Climate Change Kid’s Site

I found a great site for kids. Check out Climate Change Kid’s Site. It offers factual information in a way that can be understood by all of us.

What doess cap-and-trade mean

Image: Caveman 92223 at flickr under a CC License

Written by Stephen Boles

Published on May 15th, 2009

Source: Red Green and Blue
Rasmussen Reports‘ new survey has revealed a huge disconnect between the American people and the Obama administration’s proposed cap-and-trade climate change legislation.

The survey asked respondents to pick the subject area that the proposed cap-and-trade legislation will deal with: Environment, Health Care Reform, or Wall Street Regulation. A stunning 76% of the respondents were unable to select the correct Environment option. 30% of those surveyed stated that they had ‘no idea’, while 29% believe that cap-and-trade is a Wall Street regulation mechanism. Health care reform was the choice for 17%.

For the record, cap-and-trade is defined by Wikipedia as:

A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

While the intent of the cap-and-trade legislation is to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases in the USA, there is a considerable amount of skepticism that the proposed bill will have a detrimental effect on the already weakened economy. For individual citizens, the most noticeable impacts of cap-and-trade may be inflated prices for electricity and energy (which is also expected to trickle down to impact prices of food and other consumer goods).

While corporate America has been working hard to prepare for the likely cap-and-trade world, Main Street America is very behind in understanding this landmark piece of legislation. The Obama administration has to make it a priority to educate the American people about the purpose of cap-and-trade, how it will work, and what it means to the average citizen.

When President Bush attempted to overhaul Social Security a number of years ago, he aggressively promoted his plan through a relentless barrage of town hall meetings, press conferences, and promotion through other media outlets. Although his campaign was unsuccessful, the public was well aware of the plan and the Bush administration could not be accused of hiding the details of the proposed changes to Social Security.

The Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act (the ‘cap-and-trade bill’) has the potential to permanently alter the American economic landscape. Hopefully the Obama administration will act to reverse the woeful job it has done to date in preparing the American people for this potential carbon-oriented policy.

Tajikistan’s Former Soviet Nuclear Sites Pose Threat To Nearby Villages

April 08, 2009

Source: Radio Free Europe

By Farangis Najibullah

The first Soviet atomic bomb, tested in 1949, was made from Tajik uranium.

Now Tajikistan is dealing with the dangerous legacy of its role in the Soviet nuclear program: 55 million tons of radioactive waste that, in some sites, is leaking into the soil and local water supplies.

Tajik and international specialists say the leaks pose a major risk to residents’ health and the environment.

Most of the radioactive waste in Tajikistan comes from the country’s Vostokredmet plant, in the northern city of Chkalovsk. The plant was built in 1945 to mine and process uranium from deposits in Tajikistan and other Central Asian republics.

Uranium processing often leaves a powder-like residue. Ideally, the powder is stored in properly sealed containers.

Tajikistan’s northern Sughd region is home to 10 radioactive burial sites, eight of which have been sealed. But at the two remaining sites, loose powder from nuclear residue has simply been dumped in unsealed rooms, where it can blow through cracks or seep out into the ground during heavy rains or flooding.

Dangerous Sites

The two sites, located in the towns of Taboshar and Dehmoi, are near residential areas, and have remained unsealed despite being closed in 1992. The situation has raised concerns among officials from Tajikistan’s Nuclear and Radiation Safety Agency (NRSA).

Taboshar residents queue for potable water.

Abdujabbor Salomov, the deputy head of the NRSA, says the risk of radioactive leaks in the area is “not catastrophic yet, but still very serious:”

Salomov adds that “during heavy rainfalls and strong winds, radioactive waste and dust gets spread throughout the area, and gets into the water. Sometimes the leaks go all the way to the Syr-Darya River. The dust has scattered all over the surrounding area.”

Hundreds of millions of dollars are needed to seal off the Dehmoi and Taboshar sites. But such funding is far beyond the means of the country, which is one of the poorest in the former Soviet Union.

Currently, the sites are being regularly monitored by Tajik specialists as well as international organizations, notably the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency. Salomov insists that “everything is being done to control the risk, protect local residents and the environment, and raise people’s awareness.”

