Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Global warming is fueling nastier storms, expert says

USATODAY.com - Global warming is fueling nastier storms, expert says

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Hurricanes have grown fiercer in recent decades, spurred by global warming, and even tougher storms are likely on the way, a researcher predicts.

NOAA satellite illustration shows Hurricane Emily and Tropical Storm Eugene on July 19.
NOAA via Getty Images

In his new study, ocean climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggests that the power of big ocean storms has increased and will continue to do so, even if their numbers stay the same.

The analysis, released online Monday by the journal Nature, confounds some past studies that had indicated that increasing average temperatures worldwide over this century — a United Nations climate panel has projected that temperatures will rise from 2 to 10 degrees worldwide by 2100 — would have little effect on hurricanes.

"The best way to put it is that storms are lasting longer at high intensity than they were 30 years ago," says Emanuel.

In an analysis of sea surface temperatures and storms since 1930, he found that a combined measure of duration and wind speeds among North Atlantic hurricanes and North Pacific cyclones has nearly doubled since the 1970s. "I was quite surprised by the magnitude of the increase," he says by e-mail.

Scientists had not correlated the frequency, intensity and duration of the storms until now, he says, but past reports have raised questions:

• Hurricane and cyclone reported durations have increased by roughly 60% since 1949.

• Average peak storm wind speeds have increased about 50% since the 1970s.

• Sea surface temperatures have swung upwards since 1975 at rates that exceed normal swings from regular El Niño or Atlantic cycles.

Cyclones and hurricanes do follow decades-long cycles of strengthening and weakening, Emanuel says. But the study effects are above and beyond the current cycle, which has seen stronger hurricanes in recent years.

The report serves as a warning about future global warming effects, says atmospheric scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Dollar losses from storms rise with hurricane wind speeds, the study notes. And inland damage from flooding and heavy rains also results from more intense storms, Trenberth says.

"I think that this is very good science and a very important paper, but I don't think it settles every question," says National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hurricane expert Chris Landsea. He wants researchers to delve further back into past hurricane records to verify the trend.

"It's a bit of a surprise," he says, given that earlier studies had suggested a warming climate would lead to only small changes in storm wind speeds.

With more people living on coasts in more expensive housing, Landsea says, the study underlines the importance of five-day hurricane forecasts, better building codes and homeowners buying shutters and storm doors.

New Orleans and Iraq

Informed Comment


New Orleans and Iraq

Nabil Tikriti writes




' This is a posting written by a native New Orleanian and Middle East History professor, Nabil Al-Tikriti:

New Orleans is in awful shape, and it frankly resembles Dhaka, Bangladesh after a cyclone (looting, refugees stranded on highway bridges, air rescues, flooded housing, lack of social order). Much of the damage happened after the hurricane had long passed. The 17th Street Canal levee opened up a 300 ft long breach, and Lake Pontchartrain water is streaming into Lakeview, Mid-City, and points beyond. That breach appears to have been gradually filling the city up with water all day today. The other breach, in the Lower Ninth Ward, appears to have opened up somewhere in the Industrial Canal near Holy Cross, and has completely flooded the Lower Ninth (east of the Industrial Canal) and Arabi. Chalmette was flooded throughout during the hurricane itself, and there were reports that Bywater, Kenner, NO East, Metairie between I-10 and the Lake all got flooded during the storm itself. However, a lot of this flooding news has since been surpassed after the huge breach on the 17th St. Canal. Just in the last hour another report predicted more breaches to come. These are causing flooding up to rooftops, which may mean the end of entire neighborhoods full of old wooden houses.

For those New Orleanian readers, detailed news about various neighborhoods can be obtained at these two websites that I've found most helpful: WWLTV-- and Nola. Each of these has "neighborhood forums" with hundreds of postings about various areas in the region. That's where the real news is, and that's also where the real rumors are flying. Nola.com also has a "breaking news" section which is frequently updated.

Here are some situations, and they are due for change, revision, and correction. Slidell and the MS Gulf Coast (Ocean Springs, Gulfport, Biloxi) seem to have been completely obliterated. Mandeville, St. John's Parish, St. Charles Parish, West Bank, and Grand Isle seem to have been largely spared. Mobile got hit, but not nearly as badly as Mississippi and Louisiana.

I'm personally quite worried about all those wonderful crunchies, service staff, 9th Ward marching band members, drinking buddies, and ragamuffins from Leo's, Mimi's, Frenchman St, the John etc. I'm worried that some of those lovely folks were naive, young, or poor enough to stick it out and get caught in something awful. Time will tell, although I'll always wonder about folks I'll never see again who just happened to move away, or disappeared without anyone knowing why or how.

Other points of interest in New Orleans: Entergy warns that there may be no electricity for some for a month. Local officials don't want evacuees (refugees?) returning for another week. Even if they wanted to come back, it'd be difficult as the only way in or out at the moment seems to be the GNO Mississippi River Bridge. Slidell I-10 twin spans looks like the Florida I-10 bridge last year. No news about I-10 over the spillway, and there was a rumor that the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway was (miraculously) intact.

The Southern Yacht Club has burned down, surreally on an island surrounded completely by water with wrecked boats all around it. The Fair Grounds lost half of its grandstands roof. CBD windows were all blown out, along with building panels. The Superdome roof coating was half peeled off, with a couple of holes opened up in it (that must have been an awful place to wait the storm, without air conditioning and herded into the stands).

The looting has begun. There were crowds swarming over Roberts at Elysian Fields and St. Claude, and legions more at the brand new Wall Mart on Tchoupitoulas (maybe they were all Magazine St. small business owners, but that's a local joke). I remember a couple of years back when righteous folks in the US kept asking me how Iraqis could possibly loot their own facilities. Well, perhaps some might now wonder how Americans can possibly loot their own facilities -- except that somehow it's not surprising at all when order completely breaks down. Even cops are doing it, but then that's a specifically New Orleans touch, if you know what I mean.

It sure is a good thing the Louisiana National Guard is there (in Iraq) to maintain order. A few months back, 6 boys from Houma -- all members of Louisiana's National Guard -- died when their Bradley Armored Vehicle hit a massive IED and flipped over into a canal not unlike the bayous whence they hailed (a nasty corpse recovery detail if ever there was one). Yesterday their own town was nearly crushed by Katrina, and were they around to help? Wouldn't their unit be of use as New Orleans gradually descends into civil chaos? What about strengthening levees? Cutting trees off of the roads? Repairing bridges? We need our guard HERE, NOW -- not killing and getting killed halfway around the world.

Of course, we're all ever proud of our Great Leader's decision to end his precious vacation early to "take command" over relief efforts. That's reassuring, that is. Considering the bankruptcy of the Federal Government (bled dry by -- Iraq and the tax cuts), and the fact that our military response units are away (in Iraq), he's got nothing to play with. Yet play he must. We're a "red" state, and it's put up or shut up time, W.

Since we're on the topic of W and his contributions to local developments, let's ask a couple of further questions. Is global warming really just a figment of liberals' imagination? Are the Kyoto Accords -- designed to slow global warming by slowing emissions -- really such a ridiculous idea? After last year's and this year's (not yet finished!) hurricane seasons, folks from the Gulf Coast had better ask themselves again about the significance of global warming -- that's what they've just lost their houses to. Katrina was not just any hurricane, it set records -- and the warm water temperature of the Gulf fed the monster. The proliferation of hurricanes last year and this year? Same cause. DC policy does matter. Get used to it.

Another policy issue -- locals have heard in recent months that Southern Louisiana is literally sinking into the Gulf, due to the levee system which directs Mississippi river silt further out into the Gulf. Imagine a coastline finger that grow ever longer, but thinner and lower. That's meant to be the buffer region between New Orleans and the Gulf -- and New Orleans is sinking too. Add that to global warming's rising of ocean levels, and you can see where New Orleans is ultimately headed -- underwater. Perhaps that day has arrived. Just before the collapse of the Howard Dean campaign last year, the local contingent was negotiating a statement in support of Louisiana coastal restoration as a campaign plank. Dean's campaign collapsed, and the issue never re-surfaced.

I heard estimates that it would cost something like 16 billion USD to initiate a credible coastal restoration program, as it involves redesigning the whole levee system and river routings throughout Southeast Louisiana. One could rightfully ask whether it's worth so much funding, which would obviously have to be federal-backed due to its scale. It's even more than Boston's "Big Dig", which I think cost just over 10 billion USD when all was said and done (and it leaks!). We've all sat around the past decade and watched Boston suck down all those tax dollars without so much as a peep of complaint. However, it's our turn now America -- quoting the slogan that REALLY built this country, namely "where's mine"? While we're at it, let's compare the figure to another amount -- it costs 4 billion USD every week to keep US troops in Iraq. So, which would you prefer? A month more in Iraq? Or saving New Orleans? For me, the choice is easy -- which would you prefer?

Perhaps the time has come to organize a "Getting Gay With Kids" choirs to "save the swamp" [South Park reference, I recommend it], because Southeastern Louisiana needs its swamps and coastal lands restored. It'll take years, but it needs to be started.

Finally, Mayor Ray Nagin, Senator Mary Landrieu, and Governor Kathleen Blanco all seem to be doing well enough. Nagin's doing his best "every man" imitation, and actually seems to be more worried about the city than his own image. Ditto Blanco -- sensible, sensitive, involved, and quite the grizzled matron. Landrieu seemed like a scared kitten on TV, but she's still young. Meanwhile, Senator David Vitter was quoted saying something to the effect that while he feels pain for everyone's losses, he was relieved to find his own house in Old Metairie is still in good shape. Perhaps that was a bit too honest on his part.

