/PRNewswire/ -- A large international coalition today urged the United States to support marine conservation options that will help mitigate climate change.
The 'Blue Climate Coalition,' comprised of sixty-six conservation groups and interests and over 150 marine scientists and professionals, from 33 countries, issued communications today addressed to President Obama and the United States Senate.
Together, the coalition letters request the option for marine conservation solutions to climate change to be considered in national climate change legislation and international climate change treaties, and support for marine science research that further explores this concept.
Eminent oceanographer and conservationist, Dr. Sylvia Earle, endorsed the letters as the first scientist to sign-on. In her latest book, 'The World Is Blue,' Earle reveals how dangerous oceanic change threatens the very existence of life on Earth and argues for renewable strategies that safeguard the natural systems that sustain us.
News of the coalition's effort made its way to Hollywood, and to the notice of Gilles Marini, most recently of 'Sex and the City' and 'Dancing With the Stars.' Gilles signed the letters as a supporter of healthy oceans.
Philippe, Jr., and Alexandra Cousteau, grandchildren of Jacques-Yves Cousteau, signed-on, representing their respective conservation organizations EchoEarth International and Blue Legacy International.
A wide range of interests were represented in the coalition letters: environmental conservation, climate change education and advocacy, ecosystem restoration, the dive industry, ecotourism and sustainable travel, carbon offsetting, fishing, and scientific research.
Scientific Backing
The coalition's message is supported by reports released recently by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). UNEP's 'Blue Carbon' report highlights the carbon storage potential of coastal and marine ecosystems, such as mangrove forests, seagrass meadows, and saltwater marsh lands.
The UNEP report found that the restoration of coastal and marine ecosystems and a reduction in the clearcutting of tropical forests could mitigate anthropogenic carbon emissions by up to 25%.
The IUCN report, titled 'The Ocean and Climate Change,' finds that failure to recognize the ocean in climate change discussions will have profound consequences for humanity. The report also recommends for additional research to quantify the carbon value of ocean ecosystems. This recommendation is echoed in the coalition letters, to ensure full scientific backing any future natural ocean carbon policies.
"Utilizing the natural carbon functions of both the green and blue biospheres of our planet is an option that we simply cannot afford to ignore if we are serious about tackling climate change and making the transition to a sustainable low-carbon economy," said Mark J. Spalding, President of The Ocean Foundation and signatory to the coalition letters.
The Urgency of Action
"The United States will play a crucial role in next month's climate change discussions in Copenhagen," said Steven J. Lutz, Executive Director of Blue Climate Solutions, the group that organized the letters. "We are asking the United States to show global leadership by advancing solutions for climate change that involve coastal and marine conservation. Many U.S. federal and state agencies are already pursuing actions that could be considered climate mitigation, such as the restoration of coastal and estuarine habitats. These actions need to be continued and encouraged."
Recognizing the carbon value of healthy coastal and marine ecosystems may be significant for achieving consensus at the Copenhagen negotiations. The health of coastal ocean ecosystems is a critical issue for many developing countries, especially small island developing states. The need to restore the ocean's natural carbon function could help direct billions of dollars towards conservation efforts, while simultaneously supporting local economies and countering the threat of climate change throughout the globe.
Economic stimulus associated with restoring the ocean's natural carbon function include funding and investment for activities such as improving water quality, ecosystem restoration, coastal surveying, and the innovation of new environmental monitoring and restoration technologies.
"Restoring the ocean's natural ocean carbon function is proposed as an alternative to potentially harmful ocean geo-engineering schemes recently discussed in Congress," said Lutz. "Restoration activities that naturally fix carbon in to forms other than dissolved carbon will also not increase ocean acidification."
Environmental co-benefits associated with natural ocean carbon solutions include renewed and sustainable fisheries, the conservation of endangered marine species and birds, and the restoration of certain coastal ecosystems. Mangrove forests are considered essential habitat for many fish species, and healthy seagrass meadows are indispensable for endangered sea turtles and manatees.
"Sea turtle hatchlings need healthy coastal and marine ecosystems in order to survive," said Lutz. "It just so happens that we also need the same healthy ocean ecosystems to survive on this blue planet."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Utility Wants to Pour $334 Million of Taxpayer Money Down Carbon Capture Rat Hole
/PRNewswire/ -- Utility giant AEP has applied for $334 million in stimulus money to construct the first commercial scale CO2 capture and storage project at a West Virginia coal-fired power plant. That's about half the money needed for the project. The project goal is to capture 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per year and then to store it 1.5 miles below the surface. Left unanswered, however, are some very significant questions:
Q How much of a difference in atmospheric CO2 levels will this make?
A Atmospheric CO2 accumulation from this plant is the product the emissions (0.0015 billion metric tons of CO2) times its persistence in the atmosphere (estimated to be 40%), which equals 0.0006 billion metric tons of CO2. Since 1 part per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2 weights 7.81 billion metric tons, the atmospheric persistence of the plant's emissions is roughly 0.0006 / 7.81, which equals 0.000077 ppmv. So AEP plans to spend $670 million -- remember half is taxpayer money -- to avoid increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by 0.000077 ppmv per year. That's only $8.7 trillion per ppmv avoided.
Q How much of a hypothetical change in temperature will be achieved by this $670 million expenditure?
A If the project started burying CO2 in 2015 as planned, then between 2015 and 2100 the atmosphere would contain about 0.0065 ppmv less CO2 (85 years x 0.00077 ppmv per year). Using the IPCC's simplified expression for calculation of radiative forcing due to CO2 and 380 ppmv for our base year 2007, we get a change in CO2-related forcing of about 0.000092 W/m2, which works out to between 0.0000276 degrees Celsius to 0.000092 degrees Celsius of potential warming avoided over those 85 years.
