By reducing the greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, Norway has set the most ambitious target proposed by a developed nation. The country has already set a target of being carbon neutral by 2030.
According to AFP, the 40-percent target is part of the new political program presented by the leftist coalition of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.
“Norway will be a pioneer country when it comes to environmental policy,” Socialist Left leader and Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen says in a statement posted on the government’s web site.
The Norwegian proposal “is the type of political will needed to move the climate talks forward to a strong deal in Copenhagen,” Greenpeace International Climate Policy Director, Martin Kaiser says in an e-mailed statement, according to Bloomberg.
Monday, October 12, 2009
As economy grows, so does China’s trash
isitors can smell this village long before they see it.
More than 100 dump trucks piled high with garbage line the narrow road leading to Zhanglidong, waiting to empty their loads in a landfill as big as 20 football fields.
In less than five years, the Zhengzhou Comprehensive Waste Treatment Landfill has overwhelmed this otherwise pristine village of about 1,000 people. Peaches and cherries rot on trees, infested with insect life drawn by the smell. Fields lie unharvested, contaminated by toxic muck. Every day, another 100 or so tons of garbage arrive from nearby Zhengzhou, a provincial capital of 8 million.
"Life here went from heaven to hell in an instant," says lifelong resident Wang Xiuhua, swatting away clouds of mosquitoes and flies. The 78-year-old woman suddenly coughs uncontrollably and says the landfill gases inflame her bronchitis.
As more Chinese ride the nation's economic boom, a torrent of garbage is one result. Cities are bursting at the seams, and their officials struggle to cope.
The amount of paper, plastic and other garbage has more than tripled in two decades to about 300 million tons a year, according to Nie Yongfeng, a waste management expert at Beijing's Tsinghua University.
‘No place to put it all’
Americans are still way ahead of China in garbage; a population less than a quarter the size of China's 1.3 billion generated 254 million tons of garbage in 2007, a third of which is recycled or composted, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Americans are still way ahead of China in garbage; a population less than a quarter the size of China's 1.3 billion generated 254 million tons of garbage in 2007, a third of which is recycled or composted, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
But for China, the problem represents a rapid turnabout from a generation ago, when families, then largely rural and poor, used and reused everything.
"Trash was never complicated before, because we didn't have supermarkets, we didn't have fancy packaging and endless things to buy," said Nie. "Now suddenly, the government is panicking about the mountains of garbage piling up with no place to put it all."
In Zhanglidong, villagers engage in shouting matches with drivers and sometimes try to bodily block their garbage trucks coming from Zhengzhou, 20 miles away.
"Zhengzhou is spotless because their trash is dumped into our village," says Li Qiaohong, who blames it for her 5-year-old son's eczema.
‘Didn't know what a landfill was’
Li's family is one of a few who live within 100 meters (300 feet) of the landfill, separated from it by a fence. These families get 100 yuan ($15) a month in government compensation.
Li's family is one of a few who live within 100 meters (300 feet) of the landfill, separated from it by a fence. These families get 100 yuan ($15) a month in government compensation.
The dump has poisoned not just the air and ground, but relationships. Villagers say they were never consulted, and suspect their Communist Party officials were paid to accept the landfill.
In China, especially in rural regions, there is often no recourse once local officials make a decision. The villagers say not only were their petitions ignored, but they were warned by the Zhengzhou police to stop protesting or face punishment.
|
Protests in some cities
Elsewhere, thousands of farmers in the central province of Hubei clashed with police last year over illegal dumping near their homes. A person filming the clash died after being beaten by police.
Elsewhere, thousands of farmers in the central province of Hubei clashed with police last year over illegal dumping near their homes. A person filming the clash died after being beaten by police.
Protests in cities are driving trash to the countryside.
Residents in central Beijing swarmed the offices of the Ministry of Environment last year, protesting the stench from a landfill and plans for a new incinerator there. In July, officials scrapped the incinerator plan and closed the landfill four years early.
In eastern Beijing, local officials invested millions of dollars to make the Gao An Tun landfill and incinerator one of a handful in China to meet global health standards. That was after 200,000 residents petitioned for a year about the smell.
"Our standard of living is improving, so it's natural that more and more of us begin to fight for a better quality of life," says Zhang Jianhua, 67, one of the petitioners
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Heart of a Leader
ECONOMIC losses due to tropical storm Ondoy alone could reach as high as P23 billion, according to an independent study making calculations from official reports released by the National Disaster Coordinating Council and the education and agriculture departments. But if the nation is to minimize its losses from typhoons and other natural calamities, Filipinos will have to wake up to the reality of climate change.
