Photo credit: laszlo-photo

As winter weather hits us again, many people confuse the current weather (cold) with the long-term direction of the climate (warmer).

Just because it is cold outside right now doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t real. Global warming has to do with the climate, with the long-term trend of the world’s average temperature. The short-term weather has to do with what is happening this week or next in the part of the world where we currently reside. The two are not identical, and colder weather does not contradict the fact that our climate is warming up.

Another reason the two related but not identical issues are confusing is that global climate change is not uniform across the globe. Just because it is colder where you live doesn’t mean it isn’t warmer, relatively, elsewhere. In fact, global warming is taking place much more at the northern latitudes than in the continental U.S.

This is the reason why, even though the U.S. is experiencing more severe winter weather, the Arctic summer ice is covering less and less of the Arctic water, opening the fabled Northern Passage. It is still very cold at the North Pole, but it is relatively warmer. Average temperatures have already increased in the northern latitudes by almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit, much more than at temperate latitudes.

This is also one reason among many why global warming is so threatening. As temperatures warm more rapidly nearer both poles, two things happen which bode ill for the entire world.

First, ice, ice sheets and glaciers are melting rapidly, much more rapidly than even the most dire predictions of a few years ago. The glaciers on Greenland are melting more quickly, and also accelerating the speed at which they move towards the open seas. In the Antarctic, massive ice sheets are breaking off. Both these developments will cause a faster than predicted rise in the ocean level. Instead of happening over a thousand years, the complete melting of the Greenland glaciers is likely to take a few hundred years – and when they are completely melted that will increase sea levels by over 25 feet, inundating many coastal cities.

Second, as the northern latitudes warm more rapidly, more and more of the permafrost will melt, releasing both carbon dioxide and methane that have been frozen for millennia. This could result in runaway global warming, coming on top of the direct human release of greenhouse gases.

There are many more reasons to be concerned about global climate change, but just because it is cold outside is no reason at all to ignore the problem.

In a thoughtful article at HuffingtonPost, environmentalist Bill McKibben explains why climate change is a different kind of problem. He makes the essential point that what climate change skeptics are fighting is not other politicians or scientists; it’s physics.

In another good article, Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations explains the seriousness of even sharper cuts in emissions, and also his concept of “climate debt.”

Author: Marc Brodine, People’s World

A survey released this week by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows that only 47% of people in the USA believes there is evidence of man-made climate change. Although a majority “believes” in climate change, over 20% doesn’t think there is any evidence of the earth warming. And among white evangelical Protestants in USA only 34% believes the earth is warming due to human activity, while over 30% don’t believe in it at all.

“The poll canvassed views on climate change among the “major religious traditions” in the US. Surprise, surprise, it shows that “white evangelical Protestants” were the group with the lowest level – 34% of those surveyed – of acceptance that there is solid evidence that global warming is real and that it is attributable to humans. This compares with 47% of the total US population (still startlingly low), and 58% of those surveyed who “had faith” but who were unaffiliated to any particular religious tradition.”

Maybe those 31% evangelical Protestants believes God decides when the earth will end? But I guess it makes more sense for these people to believe in a fairy-tale God that in his name promotes slavery, rape and murder instead of common sense and modern-day science?

But sure. You must give credit where credit is due, I suppose. Some of these evangelical Christians have started highlighting environmental concerns and adopt a more environmentalistic approach. Something they call “creation care”. Although it has already sparked controversy among evangelicals.

Last year, there was even an attempt by some leaders to talk up the need for “creation care”, but to dampen concern for global warming. The “We Get It!” campaign’s declaration is something to behold:

“God created everything. He made us in His own image, and commanded us to be fruitful and multiply and watch over His creation. Although separated from God by our sin, we are lovingly restored through Jesus Christ, and take responsibility for being good stewards. Our stewardship of creation must be based on Biblical principles and factual evidence. We face important environmental challenges, but must be cautious of claims that our planet is in peril from speculative dangers like man-made global warming. With billions suffering in poverty, environmental policies must not further oppress the world’s poor by denying them basic needs. Instead, we must help people fulfill their God-given potential as producers and stewards. We will follow our Lord Jesus Christ and honor God as we use and share the principles of His Word to care for the poor and tend His creation.”

