Bad News from Juan Cole:

"It is hard to decide which is the worst news in the International Energy Agency’s new study.

"The central piece of bad news is that as the world recovers from the 2008-2009 crash, it is spewing record amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In 2010 human beings sent 30.6 gigatons of carbon into the air, 5% more than in 2008, beating that previous record.

"A lot of the sources of emission are fixed coal and other hydrocarbon plants that will likely go on operating through 2020, suggesting that there will be annual increases in emissions into the next decade.

"In turn, this steady production of atmospheric poison, which causes the atmosphere to retain the heat of sunlight and interferes with it being radiated back out into outer space, is likely to increase the average global surface temperature by more than 2 degrees. Climate scientists had hoped that international protocols and government efforts would hold the increase to that amount. An average increase of 3 degrees would suggest that in some times and places it would be hellish, with a deleterious impact on crops and human health.

"Oxfam has just issued a warning that food staples will likely double in price by 2030, in part because of climate change. A billion people in the world go hungry already, and spend 80% of their income on food. If the world envisaged by Oxfam materializes, obviously there is the potential of widespread starvation.

"The Big Oil and Big Coal executives attempting to stop efforts to reduce emissions are thus in effect mass murderers of a future generation.

"America’s corporate police state has decided that ecological activism is a danger that it needs to spend millions combating. (In fact, genuine ‘eco-terrorism,’ as opposed to FBI entrapment of aging hippies, is rare.)

"Given what is being done to the planet, the FBI should instead be having agents sit outside Big Oil and Big Coal corporate offices tracing how the money goes out from them to buy our political representatives (that is illegal, guys) and have them work against green energy and engage in climate change denial."

A fake U.S. Chamber of Commerce press conference attended by real media reporters and crashed by a real C of C representative is quite amusing. The subject, which is the C of C's denial of climate change, is not:

Boy, doesn't this say it all:

In an effort to wring every last cent from anxious investors who've already lost a significant chunk of their retirement portfolios' worth, financial advisers are now saying that the impending $700B bailout is going to stabilize the housing and stock markets, and that investors should buy, buy, buy! Gee, where have we heard that before? How about after each government intervention during the past year? Lowered prime interest rates. Rescue Bear-Stearns, rescue Fannie/Freddie, rescue AIG, and now $700B of free money for losers. And don't forget, immediately after each rescue all the experts said that, if it wasn't for the government rescue of Company XYZ, the global markets would have crashed and the planet would have dived into a financial meltdown.

Yeah, right.

Not only is the latest bailout proposal the largest in history, it's also the worst financial decision in history. We are going to give money away to companies that are in dire financial straits. It's that simple. We're "investing" our tax dollars in the very companies that were the most mismanaged and thus suffered the worst losses. Is that the way you would invest your personal savings?

And to add insult to injury, reasonably smart taxpayers like myself who stayed out of the housing market the past six years are going to suffer because the idiots in Washington feel it's necessary to give my (and my children's) money to companies and individuals who made bad financial decisions. I mean, WTF?! Be smart, get punished. Be a greedy asswipe and get rewarded. Apparently that's the new American Way.

There's probably nothing any of us can do to stop the Bush Administration and, by The Order of the Subservient Sheep, the Democratic Congress from giving away our money and, in the process, spitting in the face of our youngest and soon-to-be taxpayers who will have to carry the burden of this financial ruin for the next several decades.

Right now the Congressional Democrats are pretending to stand up to Bush by insisting on a better method of giving away that $700B, but in the end it's all the same old same old. Bush will in essence get his way as the Dems roll over and lay back down in their still-warm spots, waiting to receive and follow Bush's next demand.

Only in the U.S. government will you find success in enacting the worst possible laws while its taxpayers, after 7+ years of being ramrodded over a wrong war, worstening healthcare, increasing unemployment, a national infrastructure as tenuous as a stack of Legos, decreasing real wages, worsening climate and loss of constitutionally-backed personal rights, still take it all and go back to watching American Idol.

We are SO deserving of what we get.

