ast Update: Monday, April 30, 2007. 4:36pm (AEST)

(ABC TV)

Hard a Stern with Ross

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says he has commissioned a report into the economic effects of climate change because the nation cannot wait for the Howard Government to act.

Former ambassador to China and Hawke government adviser Ross Garnaut will head the review.

Professor Garnaut is expected to hand down his interim report by mid-next year.

The review will be similar to the UK's Stern review and will examine the cost of inaction and the impact of climate change on the Australian economy.

Mr Rudd says climate change poses a real threat to the economy.

"Climate change represents a threat to jobs unless we act on it," he said.

"Mr Howard, having buried his head in the sand for more than a decade now, doesn't want to commission any report which tells us what the economy impact from climate change will be because he finds that uncomfortable."

Print Email

Mr Turnbull says Labor should release the report before the election. (ABC TV)

No Bull from Malcolm ?!

Turnbull urges Labor: release climate change report soon

Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Labor should release the results of its climate change review before this year's federal election.

Federal Labor has appointed economics professor Ross Garnaut to head a review into the impact of climate change on the Australian economy.

He is due to hand down his final report by the end of next year, but Mr Turnbull thinks Australians should see the results sooner.

"If Mr Rudd wants to have an economic study, you'd think he would present it before the election," he said.

"Our emissions trading task force group, the Government's emissions trading task group, will be reporting at the end of May, in four weeks or thereabouts.

"So our work is going to be available well before the election."

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says it should have been the Commonwealth's responsibility.

"For too long Mr Howard has buried his head in the sand, and the time has come for us to act," he said.

The review has been commissioned with the help of the state and territory governments.

Meanwhile, the man appointed head the report says he will not be swayed by the political debate.

Professor Garnaut says is not deterred by the politics over climate change.

"The fact that something has become a matter for political debate I think can't be a reason for professional analysts to vacate the field," he said.

Professor Garnaut says he will also push for the Opposition to set emission targets for 2020.

Labor has set a target of a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050, but it has rejected calls for shorter term goals.

Professor Garnaut says a 2020 target is needed.

"It's clear from the terms of reference that part of the work that I'll have to do will be to define a path for the implementation of policies over the period ahead," he said.

Print Email

King Coal to be on his throne for a while yet ?!

Still a place for coal energy: Rio Tinto

April 27, 2007 - 1:44PM
AdvertisementAdvertisement
Rio Tinto Ltd chairman Paul Skinner says there is still a place in the world for coal energy, despite the debate over greenhouse gas emissions.
"I have the view that in the longer term the world will need all the energy options they can get and coal in one of them," he told shareholders at the company's annual general meeting in Perth.
"It is important for us that we secure a place for coal in the global energy mix - we think coal has a good future but we think we need to work to make sure it has a clean future."
Chief executive Leigh Clifford said the company is already involved in number of projects to clean up the coal industry.
The executives were responding to a question from a union representative who said coal miners were sick of being demonised by environmentalists.
© 2007 AAPBrought to you by

Cooking with Sol

Indian project shows solar power affordable - U.N.

OSLO (Reuters) - A solar power project in India supplying electricity to 100,000 people will be widened to other developing nations after showing that clean energy can be cheaper than fossil fuels, a U.N. report said on Sunday.

The $1.5 million U.N.-backed project would be extended to China, Indonesia, Mexico and Algeria and several other nations to help people in rural areas break dependence on kerosene lamps or unreliable grid-supplied electricity.
"We are addressing the notion that renewable energy is irrelevant to poor countries and the poorer communities," Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Programme), told Reuters.
Renewable energies such as water, wind or solar power avoid health damage from fumes released by kerosene lamps widely used in developing nations and emit none of the greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels that are widely blamed for global warming.
Under the project, the number of Solar Home Systems financed in the pilot area of Karnataka has risen to 18,000 -- providing power for an estimated 100,000 people -- from 1,400 in four years.
The systems provide a few hours of daily power for lightbulbs in homes or shops or to run a radio, a fan or a television. Electric light lets people read more easily than by a dim kerosene lamp.
The lighting "has been credited with better grades for schoolchildren, better productivity for cottage-based industries such as needlework artisans, and even better sales at fruit stands, where produce is no longer spoiled by fumes from kerosene lamps," a U.N. statement said.
POVERTY
The project may also help to lift rural families from poverty, a goal for 2015 set by world governments in 2000. Energy use is surging in developing nations, which are burning ever more fossil fuels in tandem with rising economic growth.
The
United Nations' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> United Nations wants to widen the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which binds 35 rich nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases until 2012, to more countries. It wants developing nations like India to brake their soaring emissions.
Indian banks have also helped families to fund purchases of the solar systems, costing $300 to $500 in a region where annual family incomes are just $1,200.
"It does sound a lot but the irony is that people are paying more for the kerosene, and that's why the banks are taking it up," Steiner said.
Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank were initial backers and the Bank of Maharashtra and Sewa Bank joined the scheme in 2007. The U.N. subsidy, phased out over time, helped cut initial interest rate payments.
"The India programme's success has already inspired a sister effort in Tunisia," a U.N. statement said. "Similar programmes are upcoming for China, Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Ghana, Morocco and Algeria."

