The threat of global warming can still be greatly diminished if nations cut emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 70 percent this century, according to a new analysis. While global temperatures would rise, the most dangerous potential aspects of climate change, including massive losses of Arctic sea ice and permafrost and significant sea level rise, could be partially avoided.
The study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), will be published next week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.
"This research indicates that we can no longer avoid significant warming during this century," says NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the lead author. "But if the world were to implement this level of emission cuts, we could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe."
Avoiding dangerous climate change
Average global temperatures have warmed by close to 1 degree Celsius (almost 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the pre-industrial era. Much of the warming is due to human-produced emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide. This heat-trapping gas has increased from a pre-industrial level of about 284 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to more than 380 ppm today.
With research showing that additional warming of about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) may be the threshold for dangerous climate change, the European Union has called for dramatic cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The U.S. Congress is also debating the issue.
To examine the impact of such cuts on the world's climate, Washington and his colleagues ran a series of global supercomputer studies with the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model. They assumed that carbon dioxide levels could be held to 450 ppm at the end of this century. That figure comes from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which has cited 450 ppm as an attainable target if the world quickly adapts conservation practices and new green technologies to cut emissions dramatically. In contrast, emissions are now on track to reach about 750 ppm by 2100 if unchecked.
The team's results showed that if carbon dioxide were held to 450 ppm, global temperatures would increase by 0.6 degrees C (about 1 degree F) above current readings by the end of the century. In contrast, the study showed that temperatures would rise by almost four times that amount, to 2.2 degrees C (4 degrees F) above current readings, if emissions were allowed to continue on their present course.
Holding carbon dioxide levels to 450 ppm would have other impacts, according to the climate modeling study:
Sea level rise due to thermal expansion as water temperatures warmed would be 14 centimeters (about 5.5 inches) instead of 22 centimeters (8.7 inches). Significant additional sea level rise would be expected in either scenario from melting ice sheets and glaciers.
Arctic ice in the summertime would shrink by about a quarter in volume and stabilize by 2100, as opposed to shrinking at least three-quarters and continuing to melt. Some research has suggested the summertime ice will disappear altogether this century if emissions continue on their current trajectory.
Arctic warming would be reduced by almost half, helping preserve fisheries and populations of sea birds and Arctic mammals in such regions as the northern Bering Sea.
Significant regional changes in precipitation, including decreased precipitation in the U.S. Southwest and an increase in the U.S. Northeast and Canada, would be cut in half if emissions were kept to 450 ppm.
The climate system would stabilize by about 2100, instead of continuing to warm.
The research team used supercomputer simulations to compare a business-as-usual scenario to one with dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions beginning in about a decade. The authors stressed that they were not studying how such cuts could be achieved nor advocating a particular policy.
"Our goal is to provide policymakers with appropriate research so they can make informed decisions," Washington says. "This study provides some hope that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change--if society can cut emissions substantially over the next several decades and continue major cuts through the century."
Monday, June 29, 2009
Industry's Anti-Global Warming Misinformation Campaign Reminiscent of Big Tobacco's Strategy
The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel--far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry's notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers' own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.
The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups
The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups
Effects of Global Warming on Agriculture
It's not exactly clear why the '50s beatnik crowd thought the phrase "that's a gas, man" was cool. But today and in the future, ever-increasing amounts of gas—carbon dioxide, methane, and all the other members of the greenhouse gas gang—are likely to make the planet anything but cool. The climate effects will be far reaching, from higher electricity costs to soaring prices for the Spam and mashed potatoes on your plate.
Today's article explores not only the coming effects of global warming on agriculture, but also the impact that farming and agriculture are having on global warming. That is, how much are agriculture and food operations contributing to global climate change? And how at-risk is our food-production system from the effects of global warming?
We're fortunate to have a great guest article on this subject from Guillermo Payet of LocalHarvest, a web site that helps people find farmers markets, CSAs, and other local food sources in their area.
