Climate change is happening faster and on a broader scale than the world's scientists projected in 2007, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program.
The new overview of global warming research, aimed at marshalling political support for a new international climate pact by the end of the year, highlights the extent to which recent scientific assessments have outstripped the predictions issued by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change two years ago.
That report declared that evidence of human-generated warming in the last half-century was "unequivocal" and would change the planet dramatically by 2100 unless greenhouse gas emissions drop sharply by 2050.
Achim Steiner, the U.N. environment agency's executive director, said at the National Press Club on Thursday that the new report aims to update the intergovernmental panel's finding to reflect both new physical evidence and a more sophisticated understanding of how earth systems work.
"With every day that passes, the underlying trends that science has provided is ... of such a dramatic nature that shying away from a major agreement in Copenhagen will probably be unforgivable, if you look back in history at this moment," Steiner said. Copenhagen is the site of major international climate conference in December.
Steiner noted that since 2000 alone, the average rate of melting at 30 glaciers in nine separate mountain ranges has doubled from the rate during the previous two decades.
"These are not things that are in dispute in terms of data," he said. "They are actually physically measurable."
Other findings include the possibility that sea level will rise by as much as six feet by 2100 instead of 1.5 feet, as the intergovernmental panel had projected.
Robert Correll, who chairs the Climate Action Initiative and contributed to the new U.N. report, said that even if all the pledges industrialized and developed countries have made to cut their greenhouse gas emissions are taken into account, global temperature would probably rise by 8 degrees Fahrenheit. That's two times higher than what scientists and world policymakers have identified as the upper limit of warming the world can afford to avert catastrophic climate change.
"We don't want to go there," Correll said, adding that global carbon emissions are still on the upswing. "It's accelerating, We're not going in the right direction."
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Strong earthquake rocks Peru
A strong earthquake struck southeastern Peru on Wednesday afternoon, officials said.
The earthquake, which struck about 48 miles from Juliaca, Peru, had a preliminary magnitude of 5.9, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). It was initially reported as a 6.3 magnitude earthquake. It struck about 160 miles deep, making it a deep earthquake. Shallow earthquakes often tend to cause more damage.
There was no immediate report of damage or casualties following the tremor, but a spokesman for the USGS said he would not expect any significant damage as the epicenter was located very deep.
The quake follows a series of powerful earthquakes in just 24 hours. On Tuesday, a powerful 8.0 magnitude earthquake struck near Samoa, creating deadly tidal waves that devastated Samoa and American Samoa.
On Wednesday, a 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck Indonesia, leaving possibly up to 1,000 people killed.
The earthquake, which struck about 48 miles from Juliaca, Peru, had a preliminary magnitude of 5.9, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). It was initially reported as a 6.3 magnitude earthquake. It struck about 160 miles deep, making it a deep earthquake. Shallow earthquakes often tend to cause more damage.
There was no immediate report of damage or casualties following the tremor, but a spokesman for the USGS said he would not expect any significant damage as the epicenter was located very deep.
The quake follows a series of powerful earthquakes in just 24 hours. On Tuesday, a powerful 8.0 magnitude earthquake struck near Samoa, creating deadly tidal waves that devastated Samoa and American Samoa.
On Wednesday, a 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck Indonesia, leaving possibly up to 1,000 people killed.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
More Corporations Are "Greening" Supply Chains
business sometimes requires only a flip of a lid.
When Stonyfield Farm switched from plastic to foil lids six years ago, the organic yogurt company avoided 16 percent of the energy costs associated with producing its containers.
Similar savings have been discovered throughout Stonyfield's manufacturing, transportation, and packaging divisions since the company began measuring its carbon footprint in the early 1990s, according to Chairman Gary Hirshberg.
"Our carbon footprint is everywhere we look. It's our transportation. It's our waste," Hirshberg told a conference of business executives in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. "We're sending our money into the dark sky. That's clearly dollars to be reclaimed."
For many companies, sustainability improvements such as energy and water efficiency were at first reactions to public criticism. Nowadays, as rising energy costs, water scarcity, and climate change threaten the affordability and availability of global inputs, corporations are recognizing that a more sustainable product has a better chance of remaining competitive in a resource-constrained world.
But a product's environmental or economic sustainability rarely depends on the actions of a single company. As a result, many corporations are pressuring their suppliers to become more efficient as well.
