GBDS.US News Articles CRC

Haiti Earthquake Relief: How You Can Help | Huffington Post

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:00:00 -0800

Huffington Post Impact has put together a comprehensive list of links to donate and get involved in relief efforts for victims of Tuesday's devastating earthquake. You can also go to The Goods: Help Send Relief To Haiti, an online store by Causecast and HuffPost Impact, where you can purchase products for organizations that will be directly used on the ground in Haiti.

The U.S. State Department Operations Center has set up the following number for Americans seeking information about family members in Haiti: 1-888-407-4747

The American Red Cross is pledging an initial $200,000 to assist communities impacted by this earthquake. They expect to provide immediate needs for food, water, temporary shelter, medical services and emotional support. They are accepting donations through their International Response Fund.
UNICEF has issued a statement that "Children are always the most vulnerable population in any natural disaster, and UNICEF is there for them." UNICEF requests donations for relief for children in Haiti via their Haiti Earthquake Fund. You can also call 1-800-4UNICEF.
Donate through Wyclef Jean's foundation, Yele Haiti. Text "Yele" to 501501 and $5 will be charged to your phone bill and given to relief projects through the organization.
Operation USA is appealing for donations of funds from the public and corporate donations in bulk of health care materials, water purification supplies and food supplements which it will ship to the region from its base in the Port of Los Angeles. Donate online at www.opusa.org, by phone at 1-800-678-7255 or, by check made out to Operation USA, 3617 Hayden Ave, Suite A, Culver City, CA 90232.
Save The Children has launched an emergency relief effort for Haiti. Donate to their fund to provide medical attention and clean water to children and families.
International Medical Corps is assembling a team of first responders and resources to provide lifesaving medical care and other emergency services to survivors of the earthquake. The IMC previously helped recovery efforts after September 2009's earthquake in Sumatra, Indonesia, and the massive 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. Donate to the International Medical Corps through their 24-hour hotline at 800-481-4462
Ben Stiller's Stillerstrong campaign will be temporarily diverting all donations to support the Haiti relief effort.
Partners In Health reports its Port-au-Prince clinical director , Louise Ivers, has appealed for assistance: "Port-au-Prince is devastated, lot of deaths. SOS. SOS... Temporary field hospital by us at UNDP needs supplies, pain meds, bandages. Please help us." Donate to their Haiti earthquake fund.
As a UN Special Envoy to Haiti, Bill Clinton appeared on CNN on Wednesday to ask for further assistance in bringing relief to populations on the ground. You can donate through the Clinton Foundation or text HAITI to 20222 to donate $10.
Mercy Corps is sending a team of emergency responders to assess damage, and seek to fulfill immediate needs of quake survivors. The agency aided families after earthquakes in Peru in 2007, China and Pakistan in 2008, and Indonesia last year. Donate online, call 1-888-256-1900 or send checks to Mercy Corps Haiti Earthquake Fund; Dept NR; PO Box 2669; Portland, OR 97208.
Doctors Without Borders is on the ground and has set up clinics to treat injured in Haiti. Donate any amount so they can keep their efforts going.
Direct Relief is committing up to $1 million in aid for the response and is coordinating with its other in-country partners and colleague organizations. Their partners in Haiti include Partners in Health, St. Damien Children's Hospital, and the Visitation Hospital, which are particularly active in emergency response. Donate to Direct Relief online.
Oxfam is rushing in teams from around the region to respond to the situation to provide clean water, shelter, sanitation and help people recover. Donate to Oxfam America online.
The UN World Food Programme is gathering all available resources to deliver food to the recently homeless and impoverished in Haiti. Donate now to help bring food to those affected as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The Baptist Haiti Mission is operating an 82-bed hospital that is "overflowing with injured." Donate online to BHM and 100% of your donation will go to the relief effort.