During the Soviet era, there was little public awareness of the threat of radioactive contamination or protection measures.

Radioactive storage sites were closed off to all but authorized personnel. Local residents often had no idea the storage sites were located near their homes, and that they posed a significant health risk.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the situation grew worse, as the sites were gradually abandoned. With no supervision, local people were free to enter the sites to search for precious metals. Their children played at the sites, and livestock was allowed to graze there.

Taking Toll On Residents

Health officials in Sughd say they have recorded higher numbers of cancer cases and skin diseases in Taboshar and Dehmoi. They suspect the rise in illness is linked to people’s proximity to the waste sites.

Tajik officials several years ago adopted a national program to monitor and safeguard the toxic waste sites. But many Tajik doctors are concerned that safety measures remain inadequate and that many locals remain unaware of the risk of radioactive contamination.

A doctor working in the village of Ghoziyon, located near one of the sites, says many residents still do not take the dangers seriously. The doctor, who refused to give her name, says people tell her they have been frequently exposed to the sites, and have even come in contact with the loose powder residue stored in the facilities, with no ill-effects.

“People don’t know it sometimes takes years until you see the harm that radioactive substances have done to your health,” she says. “People should not be living here. But this a highly populated place.”

“The radiation level is high there,” she adds.” I feel sorry for the children. Sheep herders pass through that area. Children go to look through the rubbish. I’m not sure all of them are local villagers, but you see many people wandering through there.”

Local agencies, including the NRSA, have held meetings with residents and distributed brochures explaining the risks and recommending safety measures.

But Tajikistan is still many years, and millions of dollars, away from permanently sealing the sites. Until then, Tajik experts say all they can do is monitor the sites and hope nothing major — like an earthquake or severe flooding — takes place. But that, notes one local specialist, “is out of our control.”

Carl Sagan – Pale Blue Dot

Today’s Dearth Fact

Image:NASA
More than half of the world’s estimated 10 million species of plants, animals and insects live in tropical rainforests. One-fifth of the world’s fresh water moves through the Amazon basin.

Revenge of the rainforest

Photograph by George Grall – Amazon horned frog – Ceratophrys cornuta – Source:National Geographic

The Amazon has long been the lungs of the world. But now comes dramatic evidence that we cannot rely on it in the fight against climate change.

Source: The Independent UK

By Steve Connor
Friday, 6 March 2009

It covers an area 25 times bigger than Britain, is home to a bewildering concentration of flora and fauna and is often described as the “lungs of the world” for its ability to absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide through its immense photosynthetic network of trees and leaves.

The Amazon rainforest is one of the biggest and most important living stores of carbon on the planet through its ability to convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into solid carbon, kept locked in the trunks of rainforest trees for centuries.

But this massive natural “sink” for carbon cannot be relied on to continue absorbing carbon dioxide in perpetuity, a study shows. Researchers have found that, for a period in 2005, the Amazon rainforest actually slipped into reverse gear and started to emit more carbon than it absorbed.

Four years ago, a sudden and intense drought in the Amazonian dry season created the sort of conditions that give climate scientists nightmares. Instead of being a net absorber of about two billion tons of carbon dioxide, the forest became a net producer of the greenhouse gas, to the tune of about three billion tons.

The additional quantity of carbon dioxide left in the atmosphere after the drought – some five billion tons – exceeded the annual man-made emissions of Europe and Japan combined. What happened in the dry season of 2005 was a stark reminder of how quickly the factors affecting global warming can change.

“For years, the Amazon forest has been helping to slow down climate change,” said Professor Oliver Phillips, from the University of Leeds and the lead author of the study in the journal Science. “But relying on this subsidy from nature is extremely dangerous. The emission of five billion tons of carbon dioxide was huge. It meant that a major part of the biosphere had switched from one function to another, from a carbon sink to a carbon source.

“It shows what could happen if droughts become more frequent, and climate models suggest that Amazonia will get warmer and so put more water stress on vegetation. If the Earth’s carbon sinks slow or go into reverse, as our results show is possible, carbon dioxide levels will rise even faster. Deeper cuts in emissions will be required to stabilize our climate.”