This would just be a silly side note if it weren’t for the fact that while the media in the USA ignores the latest warnings from climate scientists an increasing number of people in the US believe global warming is exaggerated.

“Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.”

So unfortunately it seems that these climate and science denying religious fundamentalists is, mainly due to their effective propaganda machine, playing a large part in spreading climate denialism and confusion in USA.

From Madrid to Salamanca

The trip has been pretty uneventful, nothing too eco/energy related to remark on except the usual thing about how trains are amazing ways to get around. But I did notice this as an East Coaster. The amount of sprawl here is next to nothing. The only time you see buildings are when you come across a town. The rest of the way is grass, hills, rocks and trees…I want to say that it’s an open canopy savannah. Part of the density may be caused by the seemingly inhospitable terrain in western Spain but a big part is that these cities were build before the car so they are built on a human scale (unlike some American cities I could name). Living on a human scale is vital to a sustainable future because a city if a city’s lifeblood is cars, its pulse will stop after Peak Oil.

There were lots of trees around the tracks but I did see wind farms in the distance a few times, but as there were a lot of trees and the farms were in the distance, I was unable to snap a picture so you’ll have to take my word on it. Also, urban density preserves natural areas from development which is always a good thing…

Eco-Friendly Pest Control for Salamancan Convent

The other day I was walking around town when I bumped into a falconer feeding his falcon on his leather-gloved arm. Since it was Christmas here recently, and their are tons of days to various Catholic saints I figured he was here as part of a fair or something like that for kids. I asked him what he was doing with the falcon and he explained to me that there are far too many birds and mice around the convent and the park nearby and that he and his falcon were there to take care of that.

What a great form of pest control, both clean and green. It doesn’t use harmful chemicals like DDT or inhumane traps (like the glue traps Georgetown University uses to get rid of mice- or it’s what they gave me and my roommates when we had one).

Plus it’s cheap and pretty cool.

I Thought I left These Ideas Behind in the US

The other day was my first day in my two week language program at Universidad de Salamanca. It’s four hours a day, the first two are language, the next hour is writing and the final one is culture. As it was the first day, we went around the room and said where we are from and what we are studying. After I said I study environmental sciences my writing professor said she doesn’t believe in recycling and that they just mix everything together and throw it in a landfill. I hear that all the time in the US and I eventually got so sick of it I took a tour of a recycling plant and guess what, they actually recycled. Craziness. Maybe there are a few towns out there that have corrupt recycling programs, but the world does recycle. It would be an impressive act of subterfuge if the entire world made up a billion dollar materials industry.

In my culture class when I said I study environmental sciences, (since STIA is a little hard to explain) my professor asked me if I believed in Global Warming. I told him that it is the most important problem facing society and we must solve it immediately. He responded by saying, so you think it’s real? I wish it weren’t but just because I wish it were so does not mean it is. Hopefully these professors’ opinions are the exception, not the rule.

It is the Center for Biological Diversity that this year gives their unflattering Dodo Award to Sarah Palin. Why? Because she “has sought to remove endangered species act protection for the polar bear, suppressed and lied about state global warming studies, and denied that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Governor Palin has waged a deceptive, dangerous, and costly battle against the polar bear” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Her position on global warming is so extreme, she makes Dick Cheney look like an Al Gore devotee.”

“All global warming deniers are eventually forced to suppress scientific studies, and Palin is no different,” said Suckling. “To maintain her ludicrous opposition to protecting the polar bear in the face of massive scientific consensus, Palin stepped over the line to lie about and suppress government science.”

“Palin’s insistence that Arctic melting is ‘uncertain’ is like someone debating the theory of gravity as they plunge off a cliff,” said Suckling. “It’s hopeless, reckless, and extremely cynical.”

You can read more about the award and why the Center for Biological Diversity gave the award to Sarah Palin here.

The Guardian has even more shocking news about Sarah Palin and her fight against polar bears. They reveal that Sarah Palin got help from known climate change deniers and the oil company ExxonMobil “to back efforts to stop polar bears being protected as an endangered species.”

“In official submissions to the US government’s consultation on the status of the polar bear, Palin and her team referred to at least six scientists who have questioned either the existence of warming as a largely man-made phenomenon or its severity. One paper was partly funded by the US oil company ExxonMobil.”

Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace US, says that this “shows that she is completely out of touch with the urgency of the climate crisis.”

Tonight is Sarah Palin’s big debate night against the Democratic Vice President candidate Joe Biden. If you want to know more about the two candidates’s stances when it comes to the environment we got all you need to know: Sarah Palin’s awful environmental record and why the League of Conservation Voters Hails Joe Biden.

“Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand. The evidence is clear, the long-term trend in global temperatures is rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last.”

Read more: Met Office says climate change deniers deluded

Newly released data from the UK Met Office shows that during the first half of 2008 the global temperatures was more than 0.1 Celcius cooler than any other year after 2000. The reason for this is La Nina, an ocean-atmosphere phenomenon that has a cooling effect on the earth.

But this doesn’t mean the deniers are correct about anything else. Scientists still expects that 2008 will be the 10th warmest year since 1850. And the UK Met Office says that the global temperatures will continue to rise again when La Nina eases away.

“The big thing that’s been happening this year is La Nina, which has lowered global temperatures somewhat,” said John Kennedy, climate monitoring and research scientist at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre.

“La Nina has faded in the last couple of months and now we have neutral conditions in the Pacific,” he told BBC News.

Dr Kennedy also said that “2008 will still be significantly above the long-term average,” and that “there’s been a strong upward trend in the last few decades, and that’s the thing to focus on.”

Even during the temporarily cooling effect from La Nina we see evidence that the rapid man-made warming continues. Images from National Aeronautics and Space Administration satellites show continued breakup of 2 of Greenland’s largest glaciers. According to Canadian authorities the Northwest Passage is navigable. Recently scientists warned that the Arctic could become ice-free during the summers as early as 2013. And just yesterday a huge chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan broke away in Canada’s northern Arctic.

Norway, a rich country in Scandinavia (in northern Europe) with a population of almost five million people enjoy the second highest GDP per-capita (after Luxembourg) and third highest GDP (PPP) per-capita in the world, and has maintained first place in the world in the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) for six consecutive years (2001-2006).

Most of the wealth comes from large fields of natural resources such as oil and gas. Norway is the third largest exporter of oil and gas worldwide. Only Russia and Saudi Arabia export more oil than Norway. In 2006, oil and gas accounted for 58% of all the services and products exported.

Ah yes, Norway is one of the few countries that are generating huge amounts of money on the continuation of global warming. While it’s probably true that most people in Norway feel a bit ashamed about this fact the second largest political party (as of the 2005 parliamentary elections) in Norway, the Fremskrittspartiet (shortly translated to the “progress party”), wants to gain more votes by downplaying the severity of climate change.

All the other major political parties in Norway acknowledge the severity of man-made climate change and have unanimously decided on tougher actions against climate change.

So why would a sane political party go against all trustworthy scientific reports you might ask? Well, what would you expect from a conservative political party like Fremskrittspartiet. A political party that advocates free market economics and deregulation of the economy, stricter limits on immigration, closer cooperation with NATO, United States and Israel in foreign policy and less state aid to developing countries. One of Fremskrittspartiet’s goals is to limit immigration to 100 people per year (Source: Dagens Nyheter 11/4/2008). They especially want to stop Muslims, illiterate and poor people from coming to Norway.

The party leader Siv Jensen believes that by denying global warming the Fremskrittspartiet will attract more voters from the other political parties in Norway and might have a chance to win the coming election from the current red-green government.

By educating 1000 party members to confront the “exaggerated” public and scientific opinion about climate change and to use chosen “scientists” in the election campaign Siv Jensen hopes to profile Fremskrittspartiet as the “deviant and sane voice” in Norwegian politics.

The message will be advertised in the largest newspapers in Sweden. They will also fill Stockholm’s (the Swedish capital) subway with print ads (see image example below) and web advertisements on Aftonbladet.se, a large newspaper in Sweden (where you could probably find many global warming deniers).

I don’t really understand why they need to spend money on a campaign targeted against the very small minority of global warming deniers, mostly old men who votes for right wing parties, in Sweden. But I hope the people who see the advertisements will see/understand the whole message and not only the “satire” slogans like “co2 is our future” or “the greenhouse effect is fake”.

Here are three videos from “the friends of co2” that are parts in the advertisement campaign: