Έρευνα για την Ελληνική Blogόσφαιρα

Καλησπέρα σε όλους του Έλληνες, αυτή τη φορά, αναγνώστες. Mια έρευνα διεξάγεται σχετικά με την ελληνόφωνη blogόσφαιρα από το Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο. Νομίζω ότι αξίζει να ξοδέψουμε λίγο από τον χρόνο μας ο καθένας για να απαντήσουμε στα ερωτήματα της έρευνας (δεν παίρνει ειλικρινά πολύ χρόνο). Όσοι αγαπάμε το blogging καλό είναι συμμετέχουμε σε αυτή την έρευνα. Παραθέτω το σχετικό link παρακάτω.

http://blog-ereuna.blogspot.com/

Παραθέτω και το παρακάτω άρθρο από την εφημερίδα το "Έθνος" για περαιτέρω κατανόηση της έρευνας.

Σε εξέλιξη βρίσκεται αυτές τις ημέρες διαδικτυακή έρευνα για τους Έλληνες blogger, στο πλαίσιο του Προγράμματος Μεταπτυχιακών Σπουδών «Δυνητικές Κοινότητες : Ψυχο-Κοινωνιολογικές Προσεγγίσεις και Τεχνικές Εφαρμογές» του Παντείου Πανεπιστημίου.

Όπως μας ενημέρωσαν αναγνώστες του Ethnos.gr που διατηρούν ή απλώς διαβάζουν ελληνικά ιστολόγια (blog αν προτιμάτε), η έρευνα καλεί τους «ιδιοκτήτες» σχετικών τόπων να συμμετάσχουν στη συμπλήρωση του ερωτηματολογίου, προκειμένου να σχηματιστεί μία πληρέστερη εικόνα για την ελληνική blog-όσφαιρα.

Μπορείτε να δείτε τη σχετική σελίδα και να συμμετέχετε στην έρευνα κάνοντας κλικ εδώ.

Στο σχετικό e-mail του ο συντάκτης κ. Ζαφείρης Καραμπάσης ενημερώνει ότι το Πρόγραμμα Μεταπτυχιακών Σπουδών «Δυνητικές Κοινότητες : Ψυχο-Κοινωνιολογικές Προσεγγίσεις και Τεχνικές Εφαρμογές» του Παντείου από τη Δευτέρα 26/3 και για περίπου 1,5 μήνα διεξάγει την πρώτη στην Ελλάδα μεγάλη on-line έρευνα -με τη μορφή ερωτηματολογίου- που αφορά στο προφίλ, τα κίνητρα και τις πρακτικές των ελληνόφωνων bloggers/ιστολόγων.

Όπως σχολιάζεται στο τέλος, «Νομίζουμε ότι πέρα από το προφανές ερευνητικό ενδιαφέρον, τα αποτελέσματα μιας τέτοιας έρευνας παρουσιάζουν ενδιαφέρον τόσο για τους ίδιους τους bloggers όσο και γενικότερο, αφού τα αποτελέσματα θα ανακοινωθούν δημόσια προσβάσιμα από όλους. Παράλληλα όμως θεωρούμε ότι η ακαδημαϊκή και πανεπιστημιακή αρχή με όλες τις θεσμικές και δεοντολογικές εγγυήσεις που φέρει, ως κατεξοχήν ανεξάρτητη και πέρα και πάνω από εμπορικές διαδικασίες, όχι μόνο αποτελεί έναν κατάλληλο φορέα να αναλάβει και να πραγματώσει ένα τέτοιο έργο -λόγω της πολλές φορές απαραίτητης για τέτοιες έρευνες ουδέτερης υπόστασής του- αλλά πολύ περισσότερο ότι η πρωτοβουλία αυτή αποτελεί και ένα κάλεσμα στήριξης, καλής θέλησης και βοηθείας, μια συσπειρωτική πρωτοβουλία που απευθύνεται σε όσους συμμετέχουν ή ενδιαφέρονται για το ελληνικό internet».

Hollywood's Climate Follies

Washington Post
Wednesday, March 21, 2007

by Robert J. Samuelson

"My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue. It's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."