Climate change is here, no doubt about it. Scientists are saying that climate change became more pronounced since a century ago when people worldwide began burning more coal and oil for homes, factories and transportation. These fossil fuels release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thus causing the world’s surface air temperature to increase by an average of 0.6° Celsius (1.1°F). This one-degree increase may look insignificant, but already it has led to a rise in sea levels of about 15 cm or 6 inches due to melting glacier ice. Sea levels could rise as much as 59 cm or 23 inches in the 21st century, threatening coastal communities and coral reefs.
The environmental group Greenpeace International warns that climate change will lead to more extreme weather, from floods to droughts, forest fires to tropical cyclones. As extreme climate events increase in strength and frequency, more and more people risk losing their homes and lives. Climate change will also bring water shortages and decreases in agricultural productivity and food security. People’s health will be threatened by heat stress and increased chances of exposure to infectious diseases. Those living in low-lying coastal areas may become climate refugees as their homes are destroyed. Tourism, an important source of income for many countries, including the Philippines, will also decline.
The bad news is that the country’s farm sector is not yet ready to face the challenges posed by climate change, according to Dr. William Dar, former secretary of agriculture and now director general of the India-based International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (Icrisat). Dr. Dar points out, for instance, that our rice production would be adversely affected by climate change unless the country uses more drought- and flood-tolerant varieties. If the country wants to avert more “perfect storms”—a convergence of food crisis, climate crisis, environment crisis, biodiversity crisis and population crisis—then we have to put a comprehensive plan in place. He suggests the immediate passage of the proposed National Land Use Act as a crucial step. The bill, pending in the Senate, discourages the conversion of irrigated farmlands to other uses, such as the construction of subdivisions. The country must also establish the Philippine Dry Land Institute to spearhead research and development efforts for increasing the productivity of non-irrigated farmlands.
The good news, however, is that Philippine business is already becoming increasingly aware of climate change and wants to change the way it operates. An important initiative in coping with climate change is the Business Imperative for Climate Change CEO Conference held last week, where the participants drafted a covenant aimed at making business processes “greener,” or more environment-friendly. More than 40 leading business firms participated in the discussions. Elisea Gozun, a former environment secretary and co-convener of The Philippine Imperative, said the participants drafted a covenant that will encourage and help the private and public sectors adapt to climate change. Hopefully, more firms will join the effort, because climate change is not something that’s on the horizon, but staring us right in the face—look at the grim images from the death and destruction from recent calamities.
While we cannot stop typhoons, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions from taking place—these are natural phenomena that science can fully explain—we can minimize the losses in lives and property that they bring.
In other words, we do not have to be helpless in the face of climate change and Nature’s fury
concluded my stint as head of Bancassurance Channel in July and moved on as chief marketing officer for one of the leading multinational companies in the country.
In all, I was given the opportunity to manage the Channel for exactly one year, and for me, it was actually one of the most challenging jobs I have encountered. If you don’t believe me, you can look at my old photo and see how much hair I have lost (the few that was left) before and after. Kidding aside, I can also tell you that I consider such stint as one of the best years of my career life. We managed to grow the Bancassurance business of our company by 250 percent, surpassing our previous year’s performance as early as April, and surpassing our full-year target as early as July. Pretty good I may say, considering that 2009 has been a challenging year for the financial industry. The numbers are very exciting but what really delighted me was the fact that I grew to be a better person and a leader. After all, I have always believed that a leader’s contribution to his organization is best measured not in numbers but in principles, processes, and paradigms he is able to instill over time.
I have been fortunate to have been with very good leaders and mentors for the past 10 years. I have always wondered how I will be able to repay them. In the end, what I realized is that the best way is, as the movie goes, “play it forward.”
This is what I would like to share to you and how I now see what a leader should be. I may be over simplifying it but I’d like to equate it to a sphere.
So here it goes....
A leader should be able to look in front of him all the time. A leader must be able to move forward. A leader must possess not only a vision, but an unwavering commitment to translate such vision into reality. He should, therefore, not end at nurturing the dreams of consumers. Rather, he should strive to make these dreams come to life. With such a pursuit, a leader thus is not limited to considering existing circumstances, but is compelled to explore beyond what is apparent to discover the underlying truths and relationships. He must harness the power of insights to create the bridge that can turn his vision into reality. A leader should never be afraid to make mistakes. He may not always make the right decision but he should always make a fair one.
