With large and growing economies and populations, China and India will strongly influence the quality of the global environment for years to come. While their political relationship is strained, it's critical the two countries work together to slow global warming, deforestation, water shortages and other environmental issues, says a Michigan State University scientist and colleauges."China and India are the two largest countries in terms of population," said Jianguo "Jack" Liu, MSU University Distinguished Professor of fisheries and wildlife who holds the Rachel Carson Chair in Sustainability. Liu is internationally known for his work on environmental sustainability and coupled human and natural systems. "Even while the rest of the world is in a recession, the economies of China and India are growing and the countries' consumption of raw materials is increasing. Cooperation between the two is vital to mitigating negative environmental impacts." In "China, India and the Environment," published in the March 19 issue of the journal Science, Liu and co-authors advocate using scientific collaboration as a bridge to help break down political barriers between the two nations -- ultimately benefiting the larger global society. All the authors have strong research programs in one or both of the countries.
"We all have a huge interest in a sustainable world and the way we're managing it now, it simply isn't sustainable," said Peter Raven, co-author and president of the Missouri Botanical Garden. Raven also is a foreign member of both the Chinese and Indian academies of science. "The problems get worse every year; biodiversity loss and climate change have clear global significance. Our thesis is the two countries share so much adjacent territory that the environmental benefits should be obvious and, informed by scientific analysis, should provide a bridge between them."
According to Liu, water availability could be an increasingly challenging issue facing the two countries and one that will require careful cooperation. Many rivers flow through both China and India -- if one country builds too many dams on its side to generate hydroelectric power, it will likely cause water shortages downstream in the other country.
"Water is a huge issue," said Liu. "It's being discussed extensively. We need to make people aware of the benefits of cooperation. It's more than just China and India that will be affected if these two countries don't work together. The environmental impacts will be felt around the world, including in the United States."
"One thing we have learned from the recession is that without sustainability there cannot be unlimited growth," added Kamaljit Bawa, University of Massachusetts-Boston distinguished professor of biology and president of the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment in Bangalor, India. "The two countries are not facing recession and it is time for them to exercise environmental stewardship. Future economic growth is contingent upon this stewardship."
In addition to Liu, Raven and Bawa, other paper authors are Lian Pin Koh, of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems in Zurich, Switzerland; Tien Ming Lee, of the University of California-San Diego and Yale University; P.S. Ramakrishnan, of Jawaharlal Nehru University, in Delhi, India; and Douglas Yu and Ya-ping Zhang, of the Kunming Institute of Zoology, in Yunnan, China.
Liu's research is supported by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, the National Science Foundation and NASA. He serves as principal investigator of the International Network of Research on Coupled Human and Natural Systems, funded by the NSF and coordinated by the MSU Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, which Liu also directs.
Michigan State University has been advancing knowledge and transforming lives through innovative teaching, research and outreach for more than 150 years. MSU is known internationally as a major public university with global reach and extraordinary impact. Its 17 degree-granting colleges attract scholars worldwide who are interested in combining education with practical problem solving..
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Massive sandstorm turns Beijing's streets yellow
Tons of sand from deserts in China's interior blew into Beijing Saturday, shrouding China's capital in a yellow-orange haze that authorities warned made the air quality "hazardous."
There were few people out on streets where pedestrians could taste the dust. Many of those who had ventured from their homes were wearing facemasks, and some left footprints in the yellow film that had settled on the city's streets.
Beijing's weather forecasting bureau gave the air quality a rare "5," or hazardous, rating and added that it was "not suitable for morning exercises." Parks and open spaces are usually packed from early in the day with enthusiasts doing martial arts, ballroom dancing and other activities.
The sandstorms underline the environmental degradation investors identify as one of the long-term constraints on growth in China, and concern about its impact has made a less resource-intensive model of growth a priority for Beijing.
The government has spent millions of dollars on projects to rein in the spread of deserts, planting trees and trying to protect what plant cover remains in marginal areas.
But the battle is being fought against a backdrop of rising average temperatures and increasing pressure on water resources after three decades of booming growth.
The sandstorm hit Beijing around midnight, carrying huge amounts of dust and heading south east, the official Xinhua news agency said. In northern Changping district, the wind reached speeds of up to 100 km per hour (60 mph).
The swirling clouds of dust and sand had blanketed the interior provinces of Qinghai and Gansu, and western Xinjiang region, before sweeping over the capital, Xinhua said.
There were few people out on streets where pedestrians could taste the dust. Many of those who had ventured from their homes were wearing facemasks, and some left footprints in the yellow film that had settled on the city's streets.
Beijing's weather forecasting bureau gave the air quality a rare "5," or hazardous, rating and added that it was "not suitable for morning exercises." Parks and open spaces are usually packed from early in the day with enthusiasts doing martial arts, ballroom dancing and other activities.