[ bulled by a Gore ?! ]

Gore calls Canada climate plan a 'fraud'

TORONTO -
Al Gore' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Al Gore condemned Canada's new plan to reduce greenhouse gases, saying it was "a complete and total fraud" because it lacks specifics and gives industry a way to actually increase emissions.
Under the initiative announced Thursday, Canada aims to reduce the current level of greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. But the government acknowledged it would not meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, which requires 35 industrialized countries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
The country's emissions are now 30 percent above 1990 levels.
The conservative government's strategy focuses both on reducing emissions of gases blamed for global warming and improving air quality. But the plan failed to spell out what many of its regulations will look like.
Gore said the plan did not make clear how Canada would reach its 2020 emissions goal. He also criticized the plan for allowing industries to pollute more if they use emissions-cutting technologies while increasing production.
"In my opinion, it is a complete and total fraud," Gore said Saturday. "It is designed to mislead the Canadian people."
He said "intensity reduction" — which allow industries to increase their greenhouse gas outputs as they raise production — was a poll-tested phrase developed by think tanks financed by Exxon Mobil and other large polluters.
Canadian Environment Minister John Baird rejected Gore's criticisms.
"The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the administration of which the former vice president was a member," Baird said in a statement.
Baird also invited Gore to discuss climate change and the government's environmental policies with him.
Gore was in Toronto to present his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," at a consumer environmental show. He acknowledged that as an American, he had "no right to interfere" in Canadian decision.
However, he said, the rest of the world looks to Canada for moral leadership, and that was why Thursday's announcement was so "shocking."
Canadian opposition Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Sunday that Gore was right.
"Mr. Baird is embarrassing Canada around the world," Dion said. "The world expects Canada will do its share — more than that, that Canada will be a leader and we are failing the world. We are failing Canadians."

Big Oil and Chavez itching for a fight

CARACAS, Venezuela - Forcing Big Oil to give up control of Venezuela's most promising oil fields this week will be relatively easy for President Hugo Chavez, but he will face a more delicate challenge in getting the world's top oil companies to stay and keep investing.
;
If Chavez can persuade companies to stick around despite tougher terms, Venezuela will be on track to develop the planet's largest known oil deposit, possibly to surpass Saudi Arabia as the nation with the most reserves.
If he scares them away, the Orinoco River region could end up starved of the investment and know-how needed to transform its vast tar deposits into marketable crude oil.
On Tuesday, BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., France's Total SA and Norway's Statoil ASA will turn over their Orinoco operations to Venezuela's state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA. Chavez, who says he is reclaiming the oil industry after years of private exploitation, is expected to be accompanied by troops and workers clad in revolutionary red amid fly-bys by the military's new Russian-made fighter jets.
"We are going to take over some oil fields that have continued to be in the hands of transnationals," Chavez said in a speech to allied leaders Sunday, calling it "the last step" in recovering state sovereignty over oil.
Culminating a nationalist drive by Chavez that has increasingly squeezed the industry of profits, the two sides are now locked in contentious negotiations: Chavez says PDVSA will take a minimum 60 percent stake in the Orinoco operations, although the companies have been invited to stay as minority partners. They have until June 26 to negotiate the terms, including compensation and reduced stakes.
The companies appear to be taking a decisive stand, demanding conditions — and presumably compensation — to convince them that Venezuela will continue to be a good business.
Chevron's future in Venezuela "will very much be dependent on how we're treated in the current negotiation," said David O'Reilly, chief executive of the San Ramon, Calif.-based company. "That process is going to have a direct impact on our appetite going forward."
Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil's Rex Tillerson told Dow Jones Newswires and the Wall Street Journal that unless the negotiations produce a profitable proposal, "everything else is moot because we won't be staying."
"I'm realistic. I've said to them it may not work out," Tillerson said.
Houston-based ConocoPhillips is the only company that has yet to agree in principle to state control, prompting Venezuela to warn it may expropriate its assets. Both sides say talks are ongoing but have declined to give details.
The stakes are high for both sides.
Chavez needs the private oil companies' deep pockets and expertise to upgrade the Orinoco's tar-like crude into more marketable oils. While Chavez says state firms from China, India and elsewhere can step in, industry experts doubt they are qualified.
Amid the turmoil, new investment from the private companies has already dried up. If any leave, Chavez might be hard-pressed to persuade other big players to take over.
For the companies, pulling out of the Orinoco would be damaging.
They have invested more than $17 billion in the projects, now estimated to have grown in worth to some $30 billion. Venezuela has indicated it is inclined the pay the lesser amount — with partial payment in oil, and some suspect, tax forgiveness.
The companies have also claimed billions of future barrels of oil from the Orinoco in so-called booked reserves — a critical measure used by investors to value their worth. Smaller stakes will mean taking some of those reserves off the books.
"This is about the last step," says David Mares, a political science professor at the University of California San Diego. Chavez "has been pushing them around and they're pretty much at the brink of what they can accept."
If an agreement is reached, the companies may find it is just the beginning of their headaches.
PDVSA has been plagued by accidents and milked for cash by Chavez's government. Questions remain whether it will allow sufficient investment into the projects to maintain production, or also turn them into a cash cow. If accidents occur under PDVSA's management, the private partners also could be liable.
But with private investment barred by state monopolies that control three-quarters of the world's proven reserves, Venezuela may still prove enticing, even under Chavez's terms.
"All companies gotta go with where the oil is. And where's the oil in Latin America?" says Ali Moshiri, head of Chevron's Latin American operations.

Ocean's 'Twilight Zone' May Be a Key to Understanding Climate Change



major study sheds new light on the role of carbon dioxide once it's transported to the oceans' depths. The research indicates that instead of sinking, carbon dioxide is often consumed by animals and bacteria and recycled in the "twilight zone," a dimly lit area 100 to 1,000 meters below the surface. Because the carbon often never reaches the deep ocean, where it can be stored and prevented from re-entering the atmosphere as a green-house gas, the oceans may have little impact on changes in the atmosphere or climate.
Sponsored Links (Ads by Google)
Extreme Surf Sunglasses - No More "Red Eyes" After You Surf! SeaSpecs Stay On; Polarized; Rx Too www.SeaSpecs.com
The New American Oil Boom - Learn How Colorado is Sitting on More Oil Than the Middle East www.DailyWealth.com/Oil_Report
Labor Goes Green - Analysis On Kevin Rudd's Plan To Install Green Initiatives In Houses Crikey.com.au/Politics/Climate



