Wednesday, September 28, 2005

DOE Releases Climate Change Plan

RenewableEnergyAccess.com | DOE Releases Climate Change Plan

September 28, 2005

The U.S. Climate Change Technology Program's draft Strategic Plan provides direction and organizes about $3 billion in federal spending for the climate change-related R&D needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and power economic growth.

Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Even though the Bush Administration is known for being skeptical of climate change and its causes, the Department of Energy has released for public review a plan for accelerating the development and reducing the cost of new and advanced technologies that avoid, reduce, or capture and store greenhouse gas emissions. The DOE called the effort the technology component of a comprehensive U.S. approach to climate change.

Renewable energy is expected to play a smaller role than carbon-sequestration technologies, nuclear, and other non-renewable technology options. The technologies developed under the Climate Change Technology program will be used and deployed among the United States' partners in the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development announced earlier this year. Renewable energy is expected to play a smaller role than carbon-sequestration technologies, nuclear, and other non-renewable technology options.

"This Strategic Plan is the first of its kind and will provide a comprehensive, long-term look at the role for advanced technology in addressing this important global concern," David Conover, Director of the Climate Change Technology Program said. "This forward-looking document will allow us and our partners to drive and capitalize on technological innovation far into the future. The Asia-Pacific Partnership coupled with the technologies that we will develop will have a significant impact in addressing this long-term challenge."

The U.S. Climate Change Technology Program's (CCTP) draft Strategic Plan provides strategic direction and organizes about $3 billion in federal spending for climate change-related technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment -- needed to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and power economic growth. This activity complements other efforts including short-term measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity, advance climate change science, and promote international cooperation.

The Plan sets six complementary goals: (1) reducing emissions from energy use and infrastructure; (2) reducing emissions from energy supply; (3) capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide; (4) reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases; (5) measuring and monitoring emissions; and (6) bolstering the contributions of basic science to climate change.

The Plan outlines approaches toward attaining these goals, articulates underlying technology development strategies, and identifies a series of next steps toward implementation.

To view and comment on the CCTP draft Strategic Plan, please visit the CCTP website at the link below. CCTP will discuss the plan with stakeholders at a series of workshops during the coming months. The public comment period will close on Wednesday, November 2, 2005. The completed plan is expected in 2006.

Climate change transforms Alaska landscape

Climate change transforms Alaska landscape

Canadian researchers say lakes and wetlands in Alaska's Kenai Peninsula are drying at a significant rate due to global warming.

In a paper published in the August issue of the Canadian Journal of Forest Research, biologist Eric Klein and colleagues at Alaska Pacific University document a significant landscape shift from wetlands to woodland in the Kenai Peninsula Lowlands.

Klein says the transformation of Alaska's landscape corresponds with an increase in temperatures during the past 100 years.

He compared aerial photos of the Kenai Peninsula taken in 1950 and 1996. Combined with field study and vegetation analysis, he said the research confirms wooded areas increased from 57 percent to 73 percent between 1950 and 1996, while wetland areas decreased from 5 percent to 1 percent.

Scientists note the rate of temperature increase from 1976 to the present has been greater than at any other time during the last 1,000 years.

Klein said during the last 15 to 25 years, species such as dwarf birch, blueberries and black spruce have grown in areas where wetlands had existed for 8,000 to 12,000 years.

Copyright 2005 by United Press International

Wall Street Discovers Climate Change

Wall Street Discovers Climate Change

By Kim Chipman
Bloomberg
WASHINGTON -- The deadliest hurricane season in more than a century has some Wall Street investors sounding like members of the Sierra Club.

Firms including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are telling U.S. clients for the first time that climate change poses financial risks. With damage estimates for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as high as $200 billion, an increasing number of investors are joining public pension funds in urging action on global warming, which scientists say may be making storms more powerful.

"Definitely there will be more attention paid on Wall Street to natural disasters and global warming," said Michael Johnston, a New York-based investment strategist at Capital Group, the third-largest U.S. mutual-fund firm, which manages more than $1 trillion.

Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29, followed three weeks later by Rita, at its peak the third-most-intense Atlantic hurricane ever. The devastation disrupted energy supplies, and insurers and economists say they worry about another big storm hitting this year.

"Katrina is going to be a big stimulus for Washington to act," said Morton Cohen, a hedge fund manager at Clarion Group, which manages $200 million in assets, almost half of which are energy-related. "It's pretty obvious we have to do something about building refineries in this country and diminishing our amount of coal-burning toxins."


U.S. President George W. Bush has questioned the science behind climate change and rejected calls for a mandatory federal cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Katrina will make Bush's opposition to mandatory limits harder to defend, some say. The idea that hurricanes are becoming more devastating in the Gulf "is difficult to avoid," Neil McMahon, a London-based oil industry analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., said in a Sept. 2 report to clients. "More worryingly, recent research suggests that this trend is highly likely to continue as it's linked to global warming."

Possible steps to curb greenhouse gases include a mandatory carbon emissions limit that would require companies to install new equipment and possibly revamp operations; a carbon emissions-trading program; and a renewable energy initiative, already adopted by several states, that calls for a certain percentage of power supplies to come from wind or other alternative sources.

The expense of such steps gives some investors and politicians pause, said John Holdren, environmental studies professor at Harvard University. "The real consequences are far away," Holdren said. "The cost of doing something is immediate. There's a strong temptation to say 'wait and see."'

"Analysts are worried about the next 12 hours; climate change is way too long-term for them," said William Andrews, who manages about $4.5 billion at C.S. McKee & Co. in Pittsburgh, including Chevron shares.

Even before Katrina, Goldman's chief investment strategist, Abby Joseph Cohen, was signaling a shift on Wall Street. "Environmental issues, in particular climate change, are receiving increased focus from the investment community," Cohen said in an Aug. 26 report to clients.

Responding to pressure from pension funds and other investors, companies are factoring climate change into the risks and opportunities faced by their businesses, according to the Carbon Disclosure Project, a group of 155 institutional investors who oversee $21 trillion.

The group includes the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which is talking to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about requiring companies to disclose their carbon-related risks, said Winston Hickox, portfolio manager for environmental initiatives and former head the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Hickox said it was "just a matter of time" before the White House catches up with states, companies and investors and "gets serious" about climate change.

Gulf Currents That Turn Storms Into Monsters - New York Times

Gulf Currents That Turn Storms Into Monsters - New York Times

September 27, 2005
Gulf Currents That Turn Storms Into Monsters
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
A month ago, Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist who has spent decades studying how hurricanes reach their peak strength, "had this terrible feeling of dread" when he saw that Hurricane Katrina's track in the Gulf of Mexico would carry it right over an oceanographic phenomenon known as the loop current.

Late Friday, Dr. Emanuel, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, felt the same dread when it seemed as if Hurricane Rita, fueled by the same current, was going to pass over a related warm eddy and grow even stronger.

To his relief, Rita did not, and that is one reason the storm weakened substantially before coming ashore.

In this stormy season, Dr. Emanuel and other storm experts have been fixated on the loop current, a great ribbon of hot water meandering through the Gulf of Mexico.

For a long time it has been little more than an oceanographic curiosity but, because of its role in energizing storms, it is now a centerpiece of hurricane forecasts.

The current is a conveyor belt of banked solar energy, typically with more than 100 times the flow of the Amazon. It gained notoriety after providing the fuel that helped transform Hurricanes Rita and Katrina from nondescript tropical storms into a rare single-season pair of Category 5 monsters.

In past decades, the current and swirling rings of warm water that it casts off have been tracked mainly for fishing fleets seeking the tuna and swordfish that congregate nearby, and oil companies worried that the roiling currents could rip their drill rigs out of the seabed.

Now, scientists are using satellites, buoys and air-dropped probes to study its ability to transform a nascent hurricane from a ragged pinwheel of rain and highway-speed winds into "a tornado the size of Georgia," as one Weather Channel meteorologist described Hurricane Rita late last week.

All other things being equal, its presence or absence appears to be essential for a hurricane in the region to achieve the rare state of the superstorm - one reaching the physical limits of power and size possible in earth's atmosphere.

Consequently "loop current" has become a familiar phrase on news broadcasts about this season's remarkable storms.

"It has everyone's attention now," said Kenneth J. Schaudt, a private oceanographer and meteorologist in Katy, Tex., who tracks the warm, deep waters for the oil and fishing industries and had to evacuate on Friday when it looked as if Rita was going to pass directly over his home.

Dr. Schaudt first became aware of the loop current's potential to nourish hurricanes in 1985, when he helped run a research project in which a small research vessel, the Pelican, was probing one of the warm eddies spun off by the loop south of Louisiana.

"As the boat surveyed the eddy, Hurricane Juan formed up essentially over the boat," he said. The crew members ended up having to lash themselves to the boat to avoid be swept away, he said.

The current carries warm water from the Caribbean Sea around the western horn of Cuba into the cul-de-sac of the gulf.

Finding no outlet, it generally curls up toward Louisiana and then exits between Florida and Cuba, turning north parallel to the Eastern Seaboard and helping to form the appropriately named Gulf Stream.

Hurricanes feed on the energy from warm water. But while the gulf is often uniformly hot at the surface, that layer is so thin that it offers limited energy to hurricanes, which can stifle themselves as they churn along and draw up cooler waters from below.

