Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

All the aid Bush promises won't stop 8 000 000 people in Africa being at starvation level this year because of crop failure. AND they are thinking of a hosepipe ban in wet western England. Too many people chasing too little water, worldwide.

It is simply ridiculous to dismiss global warming. The evidence is overwhelming. However I dont suppose that will stop a few contrarians taking large payments from big polluters, or White House law graduates editing scientific papers before slipping off to work for ExxonMobile.

Has this proposal been implemented yet?

Would do wonders for the British economy, no?

This may indicate the beginnings of a shift in the official US stance


US gives way on carbon pollution

Gaby Hinsliff, Ned Temko, Mark Townsend
Sunday July 3, 2005
The Observer

A historic deal on climate change which would see the US sign up to cut greenhouse gas emissions was last night emerging after a day of frantic negotiations ahead of the G8 summit.
The draft text hammered out by officials meeting in London is expected to pledge the world's richest countries to wean themselves off fossil fuels - not just to save the planet, but to prevent a worldwide energy crisis.
An action plan to be unveiled at the Gleneagles summit ....


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1520204,00.html

No one can dismiss global warming - the fossil record clearly shows the cyclical nature of climatic shifts. What is undemonstrated is the role humankind plays in the phenomonon. Many doubt the hype being bandied about by the doomsayers - the evidence simply isn't conclusivee, and in fact inmany respercts is contradictory. Much more study needs to be done, and certainly it is prudent for humankind to wean itelf from fossil fuels and otherwise improve the rather shoddy record of polution and contamination we have established. But whether that will have any impact whatsoever on climatic change remains a matter of conjecture, dispute, and partisanship.

Personally, I'm relatively encouraged and comforted by the fact the doomsayers have picked up the chant; knowing their track record, I've set my mind at ease. Now, of course, I could be wrong. There well may come a first time for the doomsayers to be right. Is this that time? Looking at the odds and the hard evidence, the smart money has to go against them.

A seismic shift appears to be taking place, almost interceptibly, in the opinions expressed from the Right.

I hope the smart money does not end up being stuffed into the cracks round the door, to keep the water out.

What shift, McT?

You haven't perceived it yet?

"There well may come a first time for the doomsayers to be right."

Leaving aside the pejorative term doomsayers...lets call them climatologists

if the worst case predictions of climatologists do come to fruition..? What then? Future generations will not look kindly upon us.

We were too busy making money and frankly we didnt care. Its 50 to 100 years away. We will mostly be dead. Anyway our off-spring will probably be ok, because we'll make sure they have the necessary hardware to fend off the distressed billions. Malthus is alive and well.

If on the other hand we act decisively, collectively and sooner rather than later, then well what then? So economic activity is held in check somewhat. So what? How much do you really need to live well?

But oh dear I hear you say it might be all in vain. We might have modified our behaviour, not consumed all that stuff we could have consumed and it made no difference. Well it does actually, it makes a great deal of difference. It shows we live in one world.

Now this is the sort of headline that Europeans just find so alienating about the American President. From the front page of todays Guardian


After two billion viewers watch Live 8's call for action on Africa...Bush says: I put US interests first.

Well some will say, that is what he was elected for, to protect US interests, and put them "first" if need be.

Others say, the US consumes more than 4x per capita than the average developed nation, and more than that on the world average.
So the status quo is already skewed.

I think we will need to look at economics in a different way, to factor-in environmental costs, as has begun to be discussed for long-range air transport of people and goods.

It will be interesting to see which of the signers repudiates it first. My money is on New Zealand or Canada.

Kyoto Floundering in the Wake of G8 Summit

What have you learned in the last few days to make you question the US official stance on climate change?

Severe heatwaves in USA- 200 boy scouts at summer camp taken ill just before visit by GWB

37 in (thirty-seven inches) rain fall in one day in Mumbai, India. I would have thought that an impossibility, until now.