-- Al Gore, accepting an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth"

Global warming has gone Hollywood, literally and figuratively. The script is plain. As Gore says, solutions are at hand. We can switch to renewable fuels and embrace energy-saving technologies, once the dark forces of doubt are defeated. It's smart and caring people against the stupid and selfish. Sooner or later, Americans will discover that this Hollywood version of global warming (largely mirrored in the media) is mostly make-believe.

Most of the many reports on global warming have a different plot. Despite variations, these studies reach similar conclusions. Regardless of how serious the threat, the available technologies promise at best a holding action against greenhouse gas emissions. Even massive gains in renewables (solar, wind, biomass) and more efficient vehicles and appliances would merely stabilize annual emissions near present levels by 2050. The reason: Economic growth, especially in poor countries, will sharply increase energy use and emissions.

The latest report came last week from 12 scientists, engineers and social scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The report, " The Future of Coal," was mostly ignored by the media. It makes some admittedly optimistic assumptions: "carbon capture and storage" technologies prove commercially feasible; governments around the world adopt a sizable charge (a.k.a. tax) on carbon fuel emissions. Still, annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 are roughly at today's levels. Without action, they'd be more than twice as high.

Coal, as the report notes, is essential. It provides about 40 percent of global electricity. It's cheap (about a third of the cost of oil) and abundant. It poses no security threats. Especially in poor countries, coal use is expanding dramatically. The United States has the equivalent of more than 500 coal-fired power plants with a capacity of 500 megawatts each. China is building two such plants a week. Coal use in poor countries is projected to double by 2030 and would be about twice that of rich countries (mainly the United States, Europe and Japan). Unfortunately, coal also generates almost 40 percent of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), a prime greenhouse gas.

Unless we can replace coal or neutralize its CO2emissions, curbing greenhouse gases is probably impossible. Substitution seems unlikely, simply because coal use is so massive. Consider a separate study by Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm. It simulated a fivefold increase in U.S. electricity from renewables by 2026. Despite that, more coal generating capacity would be needed to satisfy growth in demand.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a bright spot: Catch the CO2and put it underground. On this, the MIT study is mildly optimistic. The technologies exist, it says. Similarly, geologic formations -- depleted oil fields, unusable coal seams -- provide adequate storage space, at least in the United States. But two problems loom: First, capture and storage adds to power costs; and second, its practicality remains suspect until it's demonstrated on a large scale.

No amount of political will can erase these problems. If we want poorer countries to adopt CCS, then the economics will have to be attractive. Right now, they're not. Capturing CO2and transporting it to storage spaces uses energy and requires costlier plants. On the basis of present studies, the MIT report says that the most attractive plants with CCS would produce almost 20 percent less electricity than conventional plants and could cost almost 40 percent more. Pay more, get less -- that's not a compelling argument. Moreover, older plants can't easily be retrofitted. Some lack space for additions; for others costs would be prohibitive.

To find cheaper technologies, the MIT study proposes more government research and development. The study's proposal of a stiff charge on carbon fuel -- to be increased 4 percent annually -- is intended to promote energy efficiency and create a price umbrella to make CCS more economically viable. But there are no instant solutions, and a political dilemma dogs most possibilities. What's most popular and acceptable (say, more solar) may be the least consequential in its effects; and what's most consequential in its effects (a hefty energy tax) may be the least popular and acceptable.

The actual politics of global warming defies Hollywood's stereotypes. It's not saints vs. sinners. The lifestyles that produce greenhouse gases are deeply ingrained in modern economies and societies. Without major changes in technology, the consequences may be unalterable. Those who believe that addressing global warming is a moral imperative face an equivalent moral imperative to be candid about the costs, difficulties and uncertainties.

Copyright 2007 The Washington Post Company

Gore Warns Congress of "Planetary Emergency"

The New York Times
March 21, 2007
By Felicity Barringer and Andrew Revkin











WASHINGTON, March 21 — It was part science class, part policy wonk paradise, part politics and all theater as former Vice President Al Gore came to Congress on Wednesday to insist that global warming constitutes a “planetary emergency” requiring an aggressive federal response.

