AUSTRALIA'S NUCLEAR CONSPIRACY.

Richard Broinowski, brother of Dr Helen Caldicott and a former high profile
Australian Ambassador will speak in Byron on Thursday October l2.

Australia's Nuclear Conspiracy is the theme of the meeting which will be chaired
by former Democrat Senator Dr Norm Sanders who exposed the Oz Government selling
uranium to the French for the nuclear tests in Murora Atoll.

Richard Broinowski will be speaking about the disastrous increase in uranium
mines and trashing the Government spin that nuclear reactors are the answer to
global warming.

The meeting will be held at Byron Beach Resort in the Lakeside Room at 7.30pm. 
Entry is $l0.00.  The night is sponsored by Australians for Animals Int.  For
more info tel: 0266803674

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/10/0\
1/wind_on_the_waters/
Boston.com News

"Residents of the seaside town of Hull are rarely shocked when they open
their electricity bills, thanks to an efficient municipal light company and
two land-based wind turbines that supply about 12 percent of the town's
electricity needs. With proper attention to wind power, dozens of towns in
Massachusetts could reward residents with similar average monthly
electricity bills of around $65 --and the satisfaction of reducing both
greenhouse gases and reliance on costly foreign fossil fuels."

PUBLIC FORUM ON NUCLEAR POWER UNSW 18 OctPUBLIC FORUM ON NUCLEAR POWER

Organised by Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW

New date: Wednesday 18 October 2006, 10.10 am to 5.00 pm.

New location: Gallery 1, Scientia Building, University of New South  Wales,
Kensington, Sydney

Expert speakers from Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne include:
-- Adj. Prof. Richard Broinowski, Uni. of Sydney: Proliferation and  terrorism
-- Dr Gavin Mudd, Monash Uni.: Uranium mining
-- Dr Sue Wareham, Medical Assoc. for Prevention of War: Health impacts
-- Dr Jim Green, Friends of the Earth: Nuclear industry & wastes
-- Dr Reza Hashemi-Nezhad, Uni. of Sydney: A safer nuclear reactor
-- Dr Mark Diesendorf, UNSW: Sustainable energy futures for Australia

Registration & enquiries:
Carissa Simons, Institute of Environmental Studies
Rm133, Vallentine Annexe, UNSW, SydneyNSW 2052
email: <ies@...>; phone (02) 9385 5687

Fee: $40 waged; $20 concessions; cheques to "Institute of  Environmental
Studies"

Limited seats -- please book and pay in advance.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Browning
To: winter___@...
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: Vote Solar Action Fund: Rx for Oil Addiction




Friends-

We rarely get involved in something that's not exclusively solar related.

But an opportunity to make oil companies cough up $4 billion to cure our
addiction to oil? That's a gamechanger, so we are dusting off the Vote Solar
Action Fund and getting involved. And we need your help.

THE ISSUE
Prop 87 is a California ballot initiative for a small tax on oil drilling in the
state, with the proceeds used to reduce oil consumption. More details here, but
the highlights are 1) the money comes from oil companies' profits, 2) it will
not raise gasoline prices as the price of oil is set on the world market, and 3)
$4 billion to develop alternatives to oil's monopoly is a healthy way to cure
what ails this country.

THE PLAN
TV is already completely saturated with ads. To break through the noise, we need
to create our own news, and deliver the message in a different way. So here's
the plan:

THE THEME
'Addicted to oil' is a truth that resonates with people, so we lead with Oil is
the disease, Prop 87 is the cure.

THE ATTENTION GRABBER
We'll buy airplane banner ads during rush hour-call them Freedom
Flies-delivering messages like:

   a.. PROP 87 - CPR FOR THE ELECTRIC CAR
   b.. PROP 87 - Rx FOR OIL ADDICTION

to a captive audience (target demographic, no less), and we'll change the
messages every day for buzz value.

THE MEDIA
Our book on Campaigning 101 says you need to make your own news. We're planning
a kick-off event to give the press something to cover.

Picture this: rush hour, gridlocked traffic on the Embarcadero near the Ferry
Building in San Francisco. Enter a sea of activists in white doctors coats and
nurse uniforms. Hundreds, maybe thousands of them (ok, maybe hundreds). They
have prescription pads--recommending Prop 87 for lowering oil consumption,
natch--and syringes of biodiesel. Parked in the background: electric cars and
plug-in hybrids. Signs wave, horns honk, and Freedom Flies overhead. We're
working on getting a celebrity who played a doctor on TV (conveniently, this
hardly limits the field at all) to headline. TV stations cover it, and bingo,
it's on the evening news and people, newly intrigued, start looking for the
airplane banners, talking about it at work, and voting for 87.

This is the town that invented Burning Man-trust us, the event will be
*newsworthy.*

We are also asking Mayor Newsom to dedicate the day 'Oil-Addiction Awareness
Day', and are working our connections with drive-time radio.

HOW YOU CAN HELP
We need dough. The flights are a hair under $500/hr for up to 250,000
impressions. That's a great value, and the more $ we have, the more planes we
can fly. Note that the money goes through our 501c4 and is not tax-deductible.
We have matching funds up to the first $2,000. That doubles your
contribution-and for $500 you get to pick your message. Use the Donate Now
button on our website, and send a note letting us know it's for this action.

We need nurses and doctors. Or at least people that want to play dress up, and
can get to the Ferry Building in San Francisco the week of October 23rd during
rush hour. If you are interested, email Gwen (gwen@...) and she'll
coordinate. We will provide outfits-unless of course you have your own.

We need ideas for the airplane banners. C'mon--'Methadone for the Planet'?
Surely you can do better. 30 characters or less is best, and winning suggestions
will receive a Vote Solar T-shirt. Not to mention temporary infamy.

Sample messages:

. OIL IS THE DISEASE - PROP 87 IS THE CURE
. PROP 87 - Rx FOR OIL ADDICTION
. PROP 87 - CPR FOR THE ELECTRIC CAR
. PROP 87 - METHADONE FOR THE PLANET
. PROP 87 - A CONVENIENT SOLUTION FOR AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Etc. You get the idea. Reply to this email, or post on our scratchpad.

Also--we're buying carbon off-sets to pre-empt criticism about our oil
consumption.

Prop 87 is a beautiful idea, but the oil companies have already ponied up $40
million to fight it. Losing to the oil companies sucks. Let's not let it happen.


Adam Browning
JP Ross
Gwen Rose

The Vote Solar Initiative
182 2nd Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105
www.votesolar.org

to suscribe:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/votesolar/signUp.jsp?key=9\
87

to unsuscribe:
http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/votesolar/unsubscribe.jsp



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Real offer... i checked... see correspondence below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Wade" <darrell@...>
To: "'Megan Schulz'" <megans@...>;
<anne@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: FW: Inconvenient Truth movie stub refund?


Hi Anne - yes this is a totally legitimate offer - we are currently
refunding about 50 tix a day.  More than happy to refund more than that
however so if you would like to promote the offer it would be welcome.
This is the link you need for the details....

http://www.intrepidtravel.com/inconvenienttruth

Thanks for the support,

regards,
Darrell

-------
Darrell Wade
Co-founder and CEO
Intrepid Travel
Direct:  +61 3 9473 2639



-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Goddard [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, 26 September 2006 8:10 PM
To: bourke@...
Subject: Inconvenient Truth movie stub refund?

Hiya,

Just received into my mail via Green Left Discussion e-list digest the
message pasted below..
Please confirm that this offer is accurate? If so, i offer a free Ad on my
website http://globalclimatechangeaction.org and will premote this story
widely. I would be happy for you to house a cross link to my site if it's
content appeals.

Regards
Anne Goddard
founder



Travel company offers to pay for people to see "Inconvenient Truth"
Posted by: "stuartmunckton" stuartmunckton@...   stuartmunckton
Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:22 pm (PST)
This is an interesting thing, an indication of how broad
concern over global warming is - a travel company is offering
to pay for anyone who wants to see An Inconvenient Truth -
two tickets per person. Their speil urging people to go see it
is below

(This is also handy for anyone who hasn't seen it)

See An Inconvenient Truth - for FREE!

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Climate change is one of the biggest issues facing the world today.
The evidence from the scientific community is now beyond doubt -
unless we change our ways, the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere will have increasing and catastrophic impacts on the world
in which we live. Ice caps will melt faster, sea levels will rise,
weather patterns will change, water shortages will increase, tropical
storms will grow in ferocity and frequency, deserts will expand and
the world will have difficulty feeding itself.

But it is not too late!

The documentary An Inconvenient Truth is a remarkable film. It
presents the issue in an easily digested form where the scientific
data is clear and accurate. Despite the dire predictions, it is also
an optimistic film pointing to solutions that people and societies can
make to avoid the predictions.

We want you to see this film. We want you to see this film so much
that if you send us your ticket stub from the movie, we will refund
you the price of entry. Yes - you can see the film for FREE. More
importantly, tell your family, friends and colleagues about this offer
- they can see it for free too!

This film may change your life. Hopefully it will change the planet we
live on too.

How you can see An Inconvenient Truth for free: Send your movie ticket
stub to Intrepid Travel, 360 Bourke Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000,
along with your name and address. Please allow 6 weeks for processing
your payment. Maximum 2 tickets per person and based on standard
cinema class.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jo abbess" <jo.abbess@...>
To: <jo_abbess@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:17 AM
Subject: BLACKOUT LONDON



PLEASE SEND THIS E-MAIL TO TEN PEOPLE
PLEASE SEND THIS E-MAIL TO TEN PEOPLE

BLACKOUT LONDON

workface network has joined forces with the Come Off It
campaign from the Carbon Coach, to promote a night of
non-power on 4th November 2006, in support of the
International Day of Climate Change Action and the
I Count Climate Change Rally in Trafalgar Square, London.

Known as "BLACKOUT LONDON", the powerdown is being called
at Sunset from 4.30 pm until 7.30 pm. People, businesses,
and public buildings are all being asked to turn out the
lights and switch off unessential equipment at this time,
with the aim of increasing negawatts (and reducing megawatts)
at local power stations.

Other campaigners are already keen to participate. One
member of the Campaign against Climate Change thinks that
it may be possible to see London blacked out from space,
and would love to see the big tourist attractions and
office buildings turn out their lights for the evening.

"A major coup would be to get the neon advertisements at
Picadilly turned off for thirty minutes, and it would be
absolutely fantastic if the major churches delayed turning
on their floodlights for a couple of hours !"

An activist from the Camp for Climate Action, who did not
want to be named, said that the call was very much in line
with Climate Camp measures for sustainable living, but hoped
that people did not go too far and turn off important machines.

jo abbess of workface network was very enthusiastic about
the action. "We must keep a sense of doing something positive
about Climate Change : taking firm, definite action to reduce
power consumption is one of the best ways to conserve the
environment. We hope that people switch things off on a
regular basis, not just for one evening. If everyone acts
together on 4th November, it would be fantastic ! We should be
able to get demand reduction figures from the electricity
companies, which will prove how successful we have been."

Dave Hampton, the Carbon Coach, is hoping for a large response
to his appeal to Come Off It, after a successful power-free day
in May this year. His engaging, people-friendly approach to
reducing power consumption has attracted excellent media attention,
and a lot of respect amongst other environmental campaigners.

jo shares Dave's approach to public action, "Unplugging the TV
and turning off the outside lights is very therapeutic. Let's
have fun saving the Planet !" she said.

workface
http://www.workface.org
http://www.workface.org/html/blackout.html

Carbon Coach
Come Off It
http://www.comeoffit.org.uk

Stop Climate Chaos
I Count
http://www.icount.org.uk
http://www.stopclimatechaos.org

Campaign against Climate Change
http://www.campaigncc.org
http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org
http://portal.campaigncc.org

Climate Camp
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk

Operation Noah
http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/noah/index.htm

PLEASE SEND THIS E-MAIL TO TEN PEOPLE
PLEASE SEND THIS E-MAIL TO TEN PEOPLE


--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: winter___@...

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84QDh.ck4jgc.d2ludGVy
Or send an email to: energy.report-unsubscribe@...

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^----------------------------------------------------------------

A list, hosted in Australia, for people interested in leapfrogging to an
ecologically sustainable economy. The list is for the
----- Original Message -----
From: greenleap@yahoogroups.com
To: greenleap@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:16 PM
Subject: [greenleap] Digest Number 1373


A list, hosted in Australia, for people interested in leapfrogging to an
ecologically sustainable economy. The list is for the
Messages In This Digest (7 Messages)
   1. PricewaterhouseCoopers: Climate & "Green Growth Plus" scenario From: Philip
Sutton
   2. Conclusion of UK govt investigation: economics of tackling climate From:
Philip Sutton
   3. Climate Change & Australian PM: A policy U-turn in the making? From: Philip
Sutton
   4. Climate: One third of planet will be desert by 2100 From: Philip Sutton
   5. CO2-driven release of peat bog carbon suggests 320 ppm better air CO From:
Philip Sutton
   6. Leading US scientist speaks plainly about the sabotage of climate From:
Philip Sutton
   7. Mark 2006 in your diary: the climate change social tipping point yea From:
Philip Sutton
View All Topics | Create New Topic Messages
   1. PricewaterhouseCoopers: Climate & "Green Growth Plus" scenario
   Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...  
philipsuttonoz
   Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:17 pm (PST)
   Dear Greenleapers,

   You might be interested in the "Green Growth" scenario developed by the
   international accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.

