1721

I had noticed over recent months that the Guardian was doing more of the indepth climate change articles, and this is why (all to the good):

‘Climate change: why the Guardian is putting threat to Earth front and centre’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/climate-change-guardian-threat-to-earth-alan-rusbridger

Journalism tends to be a rear-view mirror. We prefer to deal with what has happened, not what lies ahead. We favour what is exceptional and in full view over what is ordinary and hidden.

Famously, as a tribe, we are more interested in the man who bites a dog than the other way round. But even when a dog does plant its teeth in a man, there is at least something new to report, even if it is not very remarkable or important.

There may be other extraordinary and significant things happening – but they may be occurring too slowly or invisibly for the impatient tick-tock of the newsroom or to snatch the attention of a harassed reader on the way to work.

What is even more complex: there may be things that have yet to happen – stuff that cannot even be described as news on the grounds that news is stuff that has already happened. If it is not yet news – if it is in the realm of prediction, speculation and uncertainty – it is difficult for a news editor to cope with. Not her job.

For these, and other, reasons changes to the Earth’s climate rarely make it to the top of the news list. The changes may be happening too fast for human comfort, but they happen too slowly for the newsmakers – and, to be fair, for most readers.

These events that have yet to materialise may dwarf anything journalists have had to cover over the past troubled century. There may be untold catastrophes, famines, floods, droughts, wars, migrations and sufferings just around the corner. But that is futurology, not news, so it is not going to force itself on any front page any time soon.

Even when the overwhelming majority of scientists wave a big red flag in the air, they tend to be ignored. Is this new warning too similar to the last? Is it all too frightening to contemplate? Is a collective shrug of fatalism the only rational response?

The climate threat features very prominently on the home page of the Guardian on Friday even though nothing exceptional happened on this day. It will be there again next week and the week after. You will, I hope, be reading a lot about our climate over the coming weeks.

One reason for this is personal. This summer I am stepping down after 20 years of editing the Guardian. Over Christmas I tried to anticipate whether I would have any regrets once I no longer had the leadership of this extraordinary agent of reporting, argument, investigation, questioning and advocacy.

Very few regrets, I thought, except this one: that we had not done justice to this huge, overshadowing, overwhelming issue of how climate change will probably, within the lifetime of our children, cause untold havoc and stress to our species.

So, in the time left to me as editor, I thought I would try to harness the Guardian’s best resources to describe what is happening and what – if we do nothing – is almost certain to occur, a future that one distinguished scientist has termed as “incompatible with any reasonable characterisation of an organised, equitable and civilised global community”.

It is not that the Guardian has not ploughed considerable time, effort, knowledge, talent and money into reporting this story over many years. Four million unique visitors a month now come to the Guardian for our environmental coverage – provided, at its peak, by a team including seven environmental correspondents and editors as well as a team of 28 external specialists.

They, along with our science team, have done a wonderful job of writing about the changes to our atmosphere, oceans, ice caps, forests, food, coral reefs and species.

For the purposes of our coming coverage, we will assume that the scientific consensus about man-made climate change and its likely effects is overwhelming. We will leave the skeptics and deniers to waste their time challenging the science. The mainstream argument has moved on to the politics and economics.

1722

Thanks for sharing that, Zak.

1723

Yeah, it is a ‘good enough’ reason to counter my annoyance at their not so good style change recently. This next article is a big one, and focused on scientific research about europe, but the problem is global, so of interest to all of us:

‘Health costs of hormone disrupting chemicals over €150bn a year in Europe, says study’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/health-costs-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-150bn-a-year-europe-says-study

Europe is experiencing an explosion in health costs caused by endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that is comparable to the cost of lead and mercury poisoning, according to the most comprehensive study of the subject yet published.

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that interfere with the human hormone system, and can be found in food containers, plastics, furniture, toys, carpeting and cosmetics.

The new series of reports by 18 of the world’s foremost experts on endocrine science pegs the health costs of exposure to them at between €157bn-€270bn (£113bn-£195bn), or at least 1.23% of the continent’s GDP.

“The shocking thing is that the major component of that cost is related to the loss of brain function in the next generation,” one of the report’s authors, Professor Philippe Grandjean of Harvard University, told the Guardian.

“Our brains need particular hormones to develop normally – the thyroid hormone and sex hormones like testosterone and oestrogen. They’re very important in pregnancy and a child can very well be mentally retarded because of a lack of iodine and the thyroid hormone caused by chemical exposure.”