Mr. Gore, accompanied by his wife, Tipper, delivered the same blunt message to a joint meeting of two House committees in the morning and a Senate panel in the afternoon: Humans are artificially warming the world, the risks of inaction are great, and meaningful cuts in emissions linked to warming will happen only if the United States takes the lead.

While sparring with Representative Joe L. Barton, a Texas Republican critical of his message, Mr. Gore resorted to a simple metaphor. “The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor.” He added, “If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say ‘I read a science fiction novel that says it’s not a problem.’ You take action.”

In the House, there was little debate about the underlying science; the atmosphere was more that of a college lecture hall than a legislative give-and-take. But in the Senate, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, set a pugilistic tone, challenging Mr. Gore’s analysis of the dangers of climate change from hurricanes and melting ice in Antarctica.

“It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist pronouncements are now and have always been filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements,” Mr. Inhofe said.

Beneath the carefully groomed surface of the House and Senate committees’ scripted production, a rift was evident. Republican committee leaders, including Mr. Barton in the House, and Mr. Inhofe in the Senate, seemed somewhat isolated from their rank-and-file colleagues, who appeared more receptive to Mr. Gore’s message and the scientific consensus on climate change. Even J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, the former House speaker, seemed to accept the scientific consensus.

Climate experts have concluded with growing accord that human-generated greenhouse gases are the dominant driver of recent global warming and that centuries of rising temperatures and seas lie ahead if emissions are not curbed.

Instead of challenging the science, many Republicans focused on questions of how to attack the problem in the United States, tending to favor nuclear power — which Mr. Gore said should be a “small part” of any solution — and asking what to do about the emissions of large developing economies like China and India.

Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who briefly considered trying to replace Mr. Inhofe as the ranking member on the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, expressed concern about how to coax China into reversing its build-out of coal-fired power plants, which are heavy emitters of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent heat-trapping gas associated with global warming.

“When we lead, they will be a part of it,” Mr. Gore replied, adding that two recent speeches by Chinese leaders indicate “there’s excellent evidence that they” are concerned about the effects of climate change.

From the time that he arrived in the morning at the Rayburn House Office Building in a black Mercury Mariner hybrid S.U.V. to the time he was whisked out of the senators’ entrance at the Dirksen Building committee room, Mr. Gore combined the erudition of a professor with a touch of the preacher’s fire.

Evoking the movie “300,” about the ancient Spartans’ stand at Thermopylae, Mr. Gore, speaking to a joint session of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Science Committee, called on Congress to put aside partisan differences, accept the scientific consensus on global warming and become “the 535,” a reference to the number of seats in the House and Senate.

Democrats and Republicans, he said, should emulate their British counterparts and compete to see how best to curb emissions of smokestack and tailpipe “greenhouse” gases.

Mr. Gore also proposed a 10-point plan, calling for initiatives like a tax on carbon emissions, a ban on incandescent light bulbs and another on new coal-fired plants that cannot be designed to capture carbon. He also called for a national mortgage program to underwrite the use of home energy-saving technologies.

Waving his finger at some 40 House members, he said, “A day will come when our children and grandchildren will look back and they’ll ask one of two questions.”

Either, he said, “they will ask: what in God’s name were they doing?” or “they may look back and say: how did they find the uncommon moral courage to rise above politics and redeem the promise of American democracy?”

On the Senate side, Mr. Inhofe quickly hit an issue that some of Mr. Gore’s critics have sounded in recent weeks — the size and energy-consuming properties of his new home in Tennessee. Mr. Inhofe sought to exact a pledge from Mr. Gore to cut electricity use so that his home outside Nashville used no more than the average American home in a year.

This triggered a jousting match with both Mr. Gore and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the committee chairwoman, which ended when Ms. Boxer made a tart reference to the change in power in the Senate. “You’re not making the rules,” she told Mr. Inhofe.

Mr. Gore then said he pays extra to use wind-generated electricity at the home; Mr. Inhofe took that response as a rejection of the pledge.

When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, asked if Mr. Gore would favor a tax on carbon emissions over a cap on emissions, accompanied by a system of trading pollution allowances, he said both were needed.