The sandstorms underline the environmental degradation investors identify as one of the long-term constraints on growth in China, and concern about its impact has made a less resource-intensive model of growth a priority for Beijing.
The government has spent millions of dollars on projects to rein in the spread of deserts, planting trees and trying to protect what plant cover remains in marginal areas.
But the battle is being fought against a backdrop of rising average temperatures and increasing pressure on water resources after three decades of booming growth.
The sandstorm hit Beijing around midnight, carrying huge amounts of dust and heading south east, the official Xinhua news agency said. In northern Changping district, the wind reached speeds of up to 100 km per hour (60 mph).
The swirling clouds of dust and sand had blanketed the interior provinces of Qinghai and Gansu, and western Xinjiang region, before sweeping over the capital, Xinhua said.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Bold new plan for confronting climate change
The Johns Hopkins University will cut emissions of climate-changing carbon dioxide gas by more than half from projected levels by 2025, the university announced on Friday.
The university will invest more than $73 million in conservation and efficiency measures that will cut emissions caused by facilities operations by an initial 81,000 metric tons a year. That’s 57 percent of the overall goal of cutting 141,000 metric tons from the 276,000 a year in emissions it would otherwise be generating 15 years from now.
The remainder of the goal will be achieved by adopting new technologies that emerge between now and 2025 and by motivating members of the university community to reduce energy consumption and environmental impact, Johns Hopkins said.
The emissions goal is part of a broad multifaceted Implementation Plan for Advancing Sustainability and Climate Stewardship, also announced today. The plan encompasses research, education and community outreach in addition to greenhouse gas reduction.
“Global climate change is one of humanity’s greatest challenges,” said Ronald J. Daniels, president of the university. “The earth’s rising temperatures will, over decades to come, affect where and how we live, the ecosystems we inhabit, our quality of life and even our health.
“Facing this challenge head-on is our shared responsibility as humans, and especially as residents of the developed world,” Daniels said. “But universities have a special role in our society and a special responsibility. We are institutions that discover, that educate and that, often, set an example. When it comes to global climate change, Johns Hopkins will be a leader in all three.”
Besides the dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide gas emission, the plan calls for creation of an Environment, Sustainability and Health Institute, bringing together faculty members from across the university. They will collaborate on research and on teaching climate change science and sustainability to students, including those who choose the university’s new undergraduate major and minor in global environmental change and sustainability and the new master’s degree in energy policy and climate. Institute faculty members also will focus on applying science to environmental policy, to public health initiatives and to practical measures that individuals, organizations and businesses can take to fight global warming.
“Just as Johns Hopkins medical researchers move their discoveries off the lab bench to the patient’s bedside to save lives,” Daniels said, “this institute will take a bench-to-real-world approach: We will use discoveries to get things done.”
The plan also includes establishment of a Sustainability House in a to-be-renovated building on North Charles Street at the university’s Homewood campus. It will serve as headquarters for the university’s Office of Sustainability and student environmental groups and as a showcase and laboratory for energy conservation techniques and technologies. The design team, with students and faculty members participating, will be directed to include cutting-edge sustainability features and to meet aggressive goals, such as zero net carbon emissions, storm water capture and reuse, and organic maintenance of the grounds.
Another key element of the plan is to put Johns Hopkins knowledge to work contributing to Baltimore’s and Maryland’s sustainability and climate change efforts. One such effort, announced late last month, is a $190,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–funded collaboration with Baltimore City; Johns Hopkins students will be trained to conduct audits at nonprofit organizations in the city and help them determine how to cut energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
The implementation plan is the result of months of detailed follow-up work on the March 2009 report of the university’s President’s Task Force on Climate Change. That report was the culmination of a year’s work by Johns Hopkins faculty, administrators, students and trustees, as well as representatives of the Baltimore business, government and environmental communities.
“In response to a serious issue, we have taken a typically serious and thorough Johns Hopkins approach,” Daniels said. “We have devoted the time and effort required to do this right: comprehensive data gathering, careful analysis and systematic planning.”
The implementation plan puts Johns Hopkins on a path toward a future defined by a vision of carbon net neutrality but takes a practical approach focused on what is achievable now and in a reasonably predictable 15-year period, said James T. McGill, the university’s senior vice president for finance and administration.
“This plan is responsible and sustainable not only environmentally but also financially,” McGill added. “We’ll be getting an attractive return on these investments in dollars as well as in tons of reduced carbon dioxide. In fact, by the time we’ve completed this initial $73 million investment, we expect to be saving more than $10 million a year for years to come.”
The path to that return on investment includes a building-by-building, campus-by-campus list of HVAC, electrical and lab equipment improvements; lighting fixture and control upgrades; measures to make buildings more airtight; window replacements; installations of solar power panels and solar hot water equipment; water conservation measures; and other steps.