The research is the result of two international expeditions to the Pacific Ocean, and is published in the April 27, 2007, issue of Science. "These results are particularly important to our efforts today to improve the predictive capacity of numerical models that relate ocean carbon to global climate change on different time scales," said Don Rice, director of NSF's chemical oceanography program. It also adds a new wrinkle to proposals to mitigate climate change by fertilizing the oceans with iron--to promote blooms of photosynthetic marine plants and transfer more carbon dioxide from the air to the deep ocean. "The twilight zone is a critical link between the surface and the deep ocean," said Ken Buesseler, a biogeochemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and lead author of the new study, which is co-authored by 17 other scientists. "We're interested in what happens in the twilight zone, what sinks into it and what actually sinks out of it. Unless the carbon goes all the way down into the deep ocean and is stored there, the oceans will have little impact on climate change." Buesseler was the leader of a project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) called VERTIGO (Vertical Transport In the Global Ocean). The twilight zone acts as a gate that allows more sinking particles through in some regions and fewer in others, complicating scientists' ability to predict the ocean's role in offsetting the impacts of greenhouse gases.
Sponsored Links (Ads by Google)
go climate neutral Buy carbon credits to neutralise your global warming emissions.www.climatefriendly.com
How Deep Is Ocean? Answers On Deep Oceans Questions. Get Free Online Information Here!www.Blurtit.com
Go Carbon Neutral Offset your CO2 pollution - home, car and flightswww.neco.com.au



Using new technology, the researchers found that only 20 percent of the total carbon in the ocean surface made it through the twilight zone off Hawaii, while 50 percent did in the northwest Pacific near Japan. These sinking particles, often called "marine snow," supply food to organisms deeper down, including bacteria that decompose the particles. In the process, carbon is converted back into dissolved organic and inorganic forms that are re-circulated and reused in the twilight zone and that can make their way to the surface and back into the atmosphere. The problem, say scientists, is that particles sink slowly, perhaps 10 to a few hundred meters per day, but they are swept sideways by ocean currents traveling many thousands of meters per day. To collect sinking particles, oceanographers use cones or tubes that hang beneath buoys or float up from sea floor. That, Buesseler said, "is like putting out a rain gauge in a hurricane." While many studies have investigated the surface of the ocean, little research has been conducted on the carbon cycle below. The VERTIGO team examined a variety of processes to open a new window into the difficult-to-explore twilight zone. They successfully used a wide array of new tools, including an experimental device that overcame a longstanding problem of how to collect marine snow falling into the twilight zone. Source: NSF
» Next Article in Space & Earth science - Earth Sciences: Geologists to discuss historic ice core

Coal subsidies far outweigh funding for renewables: Greenpeace

By Sarah Clarke
Greenpeace has accused the Federal Government of spending billions of dollars on the coal industry and failing to subsidise cleaner energy sources.
A new report reveals there is a disparity in funding from Government subsidies.
The study commissioned by Greenpeace found in an average year, the Government subsidises coal, oil and gas companies to the tune of about $9 billion.
But renewable industries like solar and wind received $330 million.
Report author Chris Reidy says he is surprised by the disparity.
"There's just very little support going to renewable energy," he said.
Ric Brazzale, from the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, says it is an unfair playing field.
"[It] disadvantages renewable power generators," he said.
But Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says solar and wind power have had their fair share.
"When you consider the percentage of energy produced by renewables, they're doing particularly well," he said.
But Greenpeace says the Federal Government is not doing enough to combat climate change.
Print Email

Orbiting giant sunshade gets thumbs down from climate scientists

Unconventional schemes for tackling global warming by installing a giant sunshade in orbit, sowing the seas with iron and scattering sulphur into the upper atmosphere are set to be bluntly rejected by UN experts this week.
The oddball initiatives are being fostered by "geo-engineers" - scientists who say headway to reduce the fossil-fuel pollution which drives global warming is so ludicrously slow that bold new ideas are needed to avert climate catastrophe.
Among solutions they sketch is a giant network of tilted mirrors, deployed in orbit, that would deflect some of the sunlight Earth receives.
Another idea is to sow particles of sulphur dioxide (SO2) particles in the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. Another is to "fertilise" the seas with iron so that surface algae sucks up carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air.
The goal of these and other schemes is to offset the warming effect of greenhouse gases and, at the very least, buy time for an effective deal for slashing carbon pollution.
The world's leading climate scientists are to meet in Bangkok from Monday to set out ways of minimising the damage caused by climate change.
Their report on ways of reining in the greenhouse gases that trap heat and fuel climate change will be released on Friday.
A draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) document shows that the meeting will agree that the window of opportunity is narrowing.
What happens over the next two to three decades "will determine to a large extent the long-term global mean temperature increase and the corresponding climate-change impacts that can be avoided," according to the draft.
But it pours scorn on geo-engineering as a means of tackling the problem, branding its approaches as hypothetical, tarred with risk and carrying unknown economic costs.
"Geo-engineering options ... remain largely speculative and with the risk of unknown side effects," it says.
"Reliable cost estimates for these options have not been published."
-AFP
Print Email

Satellites shed light on global warming

Altimetry-derived mean dynamic topography of the sea surface, which is the mean sea surface height relative to the geoid, or the theoretical surface of equal gravity around the Earth. Credits: CLSAs climate change continues to make headlines across the world, participants at the 2007 Envisat Symposium this week are hearing how Earth observation satellites allow scientists to better understand the parameters involved in global warming and how this is impacting the planet.