{cross-posted at Daily Kos]

Uh oh.... So. Cal. may be in for another period of serious brush fire danger next week:

ALTHOUGH MODELS ARE NOT IN WONDERFUL AGREEMENT BEYOND MONDAY...ALL SUGGEST THE POTENTIAL FOR A MAJOR AND POSSIBLY DAMAGING HIGH WIND EVENT FOR PORTIONS OF THE REGION MON NIGHT OR TUE INTO AT LEAST WED NIGHT. AS STRONG SHORT WAVE ENERGY DIGS INTO THE GREAT BASIN MON NIGHT AND TUE...WINDS ALOFT INCREASE DRAMATICALLY ACROSS THE AREA...AND A GOOD AREA OF STRONG SUBSIDENCE SPREADS ACROSS THE REGION. WITH GOOD THERMAL PACKING AND COLD AIR ADVECTION...EXPECT WIDESPREAD STRONG NORTHERLY WINDS TO DEVELOP MON NIGHT...AND TRANSITION TO A MORE NELY DIRECTION TUE AND WED. WHILE THE EXACT DETAILS OF THE TIMING OF THE STRONGEST WINDS ARE STILL IN QUESTION...GIVEN THE PROXIMITY OF THIS POTENTIAL WIND EVENT TO ONE OF THE BUSIEST TRAVEL DAYS OF THE YEAR AND THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY...IT SHOULD BE MONITORED EXTRA CAREFULLY BY INTERESTS IN SOUTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA. ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS AS THOUGH IT WILL BE A COOL EVENT...WINDS AND LOW RELATIVE HUMIDITIES WILL LIKELY CREATE MUCH HEIGHTENED FIRE DANGER.

The most recent international report on climate change may tragically underestimate the consequences of global warming:

The Arctic Melting

Time elapsed from NASA, from Andrew Sullivan.

Depending on your point of view, I guess this is either alarming (it's getting hot!) or exciting (hey, shorter trips around the world!):


Borrowed from Knowledge News (subscr. req.) Also, I have an issue with these types of graphs that skew the image by not showing the y-axis all the way down to zero.

From Friends of the Earth:

Many Thousands of Americans Apologize For US President Other G8 nations to get messages from Americans at odds with Bush on Global Warming. Tomorrow we make our first delivery to other G8 nations of the signatures to an apology for George Bush's rejection of practical steps in confronting global warming. As you probably know, Bush alone rejected German Chancellor Angela Merkel's proposal that the G8 nations meeting this week agree to limit global warming to 2-degrees Celsius. Friends of the Earth set up a way for people to sign on to an apology to the G8 coordinators from the other nations and you responded with enthusiasm. We will continue delivering signatures until the meeting ends on Friday. Sign here

Paradox Pimps Richardson

Paradox at The Left Coaster makes some points on Bill Richardson.

I’m not this thundering prophet of doom condemning people for chemistry mistakes, all right? I am a simple, tiny citizen who just wants to do the right thing. If enough of us do the right thing then there’s a chance for good to happen, with no chance of change if we don’t try. From my very casual perch of taking in the 2008 Democratic candidates only Bill Richardson has made it through the clutter with an energy plan (along with a very good Iraq plan to get everything out by the end of 2008). I’m certainly open to voting for him at this point just for that energy plan, how energy is not a primary element of Democratic politics is unconscionable.

Now go on and throw something in that tip jar we have for Bill.

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" fails to mention man's biggest contribution to global warming:

Throwing the earth on the mercy of the market Al Gore appeared before a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on global warming on March 21. The star of "An Inconvenient Truth" was told by Cong. Joe Barton of Texas: "You're not just off a little -- you're totally wrong." In the afternoon Gore testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, during which the former vice president was told by Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma: "You've been so extreme in some of your expressions that you're losing some of your own people."[11] These members of Congress know the facts of economic life in the United States. Fighting global warming is a threat to the principal human generator of it -- corporations -- who avail themselves of the best congress members money can buy to keep government regulations as weak as can be. Does Al Gore know the same facts of American economic life? Of course, but you would have a hard time discerning that from his film. It's as cowardly in dealing with the corporations as Gore was in fighting the theft of the 2000 election. In the film's hour and a half, the words "corporations" or "profit" are not heard. The closest he comes to ascribing a link between the rape of the environment and the incessant corporate drive to optimize profits is a single passing mention of American automakers' reluctance to increase car gas mileage. He discusses the link between tobacco and lung cancer, as an example of how we have to "connect the dots" on environmental issues, with no mention of the tobacco corporations or their gross and deliberate deception of the American people. He states at another point that we must choose the environment over the economy, without any elucidation at all. Otherwise, the film's message is that it's up to the individual to change his habits, to campaign for renewable energy, and to write his congress member about this or that. In summary, the basic problem, he tells us, is that we're lacking "political will". It would be most interesting if Al Gore were the president to see how tough he'd get with the corporations, which every day, around the clock, are faced with choices: one method of operation available being the least harmful to the environment, another method being the least harmful to the bottom line. Of course, Gore was vice-president for eight years and was in a fantastic and enviable position to pressure the corporations to mend their ways and Congress to enact tougher regulations; as well as to educate the public on more than their own bad habits. But what exactly did he do? Can any readers enlighten me as to what extent the man used his position and his power then in a manner consistent with the image and the word of his new film? But could Gore be elected without corporate money? And how much of that money would reach his pocket if he advocated (choke, gasp!) free government-paid public transportation -- rail, bus, ferry, etc.? That would give birth to a breathtaking -- or rather, breath enhancing -- reduction in automobile pollution; easily paid for by ceasing America's imperialist wars. [11] Washington Post, March 22, 2007, p.2 William Blum