The plan targets laboratory research buildings in particular; often referred to as “heavy breathers,” these buildings consume significant amounts of air that must be heated or cooled to satisfy temperature and humidity requirements.
Additional significant savings in carbon dioxide emission—32,000 metric tons a year—and in energy costs will come from cogeneration plants being built on both the university’s East Baltimore and Homewood campuses. The plants will burn relatively clean natural gas to produce both electricity and steam heat more cheaply and efficiently.
Another aspect of the plan is an aggressive, sustained campaign to encourage students, faculty and staff to reduce energy consumption at work and at home. The university also will launch a parallel effort to find and implement new conservation opportunities in its energy-intensive information technology infrastructure, including desktop and mainframe computers, printers and monitors, and server farms. The IT professionals who will lead this effort will also look for other creative ways to improve the university’s technology capability while reducing energy consumption.
276,300 metric tons per year
Target JHU CO2 emissions, 2025:
134,700 metric tons per year
Targeted reduction in CO2 emissions, by 2025:
141,600 metric tons per year (51.2 percent)
Reduction in CO2 emissions by already identified initiatives:
81,000 metric tons (29 percent of total projected “business as usual” emissions in 2025; 57 percent of emissions reduction goal)
Costs and savings:
Initial investment: $73.8 million. Projected savings per year from initial investment: $10.3 million. Total investment and total savings per year by 2025: to be determined.
Examples of CO2 reduction measures:
Co-generation plants, one at Homewood (spring 2010) and two in East Baltimore (by late 2011). Total cuts of 54,000 metric tons a year (32,000 counts toward the university’s goal; the remainder is attributable to the Johns Hopkins Health System, co-owner of the two East Baltimore plants). Investments of $8.6 million at Homewood and $34.5 million in East Baltimore; total $43.1 million.
Combined annual energy cost savings:
$6.5 million.
Mudd/Levi/Biology East Complex, Homewood campus (air handling and HVAC, lighting control upgrades, weather stripping and optimization of automatic door openers). Cuts 5,315 metric tons a year. Investment: $6.9 million. Annual energy cost savings: $1.19 million.
Ross Research Building, East Baltimore campus (upgrade utility infrastructure and convert HVAC system from constant to variable air volume). Cuts 3,227 metric tons a year. Investment: $4.64 million. Annual energy cost savings: $640,000.
Read more: http://gazette.jhu.edu/2010/03/15/bold-new-plan-for-confronting-climate-change/#ixzz0iIeuQ4F5
The university will invest more than $73 million in conservation and efficiency measures that will cut emissions caused by facilities operations by an initial 81,000 metric tons a year. That’s 57 percent of the overall goal of cutting 141,000 metric tons from the 276,000 a year in emissions it would otherwise be generating 15 years from now.
The remainder of the goal will be achieved by adopting new technologies that emerge between now and 2025 and by motivating members of the university community to reduce energy consumption and environmental impact, Johns Hopkins said.
The emissions goal is part of a broad multifaceted Implementation Plan for Advancing Sustainability and Climate Stewardship, also announced today. The plan encompasses research, education and community outreach in addition to greenhouse gas reduction.
“Global climate change is one of humanity’s greatest challenges,” said Ronald J. Daniels, president of the university. “The earth’s rising temperatures will, over decades to come, affect where and how we live, the ecosystems we inhabit, our quality of life and even our health.
“Facing this challenge head-on is our shared responsibility as humans, and especially as residents of the developed world,” Daniels said. “But universities have a special role in our society and a special responsibility. We are institutions that discover, that educate and that, often, set an example. When it comes to global climate change, Johns Hopkins will be a leader in all three.”
Besides the dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide gas emission, the plan calls for creation of an Environment, Sustainability and Health Institute, bringing together faculty members from across the university. They will collaborate on research and on teaching climate change science and sustainability to students, including those who choose the university’s new undergraduate major and minor in global environmental change and sustainability and the new master’s degree in energy policy and climate. Institute faculty members also will focus on applying science to environmental policy, to public health initiatives and to practical measures that individuals, organizations and businesses can take to fight global warming.
“Just as Johns Hopkins medical researchers move their discoveries off the lab bench to the patient’s bedside to save lives,” Daniels said, “this institute will take a bench-to-real-world approach: We will use discoveries to get things done.”
The plan also includes establishment of a Sustainability House in a to-be-renovated building on North Charles Street at the university’s Homewood campus. It will serve as headquarters for the university’s Office of Sustainability and student environmental groups and as a showcase and laboratory for energy conservation techniques and technologies. The design team, with students and faculty members participating, will be directed to include cutting-edge sustainability features and to meet aggressive goals, such as zero net carbon emissions, storm water capture and reuse, and organic maintenance of the grounds.