International Medical Corps is assembling a team of first responders and resources to provide lifesaving medical care and other emergency services to survivors of the earthquake. Donate online.
Following the earthquake, Catholic Relief Services made an immediate commitment of $5 million for emergency supplies. They are distributing food and relief supplies, and importing plastic sheeting, mosquito nets and water purification tablets from the Domincan Republic. Donate to Catholic Relief Services to assist in these efforts.
Give to the American Jewish World Service's Earthquake Relief Fund.
CARE is deploying emergency team members to Port-au-Prince today to assist in recovery efforts. They're focusing their efforts on rescuing children who may still be trapped in schools that collapsed. Donate to CARE.
Orphans International America reports that they have been able to make contact with their program director in the town of Jacmel, a city about 20 miles southwest of Port-au-Prince that houses OI's hospitals and schools. Orphans International America is attempting to gather food, clean water and emergency medical supplies to Jacmel. You can contribute to them through PayPal.
The International Rescue Committee is deploying an emergency response team to Haiti to deliver urgent assistance to earthquake survivors and to help overwhelmed local aid groups struggling to meet the immense emergency needs. They will focus on critical medical, water and sanitation assistance. Donate to the IRC Haiti Crisis Fund.
NetHope is coordinating its response with its NGO member agencies and with the UN's Emergency Telecom Cluster to establish connectivity in Haiti. Seventeen of NetHope's members are already providing aid and deploying resources on the ground. Donate online.
The Haitian Health Foundation is still assessing the situation of their full-time facilities and staff in Haiti. They regularly provide health care, development and relief to rural mountain villages in Haiti. Donate to the Haitian Health Foundation.
World Vision has more 370 staff in the country. Staff members from less-affected regions of Haiti are mobilizing, and World Vision's global experts are expected to arrive in the disaster zone as soon as possible. Donate to World Vision.
The Jewish Federations of North America is partnering with the American Jewish Joint Distribution committee and have created a dedicated Haiti Relief page for online donations.
United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) is the UN's humanitarian fund responding to emergencies like the earthquake in Haiti. Donate online.
Friends of the Orphans will use donations to meet the needs of first responders such as first aid supplies, shipping of necessary materials to assist in efforts, and treating the injured. Those interested in helping the relief effort can visit www.friendsoftheorphans.org, or call 888-201-8880 to make a donation.
World Concern's staff is almost entirely composed of Haitian nationals and will be tapping into private as well as U.S. government supplies to help in the relief effort it hopes will soon be supplemented by cargo ships. Donate to World Concern.
Merlin USA is sending an emergency response team out to the region and have subsequently launched an emergency appeal to bring urgent medical aid and assistance to those affected. Donate to Merlin USA.
The Salvation Army has staff on the ground and already the organization has set aside $50,000 in direct aid to the country but the organization is in need of additional donations. Donations can be made online or by calling 1-800-SAL-ARMY.
The American Refugee Committee is sending a response team to provide water, sanitation, and shelter for earthquake survivors. Donate online or read about their volunteer opportunities.
AmeriCares has pledged $5 million in aid in the wake of the catastrophe and is sending an emergency shipment with $3 million worth of medicines and supplies for earthquake survivors. Donate online or call 1-800-486-HELP.
Handicap International will provide care to those injured by the earthquake and its aftershocks, including support to hospitals for essential post-surgery and rehabilitation care, as well as emergency shelter, emergency basic needs and food distribution for at least 5,000 people initially. Donate online.
Episcopal Relief & Development has committed to providing Haiti both long and short-term support in the wake of the disaster. Donate to the Haiti Fund or call 1-800-334-7626, ext. 5129. Gifts can be mailed to Episcopal Relief & Development, PO Box 7058, Merrifield, VA 22116-7058.