   See:
   http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/dfb54c8aad6742db85
   2571f5006dd532
   or click here.

   The world in 2050
   Impact of global growth on carbon emissions

   The rapid economic growth of emerging countries such as China and India
   - together with continued more moderate growth in today´s advanced
   economies - could have serious long-term consequences for global energy
   consumption and carbon emissions.

   The projections demonstrate that if countries sit back and adopt a "business
   as usual" approach, the result could be a more than doubling of global
   carbon emissions by 2050. Based on current scientific thinking, this could
   have potentially serious longer term implications in terms of global warming
   and related climate change.

   On the other hand a scenario such as the "Green Growth Plus" strategy
   outlined in the report could allow for continued healthy growth whilst
   controlling carbon emissions.

   These are just some of the points highlighted in a new
   PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report entitled The World in 2050:
   Implications of global growth for carbon emissions and climate change
   policy.

   The report considers six possible scenarios but focuses most attention on
   two key possibilities:

   * A baseline scenario in which energy efficiency improves in line with
   trends of the past 25 years, with no change in fuel mix by country; this
   `business as usual´ scenario acts as a benchmark against which to assess
   the need for change, rather than as a forecast of the most likely outcome;
   and
   * A scenario called Green Growth + CCS, which incorporates possible
   emission reductions due to a greener fuel mix, annual energy efficiency
   gains over and above the historic trend, and widespread use of carbon
   capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Of the scenarios considered in the
   report, only this `Green Growth Plus´ strategy stabilises atmospheric CO2
   concentrations by 2050 at what the current scientific consensus suggests
   would be broadly acceptable levels.

   The G7 economies - the US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy and
   Canada - may need to take the lead in reducing their carbon emissions,
   given that emissions from the faster-growing emerging economies will
   almost certainly continue to rise over the next few decades.

   This latest PwC report follows on from one published in March 2006 which
   highlighted the rapid growth potential of the "E7" emerging economies -
   China, India, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey - leading up to
   2050. Take a look at this report, entitled The World in 2050: How big will the
   major emerging market economies get and how can the OECD compete?,
   for more details of the methodology used to project GDP growth in the new
   report.

   The author of both reports is John Hawksworth, head of macroeconomics at
   PricewaterhouseCoopers´ UK firm. He says: "As they increase in relative
   size to overtake the current G7 countries, the emerging `E7´ economies will
   increasingly provide the motor for global growth and could account for
   almost half of global carbon emissions by 2050 according to our model. But
   this begs the question: Can the world sustain such rapid growth without
   serious adverse effects on its climate? Our new report provides one possible
   answer to how this might be achieved".

   The chart below shows how it might be possible to get from the baseline
   scenario to the preferred Green Growth + CCS scenario for global carbon
   emissions in three steps.

   The World in 2050 - Global carbon emmissions from fossil fuels (GtC pa)

   The report also indicates how carbon emissions might need to evolve by
   country to achieve the Green Growth + CCS scenario, as summarised in the
   charts below. We can see that the G7 economies will need to reduce their
   current level of emissions by around half by 2050 to achieve this scenario,
   whereas the E7 economies would still be able to increase their emissions by
   around 30% from current levels.

   The World in 2050 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuels by country in Green
   Growth + CCS

   Top Of Page The World in 2050 - Baseline scenario to Green Growth +
   CCS

   These charts also show the growing weight of the E7 emerging economies
   (particularly China and India) in global carbon emissions relative to the
   current G7 advanced economies. According to the model, China is set to
   overtake the US as the leading carbon emitter by 2010, while total E7
   emissions would be more than double total G7 emissions by 2050. Together
   the `Big 3´ economies (China, US and India) are projected to account for just
   over half of global emissions by 2050 in both our Baseline and Green
   Growth + CCS scenarios (though the absolute levels of emissions are much
   lower in the latter case), up from around 45% today. The EU´s share of
   global emissions is set to decline from around 15% now to just under 9% by
   2050.

   John Hawksworth concludes: "Our analysis suggests that there are
   technologically feasible and relatively low-cost options for controlling
carbon
   emissions to the atmosphere. Estimates suggest that the level of GDP might
   be reduced by no more than around 2-3% in 2050 if this strategy was
   followed, equivalent to sacrificing only around a year of economic growth for
   the sake of reducing carbon emissions in 2050 by around 60% compared to
   our baseline scenario".

   "But if this is to be achieved, it will take further concerted action by
   governments, businesses and individuals over a broad range of measures to
   boost energy efficiency, adopt a greener fuel mix, and introduce carbon
   capture and storage technologies in power plants and other major industrial
   facilities".

   -------------
   ------------
   This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
   Philip Sutton
   Greenleap List Manager

   ----------

   The following section of this message contains a file attachment
   prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
   If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,
   you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
   If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

   ---- File information -----------
   File: WPM$2B37_1.PNG
   Date: 10 Oct 2006, 13:52
   Size: 30526 bytes.
   Type: Unknown

   ----------

   The following section of this message contains a file attachment
   prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
   If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,
   you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
   If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

   ---- File information -----------
   File: WPM$2B37_2.PNG
   Date: 10 Oct 2006, 13:52
   Size: 41567 bytes.
   Type: Unknown

   ----------

   The following section of this message contains a file attachment
   prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
   If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,
   you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
   If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

   ---- File information -----------
   File: WPM$2B37_3.PNG
   Date: 10 Oct 2006, 13:52
   Size: 59254 bytes.
   Type: Unknown

   Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
   Messages in this topic (1)
   2. Conclusion of UK govt investigation: economics of tackling climate
   Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...  
philipsuttonoz
   Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:25 pm (PST)
   This posting contains two items:

   Margaret Beckett's opening remarks to Gleneagles meeting
   The Stern Review: `What is the Economics of Climate Change?´

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

   From:
   http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/Sho
   wPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391629&a=KArticle&aid=1159195491622
   or click here.

   Margaret Beckett's opening remarks to Gleneagles meeting

   GLENEAGLES DIALOGUE MEETING - BECKETT OPENING REMARKS
   (03/10/06)

   Event: Gleaneagles Dialogue Meeting

   Location: Monterrey, Mexico

   Speech Date: 03/10/06

   Speaker: Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett

   Good morning, and to many of you, hello again.

   Dealing with climate change is an imperative for today, not an option for
   tomorrow.

   Pick up a newspaper in any one of our countries. Hardly a day goes by
   without new reports of climatic extremes, new suggestions that we are
   approaching a tipping point and new concerns about what this means for our
   societies.

   These messages from the front line of science are a rising drumbeat calling
   us to action.

   Next year's assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
   will pull together what is now an overwhelming body of scientific findings.
   The picture that emerges will confirm our mounting sense that this problem
   is a lot worse - a lot bigger and more urgent - than we thought it was even a
   few years ago. The IPCC's report will send shock waves round the world.

   We do not need to imagine what the costs of an unstable climate will be in
   insecurity and suffering. There are already more than enough illustrations.
   Take the tragic conflict in Darfur. It has its origins in competition for
access
   to freshwater and productive land, made worse by a shift in the local pattern
   of rainfall.

   We in the UK are clear that without climate security it will become
   increasingly difficult to guarantee national security and economic security..
   An unstable climate will undermine the capacity of governments to deliver
   the outcomes that our citizens expect on growth and jobs, trade and
   investment, migration, conflict, eradicating poverty and protecting public
   health - in fact, pretty much in every area in which the public holds
   governments to account.

   That is why among my first actions as Foreign Secretary I designated
   climate security and the transition to a low carbon economy as a strategic
   international priority for the UK, and appointed a Special Representative for
   Climate Change.

   This commitment runs right through our government. Gordon Brown, in his
   keynote speech to the Labour Party Conference last week said 'I don't want
   our children to say to us: you knew what needed to be done, you had the
   political power but you lacked the political will'.

   Indeed the same commitment is now building fast in our public life, across
   the political spectrum, as politicians and leaders in all areas respond to
   mounting public expectations for more urgent and effective action. And the
   tide is not going to turn. Climate change will continue to rise up the
political
   agenda as each year passes. Britain's engagement on this issue will be
   sustained, because we know our national interest depends on it.

   Tony Blair was one of the first British politicians to see this. On the
   international stage, he made climate change one of his two priorities, with
   Africa, for our Presidency last year of the G8. He knew that climate change
   was not just a question for Environment Ministers. It needs the attention of
   Heads of Government, of Ministers across the policy waterfront, from
   Finance and Foreign Affairs to Agriculture, Trade, Defence, Health,
   Education, Transport, Innovation and pretty much everything else. Without a
   focussed effort across all areas of government, we will not be able to build
   the broad foundation we need for the actions we must take. This is a major
   political enterprise for which we need to assemble the widest possible
   political coalition.

   That is why I am pleased to see so many policymakers from the world of
   energy here today, to continue the energy-environment dialogue that Patricia
   Hewitt and I launched 18 months ago in London.

   Our success in stabilising the climate will depend more than anything else
   on the kind of energy infrastructure we build over the next generation. So the
   energy policies we adopt now, and the investments we make now, will be
   absolutely critical.

   The International Energy Agency estimates that US$17 trillion will be spent
   in the energy sector between now and 2030. With that investment we need
   to achieve a transition from today's carbon intensive growth to the low
   carbon economy of tomorrow. We must transform the very foundations of
   how we live: how we generate and consume power, how we move around,
   and how we use land.

   Most of that US$17 trillion will be from the private sector. But a stable
   climate is a public good: and that makes it a responsibility of governments to
   put in place the conditions that will achieve it.

   Our task as governments is to build the biggest public-private partnership
   ever conceived. We must construct the mutually reinforcing frameworks of
   incentives and penalties, of opportunities and burdens equitably shared, that
   will drive private capital towards low carbon outcomes.

   We must give investors the certainty they are seeking that investment in low
   carbon today will yield growing returns as the transition progresses. And
   because we live in a globally interconnected economy, we must build these
   frameworks simultaneously at all levels, so that they reinforce each other
   and expand the political space that we will need in order to go further.

   This dialogue in Monterrey gives us a chance to think creatively together
   beyond the limits of our roles as negotiators about the part that we as
   governments must play.

   We need to find a new way of mobilising together in pursuit of our mutual
   interest. And to do that we need above all to build a common perspective on
   the landscape in which governments, businesses and societies must make
   the critical choices that will determine our success. And we must map a
   shared path through that landscape.

   We need to understand the economics of this issue. That is why last year
   Tony Blair and Gordon Brown commissioned Sir Nicholas Stern to conduct
   the most comprehensive and rigorous assessment ever attempted of the
   economics of climate change. I shall leave it to Nick to tell you about his
   emerging findings. But I will not be surprised if he confirms what has been
   becoming increasingly clear as the evidence builds: that it is sound
   economic sense to respond to climate change and economic nonsense not
   to.

   We need to understand the technological options that can carry us towards
   a low carbon economy, and the policy choices that will broaden them. That
   is why the groundbreaking work on technology perspectives conducted over
   the last year by the IEA is so important, and why we can all be grateful to
   Claude Mandil for leading it with such vision. The IEA's World Energy
   Outlook later this year will be more eagerly awaited than ever, as a guide to
   current trends and the scale of the changes we will need to make to change
   them.

   Since this is above all an investment problem we also need to work out how
   best to use public capital under the right enabling conditions to leverage
   private finance towards clean energy outcomes. And we need in so doing to
   make low carbon technologies available and affordable as rapidly as
   possible across borders, particularly in the emerging economies. The
   Investment Framework for Clean Energy and Development being developed
   with Paul Wolfowitz and his team at the World Bank will be an enormously
   powerful tool in this effort.

   All these contributions are beginning to give us the shared analysis on which
   we will need to base our actions. Tony Blair's aim in launching this process
   was that we should rapidly achieve consensus on what those actions should
   be. For example:
   * what goals should we set ourselves to guide our choices as we embark
   on the transition to low carbon?
   * what will be the critical decisions that governments will need to make
   about technology options in that transition?
   * what can we do, through the UN process which must remain the
   backbone of international action on climate, through trade and
   investment frameworks and by other means, to accelerate the growth in
   markets for the technologies we need and their rapid diffusion across
   borders?
   * what should we do at the global and regional levels to facilitate the
   national decisions we need to take, to minimise political blockages
   arising from competitiveness or other concerns and to maximise
   economies of scale?

   The answers to these questions will tell us much about steps we need to
   take - nationally, regionally, and globally as we build the architecture we
   need. From them we will begin to discern the key features of an international
   regime that will carry this enterprise into its next phase, beyond 2012.

   And as we do this there is one thing of which I am already certain. We will
   find that if we make the right choices this will be an agenda of opportunity
   not of sacrifice. True, there will be some costs. But these will be well
within
   our means. And they will be far outweighed by the benefits - not only in
   climate security but also in energy security, public health, innovation and
   competitiveness, in growth and sustainable livelihoods, and in the resilience
   of our economies.