~ ~ ~
Climate Change and Farming by Guillermo Payet, LocalHarvest
The earth's climate has been relatively stable for thousands of years. We know intuitively that it is hot, humid, and rainy in the Amazon, and that corn grows well in the US Midwest. We know that at a particular altitude we should plant a crop during a certain week of the year because conditions for it are just right then. For most of our memory as humans, our climates have closely oscillated around predictable patterns, and this has allowed us to feed ourselves and flourish.
When a stable climate system is modified beyond its "tipping point," it gets out of balance and loses its equilibrium. While the system searches for a new set of patterns to stabilize around, variability and uncertainly are the norm. This, in essence, is the nature of the challenge that we are now facing.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture's Contribution to Global Climate Change
Agriculture is one of the most weather-dependent of all human activities. It is ironic, then, that a significant percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Fossil fuel-intensive agriculture is contributing to the creation of the unpredictable weather conditions that all farmers will need to battle in the not-too-distant future
The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s allowed us to increase yields by "borrowing" solar energy from the past in the form of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides. When one adds in the oil used for processing and packaging foods and for refrigerating and shipping them long distances, it's easy to see how the food industry consumes about 20% of all the oil used in the US.
About 1% of the world's annual energy usage goes into the production of fertilizers. This might not seem like much, but it ties the price of food to that of natural gas, and will make food prices shoot up once energy supplies start to dwindle.
FOOD GIVING US GAS(ES)? BLIMEY!
In the UK, food production and distribution account for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. The 18% is split fairly evenly between "on-the-farm emissions" (from farming activities) and "beyond-the-farm emissions" (from transportation and processing activities, etc.).
While we've all gotten used to carbon dioxide being the bad boy on the global warming block, agriculture's greenhouse-gas contributions include healthy shares of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are more potent than CO2.
Finally, while production and transport of chemical fertilizers and pesticides lead directly to creation of greenhouse gases, use of these chemicals also does so indirectly by reducing farm soil's capacity to store carbon.
So, what to do? Go organic! United Kingdom's Environment Secretary notes that, in many cases, organic agriculture produces fewer greenhouse gases than conventional equivalents. There's a catch, though. Organic food transported long distances is NOT helpful. So, go organic AND local.
— Grinning Planet
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture—Bracing for Global Warming
We are already seeing some climate changes that may be indicative of what's to come for agriculture:
Maple syrup production in the American northeast is suffering. The climate in which maple trees thrive is expected to move about two degrees (of latitude) north to Canada. Maple syrup production is already down by about 10% because of warmer and shorter winters.
The southwestern United States is already experiencing a lack of water—without water for irrigation, this area is too dry for large-scale agriculture—and serious desertification is expected to happen within the next few decades. Conditions similar to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s are expected to be the norm in the area by the 2030s.
All over the country, we are seeing earlier bird migrations and northward shifts in the ranges of crops and pests.
We're also seeing increased peaks in spring run-off from glacier melt and snow-fed rivers.
Global-warming-related changes will affect the future of farming in myriad ways. Here are some examples:
The snow pack in California's Sierra Mountains has been gradually declining for the last 50 years, and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report says that it could ultimately be reduced by 60% to 90%. This will result in a very serious lack of water for Central Valley farmers during the summer months. Southern California will be particularly hard hit.
A Colorado State University study shows that warming will cause Colorado's grazing lands to become less productive.
Florida is expected to get heavier rains and flooding, which will be hard on citrus and other crops.
Most importantly for the US economy and for the "mainstream" industrial food system, which is primarily "corn-fed," the latest climate models predict that it might become too hot and dry to grow corn in what is now called the Corn Belt.
DENTED BUMPER CROP
Scientists believe that higher carbon dioxide levels and temperatures may actually increase yields slightly—as long as the temperature increase is no more that a few degrees C. Beyond that, the warming effect dominates and crop yields decrease. Keeping in mind that, so far, observed global warming effects keep surpassing scientists expectations (in a bad way), it seems likely that rising temperatures in farming regions will wreak havoc on crop yields.