A leader should be able to look on his side, meaning, a leader must be able to understand that if he was given limited resources, he must be able to devise means of wisely allocating and maximizing what is available. An example is the development of products that are driven by critical consumer needs, while being sustainably fueled by business viability. At the end of the day, a leader does what is good for the consumer and what is right for the business. Therefore, a leader must be able to harness the tools targeted and relevant to the market, while being rewarding and worthwhile for the business.
On the other side, a leader must harness his team’s strengths. Credentials can be a consideration but what a leader should look for is the passion of his team members to do well. People have unique talents that are innate. A team member may be able to learn the skills and knowledge, but talents will always be within them. A leader must be able to discover what these talents are, then love and respect them. He can also match his team’s character with the need of his team. Even if a leader is in a job that is homogenous, like a sales or call-center team, he should never expect everyone in his team to deliver the same actions and results. If this would be the case, perhaps it would be better to get robots. Remember, talent is only talent when put in the right place.
Also, a good leader should be able to develop his people and let his people develop him. A leader should have the know-how and should have the passion to continuously learn.
Once, one good friend told me that the objective of a leader is to eventually make himself redundant, because it only means that his team has already imbibed all the needed knowledge and skills from their superior.
A leader should also be able to look back since he can get his best learning from his experiences. One example is being able to draw valuable lessons from both the Eastern entrepreneurial spirit and Western corporate discipline having grown in a typical Chinese family, and being able to work with some of the best financial companies in the industry. A leader should strive to attain an optimal balance between both worlds to be 10 steps ahead of the ever-changing needs and circumstances. A leader must evolve his business over time to be proactive rather than reactive to serve ultimately the best interests of both the consumer and the business.
In the end, an exceptional leader should be able to look inside his heart. This is the one that will fuel him to look at his front, his back and his sides, all at the same time. As the leader moves towards his vision, he must look back and let his experiences guide him and look at his side to see what he and his team has. All these will only be possible if a leader has the heart of a leader.
Melvin J. Esteban is a Registered Financial Planner and a Certified Financial Consultant. He is a recipient of the Young Asean Manager’s Award in 2007, the first Filipino YAMA awardee, and the Chairman of the 7th Asean Insurance Congress. He is the Chief Marketing Officer and SVP of Generali Pilinas. For inquiries, please send an e-mail to mel_esteban@yahoo.com . Join the 17th RFP Program (October 17 to December 12, 2009). Visit www.rfp-philippines.com or inquire at info@rfp-philippines.com /Tel. No. 634-2204.
Biggest news you’ve never heard: Earth isn’t warming
How do you reconcile the early snow in Minneapolis, ski resorts already opening in Nevada, and that August chill in North Dakota with expert warnings about a warming climate?
You don’t. Why? The Earth isn’t warming right now, is why. It may even be cooling down somewhat.
Five major climate centers around the world agree that average global temperatures have not risen in the past 11 years, according to the BBC. In fact, in eight of those years, global average temperatures dipped a tad.
Yes, there have been several record heat spikes during that time period. The Southern Hemisphere this summer saw the highest land and water temperatures ever recorded, for instance. But overall? Steady as she goes.
Reasons cited range from a slightly cooling Pacific — a major global heat trap — as well as renewed questions about the sun’s role in warming (about which there is much debate). Also, it’s possible, some say, that warming itself causes CO2 levels — which are associated with warming — instead of the other way around.
As a result, “The depth of the cold of the coming winters will change the social and political climate in ways that only nature can orchestrate,” predicts meteorologist Art Horn.
To be sure, it’s way too early to close one’s ears to those who predict more global warming and sea level rises. The UN’s climate agency predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record, which was 1998. And as most of us know, the Earth warmed at historic rates in the latter half of the 20th century, leading to ice cap melts and ecological implications around the globe.
But the warming stall, some experts say, is giving at least some credence to the contrarian (and not always scientifically sound) notion that it may be natural and solar forces contributing as much, or more, than man-made CO2. At the very least, a delay in warming even as total CO2 emissions increase, throws some doubt on the cause-and-effect relationship between mankind’s activities and mean global temperatures.
Climate specialists say their models incorporate all this, and insist their predictions for continued warming will still hold true. (Here’s some data from the Guardian about why the “global warming is taking a break” theme may be off-base.)
Meteorologists at the UK’s Hadley Centre, for instance, point out that global temperatures aren’t linear, and that all data sets — including solar phenomenon and ocean temperatures — indicate that warming will soon pick up again.