HuffPost Impact is following relief organizations in Haiti and will be updating with their latest messages from the ground.

Source: Huffington Post

Eureka Earthquake: Twitter Pics Tell the Story | Mashable

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 04:00:00 -0800

A strong earthquake (magnitude 6.5) hit Northern California today, breaking windows and taking out power lines in some areas. The quake hit at 4:27 pm PT, with the epicenter around 25 miles from Eureka.

Being a Saturday with most of the news media not at work, it was left to Twitter to tell the story, with users posting pics to photo site Twitpic () almost immediately.

Here are the most retweeted Twitpics from the incident, all of them from @amyeureka her full Twitter feed paints a picture of the damage more detailed than any news outlet has achieved. More photos...

Source: Mashable

The Cancer Risk Lurking in Your Drinking Water | E/The Environmental Magazine

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:00:00 -0800

EarthTalk is a Q&A column from E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I am very concerned about the amount of chlorine in my tap water. I called my water company and they said it is safe, just let the tap run for awhile to rid the smell of chlorine. But that just gets rid of the smell, perhaps, not the chlorine? -- Anita Frigo, Milford, CT

Thousands of American municipalities add chlorine to their drinking water to neutralize contaminants. "Chlorine, added as an inexpensive and effective drinking water disinfectant, is also a known poison to the body," says Vanessa Lausch of filter manufacturer Aquasana. "It is certainly no coincidence that chlorine gas was used with deadly effectiveness as a weapon in the First World War." The gas would severely burn the lungs and other body tissues when inhaled, and is no less powerful when ingested by mouth.

Lausch adds that researchers have now linked chlorine in drinking water to higher incidences of bladder, rectal and breast cancers. Reportedly chlorine, once in water, interacts with organic compounds to create trihalomethanes (THMs) -- which when ingested encourage the growth of free radicals that can destroy or damage vital cells in the body. "Because so much of the water we drink ends up in the bladder and/or rectum, ingestions of THMs in drinking water are particularly damaging to these organs," says Lausch.

The link between chlorine and bladder and rectal cancers has long been known, but only recently have researchers found a link between common chlorine disinfectant and breast cancer, which affects one out of every eight American women. A recent study conducted in Hartford, Connecticut found that women with breast cancer have 50-60% higher levels of organochlorines (chlorine by-products) in their breast tissue than cancer-free women.

But don't think that buying bottled water is any solution. Much of the bottled water for sale in the U.S. comes from public municipal water sources that are often treated with, you guessed it, chlorine. A few cities have switched over to other means of disinfecting their water supplies. Las Vegas, for example, has followed the lead of many European and Canadian cities in switching over to ozone instead of chlorine to disinfect its municipal water supply.

As for getting rid of the chlorine that your city or town adds to its drinking water on your own, theories abound. Some swear by the method of letting their water sit for 24 hours so that the chlorine in the glass or pitcher will off-gas. Letting the tap run for a while is not likely to remove any sizable portion of chlorine, unless one were to then let the water sit overnight before consuming it. Another option to consider may be a product called WaterYouWant, which looks like sugar but actually is composed of tasteless antioxidants and plant extracts. The manufacturer claims that a quick shake of the stuff removes 100% of the chlorine (and its odor) from a glass a tap water. A year's supply of WaterYouWant retails for under $30.

Of course, an easier way to get rid of chlorine from your tap water is by installing a carbon-based filter, which absorbs chlorine and other contaminants before they get into your glass or body. Tap-based filters from the likes of Paragon, Aquasana, Kenmore, Seagul and others remove most if not all of the chlorine in tap water, and are relatively inexpensive to boot.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it here or via e-mail. Read past columns here and check out the recent book Earthtalk: Expert Answers to Everyday Questions about the Environment

Source: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/chlorine-drinking-water-460110?src=rss#ixzz0bgvslfL2

Obama gets high marks for green record: environmental group | Reuters

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:00:00 -0800

President Barack Obama came into office with climate change and the environment on his list of top priorities.

Nearly a year later, one of the top environmental groups in the United States says that Obama has made the grade so far.

In a review of his green record, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) highlighted dozens of moves by Obama at home and abroad. They cited the $50 billion the president put in the stimulus package for cleaner energy and energy efficiency; an executive order for federal agencies to set targets to cut emissions by 2020; and the adoption of strict auto emissions standards, modeled after environmental trendsetter California.

Abroad, the group said that Obama has restored U.S. leadership in the arena of climate change. They pointed to Obamas efforts to secure an accord at the global climate change summit in Copenhagen an outcome that the president has said people are justified in being disappointed with and to partner with China, India and Latin America on clean energy.

Perhaps the brightest spot on Obamas green record is also his biggest challenge in 2010.

Early on in his first year, the president called on Congress to pass legislation to combat climate change. Getting that legislation passed now sits at the top of the list for his second year at the White House, the group concluded.

(Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama takes a tour of DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center in Arcadia, Florida in October. Photo credit: Reuters/Jim Young)

Source: Environment Forum

Which way will the wind (power) blow in 2010? | Reuters

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:00:00 -0800

The United States became the No. 1 wind power market in the world in 2008. But under the credit crisis in 2009, the building of new wind farms slackened and the United States ceded its top global spot to China.

With the demand for renewable energy still growing, the American Wind Energy Association is eyeing 2010 as a critical year. Here are some of their top trends to watch for:

Second to natural gas: Wind power generates only 2 percent of the U.S. electrical supply. But new wind power generation in the United States has been second only to natural gas generation in terms of new capacity built each year since 2005. Watch for the industry to work to keep that spot.

Wind turbines ratchet up the power: General Electric won a $1.4 billion contract in December to supply 338 turbines for a massive new wind farm in Oregon being built by energy producer Caithness Energy LLC. The size of the turbines 2.5 megawatts forecasts a shift to larger turbines, driven by economics, the wind group said. Taller turbines with larger swept areas produce more power at a lower cost per kilowatt-hour.

Market for small projects grows: The trade group predicts small wind projects for homeowners and small businesses will see record growth, fueled by an expansion of a 30-percent investment tax credit.

Industry seeks advice on where to put projects: Wind farm developers have to win regulatory approval for their projects, which have sparked conflict with conservationists at times. To ease the process of clearing those hurdles and finding sites for projects, the industry is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plus other federal agencies and nonprofits to get more clarity on wildlife surveys and other required studies. Will more guidelines be enough to speed up the development?

States, regions work on transmission: The industry is looking to states and regions to move toward investing in transmission needed to move electricity from often remote wind farms to the cities that use the power. The trade group is eyeing the Midwest in particular and whether its independent system operator that manages the regional power grid for 15 states and one Canadian province follows Texas and the Southwest region in how it invests in new transmission lines.

(Photo: A finished wind turbine complex is shown in southern Wyoming in 2009 where environmentalists feared further development could threaten habitat such as sage brush and species such as the greater sage grouse. Photo credit: Reuters)

Source: Environment Forum

Factchecking Al Gore and Sarah Palin on Climate Science | Factcheck.orgt

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:00:00 -0800

Factcheck.org is one of The Daily Green's trusted sources of information. Here's one of its latest, truth-checking the global warming claims made by polar opposites Al Gore and Sarah Palin.

On Dec. 9, an op-ed by Sarah Palin on climate change ran in the Washington Post. Al Gore responded to Palins piece and made some fresh claims of his own later that day in an interview with MSNBC. The original Inconvenient Truther and the oil pipeline proponent actually had some common ground both agreed that global warming was real. However, they differed on almost every other point, starting with whether that warming has anything to do with human activity. We find that both engaged in some distortions and have been rightly called out by experts in the field.

Gore said that 40 percent of the polar ice cap is already gone. Thats an outdated figure it has recovered in the last two years, and is now about 24 percent smaller than the 1979-2000 average.
Gores claim that all Arctic ice would "go completely" over the next decade is greatly exaggerated. The scientist he is citing was actually talking about nearly ice-free conditions, and only in the summer months.
Gore and Palin both left out information when discussing the economic impact of climate legislation. Gore dodged a question about job losses, and Palin ignored the potentially severe effects of doing nothing.
Palin misrepresented the contents of the leaked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit, saying that they show "fraudulent scientific practices." Thats not the case.

A Convenient Exaggeration

Gore offered some stale scientific data and some overly grim predictions when he said the "entire north polar ice cap, which has been there for most of the last 3 million years, is disappearing before our eyes. Forty percent is already gone. The rest is expected to go completely within the next decade."

The north polar ice cap is melting at rates that are certainly cause for concern. But its not going quite as fast as Gore says. Gores 40 percent figure is outdated. Arctic ice levels, as measured by the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado - Boulder, were 40 percent lower at the end of the summer of 2007 than the average observed from 1979 to 2000. But the totals have actually increased for two consecutive years since. According to a release from the scientists, the average ice cover was 5.36 million square kilometers for the month of September 2009 -- at the annual minimum, compared with the 1979 to 2000 September average of 7.04 million square kilometers. Thats a difference of about 24 percent, not 40% as Gore said. (As of early December, sea ice extent during the annual re-freezing was running just above the record-low extent set in 2007, and about 9% below average.)