After IQ loss, adult obesity linked to exposure to phthalates, a group of chemicals used in plastics, was the second largest part of the overall cost, with an estimated price tag of €15.6bn a year, according to the paper, which was published on Thursday in the Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The study attributes at least 5% of European autism cases to EDC exposure, but Grandjean said the figure likely under-estimated the linkage, because of difficulties in measuring foetal exposure to chemicals after a child had been born.

“I would recommend that pregnant women and children eat organic fruits and vegetables and avoid using plastic containers and canned food, especially in the microwave, because containers are usually treated on the inside with substances and compounds that can leak into the tomato soup and may act as endocrine disruptors,” he said.

Endocrine disruptors have long been thought damaging to male reproductive health. The new study establishes “probable causation” between endocrine exposure and a range of illnesses including autism, infertility, obesity, diabetes, and cryptorchidism.

To gauge the probability that specific illnesses had been caused by industrial chemicals, the authors adapted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s ‘weight of evidence’ model, and an epidemiology model used by the World Health Organisation, for the paper.

It found a 70%-100% likelihood that IQ loss and intellectual disability were caused by exposure to organophosphates used in herbicides and insecticides, and to Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) found in flame retardants. The odds of attention deficit disorder being caused by exposure to multiple EDCs was put lower, at between 20-69%.

For costing the results of such conditions, the research team factored in hospital stays, physician services, nursing home care and other medical fees, as well as indirect costs such as lost worker productivity, early death and disability.

Past research has estimated the European health costs of intellectual disability caused by lead and mercury poisoning at €69bn. “Our calculated costs associated with several industrial chemicals are of the same order of magnitude,” the study said.

“These studies tell a frightening and expensive story equivalent to a €7,500 cost for every man, woman and child in the EU every year,” said Genon Jensen, the director of the Health and Environment Alliance. “Some of these chemicals are no longer allowed on the market but others are still widely used. The European commission should act now in a robust and systematic manner to reduce people’s exposure.”

Plastics are bad for you.

1724

Thanks Zak for the Guardian link.

Florida bans the term climate change and global warming.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html

1725

“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,”

Florida, where stupid goes to get dumb.

1726

And i thought Texas had form in this arena! Admittedly it is a huge problem for the USA in general, where half of your democractic options are completely tied to companies that are responsible for Man Made Climate Change (AGW), and the other half are too scared of that to make the fuss they should be. Rock and a hard place, which is appropriate looking at the near future that situation is making for all of us on planet earth.

1727

Get out while you can, south Floridians. Huge sections of Miami-Dade and the Keys are doomed as it is, and a government that sticks its head in the sand (or salt water) is going to make it worse.

1728

Florida has pretty much always been a hellish wasteland anyway.

1729

‘10 myths about fossil fuel divestment put to the sword’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/10-myths-about-fossil-fuel-divestment-put-to-the-sword

  1. Divestment from fossil fuels will result in the end of modern civilisation

It is true that most of today’s energy, and many useful things such as plastics and fertilisers, come from fossil fuels. But the divestment campaign is not arguing for an end of all fossil fuel use starting tomorrow, with everyone heading back to caves to light a campfire. Instead it is arguing that the burning of fossil fuels at increasing rates is driving global warming, which is the actual threat to modern civilisation. Despite already having at least three times more proven reserves than the world’s governments agree can be safely burned, fossil fuel companies are spending huge sums exploring for more. Looked at in that way, pulling investments from companies committed to throwing more fuel on the climate change fire makes sense.

  1. We all use fossil fuels everyday, so divestment is hypocritical

Again, no-one is arguing for an overnight end of all fossil fuel use. Instead, the 350.org group which is leading the divestment campaign calls for investors to commit to selling off their coal, oil and gas investments over five years. Fossil fuel burning will continue after that too, but the point is to reverse today’s upward trend of ever more carbon emissions into a downward trend of ever less carbon emissions. Furthermore, some of those backing a “divest-invest” strategy move money into the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors which have already begun driving the transition to a low-carbon world.

  1. Divestment is not meaningful action – it’s just gesture politics

The dumping of a few fossil few stocks makes no immediate difference at all to the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. But this entirely misses the point of divestment, which aims to remove the legitimacy of a fossil fuel industry whose current business model will lead to “severe, widespread and irreversible” impacts on people. Divestment works by stigmatising, as pointed out in a report from Oxford University: “The outcome of the stigmatisation process poses the most far-reaching threat to fossil fuel companies. Any direct impacts pale in comparison.”