But when such a storm passes over the loop current or one of its eddies, the water can be 79 degrees as much as 300 feet deep, meaning that no matter how much a passing hurricane stirs things up, it never exhausts its fuel supply. The eddies can break into even smaller whorls of warm deep water that can drift independently in the gulf for months before dissipating.

Oceanographers who monitor all of this for the oil and gas industry have taken to naming the spinning, circular currents. The one that nurtured Hurricane Juan was Fast Eddy. Other eddies have been called Murphy and Nelson. (A list of eddies is online: www.horizonmarine.com/namedlces.html.)

Satellite sensors that can measure the elevation of the ocean surface to within an inch have allowed scientists to map the general location of the current by exploiting the fact that water expands when warm and thus lumps up where it's warm beneath the surface. There is so much heat banked in the depths of the loop current that the sea surface bulges as much as half a yard, said Gustavo Jorge Goni, an oceanographer at the Commerce Department's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami.

Together with Joaquin Triñanes of the University of Miami, Dr. Goni has been using satellite data to generate global maps of what is called "tropical cyclone heat potential," essentially a mix of measurements that describes how much energy a particular patch of ocean can provide to a passing hurricane.

To become a catastrophic storm, a hurricane needs a host of conditions to be met.

There must be no shear in the atmosphere, no disconnect between the speeds of successively higher layers of air, a condition that can dismantle an expanding storm before it organizes into the trademark bull's-eye of a potent cyclone.

The storm must encounter no pools of dry air. Hurricanes thrive only when there is moisture in the atmosphere, drawn from the sea.

And it must have an unclogged exhaust pipe, with cold air aloft allowing the hot, moist air to vault skyward.

Even if all these conditions are met, though, it now seems clear that a perfectly forming storm must have no energy limits in the ocean below.

There are seven regions where oceanic hot spots are big enough and deep enough to allow hurricanes to reach their peak, Dr. Goni said, including several places south of Japan and east of Indonesia. Along the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, the source of energy for major storms is the great flow of waters generated in the Caribbean.

So Who Is Right in Debate on Role of Global Warming? - New York Times

So Who Is Right in Debate on Role of Global Warming? - New York Times

September 24, 2005
So Who Is Right in Debate on Role of Global Warming?
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
With an American city swamped by one great hurricane and then by another one less than a month later, with federal forecasters ticking down the annual list of 21 names for tropical storms at a record clip, it is no surprise that debate has flared over the role of global warming.

After all, one of the clearest signals that human actions have pushed recent warming beyond natural cycles is a measured buildup of heat in the world's oceans, and oceanic heat is the fuel that powers hurricanes.

The issue has been addressed from starkly different vantage points. For example, former Vice President Al Gore has conducted a continuing speaking tour on the need to cut heat-trapping pollution, while Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, has accused environmental campaigners of fomenting unfounded fears about human-driven warming.

So what is the state of the science behind the arguments over the message sent by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina?

What is clear is that an array of leading experts on oceans and climate agree that the tropical oceans have warmed in a way that is hard to attribute to anything other than overall warming of the climate from the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions.

It is also clear to many climate scientists and oceanographers that warmer oceans will eventually increase the intensity and rainfall of hurricanes, but not necessarily their frequency.

In fact, two recent studies of hurricanes, by different scientists using different methods, claimed to detect a big rise in hurricane intensity around the world over the last several decades.

But the authors of both analyses acknowledged that more data would be needed to confirm a link to human-caused warming. The murkiness arises because the relationship between long-term warming of the climate and seas is only perceptible in statistical studies of dozens of storms, not in the origin or fate of any particular storm.

The growth and trajectory of any one storm is shaped by big natural vagaries in the atmosphere and oceans and chance occurrences, like the passage of both recent hurricanes over meandering eddies of unusually warm water in the Gulf of Mexico.

"It's a coincidence of ideal conditions," said Christopher W. Landsea, a hurricane expert at the Commerce Department's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory outside Miami.

Kerry Emanuel, the author of one of the recent studies showing rising intensity, echoed many colleagues in saying that the impact of global warming was unlikely ever to be manifested in a black and white way that could serve as a call to arms for those seeking curbs on emissions. Instead, Dr. Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it would emerge as if someone had subtly, but progressively, loaded a pair of dice.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Blair's Weak Words on Climate Change Leave Kyoto High and Dry

Friends of the Earth: Press Releases: : Blair's Weak Words on Climate Change Leave Kyoto High and Dry

Blair's Weak Words on Climate Change Leave Kyoto High and Dry
Sep 27





The Prime Minister's speech to the Labour Party Conference raised further concerns about his commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and international action to tackle climate change, Friends of the Earth said today. The environmental campaign group said the speech showed Blair had lost direction on the international stage and at home, where emissions are on the rise.




While acknowledging the "serious problem" of global warming, Tony Blair appeared to pin his hopes almost entirely on "technology" in the speech and raised the spectre of new nuclear power stations as a solution. He said there would be a review of UK energy policy next year.




Friends of the Earth said that nuclear power would not and could not provide a solution to global warming and called for more concrete action to cut carbon dioxide emissions in the UK now.




Recent figures suggest that Britain is no longer set to meet its Kyoto targets by the period of 2008-2012, let alone how the Government will meet the manifesto commitment of cuts of 20 per cent by 2010.



Friends of the Earth's Executive Director Tony Juniper said:




"Tony Blair had an ideal opportunity to show his commitment to international action to tackle climate change, but failed to do so. His emphasis on technology echoes the message coming from the White House and suggests that Blair has accepted Bush's thinking and that tackling climate change is no longer a priority.




"He also failed to explain why UK emissions of carbon dioxide are still increasing - or to explain what he is going to do to tackle this. His Government must of course invest more in clean technologies - but that should not include nuclear power which is dangerous, polluting and does not provide a secure energy supply.




"Unless we tackle climate change there is no way that the twin evils of global poverty or environmental degradation will be solved. Increasingly the Prime Minister's talk on climate change appears to be just hot air."




For more information on why nuclear power does not present a solution to tackling climate change, see the briefing below:


http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/nuclear_power_answer_climate_change.pdf

Monday, September 26, 2005

The Gulf Coast: A Victim of Global Warming?

The Gulf Coast: A Victim of Global Warming?

By Wade Roush September 24, 2005





As evacuees galvanized by Katrina fled the Gulf Coast in advance of Hurricane Rita this week, only to sit idling for hours on clogged freeways, they had plenty of time to wonder who or what was to blame for the storm-tossed mess. But while many have attributed the size and violence of Katrina and Rita to global warming, MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel says it would be wrong to blame the devastation caused by any individual hurricane on long-term climate change.

There are troubling signs in the meteorological record of a link between global warming and hurricane intensity, says Emanuel, a professor in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. But the best available science suggests that the now-scattered populations of the Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama coasts are the victims of mere happenstance.

There are simply too few examples of catastrophic hurricanes hitting U.S. shores to make out any statistical trend, says Emanuel. "It would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming," Emanuel wrote on his website this month.

What Emanuel does believe is that the average power of many tropical cyclones -- the blanket terms scientists use for hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones -- has risen sharply over the past several decades, at least in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. Moreover, the increase is closely tied to changes in the surface temperatures of the oceans where tropical cyclones are born. In other words, when the sea surface temperature rises, the energy of the cyclones above that surface also rises -- and at an even faster rate.

And lately, ocean temperatures have been rising more than they've been falling. Emanuel's examination of North Atlantic and North Pacific storm records over the last 50 years show a marked increase in the average intensity of tropical cyclones.

"It's a big effect," says Emanuel. "It's gone up 50 to 80 percent over the last three decades or so."

Emanuel published his findings in the August 4 issue of the journal Nature and has been at the center of his own storm of debate ever since. Politicans and pundits have latched onto his work as proof that global warming is starting to have an impact. And Emanuel's fellow scientists are also asking tough question. Despite the appearance of corroborating results from a team of researchers at Georgia Tech and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in the September 16 issue of Science, some researchers have said they are surprised by the magnitude of the intensity increases, which don't show up in existing climate-change theory or computer models.


But ironically, Emanuel and his group at MIT weren't looking to generate debate when they began analyzing the northern-hemisphere storm records (which came from a commonly-used database compiled by the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in the UK). The group was mainly interested in how the upper layers of the ocean conduct heat from Earth's lower latitudes to higher latitudes.

"The ocean transports between a quarter and a third of the total heat transported between lower and higher latitudes," Emanuel says. "The atmosphere transports the rest. But the ocean's mechanism is completely different from the mechanism the atmosphere uses. It's been known for years that it's done by the mixing of the upper oceans. But nobody knows what mixes the upper oceans.

"So I was testing the notion that tropical cyclones are primarily responsible for that. If that's true, then the variability in cyclones should correlate with the variability in ocean surface temperatures."

One of Emanuel's early decisions was to measure the power of tropical cyclones, not their frequency.

"If you look globally there are about 90 storms per year," Emanuel says. "That number, although variable, doesn't show any long term trend. The particular metric I developed..iis sensitive to a storm's intensity, meaning its wind speed and duration."

Aside from the fact that the intensity measure might reveal previously undetected climate trends, Emanuel was attracted to it because it is the best predictor of the amount of damage a hurricane will inflict. (One Category 5 hurricane can wreak more havoc on land than dozens of Category 2 or 3 storms.)