New Orleans is never going to be the same. Are there any bright spots? Well, even they don't seem so bright: contractor jobs as far as the eye can see, jobs for native-born architects, federal funding about to wash over NO's corrupt patronage system, real estate prices to plummet, fewer tourists -- at least in the short term. New Orleans will emerge out of this smaller, poorer, and newer (with awful housing). The party continues, but without the beautiful props. '


posted by Juan @ 8/31/2005 06:16:00 AM


Republicans accused of witch-hunt against climate change scientists

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Republicans accused of witch-hunt against climate change scientists

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Tuesday August 30, 2005
The Guardian


Some of America's leading scientists have accused Republican politicians of intimidating climate-change experts by placing them under unprecedented scrutiny.
A far-reaching inquiry into the careers of three of the US's most senior climate specialists has been launched by Joe Barton, the chairman of the House of Representatives committee on energy and commerce. He has demanded details of all their sources of funding, methods and everything they have ever published.

Mr Barton, a Texan closely associated with the fossil-fuel lobby, has spent his 11 years as chairman opposing every piece of legislation designed to combat climate change.

He is using the wide powers of his committee to force the scientists to produce great quantities of material after alleging flaws and lack of transparency in their research. He is working with Ed Whitfield, the chairman of the sub-committee on oversight and investigations.
The scientific work they are investigating was important in establishing that man-made carbon emissions were at least partly responsible for global warming, and formed part of the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which convinced most world leaders - George Bush was a notable exception - that urgent action was needed to curb greenhouse gases.

The demands in letters sent to the scientists have been compared by some US media commentators to the anti-communist "witch-hunts" pursued by Joe McCarthy in the 1950s.

The three US climate scientists - Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Centre at Pennsylvania State University; Raymond Bradley, the director of the Climate System Research Centre at the University of Massachusetts; and Malcolm Hughes, the former director of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona - have been told to send large volumes of material.

A letter demanding information on the three and their work has also gone to Arden Bement, the director of the US National Science Foundation.

Mr Barton's inquiry was launched after an article in the Wall Street Journal quoted an economist and a statistician, neither of them from a climate science background, saying there were methodological flaws and data errors in the three scientists' calculations. It accused the trio of refusing to make their original material available to be cross-checked.

Mr Barton then asked for everything the scientists had ever published and all baseline data. He said the information was necessary because Congress was going to make policy decisions drawing on their work, and his committee needed to check its validity.

There followed a demand for details of everything they had done since their careers began, funding received and procedures for data disclosure.

The inquiry has sent shockwaves through the US scientific establishment, already under pressure from the Bush administration, which links funding to policy objectives.

Eighteen of the country's most influential scientists from Princeton and Harvard have written to Mr Barton and Mr Whitfield expressing "deep concern". Their letter says much of the information requested is unrelated to climate science.

It says: "Requests to provide all working materials related to hundreds of publications stretching back decades can be seen as intimidation - intentional or not - and thereby risks compromising the independence of scientific opinion that is vital to the pre-eminence of American science as well as to the flow of objective science to the government."

Alan Leshner protested on behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, expressing "deep concern" about the inquiry, which appeared to be "a search for a basis to discredit the particular scientists rather than a search for understanding".

Political reaction has been stronger. Henry Waxman, a senior Californian Democrat, wrote complaining that this was a "dubious" inquiry which many viewed as a "transparent effort to bully and harass climate-change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree".

But the strongest language came from another Republican, Sherwood Boehlert, the chairman of the house science committee. He wrote to "express my strenuous objections to what I see as the misguided and illegitimate investigation".

He said it was pernicious to substitute political review for scientific peer review and the precedent was "truly chilling". He said the inquiry "seeks to erase the line between science and politics" and should be reconsidered.

A spokeswoman for Mr Barton said yesterday that all the required written evidence had been collected.

"The committee will review everything we have and decided how best to proceed. No decision has yet been made whether to have public hearings to investigate the validity of the scientists' findings, but that could be the next step for this autumn," she said.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Europe's Low-Carbon Diet

WSJ.com - Business Europe

August 10, 2005

It was just two weeks ago that the U.S., China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through technology rather than emissions caps like the ones found in Europe's beloved Kyoto Protocol. While it may take some time to judge any effects the newer treaty may have, it is already clear that one of the European Union's key strategies for complying with Kyoto -- its eight-month-old carbon-trading scheme -- is a failure on two fronts. It has significantly raised energy costs, and EU CO2 output has almost certainly risen rather than fallen. And this is all before round two of Kyoto, which calls for even deeper cuts and greater penalties -- far beyond what treaty participants can realistically achieve.

Carbon trading made more sense 10 years ago, when natural gas was inexpensive and abundant. For as long as gas cost less than coal, carbon mitigation could be achieved on the cheap. And for Britain, it made double sense to wean itself off militant miners and draw off an inexpensive domestic supply in the North Sea. However, as the environmental and economic benefits of gas became clear, a supply bottleneck developed. The result was that last year, throughout Europe, the price of coal fell below that of gas. Because coal typically creates two to three times more carbon dioxide than natural gas, this meant higher emissions.

To complicate matters, globalization is putting pressure on Western Europe's high-cost welfare structure, leading to rising unemployment and anemic growth. So this is hardly the time to reduce further their companies' ability to compete. Yet that is exactly what many European countries are doing in order to meet their goals for emission cuts. According to a recent research report by UBS, CO2 costs are now the key driver of electricity prices on the Continent: In Germany, for instance, they are to blame for a 15% rise in electricity prices since the start of carbon trading last December, to €39 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for 2006 from €34 MWh. The report also notes that "a further €2 to €4 MWh is yet to be priced in."

Indeed the price of carbon -- one of the few commodities measured in euros rather than dollars -- has, for some savvy traders, been enormously profitable. As in all successful trading, the reason is volatility. Starting at €8.48 per metric ton of carbon dioxide at the beginning of December, the price dropped seven weeks later to €6.68, soared to €29 just a month ago, fell back to €18 two weeks later, and now is already back up to just under €22. For a trader, these are ideal conditions. But for a power company trying to calculate the long-term cost and payback period of cleaner energy, it's a nightmare.

Even if the market were to settle on a consistent price, chances are the scheme still wouldn't work. Companies will only invest in equipment and plants that use low-emissions fuels if they can see a long-term economic benefit to making the switch. How high would the price of carbon need to go to make it worth a company's while? One analyst puts the cost at €28 per ton. Anything below that merely raises the cost of coal-fired electricity, which is inevitably passed on to consumers.

But should the price go above €28, a veritable army of European traders will send gas prices skyrocketing, adding palpably to overall energy costs. The supply of gas has consistently failed to keep up with demand, and this will not be solved anytime soon. In the meantime, energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum and steel, are likely to consider closing down plants and relocating outside the EU to countries where emissions compliance costs are lower. Perhaps then a reduction in CO2 would ensue, but at what cost in prosperity and jobs? What's more, the reduction would only occur in Europe: Emissions would simply rise in places -- say, China or India -- where those plants relocated. The overall picture would be unchanged.

If there's one industrial winner from carbon trading, it's not the renewable-energy industry, whose government-mandated targets are already working through in Western Europe. It's widely accepted that solar and wind cannot deliver reliably large amounts of energy. So the nuclear boys have come out on top. There are many conflicting analyses on the cost of nuclear power. But the crucial new factor is that much-cheaper off-the-shelf designs are available now, ones that produce only 10% of the waste that older plants do, while the uranium can be imported from reliable countries like Australia or Canada. Expect a major shift back to nuclear power throughout Western Europe. And, should Angela Merkel win Germany's snap elections next month, a reversal of the antinuclear policy of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's coalition with the Greens is in the cards.

The U.S., China and India share one huge energy interest -- they all have enormous reserves of coal. It's simply not realistic to expect them to abate their emissions by switching over to gas, which in any case would send the gas price into orbit for everyone else. The solution really does have to be technological. America is leading the way, investing $2 billion in clean coal technology and research. And this is just the sort of knowledge that could be passed on to China and India through the new pact. Japan's Toyota is already licensing out its Prius Hybrid technology and will start producing Prius automobiles before the end of the year in China. Europe, on the other hand, is heading in the other -- dare one say, Luddite -- direction, piling up costs that can only result in longer dole queues and economic decay. European dismay about America's not signing up to the Kyoto Treaty now looks greatly misplaced. The time has come to openly debate the efficacy of its own system instead. If there was any doubt, it's now obvious which side has seen a future that works.

Mr. Lewis is director of environmental affairs for the Stockholm Network.

Monday, August 29, 2005

Hurricane Katrina could be most damaging ever: insurance industry - Yahoo! News

Hurricane Katrina could be most damaging ever: insurance industry - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Insurance damages from Hurricane Katrina could be the most severe in US history, an industry expert said as the powerful storm slammed into Louisiana.

ADVERTISEMENT

Explore homes by area, price range, bedrooms and bathrooms.

State
SelectAlaskaAlabamaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutWashington D.C.DelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIowaIdahoIllinoisIndianaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMassachusettsMarylandMaineMichiganMinnesotaMissouriMississippiMontanaNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaNebraskaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNevadaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVirginiaVermontWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming






Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, said there was an outside chance that Katrina could top payouts that followed Hurricane Andrew, which in August 2002 caused nearly 21 billion dollars in damages in today's money.

"There are estimates out there ranging from 12 to 25 billion," he told AFP.

"What we're looking at is certainly one of the top two or three most expensive storms in history."

Insurance customers should get used to higher premiums for decades to come because of intensified hurricane activity, Hartwig said.

"Insurance premiums have already been rising for people who live along the Gulf (of Mexico) and the southeast Atlantic coast, in part because of what happened last year with four storms that produced about 23 billion dollars in losses altogether," he said.