   It is a myth that effective action on climate kills growth. It is a myth that
it
   needs to constrain the legitimate economic choices of developing countries.

   The European Emissions Trading scheme already covers 11 000 power
   plants and businesses. It is nowhere near as strong as it ought to be - and
   will be - but nevertheless, in its first year it made trades worth 7.2 billion
   euro, as businesses learn to treat carbon liability as a commercial
   opportunity.

   Yesterday, here in Mexico, we saw the launch of yet another new carbon
   fund.

   China has among the world's most aggressive policies to increase energy
   efficiency and accelerate the deployment of renewable energy technologies.
   It intends to reduce energy use per unit of GDP by 20 per cent by 2010, and
   has established a program drastically to cut energy waste among over 1000
   major industrial firms and utilities. In Dongtan Eco-City the Municipality of
   Shanghai will put China at the cutting edge of sustainable urban
   development. China is not taking these steps to shackle its economy but
   because it sees them as essential to maintaining the conditions for growth.

   Brazil has invested billions of dollars in wind power, bio-mass and small
   hydro-power projects and is now sharing its very successful bioethanol
   technology with developing country partners.

   In India, the growth of feedstock for biodiesel on marginal land is offering
the
   prospect of new and sustainable livelihoods in poor rural communities.

   Accelerating the growth in markets for renewable energy technologies will
   bring down prices, contributing to energy security and bringing clean
   affordable power to many of the 1.5 billion people who still lack access to
   grid electricity.

   Above all, as the IEA and others have pointed out, we urgently need to bring
   to rapid deployment the carbon capture and storage technologies that will
   allow us to burn coal without destabilising the climate. Indeed there is
   probably no higher priority in the entire effort on climate. But in doing that
we
   will be enhancing global energy security, and therefore strengthening our
   economies, because coal is so widely distributed. Given the right
   frameworks, this need not impose unreasonable burdens on the economies
   of China, India and other countries whose development will continue to
   depend heavily on coal.

   But we now need to bring these opportunities to life. They will not take shape
   unless we, the world's biggest energy consumers, accept the need for a
   much faster progress than we have made so far, and unless we set out a
   clear path towards our goal.

   In Europe we will in coming months be taking momentous decisions about
   our energy strategies. We in the UK will be publishing a White Paper on
   energy early next year, and analogous processes are under way in other
   capitals. We need to make sure these strategies reflect the reality that
   energy security and climate security are now indivisible. We cannot have
   one without the other and so we need to use energy policy to help build a
   low carbon economy.

   And at the front of our minds we must all recognise that the investment
   decisions we make now will determine our emissions for decades ahead. If
   we make the wrong choices we may never have the chance to rectify them,
   because to all intents and purposes the climate thresholds that we cross will
   be irreversible.

   For all these reasons this Dialogue will remain, as it progresses towards
   2008 when it will report back to the G8 Summit in Japan, one of my highest
   priorities for British diplomacy. We will work closely with Germany, Japan,
   with Mexico and all our partners to ensure that it builds the clearest
possible
   shared understanding of the steps we can take together to shape the next
   stage of an effective response to climate change.

   But for now, on behalf of the Prime Minister, let me express my warmest
   thanks to President Fox and the government of Mexico for hosting this
   meeting; and my best wishes to all of you for a productive 2 days here in
   Monterrey.

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

   The Stern Review: `What is the Economics of Climate Change?´

   From: www.sternreview.org.uk

   To access the links in the following article go to the source page on the web.

   31 January 2006
   Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change

   The Chancellor announced on 19 July 2005 that he had asked Sir Nick
   Stern to lead a major review of the economics of climate change, to
   understand more comprehensively the nature of the economic challenges
   and how they can be met, in the UK and globally.

   The review will be taken forward jointly by the Cabinet Office and HM
   Treasury, and will report to the Prime Minister and Chancellor by Autumn
   2006. It takes place within the context of existing national and international
   climate change policy.

   The announcement of this review is a further demonstration of the
   importance which this Government attaches to the issue of climate change,
   and follows its decision to make climate change a priority for the UK
   Presidencies of the G8 and EU.
   Oxford Institute of Economic Policy Distinguished Lecture: 'What is the
   Economics of Climate Change?´

   Sir Nicholas Stern, Head of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate
   Change, gave a keynote lecture to the Oxford Institute of Economic Policy
   as part of their distinguished lecture series entitled `What is the Economics
   of Climate Change?´on the evening of Tuesday 31 January. This paper sets
   out the key approaches and questions for the Stern Review. The deadline
   for reactions to this paper has now passed however we will endevour to
   consider belated responses received either by email
   (oxonia.responses@... ) or by post to the address below.
   The responses received can be viewed via the link below.

   Links to key documents relating to Oxford Institute of Economic Policy
   Distinguished Lecture:

   * PDF file of ´What is the Economics of Climate Change´ Discussion
   Paper (558KB) Technical Annex (411KB)
   * PDF file of Lecture Transcript (37.4KB) Lecture Notes (165KB)
   Lecture Slides (Powerpoint file) (787KB)
   * List of responses to the Stern Review Discussion Paper: ´What is the
   Economics of Climate Change?´
   * Press Notice 31/01/06: Sir Nicholas Stern gave Keynote Speech to the
   Oxford Institute of Economic Policy on `What is the Economics of Climate
   Change?´

   Following Sir Nick Stern´s speech to Oxonia on 31 January and the papers
   published alongside it, a summary article setting out these arguments has
   been published in World Economics. The journal also includes a critique of
   the work by Byatt et al, and a reply to Byatt et al from Nick Stern. The Byatt
   et al paper was previously published on this website as part of the
   responses to the Oxonia speech, alongside the other responses received.
   All these responses are being considered as part of the evidence base for
   the Review"

   * PDF file of Summary Article in World Economics (65KB)
   * PDF file of Nick Stern reply to Byatt et al in World Economics (69KB)

   Other Presentations by Sir Nicholas Stern

   * PDF file of Remarks by Sir Nicholas Stern at Delhi-India sustainable
   Development Summit on 3 February 2006 (14.2KB)
   * Presentation on innovation policy by Nick Stern to a seminar organised
   by the Institut du Developpement Durable et des Relations Internationales
   (IDDRI), Paris, 9 March 2006 (55.9KB)
   * PDF file of presentation by Sir Nicholas Stern on sustainable
   development, climate change and international action at the inaugural
   lecture of the the European Institute for Asian Studies sustainable
   development series in honour of Amartya Sen March 16th, 2006 (882KB)
   * PDF file of speech by Sir Nicholas Stern on Speaking in personal
   capacity: views expressed are not necessarily those of the UK Government
   at South Africa on 25 April 2006 (597KB)

   Stern Review Analysis on Chinese Energy Markets

   In response to the increasing importance of China in the global economy,
   the Stern Review commissioned research by the Chinese Academy of
   Social Sciences into the key economic and policy issues affecting its
   domestic energy markets. A report summarising this work is available via
   the link below.

   * PDF file of report by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences:
   Understanding China´s Energy Markets (356KB)

   Stern Review Transport Seminar in January 2006

   The Stern Review hosted a seminar to discuss the drivers behind global
   growth in emissions from transport and the prospects for new technologies
   to reduce emissions.

   * PDF file of Presentation by Laura Cozzi at IEA on global growth in
   transport emissions (1.98MB)
   * PDF file of Presentation by Adam Chase at E4Tech on prospects for
   hydrogen technology (2.84MB)
   * PDF file of Presentation by Ian McCrae at TRL on how to transport
   emissions in developing countries (2.42MB)
   * PDF file of Presentation by Nobuhiko Koga at Toyota Motor Co on
   prospects for hydrogen technology (1.82MB)
   * PDF file of Minutes from discussion at seminar (40KB)

   Call for Evidence

   At the outset of the Review, Nick Stern invited interested stakeholders in the
   UK and the rest of the world, including academic, private sector, scientific,
   NGO and other experts, to submit evidence on all areas relevant to the
   Terms of Reference. The formal deadline for submitting evidence has now
   passed. However, the Review team will endeavour where possible to
   consider material we receive in the future via the contact details listed
below:

   *
   List of Responses to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate
   Change: Call for Evidence

   Review Team contact details

   Stern Review
   2nd Floor, Room 35/36
   HM Treasury
   1 Horse Guards Road
   London SW1A 2HQ
   Email: callforevidence@...
   Terms of Reference

   The terms of reference of the review are to:

   Examine the evidence on:

   *
   The implications for energy demand and emissions of the prospects for
   economic growth over the coming decades, including the composition and
   energy intensity of growth in developed and developing countries;
   *
   The economic, social and environmental consequences of climate
   change in both developed and developing countries, taking into account the
   risks of increased climate volatility and major irreversible impacts, and the
   climatic interaction with other air pollutants, as well as possible actions to
   adapt to the changing climate and the costs associated with them;
   *
   The costs and benefits of actions to reduce the net global balance of
   greenhouse gas emissions from energy use and other sources, including the
   role of land-use changes and forestry, taking into account the potential
   impact of technological advances on future costs; and
   *
   The impact and effectiveness of national and international policies and
   arrangements in reducing net emissions in a cost-effective way and
   promoting a dynamic, equitable and sustainable global economy, including
   distributional effects and impacts on incentives for investment in cleaner
   technologies

   Consult with key stakeholders, internationally and domestically, to
   understand views and inform analysis.

   Based on this evidence, provide:

   *
   An assessment of the economics of moving to a low-carbon global
   economy, focusing on the medium to long-term perspective, and drawing
   implications for the timescales for action, and choice of policies and
   institutions.
   *
   An assessment of the potential of different approaches for adaptation to
   changes in the climate.

   Assess how this analysis applies to the specific case of the UK, in the
   context of its existing climate change goals.

   Produce a report to the Prime Minister and Chancellor by Autumn 2006.

   Related links:

   *
   12/10/05 Pn85 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change:
   Terms of reference and call for evidence announced
   *
   12/10/05 Pn86 Adviser to the Government on the economics of climate
   change and development
   *
   Stern Workshop 27 March 2006 discussion for Carbon Trust Co UK,
   collective internal reference 1 , 2 , 3 , 4

   Independent Reviews Index
   ------------
   This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
   Philip Sutton
   Greenleap List Manager


   Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
   Messages in this topic (1)
   3. Climate Change & Australian PM: A policy U-turn in the making?
   Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...  
philipsuttonoz
   Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:25 pm (PST)
   Christian Kerr discussed on Late Night Live last night his article below (from
Crikey 9
   October). In essence, he is saying that Australian Prime Minister, John
Howard, is preparing
   to do a back-flip on climate change and will usethe security risks to
Australia from climate
   change as new information which will justify his policy switch, while
reinforcing his image as
   resolute in the defence of Australia.

   (Thanks to Keith Thomas, Nature and Society Forum and Adrian Whitehead, Beyond
Zero
   Emissions for this item)

   From:
   http://www.crikey.com.au/

   5.Global warming and a driving lesson from the PM
   Christian Kerr writes:

   John Howard is nothing if not cautious. Indeed, Gerard Henderson often reminds
us of
   the problems he has had in the past with indecision.

   Caution can be bad. It can also be safe. On the roads, for example, caution
pays. And
   on global warming, it appears, the PM is behaving like a model driver.
Geoffrey Barker
   writes in the Fin today:

   Welcome signs are emerging that the federal government has realised that
global
   warming is infinitely more threatening to Australia than Islamist terrorism.

   To his credit John Howard has reportedly asked Australia's intelligence
analysis
   agency, the Office of National Assessments (ONA), to prepare a detailed report
for
   cabinet on global warming and its security implications.

   By contrast he has not sought a national intelligence estimate on terrorism,
perhaps
   because he does not want to be told, as US intelligence agencies have told
President
   George Bush, that the Iraq War has increased the overall terrorist threat...

   It's cute, getting ONA involved. A very nice angle. And what a wonderful
driving lesson
   we're getting from the PM on how to do a u-turn - pull over to the side of the
road, draw
   to a complete stop and then head in the opposite direction.

   If the passengers wonder what on earth you're doing, you simply tell them
there was a
   safety hazard on the road ahead. No one's going to quibble with that.

   As this guy points out, climate change material is akin to p*rn for
journalists...!


   6.The scary security implications of global warming
   Sophie Black writes:

   Geoffrey Baker speculates today in the Fin Review (not online) that the PM's
request
   for an ONA report on the security implications of global warming coincides
pretty neatly
   with Rupert Murdoch's green light on global warming. But Crikey understands
that the
   idea for a paper on the security implications of climate change came up at a
high-level
   meeting around a year ago.

   Maybe the government was takingits cue from Washington -- a secret Pentagon
report
   on the global security implications of climate change that was leaked back in
February
   2004 made for some pretty scary reading. The London Observer obtained a copy
of the
   Pentagon report that painted Biblical scenes of global catastrophe costing
millions of
   lives, with "nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting"
that could
   erupt across the world and "bring the planet to the edge of anarchy."