"Everyone is scrutinizing for higher sustainability efforts because companies are asking for it," said Paul Baier, a vice president with the consulting firm Groom Energy. "Clearly, it's become mainstream business."
Walmart represents the most dramatic example of efforts to "green" corporate supply chains. The world's largest retailer announced in July that many of its suppliers would need to assess and report on the environmental and social sustainability of their products. The responses may eventually be combined into an index of a product's lifecycle impact, the company said.
Since Walmart notified its suppliers about the request - asking whether the companies had evaluated environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and product recyclability - several suppliers have increased their investments in measuring carbon emissions and energy efficiency, Baier said.
The motivation for corporations like Walmart to improve the efficiency of supplier industries is in part financial. Improved efficiency can be an important component of business deals between suppliers and retailers. Depending on the agreement, the avoided energy costs are shared between the two companies. Both supplier and buyer increase profits while the overall supply chain becomes more efficient.
"When you're speaking sustainability with business people, you have to speak the language," said Richard Goode, head of climate change programs for Alcatel-Lucent, a global telecommunications company. "The language has always been profitability."
David Newman, a sustainability director for Millipore Corporation, said the Massachusetts-based bioscience manufacturer has reduced its energy consumption 12 percent since it started measuring emissions in 2006. Still, Newman questions whether the additional sustainability push from outside businesses and organizations will boost profits for his company.
"The vision...can't just be to reduce the environmental cost of our supply chain," Newman said. "That's an admirable goal, but it's not the best goal from a business perspective."
Corporations are also pushing sustainability to mitigate the environmental risks associated with their products. The growing scarcity of arable land, clean water, and cheap energy may threaten the availability of products ranging from t-shirts to soft drinks, especially as climate change shifts agricultural patterns.
"If climate change takes place as many scientists are projecting and parts of the supply chain will no longer be available, companies want to know whether suppliers are recognizing this and taking action to ensure for the survival of their products 30 years from now," said Dan Kreeger, executive director of the Association of Climate Change Officers, an organization for corporate sustainability officers.
"Cadbury's is worried about where it'll get its chocolate and Coca-Cola is worried about where it'll get its water," said Gwen Ruta, vice president of corporate programs at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Peer pressure has also led more companies to volunteer emissions data through the independent Carbon Disclosure Project, which reports corporate emissions from electricity usage as well as the direct burning of fossil fuels. The group announced last week that a record 409 of the world's 500 largest companies responded to its latest request-an increase from 383 last year.
"If you're not doing CDP, I strongly recommend it," Hirshberg told the conference. "If today [reporting emissions] is not mandated, tomorrow I guarantee it will be."
Beginning this year, the Carbon Disclosure Project has attempted to expand its inventory to smaller companies that supply many of the world's largest corporations. While many of these companies remain unsure of how to analyze their emissions, the quality of responses is improving, said Chrystina Gastelum, U.S. account manager for the group's supply chain inventory.
"It requires a lot of technical data," Gastelum said. "There is not a lot of expertise [among the companies]."
Corporations are also instructing suppliers to validate all sustainability improvements through outside auditors. Large companies are increasingly sensitive to being perceived as "greenwashing," the notion that environmental improvements are advertised disproportionately to distract from other, polluting, activities.
"If we are going to communicate to the public, you need to have someone standing behind you, saying you did it the right way," said David Walker, director of environmental sustainability for PepsiCo.
When Stonyfield Farm switched from plastic to foil lids six years ago, the organic yogurt company avoided 16 percent of the energy costs associated with producing its containers.
Similar savings have been discovered throughout Stonyfield's manufacturing, transportation, and packaging divisions since the company began measuring its carbon footprint in the early 1990s, according to Chairman Gary Hirshberg.
"Our carbon footprint is everywhere we look. It's our transportation. It's our waste," Hirshberg told a conference of business executives in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. "We're sending our money into the dark sky. That's clearly dollars to be reclaimed."
For many companies, sustainability improvements such as energy and water efficiency were at first reactions to public criticism. Nowadays, as rising energy costs, water scarcity, and climate change threaten the affordability and availability of global inputs, corporations are recognizing that a more sustainable product has a better chance of remaining competitive in a resource-constrained world.
But a product's environmental or economic sustainability rarely depends on the actions of a single company. As a result, many corporations are pressuring their suppliers to become more efficient as well.
"Everyone is scrutinizing for higher sustainability efforts because companies are asking for it," said Paul Baier, a vice president with the consulting firm Groom Energy. "Clearly, it's become mainstream business."