Another key element of the plan is to put Johns Hopkins knowledge to work contributing to Baltimore’s and Maryland’s sustainability and climate change efforts. One such effort, announced late last month, is a $190,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–funded collaboration with Baltimore City; Johns Hopkins students will be trained to conduct audits at nonprofit organizations in the city and help them determine how to cut energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
The implementation plan is the result of months of detailed follow-up work on the March 2009 report of the university’s President’s Task Force on Climate Change. That report was the culmination of a year’s work by Johns Hopkins faculty, administrators, students and trustees, as well as representatives of the Baltimore business, government and environmental communities.
“In response to a serious issue, we have taken a typically serious and thorough Johns Hopkins approach,” Daniels said. “We have devoted the time and effort required to do this right: comprehensive data gathering, careful analysis and systematic planning.”
The implementation plan puts Johns Hopkins on a path toward a future defined by a vision of carbon net neutrality but takes a practical approach focused on what is achievable now and in a reasonably predictable 15-year period, said James T. McGill, the university’s senior vice president for finance and administration.
“This plan is responsible and sustainable not only environmentally but also financially,” McGill added. “We’ll be getting an attractive return on these investments in dollars as well as in tons of reduced carbon dioxide. In fact, by the time we’ve completed this initial $73 million investment, we expect to be saving more than $10 million a year for years to come.”
The path to that return on investment includes a building-by-building, campus-by-campus list of HVAC, electrical and lab equipment improvements; lighting fixture and control upgrades; measures to make buildings more airtight; window replacements; installations of solar power panels and solar hot water equipment; water conservation measures; and other steps.
The plan targets laboratory research buildings in particular; often referred to as “heavy breathers,” these buildings consume significant amounts of air that must be heated or cooled to satisfy temperature and humidity requirements.
Additional significant savings in carbon dioxide emission—32,000 metric tons a year—and in energy costs will come from cogeneration plants being built on both the university’s East Baltimore and Homewood campuses. The plants will burn relatively clean natural gas to produce both electricity and steam heat more cheaply and efficiently.
Another aspect of the plan is an aggressive, sustained campaign to encourage students, faculty and staff to reduce energy consumption at work and at home. The university also will launch a parallel effort to find and implement new conservation opportunities in its energy-intensive information technology infrastructure, including desktop and mainframe computers, printers and monitors, and server farms. The IT professionals who will lead this effort will also look for other creative ways to improve the university’s technology capability while reducing energy consumption.
Fast Fact: JHU climate/sustainability plan
Projected JHU CO2 emissions, 2025, assuming “business as usual”:276,300 metric tons per year
Target JHU CO2 emissions, 2025:
134,700 metric tons per year
Targeted reduction in CO2 emissions, by 2025:
141,600 metric tons per year (51.2 percent)
Reduction in CO2 emissions by already identified initiatives:
81,000 metric tons (29 percent of total projected “business as usual” emissions in 2025; 57 percent of emissions reduction goal)
Costs and savings:
Initial investment: $73.8 million. Projected savings per year from initial investment: $10.3 million. Total investment and total savings per year by 2025: to be determined.
Examples of CO2 reduction measures:
Co-generation plants, one at Homewood (spring 2010) and two in East Baltimore (by late 2011). Total cuts of 54,000 metric tons a year (32,000 counts toward the university’s goal; the remainder is attributable to the Johns Hopkins Health System, co-owner of the two East Baltimore plants). Investments of $8.6 million at Homewood and $34.5 million in East Baltimore; total $43.1 million.
Combined annual energy cost savings:
$6.5 million.
Mudd/Levi/Biology East Complex, Homewood campus (air handling and HVAC, lighting control upgrades, weather stripping and optimization of automatic door openers). Cuts 5,315 metric tons a year. Investment: $6.9 million. Annual energy cost savings: $1.19 million.
Ross Research Building, East Baltimore campus (upgrade utility infrastructure and convert HVAC system from constant to variable air volume). Cuts 3,227 metric tons a year. Investment: $4.64 million. Annual energy cost savings: $640,000.
More from The Gazette:
- JHU launches master’s degree in energy policy and climate
Johns Hopkins will launch today a master of science degree in energy policy and climate. Based at the university’s Washington,... - LEEDing the way to a greener JHU
In Johns Hopkins’ quest to go green and significantly reduce its environmental footprint, the university has passed a major milestone.... - T. Rowe Price chairman, CIO, to give Leaders & Legends talk
Brian C. Rogers, chairman and chief investment officer of T. Rowe Price Group, is the featured speaker at the Johns... - ‘Design Revolution’ comes to Homewood via Airstream
A huge trailer rolls onto the Homewood campus this week, and it won’t be carrying construction materials. The 45-foot Airstream,...
Read more: http://gazette.jhu.edu/2010/03/15/bold-new-plan-for-confronting-climate-change/#ixzz0iIeuQ4F5
Read more: http://gazette.jhu.edu/2010/03/15/bold-new-plan-for-confronting-climate-change/#ixzz0iIeuU6cb
Weather bureau backs climate change verdict
The leading research bodies say the evidence is irrefutable: climate change is real and the link with human activity is beyond doubt.
