2005 warmest year: government should help stop climate change now
Categories:
Voicing concerns over scientific findings that global warming has made 2005 the warmest year on record, Greenpeace today stepped up its calls on the Philippine government to take the necessary steps to reduce the country’s CO2 emissions by stopping plans to expand dirty coal plants in the country and by implementing policies that will spur a massive shift toward clean renewable energy.
US space agency NASA said Tuesday that last year was the warmest recorded on the Earth’s surface, surpassing 1998 as the hottest year(1). The rise is attributed to greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide, primarily brought about by the burning of fossil fuels.(2)
“Developing countries like the Philippines are among the least able to cope with the devastating effects of climate change. We should take care not to commit the mistakes of industrialized nations who have brought the world to the brink of ecological disaster due to their fossil fuel dependency,” said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Climate and Energy Campaigner Jasper Inventor.
“Government should prioritize pushing for energy policies which veer away from harmful climate change-causing coal. Harnessing the country’s renewable sources of power is both desirable and warranted,” said Inventor.
Current renewable energy projects in the Philippines account for much less than 1% of the country’s total power generation. Meanwhile, coal-fired power plants, which already account for 36% of the country's total CO2 emissions, continue to be built around the country. New and expanded polluting coal power being proposed or constructed in the provinces of Isabela, Iloilo, Cebu, Misamis Oriental, Pampanga, and Quezon are projected to further increase the country’s CO2 emissions from coal by as much as 50%(3).
Greenpeace is calling on the government to help stop climate change by committing to a target of generating at least 10% of the country's energy supply from renewable sources such as solar power, wind energy, and modern biomass by the year 2010.
“Energy solutions are imperative. Time is not on our side. Globally, we need to bring total emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020 and then reduce them by 50% by mid-century,” concluded Inventor.
____
(1)”2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century” from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) site(http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html) (2) “2005 was warmest year on record: NASA,” Reuters (http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml type=scienceNews&storyID=10957395&src=rss/scienceNews) (3)Computed using the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network (SEEN) methodology (http://www.seen.org/pages/db/method.shtml.)
Take action! - http://asiacleanenergy.org/starpower/
Support us! - http://www.donategreenpeace.org/
visit - http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia for more information
reply
Has anybody looked into both sides of the case of climate change or are we just drinking from the money hungry alarmest. How do you explain all the scientist coming out in direct oposition to global warming? Why have we only invited Al Gore to testify before congress?
Sorry admin,i tested your blog:)
zxxsdjisif4244243fbsd454vnmzxc280
'Western Rhetoric' does not SCIENCE make.
It was only 20 years ago that 'global warming' was platformed with attached 'scary stories'. Now it seems that 20 years on, 'Global Warming' is still a disaster 20 years away. It really is time for 'Greenpeace', and others, to cease these 'demands', based in belief and a supposed 'concensus of opinion' for the support of its demands. There is climate change, there always has been and always will be.
All the 'western' based propaganda has done is closed the eyes and minds of the 'western believers'. In the next few decades, if not sooner, 'western attitudes' will be reduced in relevance as population distribution alters the situation of International Politics. The sooner the better is the general interest from the PUBLIC.
To quote Dr. Michael Pidwirny (slides not here provided):-
["By 2050, the oldest countries of the world will be Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Thailand, and almost all of Europe. Some other areas of the world affected by ageing will be the United States, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, most of South America, Northern Africa, India, the Caribbean, and some other Asian nations. Africa will be the youngest major area of the world with about twice as many children as elderly."]
["The ageing of the world's population will have several important socioeconomic impacts. Currently, the economic productivity of young people plays an important role in financially supporting a variety of social programs in more developed countries. In the future, this economic productivity will be significantly reduced."]
["Many counties will probably increase retirement age in the future to lower financial payments to pension plans. It is also possible that many countries will have a hard time financing government supported health care programs. A United Nations report (Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?) has suggested that countries experiencing problems due to an ageing population (and population growth rate decline) should adopt policies encouraging replacement migration. Replacement migration can be defined as the international migration that a country would require to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates."]
In short, most 'western nations' with their loud AGING 'activists' demanding actions with undertones in Gregorian style of 'Kyoto, Kyoto' will simply cease to be relevant to the newer economies of younger and more VIGOROUS nations.
It is TIME that 'corporations' and individuals realise that rhetoric involving, for example 'health', is NOT what they need to be considering as justification for 'usage', if what they talk of is processes for PRODUCTION of electricity/power. Such need in themselves to be made in a viable and practical manner, in the needed quantities, as opinion and rhetoric will not in themselve produce the electricity/power that is needed.
For example, with interest in the story:-
“LARGEST SOLAR ELECTRIC POWER PLANT PROJECT IN THE WORLD IN 14 YEARS”
“SOLARGENIX APPROVED TO PROCEED WITH LARGEST SOLAR ELECTRIC POWER PLANT PROJECT IN THE WORLD IN 14 YEARS”
‘Groundbreaking for 64MW Solar Thermal Power Plant in Nevada Features SCHOTT Receivers’
-: i would bring notice to:-
[” The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics estimates that net electricity demand will rise from 186 Twh in 2000 to 230 Twh in 2010 and 284 Twh in 2020. These estimates incorporate demand growth below economic growth, reflecting growth in less energy-intensive sectors and 80 60 40 20 0 improvements in energy efficiency. Growth will be concentrated in the eastern states (some 80 per cent), with 60 per cent in New South Wales and Queensland. While there is currently under utilised generating capacity, it is clear that servicing these levels of demand will require significant investment in generation and transmission capacity...”]