"But it's also because meteorologists around the world say we're on the leading edge of a several-decade period when hurricanes are likely to become more frequent and more intense," he added.

Hartwig said that independently of whatever impact global warming is having on weather patterns, hurricane activity fluctuates around a 30-to-40-year cycle.

"And beginning a few years back, we seem to have entered into one of the more severe parts of the cycle. It's likely to last several decades, certainly into the 2020s and maybe into the 2030s," he said.

Katrina may cost insurers record $25 billion - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050829/ts_nm/weather_katrina_insurance_dc_9

By Jonathan Stempel
52 minutes ago



NEW YORK (Reuters) - Hurricane Katrina may be the most expensive hurricane ever to hit the United States, costing insurers as much as $25 billion, a storm modeler said on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Shares of many insurers and reinsurers, which provide insurance for insurers, fell, although analysts say regulators often let insurers charge higher premiums after bad weather results in big payouts.

"We expect the bulk of damage to be wind-related, but there is significant flood risk to commercial insurers," said Thomas Larsen, senior vice president at the modeler, Eqecat Inc. of Oakland, California.

Katrina made landfall this morning about 65 miles south-southeast (105 kph) of New Orleans as a Category 4 storm with winds of 140 miles per hour (225 kph), the National Hurricane Center said.

In morning trading, Allstate Corp. fell $1.10, or 1.9 percent, to $56.85; Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. fell 81 cents, or 1.1 percent, to $73.90, and St. Paul Travelers Cos. fell 62 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $44.12.

In Europe, Munich Re shares fell 0.7 percent and Swiss Re fell 0.6 percent.

HOMEOWNERS

On Sunday, with Katrina bearing down on New Orleans, Eqecat said losses could top $30 billion, but then the storm weakened slightly and veered east. "The track shifted east 25 miles, which relieved some pressure on New Orleans because it put the city on the weak side of the storm," said Larsen.

Eqecat now estimates a maximum $25 billion payout, which would make Katrina more expensive than Hurricane Andrew, the costliest U.S. hurricane ever, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

It often takes days or weeks after a major storm to assess damage, and several insurers on Monday said it was too soon to estimate losses. Katrina may have generated $2 billion in claims when it tore through Florida on Friday, analysts said.

Bob Hartwig, the insurance group's chief economist, said payouts to homeowners may top those for business interruption, "given that the eye did not go over New Orleans."

But Ray Stone, vice president of catastrophe operations at St. Paul, said flooding in the city is a big worry. St. Paul does not expect to be able to assess losses before Wednesday.

Andrew resulted in about $20.9 billion of claims, after adjustment for inflation, when it plowed through southern Florida in 1992. Insurers last year paid out $22.8 billion for four Florida hurricanes, the insurance institute said.

Andrew came ashore as a Category 5 storm, the most serious on the Saffir-Simpson scale. Katrina was also a Category 5 storm before it came ashore. Andrew caused about $26.5 billion of overall damage, before inflation, U.S. government data show.

LOSS ESTIMATES

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is the largest insurer of homes in Louisiana and neighboring Mississippi, the Insurance Information Institute said.

Allstate, American International Group Inc., the Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. and St. Paul are the next largest in Louisiana, while Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. and Allstate follow in Mississippi.

According to Risk Management Solutions, a Newark, California-based risk forecaster, insured property in New Orleans and the seven surrounding parishes totals more than $110 billion.

Allstate spokesman Bill Mellander said the largest publicly traded U.S. auto and home insurer is deploying claims adjusters near where it expects the worst damage.

Losses from the four Florida hurricanes nearly wiped out Allstate's third-quarter earnings last year.

Hartford claims adjusters are preparing to move into affected areas and may begin assessing damage within a week, company spokeswoman Victoria Gallant said.

Fraser Engerman, a State Farm spokesman, said, "Once we get clearance from authorities, we'll begin assessing damage. We know it's going to be bad."

AIG did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Greens back �Big Ask�

Monday, August 22, 2005

Betting on Climate Change

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Peat Bogs And Peak Oil - I'm Sorry For Doubting, Mr. President

Peat Bogs And Peak Oil - I'm Sorry For Doubting, Mr. President By Bill Henderson

By Bill Henderson

21 August, 2005
Countercurrents.org


Thanks Mr. President - I'm so sorry I didn't understand what you were trying to do.

I'm sorry Mr. Bush for doubting your capacity and integrity. It took the latest science reports about melting permafrost in Siberian and North American peat bogs and their release of potent supplies of greenhouse gas for me to clue in that you were actually trying to achieve a train wreck in order to forestall possible runaway global warming and other unavoidable global-scale problems associated with our ever expanding global economy.

I remember reading Jeremy Rifkin on runaway global warming from sometime late 80's - early 90's where he predicted that methane emissions from melting tundra peat bogs could be the runaway trigger. Now if informed people stated reasonable predictions a decade ago about possible global warming paths ending in human extinction (taking most existing flora and fauna with us) and their predictions prove correct at this point (along with the other observed global warming symptoms such as increasing extreme weather events, glaciers melting, migrating or worsening otherwise natural infestation or disease outbreaks, etc) then we should finally be able to get agreement and needed change of a commensurate scale.

But no - and I would never have guessed you understood this George - you can have a reasonable, scientific cause and effect of increasing greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels leading through well understood positive feedbacks - such as released methane and CO2 from peat bogs - to Earth having a climate like Venus. Not whether St Louis or Orlando may be a little hotter in a hundred years, but the end of all life on Earth as we know it.

You can understand the cause and effect, plot our trajectory on ever more accurate models, get almost every nation in agreement that global warming is a compounding disaster to be avoided at all cost...

And it won't make any measurable change in the historic and accelerating path of ever increasing fossil fuel use.

Recently an English demographer, Tim Dyson of the London School of Economics, wrote a paper about the reality of governmental response to global warming that has been circling the net in commentary all summer:

Global warming is undeniable and inevitable; "i) scientific understanding advances rapidly, but (ii) avoidance, denial, and reproach characterize the overall societal response, therefore, (iii) there is relatively little behavioral change, until (iv) evidence of damage becomes plain."

I'm a boomman, a sidewinder operator - you won't understand - but I'm also an enviro activist who with many others has been trying to get to an ecologically sustainable forestry in British Columbia's overwhelmingly public owned forests. Just as Dr. Dyson points out about societal action in regard to global warming, in the late 80's/early 90's there was a forest science revolution - Dr. Jerry Franklin and all that a forest is besides timber - and a global movement to change from historic timber management, with its ecological problems caused by inflated harvesting levels and highly mechanized logging methods, to a sustainable industry practicing 'Sustainable Forest Management' or 'Ecosystem Management'.

"EM (ecosystem management) technology will probably emerge as more important to people than either the technology of the communications revolution or biotechnology because of its potential usefulness in guaranteeing a livable environment."
Yale forestry professor John Gordon 1993

Throughout Cascadia, the US and Canadian Pacific Coast, there was a revolution in understanding man in forests and developing SFM / EM. In BC everybody agreed - industry, government, general public and informed publics - that we had to change. We had to at least halve bloated cutting levels predicated upon the existing multi-decade old government policy to liquidate all 'decadent and over-mature' old growth forests (and their replacement with second growth to be logged again in less than one hundred year rotations - the Liquidation-Conversion Plan).

We did nothing of the sort. We fudged it. Industry and gov't spouted greenwashing sustainability language, but cutting levels were only very minimally reduced and old growth was still clearcut.

A decade later you can zoom down using the fun new Google Mapping tool on any forest in BC and see for yourself that in the past decade we have clearcut as large a percentage of the tenured 'working forest' landbase as in any previous decade:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?ll=53.496552,
-123.386765&spn=0.451126,0.407867&t=k&hl=en

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=smithers,
bc&ll=54.677007,-126.139526&spn=1.013815,2.812775&t=k&hl=en

The lesson that the BC enviro community has to offer is that you can't get there from here.

A meaningful reduction of the level of cutting was never even remotely possible. Could any BC gov't survive the massive local economic downturn up and down the coast that would have resulted? Aren't our gov'ts restricted to policy change that impacts local economies by less than 1%? 5% at most?

And even if a brave BC gov't initiated this needed EM environmental regulation wouldn't they have been subject to tremendous outside pressures from international business? Pressures such as investment boycotts, etc. that would have quickly forced retraction? Thomas Friedman is certainly right about what he calls the 'golden straightjacket' limiting all gov'ts to business as usual paths.

The lesson is our inability to change INSIDE THE PRESENT SYSTEM.

Whether it is needed regulation for EM in forests

or a whole millennium of governmental regulation of salmon - mentioned in the Magna Carta - that has nowhere stopped the extirpation of salmon, first from continental Europe, than from most of Britain, then from New England and Canada's Maritimes, and now from Cascadia's Pacific shore;

or governmental regulation of the world's fisheries where we are headed for jellyfish sandwiches;

or protection of biodiversity in ever diminishing and threatened wetlands, estuaries, tropical forests, etc.:

The lesson is Know Thyself: this is who we are. This is so important for biodiversity, sustainability and for needed global warming action. The lesson from two decades of BC forest policy debate is that timber target forestry, the Liquidation-Conversion Plan, is unstoppable within the present gov't/economic configuration.

The lesson is that Kyoto will be fudged just like salmon or forest policies and we'll have ever increasing emissions without any real change - war, economic collapse or other catastrophes excepted.

What is needed is major innovation to our political-economic system that allows for change at the needed scale; that provides the needed precautionary framework or total cost accounting so that markets will work properly - a society governed so that putting all old growth logging off limits (and protecting second growth at the same time), for example, would be possible if this were in our long term best interest.

