The company has commissioned a total of eleven Solar Power Plants in the Lakshadweep islands
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited has commissioned two Grid-Interactive Solar Power Plants of 100 KWp each in Lakshadweep. With this, the company has commissioned a total of eleven Solar Power Plants in the Lakshadweep islands, adding over 1 MW of Solar Power to the power generating capacity of the coral islands in the Arabian Sea. The plants have been set up at Chetlat and Amini islands of Lakshadweep. BHEL has earlier commissioned Solar Power Plants of various ratings up to 150 KWp at the islands of Agatti, Andrott, Bangaram, Bitra, Kadmat, Kalpeni, Kavaratti, Kiltan and Minicoy. BHEL’s Solar Power Plants cater to about 15 per cent of the Union Territory’s energy demand and Lakshadweep boasts of having the country’s largest solar power-based island electrification project. The Lakshadweep islands were wholly powered by DG sets using diesel transported from the mainland (Kochi), reports IndiaInfoline. Transportation of diesel is a cumbersome and costly process, largely depending on sea conditions. Continuous running of the diesel generators was also leading to noise and air pollution. Besides, contamination of the ground water by the stored diesel was another concern which prompted the Lakshadweep Administration to opt for environment-friendly Solar Power. The projects will greatly reduce the problems faced in transportation and storage of diesel, besides safeguarding the fragile ecology of the coral islands hitherto threatened by the use of diesel. The Solar Power Plants supply energy to the main Diesel Generator (DG) grid which in turn powers the entire island including Tourist Cottages, Residential Houses, Cottage Industries etc. The Photovoltaic (PV) modules convert sunlight to electricity directly and using state-of-the-art Power Conditioning Units (PCUs), the DC power is converted to AC and synchronised with the diesel grid. The SPV modules are manufactured at its ultra-modern manufacturing facility located at Bangalore. Starting from small applications like Solar Powered Street Light, Rural Water Pumping System, Railway Signaling, Offshore Drilling Platforms, BHEL has supplied and commissioned large size Stand-alone as well as Grid Inter-active Solar Power Plants in a number of major cities and remote areas of the country. The Solar cells and modules manufactured are also exported to various countries like Germany, Australia and Italy. The company’s PV modules are certified to international standards by JRC, Ispra, Italy.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Shifts in Earth's Magnetic Field Driven by Oceans?
The flow of seawater across Earth's surface could be responsible for small fluctuations in the planet's magnetic field, a controversial new study says.
If so, the research would challenge the widely accepted theory that Earth's magnetic field is generated by a churning molten core, or dynamo, in the planets interior.If I am correct, then the dynamo theory is in bad shape, and all kinds of things about core dynamics also fall apart," said study author Gregory Ryskin, an associate professor of chemical and biological engineering at Northwestern University in Illinois.
Ryskin's study has attracted fierce criticism from other geophysicists, with some experts dismissing the idea as "junk" science.
"I strongly believe the new hypothesis is just nonsense," said geophysicist Robert Parker of the University of California, San Diego.
Such reactions were not entirely unexpected.
"This article is controversial and will no doubt cause vigorous debate, and possibly strong opposition, from some parts of the geomagnetism community," Tim Smith, senior publisher of the New Journal of Physics, which published Ryskin's findings, said in a statement.
Earth's Dynamo
Earth's magnetic field extends thousands of miles into space and shields surface life from the solar wind—a potentially harmful stream of charged particles emanating from the sun.
(Read "Magnetic-Shield Cracks Found; Big Solar Storms Expected.")
According to the well-known dynamo theory, Earth has a solid inner core that spins inside an outer core of molten iron. The rotating, electrically conductive liquid core is what generates the planet's magnetic field.
Unlike the static field around a bar magnet, Earth's magnetic field is constantly shifting direction. As navigators discovered centuries ago, the direction of North on a compass varies slightly depending on location. tn the planet's interior.
If so, the research would challenge the widely accepted theory that Earth's magnetic field is generated by a churning molten core, or dynamo, in the planets interior.If I am correct, then the dynamo theory is in bad shape, and all kinds of things about core dynamics also fall apart," said study author Gregory Ryskin, an associate professor of chemical and biological engineering at Northwestern University in Illinois.