   The Pentagon report warned that global warming was a far greater risk than
terrorism,
   advised that climate change should be considered "immediately" as a top
political and
   military issue and concluded: "Disruption and conflict will be endemic
features of life ...
   Once again, warfare would define human life." Among the catalogue of
unbelievable
   predictions was that "catastrophic" shortages of portable water and energy
will lead to
   widespread war by 2020.

   So what would an ONA report on the security implications of global warming for
   Australia look like? Clive Hamilton of The Australia Institute told Crikey
that "the most
   startling claim of the Pentagon report for Australia was that we, along with
the United
   States, could find ourselves building 'defensive fortresses' around our
country to protect
   our resources from desperate outsiders and aggressive states created by rapid
and
   unpredictable climate change."

   The Pentagon report also "raised the issue of food security and the
implications for
   countries like Australia if crops persistently fail in developing countries
leading to
   famine and mass migration," says Hamilton.

   And today's release of the report Australia Responds: Helping our Neighbours
Fight
   Climate Change also offers a glimpse of what could be in store for us - it
argues that
   rising sea levels caused by global warming could force the mass exodus of
millions of
   Pacific Islanders as "environmental refugees".

   The scenario mirrors last week's World Bank report Not If But When which
warned that
   climate change will have a huge impact on Pacific islands. Since 2001,
citizens of Fiji,
   Tonga, Kiribati and Tuvalu have been able to enter New Zealand as
environmental
   refugees displaced by climate change but that's a mere trickle compared to the
   predicted deluge of displaced people that Australia is set to face if the
Pentagon
   predictions are anything to go by.

   ------------
   This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
   Philip Sutton
   Greenleap List Manager


   Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
   Messages in this topic (1)
   4. Climate: One third of planet will be desert by 2100
   Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...  
philipsuttonoz
   Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:26 pm (PST)
   ------- Forwarded message follows -------
   From: "Andrew Marks" <andrewm@...>
   Subject: One Third Of Planet Will Be Desert By 2100
   Date sent: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:18:02 +1000

   THE CENTURY OF DROUGHT
   By Michael McCarthy
   The Independent
   October 4, 2006

   http://news. independent.co.uk/environment/article1786829.ece

   One third of the planet will be desert by the year 2100, say climate experts
   in the most dire warning yet of the effects of global warming.

   .............

   Drought threatening the lives of millions will spread across half the land
   surface of the Earth in the coming century because of global warming,
   according to new predictions from Britain's leading climate scientists.

   Extreme drought, in which agriculture is in effect impossible, will affect
   about a third of the planet, according to the study from the Met Office's
   Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

   It is one of the most dire forecasts so far of the potential effects of
   rising temperatures around the world -- yet it may be an underestimation,
   the scientists involved said yesterday.

   The findings, released at the Climate Clinic at the Conservative Party
   conference in Bournemouth, drew astonished and dismayed reactions from aid
   agencies and development specialists, who fear that the poor of developing
   countries will be worst hit.

   "This is genuinely terrifying," said Andrew Pendleton of Christian Aid. "It
   is a death sentence for many millions of people. It will mean migration off
   the land at levels we have not seen before, and at levels poor countries
   cannot cope with."

   One of Britain's leading experts on the effects of climate change on the
   developing countries, Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundation, said:
   "There's almost no aspect of life in the developing countries that these
   predictions don't undermine -- the ability to grow food, the ability to have
   a safe sanitation system, the availability of water. For hundreds of
   millions of people for whom getting through the day is already a struggle,
   this is going to push them over the precipice."

   The findings represent the first time that the threat of increased drought
   from climate change has been quantified with a supercomputer climate model
   such as the one operated by the Hadley Centre.

   Their impact is likely to even greater because the findings may be an
   underestimate. The study did not include potential effects on drought from
   global-warming-induced changes to the Earth's carbon cycle.

   In one unpublished Met Office study, when the carbon cycle effects are
   included, future drought is even worse.

   The results are regarded as most valid at the global level, but the clear
   implication is that the parts of the world already stricken by drought, such
   as Africa, will be the places where the projected increase will have the
   most severe effects.

   The study, by Eleanor Burke and two Hadley Centre colleagues, models how a
   measure of drought known as the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is
   likely to increase globally during the coming century with predicted changes
   in rainfall and heat around the world because of climate change. It shows
   the PDSI figure for moderate drought, currently at 25 per cent of the
   Earth's surface, rising to 50 per cent by 2100, the figure for severe
   drought, currently at about 8 per cent, rising to 40 cent, and the figure
   for extreme drought, currently 3 per cent, rising to 30 per cent.

   Senior Met Office scientists are sensitive about the study, funded by the
   Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stressing it contains
   uncertainties: there is only one climate model involved, one future scenario
   for emissions of greenhouse gases (a moderate-to-high one) and one drought
   index. Nevertheless, the result is "significant", according to Vicky Pope,
   the head of the Hadley Centre's climate programme. Further work would now be
   taking place to try to assess the potential risk of different levels of
   drought in different places, she said.

   The full study -- Modelling the Recent Evolution of Global Drought and
   Projections for the 21st Century with the Hadley Centre Climate Model --
   will be published later this month in The Journal of Hydrometeorology.

   It will be widely publicised by the British Government at the negotiations
   in Nairobi in November on a successor to the Kyoto climate treaty. But a
   preview of it was given by Dr Burke in a presentation to the Climate Clinic,
   which was formed by environmental groups, with The Independent as media
   partner, to press politicians for tougher action on climate change. The
   Climate Clinic has been in operation at all the party conferences.

   While the study will be seen as a cause for great concern, it is the figure
   for the increase in extreme drought that some observers find most
   frightening.

   "We're talking about 30 per cent of the world's land surface becoming
   essentially uninhabitable in terms of agricultural production in the space
   of a few decades," Mark Lynas, the author of High Tide, the first major
   account of the visible effects of global warming around the world, said.
   "These are parts of the world where hundreds of millions of people will no
   longer be able to feed themselves."

   Mr Pendleton said: "This means you're talking about any form of development
   going straight out of the window. The vast majority of poor people in the
   developing world are small-scale farmers who... rely on rain."

   A glimpse of what lies ahead

   The sun beats down across northern Kenya's Rift Valley, turning brown what
   was once green. Farmers and nomadic herders are waiting with bated breath
   for the arrival of the "short" rains -- a few weeks of intense rainfall that
   will ensure their crops grow and their cattle can eat.

   The short rains are due in the next month. Last year they never came; large
   swaths of the Horn of Africa stayed brown. From Ethiopia and Eritrea,
   through Somalia and down into Tanzania, 11 million people were at risk of
   hunger.

   This devastating image of a drought-ravaged region offers a glimpse of what
   lies ahead for large parts of the planet as global warming takes hold.

   In Kenya, the animals died first. The nomadic herders' one source of
   sustenance and income -- their cattle -- perished with nothing to eat and
   nothing to drink. Bleached skeletons of cows and goats littered the barren
   landscape.

   The number of food emergencies in Africa each year has almost tripled since
   the 1980s. Across sub-Saharan Africa, one in three people is
   under-nourished. Poor governance has played a part.

   Pastoralist communities suffer most, rather than farmers and urban dwellers..
   Nomadic herders will walk for weeks to find a water hole or riverbed. As
   resources dwindle, fighting between tribes over scarce resources becomes
   common.

   One of the most critical issues is under-investment in pastoralist areas.
   Here, roads are rare, schools and hospitals almost non-existent.

   Nomadic herders in Turkana, northern Kenya, who saw their cattle die last
   year, are making adjustments to their way of life. When charities offered
   new cattle, they said no. Instead, they asked for donkeys and camels --
   animals more likely to survive hard times.

   Pastoralists have little other than their animals to rely on. But projects
   which provide them with money to buy food elsewhere have proved effective,
   in the short term at least.

   .............

   NHNE Climate Change Resource Page:
   http://www.nhne.org/tabid/ 490/Default.aspx

   ------- End of forwarded message -------
   ------------
   This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
   Philip Sutton
   Greenleap List Manager


   Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
   Messages in this topic (1)
   5. CO2-driven release of peat bog carbon suggests 320 ppm better air CO
   Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...  
philipsuttonoz
   Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:28 pm (PST)
   Most public discussion focuses on stabilising CO2 at between 450-550 parts
   per million.

   (There is currently 382 parts per million of CO2 in the air and before
   industrialisation there was 280 ppm).

   The following items (taken together) from the New Scientist suggest that it
   might be best if the stabilisation target was no more than 320 ppm.

   Philip Sutton

   ----------

   Two items:

   Greenhouse action - letter to the Editor
   Peat bogs harbour carbon time bomb

   To find articles search in the this email on the titles.

   ----

   From:
   http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18324574.600

   Greenhouse action - letter to the Editor

   24 July 2004
   New Scientist Print Edition
   Lewis Cleverdon Kington, Herefordshire, UK

   Chris Freeman observes that, due directly to rising atmospheric carbon
   dioxide, the world's peat bogs "are going into solution" and releasing rising
   volumes of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) into watercourses, which in turn
   emit increased CO2 to the atmosphere (10 July, p 9). With this phenomenon
   evidently having begun about 40 years ago, and if it is true that global
river-
   borne DOC has been rising exponentially by about 6 per cent per year, the
   prognosis on this trend is of "ex-peat" emissions reaching 7 gigatonnes per
   year by 2060 - equal to society's present global carbon emissions.

   Freeman's findings strengthen the case for multilateral action on carbon
   emissions and set a new goal for the stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 at
   perhaps 320 parts per million by volume.

   Secondly, the urgency is changed: on this evidence we appear to have less
   than three decades to displace the use of fossil fuels if we are to avoid
   positive feedback from increased atmospheric carbon swamping the carbon
   sinks and committing us to a global climatic destabilisation and consequent
   catastrophic crop failure, geo-economic collapse, contested mass-migration
   and so on.

   Thirdly, the urgency dictates that policies for cutting carbon emissions must
   be complemented by the recovery of gigatonnes per year of carbon from the
   atmosphere. Numerous techno-fixes have been proposed to achieve a
   fraction of this recovery, none of which are self-funding.

   An obvious, long-proven and long-ignored option is for a global effort to
   develop coppice woodland to produce methanol. This would entail
   widespread deciduous reforestation, particularly of upland regions, with plots
   of woodland being felled and regrown from the stump in cycles ranging from
   7 to 20 years, and their produce being used as feedstock in village-scale
   methanol refineries.

   This option could recover airborne carbon both during coppice development
   and in their root growth thereafter. It could displace fossil fuels in
internal
   combustion engines, fuel cells and gas turbines. It could, if applied
   sustainably, help communities and ecosystems adapt to climate change by
   helping to mitigate flooding, supplying rural jobs, stabilising hill soils,
   buffering old forests, reconnecting forest that is now fragmented and so on..

   I suggest that the uplands of the UK are as much in need of it as anywhere.

   Global Commons Institute

   >From issue 2457 of New Scientist magazine, 24 July 2004, page 28

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

   From:
   http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18324551.500-peat-bogs-harbour-
   carbon-time-bomb.html

   Peat bogs harbour carbon time bomb

   Fred Pearce
   10 July 2004
   New Scientist Print Edition.

   THE world's peat bogs are haemorrhaging carbon dioxide into the
   atmosphere, accelerating global warming. Worse, the process appears to be
   feeding off itself, as rising atmospheric levels of CO2 are triggering further
   releases from the bogs.

   That's the claim of a British researcher this week who is warning that
billions
   of tonnes of carbon could pour into the air from peat bogs in the coming
   decades. "The world's peatland stores of carbon are emptying at an
   alarming rate," says Chris Freeman of the University of Wales at Bangor.
   "It's a vicious circle. The problem gets worse and worse, faster and faster."

   Peat bogs are a vast natural reservoir of organic carbon. By one estimate,
   the bogs of Europe, Siberia and North America hold the equivalent of 70
   years of global industrial emissions. But concern is growing that such bogs
   are releasing ever more of their carbon into rivers in the form of dissolved
   organic carbon (DOC).

   "There seems to be an increase of DOC in rivers of about 6 per cent a year
   at present," says Fred Worrall of the University of Durham in the UK, who
   collates global data on DOC levels in rivers. Worrall suspects the rise in
   DOC began about 40 years ago.

   Bacteria in the rivers rapidly convert DOC into CO2 that bubbles into the
   atmosphere. But speculation has been rife about why the peat bogs are
   giving up their carbon in the first place. Three years ago, Freeman proposed
   that global warming was the cause (New Scientist, 25 August 2001, p 8). But
   that hypothesis failed to stand up in field trials. A second suggestion, that
   increased river flows were flushing more carbon out of the bogs, has also
   bitten the dust.

   So Freeman tested a third idea - that summer droughts cause more
   vegetable matter in bogs to decompose, freeing up more carbon that is
   released into the rivers. But that too failed when Freeman simulated drought
   conditions in a bog in central Wales, and found that this reduced the DOC in
   rivers, rather than increasing it.

   The trials indicate that there may be another culprit altogether: the direct
   effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Freeman grew plants on soil
   from peat bogs in igloo-like glass structures, some containing normal air and
   others with a CO2-rich atmosphere. He found that plants in the CO2-rich
   atmosphere began to assimilate much larger amounts of CO2, which in turn
   was released into the soil moisture. There it can feed bacteria in the water
   that break down the peaty soil itself, releasing stored carbon from the bog
   into the rivers.