Something like Lester Brown's Plan B - a wartime-like coalition gov't (US and global) to enforce precautionary rational-comprehensive planning - is needed that is capable of, first of all, reducing consumption, advertising, demand management;

and then organizing investment and industry in greatly improving efficiency and alternative energy development, dematerializing growth, etc.;

and to requisition monies for what ever remediation is possible (although refreezing permafrost is probably too much for even techno-optimists).

Our increasingly unfettered market approach makes solution to local forestry problems and possible runaway global warming (as well as preparing for peak oil) impossible and we should learn this lesson.

Realistically, we should have implemented this governance revolution decades ago because of lead times and complexity.

Realistically, the powers that be want no part of even discussing such governance change; the developed world general public can't 'afford' change at this scale. Realistically, we're not going to get there with reasonable business as usual debate.

So all we're left with is war or economic collapse (or maybe Rapture?) to prevent our present economic trajectory from destroying the ecological basis for human life on Earth.

So thanks Mr. President. Some would say you are an ignorant tool of the powers that be whose actions have made our Bottleneck predicament far worse with your Administration's global warming intransigence; unilateralist militarization of foreign policy; with your corrosion of international cooperation and rule of law; for your choice of a resource war path when confronted with peak oil.

Don't listen to any of that pessimism Mr. President - trust your instincts and listen for God's instruction.

www.pacificfringe.net

Saturday, August 20, 2005

Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming

David Adam, science correspondent
Friday August 19, 2005
The Guardian


Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.
The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."
To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017.

If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.

The bet is the latest in an increasingly popular field of scientific wagers, and comes after a string of climate change sceptics have refused challenges to back their controversial ideas with cash.

Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.

No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms.

In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a £5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks.

Most climate change sceptics dispute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which suggest that human activity will drive global temperatures up by between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.

Others, such as the Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, argue that, although global warming is real, there is little we can do to prevent it and that we would be better off trying to adapt to living in an altered climate.

Dr Annan said bets like the one he made with the Russian sceptics are one way to confront the ideas. He also suggests setting up a financial-style futures market to allow those with critical stakes in the outcome of climate change to gamble on predictions and hedge against future risk.

"Betting on sea level rise would have a very real relevance to Pacific islanders," he said. "By betting on rapid sea-level rise, they would either be able to stay in their homes at the cost of losing the bet if sea level rise was slow, or would win the bet and have money to pay for sea defences or relocation if sea level rise was rapid."

Similar agricultural commodity markets already allow farmers to hedge against bad weather that ruins harvests.

the business of climate change

peopleandplanet.net > climate change > features > commentary:
the business of climate change


Posted: 20 Aug 2005

by Darryl d’Monte

This commentary on the recent agreement by six countries (India, China, the United States, Australia, Japan and South Korea) to co-operate in a pact to combat climate change - outside the Kyoto Protocol - is by Darryl d’Monte, founder President of the International Federation of Environmental Journalists.

Almost 40 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions in California comes from passenger vehicles.
© US Environmental Protection Agency
So the cat’s out of the bag: a major reason why China and India were invited to the G8 summit in Scotland recently was not the recognition that they (especially India) had become major economic players on the world market but that President Bush was roping them into a “regional pact” on climate change. Bush, whom environmentalists are fond of dubbing “the world’s dirtiest man” for his obdurate stand against the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes modest restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases which warm the earth’s atmosphere, has made no secret of his mission to include the world’s two most populous countries in such a treaty outside the UN multilateral system.


It has fallen on the shoulders of Australia’s Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, to make this controversial announcement, which was officially followed up by Robert Zoellick, US Deputy Secretary of State. While Bush has rightly been pilloried throughout the world earlier for his ostrich-like stance that the science of climate change was by no means proven, and later for calling for an agreement outside the Kyoto Protocol, Australia has toed this line. It has vast reserves of coal and any restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide, the biggest global polluter, would affect its economy badly. It has therefore chosen to remain under the US administration’s umbrella, but because of its small population and lack of engagement with the rest of the world, Australia’s role in this arena has gone unnoticed.


The big feet



Queensland’s koala: at risk from climate change.
Credit: Australian Tourist Comission
Both the US and Australia believe that the Kyoto Protocol, which came into effect this February, and requires industrialized countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent below their 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, does not address the problem. However, they are ignoring the environmental and political realities of the world. Some of the most telling “global environmental accounting” is not done by international auditors like the late Arthur Andersen (which doctored Enron’s figures), but by the California-based Global Footprint Network. According to its mentor Mathis Wackernagel, if the world’s productive areas in terms of generating natural resources – from both land and sea – were divided equally, each “earthizen” would be entitled to 1.8 hectares in 2001. The average Australian required over 7.7 global hectares (19 acres) to provide for his or her consumption, while an Indian lived required 0.8 hectares or 2 acres.


Needless to add, an American had a global “footprint” of nearly 10 hectares, only slightly less than the most profligate consumer of natural resources on the globe – the United Arab Emirates. Every Chinese occupied exactly the global limit of 1.8 hectares. It is this accounting that gives the most realistic picture of who is responsible for destroying the world’s environment and, in the process, for depriving not just future generations of access to resources but also making the world’s present-day poor pay for polluters’ actions in the past. Even if the world was to stop, as if by magic, producing greenhouse gases overnight, there are accumulations in the atmosphere which will take hundreds of years to dissipate. As bodies like the Centre for Science & Environment in New Delhi have consistently pointed out, any global greenhouse gas treaty must take into account the historical emissions of countries which have been industrializing for up to 250 years. The other G8 countries are all in this same boat, though Japan is a late-comer (with 4.3 hectares per head).


With a grain of salt


The latest emphasis on a regional pact ought to raise eyebrows. In climate change, we are obviously talking about a global catastrophe. Admittedly, there could be severe localized impacts like, for instance, volcanic eruptions in East Asia or the burning of oilfields by Iraq in Kuwait. However these are, by their very nature, temporary and limited and cannot, by any reckoning, be put on par with the prolonged emissions of industrialized countries over centuries. Allegations of such regional disturbances have to be treated with utmost skepticism. This is precisely what happened just prior to the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, which marked 20 years since the historic Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro – where George Bush Sr. paved the way for his notorious son by refusing to sign the climate change treaty.


The UN Environment Programme, which is the only major UN agency along with UN Habitat to be located in a developing country (in Nairobi, Kenya), put out a controversial preliminary report on an Asian brown cloud which consisted of haze (or suspended particulate matter, to employ the scientific term) and was responsible for heating the atmosphere over this area. There is hardly any doubt that with increasing deforestation, along with urbanization and industrialization, Asia’s load of such pollutants is on the rise. However, it should not be treated as the major cause of global warming, since it is only a few decades old. For that matter, Asia, which is the most populous continent in the world, has major areas to its south which are still not industrialized or urbanized for the most part and therefore can hardly be blamed for upsetting the globe’s natural balance. At the time, the Indian government protested vigorously against such scientific sleight-of-hand and the report appears to have been given a premature burial.


A pact with the devil?


At the time of writing this column, details of this pact (with the devils?!) are not available, but the broad outline is quite clear. It will be called the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate and apart from the two Asian giants, the US and Australia, South Korea will come on board. South Korea is another major coal producer and exporter and thus, like Australia, has a major stake in the way the world moves ahead on reducing fossil fuel consumption, or at least restricting its emissions. According to Campbell, the objective is to “expand the energy the world consumes and reduce the emissions”.


This sounds suspiciously like a (global) Faustian bargain: if the rest of the industrialized world believes that it can continue to consume energy at current rates – the US alone accounts for a quarter of greenhouse gases and thus is the most prodigal consumer on this planet – even if emissions per head are reduced globally, the load on the atmosphere will put intolerable limits on climate as populations increase, with consequences that are already alarmingly apparent. How much more evidence does President Bush and others of his ilk need to remind them that the cost, in economic, social and environmental terms, of changes in weather patterns is playing havoc by the month, in one place on the earth or another? If nothing else, the insurance industry is going to step in and refuse to honor its commitments to compensate people for losses on account of damage due to droughts and floods, not to mention the fluctuations in crop production.


Campbell has spelt out that the new pact will require the “development of new technologies and deployment of them within developing countries.” Here lies the rub. Instead of falling in line with the Kyoto Protocol and reducing emissions, this “Gang of Five” wants to take a business-as-usual approach and solve the global warming crisis through technology, rather than global law. George Bush Jr’s proximity to the oil lobby, both in his state of Texas and the rest of America, as well as to the Saudi Arabian oligarchs, is too well known to bear repetition. South Korea has presumably also been roped in because as an Asian country (more ethnically than Australia), it is better placed than others in the region to contribute its technology in making thermal power generation more efficient.


Bush has gone on record as stating that “US lifestyles are not negotiable,” implying not only that Americans are accustomed to profligate consumption of energy, particularly with their gas-guzzling automobiles, but that he is not prepared to cut jobs by investing to make industry more energy-efficient. Instead, he has announced his own plan to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gases (the proportion of energy in a unit of output) – not overall emissions – by 18 per cent over the next decade. However, since the US economy will grow by 30 per cent over this period, it is evident that it will contaminate the atmosphere more, rather than less, in the future. The demand for electricity has risen by 45 per cent over the last two decades in the US.


All the worlds’ technology cannot cleanse the pollutants if energy consumption continues to rise inexorably: the only solution is to impose some form of global order and ask every earthizen to consume up to a certain limit, after which he or she pays a very steep price. Indeed, the neo-liberal economies of the world never tire of reminding recalcitrant nations like India that they ought to adopt market principles as a sine qua non of growth. If this was so, every true free marketeer would call for the enforcement of the “polluter pays” principle. Even if historical emissions are put aside, a carbon tax of say US$50 per ton imposed on industrialized countries first, and then on developing countries after a suitable lag would, according to the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, not only rid the globe of greenhouse gases but provide sufficient resources to rid it of poverty.

