Hi Pen-l, Environmental life (and death) under capitalism. Seth Sandronsky >=======================Electronic Edition======================== >. . >. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #664 . >. ---August 19, 1999--- . >. HEADLINES: . >. THE CARBON PUSHERS . >. ========== . >. Environmental Research Foundation . >. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . >. Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >. ========== . >. All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to . >. [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word HELP in the message. . >. Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. . >. To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to . >. [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words . >. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. . >. The Rachel newsletter is now also available in Spanish; . >. to learn how to subscribe, send the word AYUDA in an . >. E-mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >================================================================= > > >THE CARBON PUSHERS > >Four years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change >(IPCC) concluded that humans are at least partly responsible for >global warming: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible >human influence on global climate," IPCC said.[1] IPCC is an >international group of 2500 meteorologists gathered under the >auspices of the United Nations, trying to figure out why the >Earth is warming up and what it might mean for human >civilization. > >The mechanism of warming is called the "greenhouse effect." >Sunlight streams in from outer space, strikes the surface of the >planet, turns to heat and then is radiated back out toward outer >space. But some of the heat cannot escape because it is reflected >back to Earth by "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. These >"greenhouse gases" (water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) >allow sunlight to pass through but they block heat, thus acting >like the glass roof on a greenhouse, producing warmth within. > >The greenhouse effect is natural -- without it the Earth would be >a frozen rock spinning through space. But over the past few >hundred years, humans have contributed substantially to an >increase in greenhouse gases. Burning coal, oil and natural gas >(so-called fossil fuels), plus deforestation, have increased the >atmospheric content of carbon dioxide by 31% (from 275 parts per >million [ppm] to 360 ppm) during the past few hundred years, a >trend that continues today. Fossil fuel combustion and >deforestation now add about 7.7 billion tons (7 billion metric >tonnes) of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year. Other >human activities have increased the methane content of the >atmosphere -- growing cattle, growing rice, and landfilling >garbage. > >Since 1995, much new evidence has come to light indicating that >the Earth is indeed warming and that human activities are at >least partly responsible. A recent summary article by Bette >Hileman in CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS, voice of the American >Chemical Society, describes some of the new evidence indicating >that the planet is warming at an accelerating pace: > >** The Earth's average temperature has been rising for at least >100 years, but in recent decades the rate of increase has speeded >up. Eleven of the past 16 years have been the hottest of the >century. The average global temperature in 1998 was higher than >it had been at any other time during the previous 1000 years. > >** The polar regions of the planet are heating up much more >rapidly than the average. Alaska is now as much as 10 degrees >Fahrenheit (F.) (6 degrees Celsius [C.]) warmer than it was 35 >years ago. As the frozen north warms and thaws, peat buried in >the tundra decays, releasing carbon dioxide. This is a positive >feedback mechanism that could speed up the rate of increase of >greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -- the warmer the tundra >becomes, the more carbon dioxide it releases, in turn warming the >tundra further. According to Walter C. Oechel, director of the >Global Change Research Group at San Diego State University >(California), the arctic tundra has been a sink (or storage >place) for carbon for the last 9000 years, but since 1982 its >role has reversed and now it has become a source of carbon to the >atmosphere. > >Some far-northern (boreal) forests also seem to be shifting their >role from that of a carbon sink to a carbon source for the >atmosphere as warmer temperatures thaw frozen soils.[2] Whether >the entire boreal forest belt, which encircles the Earth, has >become a net source of carbon remains unknown. > >Bette Hileman does not say so, but the warming arctic tundra will >likely also release methane gas which, pound for pound, is about >20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at creating a greenhouse >effect.