Less availability of irrigation water due to warmer temperatures will also be a big negative for dry areas. Many of our most productive farming areas depend heavily on irrigation. Further, there is a local cooling effect in irrigated areas (from evaporating water) that moderates temperatures, helping crops survive withering summer temps. Thus, less irrigation will exacerbate global-warming-driven temperature increases in water-short areas. And remember—40% of the world's food supply comes from the 2% of land that is dependent on irrigation.
On the other side of the water issue, global warming is expected to increase "severe weather events." That will be another blow to global agricultural output.
— Grinning Planet
Globally, yields for many of the world's main staple crops are bound to decline. A study by researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs and Stanford University compared yields for the world's six main staple crops—wheat, rice, corn, soybeans, barley and sorghum—and found a 3% to 5% decline for every one degree of temperature increase. Those six crops account for at least 55% of non-meat calories consumed by people, and more than 70% of the world's animal feed. The IPCC's latest report estimates an average warming of between 3 and 11 degrees by the end of the century.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
It's Note Hopeless—We Haven't "Bought the Farm" Yet
The good news is that we can still do something about it. Supporting sustainable agriculture by buying from your local organic farms is a significant action to take. Many small farms are now developing highly productive farming systems with low environmental impact. These are the right kinds of farms for the future. We are likely to achieve better results by learning to collaborate with nature rather than using brute-force to bend it to our will, as is the norm with today's widespread industrial agriculture practices.
The type of food we eat is as important as how farmers grow our food. Eating "lower on the food chain"—getting less of our protein from meat and more from nuts, seeds, beans, legumes, grains, and vegetables—can make a huge difference in the energy consumption associated with our personal menus.
Regardless of what corporate marketeers tell us, we cannot "save the world by shopping." Global climate change will dictate that the over-consumption binge of the last 50 years will have to come to an end. Changes in our eating habits and food systems will be a part of much larger changes in our culture. Adapting to the coming changes and avoiding further harm will require us to abandon the principle of immediate gratification and once again learn the benefits of frugality, conservation of resources, and thinking and acting with future generations in mind.
Changing our diets to healthier, more sustainable foods is not as hard as you might think. As the author Michael Pollan says:
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Add to that:
"Buy local and organic whenever possible."
Doing so will help reduce agriculture's effect on global warming and contribute to an overall healthier environment and better future
Today's article explores not only the coming effects of global warming on agriculture, but also the impact that farming and agriculture are having on global warming. That is, how much are agriculture and food operations contributing to global climate change? And how at-risk is our food-production system from the effects of global warming?
We're fortunate to have a great guest article on this subject from Guillermo Payet of LocalHarvest, a web site that helps people find farmers markets, CSAs, and other local food sources in their area.
~ ~ ~
Climate Change and Farming by Guillermo Payet, LocalHarvest
The earth's climate has been relatively stable for thousands of years. We know intuitively that it is hot, humid, and rainy in the Amazon, and that corn grows well in the US Midwest. We know that at a particular altitude we should plant a crop during a certain week of the year because conditions for it are just right then. For most of our memory as humans, our climates have closely oscillated around predictable patterns, and this has allowed us to feed ourselves and flourish.
When a stable climate system is modified beyond its "tipping point," it gets out of balance and loses its equilibrium. While the system searches for a new set of patterns to stabilize around, variability and uncertainly are the norm. This, in essence, is the nature of the challenge that we are now facing.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture's Contribution to Global Climate Change
Agriculture is one of the most weather-dependent of all human activities. It is ironic, then, that a significant percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Fossil fuel-intensive agriculture is contributing to the creation of the unpredictable weather conditions that all farmers will need to battle in the not-too-distant future
The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s allowed us to increase yields by "borrowing" solar energy from the past in the form of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides. When one adds in the oil used for processing and packaging foods and for refrigerating and shipping them long distances, it's easy to see how the food industry consumes about 20% of all the oil used in the US.