Walmart represents the most dramatic example of efforts to "green" corporate supply chains. The world's largest retailer announced in July that many of its suppliers would need to assess and report on the environmental and social sustainability of their products. The responses may eventually be combined into an index of a product's lifecycle impact, the company said.
Since Walmart notified its suppliers about the request - asking whether the companies had evaluated environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and product recyclability - several suppliers have increased their investments in measuring carbon emissions and energy efficiency, Baier said.
The motivation for corporations like Walmart to improve the efficiency of supplier industries is in part financial. Improved efficiency can be an important component of business deals between suppliers and retailers. Depending on the agreement, the avoided energy costs are shared between the two companies. Both supplier and buyer increase profits while the overall supply chain becomes more efficient.
"When you're speaking sustainability with business people, you have to speak the language," said Richard Goode, head of climate change programs for Alcatel-Lucent, a global telecommunications company. "The language has always been profitability."
David Newman, a sustainability director for Millipore Corporation, said the Massachusetts-based bioscience manufacturer has reduced its energy consumption 12 percent since it started measuring emissions in 2006. Still, Newman questions whether the additional sustainability push from outside businesses and organizations will boost profits for his company.
"The vision...can't just be to reduce the environmental cost of our supply chain," Newman said. "That's an admirable goal, but it's not the best goal from a business perspective."
Corporations are also pushing sustainability to mitigate the environmental risks associated with their products. The growing scarcity of arable land, clean water, and cheap energy may threaten the availability of products ranging from t-shirts to soft drinks, especially as climate change shifts agricultural patterns.
"If climate change takes place as many scientists are projecting and parts of the supply chain will no longer be available, companies want to know whether suppliers are recognizing this and taking action to ensure for the survival of their products 30 years from now," said Dan Kreeger, executive director of the Association of Climate Change Officers, an organization for corporate sustainability officers.
"Cadbury's is worried about where it'll get its chocolate and Coca-Cola is worried about where it'll get its water," said Gwen Ruta, vice president of corporate programs at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Peer pressure has also led more companies to volunteer emissions data through the independent Carbon Disclosure Project, which reports corporate emissions from electricity usage as well as the direct burning of fossil fuels. The group announced last week that a record 409 of the world's 500 largest companies responded to its latest request-an increase from 383 last year.
"If you're not doing CDP, I strongly recommend it," Hirshberg told the conference. "If today [reporting emissions] is not mandated, tomorrow I guarantee it will be."
Beginning this year, the Carbon Disclosure Project has attempted to expand its inventory to smaller companies that supply many of the world's largest corporations. While many of these companies remain unsure of how to analyze their emissions, the quality of responses is improving, said Chrystina Gastelum, U.S. account manager for the group's supply chain inventory.
"It requires a lot of technical data," Gastelum said. "There is not a lot of expertise [among the companies]."
Corporations are also instructing suppliers to validate all sustainability improvements through outside auditors. Large companies are increasingly sensitive to being perceived as "greenwashing," the notion that environmental improvements are advertised disproportionately to distract from other, polluting, activities.
"If we are going to communicate to the public, you need to have someone standing behind you, saying you did it the right way," said David Walker, director of environmental sustainability for PepsiCo.
The Politics of Energy & Climate Change: DC Expert Coming to NH
Politics, energy and climate change, and their relationship to national security, is the topic for discussion at a lecture on Wednesday (Sept. 30) at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester. The keynote speaker, Sarah Ladislaw, is an energy and national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. She has been looking at this relationship for years, and while some people believe they are separate issues, she says climate change, energy production and U.S. policies all have a direct impact on future availability of energy, as well as our national security.
"If you don't answer the question about what you should do about climate change, whether or not we should be moving to a whole new slate of energy sources going forward, you can't really answer the question about energy security: whether or not those resources will be affordable, reliable and available."
Jan Pendlebury, senior field associate with the Pew Environment Group, says that the realities of climate change are no longer deniable. She says the time to begin using alternative forms of energy is now.
"Sea level rise, wildfires, flood, drought, famine. But the greatest risk is to our national security, our continued dependence on foreign oil from hostile nations."
The event, which is titled "The Geopolitics of Energy, Climate Change & National Security," is sponsored by the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire, Pew Environment Group and Southern New Hampshire University and will be held at the Penmen Room, at the Southern New Hampshire University campus, beginning Wednesday at noon.
