoons, Browning said. Eighteen states allow net metering without any caps, he noted.The appeal of lower electric bills appears to be persuading more people to go solar. Legislation, approved in 2007 and known as the Million Solar Roofs program, has spurred the production of solar-generated electricity to rise 78%. That's equivalent to the power generated by a modern power plant, the Public Utilities Commission reported last week. Consumer demand continues to grow despite the recession. Applications for state subsidies hit a record high in May, the commission said.The commission's first solar program assessment recommends raising the net metering cap "to prevent a stall in the solar market," and the commission endorses the Skinner bill. One solar booster is Harry Pope, a retired Edison executive who bought a large system for his Long Beach home after the energy crisis of 2000-01. He said he needs the state's incentives to make his investment pay off."I probably put in $30,000 and got half back. Maybe over 15 years I might achieve total payback," he said. Without people like him, Pope said, the state will have to build more power plants. "I'm preventing the utilities from having to build that next-generation power plant . . . the most expensive power plant you ever saw."
Eni Receives Environment Order For Norway Goliat Field
Eni's SpA (E) Norwegian arm has received a notification from the country's Petroleum Safety Authority, or Ptil, relating to collection of environmental data in the area around the Goliat oil-field, which is currently under development.
Goliat field in Norway's Barents Sea is located in an area with poor weather and oceanographic forecasting, Ptil said. "There is a need to improve the quality of the basic data used for weather forecasting in the area," it added.
It has unique meteorological phenomena where some low pressure fronts are created in the air between the ice-covered sea and warmer open sea, "which can create winds which can be compared to cyclones in warmer climates", Ptil said.
Ptil's concerns are centered on the poor observation network in the area, which could create challenges in relation to planning and execution operations of the Goliat project, it said. Eni doesn't currently include collection and real-time reporting of the relevant data in its plan for development and operation of Goliat, Ptil noted, also giving recommendations for improvement.
Eni was not immediately available to comment on the notification.
Goliat is expected to start producing oil and some gas in 2013.
Goliat field in Norway's Barents Sea is located in an area with poor weather and oceanographic forecasting, Ptil said. "There is a need to improve the quality of the basic data used for weather forecasting in the area," it added.
It has unique meteorological phenomena where some low pressure fronts are created in the air between the ice-covered sea and warmer open sea, "which can create winds which can be compared to cyclones in warmer climates", Ptil said.
Ptil's concerns are centered on the poor observation network in the area, which could create challenges in relation to planning and execution operations of the Goliat project, it said. Eni doesn't currently include collection and real-time reporting of the relevant data in its plan for development and operation of Goliat, Ptil noted, also giving recommendations for improvement.
Eni was not immediately available to comment on the notification.
Goliat is expected to start producing oil and some gas in 2013.
German Environment Minister Wants Old Nuclear Plants to Close
German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel wants to amend the country’s nuclear energy phase-out, speeding up closure of old plants after an automatic shutdown at Vattenfall AB’s Kruemmel reactor near Hamburg on July 4.
Gabriel said the remaining operational lifespan of older reactors could be transferred to newer plants in an amendment, extending their life. Speaking on German ARD television today, Gabriel also called for the creation of a federal overseer to close gaps caused by state monitoring of the industry.
“We must pull these older nuclear plants from the grid. That means tightening up the legislation we have,” said Gabriel, a Social Democrat. Gabriel’s SPD in coalition with the Green Party passed legislation in 2002 that will phase out nuclear power by about 2021. Some 17 plants are still in operation.
The SPD’s current coalition partners, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, seek an extension of nuclear power beyond 2021. Vattenfall said in an e-mailed statement that the plant east of Hamburg automatically shut down at noon the same day, following a disruption in a transformer
Gabriel said the remaining operational lifespan of older reactors could be transferred to newer plants in an amendment, extending their life. Speaking on German ARD television today, Gabriel also called for the creation of a federal overseer to close gaps caused by state monitoring of the industry.
“We must pull these older nuclear plants from the grid. That means tightening up the legislation we have,” said Gabriel, a Social Democrat. Gabriel’s SPD in coalition with the Green Party passed legislation in 2002 that will phase out nuclear power by about 2021. Some 17 plants are still in operation.
The SPD’s current coalition partners, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, seek an extension of nuclear power beyond 2021. Vattenfall said in an e-mailed statement that the plant east of Hamburg automatically shut down at noon the same day, following a disruption in a transformer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)