Emanuel's measure, called the power dissipation index, is calculated from cyclone wind speeds as observed by satellites, planes, ships, or land stations, and it turned out to provide a new lens on the Hadley data. At first, Emanuel was looking only for signs of "classical" climate signals in the data, such as the well-known El Nino ocean temperature oscillation. He found them -- but then he saw the drastic increase in hurricane intensity, closely paralleling the sea surface temperature data.

"This database has existed for quite a long time, it just hasn't been looked at in this particular way," says Emanuel. "That happens a lot in science. The [Antarctic] ozone hole sat there in the data for years, and no one looked at it."

The results excited Emanuel, since they supported his idea that tropical cyclones help to mix ocean water and redistribute heat around the globe.


But they were also open to another interpretation. In the blogosphere, everyone from the Democratic Women's Caucus to prophets of impending Apocalypse has latched on to Emanuel's findings as proof that that U.S. leaders are ignoring global warming.

Politicians such as former vice president Al Gore and even scientists such as Sir John Lawton, chairman of the UK's Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, have publicly warned that oceans roiled by global warming will produce more massive storms such as Katrina and Rita.

"Increasingly it looks like a smoking gun," as Sir Lawton told the British press, referring to both Emanuel's finding and the Science paper. "It's a fair conclusion to draw that global warming, caused to a substantial extent by people, is driving increased sea surface temperatures and increasing the violence of hurricanes."

Since his Nature paper appeared, Emanuel has been in great demand among journalists, policymakers, and other researchers. He says few have pressured him for his opinion on the real hot-button issue in climate change: how much of global warming can be attributed to human activity, and what, if anything, can be done to slow it.

"My experience is that most of the people who call me up, really want to know about the science, what do I really mean," says Emanuel. "Most people, if they have a political agenda, they are good at keeping it hidden."

But then there's the ever-growing commentariat, which answers to no one.

"The people who are politicizing it are doing it behind my back -- pundits writing on blogs or editorials whom I don't actually talk to," says Emanuel. "They don't want to know the truth. They want to use something somebody wrote to advance their agenda."

Monday, September 19, 2005

HURRICANE FRANCES: METEOROLOGY; Florida's Luck Runs Out With 2 Hits in One Month - The Archive - The New York Times

HURRICANE FRANCES: METEOROLOGY; Florida's Luck Runs Out With 2 Hits in One Month - The Archive - The New York Times

By KENNETH CHANG (NYT) 866 words
Published: September 5, 2004

Battered on the west three weeks ago by Hurricane Charley and being battered this weekend on the east by Hurricane Frances, Florida is a victim of a climate currently favorable for hurricanes and of simple bad luck.
In 1995, after three relatively unstormy decades, a naturally occurring oscillation in the Atlantic Ocean started a new active era for hurricanes.


''The number of major hurricanes went up by a factor of two and a half,'' said Stanley B. Goldenberg, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's hurricane research division in Miami. ''You have a lot of arrows, and you have a lot of targets.''

Some hurricane targets like the Caribbean have been hit several times since then. ''They've been pounded,'' Mr. Goldenberg said. ''They know we've had an increase.''

Mr. Goldenberg and other hurricane experts said Florida and other parts of the United States were fortunate that more disastrous storms had not struck in recent years. Of the 35 major hurricanes -- Category 3 or stronger, with sustained winds of more than 111 miles per hour -- that have formed in the Atlantic since August 1995, only four, or less than one in eight, have hit the United States as major hurricanes. Historically, the odds have been one in three.

That means most of Florida has been unscathed since the 1960's, when the last active era of hurricanes ended. In the 38 years from 1966 through 2003, only one major hurricane, Andrew in 1992, struck southern Florida. In the preceding active period, the 40 years from 1926 to 1965, the region was hit 14 times.

''I view this year as very unlucky for Florida,'' said Dr. William Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who forecasts the hurricane season, ''but this is within the natural variation of storms.''

Each year, between August and November, about 60 low-pressure systems form off the western coast of Africa and waft westward. Warm waters and favorable winds turn some of them into tropical storms; others dissipate and disappear.

Tropical storms acquire names when sustained winds exceed 39 miles per hour; hurricanes are Atlantic tropical storms with winds of at least 74 miles per hour. An average hurricane season has 9.6 named storms, of which 5.9 become hurricanes and 2.3 of them turn into major hurricanes.

But this year, eight named storms formed during August alone -- a record. On Friday, he increased his forecast for this year's season to 16 named tropical storms (up from 13), 8 hurricanes (up from 7) and 5 major hurricanes (up from 3).

He predicts that September will remain active, but that hurricane activity will tail off in October, because of warm water in the central tropical Pacific, possibly the beginnings of an El Niño climate pattern, which tends to suppress storms in the Atlantic.

Dr. Gray, Mr. Goldenberg and other scientists reported in 2001 that the severity of a hurricane season correlated strongly with a decades-long cycle of ocean temperatures in the Atlantic. When waters in the North Atlantic are cooler, wind shear, which tears storms apart, is stronger, suppressing hurricanes.

Global warming is not a significant factor in this year's storminess, experts said. While some climate models predict that warming might eventually mean somewhat stronger hurricanes, that effect is expected to be very small compared to the natural hurricane cycle.

Where a hurricane goes depends on the surrounding meteorological conditions. As they spin like tops across the Atlantic, some barrel straight west, into Central America or Mexico. Others, after passing a semipermanent high-pressure system that sits over Bermuda in the summer, take a sharp right to the north, missing land entirely. And some veer into the United States.

Although the number of hurricanes has been up for years, most have either headed straight west, like Hurricane Mitch in 1998, which killed 10,000 people in Honduras and Nicaragua, or turned north, harmlessly.

When Hurricane Charley formed in August, the high-altitude winds known as the jet stream, which usually blow near the American-Canadian border, had dipped much farther south. That created a low-pressure system over the western Gulf of Mexico, so Hurricane Charley, instead of continuing westward, was steered to the northeast, into Florida.

This time, with Hurricane Frances, the Bermuda high has stretched westward for most of the past week almost to Tennessee. That prevented the storm from turning northward.

Because the active hurricane pattern for the Atlantic will most likely continue for decades longer, Mr. Goldenberg said disaster planners need to prepare for years like 2004.

''This is not just a spike,'' Mr. Goldenberg said. ''This is a taste of what we still have to come.''

Gabriel Calzada - A r�o revuelto, ganancia de ecologistas - Libertad Digital

Gabriel Calzada - A r�o revuelto, ganancia de ecologistas - Libertad Digital

Una calamidad como han sufrido los habitantes de Nueva Orleáns atrae a todo tipo de moscones intelectuales. En especial a aquellos que han perdido sus argumentos en el debate de las ideas. Cuando ven una tragedia como esta se apresuran a sacar partido y tratan de apuntalar sus ruinosas teorías con las trágicas imágenes que difunden los medios combinadas con medias verdades o completas falacias. Uno de los grupos cuyos partidarios se han dado prisa en aprovechar la coyuntura ha sido el movimiento radical ecologista. Su mensaje ha sido claro. La catástrofe se debe a nuestro voraz sistema económico de libre mercado, es decir, al capitalismo.

El argumento más sofisticado diría poco más o menos lo siguiente: “Los gases efecto invernadero están calentando el planeta. Ese calentamiento produce un incremento en la temperatura media del océano y éste, a su vez, sirve de caldo de cultivo de más y mayores huracanes”. Puesto así, en abstracto, la mayoría de los científicos admitirían que no es una teoría descabellada. El problema viene cuando se intenta poner a prueba.

El primer problema, en el caso del Katrina, lo encontramos nada más echarle un vistazo a la serie histórica de huracanes que han tocado tierra en los EEUU. Entre comienzos y mediados del siglo XX, una época en la que se supone que se produjeron relativamente pocos gases efectos invernadero, tuvo lugar un fuerte incremento de los huracanes de mayor fuerza destructiva (los de las categorías 3, 4 y 5 en la escala Saffir-Simpson). Entre la primera y la quinta década del pasado siglo estos huracanes se duplicaron pasando de 4 a 10. Sin embargo, en las décadas que siguieron al fin de la segunda guerra mundial, cuando la emisión de gases efecto invernadero se multiplicaron significativamente, hasta el final de la década de los 70, los huracanes más destructivos y el conjunto de todos los huracanes que tocaron tierra disminuyó de manera continuada y significativa pasando de 24 a 12 el total y de 10 a 4 los de mayor virulencia. Desde entonces y hasta ahora ha habido un escaso aumento de la incidencia de huracanes. En la pasada década aún se mantenían por debajo de la media del siglo XX sumando los de gran fuerza 5 ocasiones y 14 el cómputo total de los que tocaron el suelo de los EEUU. La cuestión que se plantearía cualquier persona culta es dónde está la correlación entre emisión de gases y variación del número o la intensidad de huracanes. La respuesta es bien sencilla: Desde una perspectiva empírica no existe tal correlación.