   After three years, the proportion of DOC in the CO2-rich soil was 10 times
   that within the normal soil. And there was no sign of the increase tailing
off.
   "This shows that even without global warming, rising CO2 can damage our
   environment," says Freeman. "The peat bogs are going into solution."

   Researchers from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Lancaster, UK,
   have been measuring DOC levels in water for some years as part of a
   programme to monitor river chemistry. But the study is also providing critical
   evidence of the impact of rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Recent
   data shows a 90 per cent increase in DOC levels in Welsh mountain rivers
   since 1988.

   "The rate of acceleration suggests that we have disturbed something critical
   that controls the stability of the carbon cycle in our planet," Freeman says.
   "On these trends, by the middle of the century, DOC emissions from peat
   bogs and rivers could be as big a source of CO2 to the atmosphere as
   burning fossil fuels."

   Freeman says the dissolved carbon also poses a potential health threat.
   DOC can react with chlorine disinfectant at water treatment works to
   produce cancer-causing chemicals called trihalomethanes. "Apart from the
   global warming implications, this means we will have to pay higher water
   bills for removing these toxins," Freeman says.

   >From issue 2455 of New Scientist magazine, 10 July 2004, page 9

   ------------
   This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
   Philip Sutton
   Greenleap List Manager


   Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
   Messages in this topic (1)
   6. Leading US scientist speaks plainly about the sabotage of climate
   Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...  
philipsuttonoz
   Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:54 pm (PST)
   From:
   http://www..columbia.edu/~jeh1/worldwatch_nov2006.pdf
   and from
   November/December 2006 issue (Volume 19, No. 6) of World Watch magazine.
   www.worldwatch.org/ww/hansen

   Swift Boating, Stealth Budgeting, and Unitary Executives
   by James Hansen

   The American Revolution launched the radical proposition that the commonest of
   men should have a vote equal in weight to that of the richest, most powerful
citizen.
   Our forefathers devised a remarkable Constitution, with checks and balances,
to
   guard against the return of despotic governance and subversion of the
democratic
   principle for the sake of the powerful few with special interests. They were
well aware
   of the difficulties that would be faced, however, placing their hopes in the
   presumption of an educated and honestly informed citizenry.

   I have sometimes wondered how our forefathers would view our situation today.
On
   the positive side, as a scientist, I like to imagine how Benjamin Franklin
would view
   the capabilities we have built for scientific investigation. Franklin
speculated that an
   atmospheric "dry fog" produced by a large volcano had reduced the Sun´s
heating of
   the Earth so as to cause unusually cold weather in the early 1780s; he noted
that the
   enfeebled solar rays, when collected in the focus of a "burning glass," could
"scarce
   kindle brown paper."As brilliant as Franklin´s insights may have been, they
were only
   speculation as he lacked the tools for quantitative investigation. No doubt
Franklin
   would marvel at the capabilities provided by Earth-encircling satellites and
super-
   computers that he could
   scarcely have imagined.

   Yet Franklin, Jefferson, and the other revolutionaries would surely be
distraught by
   recent tendencies in America, specifically the increasing power of special
interests in
   our government, concerted efforts to deceive the public, and arbitrary actions
of
   government executives that arise from increasing concentration of authority in
a
   unitary executive, in defiance of the aims of our Constitution´s framers.
These
   tendencies are illustrated well by a couple of incidents that I have been
involved in
   recently.

   In the first incident, my own work was distorted for the purposes of
misinforming the
   public and protecting special interests. In the second incident, the mission
of the
   National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was altered
surreptitiously
   by executive action, thus subverting constitutional division of power. These
incidents
   help to paint a picture that reveals consequences for society far greater than
simple
   enrichment of special interests. The effect is to keep the public in the dark
about
   increasing risks to our society and our home planet.

   The first incident prompted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman to argue not
   long ago that I must respond to "swift boaters"-those who distort the record
to
   impugn someone´s credibility. I have had reservations about doing so, stemming
   from the perceptive advice of Professor Henk van de Hulst, who said, when I
was a
   post-doc at Leiden University, "Your success will depend upon choosing what
not to
   work on." Unfortunately, given the shrinking fuse on the global warming time
bomb,
   Krugman is probably right: we cannot afford the luxury of ignoring swift
boaters and
   focusing only on science.

   Pat Michaels, a swift boater to whom Krugman refers, is sometimes described as
a
   "contrarian." Contrarians address global warming as if they were lawyers, not
   scientists. A lawyer´s job often is to defend a client, not seek the truth.
Instead of
   following Richard Feynman´s dictum on scientific objectivity ("The only way to
have
   real success in science...is to describe the evidence very carefully without
regard to
   the way you feel it should be"), contrarians present only evidence that
supports their
   desired conclusion.

   Skepticism, an inherent aspect of scientific inquiry, should be carefully
distinguished
   from contrarianism. Skepticism, and the objective weighing of evidence, are
   essential for scientific success. Skepticism about the existence of global
warming
   and the principal role of human-made greenhouse gases has diminished as
   empirical evidence and our understanding have advanced. However, many aspects
   of global warming need to be understood better, including the best ways to
minimize
   climate change and its consequences. Legitimate skepticism will always have an
   important role to play.

   However, hard-core global warming contrarians have an agenda other than
scientific
   truth. Their target is the public. Their goal is to create an impression that
global
   warming or its causes are uncertain. Debating a contrarian leaves an
impression
   with today´s public of an argument among theorists. Sophistical contrarians do
not
   need to win the scientific debate to advance their cause.

   Science Fiction

   Consider, for example, Pat Michaels´ deceit (in a 2000 article in Social
Epistemology)
   in portraying climate "predictions" that I made in 1988 as being in error by
"450
   percent."This distortion is old news, but by sheer repetition has become
received
   wisdom among climate-change deniers. In fact, science fiction writer Michael
   Crichton was duped by Michaels, although Crichton reduced my "error" to "wrong
by
   300 percent" in his 2004 novel State of Fear.

   People acquainted with this topic are aware that Michaels, in comparing global
   warming predictions made with the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
   climate model with observations, played a dirty trick by showing model
calculations
   for only one of the three scenarios (not predictions!) that I presented in
1988. Here´s
   why this trick has a big impact.

   The three scenarios (see figure, opposite page) were intended to bracket the
range
   of likely future climate forcings (changes imposed on the Earth´s energy
balance that
   tend to alter global temperature either way). Scenario C had the smallest
   greenhouse gas forcing: it extended recent greenhouse gas growth rates to the
year
   2000 and thereafter kept greenhouse gas amounts constant, i.e., it assumed
that
   after 2000 human sources of these gases would be just large enough to balance
   removal of these gases by the "sinks." Scenario B continued approximately
linear
   growth of greenhouse gases beyond 2000. Scenario A showed exponential growth
of
   greenhouse gases and included a substantial allowance for trace gases that
were
   suspected of increasing but were unmeasured.

   Scenarios A, B, and C also differed in their assumptions about future volcanic
   eruptions. Scenarios B and C included occasional eruptions of large volcanoes,
at a
   frequency similar to that of the real world in the previous few decades.
Scenario A,
   intended to yield the largest plausible warming, included no volcanic
eruptions, as it
   is not uncommon to have no large eruptions for extended periods, such as the
half
   century between the Katmai eruption in 1912 and the Agung eruption in 1963.

   Multiple scenarios are used to provide a range of plausible climate outcomes,
but
   also so that we can learn something by comparing real-world outcomes with
model
   predictions. How well the model succeeds in simulating the real world depends
upon
   the realism of both the assumed forcing and the climate sensitivity (the
global
   temperature response to a standard climate forcing) of the model.

   As it turned out, in the real world the largest climate forcing in the decade
after 1988,
   by far, was caused by the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption, the greatest
volcanic
   eruption of the past century. Forcings are measured in watt-years per square
meter
   (W-yr/m2) averaged over the surface of the Earth (1 W-yr/m2 is a heating of 1
W/m2
   over the entire planet maintained for one year). The small particles injected
into the
   Earth´s stratosphere by Pinatubo reflected sunlight back to space, causing a
   negative (cooling) climate forcing of about -5 W-yr/m2. In contrast, the added
   greenhouse gas climate forcings ranged from about +1.6 W-yr/m2 in scenario C
to
   about +2.3 W-yr/m2 in scenario A.

   So of the four scenarios (A, B, C, and the real world) only scenario A had no
large
   volcanic eruption. The volcanic activity modeled in scenarios B and C was
somewhat
   weaker than in the real world and was misplaced by a few years, but by good
fortune
   it was such as to have a cooling effect pretty similar to that of
Pinatubo.Despite the
   fact that scenario A omitted the largest climate forcing, Michaels chose to
compare
   scenario A-and only scenario A-with the real world. Is this a case of
scientific
   idiocy or is there something else at work? Perhaps Michaels is just not very
   interested in learning about the real world.

   Although less important for the temperature change between 1997 and 1988 that
   Michaels examined, measured real-world greenhouse gas changes in carbon
dioxide
   (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
yielded
   a forcing similar to those in scenarios B and C. The reason for the slow
real-world
   growth rate was that both CH4 and CO2 growth rates decreased in the early
1990s
   (the slowdowns may have been associated with Pinatubo; in any case the CO2
   growth rate has subsequently accelerated rapidly).

   An astute reader may wonder why the world showed any warming during the period
   1988-97, given that the negative (cooling) forcing by Pinatubo exceeded the
positive
   (warming) forcing by greenhouse gases added in that period. The reason is that
the
   climate system was also being pushed by the planetary "energy imbalance" that
   existed in 1988. The climate system had not yet fully responded to greenhouse
   gases added to the atmosphere before then. The observed continued decadal
   warming, despite the very large negative volcanic forcing, provides some
   confirmation of that planetary energy imbalance.

   Noise and Distortion

   Michaels´ trick of comparing the real world only with the inappropriate
scenario A
   accounts for his specious, incorrect conclusions. However, a second
unscientific
   aspect of his method is also worth pointing out.

   Scientists seek to learn something by comparing the real world with climate
model
   calculations. Climate sensitivity is of special interest, as future climate
change
   depends strongly upon it. In principal, we can extract climate sensitivity if
we have
   accurate knowledge of the net forcing that drove climate change, and the
global
   temperature change that occurred in response to that change. However, even if
   these demanding conditions are met, it is necessary to compare the magnitude
of
   the calculated changes with the magnitude of "noise," including errors in the
   measurements and chaotic (unforced) variability in the model and real-world
climate
   changes.

   If Michaels had examined the noise question he would have realized that a
nine-year
   change is insuf- ficient to determine the real-world temperature trend or
distinguish
   among the model runs. Even the period 1988-2005 is too brief for most
purposes.
   Within several years the differences among scenarios A, B, and C, and
comparisons
   with the real world,will become more meaningful.

   Michaels´ latest tomfoolery, repeated on several occasions, is the charge that
I
   approve of exaggeration of potential consequences of future global warming.
This is
   more unadulterated hogwash.Michaels quotes me as saying," Emphasis on extreme
   scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-
   makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue."

   What trick did Michaels use to create the impression that I advocate
exaggeration?
   He took the above sentence out of context from a paragraph in which I was
being
   gently critical of a tendency of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
climate
   simulations to emphasize only cases with very large increases of climate
forcings.My
   entire paragraph (from a June 2003 presentation to the Council on
Environmental
   Quality) read as follows:

   Summary opinion re scenarios. Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been
appropriate
   at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of
the global
   warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil, and tar sands
were
   receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably
objective
   climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current
conditions.
   Scenarios that accurately fit recent and nearfuture observations have the best
chance of
   bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are
what is needed for
   the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient
options to stop global
   warming.

   Would an intelligent reader who read the entire paragraph (or even the entire
   sentence; by chopping off half of the sentence Michaels brings quoting-out-of-
   context to a new low) infer that I was advocating exaggeration? On the
contrary.
   Perhaps I should take it as a compliment that anyone would search my writing
so
   hard to find something that can be quoted out of context.

   Having taken this trouble to refute Michaels´ claims, I still wonder about the
wisdom
   of arguing with contrarians as a strategy.Many of them, including Michaels,
receive
   support from special interests such as fossil fuel and automotive companies..
It is
   understandable that special interests gravitated, early on, to scientists who
had a
   message they preferred to hear. But now that global warming and its impacts
are
   clearer, it is time for business people to reconsider their position-and
scientists,
   rather than debating contrarians, may do better to communicate with business
   leaders. The latter did not attain their positions without being astute and
capable of
   changing. We need to make clear to them the legal and moral liabilities that
accrue
   with continued denial of global warming. It is time for business leaders to
chuck
   contrarians and focus on the business challenges and opportunities.

   (if graph doesn't appear here - go to to web source of document)

   Stealth Budgets & Unitary Executives

   The second incident involved NASA´s budget.Many people are aware that
something
   bad happened to the NASA Earth Science budget this year, yet the severity of
the
   cuts and their longterm implications are not universally recognized. In part
this is
   because of a stealth budgeting maneuver.