The study, which involved nearly 70 scientists from 13 countries, examined more than 100,000 trees in 100 forest plots. The scientists had been monitoring changes to the girth of each tree over a period of between 20 and 30 years, so were able to calculate with some precision the effect of the 2005 drought on tree growth.

The drought itself was unusual. Normally, droughts in the Amazon are the result of changes caused by El Niño, the warm Pacific Ocean current, but the one in 2005 was a result of higher-than-average temperatures at the sea surface of the tropical North Atlantic.

“The pattern of the drought was shorter but sharper and more intense than usual,” Professor Phillips said. “It affected the southern two-thirds of Amazonia and especially the south-west through reduced rainfall and higher-than-average temperatures. It was the kind of drought we expect to see in a globally warming world. On the ground, it was hard to see because you had to detect by measuring lots of trees over a larger area of land. There was not a massive die-off of trees.”

The researchers found that the drought sharply reversed the decades-long growth of the trees. The normal die-off rate of the trees, about 1 per cent per year, doubled to 2 per cent, and the continued expansion of tree girths effectively stopped.

“Visually, most of the forest appeared little affected, but our records prove tree death rates accelerated,” Professor Phillips went on. “Because the region is so vast, even small ecological effects can scale-up to a large impact on the planet’s carbon cycle.”

Humans worldwide are estimated emit about 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year but just less than half of this, about 15 billion tons, remains in the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed by natural carbon sinks in the ocean and on land.

Scientists have calculated that the world’s tropical forests collectively absorb about 4.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year, with the Amazon being the single biggest rainforest sink. Amazonia alone is estimated to store about 100 billion tons of carbon locked up in its trees.

This is why the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen later this year will focus heavily on what can be done to save rainforests to ameliorate the effects of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

Lee White, the chief climate change scientist for the government of Gabon, said: “To get an idea of the value of the sink, the removal of nearly five billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by intact tropical forests, based on realistic prices for a ton of carbon, should be valued at about £13bn a year. This is a compelling argument for conserving tropical forests.” Dr White was a co-author of another study last month on the role played by African tropical forests in processing carbon dioxide.

Professor Phillips added. “It’s surprising to see how sensitive the system appears to be. This is the first time anyone has tried to measure the impact of a big tropical drought on the ground. Now we’ve quantified it and, yes, there’s a specificity there and it wouldn’t take a huge change to shut down this thing and switch it to an overall source of carbon dioxide.”

The Amazon: Facts and figures

* The Amazon rainforest covers an area of some 600 million hectares (2.3 million sq miles), an area of land 25 times bigger than Britain. It is the biggest rainforest on Earth, responsible for about 40 per cent of the world’s rainforest absorption of carbon dioxide.

* Satellite surveys indicate that about 5,800 sq miles of the Amazon rainforest is burnt or cleared each year to make way for cattle ranching, farming or other kinds of development.

* More than half of the world’s estimated 10 million species of plants, animals and insects live in tropical rainforests. One-fifth of the world’s fresh water moves through the Amazon basin.

* Scientists estimate that there are at least 100 billion tons of carbon stored in the trees of the Amazon rainforest and each year the Amazon absorbs about 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

* During the extreme drought of 2005, the Amazon became a net producer of carbon dioxide, releasing an estimated 3 billion tons of the greenhouse gas into the atmosphere – a net increase of 5 billion tons.

Today’s Dearth Fact

Image: NASA

More than 250,000 children under the age of five die each year from diarrhea.

Water and Sanitation: Ethiopia

Donna and Philip Berber are the founders of A Glimmer of Hope Foundation. Aptly named, the foundation’s mission is to aid the rural poor of Ethiopia in lifting themselves out of poverty.

The foundation’s principles reflect the belief that justice, equality and dignity are everyone’s birthright and where you are born should not determine whether you live or die.

Visit A Glimmer of Hope Foundation today and learn about their efforts.

Site Administrator

—————————–

Source: A Glimmer of Hope Foundation

More than 80 percent of all disease in Ethiopia is attributed to poor access to clean water and sanitation.