True intentions


Poverty, of course, was furthest from the minds of G8 leaders, their concern for Africa notwithstanding (according to perceptive observers, Britain in particular is championing the cause of this continent to establish its foothold as its benefactor – and, in the process, become the seller of technology to these impoverished nations, with the US having established its hegemony with much of the rest of the world, and India apparently only too eager to come under its sway of late). The prospect of having China and India as virtually unlimited markets to sell environmental goods and services, albeit at very attractive terms at least initially, is too tempting for the US. Zoellick has admitted as much in declaring that the new pact focused on “practical efforts to create new investment opportunities and remove barriers to help each country meet nationally designed strategies and address the long-term challenge of climate change.” In all likelihood, there may even be a system of credits, such as has already been ushered in with the Kyoto Protocol and propagated by the World Bank and others. Under these “carbon credits” and “emissions trading” arrangements, the US for instance can pay India or China to install electrostatic precipitators and other devices in its thermal power stations but get the credit for the reduction in global emissions that this would yield.


China has already fallen for such sops; Indian officials and business interests are anxious to follow suit. However, the earth’s environment does not observe such free market principles. The load on the atmosphere is already too heavy to bear and nothing less than a reduction in this burden will suffice. If India and China, with the active connivance of the US, Australia, and South Korea, believe that they can take advantage of the global crisis by getting other countries to pay for their clean-up, they are making a grave mistake. The other climate treaty, which is wrongly touted as a huge success, is the Montreal Protocol on another greenhouse gas, chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs. It will soon apply to developing countries, but who will pay the bill for the switch-over to non-CFC technologies for refrigeration, air-conditioning and the like? In 1990, when there was a major meeting in London to work out details of this treaty, China and India accounted for only 2 per cent of the CFC consumption. However, they need refrigeration for health and well-being and are now buying technologies from the very companies like DuPont which punctured the earth’s ozone layer by selling CFC-based appliances.


The Clean Development Mechanism is actually a short-sighted policy, because it now costs an average of only around US$ 3 per ton of carbon saved – for instance by planting trees in the South to absorb excess carbon dioxide emissions. However, as developing countries’ energy consumption rises, they will eventually be forced to cut emissions too and the cost of doing so will rise several times. Where will these countries obtain the funds to do this without cutting down on the use of energy? The great danger is that these countries will sell out cheap in the near future, but pay a high price later on. Under the Montreal Protocol, a fund was created to pay developing countries to switch to CFC-free technologies but it was voluntary and will fall far short of the needs of these countries. A decade ago, India alone was estimated to require something of the order of $3 billion for such a switch-over.


Darryl d’Monte is the founder President of the International Federation of Environmental Journalists. He is also the Chairperson of the Forum of Environmental Journalists of India (FEJI) and a columnist and freelance writer. He has published two books: Temples or Tombs? Industry versus Environment: Three Controversies (Center for Science & Environment, New Delhi, 1985), and Ripping the Fabric: The Decline of Mumbai and its Mills (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2002).

Global Warming: Will You Listen Now, America?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0819-03.htm


Two of the leading contenders to contest the next US presidential election have delivered an urgent warning to the United States on global warming, saying the evidence of climate change has become too stark to ignore and human activity is a major cause.
By Andrew Buncombe

On a high-profile and bi-partisan fact-finding tour in Alaska and Canada's Yukon territory, Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic senator for New York, were confronted by melting permafrost and shrinking glaciers and heard from native Inuit that rising sea levels were altering their lives.
People in Alaska are starting to freak out. The retreat of the sea ice allows the oceans to pound the coast more, and villages there are suffering from the effects of that erosion. There is melting, roads are buckling, there are forests that have been infested with beetles because of a rise in temperatures. I think residents there feel it's visible more and more, more than any other place in the country.
Dan Lashof, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council"The question is how much damage will be done before we start taking concrete action," Mr McCain said at a press conference in Anchorage. "Go up to places like we just came from. It's a little scary." Mrs Clinton added: "I don't think there's any doubt left for anybody who actually looks at the science. There are still some holdouts, but they're fighting a losing battle. The science is overwhelming."
Their findings directly challenge President George Bush's reluctance to legislate to reduce America's carbon emissions. Although both senators have talked before of the need to tackle global warming, this week's clarion call was perhaps the clearest and most urgent. It also raises the prospect that climate change and other environmental issues could be a factor in the presidential contest in 2008 if Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain enter it. Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain, who represents Arizona, are among the leading, and the most popular, likely contenders.
That they chose Alaska as the stage from which to force global warming on to the American political agenda was not a matter of chance. In many ways, this separated US state is the frontline in the global warming debate. Environmentalists say the signs of climate change are more obvious there than perhaps anywhere else in the US.
Dan Lashof, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a respected Washington-based group, told The Independent: "People in Alaska are starting to freak out. The retreat of the sea ice allows the oceans to pound the coast more, and villages there are suffering from the effects of that erosion. There is permafrost melting, roads are buckling, there are forests that have been infested with beetles because of a rise in temperatures. I think residents there feel it's visible more and more, more than any other place in the country."
President Bush's administration has repeatedly questioned the evidence of global warming and the contribution of human activity to any shift. Mr Bush, who in 2001 refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty on global warming weeks after he took office, has repeatedly been accused of doing nothing to enforce tighter controls on emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases". But this summer, the US National Academy of Sciences - and the scientific academies of the other G8 nations as well as Brazil, China and India - issued a statement saying there was strong evidence that significant global warming was happening and that "it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities". They called on world leaders to recognize"that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost". Mrs Clinton, who must first win her re-election to the US senate next year if she is to enter the 2008 White House race, said at the press conference that she had spoken to scientists as well as native Alaskans during the trip.
She said that, flying over the Yukon, she saw forests devastated by spruce bark beetles, believed to be increasing at an unprecedented rate because of warmer weather. She also talked of what a 93-year-old woman at a fish camp at Whitehorse told her. The woman said she had been fishing there all her life but now fish have strange bumps on them.
"It's heartbreaking to see the devastation," Mrs Clinton said. Mr McCain, Mrs Clinton and Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine, also went to Barrow, the northernmost city in the US. There, they spoke to scientists and Inupiaq Inuit. They also saw shrinking glaciers in Kenai Fjords National Park.
Mr McCain - with Senator Joe Lieberman - is behind proposed legislation that would require power-generating companies to reduce carbon emissions to their 2000 levels. Mr Graham, a Republican, said he had been moved by what he had seen. "Climate change is different when you come here, because you see the faces of people experiencing it. If you go to the people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, you're not listening."
Mrs Collins, a Democrat, was even more convinced. She said the evidence in Alaska represented the "canary in the mine shaft of global warming crying out to us to pay attention".

Officials at Global Conference Say It's Time to Take Action on Global Warming

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8564

August 19, 2005 — By Jan M. Olsen, Associated Press
ILULISSAT, Greenland — Near a glacier that's retreating at an alarming pace, environmental ministers and other officials from 23 countries met Thursday and agreed that nations must take action against global warming. The meeting in the Arctic town of Ilulissat came at the end of a three-day trip by the officials through Greenland's spectacular but shrinking expanses of ice and snow. The vast island is one of the prime spots for assessing whether global warming is worsening. Ilulissat sits at the edge of a spectacular glacier, the Sermeq Kujalleq, that has retreated some 110 kilometers (70 miles) since 1960, adding to fears that the planet is on the verge of catastrophic warming. The officials came from both sides of the global warming controversy's fault lines, from countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol -- which aims to counter global warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases -- and those that reject it, including the United States. The dispute over Kyoto has been marked by sharp criticism from both factions -- but the participants in this week's meetings and inspection trips appeared unified in agreeing that the time for such rhetoric has passed. "We have to act, we cannot afford inaction," said Connie Hedegaard, the environment minister of Denmark, of which Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory. She told a news conference that the officials' discussions were "open and free," but the contents of the discussion were kept confidential. U.S. envoy Harlan Watson did not appear at the news conference and was not immediately available for comment. "No one doubts that global warming has consequences on the environment and the people, " South African Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said. "It now has become mainstream to believe that it has an impact on our globe." The conference took no decisions on how to fight global warming. "We must stop the blaming game. We should present credible visions on how to make their own fair contributions to combatting global warming," Hedegaard said. The United States, which accounts for one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, saying it would harm its economy. Last month U.S. President George W. Bush presented a plan that critics say is a ploy to undo the Kyoto pact. The initiative is aimed at inventing and selling technologies ranging from "clean coal" and wind power to next-generation nuclear fission as a means of reducing pollution and addressing climate concerns. Participants in the Greenland meeting said that the Kyoto Protocol and the U.S. initiative should be regarded as "complimentary, not in opposition," according to British environment minister Elliot Morley. The meeting also included officials from Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU Commission, Germany, the Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Japan, Morocco, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Sweden and Tuvalu. Source: Associated Press