   When annual budgets for the coming fiscal year are announced, the differences
in
   growth from the previous year, for agencies and their divisions, are typically
a few
   percent.An agency with +3 percent growth may crow happily, in comparison to
   agencies receiving +1 percent. Small differences are important because every
   agency has fixed costs (civil service salaries, buildings, other
infrastructure), so new
   programs or initiatives are strongly dependent upon any budget growth and how
that
   growth compares with inflation.

   When the administration announced its planned fiscal 2007 budget, NASA science
   was listed as having typical changes of 1 percent or so. However, Earth
Science
   research actually had a staggering reduction of about 20 percent from the 2006
   budget. How could that be accomplished? Simple enough: reduce the 2006
research
   budget retroactively by 20 percent! One-third of the way into fiscal year
2006, NASA
   Earth Science was told to go figure out how to live with a 20-percent loss of
the
   current year´s funds.

   The Earth Science budget is almost a going-out-of-business budget. From the
   taxpayers´ point of view it makes no sense.An 80-percent budget must be used
   mainly to support infrastructure (practically speaking, you cannot fire civil
servants;
   buildings at large facilities such as Goddard Space Flight Center will not be
bulldozed
   to the ground; and the grass at the centers must continue to be cut). But the
budget
   cuts wipe off the books most planned new satellite missions (some may be kept
on
   the books, but only with a date so far in the future that no money needs to be
spent
   now), and support for contractors, young scientists, and students disappears,
with
   dire implications for future capabilities.

   Bizarrely, this is happening just when NASA data are yielding spectacular and
   startling results. Two small satellites that measure the Earth´s gravitational
field with
   remarkable precision found that the mass of Greenland decreased by the
equivalent
   of 200 cubic kilometers of ice in 2005. The area on Greenland with summer
melting
   has increased 50 percent, the major ice streams on Greenland (portions of the
ice
   sheet moving most rapidly toward the ocean and discharging icebergs) have
doubled
   in flow speed, and the area in the Arctic Ocean with summer sea ice has
decreased
   20 percent in the last 25 years.

   One way to avoid bad news: stop the measurements! Only hitch: the first line
of the
   NASA mission is "to understand and protect our home planet."Maybe that can be
   changed to "...protect special interests´ backside."

   I should say that the mission statement used to read "to understand and
protect our
   home planet."That part has been deleted-a shocking loss to me, as I had been
   using the phrase since December 2005 to justify speaking out about the dangers
of
   global warming. The quoted mission statement had been constructed in 2001 and
   2002 via an inclusive procedure involving representatives from the NASA
Centers
   and e-mail interactions with NASA employees. In contrast, elimination of the
"home
   planet" phrase occurred in a spending report delivered to Congress in February
   2006, the same report that retroactively slashed the Earth Science research
budget.
   In July 2006 I asked dozens of NASA employees and management people (including
   my boss) if they were aware of the change. Not one of them was. Several
expressed
   concern that such management changes by fiat would have a bad effect on
   organization morale.

   The budgetary goings-on in Washington have been noted, e.g., in editorials of
The
   Boston Globe: "Earth to NASA:Help!" (June 15, 2006) and "Don´t ask; don´t ask"
   (June 22), both decrying the near-termination of Earth measurements. Of
course, the
   Globe might be considered "liberal media," so their editorials may not raise
many
   eyebrows.

   But it is conservatives and moderates who should be most upset, and I consider
   myself a moderate conservative.When I was in school we learned that Congress
   controlled the purse strings; it is in the Constitution. But it does not
really seem to
   work that way, not if the Bush administration can jerk the science budget the
way
   they have, in the middle of a fiscal year no less. It seems more like David
Baltimore´s
   "Theory of the Unitary Executive" (the legal theory that the president can do
pretty
   much whatever he wants) is being practiced successfully. My impression is that
   conservatives and moderates would prefer that the government work as described
in
   the Constitution, and that they prefer to obtain their information on how the
Earth is
   doing from real observations, not from convenient science fiction.

   Congress is putting up some resistance to the budget manipulation. The House
   restored a fraction of the fiscal year 2007 cuts to science and is attempting
to restore
   planning for some planetary missions. But the corrective changes are moderate.
You
   may want to check your children´s textbooks for the way the U.S. government
works.
   If their books still say that Congress controls the purse strings, some
updating is
   needed.

   But may it be that this is all a bad dream? I will stand accused of being as
wistful as
   the boy who cried out, "Joe, say it ain´t so!" to the fallen Shoeless Joe
Jackson of the
   1919 Chicago Black Sox, yet I maintain the hope that NASA´s dismissal of "home
   planet" is not a case of either shooting the messenger or a too-small growth
of the
   total NASA budget, but simply an error of transcription. Those who have
labored in
   the humid, murky environs of Washington are aware of the unappetizing forms of
life
   that abound there. Perhaps the NASA playbook was left open late one day, and
by
   chance the line "to understand and protect our home planet" was erased by the
slimy
   belly of a slug crawling in the night. For the sake of our children and
grandchildren,
   let us pray that this is the true explanation for the devious loss, and that
our home
   planet´s rightful place in NASA´s mission will be restored.

   James Hansen is an adjunct professor at the Columbia University Earth
Institute and
   director of NASA´s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. He
expresses his
   opinions here as a private citizen under the protection of the First
Amendment.

   The NASA Mission
   To understand and protect our home planet,
   To explore the universe and search for life,
   To inspire the next generation of explorers
   ....as only NASA can.

   For more information about issues raised in this story, visit
   www.worldwatch.org/ww/hansen.

   ------------
   This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
   Philip Sutton
   Greenleap List Manager

   ----------

   The following section of this message contains a file attachment
   prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
   If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,
   you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
   If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

   ---- File information -----------
   File: WPM$779A_1.PNG
   Date: 8 Oct 2006, 1:49
   Size: 26122 bytes.
   Type: Unknown

   Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
   Messages in this topic (1)
   7. Mark 2006 in your diary: the climate change social tipping point yea
   Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...  
philipsuttonoz
   Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:57 pm (PST)
   Dear Greenleapers,

   Mark 2006 in your diary - I predict with considerable confeidence that it will
   be the year that the world (and even the recalcitrants, Australia and the US)
   decided to take climate seriously.

   When Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs in one of the toughest
   climate action programs in the world and Rupert Murdoch, Richard Branson
   and George Soros agree that we have to take climate change seriously - we
   know that something profound has happened at the big end of town.

   It is not a coincidence that this is the year in which the once "next
President
   of the United States" launched his movie "An inconvenient truth".

   So, it's time to celebrate. The world WILL take climate change seriously.

   But the question now is: Will the response be fast enough and strong
   enough to avoid massive social and environmental disruption and damage
   to our economic capacity?

   The world seems to be focusing on goals rather like the British Government
   60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 - with the certainty that the
   achieveent of this goal will result in at least 550 parts per million CO2 in
the
   air and average global warming of at least 2 degrees Celcius over the pre-
   industrial level.

   This outcome results in far too much CO2 in the air (we have too much
   there NOW) and the action program is far too slow.

   The Greenleap list will now shift its attention to promoting a change program
   that will be effective - targetiing zero emissions and a turnaround decade to
   make some of the biggest physical changes.

   The issue for the future is not business-as-usual versus climate action. The
   issue is which new future will prevail? One that will act on climate change
   but will fail to protect life and humans in general versus action on climate
   change that is actually equal to the challenge that we face?

   Cheers!

   Philip

   Philip Sutton
   Director, Strategy
   Green Innovations Inc.
   PO Box 27
   Fairfield (Melbourne) VIC 3078
   AUSTRALIA

   Also:
   President, Sustainable Living Foundation
   www.slf.org.au
   Manager of the Greenleap info list

   Tel: +61 3 9486-4799
   Skype: philip_sutton
   Email: <Philip.Sutton@...>
   http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/

   Victorian Registered Association Number: A0026828M


   Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
   Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity
   a..  9 New Members
Visit Your Group
New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved
message search.



Share feedback on the new changes to Groups

Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily
Digest.
Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Messages
-  -  -
Greenleap strategy:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/Greenleap-30y-or-less.htm
Info on Green Innovations & resources on
creation of an ecologically sustainable
economy & sustainability-promoting firms:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/
-  -  -

Greenleap: Australian-hosted list for exchange of info-gems
(& very limited discussion) about leapfrogging rapidly TO an
ecologically sustainable economy.

(For postings relevant to Victoria only, also subscribe
to "Greenleap-Victoria" - send blank message to:
<greenleap-Victoria-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> )

To post to Greenleap, mail to:
<greenleap@yahoogroups.com>

To automate tidying of message text (for good layout/
readability) download free software:
http://www.dsoft.com.tr/stripmail/

To subscribe to Greenleap, send blank message to:
<greenleap-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
To unsubscribe send blank message to:
<greenleap-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
If you are changing email addresses send the
unsubscribe message from your old address.

To change your subscription settings, goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenleap/join

Setting options:
- individual message mailings
- a single daily consolidated posting
- no emails at all (but can read messages via
   web archive)

Archive:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenleap/messages

Attachments are no longer archived by Yahoo.  Sorry.

Can't access archive? How to:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/greenleap.htm#accessing-archive

Greenleap is a service of Green Innovations Inc.
*Free* for first 12 months, then generally after that,
a small fee is charged.  For details:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/greenleap.htm

All messages are moderated/screened. To maintain
relevance & quality: sometimes messages have irrelevant
material edited out, info added or are rejected. Some
postings are bundled into 'compilation' postings.

--end--


Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to
Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ausinuke-----
Jim Green B.Med.Sci. (Hons.) PhD
National nuclear campaigner - Friends of the Earth
Ph 0417 318 368
jim.green@...
----------
50 Years Since Maralinga
Commemorative Concert
Sunday October 22, 3pm to 5pm
Storey Hall, RMIT, cnr Swanston & La Trobe Sts, Melbourne

Featuring musicians (including Kutcha Edwards), speakers, recent
photographs and interviews with Maralinga veterans. Please join us to
commemorate the ongoing legacy of the tests, and to celebrate a
vision for a nuclear free future.

Tickets $10/$5 available at the door.
Organised by Friends of the Earth.
Enquiries: Ilan <ilanabrahams@...>, 0425 761 185.

September 27, 2006 marked the 50th anniversary of the first of the
British nuclear bomb tests at Maralinga. Many army personal were
intentionally exposed to high levels of radiation. Many Aboriginal
people in the area were not notified of the tests. Some became sick
and died. Army veterans and Aboriginal people have developed cancers
and other long term health problems as a result of radiation
exposure. Large areas of land around the testing sites remain
contaminated with radioactive materials; 400 sq kms remain
uninhabitable.

The tragedy of the British nuclear bomb tests has important lessons.
Many of the problems associated with the tests can be seen today with
the nuclear industry - the secrecy, the lies, the racism,
trivialising the health effects of radiation, non-independent
'regulation', and the unavoidable link between the 'peaceful' atom
and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

CLIMATE CHANGE GANG : PIRATES OF PERSUASION

Volunteers with experience of event management are urgently
needed to assist with the stewarding of the Climate March and
I Count Rally in London on 4th November 2006.

A group known as the Climate Change Gang have put a
call out to recruit extra people ahead of a deadline of
13th October 2006.

The volunteers will be recognisable by their fancy dress
and the fact that they say "Yarr !" from time to time, as
the motif for this group is pirates.

Information about the Pirates of Persuasion can be found on :-
http://www.workface-limited.co.uk/html/pirates.html

Anyone wishing to volunteer for deck duty on 4th November 2006
for the Climate March, must report to Bo'sun Phil at Campaign
against Climate Change : phil@..., or his trusty
crewlady Kate by e-mail at : campaignccstewards@...

If you want to help with the stewarding of the I Count Rally,
contact Cap'n Zuhura at Stop Climate Chaos by e-mail on :
zuhura@...

The deadline for volunteering for Stop Climate Chaos is
Friday 13th October 2006.

From the webpage :-
=================================================
The only requirements to be a part of the Climate Change Gang is to
wear a Pirate scarf armband, and say "Yarr !" on occasions. You can feel
free to wear the whole Pirate regalia if you like, with the flouncy shirt,
the tricorn hat, the eye patch and even have a live parrot on your shoulder,
but it's not essential. As you all know, Global Warming is directly
inversely
proportional to the number of Pirates in the World :-
http://www.venganza.org
The more Pirates there are, the better we can beat Climate Change.
=================================================

jo.
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.workface.org

In the next Federal Election...the ALP will NOT be getting my flow on vote.
I just hope the Greens/Democrats/
Socialist Alliance have runners in my seat.

Otherwise my ballot paper will have to go into the box unmarked :-(

It appears that the young ALP's have been infiltrated by the nuclear
industry... Just as the ALP were infiltrated by the timber/pulp/paper
industry.

Sad... very sad.

"ALP youth back uranium switch"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20547327-2702,00.html

For those of you in Melboure, here's something to get along to this
Sunday...