About 1% of the world's annual energy usage goes into the production of fertilizers. This might not seem like much, but it ties the price of food to that of natural gas, and will make food prices shoot up once energy supplies start to dwindle.
FOOD GIVING US GAS(ES)? BLIMEY!
In the UK, food production and distribution account for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. The 18% is split fairly evenly between "on-the-farm emissions" (from farming activities) and "beyond-the-farm emissions" (from transportation and processing activities, etc.).
While we've all gotten used to carbon dioxide being the bad boy on the global warming block, agriculture's greenhouse-gas contributions include healthy shares of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are more potent than CO2.
Finally, while production and transport of chemical fertilizers and pesticides lead directly to creation of greenhouse gases, use of these chemicals also does so indirectly by reducing farm soil's capacity to store carbon.
So, what to do? Go organic! United Kingdom's Environment Secretary notes that, in many cases, organic agriculture produces fewer greenhouse gases than conventional equivalents. There's a catch, though. Organic food transported long distances is NOT helpful. So, go organic AND local.
— Grinning Planet
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture—Bracing for Global Warming
We are already seeing some climate changes that may be indicative of what's to come for agriculture:
Maple syrup production in the American northeast is suffering. The climate in which maple trees thrive is expected to move about two degrees (of latitude) north to Canada. Maple syrup production is already down by about 10% because of warmer and shorter winters.
The southwestern United States is already experiencing a lack of water—without water for irrigation, this area is too dry for large-scale agriculture—and serious desertification is expected to happen within the next few decades. Conditions similar to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s are expected to be the norm in the area by the 2030s.
All over the country, we are seeing earlier bird migrations and northward shifts in the ranges of crops and pests.
We're also seeing increased peaks in spring run-off from glacier melt and snow-fed rivers.
Global-warming-related changes will affect the future of farming in myriad ways. Here are some examples:
The snow pack in California's Sierra Mountains has been gradually declining for the last 50 years, and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report says that it could ultimately be reduced by 60% to 90%. This will result in a very serious lack of water for Central Valley farmers during the summer months. Southern California will be particularly hard hit.
A Colorado State University study shows that warming will cause Colorado's grazing lands to become less productive.
Florida is expected to get heavier rains and flooding, which will be hard on citrus and other crops.
Most importantly for the US economy and for the "mainstream" industrial food system, which is primarily "corn-fed," the latest climate models predict that it might become too hot and dry to grow corn in what is now called the Corn Belt.
DENTED BUMPER CROP
Scientists believe that higher carbon dioxide levels and temperatures may actually increase yields slightly—as long as the temperature increase is no more that a few degrees C. Beyond that, the warming effect dominates and crop yields decrease. Keeping in mind that, so far, observed global warming effects keep surpassing scientists expectations (in a bad way), it seems likely that rising temperatures in farming regions will wreak havoc on crop yields.
Less availability of irrigation water due to warmer temperatures will also be a big negative for dry areas. Many of our most productive farming areas depend heavily on irrigation. Further, there is a local cooling effect in irrigated areas (from evaporating water) that moderates temperatures, helping crops survive withering summer temps. Thus, less irrigation will exacerbate global-warming-driven temperature increases in water-short areas. And remember—40% of the world's food supply comes from the 2% of land that is dependent on irrigation.
On the other side of the water issue, global warming is expected to increase "severe weather events." That will be another blow to global agricultural output.
— Grinning Planet
Globally, yields for many of the world's main staple crops are bound to decline. A study by researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs and Stanford University compared yields for the world's six main staple crops—wheat, rice, corn, soybeans, barley and sorghum—and found a 3% to 5% decline for every one degree of temperature increase. Those six crops account for at least 55% of non-meat calories consumed by people, and more than 70% of the world's animal feed. The IPCC's latest report estimates an average warming of between 3 and 11 degrees by the end of the century.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
It's Note Hopeless—We Haven't "Bought the Farm" Yet
The good news is that we can still do something about it. Supporting sustainable agriculture by buying from your local organic farms is a significant action to take. Many small farms are now developing highly productive farming systems with low environmental impact. These are the right kinds of farms for the future. We are likely to achieve better results by learning to collaborate with nature rather than using brute-force to bend it to our will, as is the norm with today's widespread industrial agriculture practices.