Universities have also joined the fray, saying it is time to stand up for Australian science and research.
"We've had some serious tabloid junking of ... science and research in our community," Professor Peter Coaldrake, the chairman of Universities Australia, said.
"If the two bodies together come out and make a statement of this sort, then we in the community have to acknowledge that."
The weather bureau's director, Greg Ayers, says a century's worth of climate records show definitively that weather patterns are shifting and the planet has already been warming.
There are simply more extremely hot days, and fewer cold and wet ones.
"When we look back over the last 50 years or so and look at the succeeding decade as we roll forward, what we see ... is a trend of increasing temperatures from decade to decade," Dr Ayers said.
"We also see shifts in patterns of rainfall with the drying in the east and the south and the west of the continent.
"There is an increase in temperature in the surface oceans around Australia as well that goes hand in hand with the ... surface temperature increases over the continent, and there's also ... a rise in sea level."
Dr Ayers says the bureau's data is available for the public to scrutinise.
"For the Australian region, we have around 100 climate reference stations, as we call them, where we pay a great deal of attention to doing the best possible measurements," he said.
"I'm very pleased to be able to say that our climate record in Australia is as good or better than any comparable record anywhere in the world."
But Mr Ayers says the weather bureau is primarily responsible for measuring the climate, whereas it is the CSIRO that handles climate projections.
The CSIRO says on its current path, the planet is heading for a rise in temperature of a further 2 degrees Celsius this century.
The head of the organisation, Dr Megan Clark, says the evidence is clear.
"Hotter days, more extreme heat and less rainfall are the snapshot of Australia's climate now, not the forecast," she said.
"In Australia, we're seeing that all of Australia is warming, in every state, over every season."
Dr Clark says it is clear the climate is being affected by the carbon emissions caused by human activity.
"Our scientists and those around the world are now about 90 per cent sure that these things are happening at the same time and are linked," she said.
Universities have also joined the fray, saying it is time to stand up for Australian science and research.
"We've had some serious tabloid junking of ... science and research in our community," Professor Peter Coaldrake, the chairman of Universities Australia, said.
"If the two bodies together come out and make a statement of this sort, then we in the community have to acknowledge that."
The weather bureau's director, Greg Ayers, says a century's worth of climate records show definitively that weather patterns are shifting and the planet has already been warming.
There are simply more extremely hot days, and fewer cold and wet ones.
"When we look back over the last 50 years or so and look at the succeeding decade as we roll forward, what we see ... is a trend of increasing temperatures from decade to decade," Dr Ayers said.
"We also see shifts in patterns of rainfall with the drying in the east and the south and the west of the continent.
"There is an increase in temperature in the surface oceans around Australia as well that goes hand in hand with the ... surface temperature increases over the continent, and there's also ... a rise in sea level."
Open to public
Dr Ayers says the bureau's data is available for the public to scrutinise.
"For the Australian region, we have around 100 climate reference stations, as we call them, where we pay a great deal of attention to doing the best possible measurements," he said.
"I'm very pleased to be able to say that our climate record in Australia is as good or better than any comparable record anywhere in the world."
But Mr Ayers says the weather bureau is primarily responsible for measuring the climate, whereas it is the CSIRO that handles climate projections.
The CSIRO says on its current path, the planet is heading for a rise in temperature of a further 2 degrees Celsius this century.
The head of the organisation, Dr Megan Clark, says the evidence is clear.
"Hotter days, more extreme heat and less rainfall are the snapshot of Australia's climate now, not the forecast," she said.
"In Australia, we're seeing that all of Australia is warming, in every state, over every season."
Dr Clark says it is clear the climate is being affected by the carbon emissions caused by human activity.
"Our scientists and those around the world are now about 90 per cent sure that these things are happening at the same time and are linked," she said.
Climate-change scientists feel 'muzzled' by Ottawa: Documents
A dramatic reduction in Canadian media coverage of climate change science issues is the result of the Harper government introducing new rules in 2007 to control interviews by Environment Canada scientists with journalists, says a newly released federal document.
"Scientists have noticed a major reduction in the number of requests, particularly from high profile media, who often have same-day deadlines," said the Environment Canada document. "Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80 per cent."
The analysis reviewed the impact of a new federal communications policy at Environment Canada, which required senior federal scientists to seek permission from the government prior to giving interviews.
In many cases, the policy also required them to get approval from supervisors of written responses to the questions submitted by journalists before any interview, said the document, obtained in an investigation into the government's views and policies on global-warming science that was conducted by Climate Action Network Canada, a coalition of environmental groups.
The document suggests the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to "muzzle" them.