--
Julien Gronbach
Victorian Climate Change Campaigner
Greenpeace Australia Pacific

PO Box 12575
A'Beckett St
Victoria
8006

Ph: +61 3 9341 8121
Fax: +61 3 9341 8199
Mob: 0438 116 937

Join the the clean energy revolution!
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/issues/climate-change



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(6 Messages)
1. Very warm Arctic 55 million years ago shows vital importance of From:
Philip Sutton
2. BBC report on Bush administration's climate science cover up From: Philip
Sutton
3. BBC radio: serious scientific debate of James Lovelock's strong From:
Philip Sutton
4. Scientists: One degree more and we could easily trigger catastrophic
From: Philip Sutton
5. Siberia's thaw lakes emitting *up to* five times as much methane as From:
Philip Sutton
6. Re: Risk Free Energy: Reframing the Energy Debate From: McDougall,
William R (SKM)
View All Topics | Create New Topic Messages
1. Very warm Arctic 55 miilion years ago shows vital importance of
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...
philipsuttonoz
Sun Oct 8, 2006 1:17 pm (PST)
From:
http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1366?PHPSESSID=1977209a86d15557e35f7986e52d6c1
c

Growing alarm after recent findings of a very warm Arctic in the past!
Submitted by almuth on 17 June, 2006 - 08:55 climate science

Earlier this month, Nature published a study about sea temperatures in the
Arctic ocean 55
million years ago. That was the time of the last massive greenhouse warming,
the so-called
Paleocene-Ecovene Thermal Maximum or PETM. Those new findings suggest that
sea
surface temperatures (and thus air temperatures) in the Arctic were far, far
higher than
previously thought. About as warm as Spain today, I think. This is far worse
than standard
climate models suggest.

We have all read enough alarming evidence on climate change, so apologies
for posting
about more doom and gloom here. But the media have made very little of what
could be the
most alarming of all climate studies published in recent years.

I regularly read the excellent climate science blog www.realclimate.org/ ,
run by climate
scientists. And there seems to be a growing sense of panic following the
study (sorry - I don't
think that those scientists would like to see the term 'panic' next to their
name) - and that
from scientists who have consistently warned against exaggerating the
results of individual
studies, and who have doubted that human civilisation is likely to end
because of global
warming.

Raymond Pierrehumbert, for example, explained back in April why a runaway
greenhouse
effect (Earth becoming like Venus with no turning back) could be virtually
ruled out. When
somebody quoted him on a more recent blog discussion, he replied something
along the
lines of "well, it's highly unlikely, but after the results from the Arctic,
maybe we can't rule it
out completely". I think the concern now is that the extreme warming could
only have
happened because of considerable additional warming from cloud-changes, and
that those
cloud-effects are not factored into any of the standard climate models.
Indeed, some of the
runs by Climate Prediction Net came up with a runaway greenhouse effect.
They were
dismissed as going against the general understanding of physics, and they
may be re-run
and examined now.

I recommend people look at the full debate under 'Positive feedbacks from
the Climate Cycle'
on the weblog (particularly the replies to comments).

Of course, the PETM did not lead to runaway warming, and there maybe a good
lesson for
us from the recent study in Nature: It suggests that climate regulation
kicked in and
eventually cooled the planet down - but only because of massive swamps with
fern spreading
very rapidly over the Arctic and pumping down tremendous amounts of CO2 (and
even then,
it took 80,000 to 200,000 years to actually cool the planet - and indeed a
lot of the CO2
reductions would have come from the silicate weathering cycle and chemical
reactions in the
ocean). We might owe our existence to this carbon sink at the time! If there
had been
humans around then, destroying the fern and trying to grow crops in the
Arctic, then climate
regulation could well have failed completely.

Which very much supports my sense that human destruction of carbon sinks is
as much of a
disaster as the burning of fossil fuels. And that the apparent consensus
within the climate
change movement that we can save the planet SOLELY by drastically reducing
fossil fuel
burning (which of course remains an absolute priority!) might be a very
dangerous one.

Philip Sutton
Director, Strategy
Green Innovations Inc.
PO Box 27
Fairfield (Melbourne) VIC 3078
AUSTRALIA

Also:
President, Sustainable Living Foundation
www.slf.org.au
Manager of the Greenleap info list

Tel: +61 3 9486-4799
Skype: philip_sutton
Email: <Philip.Sutton@...>
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/

Victorian Registered Association Number: A0026828M


Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
2. BBC report on Bush administration's climate science cover up
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...
philipsuttonoz
Sun Oct 8, 2006 1:22 pm (PST)
From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm

Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear
Panorama, BBC TV
Thursday, 1 June 2006, 12:26 GMT 13:26 UK

A US government whistleblower tells Panorama how scientific reports about
global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed.

Some of America's leading climate scientists claim to Panorama that they
have been censored and gagged by the administration.

One of them believes the publication of his report, which catalogues the
unprecedented rate of ice melt in the Arctic, was delayed as Americans
prepared to vote in 2004.

The scientists claim that when Bush came to power in 2000 his
administration selected advice which argued that global warming was not a
result of human activities and that the phenomenon could be natural.

But one of the people who suggested the president adopt that position
explains to Panorama how he has changed his point of view: "It's now 2006.
I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place
and that the behaviour of humans is affecting the climate. I am not the
administration. What they want to do is their business. it has nothing to do
with what I believe."

Panorama's reporter Hilary Andersson visits some of the first refugees of
global warming who come from an island in Arctic Alaska which has been
inhabited for 4,000 years ago but is now melting into the sea.

In the last six years most industrialised nations have cut greenhouse gas
emissions but under Bush America's emissions have increased by an
average of one per cent a year.

The administration is now spending money to establish cleaner ways of
burning coal and to cut emissions but is still reluctant to risk damaging
the
American fuel industries.

But some scientists say this will take too long. One of them tells Panorama
how he was told NASA would have to approve everything he planned to
write and say publicly about the effects of global warming.

Another scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) tells Panorama he had research which established global warming
could increase the intensity of hurricanes. He was due to give an interview
about his work but claims he was gagged.

Three weeks later in August 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed at least 1,200
people in New Orleans and was recorded as one of the strongest Atlantic
storms. But the NOAA website said unusual hurricane activity is not related
to global warming.

Panorama learns that some scientists are afraid that what they see as a
cover up will leave it too late for the US to have any hope of controlling
climate changes brought about by global warming.

Read a transcript of this film:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5312208.stm

Some quotes:

"For five or 10 years the public has not been fully informed. We were not
taking the initial steps that need to be taken. If we continue down this
path
we're going to be past a point at which we can avoid really large climate
changes."
Jim Hansen
US climate scientist

"If the report had come out it would have been a very strong piece in the
presidential election in the US."
Bob Corell
Author of Arctic Assessment Report

"If they could suppress it they would. If they couldn't they would ignore
it. If
they could edit it they would edit it."
Former government official

"I told the world I thought the Kyoto deal was a lousy deal for America. It
meant that we had to cut emissions below 1990 levels which would have
meant I would have presided over massive lay offs and economic
destruction."
President George W Bush

"Energy is central to our economy. If you're going to make energy policy you
need to talk to the energy industry."
James Connaughton
Bush's senior adviser on the environment
------------
This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
Philip Sutton
Greenleap List Manager


Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
3. BBC radio: serious scientific debate of James Lovelock's strong
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...
philipsuttonoz
Sun Oct 8, 2006 1:40 pm (PST)
From:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/science/lovelock_climate_200607
06.shtml

Today BBC Radio 4

To activate links - go to web page.

Today brought a panel of leading scientists together with the father of Gaia
theory to debate his theories about global warming.

**Scroll down this page to HEAR the climate change panel hearings in
full....

It's much later than you think - that's the chilling message of Dr James
Lovelock's work on climate change.

Dr Lovelock, one of the UK's leading scientists, believes the effects of
global
warming will be so catastrophic, and so rapid, that they will lead to the
deaths of billions of people by the end of this century.

And he predicts that as much of the earth's surface becomes a scorched,
arid wasteland, the tiny number of survivors will migrate to the few areas
where human life is still possible - such as the Arctic Basin.

These predictions are intended to be a wake-up call to inspire the public to
press for much more radical action to deal with climate change.

But the startling nature of Dr Lovelock's claims - and his warning that we
may already have passed the point of no return - have divided opinion even
among scientists who are concerned about global warming.

So BBC Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin and Today brought together
a panel of seven eminent figures from disciplines with a bearing on climate
change, to put Dr Lovelock through a rigorous process of examination on
the case he makes in his most recent book, "The Revenge of Gaia".

The panel contained:
* (Chairman) Prof Brian Hoskins, Royal Society Research Professor,
Reading University
* Prof Chris Rapley Director, British Antarctic Survey
* Lord Oxburgh - University Scientist; former chairman of Shell
* Dr Vicky Pope Head of the Climate Prediction Programme, Hadley Centre
* Prof Hans von Storch Director, Institute for Coastal Research, Geesthacht,
Germany
* Prof Susan Owens Professor of Environment and Policy, Cambridge
University
* Prof Andrew Watson Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of
East Anglia

TODAY CLIMATE CHANGE PANEL:

Today brought together a panel of top scientists to grill Dr James Lovelock
about his controversial book "The Revenge Of Gaia" and to discuss their
thinking on climate change. The discussions were moderated by BBC
Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin and chaired by Professor Brian
Hoskins of the Royal Society. You can listen to the entire proceedings by
clicking on the links for the various chapters below.

First Session:

1) James Lovelock: how I came to write this book: (go to BBC web page
above to listen)
2) Panellists introduce themselves: (go to BBC web page above to listen)
3) The panel's initial impressions of the book: (go to BBC web page above to
listen)
4) Opening discussions: LISTEN
5) Will global warming kill ocean life?: (go to BBC web page above to
listen)
6) Is aerosol pollution saving us from the worst?: (go to BBC web page
above to listen)

Second Session:

7) Dr Lovelock explains how Gaia theory informs his predictions: (go to BBC
web page above to listen)
8) Will things get as bad, as fast, as Dr Lovelock predicts?: (go to BBC web
page above to listen)
9) Nuclear: LISTEN
10) Wind power - a lot of hot air?: (go to BBC web page above to listen)
11) Will Dr Lovelock's predictions inspire drive readers to action or
despair?:
(go to BBC web page above to listen)
12) Roger Harrabin delivers the panel's verdicts: (go to BBC web page
above to listen)
Read how the panel voted on our questions about James Lovelock and
climate change (go to BBC web page above to read)

13) Dr Lovelock responds: (go to BBC web page above to listen)
------------
This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
Philip Sutton
Greenleap List Manager


Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
4. Scientists: One degree more and we could easily trigger catastrophic
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...
philipsuttonoz
Sun Oct 8, 2006 1:55 pm (PST)
From:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125713.300

Climate change: 'One degree and we're done for'
Fred Pearce
New Scientist
27 September 2006

"Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we
will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we
know."

So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global
temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been
increasing by an average of 0.2 °C every decade for the past 30 years.
Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere,
particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America.
Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb
more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback.

Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is
within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team.
Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it
too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway
climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288).

The analysis reinforces a series of recent findings on accelerating
environmental disruption in Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska,
underlining a growing scientific consensus that these regions are pivotal to
climate change. Earlier this month, NASA scientists reported that climate
change was speeding up the melting of Arctic sea ice. Permanent sea ice
has contracted by 14 per cent in the past two years (Geophysical Research
Letters, vol 33, L17501). However, warming and melting have been just as
dramatic on land in the far north.

A meeting on Siberian climate change held in Leicester, UK, last week
confirmed that Siberia has become a hotspot of global climate change.
Geographer Heiko Balzter, of the University of Leicester, said central
Siberia
has warmed by almost 2 °C since 1970 - that's three times the global
average.

Meanwhile, Stuart Chapin of the University of Alaska Fairbanks this week
reported that air temperatures in the Alaskan interior have risen by 2 °C
since 1950, and permafrost temperatures have risen by 2.5 °C (Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606955103).

In Siberia the warming is especially pronounced in winter. "It has caused
the
onset of spring to advance by as much as one day a year since satellite
observations began in 1982," says Balzter. Similarly, Alaskan springs now
arrive two weeks earlier than in 1950, according to Chapin.

The Leicester meeting heard that the rising temperatures are causing
ecological changes in the forests that ratchet up the warming still
further..
Vladimir Petko from the Russian Academy of Sciences Forest Research
Institute in Krasnoyarsk says warm springs are triggering plagues of moths.
"They can eat the needles of entire forest regions in one summer," he says.
The trees die and then usually succumb to forest fires that in turn destroy
soil vegetation and accelerate the melting of permafrost, Petko says.

In 2003 Siberia saw a record number of forest fires, losing 40,000 square
kilometres according to Balzter, who has analysed remote sensing images
of the region. Similar changes are occurring in Alaska. According to Chapin,
warming there has shortened the life cycle of the bark beetle from two years
to one, causing huge infestations and subsequent fires, which destroyed
huge areas of forest in 2004. "The current boreal forest zone could be so
dried out by 2090 that the trees will die off and be replaced by steppe,"
says
Nadezhda Tchebakova, also at the institute in Krasnoyarsk.

Melting permafrost in the boreal forests and further north in the Arctic
tundra
is also triggering the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from
thick layers of thawing peat. First reports published exclusively in New
Scientist last year (13 August 2005, p 12) were recently confirmed by US
scientists (Nature, vol 443, p 71).