The type of food we eat is as important as how farmers grow our food. Eating "lower on the food chain"—getting less of our protein from meat and more from nuts, seeds, beans, legumes, grains, and vegetables—can make a huge difference in the energy consumption associated with our personal menus.
Regardless of what corporate marketeers tell us, we cannot "save the world by shopping." Global climate change will dictate that the over-consumption binge of the last 50 years will have to come to an end. Changes in our eating habits and food systems will be a part of much larger changes in our culture. Adapting to the coming changes and avoiding further harm will require us to abandon the principle of immediate gratification and once again learn the benefits of frugality, conservation of resources, and thinking and acting with future generations in mind.
Changing our diets to healthier, more sustainable foods is not as hard as you might think. As the author Michael Pollan says:
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Add to that:
"Buy local and organic whenever possible."
Doing so will help reduce agriculture's effect on global warming and contribute to an overall healthier environment and better future
5 Deadliest Effects of Global Warming
Green house gases stay can stay in the atmosphere for an amount of years ranging from decades to hundreds and thousands of years. No matter what we do, global warming is going to have some effect on Earth. Here are the 5 deadliest effects of global warming.
5. Spread of diseaseAs northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated
2. Economic consequencesMost of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these
. Polar ice caps meltingThe ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.
First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of water in ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, that’s not going to happen all in one go! But sea levels will rise.
Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps are fresh water, and when they melt they will desalinate the ocean, or in plain English - make it less salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will “screw up” ocean currents, which regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects of global warming in that area!
Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger several species of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.
Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is relected back into space, further cooling Earth. If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.
5. Spread of diseaseAs northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated
2. Economic consequencesMost of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these
. Polar ice caps meltingThe ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.
First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of water in ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, that’s not going to happen all in one go! But sea levels will rise.
Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps are fresh water, and when they melt they will desalinate the ocean, or in plain English - make it less salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will “screw up” ocean currents, which regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects of global warming in that area!
Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger several species of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.
Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is relected back into space, further cooling Earth. If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.
Cleaner and greener future their joint aim
A CLEANER, greener future for the next generation was the driving force behind a meeting held in Ballarat yesterday.
Emissions trading, renewable energy and incentives for farmers were also on the agenda, as opposition spokesman for environment Greg Hunt visited Ballarat.
Mr Hunt, Senator Julian McGauran, and representatives of Mount Alexander Sustainability Group met with members of Ballarat Renewable Energy and Zero Emissions to discuss the plan for the region.
Mr Hunt said the opposition was keen to support BREAZE for Ballarat to become Australia's leading solar city.
He also said it was important to look at ways farmers and local groups could benefit from trading schemes.
"We want people to be empowered, to have a role and a chance to participate," he said.
"There is enormous income potential for people in the district through solar power, wind, even hot rocks."
The meeting also discussed the vote on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, due to be held in the Senate in August.
The scheme proposes a reduction target of five to 25 per cent by 2020, which BREAZE member Andrew Bray said was not good enough.
"We believe those targets are not ambitious enough and it has been acknowledged that the targets that developed countries set are insufficient to keep us below two degrees of warming," he said.
"It's time for countries like ours to step up."
Members from MASG attended the meeting to share ideas about how communities can utilise alternative energy sources.
MASG chair Jim Norris said the group had an alliance with BREAZE and was working towards a common goal.
"We need the Federal Government to come on board to work towards a cleaner, greener future for our kids," he said.