"Many (federal climate change) scientists are recognized experts in their field, have received media training, and have successfully carried out media interviews for many years," said the document, leaked by an Environment Canada employee who asked not to be named.
"Our scientists are very frustrated with the new process. They feel the intent of the policy is to prevent them from speaking to media."
The Environment Canada analysis noted that four prominent scientists, who regularly spoke for the government on climate change science issues, appeared in only 12 newspaper clippings in the first nine months of 2008, compared with 99 clippings over the same period in 2007.
"There is a widespread perception among Canadian media that our scientists have been 'muzzled' by the media relations policy," said the Environment Canada document. "Media coverage of this perception, which originated with a Canwest story in February 2008, is continuing, with at least 47 articles in Canadian newspapers to date."
The document also noted that government scientists voiced their displeasure to communications officials about the policy during meetings in June 2008. A few months later, a couple of requests for interviews with scientists in the midst of the 2008 federal election campaign were never answered, including one request that was "denied" after it was forwarded to the office of former environment minister John Baird.
Andrew Cuddy, 21, who led the investigation by Climate Action Network, said that it reveals "troubling evidence" about the government's approach to climate-science research, funding, appointments on science panels and communications.
"We've catalogued a host of evidence from different areas," said Cuddy. "They kind of all point to the government trying to undermine climate science research. (It) goes against their public statements saying that they're committed to research and that they believe the fundamentals of climate science."
The coalition said that one of the biggest concerns is whether the government is adequately funding climate-science research at Environment Canada and other departments after refusing to offer new subsidies for an independent research organization, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science, considered to be the lead agency for global warming research in Canada's universities.
"It's definitely a scandal," said Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada. He added that the government was "muzzling scientists; they're putting climate deniers in key oversight positions over research, and they're reducing funding in key areas. . . . It's almost as though they're making a conscious attempt to bury the truth."
Environment Minister Jim Prentice told reporters last week that the government wasn't trying to shut down the foundation but wanted it to report on how it spent previous grants of $110 million dating back to the year 2000.
"It's appropriate I think at this point that we take stock of what we've achieved for those dollars," Prentice said. "We'll work together with the foundation to make sure that that happens. They've got the resources to do it and we'll assess it from there."
The foundation says it has funded nearly 200 research projects that have led to breakthroughs in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, transforming operations in the federal government and private companies. But it has described Prentice's approach as a "nightmare scenario" since it no longer has money for new research.
In a statement e-mailed to Canwest News Service, Environment Canada said the new communications policy has allowed its scientists and experts to interact directly with the media on numerous occasions.
"The new policy merely assures that communications with the media are co-ordinated, to achieve the goals set out above — namely, quick, accurate and consistent responses across Canada," said the statement.
It added that it responded to 254 climate change-related requests in 2008 and 428 climate change requests in 2009.
The department also said it has taken many steps to inform Canadians about the work done by government scientists, including partnerships with other departments, new content added to websites such as www.science.gc.ca and the publication of Envirozine, an Environment Canada newsletter, as well as publishing about 700 peer-reviewed articles per year.
R
"Scientists have noticed a major reduction in the number of requests, particularly from high profile media, who often have same-day deadlines," said the Environment Canada document. "Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80 per cent."
The analysis reviewed the impact of a new federal communications policy at Environment Canada, which required senior federal scientists to seek permission from the government prior to giving interviews.
In many cases, the policy also required them to get approval from supervisors of written responses to the questions submitted by journalists before any interview, said the document, obtained in an investigation into the government's views and policies on global-warming science that was conducted by Climate Action Network Canada, a coalition of environmental groups.
The document suggests the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to "muzzle" them.
"Many (federal climate change) scientists are recognized experts in their field, have received media training, and have successfully carried out media interviews for many years," said the document, leaked by an Environment Canada employee who asked not to be named.
"Our scientists are very frustrated with the new process. They feel the intent of the policy is to prevent them from speaking to media."
The Environment Canada analysis noted that four prominent scientists, who regularly spoke for the government on climate change science issues, appeared in only 12 newspaper clippings in the first nine months of 2008, compared with 99 clippings over the same period in 2007.
"There is a widespread perception among Canadian media that our scientists have been 'muzzled' by the media relations policy," said the Environment Canada document. "Media coverage of this perception, which originated with a Canwest story in February 2008, is continuing, with at least 47 articles in Canadian newspapers to date."
The document also noted that government scientists voiced their displeasure to communications officials about the policy during meetings in June 2008. A few months later, a couple of requests for interviews with scientists in the midst of the 2008 federal election campaign were never answered, including one request that was "denied" after it was forwarded to the office of former environment minister John Baird.
Andrew Cuddy, 21, who led the investigation by Climate Action Network, said that it reveals "troubling evidence" about the government's approach to climate-science research, funding, appointments on science panels and communications.
"We've catalogued a host of evidence from different areas," said Cuddy. "They kind of all point to the government trying to undermine climate science research. (It) goes against their public statements saying that they're committed to research and that they believe the fundamentals of climate science."