But as Paul Hudson, the BBC’s environment reporter, points out, Mojib Latif, a member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agrees that the Earth may, in fact, continue to cool for another 10 to 20 years. Mr. Latif says that doesn’t make him a climate change skeptic, just a scientist. Eventually, he says, “the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself,” according to the BBC.
Obviously, climate change has global ecological and political implications. The cap-and-trade bill and new auto emissions rules in the US are direct responses to climate implications of CO2. December’s Copenhagen climate conference will try to seek renewed global commitment to CO2 reduction.
Taken together, what does it all mean?
“Climate change — no matter how benign or severe a course it takes — makes legislating during the 21st century one of the most complicated and complex tasks for elected officials in human history,” writes Morgan Josey Glover in the Greensboro, N.C., News-Record newspaper.
You don’t. Why? The Earth isn’t warming right now, is why. It may even be cooling down somewhat.
Five major climate centers around the world agree that average global temperatures have not risen in the past 11 years, according to the BBC. In fact, in eight of those years, global average temperatures dipped a tad.
Yes, there have been several record heat spikes during that time period. The Southern Hemisphere this summer saw the highest land and water temperatures ever recorded, for instance. But overall? Steady as she goes.
Reasons cited range from a slightly cooling Pacific — a major global heat trap — as well as renewed questions about the sun’s role in warming (about which there is much debate). Also, it’s possible, some say, that warming itself causes CO2 levels — which are associated with warming — instead of the other way around.
As a result, “The depth of the cold of the coming winters will change the social and political climate in ways that only nature can orchestrate,” predicts meteorologist Art Horn.
To be sure, it’s way too early to close one’s ears to those who predict more global warming and sea level rises. The UN’s climate agency predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record, which was 1998. And as most of us know, the Earth warmed at historic rates in the latter half of the 20th century, leading to ice cap melts and ecological implications around the globe.
But the warming stall, some experts say, is giving at least some credence to the contrarian (and not always scientifically sound) notion that it may be natural and solar forces contributing as much, or more, than man-made CO2. At the very least, a delay in warming even as total CO2 emissions increase, throws some doubt on the cause-and-effect relationship between mankind’s activities and mean global temperatures.
Climate specialists say their models incorporate all this, and insist their predictions for continued warming will still hold true. (Here’s some data from the Guardian about why the “global warming is taking a break” theme may be off-base.)
Meteorologists at the UK’s Hadley Centre, for instance, point out that global temperatures aren’t linear, and that all data sets — including solar phenomenon and ocean temperatures — indicate that warming will soon pick up again.
But as Paul Hudson, the BBC’s environment reporter, points out, Mojib Latif, a member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agrees that the Earth may, in fact, continue to cool for another 10 to 20 years. Mr. Latif says that doesn’t make him a climate change skeptic, just a scientist. Eventually, he says, “the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself,” according to the BBC.
Obviously, climate change has global ecological and political implications. The cap-and-trade bill and new auto emissions rules in the US are direct responses to climate implications of CO2. December’s Copenhagen climate conference will try to seek renewed global commitment to CO2 reduction.
Taken together, what does it all mean?
“Climate change — no matter how benign or severe a course it takes — makes legislating during the 21st century one of the most complicated and complex tasks for elected officials in human history,” writes Morgan Josey Glover in the Greensboro, N.C., News-Record newspaper.
FEATURE-Russian climate goal weak as "methane bomb" ticks
The snows are late in coming on the Arctic Yamal peninsula where moist, dark permafrost entombed for 10,000 years crumbles into the sea at the top of the world.
Western scientists and environmentalists say collapsed river banks, rising tide waters and warmer winters in northwest Russia are clear signs of climate change, but they add Russia is in denial, ignoring a potentially disastrous "methane bomb".
At a state-run meteorological station at the Marresale port on the Kara Sea, around 500 km (311 miles) north of the Arctic Circle, its director said migrating geese arrived a month earlier than usual this year, in May, as temperatures rose.
Over the last six years that Alexander Chikmaryov has worked at the station, the sea coast has eroded by at least 2 metres (6.5 feet) and hungry polar bears seeking alternative food have clawed into tins of condensed milk in his wife's pantry.
The first snows usually fall by late September.
As a string of recent reports warn of dire consequences from global warming, the U.N. wants about 190 nations to agree a new climate pact in December in Copenhagen to succeed the Kyoto protocol.
But for Chikmaryov, global warming does not exist: "Whoever made that ridiculous idea up spends too much time at home," said the 58-year old, surveying an exposed strip of permafrost from a mud bank that has collapsed, giving way to streamlets littered with goose skeletons.
Geographer Fyodr Romanenko of Moscow State University agreed there is no proof human activity has damaged the environment. The up to 4 degree Celsius (7 Fahrenheit) rise felt across parts of the Arctic in the last 30 years could be part of millennia-old fluctuating weather patterns, he said. Other researchers disagree, saying the frozen, sparsely populated Yamal region 2,000 km (1,250 miles) northeast of Moscow holding a quarter of the world's known gas reserves and home to the Nenets tribespeople, is testament to climate change.
According to a paper in the scientific journal Global Change Biology published this week by Bruce Forbes of Finland's Arctic Centre, rising temperatures are making the Arctic tundra greener, adding significant growth of shrub willows over the last thirty years.
MELTING PERMAFROST
The world's largest country has a thick band of permafrost -- which contains organic matter whose microbes can emit the powerful greenhouse gas, methane -- stretching from Murmansk near Finland to the far eastern region of Chukotka near Alaska.
Environmentalists fear melting permafrost from rising temperatures will accelerate global warming.
"We are appealing to world leaders as this issue is overlooked in Russia... there is a carbon, or methane bomb embedded in our earth," Vladimir Chuprov, head of the Russian energy unit at environmental group Greenpeace, told Reuters.
He added that Russia -- which has permafrost covering 60 percent of its land -- most likely holds the world's biggest methane threat. By 2050, vast amounts of methane will "explode into the air" from Russia's melting permafrost, Chuprov said.
The United Nations panel of climate scientists says warming is happening faster in the Arctic than the global average. As reflective snow and ice retreats, it exposes darker ground and water that soaks up ever more heat.
"Methane emissions from tundra are likely to accelerate," it said in a 2007 report.
Ed Miliband, Britain's Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said earlier this week in Moscow that it was in Russia's interest to reduce carbon emissions.
"Unchecked global warming will be bad for Russia," he told reporters. "There are 5,000 miles of rail track built on permafrost, which will crumble as a result of this melting".
COPHENHAGEN
So far, rich nations have offered emissions cuts averaging 11-15 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Poor nations want cuts of at least 40 percent to avert the worst of climate change.
Russia, which along with the United States was accused by environmentalists of delaying Kyoto, has alarmed activists by saying it will release more greenhouse gases in 2020 than now under any new U.N. emissions treaty.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in June boasted his country would reduce emissions by 10-15 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. But in reality, this means a 30 percent rise from current levels since emissions tumbled after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its smokestack industries.
"We are so angry about this and completely oppose it," Greenpeace's Chuprov said. Almost all other industrialised nations are planning deep cuts from current levels
Western scientists and environmentalists say collapsed river banks, rising tide waters and warmer winters in northwest Russia are clear signs of climate change, but they add Russia is in denial, ignoring a potentially disastrous "methane bomb".
At a state-run meteorological station at the Marresale port on the Kara Sea, around 500 km (311 miles) north of the Arctic Circle, its director said migrating geese arrived a month earlier than usual this year, in May, as temperatures rose.
Over the last six years that Alexander Chikmaryov has worked at the station, the sea coast has eroded by at least 2 metres (6.5 feet) and hungry polar bears seeking alternative food have clawed into tins of condensed milk in his wife's pantry.
The first snows usually fall by late September.
As a string of recent reports warn of dire consequences from global warming, the U.N. wants about 190 nations to agree a new climate pact in December in Copenhagen to succeed the Kyoto protocol.
But for Chikmaryov, global warming does not exist: "Whoever made that ridiculous idea up spends too much time at home," said the 58-year old, surveying an exposed strip of permafrost from a mud bank that has collapsed, giving way to streamlets littered with goose skeletons.
Geographer Fyodr Romanenko of Moscow State University agreed there is no proof human activity has damaged the environment. The up to 4 degree Celsius (7 Fahrenheit) rise felt across parts of the Arctic in the last 30 years could be part of millennia-old fluctuating weather patterns, he said. Other researchers disagree, saying the frozen, sparsely populated Yamal region 2,000 km (1,250 miles) northeast of Moscow holding a quarter of the world's known gas reserves and home to the Nenets tribespeople, is testament to climate change.
