By People's World on October 7th, 2009
When discussing climate change, the old saying needs to be amended to “What do you want first, the somewhat good news, or the astoundingly awful bad news?”
The bad news is piling up fast:
* The ice sheets in the Artic, Antarctic and Greenland are melting twice as fast as earlier projections from just a year or two ago, which will lead to the sea level rising about a foot every 20 or 25 years – meaning a 3-foot rise by the end of the century, enough to wipe out some island nations, flood much of Bangladesh and other low-lying coastal countries, threaten many coastal cities around the world, and increase erosion on coasts.
* Glaciers are melting faster as well – meaning that before the end of this century, glaciers in the Himalayas may disappear, and these glaciers provide water for over a billion people, an environmental, agricultural and human catastrophe. This extra melting will first cause more floods in India and China, and then cause extreme water stress for humans and for agriculture.
* Previous estimates of the massive amounts of carbon dioxide and methane locked up in the permafrost were too small, increasing the likelihood of an unstoppable tipping point if too much of the permafrost melts and releases these greenhouse gases, potentially overwhelming any human efforts to slow and control carbon emissions.
(more…)
By Simon Leufstedt on July 7th, 2009
George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, joins other environmentalists in attacking the recently passed energy and climate bill in USA. Monbiot says the bill “would be laughable anywhere else” but that unfortunately it’s the best we can expect from the USA.
“The cuts it proposes are much lower than those being pursued in the UK or in most other developed nations. Like the UK’s climate change act (pdf) the US bill calls for an 80% cut by 2050, but in this case the baseline is 2005, not 1990. Between 1990 and 2005, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose from 5.8 to 7bn tonnes.
The cut proposed by 2020 is just 17%, which means that most of the reduction will take place towards the end of the period. What this means is much greater cumulative emissions, which is the only measure that counts. Worse still, it is riddled with so many loopholes and concessions that the bill’s measures might not offset the emissions from the paper it’s printed on. You can judge the effectiveness of a US bill by its length: the shorter it is, the more potent it will be. This one is some 1,200 pages long, which is what happens when lobbyists have been at work.”
(more…)
By Simon Leufstedt on July 1st, 2009
This past Friday the House of Representatives in USA voted yes to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a cap-and-trade energy bill, by a vote of 219 to 212. This historic climate change bill will require limits on pollution responsible for man-made climate change and it will help USA create a green economy, if it also gets thumbs up in the Senate.
“After a tense debate, in which the margin of success or failure never moved beyond a handful of votes, the House of Representatives passed the most sweeping climate change policy ever considered by Congress early Friday evening, the Huffington Post reports.
The outcome had remained up in the air up until the actual vote, with the White House and the president himself engaging in a heavy lobbying campaign aimed at restoring Democratic Party unity that seemed to be fracturing.”
President Barack Obama said in his weekly address that this new bill will help “create green jobs, ensure clean air for our children, move towards energy independence and combat climate change.”
(more…)
By Jesse Herman on September 16th, 2008
The method in which America creates energy has been a hot topic during the 2008 presidential election. For most, a primary concern deals with how we can keep prices down at the pump while eliminating our need for foreign oil. This desire has lead to the “drill here, drill now” crowd calling for domestic offshore drilling (among other things). While everyone agrees that energy independent principles are vital to revving up the American economy, there are big differences in how to accomplish this task. Notably, when it comes to the energy resources and environmental protection standards, there are fundamental differences in Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s interests. Additionally, when it comes to bills in congress addressing consumer protection, manufacturing standards, and other topics not talked about enough, the future will heavily depend upon which candidate prevails. The following include a few you may not have known about, and some you may have, but they are all liable to affect the lives of everyday Americans.
(more…)