The “gesture politics” criticism also ignores the political power of the fossil fuel industry, which spent over $400m (£265m) on lobbying and political donations in 2012 in the US alone. Undercutting that lobbying makes it easier for politicians to take action and the Oxford study showed that previous divestment campaigns – against apartheid South Africa, tobacco and Darfur – were all followed by restrictive new laws.

Those comparisons also highlight the moral dimension at the heart of the divestment campaign. Another dimension is warning investors that their fossil fuel assets may lose their value, if climate change is tackled. Lastly, backing divestment does not mean giving up putting direct pressure on politicians to act or any other climate change campaign.

etc

1730

‘US and Chinese companies dominate list of most-polluting coal plants’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/13/us-and-chinese-companies-dominate-list-of-most-polluting-coal-plants

The 100 global power companies most at risk from growing pressure to shut highly polluting coal plants have been revealed in a new report from Oxford University.

Chinese companies dominate the top of the ranking but US companies, including Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, occupy 10 of the top 25 places.

The analysis, produced to help investors assess the risk of major financial losses, also found French energy giant GDF Suez was third in the list of most polluting coal station fleets in the world.

Coal currently provides 40% of the world’s electricity and three-quarters of this is produced by the most-polluting, least-efficient and oldest “sub-critical” coal-fired power stations. The International Energy Agency calculates that one in four of these sub-critical plants must close within five years, if the world’s governments are to keep their pledge to limit global warming to 2C.

1731

A slew of things to consider on this topic :)

‘Long struggle warning on climate’:

America’s chief climate negotiator has warned of the long battle ahead to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Todd Stern told BBC News that by the end of the month, he expects the US to make a “quite ambitious” declaration on climate change.

He praised China’s projected offer to the December climate summit in Paris. But he said the conference would not itself solve the climate problem. That, he argued, would need ongoing effort over decades.

Nations are desperate for the Paris meeting to avoid a repeat of the shambolic gathering in Copenhagen in 2009 that failed in its billing as the summit to save the planet. This time, rich nations have agreed to make their offers well in advance to reduce the chance of last-minute chaos.

‘Global CO2 emissions ‘stalled’ in 2014’:

The growth in global carbon emissions stalled last year, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

It marks the first time in 40 years that annual CO2 emissions growth has remained stable, in the absence of a major economic crisis, the agency said.

Annual global emissions remained at 32 gigatonnes in 2014, unchanged from the previous year. But the IEA warned that while the results were “encouraging”, this was “no time for complacency”.

“This is both a very welcome surprise and a significant one,” said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol.

“It provides much-needed momentum to negotiators preparing to forge a global climate deal in Paris in December: for the first time, greenhouse gas emissions are decoupling from economic growth.”

And IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said while the data was “encouraging”, this was “no time for complacency” and “certainly not the time to use this positive news as an excuse to stall further action”.

‘Norway’s giant fund increases stake in oil and gas companies to £20bn’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/13/norways-giant-fund-increases-stake-in-oil-and-gas-companies-to-20bn

The world’s richest sovereign wealth fund increased its stake in major oil and gas companies to £20bn in 2014, disappointing campaigners who argue it should continue to sell off its investments in the fossil fuels that drive climate change.

Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), which rose to £531bn in total, revealed in February that it had shed 32 coal mining companies due to concerns that action on global warming would cut their value.

Analysis by the green NGO Future In Our Hands of official data released on Friday shows the fund holds financial stakes in 90 of the top 100 oil and gas companies, as ranked by the amount of carbon in their reserves.

The fund, founded on the nation’s oil and gas wealth and which receives new capital each year, increased its ownership of 59 of the 90 companies. Despite the oil price crash leading to losses of over 10% on the fund’s oil and gas sector investments, the new stocks bought meant its overall holding in the 90 companies rose by £1.3bn.

The fund did sell off its shares in two Canadian tar sands companies – MEG Energy and Canada Oil Sands – together worth over £50m.

A series of analyses have shown that there are already several times more fossil fuels in proven reserves than can be burned if catastrophic global warming is to be avoided, as world leaders have pledged. Scientists say virtually all of Canada’s tar sands oil must stay in the ground, if climate change is to be tackled.

“Our pensions are increasingly being invested in oil and gas and this is a trend Norwegian politicians have a responsibility to stop,” said Arild Hermstad , head of Future In Our Hands. “The way the GPFG is behaving contradicts all established research on climate change.”

“There’s also a financial risk related to these investments, when we know that Europe, the US and China are heavily investing in renewable technology,” said Hermstad. “We expect renewable companies to gain better operating conditions in the time to come, and it’s a pity that the fund isn’t picking up on this trend.”