Esto nos conduce al problema de la causalidad. Los expertos en huracanes afirman que estos fenómenos naturales responden a ciclos pero dicen saber todavía poco de los fenómenos que desencadenan esos ciclos. La hipótesis ecologista consiste en afirmar que el factor principal que domina esos ciclos es el calentamiento de las aguas. Como veremos, su teoría tiene serios problemas. Antes que nada porque las aguas de la región de formación de huracanes del Atlántico (entre los paralelos 5 y 20 norte, desde África hasta América) vienen sufriendo un ligero enfriamiento en las últimas décadas. El equipo del programa medioambiental de las Naciones Unidas (UNEP) reconoce este dato cuando dice que “áreas como el Océano Atlántico norte se ha enfriado en las últimas décadas.” Pero aún hay más. En el resto de zonas en las que se forman los huracanes no ha habido ningún crecimiento en la cantidad ni la intensidad de estos fenómenos a pesar del ligero calentamiento de muchas de sus aguas. Por lo tanto no sólo no hay evidencia empírica de una relación entre la emisión de gases y la frecuencia o intensidad de los huracanes sino que la supuesta base teórica de los ecologistas hace aguas por los cuatro costados del razonamiento teórico más elemental.

Por eso no es de extrañar que los más reputados estudiosos de los huracanes nieguen la autoría de este fenómeno al calentamiento global. Entre estos famosos científicos destacan James J. O´Brien, Roy Spencer y William Gray. Gray, considerado por muchos colegas e instituciones como el mayor experto mundial en huracanes, no sólo ha explicado recientemente en The New York Times que en su opinión no existe relación entre huracanes como el Katrina y la influencia que el hombre pueda estar teniendo sobre la temperatura global de la tierra sino que ha asegurado que los pocos que afirman ahora lo contrario saben muy poco de huracanes y mucho de cómo hay que conseguir subvenciones públicas. Y es que ahora todos se apuntan a la lluvia de millones que trata de correr un tupido velo sobre la cadena de despropósitos gubernamentales. Sería una verdadera tragedia que la desgracia humana de los habitantes de Nueva Orleáns sirva para engendrar otra desgracia intelectual: el rescate del movimiento radical ecologista a manos del sufrido contribuyente americano.


Gabriel Calzada Álvarez es representante del CNE para España y presidente de Instituto Juan de Mariana

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Katrina shows effect of climate change, says Gore

MSN Money - Financial Times Business News: Katrina shows effect of climate change, says Gore

Hurricane Katrina offered "a taste" of the disasters, and the response to them, that the US could expect as a consequence of climate change, former vice president Al Gore said on Saturday.

He cited recent research that found warmer sea surface temperatures - a result of global warming - had strengthened hurricanes and major storms around the world. Speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, where climate change was one of the key issues under discussion, he also criticised those politicians he said wanted to trim government too far, as weak government was incapable of responding adequately to emergencies.

Recent investing newsUS in talks to order record supply of Tamiflu Refiners defer maintenance to keep oil flowing Roberts sows seed of doubt for activists of left and right US hopes of expanding nuclear energy face resistance Big Pharma needs to overhaul risk assessment
He said: "Katrina is the first sip, the first taste, of a bitter cup that will be proffered to us over and over again. It is up to us [to tackle climate change], and it does involve accepting that there is a legitimate role for government."

Mr Gore spoke out against the proposed suspension of certain environmental regulations, which some have argued are necessary to deal with Katrina's aftermath: "The response to Katrina should not be to suspend environmental laws and to cut taxes once again."

Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, also spoke out in favour of swifter action on climate change. The UN will face stiff negotiations in November at the next round of meetings on the Kyoto treaty on climate change, which binds developed nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Its provisions expire in 2012, and at present there is nothing to replace it.

The US administration of President George W Bush, which has rejected the treaty, opposes opening up negotiations on its future, calling such moves "premature".

In a challenge to the Bush position, Mr Annan said: "It is time we began to prepare the next steps, where negotiations are required to bring a multilateral, universal approach [to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change]."

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Plastics industry reeling from oil, gas hikes

National Post

Can't pass on costs

Duncan Mavin
Financial Post


September 16, 2005








Surging oil and natural gas prices are putting the squeeze on the Canadian plastics industry and could lead to job losses in the long-term, industry insiders said yesterday.

"Anyone who's in the plastics industry is going to be feeling it," said Paul Cohen, vice-president of marketing at W. Ralston (Canada) Inc., a Montreal-based manufacturer of garbage bags, adhesive tape and plastic film, which employs 400 staff.

Mr. Cohen was reacting to news that Newell Rubbermaid Inc., a U.S.-based manufacturer of plastic storage containers, is to close a third of it's plants and cut 5,000 jobs. Rubbermaid blamed the closures on oil price increases.

The soaring cost of natural gas, a raw material in plastics production, as well as record oil prices impacting transport and machinery costs, are putting the industry here under similar pressure, said Mr. Cohen.

"Will there be job losses? If buyers say we've got to go out and shop around, who knows where it will end."

"It could end up in China for all I know," he said.

The difficulties facing manufacturers were reflected in 108,000 factory jobs lost in Canada in the past twelve months, according to data released by Statistics Canada on Wednesday.

The Canadian plastics industry currently employs approximately 105,000 workers, and is worth about $20-billion, said John Margeson, a plastics specialist with Industry Canada.

He said he expects some "rationalization" of the industry in North America in the next five to ten years.

"We're already seeing signs. Almost all the new investments in producing resins, the plastics precursors, are happening in the Middle East and Asia," he said.

He said there are two segments that will likely suffer most: consumer products and the automotive industry.

"Companies like Rubbermaid, in consumer products, have limited ability to pass on the price increases to their big customers like Wal-Mart or Canadian Tire who have a motto of low prices," said Mr. Margeson. Big automakers, with their own sales and cost problems, are also reluctant to accept price increases from suppliers, he added.

UN World Summit: Empty Words on Climate Change

FOEI

NEW YORK - September 16 - The United Nations (UN) Summit which ends today in New York looks set to agree no firm action on climate change despite broad recognition that it will have devastating impacts especially for the world's poorest countries, Friends of the Earth International said today.
The Summit, held at UN Headquarters, is the largest gathering of world leaders in history and brings together some 150 heads of state to discuss UN reforms, challenges for the 21st Century, as well as to evaluate the progress towards the UN Millennium Development Goals.

The final outcome document of the Summit does not convey the immense challenge to stabilise our climate, and the threat that climate change poses upon reaching the UN Millenium goals by 2015.

The Summit text being put forward today reveals that no progress has been made on climate change. Circulation of previous drafts demonstrates that the outcome document has been significantly weakened through the negotiation process.

The final Summit document rightly refers to the role of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. But it does not go far enough in recognising the authority of the November 2005 UN Climate Summit in Montreal (Canada) to begin negotiations for the post 2012 international climate commitments.

Friends of the Earth International's Climate Campaigner Catherine Pearce said: "World leaders have clearly failed to face up to the urgent need to take action on climate change. This Summit was a golden opportunity for the UN to commit resources to and support some of the world's poorest countries who will face the harshest impacts of the world's changing climate.

"The international community must recognise the need to assist poorer countries in dealing with the impacts of climate change. Money must be made available to help countries adapt to the changing climate, and also to cope with climate disasters," added David Waskow, international program director at Friends of the Earth US.

The scientific evidence clearly shows that climate change is happening and that greenhouse gas emissions must be curbed. Unless urgent action is taken by the richest, industrialised nations to reduce emissions, the poverty reduction envisaged by the Millennium Development Goals will not be achieved [1].

The potential and capacity for renewable sources of energy, in terms of their contribution to poverty alleviation and sustainable development in developing countries is poorly acknowledged in the final Summit outcomes.

Friends of the Earth International also criticised the final text for failing to recognise that the conservation and sustainable use of the natural environment is a pre-condition for poverty eradication and human well-being, as concluded by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

The recommendations on international environmental governance that were agreed at the 2000 UN Millennium Summit form a clear mandate for the UN General Assembly to discuss the transformation of the UN Environment Program into a specialized agency financed by assessed mandatory contributions from UN member states.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

[1] The Working Group on Climate and Development, which Friends of the Earth is an active member of released their second report, 'Africa - Up In Smoke?' in July 2005 to coincide with the G8 summit. It recommends that international efforts to combat poverty in Africa and other parts of the developing world can only be effective when combined with urgent global action on climate change. The report is available at: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/africa_up_in_smoke.pdf

The first report, 'Up in Smoke?' released last October 2004 is available here: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/up_in_smoke.pdf

Global warming 'past the point of no return'

Independent Online Edition > Science & Technology : app1

Global warming 'past the point of no return'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor, The Independent

Published: 16 September 2005
A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically.

Satellites monitoring the Arctic have found that the extent of the sea ice this August has reached its lowest monthly point on record, dipping an unprecedented 18.2 per cent below the long-term average.

Experts believe that such a loss of Arctic sea ice in summer has not occurred in hundreds and possibly thousands of years. It is the fourth year in a row that the sea ice in August has fallen below the monthly downward trend - a clear sign that melting has accelerated.

Scientists are now preparing to report a record loss of Arctic sea ice for September, when the surface area covered by the ice traditionally reaches its minimum extent at the end of the summer melting period.

Sea ice naturally melts in summer and reforms in winter but for the first time on record this annual rebound did not occur last winter when the ice of the Arctic failed to recover significantly.

Arctic specialists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University, who have documented the gradual loss of polar sea ice since 1978, believe that a more dramatic melt began about four years ago.