Ryskin's study has attracted fierce criticism from other geophysicists, with some experts dismissing the idea as "junk" science.
"I strongly believe the new hypothesis is just nonsense," said geophysicist Robert Parker of the University of California, San Diego.
Such reactions were not entirely unexpected.
"This article is controversial and will no doubt cause vigorous debate, and possibly strong opposition, from some parts of the geomagnetism community," Tim Smith, senior publisher of the New Journal of Physics, which published Ryskin's findings, said in a statement.
Earth's Dynamo
Earth's magnetic field extends thousands of miles into space and shields surface life from the solar wind—a potentially harmful stream of charged particles emanating from the sun.
(Read "Magnetic-Shield Cracks Found; Big Solar Storms Expected.")
According to the well-known dynamo theory, Earth has a solid inner core that spins inside an outer core of molten iron. The rotating, electrically conductive liquid core is what generates the planet's magnetic field.
Unlike the static field around a bar magnet, Earth's magnetic field is constantly shifting direction. As navigators discovered centuries ago, the direction of North on a compass varies slightly depending on location. tn the planet's interior.
House Democrats reach deal on Climate Bill
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday said they had reached a deal on difficult agriculture issues in a climate change bill, clearing the way for a vote and probable passage in the chamber this week.
"We have an agreement finally," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, whose support had been widely sought by House Democratic leaders. Peterson declared he is now prepared to vote for the controversial bill.Representative Henry Waxman, a main proponent for legislation to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide associated with global warming, told reporters: "I think we will have the majority to pass the bill."
Waxman also predicted environmental groups will remain supportive, despite new provisions to help farm states that some feared would weaken the bill.
The breakthrough came just hours after President Barack Obama, at a White House press conference, embraced the Democrats' bill and urged the House to move quickly on it.
It is legislation that will finally spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet," Obama said.In announcing the deal after briefing a group of moderate Democrats, Waxman said that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not the Environmental Protection Agency, would be put in charge of overseeing certain steps to be taken by farmers to reduce carbon emissions.
Known as "offsets," the program would allow farmers to claim achievements in reducing carbon pollution by planting trees or taking other environmental actions. But the agriculture community objected to EPA overseeing the program and insisted that the more sympathetic USDA do the job.
"We have an agreement finally," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, whose support had been widely sought by House Democratic leaders. Peterson declared he is now prepared to vote for the controversial bill.Representative Henry Waxman, a main proponent for legislation to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide associated with global warming, told reporters: "I think we will have the majority to pass the bill."
Waxman also predicted environmental groups will remain supportive, despite new provisions to help farm states that some feared would weaken the bill.
The breakthrough came just hours after President Barack Obama, at a White House press conference, embraced the Democrats' bill and urged the House to move quickly on it.
It is legislation that will finally spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet," Obama said.In announcing the deal after briefing a group of moderate Democrats, Waxman said that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not the Environmental Protection Agency, would be put in charge of overseeing certain steps to be taken by farmers to reduce carbon emissions.
Known as "offsets," the program would allow farmers to claim achievements in reducing carbon pollution by planting trees or taking other environmental actions. But the agriculture community objected to EPA overseeing the program and insisted that the more sympathetic USDA do the job.
Global warming and India
IF FILMS and publications can warm up a public issue, global warming is a clear frontrunner. First came Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, then a book with the same title early last year. The U.K. Government's Stern Report arrived in September, the Fourth Assessment Report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came in February 2007, and its latest report on April 6.
The film and the reports are unequivocal in their message that a warming-induced apocalypse is well on the way and that humans are responsible for as much as 90 per cent of the observed warming of 0.6 degree Celsius over 150 years. The release of carbon dioxide by the burning of coal and oil for power generation, transportation, and other purposes, and of methane from paddy fields, large water storages, and enteric fermentation of cattle, have been identified as the main contributing factors. If business goes on as usual then global temperatures may rise by 3 to 5 degrees this century. This will result in the sea-level rise inundating large coastal tracts, erratic precipitation, water stress, poor crop yields, and a rise in the incidence of vector-borne diseases such as malaria.