Greenland glaciers retreat accelerating.

New Asia-Pacific climate plan
Dennis Shanahan, Political Editor
July 27, 2005

AUSTRALIA has joined the US, China, India and South Korea in a secret regional pact on greenhouse emissions to replace the controversial Kyoto climate protocol.

The alliance, which is yet to be announced, will bring together nations that together account for more than 40 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

To be known as the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, the grouping will aim to use the latest technologies to limit emissions and to make sure the technologies are available in the areas and industries that need them most.

The US and Australia have refused to sign the Kyoto protocol -- an international agreement setting greenhouse gas emission targets for developed countries by 2012. China and India are not limited by it because they are considered developing economies.

The US initiative has been discussed between the five nations for five months and is viewed as a practical attempt to rein in greenhouse emissions without harming development or economic growth in the region.

John Howard discussed the greenhouse strategy with US President George W.Bush and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a series of meetings at the White House during Mr Howard's trip to Washington last week.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held meetings with Mr Bush on the same topic on the same day.

The US has been driving the negotiations but Australia has been part of the deal, given its vital interests in coal and gas exports to China and South Korea, as well as negotiations with China on uranium sales for nuclear energy.

While Mr Howard and Mr Bush concede there is a threat from climate change, they have refused to sign the Kyoto protocol and are instead looking at a "post-Kyoto" strategy.

The Howard Government, which believes Kyoto will harm Australia's economy and hurt coal exports, yesterday released a report on greenhouse gas emissions.

The report warned climate change was inevitable and Australia should expect higher temperatures, more droughts, severe cyclones and storm surges in the next 30-50 years.

In Australia, the CSIRO predicts temperatures could rise between 1C and 6C by 2070. Average global temperatures have already risen 0.6C in the past 100 years as a result of accumulated greenhouse gases.

The report identifies Cairns, the Murray Darling Basin and south west West Australia as the three regions most vulnerable to the expected consequences of climate change.

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell conceded Australia would have to do more to reduce greenhouse gases but said the Kyoto protocol was not the answer.

"You need a comprehensive agreement that involves all of the major emitters. At the moment we don't have that," he said. "By moving more and more towards renewable (energy), such as solar and wind, and a whole range of technologies that we can develop here in Australia and ultimately export to places like China and India -- building partnerships with these countries is going to be the solution."

In April, The Australian revealed Australia's role in brokering the new-generation greenhouse reduction plan. Discussions at that stage focused on moving away from binding greenhouse gas reduction targets to voluntary emission reductions for industry.

Mr Bush and Mr Howard are convinced modern technology, which can improve efficiency and reduce waste in industry and power generation, is the key to reducing greenhouse emissions.

SOURCE

And it's only about 160 days left to wait before Father Christmas comes on what will probably be the biggest till jangling spree of all time.

I'm dreaming of a green christmas.

Yes, I read about that before.
Why the secrecy, I wonder.

I believe there is a very serious drought situation in Australia now, and the inhabitants of some towns will need to move to the coast, if it continues much longer.

Small tornado in Birmingham, Midlands, England destroys some housing and other property.
"Especially rare" in a city over here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4726643.stm

I dont believe there is much we can do to prevent global warming. Its in the pipeline no matter what we do now.

From a terrifying article in todays newstatesman, our chlidren and grandchildren will be lucky to see a globally warmed earth. Its more likely they will succumb to terrorism or the global chaos which is about to hit us as we enter the era of peak oil.

Mass movement of peoples can certainly be expected, to escape from drought (which we're seeing now) and to escape from flooding and inundated land (which is next)

(I am by that choice of phrase trying to distinguish between "flooding"- due to heavy rains, and temporary, and "inundation"- due to sea level rise, and permanent.)

Droughts and flooding? A tornado too? Friggin Republicans.

Worst drought in over a hundred years. There's one town where the dam levels are below 10%. Our's have gone below 40.