Representative Ralph M. Hall, Republican of Texas, said calls for cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases amounted to an “all-out assault on all forms of fossil fuels” that could eliminate jobs and hurt the economy.

In written testimony for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author critical of people who present environmental problems as a crisis, asserted that Mr. Gore’s portrayal of global warming as a problem, and his prescription for solving it, were deeply flawed.

Mr. Lomborg said that “global warming is real and man-made,” but that a focus on intensified energy research would be more effective and far cheaper than caps or taxes on greenhouse gas emissions or energy sources that produce them.

Felicity Barringer reported from Washington, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York.

Source: The New York Times

Οι δύο όψεις του Ιανού !!

Οι ΗΠΑ σπάνε την ομοφωνία των ισχυρότερων χωρών για την κλιματική αλλαγή

Σε συνάντηση των 13 κυριότερων βιομηχανικών και αναδυόμενων οικονομιών στη Γερμανία, οι ΗΠΑ έσπασαν την ομοφωνία για το πώς η διεθνής κοινότητα θα πρέπει να αντιμετωπίσει την κλιματική αλλαγή.

Στη διήμερη συνάντηση των υπουργών Περιβάλλοντος, που ολοκληρώθηκε το Σάββατο στο Πότσνταμ, οι ΗΠΑ δήλωσαν την αντίθεσή τους στη δημιουργία μιας παγκόσμια αγοράς για το διοξείδιο του άνθρακα, το κυριότερο από τα αέρια που προκαλούν το φαινόμενο του θερμοκηπίου.

Τάχθηκαν επίσης κατά της παροχής οικονομικών κινήτρων στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες για την εθελοντική προστασία των φυσικών τους πόρων, όπως τα τροπικά δάση.

«Πιστεύουμε ότι αυτό ήταν ατυχές» δήλωσε στο Γαλλικό Πρακτορείο Ειδήσεων ο Γερμανός υπουργός Περιβάλλοντος Σίγκμαρ Γκάμπριελ, προσθέτοντας μάλιστα ότι η αμερικανική αντίθεση «δεν προκαλεί έκπληξη».

Στις συνομιλίες έλαβαν μέρος εκπρόσωποι της G8 (Βρετανία, Καναδάς, Γαλλία, Γερμανία, Ιταλία, Ιαπωνία, Ρωσία, ΗΠΑ), της Βραζιλίας, της Κίνας, της Ινδίας, του Μεξικού και της Νοτίου Αφρικής.

Ο Γκάμπριελ χαρακτήρισε «μεγάλη επιτυχία» τη συνάντηση, καθώ όλοι συμφωνούν ότι η κλιματική αλλαγή πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί. Οι υπουργοί συμφώνησαν επίσης ότι τα μέτρα κατά της παγκόσμιας θέρμανσης δεν θα πρέπει να φρενάρουν την προσπάθεια των φτωχότερων χωρών για οικονομική ανάπτυξη.

Ωστόσο ο Αμερικανός εκπρόσωπος, ο διοικητής της Υπηρεσίας Περιβαλλοντικής Προστασίας Στίβεν Τζόνσον δήλωσε αντίθετος στη δημιουργία διεθνούς αγοράς ρύπων.

Το μοντέλο της αγοράς άνθρακα, που εφαρμόζεται από τις χώρες που έχουν αποδεχθεί το Πρωτόκολλο του Κιότο, προβλέπει ότι όσοι ρυπαίνουν περισσότερο από όσο τους αναλογεί πρέπει να πληρώνουν, ενώ όσοι δεν καταναλώνουν ολόκληρο το μερίδιό τους στην εκπομπή διοξειδίου του άνθρακα μπορούν να πωλούν το υπόλοιπο.

Περίληψη των αποφάσεων που ελήφθησαν στη συνάντηση του Πότσνταμ θα κατατεθούν στη σύνοδο της G8 τον Ιούνιο, η οποία αναμένεται να παίξει κρίσιμο ρόλο στις συνομιλίες για τη συμφωνία που θα διαδεχθεί το Κιότο το 2012. Οι διαπραγματεύσεις για τη συμφωνία αυτή θα πραγματοποιηθούν το Δεκέμβριο στο Μπαλί.