That works out to a rate of between $7.3 trillion to $24.3 trillion spent per hypothetical 1 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature avoided. Remember, this is only a hypothetical temperature difference; it's not at all certain that any temperature difference would actually occur! Moreover, even if this miniscule temperature increase were avoided, it's not at all clear that any climatic benefits would actually occur. Global warming is better, after all, than global cooling.
"The only thing worse than AEP's application to throw $334 million in taxpayer money down the carbon capture rat hole be the Obama administration granting the request. Stimulus money is supposed to jump-start the economy not be wasted on politically correct boondoggles that provide no value to society," said Steve Milloy.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Q How much of a difference in atmospheric CO2 levels will this make?
A Atmospheric CO2 accumulation from this plant is the product the emissions (0.0015 billion metric tons of CO2) times its persistence in the atmosphere (estimated to be 40%), which equals 0.0006 billion metric tons of CO2. Since 1 part per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2 weights 7.81 billion metric tons, the atmospheric persistence of the plant's emissions is roughly 0.0006 / 7.81, which equals 0.000077 ppmv. So AEP plans to spend $670 million -- remember half is taxpayer money -- to avoid increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by 0.000077 ppmv per year. That's only $8.7 trillion per ppmv avoided.
Q How much of a hypothetical change in temperature will be achieved by this $670 million expenditure?
A If the project started burying CO2 in 2015 as planned, then between 2015 and 2100 the atmosphere would contain about 0.0065 ppmv less CO2 (85 years x 0.00077 ppmv per year). Using the IPCC's simplified expression for calculation of radiative forcing due to CO2 and 380 ppmv for our base year 2007, we get a change in CO2-related forcing of about 0.000092 W/m2, which works out to between 0.0000276 degrees Celsius to 0.000092 degrees Celsius of potential warming avoided over those 85 years.
That works out to a rate of between $7.3 trillion to $24.3 trillion spent per hypothetical 1 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature avoided. Remember, this is only a hypothetical temperature difference; it's not at all certain that any temperature difference would actually occur! Moreover, even if this miniscule temperature increase were avoided, it's not at all clear that any climatic benefits would actually occur. Global warming is better, after all, than global cooling.
"The only thing worse than AEP's application to throw $334 million in taxpayer money down the carbon capture rat hole be the Obama administration granting the request. Stimulus money is supposed to jump-start the economy not be wasted on politically correct boondoggles that provide no value to society," said Steve Milloy.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, June 25, 2009
76% of African-Americans Want Delay on Climate Legislation Until Economy Recovers
TT Note: One would think that Congress should realize the economy is in more dire need of help. But then, how many members of Congress will be helped in their own pocketbooks by the climate change bill?
PRNewswire/ -- 76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority, says a newly released nationwide poll of African-Americans conducted by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll's release comes as the U.S. House of Representatives is planning a Friday vote on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill. The legislation, if adopted, is expected to reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion in an effort to reduce global warming.
The survey of 800 African-Americans, 80% Democrats and 4% Republicans, found significant concern that government action on climate change would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on the African-American community.
Among the key findings:
* 38% believe job losses from climate change legislation would be felt most strongly in the black community. 7% believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and 2% on whites;
* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately consider economic and quality of life concerns of the black community when addressing climate issues;
* 52% of respondents don't want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas; 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity;
* Black Americans are virtually deadlocked on plans to reduce emissions if it would increase prices and unemployment. 44% opposed reductions under these circumstances, 45% supported them.
* 76% want Congress to make economic recovery the top priority.
"An overwhelming majority African-Americans want Congress to fix the economy before turning its attention to climate change," said David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research, who directs the group's Center for Public Opinion Policy Center, which issued the poll.
"Significantly," Ridenour continued, "not only were 80 percent of the respondents self-identified Democrats, but 67 percent self-identified as 'strong Democrats.' As African-Americans are a core constituency of the party, if the Congressional leadership ignores this, it does so at its own peril."
The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. It can be viewed at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html .
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
PRNewswire/ -- 76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority, says a newly released nationwide poll of African-Americans conducted by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll's release comes as the U.S. House of Representatives is planning a Friday vote on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill. The legislation, if adopted, is expected to reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion in an effort to reduce global warming.
The survey of 800 African-Americans, 80% Democrats and 4% Republicans, found significant concern that government action on climate change would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on the African-American community.
Among the key findings:
* 38% believe job losses from climate change legislation would be felt most strongly in the black community. 7% believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and 2% on whites;
* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately consider economic and quality of life concerns of the black community when addressing climate issues;
* 52% of respondents don't want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas; 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity;
* Black Americans are virtually deadlocked on plans to reduce emissions if it would increase prices and unemployment. 44% opposed reductions under these circumstances, 45% supported them.
* 76% want Congress to make economic recovery the top priority.
"An overwhelming majority African-Americans want Congress to fix the economy before turning its attention to climate change," said David Ridenour, vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research, who directs the group's Center for Public Opinion Policy Center, which issued the poll.
"Significantly," Ridenour continued, "not only were 80 percent of the respondents self-identified Democrats, but 67 percent self-identified as 'strong Democrats.' As African-Americans are a core constituency of the party, if the Congressional leadership ignores this, it does so at its own peril."
The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. It can be viewed at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html .
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