And Gore was wildly off the mark when he predicted that all Arctic ice would "go completely within the next decade."

We should point out that ice levels in the Arctic region change seasonally. During the summer months some ice melts, and then waters freeze again in winter as the temperature goes down. The levels of summer melting have been going up for a number of years, and this could eventually lead to very minimal ice coverage during the summer.

One researcher, Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Post-Graduate School, made a projection in 2007 that a nearly ice-free arctic summer might occur as early as 2013, though he recently moved that back to 2020. But saying the north polar ice cap will be entirely gone is hyperbole. Even the most dramatic projections, such as Maslowskis, do not say the ice would be gone during the winter months.

Gore noted these caveats himself a few days later while presenting at the U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen when he said:

Gore: Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.

Even here, Gore was being a bit aggressive with his claims of "ice free" summers. In fact, Maslowski, whose work Gore cited, complained to the U.K. Telegraph that "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.... I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean.

Environment and Economy

Gore and Palin both made some roughly factual statements about the effect of climate change proposals on the economy. Palin said that proposed cap-and-tax [sic] plans will result in job losses, and shes right. Gore, by contrast, said that "the response to global warming can bring jobs back" and hes right, too. Overall, nonpartisan experts, including Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, agree that proposed cap-and-trade legislation will kill some jobs, create others and ultimately have a small but negative effect on employment probably.

But neither combatant gave the full picture here. Gore, when asked about the economic effect of climate proposals, responded: "I think that the losses of jobs started a long time ago with the outsourcing to other countries for a variety of reasons, including the cheaper labor costs," he said. "Its not not because of the response to global warming." Thats called dodging the question.

Palin, meanwhile, presented potential job losses and tax increases as evidence that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. But if scientists are correct, the potential cost of doing nothing could be severe. The Congressional Budget Office said earlier this year:

CBO, September 2009: A strong consensus has developed in the expert community that, if allowed to continue unabated, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will have extensive, highly uncertain, but potentially serious and costly impacts on regional climates throughout the world. Those impacts are expected to include widespread changes in the physical environment, changes in biological systems (including agriculture), and changes in the viability of some economic sectors.

Palin Jumps the Gun

In her op-ed, Palin said that stolen e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.s University of East Anglia show that we lack trustworthy science on the subject of climate change, and she argued that President Obama should have boycotted the U.N.s Copenhagen summit as a protest against the "fraudulent scientific practices" the e-mails expose. But her catastrophic conclusions about the e-mails are not supported by the evidence.

Palin wrote: The e-mails reveal that leading climate experts deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to hide the decline in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. As we said in our article about "climategate", though, there are two ongoing investigations, but so far theres no evidence that deception or blacklisting actually occurred.

The decline under discussion is well-represented in the scientific literature, not covered up. The e-mail in question refers to supplementing tree-ring data with direct temperature readings in order to avoid an artificial dip where the two diverge; the divergence is not fully understood, but it has clearly not been buried. And while its true that a few of the e-mails discuss the feasibility of barring skeptics from editorial positions, theres so far no evidence that this actually occurred.

Palin also said that the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. It is certainly fair to say that experts are not of a single mind about climate science. Groups of experts the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the national academies of science of 13 countries including the U.S., the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society and others agree that the planet is warming due to increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that human activity is in no small part responsible for the increases. But the specifics are, as in any science, a matter of study, research and debate.

One e-mail exchange between Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory scientist Edward Cook and University of Virginia scientist Michael Mann shows what scientific debate can look like in the climate field. After some back-and-forth about Cooks temperature reconstruction and his conclusions about the medieval warming period, Mann writes: Lets figure this all out based on good, careful work and see what the data has to say in the end. Were working towards this ourselves, using revised methods and including borehole data, etc. and will keep everyone posted on this. Cook sums up:

I am quite happy to work this stuff through in a careful way and am happy to discuss it all with you. I certainly dont want the work to be viewed as an attack on previous work such as yours. Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I dont care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it.

Palin is right that not all climate scientists agree on everything. But shes wrong to imply that this invalidates the field or undermines the conclusions on which they do agree.