If the anticipated consequences are so dire, then one should expect those responsible for the damage caused (read developed countries) to act with appropriate urgency and seriousness of purpose to atone for it. In fact, they should have done so since June 1992 when the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The adjunct to the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, was hammered out in December 1997, setting individual targets for these countries to reduce yearly emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to a minimum of 5 per cent below their 1990 levels in the first commitment period, 2008-2012. Thirty-five industrialised countries and the members of the European Union (EU) were thus covered by mandatory cuts. Developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil were exempted, though they bore a "common but differentiated responsibility" to take steps to mitigate global warming.
An assessment of the GHG reductions made by those who were given targets to do so makes poor reading and holds out little promise of their being able to live up to expectations. According to the UNFCCC secretariat (October 31, 2006) the overall emissions of the parties with targets dropped by only 3.3 per cent from 1990 to 2004. And even this reduction was rendered possible by a 36.8 per cent decrease in the Economies in Transition (EITs), namely the countries of eastern and central Europe, which were under the socialist fold earlier. East Germany (the German Democratic Republic), after its reunification with the Federal Republic of Germany, saw the closure of its carbon dioxide-spewing lignite-fired power stations, enabling the unified Germany to record a massive fall in GHG emissions. But the EITs have seen a reversal of the trend from 2000 to 2004: during this period their emissions went up by 4.1 per cent. The U.K., aided greatly since the 1970s by North Sea gas, saw significant reductions by 1995, a good two years before Kyoto.
The original 15 members of the EU, who have to cut their collective emissions by 8 per cent by 2008-2012, recorded a poor progress of 0.9 per cent by 2004. Despite this, the EU is sanguine about achieving the target for the community as a whole by 2010. This has to be viewed against the backdrop of seven member-states — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain — expressing their inability to meet the targets.
Outside the EU, Canada has made public its inability to meet its stipulated 6 per cent GHG reduction. Canada's emissions have risen by 29 per cent over 1990 levels. It is unwilling to pass up the prospect of its Alberta tar sands yielding oil commercially. The opposition of the biggest emitter of GHGs, the U.S., to become a party to the UNFCCC and Kyoto is well known. Australia, blessed with huge coal reserves that form the backbone of its exports, is undeterred by its forest fires to subscribe to the Convention or the Protocol.
Softening up offensive
Realising that Kyoto will end in a whimper lest the U.S. and the growing economies of China and India are brought on board to accept mandatory cuts, the chief proponents of Kyoto have begun a softening up offensive. Urgency is lent by the fact that evidence of some of the adverse effects of global warming such as longer and hotter summers, shorter autumns, warmer winters, and early arrival of spring is visible in Europe.
First, the G8 club has been inviting Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Mexico to its summit meetings to evolve G8+5 strategies to mitigate global warming. Secondly, delegates from G8+5 and the U.S. Congress met on Capitol Hill in February 2007 to discuss future climate policy. According to New Scientist, they agreed to limit global carbon dioxide emissions to "somewhere between 450 and 550 parts per million compared to the present level of 379 parts per million," in order to frame emission targets "according to historical responsibility and development needs," establish a "carbon market, linking the European emissions trading scheme with others emerging across the globe" and give "a focus on research and development, energy efficiency, and means of adapting to the unavoidable effects of climate change."
The G8 summit scheduled for June will "arrive at a blueprint of the post-Kyoto framework which would serve as the background paper for global negotiations to begin under U.N. auspices in December 2007 and to conclude by 2009."
What is in store for India? What are the options available to it to limit its GHG emissions? Should India emphasise mitigation measures, or adaptation strategies, or both? And most important, how is it to guard the growth of the Indian economy from the adverse impact of GHG reductions — which boils down to less energy generation and consumption? Such questions will confront the expert advisory committee to be set up by the Government of India on global warming. The proposal to set up such a committee was announced by the Finance Minister in his budget speech.
Baseline information on India's GHG emissions was gathered during an exercise undertaken in the mid-1990s to make an inventory of sources of emissions and their volumes, for submission to the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC. India's predominantly coal-based power industry, its oil-intensive transportation systems, large areas under paddy cultivation, and 440-million cattle population are its principal sources.
The implications of GHG reductions on energy generation and hence on the economy can be gauged from the report of the Integrated Energy Policy Committee released by the Planning Commission in December 2005. The report said: "To deliver a sustained growth of 8 per cent through 2031, India would, in the very least, need to grow its primary energy supply by three to four times and electricity supply by five to seven times of today's consumption."
Currently, coal accounts for over 50 per cent of the country's commercial energy consumption and almost 60 per cent of its electricity generation. Even in the most optimistic scenario of maximising the development of all clean energy sources, coal will account for 42 per cent of the fuel-mix by 2031-32. Under the least optimistic projections, coal will account for 65 per cent. Carbon dioxide emissions will go up from the present one billion tonnes a year to 4.1 or 5.9 billion tonnes, depending on the fuel-mix option that may prevail then.
Can India afford binding commitments, then? The answer is an emphatic `no.' What India can do in the interests of mitigating global warming and climate change and in the interests of its energy security is to manage its energy supply and demand based on economic pricing of energy, remove wasteful subsidies, reduce transmission and distribution losses, promote mass transit and freight movement by rail in preference to road, and promote energy conservation in buildings and energy efficiency in industry and agriculture. Vigorous promotion of renewable energy sources and nuclear energy — the latter somewhat looked down upon by some members of the EU — can lend greenness to the Indian energy scene. Adaptation to climate change is an equally worthwhile end to pursue and may make more sense than mitigation. India should do what it needs to do and not what others want it to do.
The film and the reports are unequivocal in their message that a warming-induced apocalypse is well on the way and that humans are responsible for as much as 90 per cent of the observed warming of 0.6 degree Celsius over 150 years. The release of carbon dioxide by the burning of coal and oil for power generation, transportation, and other purposes, and of methane from paddy fields, large water storages, and enteric fermentation of cattle, have been identified as the main contributing factors. If business goes on as usual then global temperatures may rise by 3 to 5 degrees this century. This will result in the sea-level rise inundating large coastal tracts, erratic precipitation, water stress, poor crop yields, and a rise in the incidence of vector-borne diseases such as malaria.
If the anticipated consequences are so dire, then one should expect those responsible for the damage caused (read developed countries) to act with appropriate urgency and seriousness of purpose to atone for it. In fact, they should have done so since June 1992 when the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The adjunct to the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, was hammered out in December 1997, setting individual targets for these countries to reduce yearly emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to a minimum of 5 per cent below their 1990 levels in the first commitment period, 2008-2012. Thirty-five industrialised countries and the members of the European Union (EU) were thus covered by mandatory cuts. Developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil were exempted, though they bore a "common but differentiated responsibility" to take steps to mitigate global warming.
An assessment of the GHG reductions made by those who were given targets to do so makes poor reading and holds out little promise of their being able to live up to expectations. According to the UNFCCC secretariat (October 31, 2006) the overall emissions of the parties with targets dropped by only 3.3 per cent from 1990 to 2004. And even this reduction was rendered possible by a 36.8 per cent decrease in the Economies in Transition (EITs), namely the countries of eastern and central Europe, which were under the socialist fold earlier. East Germany (the German Democratic Republic), after its reunification with the Federal Republic of Germany, saw the closure of its carbon dioxide-spewing lignite-fired power stations, enabling the unified Germany to record a massive fall in GHG emissions. But the EITs have seen a reversal of the trend from 2000 to 2004: during this period their emissions went up by 4.1 per cent. The U.K., aided greatly since the 1970s by North Sea gas, saw significant reductions by 1995, a good two years before Kyoto.
The original 15 members of the EU, who have to cut their collective emissions by 8 per cent by 2008-2012, recorded a poor progress of 0.9 per cent by 2004. Despite this, the EU is sanguine about achieving the target for the community as a whole by 2010. This has to be viewed against the backdrop of seven member-states — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain — expressing their inability to meet the targets.
Outside the EU, Canada has made public its inability to meet its stipulated 6 per cent GHG reduction. Canada's emissions have risen by 29 per cent over 1990 levels. It is unwilling to pass up the prospect of its Alberta tar sands yielding oil commercially. The opposition of the biggest emitter of GHGs, the U.S., to become a party to the UNFCCC and Kyoto is well known. Australia, blessed with huge coal reserves that form the backbone of its exports, is undeterred by its forest fires to subscribe to the Convention or the Protocol.