Emissions trading, renewable energy and incentives for farmers were also on the agenda, as opposition spokesman for environment Greg Hunt visited Ballarat.
Mr Hunt, Senator Julian McGauran, and representatives of Mount Alexander Sustainability Group met with members of Ballarat Renewable Energy and Zero Emissions to discuss the plan for the region.
Mr Hunt said the opposition was keen to support BREAZE for Ballarat to become Australia's leading solar city.
He also said it was important to look at ways farmers and local groups could benefit from trading schemes.
"We want people to be empowered, to have a role and a chance to participate," he said.
"There is enormous income potential for people in the district through solar power, wind, even hot rocks."
The meeting also discussed the vote on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, due to be held in the Senate in August.
The scheme proposes a reduction target of five to 25 per cent by 2020, which BREAZE member Andrew Bray said was not good enough.
"We believe those targets are not ambitious enough and it has been acknowledged that the targets that developed countries set are insufficient to keep us below two degrees of warming," he said.
"It's time for countries like ours to step up."
Members from MASG attended the meeting to share ideas about how communities can utilise alternative energy sources.
MASG chair Jim Norris said the group had an alliance with BREAZE and was working towards a common goal.
"We need the Federal Government to come on board to work towards a cleaner, greener future for our kids," he said.
Increased wood mobilization from sustainable sources is possible, and necessary for a more renewable energy future?
There is significant potential to enhance the supply of wood from forests throughout Europe in a sustainable manner. Wood mobilization, for renewable energy and industrial raw materials, should be further encouraged as a contribution to a sustainable society. This was the overriding consensus of the workshop “Strategies for increased wood mobilization from sustainable sources” organized by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNECE/FAO) with partners and held on 16-18 June 2009 in Grenoble, France.
At present, woody biomass accounts for more than half of renewable energies within the European Union. This contribution needs to be enhanced in scale if countries are to meet the ambitious renewable energy targets set by policymakers, notably 20% renewable energy by 2020 in European Union member States. The greatest potential for enlarging wood supply is vested in harvesting larger amounts of stem wood from forests and a greater part of forest biomass such as branches and tops of trees. In addition, mobilizing a greater share of post-consumer recovered wood as well as biomass from outside of forests, notably from agricultural or urban land, can also make an increasing important contribution.
Sustainability as the overriding principle of harvesting additional biomass must be assured, taking into account other forest ecosystem services such as biodiversity, watershed and land protection, overall climate change mitigation objectives, as well as social and economic considerations. Harvesting more from forests can be sustainable as long as it is below increment, only 60% of which is reached within Europe at present.
Kit Prins, Chief, UNECE/FAO Timber Section, summarizes the findings of the workshop: “There are an impressive number of actions already taken by industry and governments to develop and implement concrete measures for sustainable wood mobilization on the ground. Examples range from encouraging cooperation between forest owners, consolidating land ownership structures, establishing public-private partnerships and virtual marketplaces, to improving the accessibility of forests, in particular in mountain areas, and investment in infrastructure and logistics. Policymakers and industry throughout the region should be made aware of such best practices, assess their applicability, and encourage the development of local and regional mobilization strategies. As a prerequisite, they need to carry out an assessment of the wood resources potentially available, an effort which UNECE/FAO has supported, on the basis of its past research and studies on potential sustainable wood supply.”
Following the review of wood mobilization activities by policymakers and national-level actors during the workshop, a next step will be the development of good practice guidance on sustainable wood mobilization, an effort which UNECE/FAO, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe and the European Commission, Directorate General Agriculture, have been requested to lead, together with partners. The results of this work should become available by the end of 2009, to serve as guidance for countries in developing renewable energies strategies and actions, notably the national renewable energy action plans to be drawn up by EU member States.
The workshop was organized as a joint effort by UNECE/FAO, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, the European Forest Institute, Confederation of European Paper Industries, Confederation of European Private Forest Owners and the European State Forest Organization, the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations/ General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives, and the European Network of Forest Entrepreneurs. The French Ministry of Agriculture was an important partner as the host country, as was CEMAGREF, the hosting institution.