The cryosphere is both influenced by and has a major influence on climate. Because any increase in the melt rate of ice sheets and glaciers has the potential to greatly increase sea level, researchers are looking to the cryosphere to get a better idea of the likely scale of the impact of climate change. In addition, the melting of sea-ice will increase the amount of solar radiation that will be absorbed by ice-free polar oceans rather than reflected by ice-covered oceans, increasing the ocean temperature.
Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen over the last 50 years by half a degree Celsius a decade and are having an impact on the ice shelves and glaciers. Innsbruck University's Professor Helmut Rott has been observing the accelerated retreat and break-up of the Larsen Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula in the face of this warming through radar images acquired by ESA’s ERS and Envisat satellites. The retreat has been accelerating since 1992 and has culminated in two collapse events: Larsen-A in January 1995 and Larsen-B in March 2002. Envisat captured the disintegration of the 200-metre-thick Larsen-B Ice Shelf, which researchers estimate had been stable since the last ice age 12 000 years ago. "This retreat was triggered by climate warming, which caused prolonged summer melt seasons and the formation of extended melt water streams and ponds on the ice shelf surfaces," Rott said. The sections of Larsen-A, which disintegrated almost completely in January 1995, and Larsen-B that broke away were 200 to 350 metres thick. According to Rott, only 1403 square kilometres of Larsen-B remain and will soon break away completely. After the collapse event in 2002, the outlet glaciers from the Antarctic Peninsula that previously nourished the ice shelf retreated many kilometres above the previous grounding line. Altogether about 250 square kilometres of grounded ice have been lost at the outlet glaciers of former Larsen-A and Larsen-B ice shelves. The remoteness, darkness and cloudiness of Earth’s Polar Regions make them difficult to study. An instrument known as the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) allows Envisat to produce high-quality images of ice sheets because it is able to pierce through clouds and darkness. In addition to mapping ice boundaries, Rott used repeat-pass ASAR image data to map the flow velocities of glaciers. All the glaciers, where the buttressing ice had disappeared, have accelerated significantly. The retreat of grounded ice and the accelerated ice export due to increased velocity result in strongly negative mass balance of the glaciers. "The velocity of the glaciers increased up to eight-fold compared to the speed when the ice shelf buttressed the glaciers," Rott said. "The total estimated mass loss of glaciers above the disintegrated ice shelf sections since 2002 has been equivalent to about 2 percent of total sea level rise, which, although not a significant percentage, demonstrates the vulnerability of ice shelves to climatic warming and the importance of ice shelves for the stability of glaciers up-stream." "The disintegration processes observed at Larsen Ice Shelf are very relevant for estimating the future response to climatic warming of the much larger ice masses of West Antarctica, which contain freshwater equivalent to several metres of sea-level rise," Rott added. Satellites have been extremely beneficial to scientists in understanding oceanic planetary waves, which are internal waves that have major effects on large-scale ocean circulation and thus on climate. These very long waves travel slowly across the oceanic basins influencing the major oceanic currents and are believed to play a role in the complex ‘planetary clock’ that triggers one of the major climatic anomalies – El Niño. "These waves are an important means of ocean adjustment to forcing. In a sense they ‘set the rhythm’ for some aspects of the interactions between oceans and climate. Faster waves in a warmer ocean, as an effect of climate change, may result in complex repercussions on the climate system, many of which could turn out to accelerate the change," Dr Paolo Cipollini of the National Oceanography Centre in the UK said. Cipollini illustrated the role satellite instruments have played in understanding these elusive waves. He pointed out that although they were theorised to have existed as far back as the 1930s, it was not until the advent of the satellite-borne radar altimeter that oceanographers were able to offer proof of their existence by mapping the sea surface height and seeing them move by following the measurements of the surface. Radar altimeters work by sending thousands of separate radar pulses down to Earth per second then recording how long their echoes take to bounce back to the satellite platform. The sensor times its pulses' journey down to under a nanosecond to calculate the distance to the planet below to a maximum accuracy of two centimetres. ESA has had radar altimeters in orbit since July 1991, when ERS-1 was launched, which was followed by ERS-2 in 1995 and Envisat in 2002 and will continue to launch radar altimeters with CryoSat planned for 2009 and Sentinel-3 planned for 2012.


According to Cipollini, these waves have been recently observed to alter the colour of the sea, therefore they are believed to have some effect on phytoplankton – the tiny chlorophyll-pigmented algal cells that populate the oceans in huge numbers and play a leading role in the global carbon cycle and the primary production of nutrients. Current research is investigating these relationships by exploiting the powerful union of multiple views of the ocean made possible by different instruments like those in the Envisat suite, such as the Radar altimeter, Along Track Scanning Radiometer (ATSR) and Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS). Envisat carries 10 instruments aboard and generates data on Earth’s land, oceans, ice and atmosphere. By comparing and contrasting information on ocean colour, surface temperature and sea level, scientists are exploring the many subtle ways in which these near-invisible waves are capable of affecting phytoplankton, as they may be providing them with an input of nutrient-rich water from the deep ocean as well as moving them around. These findings are then compared with the effect of waves in models, helping to make the models more realistic, which means better predictions for the future. Cipollini cited a recent modelling study by Canadian researchers that shows planetary wave speed is expected to increase considerably during this century as a side effect of climate change induced warming of the oceans, which may have a number of far-reaching effects on ocean dynamics. "It is no surprise, then, that scientists are eager to better understand these phenomena - and satellites provide both the indispensable validation of the theoretical hypotheses and the stimulus for new ideas," Cipollini said. Sea surface temperature (SST) is one of the most stable of several geographical variables which, when determined globally, helps diagnose the state of the Earth’s climate system. Professor David Llewellyn-Jones, Head of Earth Observation Science at the University of Leicester, UK, outlined the importance of SST data at the symposium. Tracking SST over a long period is arguably the most reliable way researchers know of measuring the precise rate at which global temperatures are increasing and improves the accuracy of our climate change models and weather forecasts. "There is now evidence there is a distinctive upward trend in global sea surface temperatures, and this we can now see from measurements made from Envisat," Professor Llewellyn-Jones said. Working like thermometers in the sky, a number of different satellite instruments measure SST on an ongoing basis, such as the AATSR aboard ESA's Envisat. The AATSR instrument aboard Envisat and its predecessors, ATSR-1 and ATSR-2 on the ERS-1 and -2 satellites, has been providing researchers with a precise quantitative indication of the changes and variability associated with the climate system over the past 16 years. "Thanks to a new archive of uniformly processed data from 1991 to the present day, which is due to be launched later this year, it will soon be possible to provide a definitive statement of the rate at which global temperatures have been changing and how the variability of our climate has been changing," Llewellyn-Jones said. "The ATSR instrument produces data of unrivalled accuracy on account of its unique dual view of the Earth’s surface, whereby each part of the surface is viewed twice, through two different atmospheric paths," Llewellyn-Jones added. "This not only enables scientists to correct for the effects of dust and haze, which degrade measurements of surface temperature from space, but also enables scientists to derive new measurements of the actual dust and haze, which are needed by climate scientists." Source: European Space Agency
» Next Article in Space & Earth scien

Plants do not emit methane

A recent study in Nature suggested that terrestrial plants may be a global source of the potent greenhouse gas methane, making plants substantial contributors to the annual global methane budget. This controversial finding and the resulting commotion triggered a consortium of Dutch scientists to re-examine this in an independent study.