[3] The quantity of carbon locked in arctic soils is huge >and the positive feedback loop that has begun to release it to >the atmosphere is ominous. > >** Average summertime temperatures in Antarctica have risen 4.5 >degrees F. (2.5 degrees C.) since the 1940s. According to members >of the British Antarctic Survey, ice shelves along the coast of >the Antarctic Peninsula have been breaking up for 50 years, >having lost 7000 square kilometers (2703 square miles) during >that time. The loss of 3000 square kilometers (1158 square miles) >within just the last year indicates that the breakup of ice >shelves has accelerated. > >The Greenland Ice Sheet, the world's second largest glacier, is >growing thinner at the rate of a meter (39 inches) per year. >However, snowfall may be increasing in polar regions, so no one >is yet sure whether the overall amount of ice at the poles is >changing. > >** The bleaching and loss of corals in the world's warm oceans >(Indo-Pacific, western Atlantic, and Caribbean) provide further >evidence of accelerated global warming. Corals are showing signs >of stress in areas of human habitation and in uninhabited >regions. In uninhabited regions, the main causes are likely to be >increased ultraviolet light penetrating through the Earth's >damaged ozone shield, and global warming. Coral bleaching occurs >when water temperatures rise, and coral bleaching has been >increasing worldwide since the 1970s as Earth's temperature has >risen most steeply. > >Furthermore, recent work shows that, as the carbon dioxide >content of the atmosphere increases, so does the carbon dioxide >content of ocean water. This in turn lowers the concentration of >carbonate ion, reducing the ability of corals to build their >skeletons.[4] The future for coral reefs looks grim. > >Coral reefs are economically important -- they provide food, >coastal protection, and new medications for drug-resistant >diseases. And they attract tourists by the millions: Caribbean >countries derive half their income from coral reefs. The coral >reefs of southeast Asia provide homes for one-quarter of the >world's fish species. > >** Annual precipitation over the continental U.S. has increased >about 10% during this century, much of it during the winter, and >much of it in heavy events. For example, the number of days with >rainfall exceeding 2 inches has increased about 10% during the >past century. Similar trends are observable in Canada, Japan, >Russia, China, and Australia. > >Other consequences of global warming include: > >** Moisture in the lower atmosphere has increased about 10% >during the past 20 years. > >** The annual number of intense storms over the North Atlantic >and the North Pacific has doubled since 1900. > >** There have been more, and longer-lasting, El Nino events >since the 1970s. El Nino is a huge but localized warming in >the eastern Pacific Ocean that gives rise to violent storms along >the U.S. Pacific coast, devastating droughts in Africa and >Australia, and often a failure of the monsoon rains in Asia. > >** New computer models have been able to mimic past climate >changes, and they predict future warming of the atmosphere. >Skeptics used to say that computer models had done such a poor >job of mimicking past events that their predictive ability must >also be flawed. That argument has been put to rest by better >models that track past events properly and which now predict an >average global temperature rise somewhere between 1.2 degrees C. >(2.2 degrees F.) and 4 degrees C. (7.2 degrees F.) in the next >century. Even a 1 degree C. (1.8 deg. F.) average temperature >rise could have important consequences because of exaggerated >effects already evident at the poles, though not all scientists >agree with this assessment. > >** Rather than diminish production of carbon dioxide, the U.S. >government favors a technical fix: U.S. global warming policy >relies on the ability of forests and agricultural soils to sop up >excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A 1998 paper by U.S. >government scientists seemed to show that North American forests >and soils were absorbing all of the carbon dioxide being emitted >by the burning of fossil fuels in North America.[5] Based on that >study, the U.S. demanded that forests-as-carbon -sinks be written >into the Kyoto Treaty, an international agreement intended to >slow the production of greenhouse gases. (See REHW #577.) At the >meeting in Kyoto (Japan), the European Union remained skeptical >of the U.S. approach, but the U.S. threatened to walk out if its >approach was rejected. Now, according to Bette Hileman, two >additional studies -- one from France and the other from >Australia -- have challenged the findings of the original U.S. >study, but these new studies remain unpublished and therefore >outside the debate. > >This issue of forests as "sinks" for excess carbon has paralyzed >Kyoto Treaty negotiations since the Kyoto meeting because the >issue is not fully resolvable with present-day science and the >U.S. continues to insist that its viewpoint is defensible. >Paralysis suits many U.S. leaders just fine -- key members of >Congress have indicated that the Kyoto