Softening up offensive
Realising that Kyoto will end in a whimper lest the U.S. and the growing economies of China and India are brought on board to accept mandatory cuts, the chief proponents of Kyoto have begun a softening up offensive. Urgency is lent by the fact that evidence of some of the adverse effects of global warming such as longer and hotter summers, shorter autumns, warmer winters, and early arrival of spring is visible in Europe.
First, the G8 club has been inviting Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Mexico to its summit meetings to evolve G8+5 strategies to mitigate global warming. Secondly, delegates from G8+5 and the U.S. Congress met on Capitol Hill in February 2007 to discuss future climate policy. According to New Scientist, they agreed to limit global carbon dioxide emissions to "somewhere between 450 and 550 parts per million compared to the present level of 379 parts per million," in order to frame emission targets "according to historical responsibility and development needs," establish a "carbon market, linking the European emissions trading scheme with others emerging across the globe" and give "a focus on research and development, energy efficiency, and means of adapting to the unavoidable effects of climate change."
The G8 summit scheduled for June will "arrive at a blueprint of the post-Kyoto framework which would serve as the background paper for global negotiations to begin under U.N. auspices in December 2007 and to conclude by 2009."
What is in store for India? What are the options available to it to limit its GHG emissions? Should India emphasise mitigation measures, or adaptation strategies, or both? And most important, how is it to guard the growth of the Indian economy from the adverse impact of GHG reductions — which boils down to less energy generation and consumption? Such questions will confront the expert advisory committee to be set up by the Government of India on global warming. The proposal to set up such a committee was announced by the Finance Minister in his budget speech.
Baseline information on India's GHG emissions was gathered during an exercise undertaken in the mid-1990s to make an inventory of sources of emissions and their volumes, for submission to the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC. India's predominantly coal-based power industry, its oil-intensive transportation systems, large areas under paddy cultivation, and 440-million cattle population are its principal sources.
The implications of GHG reductions on energy generation and hence on the economy can be gauged from the report of the Integrated Energy Policy Committee released by the Planning Commission in December 2005. The report said: "To deliver a sustained growth of 8 per cent through 2031, India would, in the very least, need to grow its primary energy supply by three to four times and electricity supply by five to seven times of today's consumption."
Currently, coal accounts for over 50 per cent of the country's commercial energy consumption and almost 60 per cent of its electricity generation. Even in the most optimistic scenario of maximising the development of all clean energy sources, coal will account for 42 per cent of the fuel-mix by 2031-32. Under the least optimistic projections, coal will account for 65 per cent. Carbon dioxide emissions will go up from the present one billion tonnes a year to 4.1 or 5.9 billion tonnes, depending on the fuel-mix option that may prevail then.
Can India afford binding commitments, then? The answer is an emphatic `no.' What India can do in the interests of mitigating global warming and climate change and in the interests of its energy security is to manage its energy supply and demand based on economic pricing of energy, remove wasteful subsidies, reduce transmission and distribution losses, promote mass transit and freight movement by rail in preference to road, and promote energy conservation in buildings and energy efficiency in industry and agriculture. Vigorous promotion of renewable energy sources and nuclear energy — the latter somewhat looked down upon by some members of the EU — can lend greenness to the Indian energy scene. Adaptation to climate change is an equally worthwhile end to pursue and may make more sense than mitigation. India should do what it needs to do and not what others want it to do.
INTERVIEW - Global warming is a security threat - Kofi Annan
Global warming must be seen as an economic and security threat, former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday, calling on poorer countries to speak louder about their climate change needs.
In an interview, Annan said he chose to focus his retirement energies on environmental risks because he believes that left unchecked, they could destabilise both rich and poor countries.
"We do have economic bases for conflict, and tensions, that we sometimes ignore," he told Reuters in Geneva on the opening day of his Global Humanitarian Forum's two-day meeting on the human impact of climate change.
"When we talk in terms of security and safety, we tend to focus on political conflicts, military conflicts, when some of the sources can be fights over scarcity and resources," he said.
Politicians focused on salvaging the troubled global economy should not forget the risks their populations face from global warming, Annan said. "They need to pay attention because there will be tensions over scarce resources."