Πηγή: www.in.gr

Υ.Γ. Θυμίζω απλά ότι μιλάμε για τη χώρα του αμέσως προηγούμενου post!!!!

Νωρίτερα... η θερινή ώρα για τις ΗΠΑ με στόχο την εξοικονόμηση ενέργειας!!!

Αυτοί οι Αμερικάνοι, πραγματικά ώρες-ώρες με τρελαίνουν με την ευρηματικοτητά τους!!!!!!

Οι πολίτες των ΗΠΑ μετέφεραν τα ρολόγια τους στην θερινή ώρα τρεις εβδομάδες νωρίτερα από το κανονικό, προκειμένου να μειώσουν την κατανάλωση καυσίμων και να βοηθήσουν το περιβάλλον.

Στις 02:00 τα ξημερώματα (τοπική ώρα) οι δείκτες του ρολογιού γύρισαν μια ώρα μπροστά. Σύμφωνα με το BBC, η θερινή ώρα θα διαρκέσει έως τις 4 Νοεμβρίου, μία εβδομάδα αργότερα σε σχέση με τα προηγούμενα χρόνια.

Οι τέσσερις επιπλέον βδομάδες αναμένεται να βοηθήσουν στη μείωση της κατανάλωσης ενέργειας, μιας και η ζήτηση για ηλεκτρικό ρεύμα μειώνεται το βράδυ, εάν υπάρχει φυσικό φως.

Το BBC αναφέρει πως το μέτρο ψηφίστηκε πριν από δύο χρόνια, ως τμήμα μιας ενεργειακής πολιτικής που σκοπό έχει να ενθαρρύνει τη χρήση νέων τεχνολογιών στον τομέα της ενέργειας.

«Η αλλαγή στο ξεκίνημα της θερινής ώρας είναι απλά ένα βήμα για να κάνουμε τη χώρα μας πιο αποδοτική όσον αφορά τη χρήση της ενέργειας και πιο ευαίσθητη σχετικά με το περιβάλλον μας» δήλωσε ο Έντουαρτ Μάρκεϊ, υπεύθυνος για την χρηματοδότηση του προγράμματος.

«Οι Αμερικανοί δεν θα έχουν μόνο περισσότερο φως στη διάθεσή τους για τέσσερις εβδομάδες μέσα στη χρονιά, αλλά το μέτρο θα διευκολύνει την εξοικονόμηση μεγάλης ποσότητας ενέργειας, την μείωση του εγκλήματος, τα αυτοκινητιστικά ατυχήματα και την αύξηση των οικονομικών δραστηριοτήτων» προσέθεσε.

Οι επικριτές του μέτρου θεωρούν ότι μπορεί να δημιουργηθούν σε μικροπροβλήματα, όπως βλάβες υπολογιστών και σε αποσυντονισμό διαφόρων συσκευών. Πολλοί μάλιστα δεν διστάζουν να παρομοιάσουν την κατάσταση που θα επικρατήσει με τον «ιό του έτους 2000».

Πηγή: in.gr

Report outlines global warming's effects

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it's issued in early April in Brussels, Belgium, the same city where European Union leaders agreed this past week to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit in June.

The report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it notes that what's happening now isn't encouraging.

"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report only mentioned scattered regional effects.

"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, one of the many co-authors of the new report.

The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems -- change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen -- can be blamed on global warming.

For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires.

But the present is nothing compared to the future.

Global warming soon will "affect everyone's life ... it's the poor sectors that will be most affected," Romero Lankao said.

And co-author Terry Root of Stanford University said: "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species.

The report's findings

The report included these likely results of global warming:

Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.

Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.

Europe's small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent's large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe's plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.

By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects.

About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.

Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and "ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels," turning a small health risk into a substantial one.

Polar bears in the wild and other animals will be pushed to extinction.

At first, more food will be grown. For example, soybean and rice yields in Latin America will increase starting in a couple of years. Areas outside the tropics, especially the northern latitudes, will see longer growing seasons and healthier forests.

Looking at different impacts on ecosystems, industry and regions, the report sees the most positive benefits in forestry and some improved agriculture and transportation in polar regions. The biggest damage is likely to come in ocean and coastal ecosystems, water resources and coastal settlements.