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Heat and light

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4269858

Aug 11th 2005
From The Economist print edition

An unexplained anomaly in the climate seems to have been the result of bad data
Get article background
CLIMATOLOGY is an inexact science at the best of times. Unfortunately it has become, over the past couple of decades, a politically charged one as well. As the debate about global warming—and what, if anything, to do about it—has gathered pace, uncertainties in the data that would be of merely academic interest in other disciplines have acquired enormous practical significance. And one of the most curious uncertainties of all is the apparent discrepancy between what is happening to temperatures at the Earth's surface and what is happening in the troposphere—the lowest layer of the atmosphere, and thus the part that is in contact with that surface.
The troposphere is where most of the air is found and where most of the weather occurs. Computer models predict that, if global warming is really happening, temperatures in the troposphere should rise along with those on the surface. Recorded surface temperatures are, indeed, rising. However, both data from weather balloons and observations made by satellites suggest that temperatures in the troposphere have remained constant since the 1970s. Over the tropics they may even have dropped. This counter-intuitive result has caused sceptics to question how much warming, if any, is actually going on.
There are, of course, three possibilities. One is that the sceptics are right. A second is that the models are wrong. And the third is that there is something wrong with the data. Three papers published in this week's issue of Science suggest that the third possibility is the correct one.
Day and night
The first of these studies, conducted by Steven Sherwood of Yale University and his colleagues, examined data from weather balloons. For the past 40 years, weather stations around the world have released these balloons twice a day at the same time—midday and midnight Greenwich Mean Time. Each balloon carries a small, expendable measuring device called a radiosonde that sends back information on atmospheric pressure, humidity and, most importantly for this study, temperature.
Unfortunately, data from radiosondes come with built-in inaccuracies. For example, their thermometers, which are supposed to be measuring the temperature of the air itself (that is, the temperature in the shade) are often exposed to, and thus heated by, the sun's rays. To compensate for this, a correction factor is routinely applied to the raw data. The question is, is that correction factor correct?
Dr Sherwood argues that it is not. In particular, changes in radiosonde design intended to reduce the original problem of over-heating have not always been accommodated by reductions in the correction factors for more recently collected data. Those data have thus been over-corrected, reducing the apparent temperature below the actual temperature.
Dr Sherwood and his colleagues hit on a ruse to test this idea. Because weather stations around the world release their balloons simultaneously, some of the measurements are taken in daylight and some in darkness. By comparing the raw data, the team was able to identify a trend: recorded night-time temperatures in the troposphere (night being the ultimate form of shade) have indeed risen. It is only daytime temperatures that seem to have dropped. Previous work, which has concentrated on average values, failed to highlight this distinction, which seems to have been caused by over-correction of the daytime figures. When the team corrected the erroneous corrections, the result agreed with the models of the troposphere and with records of the surface temperature. The improvement was particularly noticeable in the tropics, an area that had previously appeared to have high surface temperatures but far cooler tropospheric temperatures than had been expected.
The second piece of work looked at satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures. For the past two decades, microwave detectors, placed on a series of satellites flying in orbits that take them over both poles, have been used to calculate the troposphere's temperature. (Microwaves radiated from the atmosphere contain a host of information about its temperature and humidity.) Here, too, the data are problematic. Because the satellites are looking down through the whole atmosphere, measuring the temperature of the troposphere requires subtracting the effects of the stratosphere—the atmospheric layer above it. But when this has been done, the result suggests, like the over-corrected data from the radiosondes, that the troposphere is cooling down relative to the surface.
However, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems, a firm based in Santa Rosa, California, think that this trend, too, is an artefact. It is caused, they believe, because the orbital period of a satellite changes slowly over that satellite's lifetime, as its orbit decays due to friction with the outer reaches of the atmosphere. If due allowance is not made for such changes, spurious long-term trends can appear in the data. Dr Mears and Dr Wentz plugged this observation into a model, and the model suggested that the apparent cooling the satellites had observed is indeed such a spurious trend. Correct for orbital decay and you see not cooling, but warming.
The third paper, by Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and his colleagues, argues that it is, indeed, errors in the data that are to blame for disagreements between the predictions of computer models about how the troposphere should behave and what the weather balloons and satellites actually detect. Dr Santer's team compared 19 different computer models. All agreed that the troposphere should be getting warmer. Individual models have their individual faults, of course. But unless all contain some huge, false underlying assumption that is invisible to the world's climatologists, the fact that all of them trend in the same direction reinforces the idea that it is the data which are spurious rather than the models' predictions.
It is, nevertheless, doubtful that these papers will end the matter. Studying the climate is a hard problem for three reasons. The system itself is incredibly complex. There is only one such system, so comparative studies are impossible. And controlled experiments are equally impossible. So there will always be uncertainty and therefore room for dissent. How policymakers treat that dissent is a political question, not a scientific one.

Monday, August 15, 2005

Errors found in analysis of data used to discount global warming

Errors found in analysis of data used to discount global warming

- Andrew C. Revkin, New York Times
Friday, August 12, 2005


Some scientists who question whether human-caused global warming poses a threat have long pointed to records that showed the atmosphere's lowest layer, the troposphere, had not warmed over the last two decades and had cooled in the tropics.

Now, two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations used to generate the old temperature records, which involved stitching together data from thousands of weather balloons lofted around the world and a series of short-lived weather satellites.

A third study shows that when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.

The three papers were published Thursday in the online edition of the journal Science.

The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, conceded Thursday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.

"Our view hasn't changed," Christy said. "We still have this modest warming."

Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

The findings will be featured in a report on temperature trends in the lower atmosphere that is the first product to emerge from the Bush administration's 10-year program intended to resolve uncertainties in climate science.

Several scientists involved in the new studies said that the government climate program, by forcing everyone involved to meet five times, had helped generate the new findings.

"It felt like a boxing ring on occasion," said Peter W. Thorne, an expert on the weather balloon data at the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain and an author of one of the studies.

Temperatures at thousands of places across the surface of the earth have been measured for generations. But far fewer measurements have been made of temperatures in the air from the surface through the troposphere, which extends up about five miles.

Until recently Christy and Spencer were the only scientists who had plowed through vast volumes of data from weather satellites to see whether they could indirectly deduce the temperature of several layers within the troposphere.

They and other scientists have also tried to analyze temperature readings gathered by some 700 weather balloons lofted twice a day around the world.

But each of those efforts has been fraught with complexities and uncertainties.

The satellites' orbits shift and sink over time, their instruments are affected by sunlight and darkness, and data from a succession of satellites have to be calibrated to account for eccentricities of sensitive instruments.

Starting around 2001, the satellite data and methods of Christy and Spencer were re-examined by Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, scientists at Remote Sensing Systems, a company in Santa Rosa that does satellite data analysis for NASA.

They and several other teams have since found more significant warming trends than the original estimate.

But the new paper, by Mears and Wentz, identifies a fresh error in the original calculations that, more firmly than ever, showed warming in the troposphere, particularly in the tropics.

The error, in a calculation used to adjust for the drift of the satellites, was disclosed to the University of Alabama scientists at one of the government-run meetings this year, Christy said.

The new analysis of data from weather balloons examined just one possible source of error, the direct heating of the instruments by the sun.

It found that when data were examined in a way that accounted for that effect, the temperature record produced a warming, particularly in the tropics, again putting the data in line with theory.

"Things being debated now are details about the models," said Steven Sherwood, the lead author of the paper on the balloon data and an atmospheric physicist at Yale. "Nobody is debating any more that significant climate changes are coming."

Brits consider radical plan to measure personal emissions

Brits consider radical plan to measure personal emissions | By Mike Wendling | Grist Magazine | Main Dish | 09 Aug 2005

Brits consider radical plan to measure personal emissions
By Mike Wendling
09 Aug 2005

Credit or debit ... or planet?What would you be willing to do to slow climate change?

Oh sure, you might drive and fly less. You might already have, like me, signed up for a green-energy plan. But would you hand over an ID card every time you filled up your gas tank? Would you let the government track each time you turned on your washing machine or computer? How about your nose-hair trimmer?

Residents of the U.K. might soon be compelled to take such measures. Although it hasn't received much publicity outside the climate-research community, the dry-sounding yet radical idea of "Domestic Tradable Quotas" -- basically, personal energy rationing -- already has some influential backers in Britain.

I first stumbled upon this concept while putting together a radio documentary on the cultural effects of climate change. My journey began on a train from London to Norwich, a city in eastern England that's home to one of the country's main climate-research hubs, the Tyndall Center.

A scientist friend of mine who works at the center had promised to show me around and make a few introductions. Before that, however, she showed me a recent paper written by a few of her colleagues. "If you're really interested in this sort of thing," she said, "you've got to check out this."

The paper was titled "Domestic Tradable Quotas: A policy instrument for the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions" [PDF]. At the time, as you can imagine, I stifled a yawn and said, "Oh yeah, thanks" -- but the laziness that passes for journalistic skepticism evaporated as I digested the report's language.

Here's how it would work. Every resident of the U.K. would receive an annual, identical allocation of carbon units, a number that would be reduced each year in line with the government's climate-change goals. Each energy-quaffing Brit would also be issued a plastic card, like a climate-change Visa with an environmental spending limit. Every time cardholders used carbon-based energy -- for example, by buying fuel or electricity -- they'd have to swipe the card, and a number of DTQ points would be deducted.

According to research by Tina Fawcett of the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University, personal emissions among Britons currently vary by a factor of up to 12 -- so capping everyone's energy use at the same level might be a recipe for all sorts of trouble, in the nation that brought us soccer hooligans. But low-carbon users who don't drive or fly much would be able to sell their excess units to Hummer owners, jet-setters, and others who refuse to get on the energy-reduction bandwagon. Under the model being studied, the units' financial value would fluctuate throughout the year according to supply and demand, creating a government-supervised free market in carbon emissions.


Let's Get Personal

Armed with this eye-opening report, I tracked down one of its primary researchers, Kevin Anderson. Since his research was peppered with phrases such as "equal per capita basis," "trans-community theory of justice," and even "communitarianism," my mind was swimming with images of a bearded, sickle-waving Marxist. I was, of course, wrong. One of the main men looking at the possibility of thrusting Britain headfirst into a low-carbon economy is a friendly, perfectly reasonable chap.