Source: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/palin-gore-climate-science-47122101?src=rss#ixzz0bgYbIPOU

Beyond Copenhagen: sub-national solutions are now key | Reuters

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:00:00 -0800

Editor's Note: Julian Hunt is visiting professor at Delft University and formerly director general of the UK meteorological office. Charles Kennel is distinguished professor of atmospheric science, emeritus and senior advisor to the sustainability solutions institute, UCSD. The opinions expressed are their own.

The non-legally binding deal agreed at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen among the U.S., China, Brazil, South Africa and India, has brought to a conclusion what has proved an extraordinarily complex set of negotiations.

The outcome has been criticised on numerous grounds and, in U.S. President Barack Obamas own words, We have much further to go.

In effect, the agreement may ultimately amount to no more than a long-term climate change dialogue between Washington and Beijing. While global action to tackle emissions of carbon dioxide must remain a priority, the fact remains that we may be heading towards a future in which no long-term, comprehensive successor to the Kyoto regime is politically possible.

One of the chief flaws in the Copenhagen negotiations was the fact that the overly-ambitious political deals being discussed were not realistic, nor framed to inspire people to act and collaborate with each other across the world on both a local and regional level. Going forwards, national governments will need to be more honest about future likely emissions and also of future temperature changes. In this crucial debate, scientists must be free to state their estimates without political bias.

In the absence of a new global deal, it is now crucial that the centre of gravity of decision-making on how we respond to climate change moves towards the sub-national level. This may also have the effect of re-energising future global climate change talks as environment diplomacy could certainly be furthered by policies decided at the local and regional level.

The need for such a paradigm shift from a top-down to a bottom-up approach is becoming clearer by the day.

Over the last decade, records of weather and climate trends have revealed larger and more unusual regional and local variations some unprecedented since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Among such warning signs are the disappearing ice fields around the poles and on all mountain ranges, more frequent droughts in Africa and now in wet regions (such as the 2006 drought in Assam India, previously one of the wettest places in the world), floods in dry regions (as recently, the worst floods in 50 years in northwest India), and ice storms in sub-tropical China in 2008 (for the first time in 150 years).

Such extreme events threaten sustainable development around the world, natural environments are destroyed irreversibly, and economic growth is slowed.

One of the most compelling advocates this month at Copenhagen for sub-national solutions for tackling climate change was California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. As the state of California, and legislators in Globe and city governments are putting into practice, adaptation needs to build on existing knowledge and infrastructures in local settings.

Forming loose collaborative networks will enable regional facilitation centres, their experts and decision makers to learn from one another and also draw upon the resources of existing national and international databases and programmes, such as those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) and the growing number of consortia linking major cities, local governments, and the private sector.

Experience shows that this bottom-up approach works very effectively as it is only generally when sub-national areas learn how they will be specifically affected by climate change that widespread, grassroots political action can be aroused.

Although regional variations in climate change are approximately predicted by IPCC global climate models, more local measurements and studies are needed for sub-national governments, industry and agriculture to better understand their local climatic situation and develop reliable and effective strategies to deal with all the ways that climate change affects their activities and well being.

Hence, the increasing numbers of regional monitoring centres which, by communicating and interpreting these predictions and uncertainties, are contributing towards local adaptation plans:

   In China, where provinces require targets for power station construction, regional environmental and climate change centres are now well developed.
   In the United States, a recent report has highlighted the value of non-official centres, such as a severe storm centre in Oklahoma, which gives independent advice to communities and businesses, while relying on government programmes for much of the data.
   In Brazil, a regional data centre is providing data and predictions about agriculture and deforestation and informs legislation about policy options.

What this activity points to is the need for a global network of such centres to support national climate initiatives, and to facilitate international funding and technical cooperation in delivering the right information to the right place, at the right time.

Local actions can only be effective if measurements of climate and environment are made regularly and are publicised as well as information about targets, and projections of emissions. Experience shows that full exposure is needed about what is happening, what is planned, and how every individual can be involved (as the Danes show by their community investment in wind power).

Historically, it is cities that have helped lead the vanguard towards tackling major environmental challenges.

It is therefore unsurprising that it is individual cities that are seeking to adopt some of the most innovative ways of adapting to worsening climate hazards, including showing how to integrate these measures with considerable savings in costs such as putting windmills on dykes as in Rotterdam.