The U.S. Senate is expected to introduce a climate change bill this week, which is sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts.
"If you don't answer the question about what you should do about climate change, whether or not we should be moving to a whole new slate of energy sources going forward, you can't really answer the question about energy security: whether or not those resources will be affordable, reliable and available."
Jan Pendlebury, senior field associate with the Pew Environment Group, says that the realities of climate change are no longer deniable. She says the time to begin using alternative forms of energy is now.
"Sea level rise, wildfires, flood, drought, famine. But the greatest risk is to our national security, our continued dependence on foreign oil from hostile nations."
The event, which is titled "The Geopolitics of Energy, Climate Change & National Security," is sponsored by the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire, Pew Environment Group and Southern New Hampshire University and will be held at the Penmen Room, at the Southern New Hampshire University campus, beginning Wednesday at noon.
The U.S. Senate is expected to introduce a climate change bill this week, which is sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Nigeria unprepared for climate change convention
Barely three months to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, Denmark, Nigeria does not have a clear position on the key issues nor a negotiating team for her interests at the convention, said Ewah Eleri, the executive director of the Abuja based International Centre for Energy, Environment, and Development (ICEED).
"Nigeria is a signatory to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol and our officials attend most negotiation meetings, but we neither have a negotiating team nor a position," said Mr. Eleri.
Government gets serious
About ten years ago, most countries joined an international treaty, the UNFCCC, to start talks on what can be done to reduce global warming and cope with whatever temperature rises that are unavoidable. Recently, a group of nations added the Kyoto Protocol, which is more powerful and legally binding, to the treaty. According to Mr. Eleri, the Nigerian government is increasingly getting serious on the issue of climate change.
"Unfortunately, we started very late and part of the circumstance that we have now is we have not been able to develop our national position for the negotiations in Copenhagen," he said.
"And even if we have, we've not been able to put them on the public domain so the Nigerian people would know what we are negotiating on their behalf," said Mr. Eleri.
The Kyoto Protocol to prevent climate changes and global warming comes up in 2012. To ensure that the targets for the protocol are met, a round of negotiations had been scheduled to discuss the critical issues and renew the need for new climate protocol.
Convention may end in deadlock
"If they have their way, it is more or less certain that the talks in December that are supposed to set the post 2012 path will end in deadlock," said Nnimmo Bassey, the executive director of Environmental Rights Action (ERA).
Mr. Bassey said some of the key tactics of developed countries include a reclassification of developing countries and the setting of emissions cut targets for developing countries, especially India and China.
"With the global notoriety of gas flaring in Nigeria, it must take extra boldness to canvass such a position in an international arena such as that provided by the climate talks," the ERA director said.
Never too late to start
The first round of negotiations this year was held in Bonn, Germany, between March 29 - April 8. The second took place June 1 - 12. Informal consultations took place in Bonn, between August 10 and 14. Prior to the Copenhagen conference, two further sessions will be held: Bangkok, Thailand, between September 28 and October 9; and Barcelona, Spain, from November 2 to 6.
"What we do today to prepare Nigeria for Copenhagen is better than what we didn't do all these years," said Mr. Eleri.
According to Mr. Eleri, the deadline for the submission of countries' national positions was June 17, this year.
"We have missed the deadline but it can be done in one or three months. We can have a team. It is still possible and I believe if the media can put in more pressure, we can do it," he said.
Let's Have a Grown-Up Debate About Climate Change
If, like me, you have been confused, frustrated, dispirited or all of the above by the health care debate in Congress, get ready for more as the U.S. Senate prepares to take up climate-change legislation. The stakes are high. The debate will not be high-minded.
Expect opponents of mandatory carbon regulation to distort the science and economics of global warming, predicting an economic catastrophe if the bill passes, even as environmentalists promise a green jobs nirvana and warn of an environmental catastrophe if it doesn’t.
The fact is, any meaningful effort to regulate carbon will carry real but not catastrophic costs for businesses and consumers -- that’s part of the point, to raise the price of burning fossil fuels -- and that the transition to a clean-energy economy will be disruptive, under the best of circumstances. Solar-power manufacturers in China will gain at the expense of coal miners in West Virginia. That makes the politics of the bill a challenge, but so be it.