"If we collectively decide to reduce the amount of carbon we emit, we have to decide what is a fair way of doing that," he told me. "This scheme means that every individual, whether you're the queen or someone living on a poor housing estate, will get the same allocation." He suggested the economic effects of DTQs might not be too profound. People would be expected to change their behavior, he explained; faced with the financial disincentive of having to shell out at the end of the year for extra credits, he believes most would.


Will the queen have to hoof it?
Photo: Tom Hanks.Much to my surprise, Anderson also told me that DTQs had already been considered in Parliament -- albeit as part of a "10-minute rule bill," a truncated legislative proposal that's more of an attention-getting device than a serious attempt at passing a law. The bill's sponsor was Member of Parliament Colin Challen.

"We have to get far more personal in the ways we tackle carbon emissions," Challen told me. "A voluntary approach will only get through to about 20 percent of the population." He said he'll propose DTQs again in the current session of Parliament, in hopes of getting more people interested. He's found some support among his colleagues, but says some elements in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Treasury are "understandably wary" of the proposal.

Challen heads a parliamentary group on climate change. But he's a "backbencher" -- the rough equivalent of a junior member of Congress -- and although he does belong to the ruling Labor Party, he'd be the first to admit that his sway over Tony Blair is somewhat limited. So, after chatting with him, I rang up MP Elliot Morley, a minister in the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs who has special responsibility for climate change. He does have Blair's ear, and in all honesty I expected him to be a bit frosty to such a radical plan -- that is, if he knew much about it at all.

Wrong again.

"Personal carbon allowances are a very attractive intellectual idea," he told me by phone while on a chatter-filled train. "The implementation would potentially be very expensive, but that shouldn't stop us from looking at the arguments."

Although the details have yet to be worked out, the government would have to either establish or sponsor the establishment of a nationwide database, produce and distribute the carbon cards, and make sure the whole system runs smoothly once it's in place. Some of the costs could potentially be passed on to members of the public.

"There is a big job involved in explaining the idea of carbon allowances to the public," Morley pointed out. "[But] we shouldn't rule any idea out just on this basis."


So ... No Twisted Knickers?

For a serious plan that could have an astonishing impact on the country's environment, politics, and economics, DTQs have received scant attention from London's usually feverish press. Perhaps that's because the idea is relatively new, and there are a few major problems that have yet to be even looked at, much less ironed out. (I'm sure it has nothing to do with Jude Law.)

Spend Your $.02
Discuss this story in our blog, Gristmill.One major issue would be the complexity of toting up and transferring, buying, and selling carbon points. At a very basic level, it might be difficult to determine what kinds of transactions would be included. My wife's car commute to work certainly would, but what about mine and Elliot Morley's long-distance train rides? Or the energy my computer is using while I write this story? Or even the purchase of a head of lettuce that was trucked in to a grocery store? The question of if and how the energy from these economic interactions would be counted is far from straightforward.

Then there's the issue of having an extraordinary amount of personal detail in a centralized government database. Britons have already dealt with a recent proliferation of public closed-circuit television cameras (of the type used to capture suspects' images in the recent bombings); a central London "congestion charge" program that keeps detailed records of license plates and vehicle movements; and a nasty legislative fight over mandatory ID cards.

In fact, some activists worry that Blair could piggyback DTQs onto ID cards in a massive attempt to greenwash the latter and make them more palatable to his center-left base. But, says Michael Parker, spokesperson for No2ID, an anti-identification-card organization, "There's clearly many other ways in which such a [carbon-trading] scheme could be offered without adding the massive bureaucracy of an ID-card system."

Despite these potential problems, Challen says DTQ implementation is "not a matter of if, but when." Anderson predicted a program could be set up within four to 10 years. Last month, the influential Sustainable Development Commission, which reports to the prime minister, recommended that the government "formally consider" the proposal within two years. With the government taking the issue seriously, researchers are whispering about a critical mass and scrambling for funding to advance their studies, while NGOs and charities pay close attention as well.

In other words, the queen might want to look into switching full-time to the old-school renewable horse-and-buggy -- just in case.

We Brake For Efficiency

TomPaine.com - We Brake For Efficiency

Rob Sargent and Jeremiah Baumann
August 10, 2005


Rob Sargent is the senior energy policy analyst for the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups (State PIRGs). Jeremiah Baumann is the energy advocate for the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG).

In the 1,725 pages of the energy bill enacted by Congress and signed by President Bush, you won’t find acknowledgment of—let alone a plan to address—one of the world’s top energy-related challenges: global warming triggered by fossil fuel consumption.

But while Congress and the president continue to ignore the mounting evidence of a changing climate, state governments are taking action. One of their first targets is global warming pollution from cars and trucks.

The most recent battleground is Oregon, where Gov. Ted Kulongoski has committed to implement California’s upcoming standards on global warming pollution from vehicles. If the standards are implemented, new cars sold in Oregon would emit one-third less global warming pollution in 2016 than they do today and new light trucks would emit one-quarter less. These cleaner vehicles would cost more, but the cost increase would be offset by savings in operating costs, particularly for fuel—saving consumers money overall.

Moving to replace polluting cars on the road today with cleaner versions should be one of the top priorities for government at all levels. Today’s cars and light trucks are among the biggest sources of global warming pollution—responsible for about one-fifth of America’s outsized contribution to one of the world’s most significant environmental problems. On top of that, automobile pollution is a serious health threat; more than half of all Americans live in areas where the air is unhealthy to breathe, with car pollution a major culprit. Sales of hybrid-electric vehicles have exploded in recent years, showing consumers’ willingness to participate in a solution, but the environmentally friendly options in the new car showroom are few.

If Kulongoski prevails, Oregon will join a growing group of states that have adopted California’s clean car standards, which reduce emissions of smog-forming pollutants from cars, encourage the sale of advanced technology vehicles (such as ultra-clean gasoline-burning vehicles and hybrids), and, starting in 2009, will cap emissions of global warming pollutants.

To address their air pollution problems, several northeastern states—including New York, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine—adopted California standards beginning in the 1990s. In the last two years, additional states including New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island have followed suit. Most of these states have already committed to adopting California’s new standards for global warming pollution once they go into force in 2009.

The drive toward cleaner cars in the states has been heavily challenged by car makers who have applied their lobbying clout and substantial resources to defeating stronger emission controls. Manufacturers are currently suing in federal court to void California’s global warming emission standards and are angling to convince Congress and federal officials to make it harder for other states with air pollution problems to follow California’s lead.

The automakers are also working directly in the state legislatures to derail clean car efforts. In Oregon, they won a temporary victory several weeks ago when the legislature passed a budget bill with a provision prohibiting the state from adopting the clean car standards. Gov. Kulongoski has vowed to veto the provision, but the debate will continue.

The outcome in Oregon will have repercussions beyond the state’s borders. Earlier this year, Washington state agreed to adopt the global warming standards, but only if Oregon does so as well. And a clean cars victory in Oregon could bolster the effectiveness of a recent agreement by the three West Coast governors to reduce global warming pollution.

On a broader scale, a victory in Oregon would build the momentum for cleaner cars in other states. The southwestern states, where there is growing desire to take action on global warming (as well as severe air pollution in cities like Phoenix), and states with chronic smog problems (such as Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania), would all benefit from adopting clean car standards.

Gov. Kulongoski should be commended for standing up to the automobile makers and encouraged to use his administrative authority to adopt the standards this year. Officials in other states should take note: As the public grows increasingly restless over unhealthy air and inefficient vehicles, and the federal government continues to be unwilling to take on global warming, the crucial choice of whether to put cleaner cars on the road must be made locally.

Scorched earth

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Scorched earth

With forest fires, failing crops and reservoirs running on empty, southern Europe is in the grip of the worst drought since records began. But why is it happening? Temperatures are blazing but, as John Vidal discovers, other causes are at work too, not least our insatiable appetite for golf, swimming pools and freshly picked salads

Friday July 22, 2005
The Guardian

It could be the edge of the Sahara or even Death Valley, but it is actually a large orchard near Cartagena in southern Spain. On one side of a farm track the soil has broken down into fine white, lifeless sand and a landscape of rock and dying trees stretches into the distance. On the other side, miles of healthy trees are laden with grapefruit, lemons and oranges, while the birds sing and flit in and out of the shadows.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The line between desert and abundance in southern Spain is always fine, in this case it is a 1in-thick black plastic pipe that drips water pumped from a deep borehole via a reservoir to the base of some trees but not to others. Senor Lorenzo, who last year farmed 400 hectares (1,000 acres), decided to cut off the water supply to 15,000 trees earlier this year when he was told his annual allocation of water had been heavily cut. He now farms 200 hectares.
He tips backs his hat and mops his brow in the scorching 42C heat of the mid-afternoon. "What can I do?" he asks. His reservoir is nearly empty, he has no right to more water until next year, he has had to sack all but two of his north African immigrant workers, and soon he will join neighbouring fruit farmers in cutting down and burning his dead trees. He reckons the company that owns the farm will lose millions of euros this year.

"This is is as close to a disaster as you can get," he says. "Everyone round here is more or less in the same situation. We have not seen anything like this before."

Much of western Europe and northern Africa will understand Lorenzo's point of view. Thanks to what meteorologists call "unusual" climatic circumstances, including freak rain which ran off the land without replenishing the water tables, much of Europe is now bone-dry, dun-brown and baking. There has been barely any steady rain for a year or more in many places and it's dawning on the EU and the authorities of half a dozen countries that this pan-European phenomenon will affect everyone and could well continue into next year.

Alarm bells are ringing. In France last week, the environment minister Nelly Olin called the situation "very tense and fragile", as more than half the country's departments put restrictions on water use and the government considered closing some nuclear and hydroelectric plants; the Portuguese government has declared that 97% of of the country is experiencing "severe" drought conditions and yesterday said that it may declare a public disaster; the EU, meanwhile, says that cereal production will fall by more than 20m tonnes this year.