For instance, a recent civic exchange meeting in Hong Kong considered solutions for how major cities in China will strive to reach targets for reductions in emissions as stringent as those in developed countries. This is a very ambitious objective, since in China the carbon emission per person per year is 6 tons, compared with 10 tons in the EU, and 25 tons in the United States.

Taken overall, the cumulative effect of such sub-national actions may well determine the speed and effectiveness of global responses to climate change. The message is clear. Localisation of action and data must be the post-Copenhagen priority if we are to tackle the global warming menace.

Source: Environment Forum

**********

"It is a matter of enormous satisfaction to many people that this juggernaut of dubious science, commercial interest and politics has hit a stumbling block. As a scientist and the owner of a scientific software company I have been appalled by the grandiosity of the 'colleagues' who have used every dirty trick known to bad science to promote themselves, damage their opponents and pull the wool over the eyes of the public. The world has gigantic problems which need to be addressed directly: the population explosion, general pollution, the shortage of clean water, grinding poverty, lack of medical care etc. Money needs to be spent on these and not channelled into the pockets of the carbon kleptocrats."

-Posted by John Lamble

Weatherization heats up in 2010 | Reuters

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:00:00 -0800

President Barack Obama certainly is walking the walk when it comes to weatherizing Americas homes.

Five billion dollars was included in the economic stimulus legislation for the Weatherization Assistance Program, the federal program started in 1976 to help low-income families.

And more recently the president has proposed a cash for caulkers incentive program for homeowners modeled on the successful cash for clunkers autos program earlier this year.

He has called weatherization a smart thing to do. I couldnt agree more.

Community action agencies have been operating the Weatherization Assistance Program locally since its inception, and we are geared up for a busy 2010 when the president expects half a million homes to be retrofitted with proper insulation, new windows, modernized heating and the like to make them more energy efficient.

Since it was started, the Weatherization Assistance Program has provided services to 6.2 million low-income families who cannot afford the cost of the repairs.

What I like most about the program is that it is diagnostically driven, using a blower door that demonstrates how much air is infiltrating the home. With this information, we can determine how best to make the fixes necessary to reduce a familys energy use and utility bills.

The government estimates low-income families save an average of $350 or more each year after their homes are weatherized.

The program also tests for carbon monoxide levels in homes with gas appliances, so that when the house is tightened it does not create a health issue for residents.

But the benefits of the program extend beyond those that go directly to the homeowner.

It creates employment 52 direct jobs and 23 indirect ones for every million dollars invested, according to federal estimates. That gives people the opportunity to work for a decent wage and, in some cases, the ability to move to higher-paying jobs within the building trades.

With the national employment rate at 10 percent, that is no small thing.

The program also reduces national energy demand by the equivalent of 18 million barrels of oil per year, and it helps the environment by reducing harmful emissions.

Overall, the Department of Energy estimates that for every dollar invested, weatherization returns $1.65 in energy-related benefits and $1.07 in other benefits like reducing pollution and unemployment.

Statistics like these are important, but whats more important to me is what President Obamas $5 billion belief in the Weatherization Assistance Program will mean on the ground.

With weatherized homes, families no longer are too cold in the winter, and they can spend their energy savings on food, medicine and other necessities of life.

Contractors can avoid layoffs and actually add to their workforce. Once-jobless workers will be trained and employed retrofitting homes to make them more energy efficient. Thanks to the greatly increased funds for weatherization in the stimulus bill, there will be more stories like these.

Community action agencies have been involved in this work for a long time, and 2010 promises to be our busiest year ever. But our experience tells us with certainty that more weatherized homes are good for the country both economically and environmentally. Its time to get to work.

John W. Edwards, Jr. is board chair of Community Action Partnership, which represents more than 1,000 community action agencies that work to fight poverty at the local level. He is also executive director of the Northeast Florida Community Action Agency.

(Photo shows U.S. President Barack Obama visits a Northern Virginia Home Depot to discuss home improvements and energy savings in Alexandria, Virginia December 15, 2009. REUTERS/Larry Downing)

Source: Environment Forum

Carbon trading and a new climate deal | Reuters

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:00:00 -0800

A key component of a prospective climate deal coming into Copenhagen has been the targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Targets would help put a price on carbon emissions that could then be bought and sold under a cap and trade scheme. (Click here for a related article.)