According to a paper in the scientific journal Global Change Biology published this week by Bruce Forbes of Finland's Arctic Centre, rising temperatures are making the Arctic tundra greener, adding significant growth of shrub willows over the last thirty years.
MELTING PERMAFROST
The world's largest country has a thick band of permafrost -- which contains organic matter whose microbes can emit the powerful greenhouse gas, methane -- stretching from Murmansk near Finland to the far eastern region of Chukotka near Alaska.
Environmentalists fear melting permafrost from rising temperatures will accelerate global warming.
"We are appealing to world leaders as this issue is overlooked in Russia... there is a carbon, or methane bomb embedded in our earth," Vladimir Chuprov, head of the Russian energy unit at environmental group Greenpeace, told Reuters.
He added that Russia -- which has permafrost covering 60 percent of its land -- most likely holds the world's biggest methane threat. By 2050, vast amounts of methane will "explode into the air" from Russia's melting permafrost, Chuprov said.
The United Nations panel of climate scientists says warming is happening faster in the Arctic than the global average. As reflective snow and ice retreats, it exposes darker ground and water that soaks up ever more heat.
"Methane emissions from tundra are likely to accelerate," it said in a 2007 report.
Ed Miliband, Britain's Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said earlier this week in Moscow that it was in Russia's interest to reduce carbon emissions.
"Unchecked global warming will be bad for Russia," he told reporters. "There are 5,000 miles of rail track built on permafrost, which will crumble as a result of this melting".
COPHENHAGEN
So far, rich nations have offered emissions cuts averaging 11-15 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Poor nations want cuts of at least 40 percent to avert the worst of climate change.
Russia, which along with the United States was accused by environmentalists of delaying Kyoto, has alarmed activists by saying it will release more greenhouse gases in 2020 than now under any new U.N. emissions treaty.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in June boasted his country would reduce emissions by 10-15 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. But in reality, this means a 30 percent rise from current levels since emissions tumbled after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its smokestack industries.
"We are so angry about this and completely oppose it," Greenpeace's Chuprov said. Almost all other industrialised nations are planning deep cuts from current levels
Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)
CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching zero. The divisions in our country on how to deal with climate change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.
However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.
Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.
It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.
This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.
First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters through a market-based system that will provide both flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas.
Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.
Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology.
In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration — work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.
Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas. China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental protections
Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses — and ultimately consumers — from increases in energy prices. The central element is the establishment of a floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission allowances. This will also safeguard important industries while they make the investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We recognize there will be short-term transition costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous.
Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.
Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing.
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action.
We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.
However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.
Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.
It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.
This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.
First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters through a market-based system that will provide both flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas.
Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.
Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology.
In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration — work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.
Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas. China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental protections
Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses — and ultimately consumers — from increases in energy prices. The central element is the establishment of a floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission allowances. This will also safeguard important industries while they make the investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We recognize there will be short-term transition costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous.
Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing.
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action.
We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.
Melting glaciers bring 1980s pollution revival
Bad hair and shoulder pads are not the only things from the 1980s that we'd rather not see again. Nasty chemicals banned in that decade are also on the list. Unfortunately, melting Alpine glaciers are generating a revival of toxic organic pollutants.
Christian Bogdal and colleagues at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich studied levels of pollution in sediment at the bottom of the Oberaar lake in Bern, Switzerland.
The flow of pollutants into the lake peaked in the 1970s, mainly due to the production of plastics, electronics, pesticides and fragrances. The levels declined during the 1980s and 1990s when people realised that these compounds were toxic and they were banned.
However, they found that banned chemicals, such as pesticides that have been linked with Parkinson's disease, have been pouring into the lake at an increasing rate since the 1990s.
Powerless observers
Bogdal reckons that a glacier feeding the lake has been storing these chemicals for decades, and is releasing them as it melts. This process could be dramatically sped up by global warming, he warns.
The problem isn't limited to Alpine glaciers. Since these chemicals would have been transported great distances via the atmosphere before they were frozen into ice, many other glaciers around the world may be contaminated. Toxic chemicals have previously been found in polar regions - putting arctic wildlife at risk.
There is little we can do about it, however. "Stopping global warming could slow the melting of glaciers, but the chemicals will still be released eventually," says Bogdal.
Many toxic chemicals are still used in plastics and electronic equipment, such as brominated flame retardants. Bogdal warns that these could represent the next generation's problem: "They are deposited on glaciers today and will reappear in our lakes in a few decades."
Journal reference: Environmental Science & Technology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)