Africa, Asia to be hardest hit

The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.

"In most parts of the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate change," the draft report said. "Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and gradual."

This report -- considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research -- focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.

"This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people. The science is one thing. This is how it affects me, you and the person next door," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.

Many -- not all -- of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."

The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the Earth's environment. The document issued last month in Paris concluded that scientists are 90 percent certain that people are the cause of global warming and that warming will continue for centuries.

Source: Associated Press

Caricature on Climate Change...

The following picture illustrates magnificently, what I implied at an earlier post. Lately, everything goes green!!! What is wrong with that? Literally nothing. The point is that it does not turn green at a positive direction. There is a huge outburst to make citizens feel totally responsible for climate change and greenhouse gases, when the greatest burden should be carried out by industries.

Sorry that the following caricature is in Greek...It refers to the EU Summit on Climate Change. The woman right next to the window proposes: "Gentlemen we have to do something. I think we must ban smoking from public spaces...".

Bush heralds biofuels pact Friday with Brazilian leader

SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) — At a mega fuel depot for tanker trucks, President Bush heralded a new ethanol agreement with Brazil Friday as way to boost alternative fuels production across the Americas.

Demonstrators upset with Bush's visit here worry that the president and his biofuels buddy, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, really have visions of an OPEC-like cartel on ethanol.

But Bush and Silva said increasing alternative fuel use will lead to more jobs, a cleaner environment and greater independence from the whims of the oil market. In Brazil, nearly eight in 10 new cars already run on fuel made from sugar cane.

"'It makes sense for us to collaborate for the sake of mankind," Bush said at Silva's side, after touring the depot. "We see the bright and real potential for our citizens being able to use alternative sources of energy that will promote the common good."

The agreement itself was signed Friday morning by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Brazilian counterpart, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe announced.

Bush's focus on energy during the first stop on his eighth trip to Latin America comes as the president's nemesis in the region, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, is using his vast oil wealth to court allies. Bush's trip also includes visits to Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico.

Read more...

"Don't Discuss Polar Bears", Says U.S. Memo to Scientists

Environmental News Network

By Deborah Zabarenko
March 09, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said Thursday.

Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration's history of muzzling dissent over global climate change.

But H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said this policy was a long-standing one, meant to honor international protocols for meetings where the topics of discussion are negotiated in advance.

The matter came to light in e-mails from the Fish and Wildlife Service that were distributed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, both environmental groups.

Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.

The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.

Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."

ARE POLAR BEARS 'THREATENED'?

Polar bears are a hot topic for the Bush administration, which decided in December to consider whether to list the white-furred behemoths as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, because of scientific reports that the bears' icy habitat is melting due to global warming.

Hall said a decision is expected in January 2008. A "threatened" listing would bar the government from taking any action that jeopardizes the animal's existence, and might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.

Hall defended the policy laid out in the memos, saying it was meant to keep scientists from straying from a set agenda at meetings in countries like Russia, Norway and Canada.

For example, he said, one meeting was about "human and polar bear interface." Receding Arctic sea ice where polar bears live and the global climate change that likely played a role in the melting were not proper discussion topics, he said.

"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."

The prohibition on talking about these subjects only applies to public, formal situations, Hall said. Private scientific discussions outside the meeting and away from media are permitted and encouraged, he said.

"This administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming," Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council said by telephone.

"Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric," Burnham-Snyder said.

Source: Reuters

How strange that everything recently goes Green!

USA TODAY
By Rhonda Abrams
March 8, 2007

St. Patrick's Day is just around the corner, and that always gets me thinking green. Of course, all things green — actions to protect the environment — are hot right now.

The Academy Awards ceremony went green, large retailers are pushing energy-saving products, and now the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is holding a hearing to examine the role of small businesses in combating global warming.

Whether you call it global warming or climate change, whether you want to help make America more energy independent or just want to reduce your energy bills, going green makes good sense.

It's easy for small businesses to step up to the plate to do their part to protect the environment.

•Reduce waste. Waste is something you paid for and didn't consume — whether it's packaging, excess raw materials or supplies, or keeping the heat or lights on in an empty room. Examine your production and operations to see how you can reduce waste and save money.