Proponents of the potentially lucrative market say it provides clear incentives to reach targets or even overshoot them, while opponents say the system would give big polluters a way around any targets.

That leads to our question of the day: What role should carbon trading play in a new U.N. climate deal?

***************

Karen Alderman Harbert, president and CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

The single most important element for an international climate agreement to be successful is to ensure that the enormous sums of capital that is needed to transform the worlds energy sector can be invested.

The trillions in private sector investment required for that transformation will dwarf the size of any carbon market.

However, carbon markets, where they are used, should strive to support private sector investment and innovation.

It is important that these markets be transparent and have integrity. Even more important, because of the sheer volume of potential trades, safeguards need to be in place to reduce the risk of manipulation and fraud.

Thats why how we measure, report, and verify reductions is a key issue for business.

Without sound accounting standards, these markets will not have any integrity.

As the Major Economies Business Forum statement said, Business, based on its long experience with greenhouse gas and financial reporting, stands ready to help define and implement the appropriate tools.

We also need to be very concerned about proposals that would set up huge new global regulatory bodies to oversee any such market.

There would be no quicker way to squelch investments than to subject business to a burdensome international regulatory entity.

That would be a step backwards from the transparency and predictability that is at the cornerstone of any successful approach.

While a global greenhouse gas market will not appear in the short run, regional markets should be simplified and improved to facilitate expansion and linking, where they are employed.

Addressing potential transitions involving existing and emerging mechanisms will be necessary, maintaining clear and common rules and transparency.

In particular, the CDM should be enhanced and simplified for broader private sector utilization.

****************

Knut Alfsen, Head Research Director, CICERO

At one level the climate problem is really easy. All it requires is the development and implementation of clean or climate friendly technologies on a massive scale.

Now, the implementation bit is again easy. Just make the right (i.e. climate friendly) choice the cheapest.

This will happen if we put a high enough price on greenhouse gas emissions, either by directly taxing the emissions, or by giving emission rights a price by introducing a cap and trade system.

So far the choice under the U.N. climate convention and the Kyoto protocol has been a cap and trade system.

Thus, carbon (or greenhouse gas) trading is essential for implementing the climate friendly solutions, and hence should play a large role in any climate treaty.

However, implementing existing climate-friendly solutions is not enough. We also need to develop through research and demonstration projects, new climate-friendly options.

Unfortunately, a cap and trade system alone is unlikely to deliver the necessary technological development. Thus, we need something in addition to the cap and trade mechanism.

This could be the introduction of standards or other regulations, or it could be direct public support (money!) for research and development activities.

As mentioned, the main focus of the climate negotiations has so far been on emission regulations via a cap and trade system.

It is high time that the other half of the solution is being addressed.

My belief is that this will also mitigate the confrontational stance we have seen between developed and developing countries so far, and foster a more cooperative spirit around the task of developing new technologies.

In conclusion, carbon trade is an important bit of any climate treaty, but should not be as dominating as it has been till now.

***************

(Photo: People watch an illuminated so-called CO2 cube in the water of St Jorgens Lake in front of Tycho Brahe Planetarium in Copenhagen, December 7, 2009. The cube visually shows the amount of carbon dioxide produced by an average person in one month. REUTERS/Pawel Kopczynski)

Source: Environment Forum

GBDS.US News Articles CRC

Haiti Earthquake Relief: How You Can Help | Huffington Post

Eureka Earthquake: Twitter Pics Tell the Story | Mashable

The Cancer Risk Lurking in Your Drinking Water | E/The Environmental Magazine

Top 15 Stories from 2009 | Earth2Tech

Obama gets high marks for green record: environmental group | Reuters

Which way will the wind (power) blow in 2010? | Reuters

Factchecking Al Gore and Sarah Palin on Climate Science | Factcheck.orgt

A Convenient Exaggeration

Environment and Economy

Palin Jumps the Gun

Beyond Copenhagen: sub-national solutions are now key | Reuters

Weatherization heats up in 2010 | Reuters

Carbon trading and a new climate deal | Reuters