Reporting in New Phytologist, Tom Dueck and colleagues present their results and conclude that methane emissions from plants are negligible and do not contribute to global climate change. The consortium brings together a unique combination of expertise and facilities enabling the design and execution of a novel experiment. Plants were grown in a facility containing atmospheric carbon dioxide almost exclusively with a heavy form of carbon (13C). This makes the carbon released from the plants relatively easy to detect. Thus, if plants are able to emit methane, it will contain the heavy carbon isotope and can be detected against the background of lighter carbon molecules in the air. Six plant species were grown in a 13C-carbon dioxide atmosphere, saturating the plants with heavy carbon. 13C-Methane emission was measured under controlled, but natural conditions with a photo-acoustic laser technique. This technique is so sensitive that the scientists are able to measure the carbon dioxide in the breath of small insects like ants. Even with this state-of-the-art technique, the measured emission rates were so close to the detection limit that they did not statistically differ from zero. To our knowledge this is the first independent test which has been published since the controversy last year.

Conscious of the fact that a small amount of plant material might only result in small amounts of methane, the researchers sampled the ‘heavy’ methane in the air in which a large amount of plants were growing. Again, the measured methane emissions were neglible. Thus these plant specialists conclude that there is no reason to reassess the mitigation potential of plants. The researchers stress that questions still remain and that the gap in the global methane budget needs to be properly addressed. Citation: ’Methane emissons from terrestrial plants under aerobic conditions’ by Keppler F, Hamilton JTG, Braâ M, Rockmann T. Nature 439: 187–191 Source: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
» Next Article in Space & Earth science - Environment: Dutch Consider Tough Biofuels Criteria

Labor's energy plan needs to go further: ACF

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has welcomed Labor's plan to help people buy a range of water and energy efficiency devices for their houses, but says it does not go far enough.
Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd unveiled the $300 million policy yesterday at the party's national conference in Sydney.
ACF executive director Don Henry says it is great that Labor has pledged to give about 200,000 families low interest loans of up to $10,000 to install water tanks or solar panels.
But he says it will not make a lot of difference.
"It is modest, it's only for 200,000 households and we actually need millions of households in Australia to have solar hot water, rain water tanks and to be doing the right thing by the environment," he said.
"We actually need both Labor and the Coalition to commit to support the effort of millions of Australians greening up their homes."
Labor's water spokesman, Anthony Albanese, says the plan will give households the opportunity to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve water.
"We will make it easier for families to do the right thing and it's clear that families do want to do the right thing," he said.
Print Email

Hurricane forecaster: Oceans, not CO2, cause global warming

By DAN ELLIOTT/Associated PressSunday, April 29, 2007 11:32 AM PDT
DENVER - Hurricane forecaster William Gray said Friday that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming, and the Earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.Gray, a Colorado State University researcher best known for his annual forecasts of hurricanes along the U.S. Atlantic coast, also said increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere won't produce more or stronger hurricanes.
He said that over the past 40 years the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined compared with the previous 40 years, even though carbon dioxide levels have risen.Gray, speaking to a group of Republican state lawmakers, had harsh words for researchers and politicians who say man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.
‘‘They're blaming it all on humans, which is crazy,'' he said. ‘‘We're not the cause of it.''Many researchers believe warming is causing hurricanes to get stronger, while others aren't sure.A study published last week suggested warming might make it more difficult for hurricanes to form because it produces more vertical wind shear, which can weaken hurricanes.But the researchers, Gabriel A. Vecchi of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Brian J. Soden of the University of Miami, said it was unclear whether the dampening effects of wind shear would cancel out the boost that warmer water gives hurricanes.Gray complained that politics and research into global warming have created ‘‘almost an industry'' that has unfairly frightened the public and overwhelmed dissenting voices.He said research arguing that humans are causing global warming is ‘‘mush'' based on unreliable computer models that cannot possibly take into account the hundreds of factors that influence the weather.Gray said ocean circulation patterns are behind a decades-long warming cycle. He has argued previously that the strength of these patterns can affect how much cold water rises to the surface, which in turn affects how warm or cold the atmosphere is.He also disputed assertions that greenhouse gases could raise global temperatures as much as some scientists predict.‘‘There's no way that doubling CO2 is going to cause that amount of warming,'' he said.Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, said natural changes in the environment cannot account for the magnitude of global warming in the past four decades.‘‘Since about 1970, the global temperature change is outside of the range of natural variability,'' he said in an interview.He also challenged Gray's assertion that ocean currents have more effect on temperatures than carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.‘‘Global warming is pervasive. It has an influence on everything,'' Trenberth said. ‘‘It has an influence on ocean currents, it has an influence on hurricanes, it has an influence on rainfall.''Trenberth said computer climate models are the best quantitative tools available for predicting climate change. ‘‘They have been getting better over time,'' he said.Gray said warming and cooling trends cannot go on indefinitely and that he believes temperatures are beginning to level out after a very warm year in 1998.‘‘We're going to begin to see some cooling,'' he said.

'Centuries' of climate change forecast

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is preparing to release details on the economic cost of climate change at a conference in Thailand.
Leaked copies of a draft report to be presented to the conference show that stabilising emissions of greenhouse gases may cost less than 3 per cent of annual global economic growth.
A final draft of the report shown to journalists urges countries to immediately put in place policies to stop the global growth in emissions by 2030.
Panel chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri says it will be a major challenge.
"Whatever we do today in order to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases, the inertia in the system will allow climate change to take place for a long period of time," he said.
"For instance, sea level rises will continue not only for decades but centuries and therefore what we have to do is to bring about adaptation measures."
Australian economist Roger Beale is one of the authors of the report.
He has told ABC radio's The World Today program it will be the most detailed examination of emissions to date.
"As you would expect this would include sectors like stationary energy - that's energy supply - things like electricity, gas and so on," he said.
"Transport, buildings, industry, agriculture, forestry, and then another important sector is the waste sector. There's a lot of emissions occur from landfill."
Print Email

Al Gore harms security

By MATT CRENSON, AP National Writer Sat Apr 28, 12:32 PM ET

NEW YORK - Growing concern surrounds a new national security threat, an insidious trend that could foster terrorism worldwide and draw our armed forces into messy regional conflicts in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

A

It's global warming.

In the last few weeks, several groups — including the U.S. Congress, a panel of retired top-ranking military officers and the

U.N. Security Council

SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web

U.N. Security Council — have considered the possibility that global warming may be a significant threat to peace and security in coming decades.

"Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world," the former military leaders warned in a report released this month by the CNA Corporation, a nonprofit research consultant to the federal government. "The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay."

Droughts, crop failures and tropical disease epidemics caused by global warming could destabilize already fragile governments in Asia, Latin America and especially Africa, creating the kinds of "failed states" that harbor Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Sea-level rise could scatter refugees by the millions from low-lying countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam, putting stress on both them and their neighbors.

A day after the report's release, diplomats were discussing global warming in a special session of the U.N. Security Council, a body more accustomed to considering war crimes and weapons of mass destruction than carbon dioxide levels and crop yields.

"This is an issue that threatens the peace and security of the whole planet," said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.

But some members of the Security Council, as well as many developing countries, objected to the discussion. They argued that global warming would be better addressed by the General Assembly — a more democratic but less powerful arm of the U.N.

"Climate change may have certain security implications, but generally speaking it is in essence an issue of sustainable development," said Chinese ambassador Liu Zhenmin.

The next day on Capitol Hill, before the inaugural hearing of a special new House committee dedicated to global warming and energy policy, Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin expressed similar skepticism.

"I will have many questions about why global warming has suddenly become an issue of national defense," Sensenbrenner said. Later in the hearing he complained that alarmism over climate change is unnecessarily frightening America's children.

Even with all the recent dire prognostications, it's doubtful that today's children worry about climate change the same way their parents and grandparents did about nuclear annihilation. So is global warming a national security issue?

It depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, global warming is not going to invade one of America's allies or bring nuclear warheads raining down on its major cities. But it is likely to aggravate a lot of the same situations that are causing conflict in the world today.

The conflict in Darfur is a perfect example. Nomadic tribes in western Sudan are attacking their sedentary neighbors partly because drought in the region has forced them off their traditional grazing lands.

Global warming is going to cause a lot more situations like the one in Darfur, scientists predict, many of them in some of the world's hottest hotspots:

Parts of sub-Saharan Africa, already the poorest region in the world, could see a 50 percent reduction in crop yields by 2020, according to a report issued this month by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Decreased rainfall in Pakistan, a critical nexus in the war on terror, could devastate that nation's cotton crops and thus its largest industry of textile production, said Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.

Chinese scientists announced this week that global warming will significantly shrink Himalayan glaciers by 2030, decreasing the flow of the Yangtze, Ganges and Mekong rivers and threatening water supplies to some of the world's fastest-growing economies.

Skeptics argue that such problems are primarily environmental, economic and social, and should be dealt with as such. Perhaps they're right. But global warming, not to mention the effort to mitigate it, promises to be so transformative that it will touch every policy realm governments deal with.

Because global warming is caused primarily by the consumption of fossil fuels, it's an energy issue. And because energy drives the global economy, global warming is an economic issue as well. It's a social issue, because it's going to affect how we live.

It's a foreign policy issue, because limiting the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is going to require an unprecedented level of international cooperation.

And if you believe

Al Gore

SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web

Al Gore, global warming is above all a moral issue. At every stop on the global warming roadshow made famous by the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore says we owe it to our children and to the planet itself to do everything we can to stop global warming.

Last week Gore delivered his talk at a synagogue in Indianapolis, where he made global warming sound very much like a national security threat and the moral equivalent of war.

"This is our home," he said. "We will make our stand here on behalf of our children."

• Emai

Climate change talks grow in importance

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent 2 hours, 2 minutes ago

As the world warms and scientists' warnings grow urgent, climate negotiators are counting down toward make-or-break talks later this year, hoping for progress on a long-term deal to sharply reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Experts are beginning to fear, however, that as time runs down the best that can be hoped for may be an extension of the relatively weak Kyoto Protocol, due to expire in 2012. The alternative is a world without any carbon-reduction rules at all.

The year's bad news on climate change is coming in installments.

In February, a U.N.-sponsored scientific network reported that unabated global warming would produce a far different planet by 2100, from rising seas, drought and other factors. In early April, the scientists said animal and plant life was already being disrupted.

In the third installment, coming Friday in Bangkok, Thailand, the authoritative panel is expected to say the world could still head off severe damage if all countries act urgently, with the best policies and technology, to rein in carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions — an improbable scenario.

There are signs of movement. In March, the

European Union

SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web

European Union formally committed to at least a 20-percent cut in emissions, below 1990 levels, by 2020. The Democrats newly in control of Congress are pushing for mandatory caps on U.S. emissions. China is talking more seriously about controls.

"There's a lot happening. Whether that translates into a change in negotiating positions is a complicated story," said Leon Charles, a veteran negotiator for the Caribbean nation of Grenada who will have a lead role in the upcoming talks.

The key complication is a "you first" standoff between the United States, on one side, and China and the developing world on the other.

President Bush

SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web

President Bush, who is expected to veto any Democratic effort to reduce carbon emissions, rejects the Kyoto Protocol and its mandatory cutbacks, complaining they would hobble the U.S. economy and should have applied to China, India and other industrializing countries that were exempted because they're poorer.

China, meanwhile, isn't expected to submit to an international regime unless the U.S. takes on a major commitment. It points to the fact that its per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide, byproduct of power plants, automobiles and other fossil fuel-burning sources, has stood at less than one-sixth the American per-person emissions.

"Prematurely" committing to mandatory cutbacks could keep China from climbing out of its poverty, the Beijing government said in a climate report April 23.

The Kyoto pact, a 1997 annex to a 1992 U.N. climate treaty, requires 35 industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by, on average, 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But specialists say 50-percent reductions will be needed to stabilize concentrations of the global-warming gases in the atmosphere.

The annual U.N. climate conferences — this year's is in December in Bali, Indonesia — have made no real progress toward turning such deeper cuts into treaty obligations once Kyoto expires.

In a discussion forum that's a sidebar to the conference, government delegates have been talking about narrower, innovative ways for fast-developing countries like China to contribute without committing to blanket, quantified reductions.

"They could commit to a certain share of renewables," that is, a higher proportion of wind, solar or other non-carbon power sources in their energy mix, said Hermann E. Ott of Germany's Wuppertal Institute, which has conducted in-depth studies of post-Kyoto paths.

"You could also think of efficiency standards for electrical appliances," Ott said, "or measures for certain sectors — for the steel industry, for example."

That non-negotiating forum ends this year. If, as expected, no mandate emerges in Bali to negotiate binding post-Kyoto targets, the U.N. process risks running out of time, given that it will take years to produce a new agreement and win ratification worldwide.

That would open a post-2012 gap — a world without carbon-reduction rules — that could wreck the emerging, Europe-centered market in trading carbon allowances among industries. The allowances would become unnecessary and worthless.

Elliott Diringer, international strategist at Washington's private Pew Center on Climate Change, said at Bali "it may be time to think about bridging strategies," that is, extending Kyoto's limited quotas past 2012 while working on deeper cuts.

Ott agreed a "bridge" looks ever more likely. He doesn't want to sound pessimistic, he said, but "it is important to stress that time is of the essence."

• Email Story
• IM Story
• Printable View

RECOMMEND THIS STORY

Greens' ire and Howard's nuclear future

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown says the Federal Government should be exploring renewable energy resources before committing to nuclear power.

In an announcement timed to coincide with the Australian Labor Party's (ALP) debate on uranium mining, Prime Minister John Howard has outlined the Government's plans to develop a nuclear power industry.

Mr Howard told the Victorian Liberal Party conference that the country needs to reassess its energy production in the face of climate change, and the only feasible options are clean coal technology and nuclear power.

But Greens Senator Bob Brown accused Mr Howard of not knowing what he was doing.

"John Howard's going whole hog isn't he?" he said.

"He can't tackle climate change without a nuclear mentality.

"He's lost the plot as far as the much better energy efficiency, renewable energy resources demand management that would put Australia at the front of the pack instead of at the back."

Mr Howard says nuclear and clean coal technologies are the best ways to tackle climate change.

"You can not run power stations on wind or solar power," he said.

"If we're fair dinkum about this climate change debate we have to open our minds to the use of nuclear power."

Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane says the Government will remove legislative barriers to nuclear power.

But he says nuclear power plants will not be built if nuclear power is rejected by the Australian public, and that it would take more than a decade before a nuclear power station could be up and running.

"Between planning and construction, at least 10 years would expire, so we're probably talking about a debate of a few years, followed by a decision and the first electrons coming out of a power station no earlier than 2020 - but let's have the debate first," he said.

"There will be no movement towards the establishment of a power station in Australia until Australia has debated where nuclear energy fits in its low emission future.

"On the basis of that debate, we'll then decide whether or not a nuclear station is going to be built."

Mr Macfarlane says the energy debate has moved beyond the ALP's wrangling over uranium mining.

"Labor today is debating last century's policy," he said.

The Labor conference has backed Kevin Rudd on uranium mining (Getty Images)

Yellowcake Rudd gets his way on uranium mines

The Australian Labor Party national conference has narrowly supported Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's motion to scrap the "no new uranium mines" policy.

Mr Rudd's proposal was backed by 205 conference delegates, while 190 supported frontbencher Anthony Albanese's motion to maintain the ban on new uranium mines.

Mr Rudd's motion sparked the only heated debate of the conference so far.

The Opposition Leader opposes nuclear power in Australia, but he told the conference the ban on new mines should be lifted because other countries needed uranium.

"Friends, the reason we have this same amendment before us today is because other countries in the world do not have the same rich set of energy options as we do," he said.

Mr Albanese led the case to keep the ban, saying: "You can guarantee that uranium will lead to nuclear waste. You can't guarantee that it won't lead to nuclear weapons.

Union leader Bill Shorten called on conference to support Mr Rudd's motion.

"If you think that rolling the leader is a great idea then go ahead and vote for the Albanese-Garrett amendment," he said.

New party president John Faulkner was among those who voted for Mr Albanese's motion, but shortly after announced that Mr Rudd's motion was carried.

The debate came as Prime Minister John Howard outlined the Government's plan to develop a nuclear power industry in Australia.

Mr Howard told the Victorian Liberal Party conference that the country needed to reassess its energy production in the face of climate change.

He said Australia's only feasible options were clean coal technology and nuclear power.