•Replace high-energy-use light bulbs, fixtures, and equipment. Switch to low-energy use fluorescent light bulbs. Next, if you have old equipment, it may be time to upgrade. Look for energy-efficient office and production equipment. And unplug printers and monitors overnight
and on weekends.

•Buy recycled products. Look for "post-consumer waste" products, including stationery, packaging materials, paper towels and other kitchen and bathroom supplies. This keeps waste from ending up in landfills.

•Buy environmentally-friendly products. The market for non-toxic supplies has exploded, giving you more affordable choices in items such as cleaning supplies, inks, and other materials.

•Use recycled and non-toxic materials for production. If you're a manufacturer, ask suppliers for environmentally-friendly materials. Who knows, they may even be less expensive than the raw materials you're currently using.

•Offer environmentally-friendly alternatives. If you're a retailer, look for non-toxic, recycled or organic products to sell. More and more consumers want such products, which are generally viewed as healthier. Being green can help bring in the green cash, too.

•Reduce commutes. For most businesses the biggest energy impact comes from commuting. Encourage carpooling. Perhaps some employees could telecommute — work from home — a few days a month or work four 10-hour days instead of five 8-hour days. When relocating, look for sites near your home or public transportation and where employees can be recruited nearby.

•Conduct more of your business online. Do you really need to take the trip to the bank to transfer funds? Can you send a document via email rather than by delivery service? That's a lot less expensive as well as reducing overall fuel consumption.

•Open the windows or doors. When the weather turns warm, before turning on the air conditioning, do something as simple as opening the windows and doors. In my office, we're often able to avoid using the air conditioning altogether.

•Buy hybrid cars. When buying a new vehicle for your business, look for cars or trucks that are energy-efficient, especially hybrids. Regardless of the vehicle, make sure your cars and vans are well maintained and tires are properly inflated. That reduces energy use.

•Find innovative uses for excess inventory or waste or recycle. If your business generates a lot of waste, sit down with your employees to come up with ways to turn that waste into something useful. As a publisher, my company ends up with hundreds of books returned from bookstores when new editions are released. We donate these to non-profit groups rather than just sending them to a recycling center.

•Check online information sources. Start with the Federal Government's Energy Star website for small business, www.energystar.gov/smallbiz. Another resource for businesses wanting to do something to help the environment is Greenbiz, www.greenbiz.com, which has links to and directories of websites with environmental information, including a searchable database of government programs and assistance.

Remember, little things add up. Turn off extra lights. Put recycling wastebaskets throughout the office. Turn off office equipment overnight and on weekends. Wear a sweater when you're cold and open a window when you're warm.

You'll find you've got more greenbacks in your pocket when you choose to go green.

© 2007 USA TODAY

powered by performancing firefox

U.S. Predicting Steady Increase for Emissions

The New York Times

ByAndrew C. Revkin
March 3, 2007

The Bush administration estimates that emissions by the United States of gases that contribute to global warming will grow nearly as fast through the next decade as they did the previous decade, according to a long-delayed report being completed for the United Nations.

The document, the United States Climate Action Report, emphasizes that the projections show progress toward a goal Mr. Bush laid out in a 2002 speech: that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases grow at a slower rate than the economy. Since that speech, he has repeated his commitment to lessening “greenhouse gas intensity” without imposing formal limits on the gases.

Kristen A. Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the White House on environmental matters, said on Friday, “The Climate Action Report will show that the president’s portfolio of actions addressing climate change and his unparalleled financial commitments are working.”

But when shown the report, an assortment of experts on climate trends and policy described the projected emissions as unacceptable given the rising evidence of risks from unabated global warming.

“As governor of Texas and as a candidate, the president supported mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions,” said David W. Conover, who directed the administration’s Climate Change Technology Program until February 2006 and is now counsel to the National Commission on Energy Policy, a nonpartisan research group that supports limits on gases. “When he announced his voluntary greenhouse-gas intensity reduction goal in 2002, he said it would be re-evaluated in light of scientific developments. The science now clearly calls for a mandatory program that establishes a price for greenhouse-gas emissions.”