From a newsletter that I received today:

TAKE A STEP: SWITCH TO COMPACT FLUORESCENT BULBS Replacing just one frequently used conventional lightbulb at your home with a compact fluorescent bulb can save you money on your utility bill and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. If every household in the United States replaced one incandescent light bulb in their home with a compact fluorescent, it would save a total of 90 million pounds of global warming pollution over the lifetime of the bulbs. This would be equal to taking 6.3 million cars off the road. Though compact fluorescent light bulbs are more expensive than conventional light bulbs, they last 10 times longer. One bulb can lower your energy bill by $15 annually and reduce your carbon dioxide emissions by 150 lbs. Take a step and switch out a lightbulb. Barbara Boxer United States Senator

An important message about climate change, from the prestigious Union of Concerned Scientists:

On Saturday, April 14, Americans all across the country will have a message for Congress to hear: “It’s time to Step It Up on climate action!” At more than 1,000 gatherings around the United States people from all walks of life who are concerned about global warming will participate in Step It Up 2007. Some of these events will be held in iconic places, such as the levees in New Orleans and the top of the melting glaciers on Mt. Rainier. People will gather in communities, large and small—at churches, in coastal towns, and on statehouse steps. These events will serve as a call to Congress to cut carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050—reductions scientists say are needed in order to avoid the worst effects of global warming. Click here, to find local Step It Up actions or to organize an event in your community. Join us on April 14, and speak up for climate action! Sincerely, Kate Abend National Field Organizer UCS Climate Program

Knowledge News has a nice summary of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

What IPCC Scientists Say Unequivocally It's Getting Warmer "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." "Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850)." "The linear warming trend over the last 50 years . . . is nearly twice that for the last 100 years." Sea Levels Are Rising "Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003, about 3.1 mm per year." "Observations since 1961 show that average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise." "Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise." What IPCC Scientists Say Is "Very Likely" We're to Blame "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were . . . higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years." "Global climate change of the past fifty years . . . is not due to known natural causes alone." "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is . . . due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." It Will Get Worse "Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system . . . larger than those observed during the 20th century." "Hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent." What IPCC Scientists Say Is "Likely" We're Changing the Weather "There has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica." "Anthropogenic forcing . . . [has] contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns in both hemispheres." "Future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation." --Steve Sampson

The major points of the first volume of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), The Physical Science Basis, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was released today can be found in this Summary for Policy Makers.

This summary report itself may seem daunting at 21 pages (I can't even imagine how long the actual volume is, much less the entire Assessment Report), but I urge you to look through this summary and become familiar with the main points, of which you'll be hearing a lot over the next several weeks. As dry as the read is, I still find it to be fascinating, and quite frightening (but not nearly as scary as it would be if I was 30 years younger, looking at my future on this planet).

Christina Hulbe teases us with a question our kids will eventually see answered (intro):

It is estimated that 1.2 billion people live within 100 kilometers of a coastline and 100 meters of mean sea level in communities whose average densities are nearly 3 times larger than the global average. Of those, more than 100 million live within 1 meter of sea level. One of the more dramatic graphics in Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, involved the flooding of Manhattan due to sea level rise in the event of collapse of the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheet. You've probably seen similar graphics of flooded Florida and flooded Bangladesh. So how likely are these Waterworld-lite scenarios? ...

Global Warming Warnings

Disaster at sea: global warming hits UK birds
A giant ecosystem that has functioned for millions of years has begun to break down
Traditionally lukewarm Britain plans for possible heatwaves

How much longer will the White House insist on keeping its head in the sand? (Answer: Probably until rising sea levels (due to global warming and consequential glacial melting) threaten to drown it.)