Print Email

Peter Garrett lost the argument against uranium mining and hit out at Government plans for a nuclear power industry (Getty Images)

Labor's nuclear attack

energy

Labor has attacked Prime Minister John Howard's plans for a nuclear energy industry in Australia, after its own national conference dumped a long-standing ban on new uranium mines.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's motion to scrap the 'no new mines' policy was passed by a slender 15 votes at the ALP national conference, with environment spokesman Peter Garret among those voting to maintain the ban.

But the move was overshadowed by Mr Howard's outlining of a future nuclear energy industry for Australia.

Speaking at the Victorian Liberal Party conference, Mr Howard said Australia needed to rethink its energy production in the face of climate change, and the only feasible options were clean coal technology and nuclear power.

"Part of the solution must be to admit the use, in years to come, of nuclear power," he said.

"If we're fair dinkum about this climate change debate we have to open our minds to the use of nuclear power."

Shortly after the Labor conference vote Mr Garrett went on the offensive against Mr Howard's nuclear proposal.

"He has plans for nuclear power plants to be dotted around this country," he said.

"He's taking us down a road and a path which I think is very dangerous."

Mr Howard said the Government would invest in research on the setting up of a nuclear power industry while Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said legislative barriers would be removed.

And Mr Macfarlane accused Labor of debating "last century's policy" on uranium mining.

Labor discontent

Mr Garrett says he accepts the conference vote on uranium mines but others in the party are less happy.

Some are angry with union leader and Federal candidate Bill Shorten, who linked the vote to support for Mr Rudd.

"If you think that rolling the leader is a great idea then go ahead and vote for the Albanese-Garrett amendment," Mr Shorten told the debate.

Critics of Mr Shorten say the tactic was immature, naive and damaging.

Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says there will be no uranium mining in his state while he was in government.

"I don't feel under any pressure whatsoever," he said.

"The West Australian economy is powering ahead, we've got the highest economic growth figures and the lowest unemployment figures, we don't desperately need for economic reasons or any other reasons to pursue uranium mining."

The ALP conference ends on Sunday after dealing with issues including climate change, forestry and preselections for New South Wales.

Labor attacks John Howard's plans for nuclear energy industry in Australia, after its own national conference dumps long-standing ban on new uranium mines.

Print Email

There has been a mixed response from state governments to yesterday's announcements.

States give mixed responses to nuclear announcements

energy

The states and territories have given various reactions to the major parties' uranium and nuclear policy announcements yesterday.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann says yesterday's vote by the the ALP to scrap its 'no new uranium mines' policy is a huge win for his state.

The motion to scrap the policy went through by 205 votes to 190 at the Labor Party's national conference in Sydney yesterday.

Mr Rann lobbied delegates ahead of the conference for a change in the policy because he said the previous policy did not make any sense.

"The Labor Party's policy now looks forward rather than looking back - we have 60 companies that have exploration licences in South Australia for uranium," he said.

"I expected it to be a tough decision, I expected it to be a close vote, but I'm delighted with this victory."

However the parliamentary leader of the South Australian Democrats, Sandra Kanck, has slammed the ALP's decision.

"I think it's going to open us up to nuclear power and to nuclear waste dumps and nuclear enrichment, all of those, because there isn't a legitimate argument that we can mount now against those pressures," she said.

Yesterday Prime Minister John Howard also announced a strategy to develop the nuclear industry in Australia.

The Federal Government plans to scrap legislative bans on nuclear power and has committed to more research and an advertising campaign.

Nuclear industry

The South Australian Opposition says it is up to business to decide whether to build nuclear power stations in Australia.

Opposition leader Martin Hamilton-Smith says nuclear power needs to be part of the debate on Australia's future power needs.

But he says it needs to be economically viable.

"South Australia is probably one of the least likely places in Australia for a nuclear plant to be built," he said.

"We have abundant supplies of gas and the busy markets for the energy are in the eastern states, however let's see what comes forward from business.

"I think it's up to business to argue the case about where any possible power station should be built, whether it's nuclear burning, renewable or coal, and that needs to be based on sound business decisions about where the market is and how the business dynamics work."

New South Wales

The New South Wales Government says it stands behind its anti-nuclear and anti-uranium policies despite yesterday's announcements.

Speaking at the ALP conference in Sydney, Premier Morris Iemma said Labor's decision to overturn its ban on uranium mines would have no effect in New South Wales.

"Today's decision enables each of the states to make their own decision," he said.

But Mr Iemma says the same choice may not be given to states under John Howard's plans to overturn Commonwealth legislation that bans nuclear activities.

"The real issue is John Howard's determination to impose on the people of New South Wales a nuclear industry," he said.

Mr Iemma says the New South Wales Government will fight the Commonwealth all the way on the issue.

The Wilderness Society says it will work with the states to try to oppose the Federal Government's push towards nuclear power.

But Alec Marr from the Wilderness Society says there is no guarantee that state opposition will be enough to stifle the Prime Minister's plans.

Western Australia

Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says there will be no uranium mining in his state while he is in government.

"I don't feel under any pressure whatsoever," he said.

"The West Australian economy is powering ahead, we've got the highest economic growth figures and the lowest unemployment figures, we don't desperately need for economic reasons or any other reasons to pursue uranium mining."

Northern Territory

Environmentalists in the Northern Territory are also concerned about the uranium mines policy being overturned.

Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin and Environment Minister Marion Scrymgour voted in favour of changing the policy.

But Emma King from the NT Environment Centre was at the conference and says the decision gives the Territory Government the green light to approve uranium mining.

She says there are already mining plans in progress.

"One for example is the Mount Fitch deposit down near Batchelor," she said.

"It's only a few kilometres from the Darwin River Dam and we have concerns about the mine's impact on Darwin's drinking water as well as the local grass and water and local environment adjacent to the mine."

Ms King says Indigenous points of view on uranium mining were glossed over at yesterday's conference.

"The issue of Indigenous involvement in decision making around uranium mining was raised in the debate at the Labor Party conference but obviously it wasn't something that the party felt strongly enough about to include in a policy for the future," she said.

Print Email