According to the new report, the administration’s climate policy will result in emissions growing 11 percent in 2012 from 2002. In the previous decade, emissions grew at a rate of 11.6 percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The report also contains sections describing growing risks to water supplies, coasts and ecosystems around the United States from the anticipated temperature and precipitation changes driven by the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Drafts of the report were provided to The New York Times by a government employee at the request of a reporter. The employee did not say why this was done, but other officials involved with producing it said they have been frustrated with the slow pace of its preparation. It was due more than one year ago.

The report arrives at a moment when advocates of controls are winning new support in statehouses and Congress, not to mention Hollywood, where former Vice President Al Gore’s cautionary documentary on the subject, “An Inconvenient Truth,” just won an Academy Award. Five western governors have just announced plans to create a program to cap and then trade carbon-dioxide emissions. And on Capitol Hill, half a dozen bills have been introduced to curb emissions, with more expected.

Ms. Hellmer defended Mr. Bush’s climate policy, saying the president was committed to actions, like moderating gasoline use and researching alternative energy, that limited climate risks while also increasing the country’s energy and national security. She said Mr. Bush remained satisfied with voluntary measures to slow emissions.

Myron Ebell, who directs climate and energy policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group aligned with industries fighting curbs on greenhouse gases, said Mr. Bush was right to acknowledge the inevitability of growing emissions in a country with a growing population and economy. Mr. Ebell added that the United States was doing better at slowing emissions than many countries that had joined the Kyoto Protocol, the first binding international treaty limiting such gases.

“Since 1990, for every 1 percent increase in emissions the economy has grown about 3 percent,” Mr. Ebell said. “That’s good, and it’s better than the European Union’s performance.”

Several environmental campaigners said there was no real distinction between Mr. Bush’s target and “business as usual,” adding that such mild steps were unacceptable given recent findings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other research groups tying recent warming more firmly than ever to smokestack and tailpipe gases.

“If you set the hurdle one inch above the ground you can’t fail to clear it,” said David D. Doniger, the director of climate policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has long criticized the administration and sought binding cuts in greenhouse gases.

The report is the fourth in a series produced periodically by countries that are parties to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty signed by the first President Bush. It is a self-generated summary of climate-related trends and actions, including inventories of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, research on impacts of climate change, and policies to limit climate risks and emissions.

The last such report, completed in 2002, put the administration in something of a bind because it listed many harmful or costly projected impacts from human-caused warming. Environmental groups used those findings to press President Bush to seek mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, while foes of such restrictions criticized the findings and criticized the administration for letting them stay in the document.

While that report was approved by senior White House and State Department officials, Mr. Bush quickly distanced himself from it, saying it was “put out by the bureaucracy.”

The new report has been bogged down for nearly two years. In April 2005, the State Department published a notice in the Federal Register saying it would be released for public comment that summer.

Several government officials and scientists involved with preparing or reviewing parts of the report said that the recent departures of several senior staff members running the administration’s climate research program delayed its completion and no replacements have been named. The delays in finishing the report come even as Mr. Bush has elevated global warming higher on his list of concerns. This year, for the first time since he took office in 2001, he touched on “global climate change” in the State of the Union Message, calling it a “serious challenge.”

The draft report contains fresh projections of significant effects of human-caused warming on the environment and resources of the United States and emphasized the need to increase the country’s capacity to adapt to impending changes.

Drought, particularly, will become a persistent threat, it said: “Warmer temperatures expected with increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are expected to exacerbate present drought risks in the United States by increasing the rate of evaporation.”

Water supplies in the Northwest and Southwest are also at risk. “Much of the water used by people in the western United States comes from snow melt,” the report said. “And a large fraction of the traditionally snow-covered areas of this region has experienced a decline in spring snow pack, especially since mid-century, despite increases in winter precipitation in many places.” Animal and plant species face risks as climate zones shift but urbanized regions prevent ecosystems from shifting as well, according to the draft report.

“Because changes in the climate system are likely to persist into the future regardless of emissions mitigation, adaptation is an essential response for future protection of climate-sensitive ecosystems,” it said.

© 2007 The New York Times