Droughts are common in southern Europe and north Africa, but this year's is thought to be the most intense since records began about 60 years ago. People are reportedly migrating from the parched countryside to the cities of Tunisia and Morocco, and in central Spain, where 11 firefighters died trying to control one of hundreds of wildfires last week, the government is drilling emergency boreholes for some areas and considering emergency desalination plants in others. In milder, less-affected southern Britain, more domestic hosepipe bans are expected in the next few weeks.

The drought of 2005 is already raising food prices, causing unemployment and will cost billions of euros' compensation and economic losses; but it is also leading to calls for gargantuan water transfer plans, new reservoirs and dams. As cities vie with farmers for a resource that is only going to become scarcer if droughts like this become more common, scientists and politicians are saying that a complete rethink is needed over how Europe uses its water.

"Everyone wants more water. Industry, farming, householders. We all want golf courses, showers, swimming pools, gardens. If it goes on, I don't know what will happen," says Maria Carol, a Portuguese forester working at the University of Lisbon. "The good thing about this drought is that for the first time ever there is a real awareness of water."

Travelling through southern Europe this week has been confusing, with communities showing far from uniform responses to the drought. In Portugal, one village may have gushing water and no restrictions imposed on it, the next may be almost dry with water "police" making sure no one is using it in the daytime. About 25,000 rural people are now dependent on water tankers for supply, yet few towns and tourist resorts seem to have been affected at all.

The confusion extends to nature itself. Some trees look green and thriving, but on closer inspection are so stressed that they have stopped growing and may not recover. Some lakes and reservoirs are down to 16% capacity, but others are more than half full. In the cities, the reaction is even less certain. A few municipalities have turned off their fountains and are rationing water to a few hours a day. Some have banned people filling up swimming pools - but because those with pools mostly filled them months ago, you can still hear the sound of children splashing about even as the television and radio exhort families to save water.

Indeed, it is quite possible to be in one of the most drought-affected regions and find nothing amiss at all. "I do know it has been dry and I noticed that they did not water the flowerbeds this week, but apart from that I haven't seen any signs of drought at all," says Carol James, from the Wirral who has an apartment in La Manga resort village in southern Spain.

The 240,000 British and foreign second-home owners on the Algarve and in southern Spain seem totally oblivious to the drought. "It's been lovely weather - but much hotter than we expected," says Mary, from Southend on Sea, a resident at the 1,500-house Mosa Trajectum resort being built around three 18-hole golf courses outside Murcia. "There are no restrictions on the amount of water we use. We can have a bath every day if we want. We pay for it by meter, mind."

Sylvie Vasquez, a housewife from Murcia, privately blames the local economy's dependence on tourism. "We have always been taught to use less water. We never have baths, only showers. Water is much more expensive here than anywhere else in Spain so we always use less. I don't think the tourists come with the same knowledge. What we really fear is that the drought makes people unemployed and that it will go on next year too. We depend completely on farming and tourism."

Last week, Sra Vasquez demonstrated with about 300,000 farmers and townspeople in Murcia for more water to be transferred from central Spain, as promised by the previous government but refused by the new one.

In fact, Murcia already depends on water being transferred from elsewhere in Spain and is now pumping vast quantities from underground aquifers. Yet just 25 years ago, says Pedro Cano, an agronomist with the regional government, it was one of Spain's poorest and driest areas. But in 1979, a canal was dug to allow millions of cubic metres of water a year to be imported from the Tagus river basin and this stimulated one of the greatest explosions of intensive farming ever seen in Europe. More than 100,000 hectares are now farmed under plastic, mostly for British and German supermarkets.

Andres Garcia is head of Fecoam, a local industry body which represents many of the region's largest farmers. "We export about 1m tonnes of fruit and vegetables a year, mostly to Britain and Germany," he says. "Because we have far less water this year, it means that there will be fewer melons, lettuces, broccoli, fruit, celery and tomatoes. We need more water, otherwise the industry dies here."

Ricardo Torres, a Spanish environmental activist living in London, puts it a different way. "When you eat a Spanish watermelon or an iceberg lettuce in Britain, you are really drinking our water," he says. "You could say that your demand is partly responsible for our land turning to desert."

The big question now is whether increasingly drought-prone countries such as Spain, Portugal and France can go on using and wasting water the way they have done for so long. Demand has been rising 8-10% a year for decades, doubling every seven years or less. And while nearly 70% of the water has in the past been harnessed to reap production subsidies under the CAP, the fastest rising water demand is now for touristic urbanisation in the coastal regions where water is often scarcest.

A quick trip up the Coata Calida and east coast of Spain through the Murcia region shows the scale of the problem. Spain built more than 700,000 new houses, mostly for foreigners, last year and the Alicante-Almeria-Murcia area is a forest of cranes, building sites, earthmovers and half-built golf courses as global finance companies create what is being marketed as "the new Florida" and the "Costa del Golf".

On one stretch of coast alone there are billion-euro plans to build more than 100,000 holiday homes in the next 10 years, up to 1m more hotel beds, and dozens of new tourist complexes, many the size of small British towns. Most are planned to be set beside shimmering lakes and golf courses.

Golf and water are the new twin keys to selling expensive second homes. According to brochures being handed to holiday-makers in Spain and Portugal this week, a well-watered course in a sports resort offers "nature", "beauty" and "luxury" and is the "dream of the retired", and an "idyllic lifestyle " - usually starting at about £180,000.

But, says Dutch water engineer Robert Voogd, whose company installed a rare water conservation system at Mosa Trajectum resort and is now saving up to 70% of the water used on a normal golf course, one 18-hole course can use as much water in a year as a town of 10,000 houses.

"You need about nine litres of water per square metre per day to keep a fairway or tee looking green, says Voogd. "As the average 18-hole course is about 360,000 square metres and needs watering about 300 days a year, it means that they need a lot of cubic metres. You do the sums," he says. More than 40 new golf courses are planned for the Murcia region alone and as many again for Alicante and Almeria.

So what is the answer? Water politics in Spain, Portugal and southern France is passionate and complex and the drought has added a new urgency to a debate that has been going on for generations. Regions with a surplus of water know that they have a strong hand, while others, such as Murcia, have the money but not the political backing to get the mega-water transfer projects they see as essential to their future.

On the physical level, it is clear that what water there is can be used far better. Most of Europe, like Britain, has leaky pipes and wastes up to 30% of the water collected. Inefficient farming and poor irrigation especially are to blame.

"The only answer," says Manuel Campilho, a central-Portuguese beef and cork tree farmer, is for more reservoirs to be built and more water to be piped or canalised from areas with a lot of water to those with a little.

"We are all taking more water than we should," says Pedro Cano of the Murcian state government. "In some farming areas the water table has dropped from 50m deep to 300m in about 20 years. The quality of the water is now very bad, very salty, which is in turn leading to desertification. It is a serious problem. We think it is getting worse every year because we use far more water than we have the resources for. The answer is to have different strategies - to bring more water in, to use desalination and also to save water."

But others say that the urbanisation and intensive farming cannot continue. "No water transfer can give us sustainable use. It only moves the problem to somewhere else. We have to reduce what we use or cut back the areas that we irrigate. We have to stop illegal boreholes, and allow developments in fragile areas," says Guido Schmidt, of WWF in Madrid.

"There was corruption and there were illegal boreholes. I don't think there are any now, but if we find them we concrete them up," says Cano. "The fact is that we are all overusing water. There is a limit to how much water can be taken from underground aquifers and we are there," he says.

What frightens people across Europe most is that this year could be just the start of a much longer drought, like the one Spain experienced in the 1990s. What is more, climate change - which the European Environment Agency says will raise temperatures by 2-3 degrees Celsius over the next 75 years - will bring deeper droughts and heatwaves, water shortages, forest fires and health problems.

"Somehow we will all get through this year," says Campilho. "It's what happens to the rains in the autumn and next year that really matters now. We have choices to make. We have all seen the future. If we don't act soon, it could be a real disaster."

It's all part of a natural cycle

The droughts in Europe may be shocking and they are predicted to carry on into next year. But, according to climate experts, they are the result of natural climate cycles and not global warming.

"There are severe to moderate droughts affecting all of Portugal, Spain and southern France, northern Italy, Austria, Hungary and the northern parts of the former Yugoslavia," says Mark Saunders, head of climate prediction at the department of space and climate physics at University College London.

A drought classed as "severe" is one expected to reoccur once every 10 years, whereas an "exceptional" drought should only happen once every 40 years. In the UK, the south-east is also on the verge of drought, but ours will be a "moderate"- class event, expected to occur once every five years.

It is tempting to link the droughts to the recent hot weather across Europe but, while the weather will have exacerbated the effects of the water shortage, it is certainly not the root cause.

The real reason for the drought is essentially a lack of rainfall over the past nine months. In winter and spring, most reservoirs get replenished, but in the UK, for example, the past six months have seen barely two-thirds of the average expected rainfall.

Professor Saunders says that the current situation is a result of natural climate variability. Drought trends going back more than 100 years show this sort of natural cycle repeating itself time and again. He also rules out global warming as a contributing factor since it is expected to cause wetter winters.

The situation across Europe is unlikely to alleviate until the autumn, says Saunders. "The drought won't be alleviated until at least September or October," he says. "We do need two or three months of good rainfall to bring things back to normal."

The only long-range forecast is from scientists at the Met Office, which runs models of a weather system called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). This system is strongly linked to winter temperatures and rainfall. The Met Office is currently predicting that this year we will see a negative NAO-index winter, which means a colder, drier December for the UK and most of Europe. "If that forecast is correct, that would suggest these drought conditions would persist into next year," says Saunders.
Alok Jha