Treaty will be ratified >over their dead bodies because they say the Kyoto Treaty will >harm the U.S. economy. But what if global warming will harm the >economy for our children in the future? Let the unborn speak now >or forever hold their peace. > >Independent U.S. scientists who have examined the ability of >forests to absorb carbon dioxide are not optimistic that the U.S. >"sinks" plan has much merit. Under ideal conditions, forests may >be able to absorb as much as 50% of excess carbon dioxide from >the atmosphere, but to achieve that level of absorption would >require all trees to be young and all trees to be as responsive >to carbon dioxide as the most responsive, the loblolly pine. And >of course when the trees die, they will release the excess carbon >back into the ecosystem. To prevent global warming, trees would >have to keep excess carbon out of the atmosphere forever. > >Cleaner sources of energy are already available and affordable. >Adopting them in the U.S. alone would create 770,000 jobs, save >$530 per household per year, and significantly reduce the threat >of global warming.[6] Why can't we make the shift? A recent >report from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), U.S. >Public Interest Research Group, and the Union of Concerned >Scientists points out that 80% of greenhouse gases are produced >by only 122 corporations,[7] which act as "carbon pushers" >comparable to drug pushers. The authors of the report do not >express it quite this way, but the conclusion is obvious: these >122 corporations are jeopardizing the integrity of the entire >global ecosystem, endangering the future for all children, and >holding the world's people and their governments hostage by a >combination of bribery and brute force. A simple question: Why do >we allow such antisocial -- even sociopathic -- behavior to go >unrewarded by prison sentences for culpable executives and boards >of directors? Please give it some thought. > > --Peter Montague > (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) > >============== > >[1] Bette Hileman, "Case Grows for Climate Change," C&EN >[CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS] (August 9, 1999), pgs. 16-23. > >[2] M. L. Goulden and others, "Sensitivity of Boreal Forest >Carbon Balance to Soil Thaw," SCIENCE Vol. 279 (January 9, 1998), >pgs. 214-216. > >[3] Jeff Hecht, "Shallow Methane Could Turn on the Heat," NEW >SCIENTIST (July 8, 1995), pg. 16. And: Jeff Hecht, "Baked Alaska," >NEW SCIENTIST (October 11, 1997), pg. 4. And: Fred Pearce, >"Methane: The Hidden Greenhouse Gas. Coming out of cattle, >rubbish tips and rice fields, is warming the earth. Yet methane >from the Arctic could be the most damaging of all," NEW SCIENTIST >(May 6, 1989), pg. 37. > >[4] Joan A. Kleypas and others, "Geochemical Consequences of >Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Coral Reefs," SCIENCE >Vol. 284 (April 2, 1999), pgs. 118-120. > >[5] S. Fan and others, "A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North >America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data >and Models," SCIENCE Vol. 282 (October 16, 1998), pgs. 442-446. > >[6] ENERGY INNOVATIONS: A PROSPEROUS PATH TO A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT >(Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient >Economy [1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 801, Washington, D.C. >20036; phone (202) 429-0063], June 1997. Available for $25. See >http://www.tellus.org/ei/eireport.html. > >[7] KINGPINS OF CARBON; HOW FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCERS CONTRIBUTE TO >GLOBAL WARMING (New York: Natural Resources Defense Council and >others, July 1999). Tel. (212) 727-1773. Available at: http:- >//www.nrdc.org/nrdcpro/fppubl.html . > >Descriptor terms: global warming; greenhouse effect; fossil fuel; >coral; precipitation increases; tundra; forests; carbon sinks; >carbon sources; methane gas; glaciers; > > >################################################################ > NOTICE >In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is >distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior >interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. >Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic >version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge >even though it costs the organization considerable time and money >to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service >free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution >(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send >your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research >Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do >not send credit card information via E-mail. For further >information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. >by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at >(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944. > --Peter Montague, Editor >################################################################ > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