The six-year-old conflict in Sudan's Darfur region, which the United Nations estimates has killed 300,000 people, is an example where environmental pressures morphed into war, and the drylands of East Africa and the Middle East are also vulnerable to added stresses from global warming, he said.
Low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives also face the risk of disruption and panic if sea levels rise as scientists predict in response to a build-up of heat-trapping emissions from cars and factories, the former U.N. chief said.
"For these people there is nothing abstract about climate change," Annan said, while underlining the risks are not limited to poor, small, and island states.
New York City will need to ensure its bridges and tunnels are passable during a major storm or tsunami, and other cities worldwide need contingency plans for emergencies, Annan said.
"It does require planning and creativity. This is something that we should think about not only for the poorer countries," he said. "We are all in this together. We are all affected."
Earlier on Tuesday, Annan told his group's meeting that he was optimistic the world could agree on a climate change accord with the support of the U.S. administration of Barack Obama.
"Every year we delay, the greater the damage, the more extensive the human misery," he said in remarks to the conference attended by senior U.N. and government officials.
Annan, 71, said he hoped their discussions on "the greatest environmental and humanitarian concern of our age" would set the stage for a deal in Copenhagen in December on a successor to the Kyoto accord, which regulates emissions of greenhouse gases.
"A new president and new administration in the United States have demonstrated their seriousness about combating climate change. Given that the U.S. is the greatest source of emissions, this raises optimism for Copenhagen and beyond," he said.
Annan said it was "too early to tell" whether poor countries would get fair treatment under a successor deal, saying: "there are still quite a bit of negotiations and discussions to go."
Climate experts have warned pledges by industrialised nations to cut emissions by 2020 fall far short of the deep cuts widely advocated to avert climate change.
Overall emissions cuts promised by industrialised nations in the run-up to December's meeting now average between 10 and 14 percent below 1990 levels, according to Reuters calculations. U.N. climate experts say cuts must be in the 25-40 percent range below 1990 levels to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
In an interview, Annan said he chose to focus his retirement energies on environmental risks because he believes that left unchecked, they could destabilise both rich and poor countries.
"We do have economic bases for conflict, and tensions, that we sometimes ignore," he told Reuters in Geneva on the opening day of his Global Humanitarian Forum's two-day meeting on the human impact of climate change.
"When we talk in terms of security and safety, we tend to focus on political conflicts, military conflicts, when some of the sources can be fights over scarcity and resources," he said.
Politicians focused on salvaging the troubled global economy should not forget the risks their populations face from global warming, Annan said. "They need to pay attention because there will be tensions over scarce resources."
The six-year-old conflict in Sudan's Darfur region, which the United Nations estimates has killed 300,000 people, is an example where environmental pressures morphed into war, and the drylands of East Africa and the Middle East are also vulnerable to added stresses from global warming, he said.
Low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives also face the risk of disruption and panic if sea levels rise as scientists predict in response to a build-up of heat-trapping emissions from cars and factories, the former U.N. chief said.
"For these people there is nothing abstract about climate change," Annan said, while underlining the risks are not limited to poor, small, and island states.
New York City will need to ensure its bridges and tunnels are passable during a major storm or tsunami, and other cities worldwide need contingency plans for emergencies, Annan said.
"It does require planning and creativity. This is something that we should think about not only for the poorer countries," he said. "We are all in this together. We are all affected."
Earlier on Tuesday, Annan told his group's meeting that he was optimistic the world could agree on a climate change accord with the support of the U.S. administration of Barack Obama.
"Every year we delay, the greater the damage, the more extensive the human misery," he said in remarks to the conference attended by senior U.N. and government officials.
Annan, 71, said he hoped their discussions on "the greatest environmental and humanitarian concern of our age" would set the stage for a deal in Copenhagen in December on a successor to the Kyoto accord, which regulates emissions of greenhouse gases.
"A new president and new administration in the United States have demonstrated their seriousness about combating climate change. Given that the U.S. is the greatest source of emissions, this raises optimism for Copenhagen and beyond," he said.
Annan said it was "too early to tell" whether poor countries would get fair treatment under a successor deal, saying: "there are still quite a bit of negotiations and discussions to go."