At any given time, more than half of the country’s population of 75 million people is suffering from an unnecessary water-related disease.

More than 250,000 children under the age of five die each year from diarrhea.

Access to safe drinking water in Ethiopia is at critically low levels and in rural parts of the country where A Glimmer of Hope focuses its efforts just one in three people have access to clean water while just 13 percent has access to adequate sanitation services.

People do their laundry and bathe in the same places that they water their animals and get their drinking water.

Latrines are virtually non-existent in rural communities with defecation taking place in fields, bushes or along drainage ditches. A simple long-drop latrine can radically reduce the amount of fecal matter that gets into the water supply.

Increasingly, A Glimmer of Hope is funding multi-purpose water projects that include components such as: protected faucets for drinking water; showers; latrines; basins for washing clothes, dishes and utensils; and, separate drinking troughs for animals. Beyond the issues of health, poor access to clean water also has a detrimental impact on development. In particular, water scarcity severely affects the lives of women as female family members are traditionally responsible for water collection.

Collecting water is a back-breaking chore that saps women’s energy, diminishes their health and restricts their involvement in productive activities and community affairs.

Most women in rural Ethiopia spend hours a day collecting water from distant and polluted sources. Many girls never get an opportunity to go to school because the responsibility of collecting enough water to keep their families alive takes precedence.

Today’s Dearth Fact

Photo: NASA

Today’s Dearth Fact Courtesy of The Info Project

The world’s coastal wetlands are disappearing. Around the world, about 182,000 square kilometers of mangrove wetlands provide a habitat for over 2,000 species of fish, shellfish, invertebrates, and plants. In the past century over half the world’s original mangrove area has been destroyed or degraded, been converted to agricultural land or fish ponds, or fallen victim to urban and industrial development.

Most Arctic Sea Ice Could Melt In 30 Years

Photo: Andy Armstrong/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Retreat A photograph taken in August 2007  from an icebreaker research cruise in the Arctic Ocean, about 600 miles north of the Alaska coastline.

———————

Source: CBS News

Washington April 3, 2009

Arctic sea ice is melting so fast most of it could be gone in 30 years.

A new analysis of changing conditions in the region, using complex computer models of weather and climate, says conditions that had been forecast by the end of the century could occur much sooner.

A change in the amount of ice is important because the white surface reflects sunlight back into space. When ice is replaced by dark ocean water sunlight can be absorbed, warming the water and increasing the warming of the planet.

The finding adds to concern about climate change caused by human activities such as burning fossil fuels, a problem that has begun receiving more attention in the Obama administration and was part of the G20 discussions in London.

“Due to the recent loss of sea ice, the 2005-2008 autumn central Arctic surface air temperatures were greater than 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above” what would be expected, the new study reports.

That amount of temperature increase had been expected by the year 2070.

The new report by Muyin Wang of the Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean and James E. Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, appears in Friday’s edition of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

They expect the area covered by summer sea ice to decline from about 2.8 million square miles normally to 620,000 square miles within 30 years.

Last year’s summer minimum was 1.8 million square miles in September, second lowest only to 2007 which had a minimum of 1.65 million square miles, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The Center said Arctic sea ice reached its winter maximum for this year at 5.8 million square miles on Feb. 28. That was 278,000 square miles below the 1979-2000 average making it the fifth lowest on record. The six lowest maximums since 1979 have all occurred in the last six years.

Overland and Wang combined sea-ice observations with six complex computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reach their conclusions. Combining several computer models helps avoid uncertainties caused by natural variability.

Much of the remaining ice would be north of Canada and Greenland, with much less between Alaska and Russia in the Pacific Arctic.

“The Arctic is often called the Earth’s refrigerator because the sea ice helps cool the planet by reflecting the sun’s radiation back into space,” Wang said in a statement. “With less ice, the sun’s warmth is instead absorbed by the open water, contributing to warmer temperatures in the water and the air.”

The study was supported by the NOAA Climate Change Program Office, the Institute for the Study of the Ocean and Atmosphere and the U.S. Department of Energy.