At present, woody biomass accounts for more than half of renewable energies within the European Union. This contribution needs to be enhanced in scale if countries are to meet the ambitious renewable energy targets set by policymakers, notably 20% renewable energy by 2020 in European Union member States. The greatest potential for enlarging wood supply is vested in harvesting larger amounts of stem wood from forests and a greater part of forest biomass such as branches and tops of trees. In addition, mobilizing a greater share of post-consumer recovered wood as well as biomass from outside of forests, notably from agricultural or urban land, can also make an increasing important contribution.
Sustainability as the overriding principle of harvesting additional biomass must be assured, taking into account other forest ecosystem services such as biodiversity, watershed and land protection, overall climate change mitigation objectives, as well as social and economic considerations. Harvesting more from forests can be sustainable as long as it is below increment, only 60% of which is reached within Europe at present.
Kit Prins, Chief, UNECE/FAO Timber Section, summarizes the findings of the workshop: “There are an impressive number of actions already taken by industry and governments to develop and implement concrete measures for sustainable wood mobilization on the ground. Examples range from encouraging cooperation between forest owners, consolidating land ownership structures, establishing public-private partnerships and virtual marketplaces, to improving the accessibility of forests, in particular in mountain areas, and investment in infrastructure and logistics. Policymakers and industry throughout the region should be made aware of such best practices, assess their applicability, and encourage the development of local and regional mobilization strategies. As a prerequisite, they need to carry out an assessment of the wood resources potentially available, an effort which UNECE/FAO has supported, on the basis of its past research and studies on potential sustainable wood supply.”
Following the review of wood mobilization activities by policymakers and national-level actors during the workshop, a next step will be the development of good practice guidance on sustainable wood mobilization, an effort which UNECE/FAO, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe and the European Commission, Directorate General Agriculture, have been requested to lead, together with partners. The results of this work should become available by the end of 2009, to serve as guidance for countries in developing renewable energies strategies and actions, notably the national renewable energy action plans to be drawn up by EU member States.
The workshop was organized as a joint effort by UNECE/FAO, the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, the European Forest Institute, Confederation of European Paper Industries, Confederation of European Private Forest Owners and the European State Forest Organization, the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations/ General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives, and the European Network of Forest Entrepreneurs. The French Ministry of Agriculture was an important partner as the host country, as was CEMAGREF, the hosting institution.
Australian scientists kill cancer cells with "trojan horse"
Australian scientists have developed a "trojan horse" therapy to combat cancer, using a bacterially-derived nano cell to penetrate and disarm the cancer cell before a second nano cell kills it with chemotherapy drugs.
The "trojan horse" therapy has the potential to directly target cancer cells with chemotherapy, rather than the current treatment that sees chemotherapy drugs injected into a cancer patient and attacking both cancer and healthy cells.
Sydney scientists Dr Jennifer MacDiarmid and Dr Himanshu Brahmbhatt, who formed EnGenelC Pty Ltd in 2001, said they had achieved 100 percent survival in mice with human cancer cells by using the "trojan horse" therapy in the past two years.
The scientists plan to start human clinical trials in the coming months. Human trials of the cell delivery system will start next week at the Peter MacCullum Cancer Center at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and The Austin at the University of Melbourne.
The therapy, published in the latest Nature Biotechnology journal, sees mini-cells called EDVs (EnGenelC Delivery Vehicle) attach and enter the cancer cell.
The first wave of mini-cells release ribonucleic acid molecules, called siRNA, which switch off the production of proteins that make the cancer cell resistant to chemotherapy.
A second wave of EDV cells is then accepted by the cancer cell and releases chemotherapy drugs, killing the cancer cell.
"The beauty is that our EDVs operate like 'Trojan Horses' They arrive at the gates of the affected cells and are always allowed in," said MacDiarmid.