In the small population of Australia, the regulated supply of Electricity seems to be needed in terms of Twh, which is a Tera watt hour; that is “186 Twh in 2000 to 230 Twh in 2010 and 284 Twh in 2020” can be roughly translated as from ‘180 to 280’ TRILLION w/h. [”Tera is the mathematical prefix meaning one trillion”]
64 Megawatts is (a) pointless, 500 Megawatts (regardless of source) is (b) only a little less pointless; the attempt seems to be to talk up a technology that was not pursued n 15 years due to its limitations in the practical arena of power generation.
The energy incident to the planetary surface is only within the lower and upper visible, and the lower third of the total UV Spectrum (not UV REGION), see Figure 1 (not shown here). Realise that the energy in the X-ray and Gamma Ray spectrums is involved totally in creation of the ambient plasma of the atmosphere edge possible due to presence of and then interactions within the planetary magnetic field (this field is now absent on Venus, thus X-ray and Gamma spectrum energy can enter the biosphere of Venus, hence the energy to induce the measured 'heat'.
So back on the Earth, only the energy within the lower third of the UV spectrum (NOT Region) and that bit in the lower and upper Visible spectrum can become surface incident. That is all the energy these ‘solar plants’ can use, hence their inefficiency. Rhetoric and opinion is simply NOT going to help in any practical manner it seems, it is just as yet unrealised.
What the 'global greenhouse warmers' are near deliberately avoiding also is that there has been a noted warming/cooling/warming mini oscillation occurring in global climate since 1880. This micro-oscillation has been noted in many comments in many places by many people.
There is also the motion of human population across the surface in line with population growth, as shown in the slide I include here. The alteration of the surface associated with this increase in population has led to alterations of what would be 'pleasant green terrain' to become covered to various densities in coverage of concrete and asphalt. WE all know that concrete and asphalt get very much hotter than even grassed terrain, and this has led to the small increase in average SURFACE temperatures observed as 0.6 degrees C.
WE have barely 200 years of records and even then for only various portion of the region as it were ‘settled’. On a scale of global climate, even one million data points within those 200 years is only defining well a ‘statistically insignificant period’. To even attempt to lead from such data collections to 'futures' millions of years ahead is simply not SCIENCE. That the attempt to 'support' 'greenhouse concepts' is constantly based in events of hundreds of millions of years ago (with the attached vague vapidity) is evidence of the scant SCIENCE that can be applied NOW related to such 'greenhouse concepts'.
The overall natural climate cycle saw an ‘Ice Age’ being to revert ~20,000 years ago, which occupies the ‘trough’ of the climate oscillation. We are all now at, if not even within, the ‘peak’ of that oscillation. WE have a dry equatorial zone, with a heavily photosynthetic covering of the temperate zone (if you include the photosynthetic mass so far removed by Humanity within the last 400 years) and warming Polar Regions.
There is no reason to think that the motion of the oscillation peak will progress any faster than through a trough (and its often contained “Ice Age”) and so ‘peak oscillation climate fluctuations’ could last multiple centuries.
As such the ‘peak’ will present shifting behaviors, in as far as Humanity defines ‘seasons’ (which need not be considered ‘natural and permanent’ being definitions OF Humanity only) without any needed periodicity in these alterations. Rain patterning will alter its density and distribution. Wind and ocean currents will show some disturbances to various degrees.
These will manifest differing behaviors within regions that are NOT 'global' in scale. One such region is in and around the Gulf of Mexico, which can at this point within the oscillation, produce storms of vast surface coverage from little more kinetic energy than currently available. These events are those that open the multiple sea channels along the Florida coastline and nearby environs (New Orleans for example has seen ONE open) which produce the 'Lake Land' that the State of Florida region HAS been in the 'past'.
Realise also that the 0.6 degree rise in average surface temperature so far recorded is infact indicative of the kinetic energy inducted in to the surface (as an increase due to rematerialing by Human activity) NOT as yet Conducted into the Atmosphere or Oceans to begin power actions within the process of Convection. These are KINETIC interactions based on KINETIC energy which is after all what is the energy form that is measured as TEMPERATURE.
Lastly, the materials involved (CO2, CH4, etc) and the 'systems' used within 'climatology' are all in general use by many of the near 500 MILLION other tertiary educated individuals who use these materials and systems to produce functional products every day. There is thus NO closed 'climatology' shop 'attitude' needing to be tolerated when the method of making the 'shop' is so obviously flawed. There is no SCIENCE in the presentation of those 'little period' data plots of 'temperature' and even less in the inferences made from 'CO2' measurements. If you look at any curve too closely, you can see a tangent as that curve, this is the flaw of 'greenhouse science' with the contrivance of CO2 is 'too blame'. Poor method, poor science, together you get 'greenhouse science'.
The rhetoric to 'deal with climate change' by trying to stop it is as pointless as attempting to stop the tide. It is that most of majority agree we need to DEAL with it, that is to accept it is NATURAL and ongoing, not as attempts to imply as being agreeing to 'greenhouse' innuendo of influence.
15,000 years ago snow hares roamed just north of Texas, 10,000 years from now they will most likely do so again, unless they fall into a large sink hole produced from the collapse of a 'cavern' produced to 'sequester CO2' a few thousand years previously by a misguided subgroup of humanity who feared nature.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Member of the Public, Australia
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
(PS: Images can be provided or viewable links offered if needed to show the situations i render here in words.)
Post new comment