In September 2002 the sea ice coverage of the Arctic reached its lowest level in recorded history. Such lows have normally been followed the next year by a rebound to more normal levels, but this did not occur in the summers of either 2003 or 2004. This summer has been even worse. The surface area covered by sea ice was at a record monthly minimum for each of the summer months - June, July and now August.

Scientists analysing the latest satellite data for September - the traditional minimum extent for each summer - are preparing to announce a significant shift in the stability of the Arctic sea ice, the northern hemisphere's major "heat sink" that moderates climatic extremes.

"The changes we've seen in the Arctic over the past few decades are nothing short of remarkable," said Mark Serreze, one of the scientists at the Snow and Ice Data Centre who monitor Arctic sea ice.

Scientists at the data centre are bracing themselves for the 2005 annual minimum, which is expected to be reached in mid-September, when another record loss is forecast. A major announcement is scheduled for 20 September. "It looks like we're going to exceed it or be real close one way or the other. It is probably going to be at least as comparable to September 2002," Dr Serreze said.

"This will be four Septembers in a row that we've seen a downward trend. The feeling is we are reaching a tipping point or threshold beyond which sea ice will not recover."

The extent of the sea ice in September is the most valuable indicator of its health. This year's record melt means that more of the long-term ice formed over many winters - so called multi-year ice - has disappeared than at any time in recorded history.

Sea ice floats on the surface of the Arctic Ocean and its neighbouring seas and normally covers an area of some 7 million square kilometres (2.4 million square miles) during September - about the size of Australia. However, in September 2002, this dwindled to about 2 million square miles - 16 per cent below average.

Sea ice data for August closely mirrors that for September and last month's record low - 18.2 per cent below the monthly average - strongly suggests that this September will see the smallest coverage of Arctic sea ice ever recorded.

As more and more sea ice is lost during the summer, greater expanses of open ocean are exposed to the sun which increases the rate at which heat is absorbed in the Arctic region, Dr Serreze said.

Sea ice reflects up to 80 per cent of sunlight hitting it but this "albedo effect" is mostly lost when the sea is uncovered. "We've exposed all this dark ocean to the sun's heat so that the overall heat content increases," he explained.

Current computer models suggest that the Arctic will be entirely ice-free during summer by the year 2070 but some scientists now believe that even this dire prediction may be over-optimistic, said Professor Peter Wadhams, an Arctic ice specialist at Cambridge University.

"When the ice becomes so thin it breaks up mechanically rather than thermodynamically. So these predictions may well be on the over-optimistic side," he said.

As the sea ice melts, and more of the sun's energy is absorbed by the exposed ocean, a positive feedback is created leading to the loss of yet more ice, Professor Wadhams said.

"If anything we may be underestimating the dangers. The computer models may not take into account collaborative positive feedback," he said.

Sea ice keeps a cap on frigid water, keeping it cold and protecting it from heating up. Losing the sea ice of the Arctic is likely to have major repercussions for the climate, he said. "There could be dramatic changes to the climate of the northern region due to the creation of a vast expanse of open water where there was once effectively land," Professor Wadhams said. "You're essentially changing land into ocean and the creation of a huge area of open ocean where there was once land will have a very big impact on other climate parameters," he said.

A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically.

Satellites monitoring the Arctic have found that the extent of the sea ice this August has reached its lowest monthly point on record, dipping an unprecedented 18.2 per cent below the long-term average.

Experts believe that such a loss of Arctic sea ice in summer has not occurred in hundreds and possibly thousands of years. It is the fourth year in a row that the sea ice in August has fallen below the monthly downward trend - a clear sign that melting has accelerated.

Scientists are now preparing to report a record loss of Arctic sea ice for September, when the surface area covered by the ice traditionally reaches its minimum extent at the end of the summer melting period.

Sea ice naturally melts in summer and reforms in winter but for the first time on record this annual rebound did not occur last winter when the ice of the Arctic failed to recover significantly.

Arctic specialists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University, who have documented the gradual loss of polar sea ice since 1978, believe that a more dramatic melt began about four years ago.

In September 2002 the sea ice coverage of the Arctic reached its lowest level in recorded history. Such lows have normally been followed the next year by a rebound to more normal levels, but this did not occur in the summers of either 2003 or 2004. This summer has been even worse. The surface area covered by sea ice was at a record monthly minimum for each of the summer months - June, July and now August.

Scientists analysing the latest satellite data for September - the traditional minimum extent for each summer - are preparing to announce a significant shift in the stability of the Arctic sea ice, the northern hemisphere's major "heat sink" that moderates climatic extremes.

"The changes we've seen in the Arctic over the past few decades are nothing short of remarkable," said Mark Serreze, one of the scientists at the Snow and Ice Data Centre who monitor Arctic sea ice.

Scientists at the data centre are bracing themselves for the 2005 annual minimum, which is expected to be reached in mid-September, when another record loss is forecast. A major announcement is scheduled for 20 September. "It looks like we're going to exceed it or be real close one way or the other. It is probably going to be at least as comparable to September 2002," Dr Serreze said.
"This will be four Septembers in a row that we've seen a downward trend. The feeling is we are reaching a tipping point or threshold beyond which sea ice will not recover."

The extent of the sea ice in September is the most valuable indicator of its health. This year's record melt means that more of the long-term ice formed over many winters - so called multi-year ice - has disappeared than at any time in recorded history.

Sea ice floats on the surface of the Arctic Ocean and its neighbouring seas and normally covers an area of some 7 million square kilometres (2.4 million square miles) during September - about the size of Australia. However, in September 2002, this dwindled to about 2 million square miles - 16 per cent below average.

Sea ice data for August closely mirrors that for September and last month's record low - 18.2 per cent below the monthly average - strongly suggests that this September will see the smallest coverage of Arctic sea ice ever recorded.

As more and more sea ice is lost during the summer, greater expanses of open ocean are exposed to the sun which increases the rate at which heat is absorbed in the Arctic region, Dr Serreze said.

Sea ice reflects up to 80 per cent of sunlight hitting it but this "albedo effect" is mostly lost when the sea is uncovered. "We've exposed all this dark ocean to the sun's heat so that the overall heat content increases," he explained.

Current computer models suggest that the Arctic will be entirely ice-free during summer by the year 2070 but some scientists now believe that even this dire prediction may be over-optimistic, said Professor Peter Wadhams, an Arctic ice specialist at Cambridge University.

"When the ice becomes so thin it breaks up mechanically rather than thermodynamically. So these predictions may well be on the over-optimistic side," he said.

As the sea ice melts, and more of the sun's energy is absorbed by the exposed ocean, a positive feedback is created leading to the loss of yet more ice, Professor Wadhams said.

"If anything we may be underestimating the dangers. The computer models may not take into account collaborative positive feedback," he said.

Sea ice keeps a cap on frigid water, keeping it cold and protecting it from heating up. Losing the sea ice of the Arctic is likely to have major repercussions for the climate, he said. "There could be dramatic changes to the climate of the northern region due to the creation of a vast expanse of open water where there was once effectively land," Professor Wadhams said. "You're essentially changing land into ocean and the creation of a huge area of open ocean where there was once land will have a very big impact on other climate parameters," he said.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Katrina nada tuvo que ver con el calentamiento - Ideas

James K. Glassman - Katrina nada tuvo que ver con el calentamiento - Ideas

Por James K. Glassman
Ha sido una verdadera tragedia lo ocurrido en Nueva Orleáns, la ciudad más bella de Estados Unidos. Allí viví durante siete años, allí me casé y allí nacieron mis hijos. Mi hija, su esposo y su bebé lograron salir de la ciudad antes de que quedara anegada; viajaron –catorce horas– a Texas con las pocas cosas que les cupieron en su automóvil. No tienen idea de lo que pasó con su casa, sus cosas, sus amigos, sus empleos y su estilo de vida.

Por todo eso, me disgusta escuchar los comentarios de los extremistas del medio ambiente, quienes han decidido explotar al máximo la tragedia para conseguir apoyo a su fracasado Protocolo de Kioto, el cual incluye masivos recortes en el uso de energía para reducir en unas pocas décimas de grado el estimado de la temperatura de la Tierra dentro de cien años.

Katrina nada tuvo que ver con el calentamiento de la Tierra, sino con inmensas fuerzas de la naturaleza, que arremetieron antes en muchas ocasiones, y la imposibilidad humana de frenarlas.

Los grandes huracanes son raros, pero ni son nuevos ni están aumentando. Por el contrario, como se puede constatar en el sitio del Centro Nacional de Huracanes, la mayor cantidad de los más devastadores (categorías 3, 4 y 5) se registró en las décadas de los años 30, 40 y 50, con un promedio de nueve cada año. En los años 60 hubo seis, cuatro en los 70, cinco en los 80, cinco en los 90 y cuatro en los primeros cuatro años del nuevo siglo.

Pero eso no frena a Robert F. Kennedy (h) al escribir que "ahora nos estamos enterando de lo que probablemente cosecharemos con el torbellino de la dependencia de los combustibles provenientes de fósiles que el gobernador Barbour (del estado de Misisipí) y sus compinches promueven. Nuestra destructiva adicción a la guerra del Medio Oriente y, ahora, Katrina nos asoman el caos climático que estamos legando a nuestros hijos".