The coalition said that one of the biggest concerns is whether the government is adequately funding climate-science research at Environment Canada and other departments after refusing to offer new subsidies for an independent research organization, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science, considered to be the lead agency for global warming research in Canada's universities.
"It's definitely a scandal," said Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada. He added that the government was "muzzling scientists; they're putting climate deniers in key oversight positions over research, and they're reducing funding in key areas. . . . It's almost as though they're making a conscious attempt to bury the truth."
Environment Minister Jim Prentice told reporters last week that the government wasn't trying to shut down the foundation but wanted it to report on how it spent previous grants of $110 million dating back to the year 2000.
"It's appropriate I think at this point that we take stock of what we've achieved for those dollars," Prentice said. "We'll work together with the foundation to make sure that that happens. They've got the resources to do it and we'll assess it from there."
The foundation says it has funded nearly 200 research projects that have led to breakthroughs in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, transforming operations in the federal government and private companies. But it has described Prentice's approach as a "nightmare scenario" since it no longer has money for new research.
In a statement e-mailed to Canwest News Service, Environment Canada said the new communications policy has allowed its scientists and experts to interact directly with the media on numerous occasions.
"The new policy merely assures that communications with the media are co-ordinated, to achieve the goals set out above — namely, quick, accurate and consistent responses across Canada," said the statement.
It added that it responded to 254 climate change-related requests in 2008 and 428 climate change requests in 2009.
The department also said it has taken many steps to inform Canadians about the work done by government scientists, including partnerships with other departments, new content added to websites such as www.science.gc.ca and the publication of Envirozine, an Environment Canada newsletter, as well as publishing about 700 peer-reviewed articles per year.
R
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Meltdown of Public Opinon on Climate Change
RECENT events are now resulting in more people questioning the validity of the science behind climate change. Could this be the beginning of a meltdown in public opinion on global warming?
The recent period of freezing temperatures and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit to agree legally binding greenhouse gas targets provided the backdrop for two events that have threatened the creditability of climate change science.
The “Climategate” fiasco saw the contents of emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit leading to accusations that a number of researchers had manipulated data.
Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading body for the assessment of the scientific evidence of climate change, admitted it had got it wrong on predicting Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
Taken all together, it is not surprising that the general public is beginning to question whether climate change is really happening. A recent BBC Poll suggests that scepticism about climate change is on the rise. Of the 1,001 adults polled, 25 per cent did not think global warming was happening.
This is a 10 per cent increase on a similar poll that was conducted last year. Those who said climate change was real had fallen from 83 to 75 per cent. Only 26 per cent believed that climate change was happening and was largely the result of human activities.
Climate change is unlike any other environmental issue. For some, it is seen as a new religion with those sceptical of the evidence labelled “deniers” as if they were questioning the existence of a divine being. Unless you live on a small island state such as Tuvalu, near Fiji, which is slowly sinking due to the rising sea level, it is easy to think climate change is a myth.
There is also public confusion over the difference between weather – atmospheric conditions over hours or days – and climate – changes in the atmosphere over years. This has led some people to think that the recent heavy snowfall and sub-zero temperatures are sufficient evidence that global warming is not real.
How climate change is communicated plays a powerful role in influencing public attitudes and determining whether people are willing to reduce their carbon footprint. The alarmist language used by the media to describe the potential impact of climate change has been referred to as “climate porn” – offering a thrilling spectacle but ultimately distancing the public from the problem. The use of apocalyptic media images of receding glaciers, scorched land, flooded metropolises and polar bears grappling for survival all foster public apathy.
It is no wonder the public feels disempowered. The issue is portrayed as being so big and multifaceted that it seems unreal and more like science fiction rather than science fact.
Climate sceptics are quick to claim that Climategate and the “Glaciergate” are evidence of “dodgy” climate science. While a few points in the IPCC report may be incorrect, this does not invalidate the last four assessments of the basic science of climate change. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that global warming is due to human activity.
The reality is that climate science is still developing as new evidence comes to light. We are still trying to understand the complexity of the global climate system and the effect and speed of different feedback mechanisms.
For example, a scientific survey of Siberian tundra coastlines has reported methane levels are roughly 100 times above normal. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
More than 10 times the annual global greenhouse emissions are thought to be trapped in tundra across the world. As the tundra thaws will it become a “Methane Bomb”?
Health damaging particles in polluting gases emitted by industry, traffic and domestic heating have a “cooling” effect on the climate. In reducing local air pollution are we lowering this cooling effect and inadvertently accelerating global warming?
Many questions such as these require further scientific investigation.
It is too easy to dismiss the whole climate change issue as mass hysteria. Prevention is always much better than cure. It is right that we take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to predicted climate change and move to a low carbon economy.