Martin Norman, from Greenpeace Norway, said GPFG remained heavily invested in Canadian tar sands, with large stakes in Suncor and TransCanada, the company wishing to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline across the US.

Given the poor recent performance of fossil fuel investments, Norman said: “GPFG’s investments in fossil fuels is not only an environmental problem, but it is starting to become an economic problem as well. We believe the politicians must give a clear mandate to GPFG to pull out of coal, tar sands and other fossil fuels.” The fund’s investments are regulated by acts of parliament which have previously banned investing in weapons manufacturers and tobacco producers.

1732

This is cool:

Scientists in Japan have announced that they’ve successfully managed to transmit energy wirelessly with high accuracy. It’s a game-changing achievement for electricity generation that could one day allow us to place huge solar sheets in space and beam the energy back to Earth.

1733

It is indeed, could also be a ‘That’s no moon, it’s a space station!’ moment! Regan might finally have his Star Wars raygun ;)

1734

Holy shit. What scifi writers have explored the ramifications of beamable electricity? Serious question. I’m reading Red Mars, which has so far done a nice job of anticipating such breakthroughs, but I don’t think there’s wireless electricity.

1735

I’m glad to see researchers making progress on wireless energy transmission, but it’s worth noting that this is nothing new. Tesla was working on it back in around 1900, but never got it to work over long distances. The 55 meters in the Japanese experiment is cool, and the fact that they’re using microwaves is promising, but I wouldn’t get too excited until they’ve scaled that up by a couple of orders of magnitude.

1736

I wanted to thank Zak for a bunch of the sources posted here recently. While i sometimes play devils advocate and highlight counter arguments to some of this, when dealing with climate change skeptics I generally argue in favorite of human created climate change. Some of these sources, such as the one highlighting the formal plan by oil companies to engineer public opinion, were useful in a recent discussion.

1737

Cool, glad you found some use for it Timex, and i appreciate your thanks :)

Ok so our Oxford University is thinking about dropping it’s ‘dirty energy’ investments too (to be honest i’m surprised it has not already, the UK is going to be one of the worst hit by climate change (lack of space to migrate too)):

‘Oxford University to rule on coal investments’:

The University of Oxford will decide whether to pull out of its investments in coal and oil sands later. Students have been campaigning on the issue for over a year because scientists say burning the world’s coal will result in reckless risks to the climate.

It is part of a global movement for public organisations to divest from fossil fuels. Glasgow University has done so, along with other organisations worldwide. They include Stanford University, the British Medical Association, the World Council of Churches and the Rockefeller Brothers.

This month, members of the London Assembly urged the Mayor Boris Johnson to withdraw investments in coal, oil and gas.

It is said to be the fastest-growing divestment movement the world has seen as the public becomes increasingly aware that firms have discovered three times more fossil fuel than can be safely burned without excessive risk to the climate.

Oxford is the second richest university in the UK after Cambridge. Its endowment was worth around £3.8bn. Over the last five years the university has partially divested from arms manufacturing companies. Two years ago the university accepted funds from Shell for a new Earth Sciences laboratory. The firm also funds research doctorates in geochemistry. BP spends millions supporting university research.

Hope they do the right thing, and what would be really nice is if the energy companies themselves started to divest out of their zone and into clean energy technologies, and in a big way rather than the PR appeasing way up till now. They are front runners if they so wish for the coming era of clean energy technologies, and they can become part of the solution, rather than the problem behind human created climate change.

1738

Miami is Drowning.

The effect is calamitous. Shops and houses are inundated; city life is paralysed; cars are ruined by the corrosive seawater that immerses them. During one recent high spring tide, laundromat owner Eliseo Toussaint watched as slimy green saltwater bubbled up from the gutters. It rapidly filled the street and then blocked his front door. “This never used to happen,” Toussaint told the New York Times. “I’ve owned this place eight years and now it’s all the time.”

Today, shop owners keep plastic bags and rubber bands handy to wrap around their feet when they have to get to their cars through rising waters, while householders have found that ground-floor spaces in garages are no longer safe to keep their cars. Only those on higher floors can hope to protect their cars from surging sea waters that corrode and rot the innards of their vehicles.

Edit:
Meanwhile, Governor Rick Scott Bans Talk of Global Warming

1739

Yes, but if their state government doesn’t use words like climate change or global warming, it will go away. So sssshhhhhhhh.

1740

Sorry for the ninja edit.