Por su parte, el ministro alemán de Medio Ambiente, Jürgen Trittin, escribió en una columna que "al descuidar la protección del medio ambiente, el presidente de EEUU cierra los ojos a los daños económicos y humanos provocados a su país y al mundo entero por catástrofes naturales como Katrina". Y añadió: "Cuando en el cuartel de los contaminadores del ambiente por fin se recupere la razón, la comunidad internacional tiene que estar preparada para entregar a los americanos una propuesta para la futura protección del clima mundial".

Trittin proseguía diciendo: "Hay un solo camino. Hay que reducir radicalmente los gases de invernadero, y eso no se ha hecho". En otras palabras, gracias a Katrina, ahora sí se va a cumplir con Kioto. Lo que el ministro alemán no menciona es que Europa está muy lejos de cumplir con lo dispuesto en dicho tratado. Mucho más está haciendo en ese sentido EEUU, que no lo ratificó.

En cuanto al principal asesor científico del Gobierno británico, Sir David King, advirtió de que el calentamiento terrestre puede haber causado la devastación efectuada por Katrina, y añadió que "el incremento en la intensidad de los huracanes se asocia al calentamiento global".

Los propulsores de Kioto mencionan las temperaturas más altas de los océanos, pero en su periódico favorito, The New York Times, el profesor de ciencia atmosférica y pronosticador de ciclones William Gray informa de lo siguiente: "Debido a que los huracanes se forman sobre aguas calientes del océano, es fácil asumir que su reciente ferocidad se debe al calentamiento global. Pero, según los científicos, ese no es el caso. Por el contrario, la severidad de las estaciones de huracanes cambia con los ciclos de temperatura de varias décadas en el Atlántico. La reciente arremetida es perfectamente natural".

La verdad es que no hay evidencia alguna de que los huracanes se estén intensificando. Por el contrario, el Programa Ambiental de la Organización Meteorológica Mundial de la ONU mantiene que, según las estadísticas desde 1940 en adelante, la intensidad máxima promedio de los huracanes ha bajado.

El problema es que a los activistas del medio ambiente no les interesan los hechos, sino distorsionar y explotar los sucesos.
© AIPE

James K. Glassman, presidente de Tech Central Station y académico del American Enterprise Institute.

Prescott attacks US record on climate change

Foreign Policy news : Prescott attacks US record on climate change

Saturday, 10 Sep 2005 14:13 Send Us FeedbackEmail this to a friendPrinter friendly versionDeputy Prime Minister John Prescott has taken a swipe at the US government for its record on tackling climate change in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans.


Speaking in the German capital Berlin, Mr Prescott said climate change was to blame for rising sea levels and increased storm activity.

While expressing "compassion" for the US in the aftermath of Katrina, Mr Prescott said that President Bush's administration had been "wrong" not to join Britain and other leading industrial nations in signing up to the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The US government has been reluctant to accept claims by some scientists that storms such as Katrina could become more common with increased global warming.

"I want to take this opportunity to express our solidarity and compassion after the havoc of Hurricane Katrina," said Mr Prescott.

"As a European negotiator at the Kyoto climate change convention, I was fully aware that climate change is changing weather patterns and raising sea levels," he added.

The deputy prime minister told the International Congress of the Council for European Urbanism that the floods in New Orleans highlighted the dangers global warming poses to island states such as the Maldives.

But while criticising the American government for failing to tackle climate change, Mr Prescott praised the example of US city mayors who had ignored their own federal administration's position on Kyoto and taken local action to limit carbon emissions.

"The horrific flood of New Orleans brings home to us the concern of leaders of countries like the Maldives, whose nations are at risk of disappearing completely," he said.

"On a recent visit to the United States, I was delighted to see that city mayors are taking their own environmental initiative on Kyoto."

France threatens new tax on oil companies

Irish Sun

French officials are threatening oil companies with new taxes if they don't lower prices, despite a EU request not to.

The threat was delivered over television to industry officials by Finance Minister Thierry Breton, who said such a move was only right given the profits companies are making off speculation, the EU Observer reported Friday.

We do not exclude the possibility of putting to a vote in parliament an exceptional tax corresponding to an exceptional situation, Breton said Thursday night. I hope it doesn't come to that, he added. But in any case we are determined.

His comments came despite appeals from the European Commission to member states asking them to refrain from unilateral action on the matter.

The recent oil price rises, which have now attained an all time high is a source of growing concern from an economic perspective in the EU, Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said.

Faced with a phenomenon which risks being long-term, only a coordinated response from all member states would enable us to engage in an effective solution.

STORM WARNINGS - The New Yorker

The New Yorker: The Talk of the Town

Issue of 2005-09-19
Posted 2005-09-12


The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, founded in 1871 and headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, bills itself as the “oldest association of state officials” in the country. Every three months, its members, who include the chief insurance regulators of all fifty states plus the District of Columbia, hold a four-day meeting to discuss issues of common concern. The association’s fall, 2005, meeting was scheduled for this past weekend, and, in addition to seminars on such perennial favorites as “Property Casualty Reinsurance” and “Receivership and Insolvency,” the event’s planners had organized a session on a new topic: global warming. Given recent events in Louisiana and Mississippi, a session on weather-related disasters would surely have been well attended. Unfortunately for the association, the meeting was booked into the Sheraton in downtown New Orleans.

Katrina was so destructive—whole towns and cities devastated, and their traditions swept away—that anyone who would presume to comment on it has a heavy burden. A disaster of this magnitude seems to demand not dispassionate analysis but simple human empathy. To use it as an occasion to point out the folly of U.S. energy policy, as, for example, the German environmental minister, Jürgen Trittin, did, is to invite the charge of insensitivity, or even worse. “The American president shuts his eyes to the economic and human damage that the failure to protect the climate inflicts on his country and the world economy through natural catastrophes like Katrina,” Trittin wrote in the Frankfurter Rundschau. An editor for the London Times online accused Trittin of “intellectual looting,” while the Web version of Der Spiegel announced “another low point for transatlantic relations—and set off by a German minister. How pathetic.” But, callous as it may seem to say so, America’s consumption of fossil fuels and catastrophes like Katrina are indeed connected.

Though hurricanes are, in their details, extremely complicated, basically they all draw their energy from the same source: the warm surface waters of the ocean. This is why they form only in the tropics, and during the season when sea surface temperatures are highest. It follows that if sea surface temperatures increase—as they have been doing—then the amount of energy available to hurricanes will grow. In general, climate scientists predict that climbing CO2 levels will lead to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes, though not in hurricane frequency. (This increase will be superimposed on any natural cycles of hurricane activity.) Meanwhile, as sea levels rise—water expands as it warms—storm surges, like the one that breached the levees in New Orleans, will inevitably become more dangerous. In a paper published in Nature just a few weeks before Katrina struck, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that wind-speed measurements made by planes flying through tropical storms showed that the “potential destructiveness” of such storms had “increased markedly” since the nineteen-seventies, right in line with rising sea surface temperatures.

The fact that climbing CO2 levels are expected to produce more storms like Katrina doesn’t mean that Katrina itself was caused by global warming. No single storm, no matter how extreme, can be accounted for in this way; weather events are a function both of factors that can be identified, like the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth and the greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and of factors that are stochastic, or purely random. In response to the many confused claims that were being made about the hurricane, a group of prominent climatologists posted an essay on the Web site RealClimate that asked, “Could New Orleans be the first major U.S. city ravaged by human-caused climate change?” The correct answer, they pointed out, is that this is the wrong question. The science of global warming has nothing to say about any particular hurricane (or drought or heat wave or flood), only about the larger statistical pattern.

For obvious reasons, this larger pattern is also of deep interest to the insurance industry. In June, the Association of British Insurers issued a report forecasting that, owing to climate change, losses from hurricanes in the U.S., typhoons in Japan, and windstorms in Europe were likely to increase by more than sixty per cent in the coming decades. (The report calculated that insured losses from extreme storms—those expected to occur only once every hundred to two hundred and fifty years—could rise to as much as a hundred and fifty billion dollars.) The figures did not take into account the expected increase in the number and wealth of people living in storm-prone areas; correcting for such increases, the losses are likely to be several hundred per cent higher. A report issued last week, which was supposed to have been presented at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ meeting in New Orleans, noted that, even before Katrina, catastrophic weather-related losses in the U.S. had been rising “significantly faster than premiums, population, or economic growth.”

Since President Bush announced that the country was withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, in March, 2001, the Administration has offered a variety of excuses for why the U.S., which produces nearly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions, can’t be expected to cut back. On the one hand, Administration officials have insisted that the science of global warming is inconclusive; on the other, they’ve cited this same science to argue that the steps demanded by Kyoto are not rigorously enough thought out. As the rest of the world has adopted Kyoto—earlier this year, the treaty became binding on the hundred and forty nations that had ratified it—these arguments have become increasingly indefensible, and the President has fallen back on what one suspects was his real objection all along: complying with the agreement would be expensive. “The Kyoto treaty didn’t suit our needs,” Bush blurted out during a British-television interview a couple of months ago. As Katrina indicates, this argument, too, is empty. It’s not acting to curb greenhouse-gas emissions that’s likely to prove too costly; it’s doing nothing.