We need to become more efficient in our energy use and develop renewable energy sources. After all, whether climate change happens or not, we still have to face up to the fact of dwindling oil reserves and our over-consumption of natural resources.
Whatever doubt we may have about climate science, or whether climate change is really happening, a fundamental question remains – are we willing to gamble with our children’s future on this planet?
The recent period of freezing temperatures and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit to agree legally binding greenhouse gas targets provided the backdrop for two events that have threatened the creditability of climate change science.
The “Climategate” fiasco saw the contents of emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit leading to accusations that a number of researchers had manipulated data.
Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading body for the assessment of the scientific evidence of climate change, admitted it had got it wrong on predicting Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
Taken all together, it is not surprising that the general public is beginning to question whether climate change is really happening. A recent BBC Poll suggests that scepticism about climate change is on the rise. Of the 1,001 adults polled, 25 per cent did not think global warming was happening.
This is a 10 per cent increase on a similar poll that was conducted last year. Those who said climate change was real had fallen from 83 to 75 per cent. Only 26 per cent believed that climate change was happening and was largely the result of human activities.
Climate change is unlike any other environmental issue. For some, it is seen as a new religion with those sceptical of the evidence labelled “deniers” as if they were questioning the existence of a divine being. Unless you live on a small island state such as Tuvalu, near Fiji, which is slowly sinking due to the rising sea level, it is easy to think climate change is a myth.
There is also public confusion over the difference between weather – atmospheric conditions over hours or days – and climate – changes in the atmosphere over years. This has led some people to think that the recent heavy snowfall and sub-zero temperatures are sufficient evidence that global warming is not real.
How climate change is communicated plays a powerful role in influencing public attitudes and determining whether people are willing to reduce their carbon footprint. The alarmist language used by the media to describe the potential impact of climate change has been referred to as “climate porn” – offering a thrilling spectacle but ultimately distancing the public from the problem. The use of apocalyptic media images of receding glaciers, scorched land, flooded metropolises and polar bears grappling for survival all foster public apathy.
It is no wonder the public feels disempowered. The issue is portrayed as being so big and multifaceted that it seems unreal and more like science fiction rather than science fact.
Climate sceptics are quick to claim that Climategate and the “Glaciergate” are evidence of “dodgy” climate science. While a few points in the IPCC report may be incorrect, this does not invalidate the last four assessments of the basic science of climate change. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that global warming is due to human activity.
The reality is that climate science is still developing as new evidence comes to light. We are still trying to understand the complexity of the global climate system and the effect and speed of different feedback mechanisms.
For example, a scientific survey of Siberian tundra coastlines has reported methane levels are roughly 100 times above normal. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
More than 10 times the annual global greenhouse emissions are thought to be trapped in tundra across the world. As the tundra thaws will it become a “Methane Bomb”?
Health damaging particles in polluting gases emitted by industry, traffic and domestic heating have a “cooling” effect on the climate. In reducing local air pollution are we lowering this cooling effect and inadvertently accelerating global warming?
Many questions such as these require further scientific investigation.
It is too easy to dismiss the whole climate change issue as mass hysteria. Prevention is always much better than cure. It is right that we take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to predicted climate change and move to a low carbon economy.
We need to become more efficient in our energy use and develop renewable energy sources. After all, whether climate change happens or not, we still have to face up to the fact of dwindling oil reserves and our over-consumption of natural resources.
Whatever doubt we may have about climate science, or whether climate change is really happening, a fundamental question remains – are we willing to gamble with our children’s future on this planet?
'Green' plastics may be worse for environment
A type of degradable plastic bag that was supposed to be better for the environment may not be completely biodegradable, a Government-commissioned study has found. The bag is made with metal salts that are supposed to accelerate degradation, but scientists found the material was not fully biodegradable and might contaminate the way plastics are recycled.
Hundreds of millions of plastic bags and packaging items have been produced by the process, and they are widely used by some of the leading British retailers, including Waitrose, Ocado, JD Sports, Accessorize, River Island and Tesco.
Plastics with the additives are meant to break down quickly and fully in the presence of light and air by a process called oxidative degradation. But the term biodegradable is "virtually meaningless" said the Loughborough University scientists who ran the study. "The bags cannot be composted and there are concerns about the effects of the plastic in recycling facilities," said the scientists, who added that the best way of disposal was incineration or landfill.
Hundreds of millions of plastic bags and packaging items have been produced by the process, and they are widely used by some of the leading British retailers, including Waitrose, Ocado, JD Sports, Accessorize, River Island and Tesco.
Plastics with the additives are meant to break down quickly and fully in the presence of light and air by a process called oxidative degradation. But the term biodegradable is "virtually meaningless" said the Loughborough University scientists who ran the study. "The bags cannot be composted and there are concerns about the effects of the plastic in recycling facilities," said the scientists, who added that the best way of disposal was incineration or landfill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)