We are playing the rogue cells at their own game. They switch-on the gene to produce the protein to resist drugs, and we are switching-off the gene which, in turn, enables the drugs to enter."
DISARMING TUMOUR CELLS
RNA interference, or RNAi, is designed to silence genes responsible for producing disease-causing proteins and is one of the hottest areas of biotechnology research. RNA was the basis of the 2006 Nobel Prize in medicine.
Dozens of biotechnology companies are looking for ways to manipulate RNA to block genes that produce disease-causing proteins involved in cancer, blindness or AIDS.
Brahmbhatt said that after treatment with conventional drug therapy, a large number of cancer cells die but a small percentage of the cells can produce proteins that make cancer cells resistant to chemotherapeutic drugs.
"Consequently, follow-up drug treatments can fail. The tumors thus become untreatable and continue to flourish, ultimately killing the patient," said Brahmbhatt.
"We want to be part of moving toward a time when cancers can be managed as a chronic disease rather than being regarded as a death sentence," he said.
The Nature report said the mini-cells were "well tolerated with no adverse side effects or deaths in any of the actively treated animals, despite repeated dosing."
"Significantly, our methodology does not damage the normal cells and is applicable to a wide spectrum of solid cancer types," said MacDiarmid
"The hope is that the benign nature of this EDV technology should enable cancer sufferers to get on with their lives and operate normally using out-patient therapy."
The "trojan horse" therapy has the potential to directly target cancer cells with chemotherapy, rather than the current treatment that sees chemotherapy drugs injected into a cancer patient and attacking both cancer and healthy cells.
Sydney scientists Dr Jennifer MacDiarmid and Dr Himanshu Brahmbhatt, who formed EnGenelC Pty Ltd in 2001, said they had achieved 100 percent survival in mice with human cancer cells by using the "trojan horse" therapy in the past two years.
The scientists plan to start human clinical trials in the coming months. Human trials of the cell delivery system will start next week at the Peter MacCullum Cancer Center at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and The Austin at the University of Melbourne.
The therapy, published in the latest Nature Biotechnology journal, sees mini-cells called EDVs (EnGenelC Delivery Vehicle) attach and enter the cancer cell.
The first wave of mini-cells release ribonucleic acid molecules, called siRNA, which switch off the production of proteins that make the cancer cell resistant to chemotherapy.
A second wave of EDV cells is then accepted by the cancer cell and releases chemotherapy drugs, killing the cancer cell.
"The beauty is that our EDVs operate like 'Trojan Horses' They arrive at the gates of the affected cells and are always allowed in," said MacDiarmid.
We are playing the rogue cells at their own game. They switch-on the gene to produce the protein to resist drugs, and we are switching-off the gene which, in turn, enables the drugs to enter."
DISARMING TUMOUR CELLS
RNA interference, or RNAi, is designed to silence genes responsible for producing disease-causing proteins and is one of the hottest areas of biotechnology research. RNA was the basis of the 2006 Nobel Prize in medicine.
Dozens of biotechnology companies are looking for ways to manipulate RNA to block genes that produce disease-causing proteins involved in cancer, blindness or AIDS.
Brahmbhatt said that after treatment with conventional drug therapy, a large number of cancer cells die but a small percentage of the cells can produce proteins that make cancer cells resistant to chemotherapeutic drugs.
"Consequently, follow-up drug treatments can fail. The tumors thus become untreatable and continue to flourish, ultimately killing the patient," said Brahmbhatt.
"We want to be part of moving toward a time when cancers can be managed as a chronic disease rather than being regarded as a death sentence," he said.
The Nature report said the mini-cells were "well tolerated with no adverse side effects or deaths in any of the actively treated animals, despite repeated dosing."
"Significantly, our methodology does not damage the normal cells and is applicable to a wide spectrum of solid cancer types," said MacDiarmid
"The hope is that the benign nature of this EDV technology should enable cancer sufferers to get on with their lives and operate normally using out-patient therapy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)