Climate experts have warned pledges by industrialised nations to cut emissions by 2020 fall far short of the deep cuts widely advocated to avert climate change.
Overall emissions cuts promised by industrialised nations in the run-up to December's meeting now average between 10 and 14 percent below 1990 levels, according to Reuters calculations. U.N. climate experts say cuts must be in the 25-40 percent range below 1990 levels to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
World''s corals face danger as global warming whips up powerful storms
A new scientific study has found that as global warming whips up more powerful and frequent hurricanes and storms, the world''s coral reefs face increased disruption to their ability to breed and recover from damage.
"We have found clear evidence that coral recruitment - the regrowth of young corals - drops sharply in the wake of a major bleaching event or a hurricane," said lead study author Dr Jennie Mallela of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and Australian National University.
Using the island of Tobago in the Caribbean as their laboratory, Dr Mallela and colleague Professor James Crabbe of the University of Bedfordshire, UK, backtracked to 1980 to see what had happened to the corals in the wake of nine hurricanes, tropical storms and bleaching events.
"In every case, there was a sharp drop in coral recruitment following the event - often by as much as two thirds to three quarters. Not only were fewer new coral colonies formed, but also far fewer of the major reef building coral species recruited successfully," Jennie said.
"This finding mirrors our modelling studies on the fringing reefs of Jamaica, and on the Meso-American Barrier reef off the coast of Belize," said Professor Crabbe.
Tobago lies outside the main Caribbean hurricane belt and therefore is more typical of the circumstances of most coral reefs around the world.
Nevertheless, its corals are disrupted by a major storm or bleaching every three or four years - and the frequency of this may be growing.
"Climate researchers are seeing increasing evidence for a direct relationship between global warming and rising hurricane intensity as well as frequency," Jennie explained.
"Global warming produces significant increases in the frequency of high sea surface temperatures (SSTs), and hurricane winds are strengthened by warm surface waters," she said.
The high temperatures cause bleaching, while the storms inflict physical destruction on the corals as well as eroding the rocky platforms they need to grow on, or burying them in sand.
"Maintaining coral reef populations in the face of large-scale degradation depends critically on recruitment - the ability of the corals to breed successfully and settle on the reef to form new colonies. Our research suggests this process is severely disrupted after one of these major events," said Jennie.
According to Jennie, the concern is that if major storms and bleaching become more frequent as the climate warms, the ability of individual reefs to renew themselves may break down completely
"We have found clear evidence that coral recruitment - the regrowth of young corals - drops sharply in the wake of a major bleaching event or a hurricane," said lead study author Dr Jennie Mallela of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and Australian National University.
Using the island of Tobago in the Caribbean as their laboratory, Dr Mallela and colleague Professor James Crabbe of the University of Bedfordshire, UK, backtracked to 1980 to see what had happened to the corals in the wake of nine hurricanes, tropical storms and bleaching events.
"In every case, there was a sharp drop in coral recruitment following the event - often by as much as two thirds to three quarters. Not only were fewer new coral colonies formed, but also far fewer of the major reef building coral species recruited successfully," Jennie said.
"This finding mirrors our modelling studies on the fringing reefs of Jamaica, and on the Meso-American Barrier reef off the coast of Belize," said Professor Crabbe.
Tobago lies outside the main Caribbean hurricane belt and therefore is more typical of the circumstances of most coral reefs around the world.
Nevertheless, its corals are disrupted by a major storm or bleaching every three or four years - and the frequency of this may be growing.
"Climate researchers are seeing increasing evidence for a direct relationship between global warming and rising hurricane intensity as well as frequency," Jennie explained.
"Global warming produces significant increases in the frequency of high sea surface temperatures (SSTs), and hurricane winds are strengthened by warm surface waters," she said.
The high temperatures cause bleaching, while the storms inflict physical destruction on the corals as well as eroding the rocky platforms they need to grow on, or burying them in sand.
"Maintaining coral reef populations in the face of large-scale degradation depends critically on recruitment - the ability of the corals to breed successfully and settle on the reef to form new colonies. Our research suggests this process is severely disrupted after one of these major events," said Jennie.
According to Jennie, the concern is that if major storms and bleaching become more frequent as the climate warms, the ability of individual reefs to renew themselves may break down completely
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)