But if we acknowledge that passing a climate bill will create costs, we also need to recognize the costs of inaction will likely to be far greater. If you doubt it, read Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, an excellent report, written in plain English, about the likely impacts of climate change. Catastrophe is probably not too strong a word to describe the environmental impact of business as usual.
While the congressional debate will focus on science, economics and politics, the climate change issue is fundamentally about our legacy. Are we willing to make sacrifices now -- maybe even painful sacrifices -- to better the world for future generations?
If you want to learn more about the upcoming congressional debate, I invite you to join in a webinar on Wednesday, September 30, at 1 p.m. ET, called Climate Legislation in the U.S. Senate. It’s organized by The Energy Collective, a website about energy and climate that brings together some of the smartest ideas and opinions on the Internet.
Panelists at the webinar will be Manik “Nikki” Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a politically savvy Washington insider who’s been tracking the climate issue for years; Michael Zimmer, an attorney and energy policy expert with Thompson Hine, also in Washington; and Jesse Jenkins, director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. I’ll be moderating.
Among the questions on the table:
Expect opponents of mandatory carbon regulation to distort the science and economics of global warming, predicting an economic catastrophe if the bill passes, even as environmentalists promise a green jobs nirvana and warn of an environmental catastrophe if it doesn’t.
The fact is, any meaningful effort to regulate carbon will carry real but not catastrophic costs for businesses and consumers -- that’s part of the point, to raise the price of burning fossil fuels -- and that the transition to a clean-energy economy will be disruptive, under the best of circumstances. Solar-power manufacturers in China will gain at the expense of coal miners in West Virginia. That makes the politics of the bill a challenge, but so be it.
But if we acknowledge that passing a climate bill will create costs, we also need to recognize the costs of inaction will likely to be far greater. If you doubt it, read Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, an excellent report, written in plain English, about the likely impacts of climate change. Catastrophe is probably not too strong a word to describe the environmental impact of business as usual.
While the congressional debate will focus on science, economics and politics, the climate change issue is fundamentally about our legacy. Are we willing to make sacrifices now -- maybe even painful sacrifices -- to better the world for future generations?
If you want to learn more about the upcoming congressional debate, I invite you to join in a webinar on Wednesday, September 30, at 1 p.m. ET, called Climate Legislation in the U.S. Senate. It’s organized by The Energy Collective, a website about energy and climate that brings together some of the smartest ideas and opinions on the Internet.
Panelists at the webinar will be Manik “Nikki” Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a politically savvy Washington insider who’s been tracking the climate issue for years; Michael Zimmer, an attorney and energy policy expert with Thompson Hine, also in Washington; and Jesse Jenkins, director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. I’ll be moderating.
Among the questions on the table:
- Is there any chance of a bi-partisan bill? If so, what is required for Republican support?
- What role will nuclear play in the climate legislation?
- What about oversight for carbon markets, as addressed in the House bill?
- Will there be more concessions and free allowance allocation to carbon producers (oil & gas, utilities, industrial manufacturers) in the Senate version?
- Will a safety valve be necessary politically, and to ensure carbon permit prices are stable and predictable?
- How strong will international trade protection be?
- If legislation is not enacted this year, what constructive action, if any, can the U.S. government take at Copenhagen?
Exelon Quits Chamber Over Climate Change
Power generator Exelon became the latest utility to drop its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of the group's opposition to legislation that would limit emissions of greenhouse gases.
"Inaction on climate is not an option," John Rowe, Exelon's chairman and chief executive, said in a speech at an energy-efficiency conference. "If Congress does not act, the EPA will, and the result will be more arbitrary, more expensive and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution."
Exelon, the nation's largest generator of nuclear power, joined the Public Service Company of New Mexico, the state's largest utility, and California's largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, in quitting the chamber.
A chamber spokesman, Eric Wohlschlegel, said that the chamber's message has become muddled and that it does not question the science behind climate change, but rather the science that the Environmental Protection Agency is using to regulate emissions.
"Inaction on climate is not an option," John Rowe, Exelon's chairman and chief executive, said in a speech at an energy-efficiency conference. "If Congress does not act, the EPA will, and the result will be more arbitrary, more expensive and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution."
Exelon, the nation's largest generator of nuclear power, joined the Public Service Company of New Mexico, the state's largest utility, and California's largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, in quitting the chamber.
A chamber spokesman, Eric Wohlschlegel, said that the chamber's message has become muddled and that it does not question the science behind climate change, but rather the science that the Environmental Protection Agency is using to regulate emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)