— Elizabeth Kolbe

On Katrina, Global Warming - Al Gore

On Katrina, Global Warming

The following is a transcript of a speech given by former Vice President Al Gore at the National Sierra Club Convention in San Francisco on September 9, 2005 addressing the challenges and moral imperatives posed by Hurricane Katrina and global warming.
I know that you are deeply concerned, as I am, about the direction in which our country has been moving. About the erosion of social capital. About the lack of respect for a very basic principle, and that is that we, as Americans, have to put ourselves and our ability to seek out the truth because we know it will make us free. And then on the basis of truth, as we share it to the best of our abilities with one another, we act to try to form a more perfect union and provide for the general welfare and make this country worthy of the principles upon which it was founded.

My heart is heavy for another reason today, and many have mentioned this, but I want to tell you personally that my heart is heavy because of the suffering that the people of the gulf coast have been enduring. The losses that they've suffered in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, New Orleans in particular, but other cities as well, and rural areas. We are here thinking of them, thinking as well of the many brave men and women who have exceeded the limits of exhaustion as they do their duty in responding to this crisis, to the families of those responders and the families of the victims.

When I received the invitation that you generously extended for me to come and speak to you, I did not at first accept, because I was trying to resolve a scheduling conflict. The Fifty State Insurance Commissioners were meeting in New Orleans, and asked me to speak about global warming and hurricanes.

I was supposed to be there today and tomorrow morning. And of course as we all watch this tragedy unfold, we had a lot of different thoughts and feelings. But then all those feelings were mixed in with puzzlement at why there was no immediate response, why there was not an adequate plan in place. We are now told that this is not a time to point fingers, even as some of those saying "don't point fingers" are themselves pointing fingers at the victims of the tragedy, who did not - many of whom could not - evacuate the city of New Orleans, because they didn't have automobiles, and they did not have adequate public transportation.

We're told this is not a time to hold our national government accountable because there are more important matters that confront us. This is not an either/or choice. They are linked together. As our nation belatedly finds effective ways to help those who have been so hard hit by Hurricane Katrina, it is important that we learn the right lessons of what has happened, lest we are spoon-fed the wrong lessons from what happened. If we do not absorb the right lessons, we are, in the historian's phrase, doomed to repeat the mistakes that have already been made. All of us know that our nation - all of us, the United States of America - failed the people of New Orleans and the gulf coast when this hurricane was approaching them, and when it struck. When the corpses of American citizens are floating in toxic floodwaters five days after a hurricane strikes, it is time not only to respond directly to the victims of the catastrophe but to hold the processes of our nation accountable, and the leaders of our nation accountable, for the failures that have taken place. [applause]

The Bible in which I believe, in my own faith tradition, says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

Four years ago in August of 2001, President Bush received a dire warning: "Al Qaeda determined to attack inside the US." No meetings were called, no alarms were sounded, no one was brought together to say, "What else do we know about this imminent threat? What can we do to prepare our nation for what we have been warned is about to take place?" If there had been preparations, they would have found a lot of information collected by the FBI, and CIA and NSA - including the names of most of the terrorists who flew those planes into the WTC and the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania. The warnings of FBI field offices that there were suspicious characters getting flight training without expressing any curiosity about the part of the training that has to do with landing. They would have found directors of FBI field offices in a state of agitation about the fact that there was no plan in place and no effective response. Instead, it was vacation time, not a time for preparation. Or protecting the American people.

Four years later, there were dire warnings, three days before Hurricane Katrina hit NOLA, that if it followed the path it was then on, the levees would break, and the city of New Orleans would drown, and thousands of people would be at risk. It was once again vacation time. And the preparations were not made, the plans were not laid, the response then was not forthcoming.

In the early days of the unfolding catastrophe, the President compared our ongoing efforts in Iraq to World War Two and victory over Japan. Let me cite one difference between those two historical events: When imperial Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt did not invade Indonesia. [applause]

I personally believe that the very fact that there has been no accountability for the horrendous misjudgments and outright falsehoods that laid the basis for this horrible tragedy that we have ongoing in Iraq, the fact that there was no accountability for those mistakes, misjudgments and dissembling, is one of the principal reasons why there was no fear of being held accountable for a cavalier, lackluster, mistaken, inadequate response to the onrushing tragedy that was clearly visible - for those who were watching television, for those who were reading the news - what happened was not only knowable, it was known in advance, in great and painstaking detail. They did tabletop planning exercises, they identified exactly what the scientific evidence showed would take place. Where there is no vision, the people perish.

It's not only that there is no vision; it's that there has been a misguided vision. One of the principle philosophical guides for this administration has been the man who said famously that he wants to render the government of the United States so weak and helpless that you can drown it in a bathtub. There were warnings three years ago from the last director in the Clinton-Gore Administration of FEMA that FEMA was being rendered weak and helpless, unable to respond in the event of a catastrophe. The budget was cut, the resources sent elsewhere.

Carl [Pope] said he was embarrassed. The word is a tricky word. What did you feel after the invasion of Iraq when you saw American soldiers holding dog leashes attached to helpless prisoners, 99% of whom, by the way, were innocent of any connection to violence against our troops, much less terrorism - innocent prisoners who were being tortured in our name - what did you feel? I don't know the words. I don't know the words but I want you to draw a line connecting the feelings you had when you saw the visual images providing evidence that our soldiers, acting in our name, with our authority, were torturing helpless people and that it was a matter of policy - now, they pointed fingers at the privates and corporals that were in charge - but I want you to draw a line between the emotions that you felt when you absorbed that news, and the emotions that you felt over the last ten days when you saw those corpses in the water, when you saw people without food, water, medicine - our fellow citizens left helpless. And of course in both cases the story is complex and many factors are involved, but I want you draw a line connecting the feelings that you had then and now. And I want you to draw another line, connecting those responsible for both of those unbelievable tragedies that embarrassed our nation in the eyes of the world.

There are scientific warnings now of another onrushing catastrophe. We were warned of an imminent attack by Al Qaeda; we didn't respond. We were warned the levees would break in New Orleans; we didn't respond. Now, the scientific community is warning us that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming. A scientist at MIT has published a study well before this tragedy showing that since the 1970s, hurricanes in both the Atlantic and the Pacific have increased in duration, and in intensity, by about 50 %. The newscasters told us after Hurricane Katrina went over the southern tip of Florida that there was a particular danger for the Gulf Coast of the hurricanes becoming much stronger because it was passing over unusually warm waters in the gulf. The waters in the gulf have been unusually warm. The oceans generally have been getting warmer. And the pattern is exactly consistent with what scientists have predicted for twenty years. Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming. [applause] It is important to learn the lessons of what happens when scientific evidence and clear authoritative warnings are ignored in order to induce our leaders not to do it again and not to ignore the scientists again and not to leave us unprotected in the face of those threats that are facing us right now. [applause]

The president says that he is not sure that global warming is a real threat. He says that he is not ready to do anything meaningful to prepare us for a threat that he's not certain is real. He tells us that he believes the science of global warming is in dispute. This is the same president who said last week, "Nobody could have predicted that the levees would break." It's important to establish accountability in order to make our democracy work. And the uncertainty and lack of resolution, the willful misunderstanding of what the scientific community is saying, the preference for what a few supporters in the coal and oil industry - far from all, but a few - want him to do: ignore the science. That is a serious problem. The President talked about the analogies to World War II - let me give another analogy to World War II.

Winston Churchill, when the storm was gathering on continental Europe, provided warnings of what was at stake. And he said this about the government then in power in England - which wasn't sure that the threat was real, he said, "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent." He continued, "The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

Ladies and gentlemen, the warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences. Churchill also said this, and he directed it at the people of his country who were looking for any way to avoid having to really confront the threat that he was warning of and asking them to prepare for. He said that he understood why there was a natural desire to deny the reality of the situation and to search for vain hope that it wasn't really as serious as some claimed it was. He said they should know the truth. And after the appeasement by Neville Chamberlain, he sad, "This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This only the first sip, the first foretaste, of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year - unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we rise again and take our stand for freedom."

It is time now for us to recover our moral health in America and stand again to rise for freedom, demand accountability for poor decisions, missed judgments, lack of planning, lack of preparation, and willful denial of the obvious truth about serious and imminent threats that are facing the American people. [applause]

Abraham Lincoln said, "The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."

We must disenthrall ourselves with the sound-and-light show that has diverted the attentions of our great democracy from the important issues and challenges of our day. We must disenthrall ourselves from the Michael Jackson trial and the Aruba search and the latest sequential obsession with celebrity trials or whatever relative triviality dominates the conversation of democracy instead of making room for us as free American citizens to talk with one another about our true situation, and then save our country. We must resist those wrong lessons.

Some are now saying, including in the current administration, that the pitiful response by government proves that we cannot ever rely on the government. They have in the past proposed more unilateral power for themselves as the solution for a catastrophe of their own creation, and we should not acquiesce in allowing them to investigate themselves and giving them more power to abuse and misuse, the way they have so recently done. The fact that an administration can't manage its own way out of a horse show doesn't mean that all government programs should be abolished. FEMA worked extremely well during the previous administration.

A hundred years ago, Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding." Here's what I think we here understand about Hurricane Katrina and global warming. Yes, it is true that no single hurricane can be blamed on global warming. Hurricanes have come for a long time, and will continue to come in the future. Yes, it is true that the science does not definitively tell us that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes - because yes, it is true there is a multi-decadal cycle, twenty to forty years that profoundly affects the number of hurricanes that come in any single hurricane season. But it is also true that the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm - thus magnifying its destructive power - makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.

Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. Last year, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons: ten, the previous record was seven. Last year the science textbooks had to be re-written. They said, "It's impossible to have a hurricane in the south Atlantic." We had the first one last year, in Brazil. We had an all-time record last year for tornadoes in the United States, 1,717 - largely because hurricanes spawned tornadoes. Last year we had record temperatures in many cities. This year 200 cities in the Western United States broke all-time records. Reno, 39 days consecutively above 100 degrees.

The scientists are telling us that what the science tells them is that this - unless we act quickly and dramatically - that Tucson tied its all-time record for consecutive days above 100 degrees. this, in Churchill's phrase, is only the first sip of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year until there is a supreme recover of moral health. We have to rise with this occasion. We have to connect the dots. When the Superfund sites aren't cleaned up, we get a toxic gumbo in a flood. When there is not adequate public transportation for the poor, it is difficult to evacuate a city. When there is no ability to give medical care to poor people, its difficult to get hospital to take refugees in the middle of a crisis. When the wetlands are turned over to the developers then the storm surges from the ocean threaten the coastal cities more. When there is no effort to restrain the global warming pollution gasses then global warming gets worse, with all of the consequences that the scientific community has warned us about.

My friends, the truth is that our circumstances are not only new; they are completely different than they have ever been in all of human history. The relationship between humankind and the earth had been utterly transformed in the last hundred years. We have quadrupled the population of our planet. The population in many ways is a success story. The demographic transition has been occurring more quickly than was hoped for, but the reality of our new relationship with the planet brings with it a moral responsibility to accept our new circumstances and to deal with the consequences of the relationship we have with this planet. And it's not just population. By any means, the power of the technologies now at our disposal vastly magnifies the average impact that individuals can have on the natural world. Multiply that by six and a half billion people, and then stir into that toxic mixture a mindset and an attitude that says its okay to ignore scientific evidence - that we don't have to take responsibility for the future consequences of present actions - and you get a collision between our civilization and the earth. The refugees that we have seen - I don't like that word when applied to American citizens in our own country, but the refugees that we have seen could well be the first sip of that bitter cup because sea-level rise in countries around the world will mobilize millions of environmental refugees. The other problems are known to you, but here is what I want to close with:

This is a moral moment. This is not ultimately about any scientific debate or political dialogue. Ultimately it is about who we are as human beings. It is about our capacity to transcend our own limitations. To rise to this new occasion. To see with our hearts, as well as our heads, the unprecedented response that is now called for. To disenthrall ourselves, to shed the illusions that have been our accomplices in ignoring the warnings that were clearly given, and hearing the ones that are clearly given now.

Where there is no vision, the people perish. And Lincoln said at another moment of supreme challenge that the question facing the people of the United States of America ultimately was whether or not this government, conceived in liberty, dedicated to freedom, of the people, by the people, and for the people - or any government so conceived - would perish from this earth.

There is another side to this moral challenge. Where there is vision, the people prosper and flourish, and the natural world recovers, and our communities recover. The good news is we know what to do. The good news is, we have everything we need now to respond to the challenge of global warming. We have all the technologies we need, more are being developed, and as they become available and become more affordable when produced in scale, they will make it easier to respond. But we should not wait, we cannot wait, we must not wait, we have every thing we need - save perhaps political will. And in our democracy, political will is a renewable resource. [sustained applause]

I know that you are debating as an organization and talking among yourselves about your own priorities. I would urge you to make global warming your priority. I would urge you to focus on a unified theme. I would urge you to work with other groups in ways that have not been done in the past, even though there have been Herculean efforts on your part and the part of others. I would urge you to make this a moral moment. To make this a moral cause.

There are those who would say that the problem is too big and we can't solve it. There are many people who go from denial to despair without pausing on the intermediate step of actually solving the problem. To those who say it's too big for us, I say that we have accepted and successfully met such challenges in the past. We declared our liberty, and then won it. We designed a country that respected and safeguarded the freedom of individuals. We freed the slaves. We gave women the right to vote. We took on Jim Crow and segregation. We cured great diseases, we have landed on the moon, we have won two wars in the Pacific and the Atlantic simultaneously. We brought down communism, we brought down apartheid, we have even solved a global environmental crisis before - the hole in the stratospheric ozone layer - because we had leadership and because we had vision and because people who exercise moral authority in their local communities empowered our nation's government "of the people by the people and for the people" to take ethical actions even thought they were difficult. This is another such time. This is your moment. This is the time for those who see and understand and care and are willing to work to say this time the warnings will not be ignored. This time we will prepare. This time we will rise to the occasion. And we will prevail. Thank you. Good luck to you, God bless you.

The Storm Next Time

The Storm Next Time - New York Times

September 11, 2005
The Storm Next Time
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
If the White House wants to move the debate about Hurricane Katrina beyond what it calls the "blame game" for bodies decomposing in the streets of New Orleans, then here's a constructive step that President Bush could take to protect people in the future: Tackle global warming.

True, we don't know whether Katrina was linked to global warming. But there are indications that global warming will produce more Category 5 hurricanes. Now that we've all seen what a Katrina can do - and Katrina was only Category 4 when it hit Louisiana - it would be crazy for President Bush to continue to refuse to develop a national policy on greenhouse gases.

"The available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make - and possibly already is making - those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been," declares an analysis by five climate scientists at www.realclimate.org.

Hurricanes derive their power in part from warm water, and so forecasting models show future hurricanes becoming more severe as sea surface temperatures rise. One summary of 1,200 simulations published in the Journal of Climate last year showed that rising levels of greenhouse gases could triple the number of Category 5 hurricanes. (A link to this study and others appear below this column.)

Moreover, there's empirical evidence that hurricanes have already become more intense (but not more frequent). Nature magazine this summer reported a new study by Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane guru at M.I.T., indicating that by one measure hurricanes have almost doubled in intensity over the last 30 years.

That reflects natural cycles as well. But Professor Emanuel writes: "The large upswing in the last decade is unprecedented, and probably reflects the effect of global warming."

He adds: "My results suggest that future warming may lead to ... a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the 21st century."

Global warming also makes hurricanes more destructive by raising the sea level. One Environmental Protection Agency study foresees a one-foot rise in sea levels on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts by 2050 and a two-foot (and possibly four-foot) rise by 2100.

A two-foot rise would swallow a chunk of the United States bigger than Massachusetts, according to the E.P.A., and would also result in much more coastal flooding. One study by FEMA found that just a one-foot rise in sea levels would increase flood damage by 36 to 58 percent - underscoring that we need to bolster coastal protections as well as curb carbon emissions.

So far, Mr. Bush has resisted serious action on global warming on the basis that strong measures "would have wrecked our economy."

Tell that to Portland, Ore. In early July, I wrote a column from Portland about its pioneering efforts to cut greenhouse gases. New calculations had indicated that it had cut total emissions below the level of 1990 - the benchmark for the Kyoto accord - even as nationally, emissions have increased 13 percent. And Portland has been booming economically.

Since then, Portland has discovered a small error in its calculations: In fact, total emissions were reduced to a hair over 1990 levels, not to a hair under. In any case, while the numbers aren't perfect, the trend is clear.

So Portland remains a model for what the Bush administration could do if it wanted to get serious about climate change. The steps Portland took included encouraging walking and bicycle commuting, telling local companies that if they give employees free parking they should also subsidize bus passes, and replacing bulbs in traffic lights with light-emitting diodes that cut electrical use by 80 percent. That last move saved the city almost $500,000 a year in electrical costs. I can't figure out why Mr. Bush is so reluctant to embrace such steps.

Portland has also put teeth into its environmentalism by joining the Chicago Climate Exchange and making a legally binding commitment to reduce emissions. The Chicago Climate Exchange also counts as members cities like Chicago and Oakland, as well as universities like Tufts and the University of Minnesota. Those members are leading the way in addressing climate change - a contrast with the paralysis in Washington.

With corpses on the streets of New Orleans, we may have seen a glimpse of the future of climate change. Let's hope it shakes Mr. Bush out of his complacency.

Resources
A starting place to learn about the linkage between hurricane intensity and global warming is www.realclimate.org. The essay at the top of that page is very useful, as is the thread of discussion among meteorologists below it. There is also some discussion there of another essay to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, available for viewing here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-1766-2005.36.pdf That essay is more skeptical, agreeing that global warming will make hurricanes more severe but suggesting that the impact will be more modest, perhaps adding only 1 to 10 miles per hour to a hurricane's wind speed.
In contrast, see Kerry Emanuel's "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones Over the Past 30 Years," Nature magazine, 4 August 2005: ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf The Journal of Climate article I mention, about simulations suggesting that warming temperatures lead to more Category 5 hurricanes, is here: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/tk0401.pdf. See especially figure 6.
Note that there are various charts of hurricanes striking the U.S., pointedly showing no increase in the number lately. That proves nothing, since nobody argues that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes, only the intensity. And in any case, since relatively few serious hurricanes actually strike the U.S., it's hard to draw conclusions from annual fluctuations.
For more information on Portland's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, see http://www.sustainableportland.org/osd_pubs_global_warming_report_6-2005.pdf
The Chicago Climate Exchange is an excellent idea, and more info is here: http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/