"Large amounts of greenhouse gases are currently locked in the permafrost
and if released could accelerate the greenhouse effect," says Balzter.
Hansen's paper concludes that the effects of this positive feedback could be
huge. "In past eras, the release of methane from melting permafrost and
destabilised sediments on continental shelves has probably been
responsible for some of the largest warmings in the Earth's history," he
says.

We could be close to unleashing similar events in the 21st century, Hansen
argues. Although the feedbacks should remain modest as long as global
temperatures remain within the range of recent interglacial periods of the
past million years, outside that range - beyond a further warming of about 1
°C - the feedbacks could accelerate. Such changes may become inevitable
if the world does not begin to curb greenhouse gas emissions within the next
decade, Hansen says.

Meanwhile, another new study underlines that the boreal peat bogs,
permafrost and pine forests are not just vital to the planet as a whole,
they
are major economic assets for the countries that host them. A detailed study
of the northern boreal forests by environmental consultant Mark Anielski of
Edmonton, Canada, puts the value of their "ecosystem services" at $250
billion a year, or $160 per hectare.

These benefits include flood control, water purification and pest control
provided by forest birds, plus income from wilderness tourism and meat
from wildlife such as caribou. Anielski presented his findings to Canada's
National Forest Congress in Gatineau-Ottawa earlier this week.

The value of these ecosystem services is more than twice that of
conventional resources taken from the region each year, such as timber,
minerals, oil and hydroelectricity, Anielski says. "If they were counted in
Canadian inventories of assets, they would amount to roughly 9 per cent of
our gross domestic product - similar in value to our health and social
services."

You can add to that figure the value of having such a huge volume of carbon
locked away. "The boreal region is like a giant carbon bank account," he
says. "At current prices in the European carbon emissions trading system,
Canada's stored carbon alone would be worth $3.7 trillion."

And if Hansen is right that the carbon and methane stored in the boreal
regions has the potential to transform the world into "another planet", then
the boreal region may be worth a great deal more than that.
>From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 27 September 2006, page 8-9

-----------
This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
Philip Sutton
Greenleap List Manager


Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
5. Siberia's thaw lakes emitting *up to* five times as much methane as
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton@...
philipsuttonoz
Sun Oct 8, 2006 2:00 pm (PST)
From:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125685.600

Siberia's pools burp out nasty surprise

06 September 2006
>From New Scientist Print Edition.

Northern Siberia's thaw lakes are belching out up to five times as much
methane as
previously thought. And as global warming causes the permafrost to melt,
lakes worldwide
could emit even more methane, reinforcing climate change.

Katey Walter at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and her colleagues
developed a new
technique to measure the amount of methane bubbling out of two lakes in
northern Siberia.
In autumn, when the lakes froze over, they identified regions where methane
was being
released by searching for gas bubbles pushing through the ice. They then
placed umbrella-
shaped bubble traps over the hotspots and measured emissions daily for one
year. At both
lakes, the gas flux was five times as high as previously estimated. Walter's
team also got
similar figures from smaller studies on more than 100 other lakes in the
region (Nature, vol
443, p 71)

Human activity is still the biggest source of atmospheric methane, but lakes
can no longer be
ignored. "Until now we didn't realise that lakes were such an important
source," says Walter.
Over the coming years methane flux from Siberian lakes is likely to
increase, as melting
permafrost releases carbon into the lakes. "Bacteria eat this carbon and
burp out methane,"
says Walter.

>From issue 2568 of New Scientist magazine, 06 September 2006, page 20
------------
This message has been posted to the Greenleap List by:
Philip Sutton
Greenleap List Manager


Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
6. Re: Risk Free Energy: Reframing the Energy Debate
Posted by: "McDougall, William R (SKM)" WMcDougall@...
Sun Oct 8, 2006 2:09 pm (PST)
Glenn, I will repeat Andrew's question, which I don't think you answered
- which energy sources are risk-free?

I think the true answer is: none of them. The term "risk-free energy"
has as much spin about it as "clean coal" and "safe nuclear"! You
highlight some major risks with coal-fired and nuclear fission energy,
and some minor ones with wind turbines.

I've heard a lot (but know little) about nuclear fusion, which appears
to have some inherent advantages but is a long way from being feasible
and requires a lot of investment.

I think a more sustainable energy future lies not on one big new 'fix'
but a combination of things, including extensive energy saving in homes
and industry, more use of local/recycled sources (electric car batteries
feeding the grid, solar cells on roofs, etc) as well as cleaner,
lower-risk centralised sources such as hydro, fusion, solar towers,
wave, wind, etc.

But what is needed to actually create all these alternatives in the
first place? For example, if production of solar cells was stepped up to
the level of, say, personal computers, what are the material and energy
needs, and how would we provide it?

We rarely consider the product life-cycle issues in these debates, it
seems - just the 'good' of the end-product...

William

William McDougall
Transport Team Leader
Sinclair Knight Merz
590 Orrong Road Armadale VIC 3143 Australia
Tel: +61 3 9248 3455
Fax: +61 3 9248 3460
Mobile: 0411 839 808
Email: wmcdougall@...

Sinclair Knight Merz
Achieve Remarkable Success - Our Commitment to Clients
For further information, visit our website www.skmconsulting.com

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4) Recent Activity
  8 New Members
Visit Your Group
New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved
message search.
Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily
Digest.Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Messages
-  -  -
Greenleap strategy:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/Greenleap-30y-or-less.htm
Info on Green Innovations & resources on
creation of an ecologically sustainable
economy & sustainability-promoting firms:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/
-  -  -

Greenleap: Australian-hosted list for exchange of info-gems
(& very limited discussion) about leapfrogging rapidly TO an
ecologically sustainable economy.

(For postings relevant to Victoria only, also subscribe
to "Greenleap-Victoria" - send blank message to:
<greenleap-Victoria-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> )

To post to Greenleap, mail to:
<greenleap@yahoogroups.com>

To automate tidying of message text (for good layout/
readability) download free software:
http://www.dsoft.com.tr/stripmail/

To subscribe to Greenleap, send blank message to:
<greenleap-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
To unsubscribe send blank message to:
<greenleap-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
If you are changing email addresses send the
unsubscribe message from your old address.

To change your subscription settings, goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenleap/join

Setting options:
- individual message mailings
- a single daily consolidated posting
- no emails at all (but can read messages via
   web archive)

Archive:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greenleap/messages

Attachments are no longer archived by Yahoo.  Sorry.

Can't access archive? How to:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/greenleap.htm#accessing-archive

Greenleap is a service of Green Innovations Inc.
*Free* for first 12 months, then generally after that,
a small fee is charged.  For details:
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/greenleap.htm

All messages are moderated/screened. To maintain
relevance & quality: sometimes messages have irrelevant
material edited out, info added or are rejected. Some
postings are bundled into 'compilation' postings.

--end--


Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to
Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

from NFA e-list

...the electronic version of the petition is
https://secure.democrats.org.au/campaigns/nuclear_industry/petition.htm
and the link to the paper version is
http://www.democrats.org.au/docs/2006/AustralianDemocrats_NuclearPetitio
n.pdf

Both can be accessed via the campaign link
http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/nuclear_industry/ or
http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/sustainable_energy/ part way down
on the left hand side.

It would be great if you could post a link to the petition on the
Nuclear Free Australia List. Much appreciated.

People can also send in a request for postcards if they are interested
in distributing them be going to the
http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/nuclear_industry/ site and going
to the postcard partway down on the left hand side or by emailing
publications@...

Cheers

Kellie Caught
Senior Adviser
Leader, Senator Lyn Allison
Australian Democrats
Ph: (02) 6277 3512 - Sitting weeks
Tel: (07) 3252 8237 - Non sitting weeks
Mob: 0417 613 610

slow loading but interesting website...
http://www.cleanenergyforeternity.net/
:-)

Please see forwarded message... also, Ive been niting my tongue about
the Melbourne Walk Against warming whileseeing Brooke's emails but stay
tuned for a message about Melb's Walk to pass on soon!

Cheers,

--
Julien Gronbach
Victorian Climate Change Campaigner
Greenpeace Australia Pacific

PO Box 12575
A'Beckett St
Victoria
8006

Ph: +61 3 9341 8121
Fax: +61 3 9341 8199
Mob: 0438 116 937

Join the the clean energy revolution!
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/issues/climate-change



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Anne,

Happy anniversary to the group.  The Green Movement is growing
stronger and stronger and hopefully will displace the politics that
currently runs our planet.

See you all on Nov 4!

Cheers,

Brooke
----
On 08/10/2006, at 18:38, Anne Goddard wrote:

Hiya Brooke and welcome!

wow... this group was formed to greater promote last years HUGE "walk
for warming"....

our little group has held firm and strong for a year.

Happy anniversary everyone :-)

all 62 of you :-)

the BESTEST Climate Change Activists ever!

may we do greater things together!

Warmest regards
Anne
ps...
have you signed the petition yet?
;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: novorivus
To: ClimateChangeAction@...
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 2:20 PM
Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Walk Against Warming


Gidday Climate Change Action,

My name is Brooke and I'm part of Climate Action Brisbane (http://
groups.yahoo.com/
group/CAB_Team/).  We're organising the Brisbane Walk Against Warming
which I'm sure
you are all aware of, though I wanted to hop on the list to check out
what you've been up
to and to let you know about the details for this event.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Climate_Action_Brisbane/ is our public
group site that
has information about the day and files that you can print and put up
or hand out to
advertise the event.

http://www.walkagainstwarming.org/ has the details for Australia.

http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org/ has information about the
international walks
against warming.

We'd love to see you all there.  We'd also love to have any input on
the event before it
happens so please join our group and send us a message.  Don't forget
your umbrellas on
the day!

Keep cool,

Brooke

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--
Brooke Smith <novorivus@...>
You will always get the greatest recognition for the job you least like.
PGP: http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/export?id=4427400912143993659




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jo abbess" <jo.abbess@...>
To: <jo_abbess@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Climate & Energy Report : September / October 2006



Dear Climate Changers,

STOP CLIMATE CHAOS

The September / October 2006 Climate & Energy Report is now available online
:-
http://www.workface-limited.co.uk/html/cande_200609_total.html

URGENT : Stop Climate Chaos and the Campaign against Climate Change
need more volunteer stewards for the events in London on 4th November
2006 :-
http://www.workface-limited.co.uk/html/pirates.html

4th November 2006 : Blackout London
Let's make London dark in the evening of 4th November 2006
Turn out all lights and switch off all unnecessary electricial equipment :-
http://www.workface-limited.co.uk/html/blackout.html

4th November 2006 : Pause for the Planet
An Interfaith Reflection and Meditation will take place at the end of
the events in London at St Ethelburga's Centre for Reconciliation and
Peace 5.00 to 7.00 pm :-
http://www.workface-limited.co.uk/html/pause_planet.html

4th November 2006 : Day Programme of all Events :-
http://www.workface-limited.co.uk/html/4november.html

jo.
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.workface.org
http://www.icount.org.uk
http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org


--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: winter___@...

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84QDh.ck4jgc.d2ludGVy
Or send an email to: energy.report-unsubscribe@...

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^----------------------------------------------------------------

Green International
Green International
Messages In This Digest (1 Message)
1. US Cancer Secret: 1959 Simi Valley Nuclear Accident From: Steven
Kaasgaard
View All Topics | Create New Topic Message
1. US Cancer Secret: 1959 Simi Valley Nuclear Accident
Posted by: "Steven Kaasgaard" lets23skidoo@...   lets23skidoo
Sat Oct 7, 2006 5:44 pm (PST)
Dear editor:

Hey exGreenpeacer turned Pro NUKE, RE: Saturday, October 7, 2006.,Patrick
Moore writes "Right to invest in nuclear energy"


Not so fast.
Here are some secrets leaking out via the FOI ACT revealing previously
unknown nuclear errors right here in North America.

Kinda hard to Splain why they would be hiding this kind of information eh?
Especially while there is an ongoing campaign to churn out more nuclear
plants all around the planet and when by all accounts these monsters have
been just what anti nuclear activists portrayed them as; unsafe,
unaffordable and unreliable as a source of energy for any civilization
facing the end of oil Re: End of suburbia.

sincerely;

Lets Say No to Nuclear Power!
and Yes to the alternative energys and intensive conservation practices.


steven kaasgaard
53 corby cres
brampton,ontario
(905) 459 2070

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rocketdyne6oct06,0,125472.story?coll=la-\
home-headlines

US Cancer Secret: 1959 Simi Valley Nuclear Accident

The nuclear meltdown, which remained virtually unknown to the public
until 1979, could have caused between 260 and 1,800 cases of cancer
"over a period of [not that "many"] decades," the study concluded.

...A team of UCLA graduate students obtained documents through the
Freedom of Information Act detailing the meltdown. The disclosure
resulted in a number of environmental studies that found widespread
radioactive and chemical contamination at the lab..
But the advisory panel that oversaw the five-year study, conducted by
an independent team of scientists and health experts, said it could
not offer more specifics about potential exposure to carcinogens
because the Department of Energy and Rocketdyne's owner, Boeing Co.,
did not provide key information.
Critics chided Boeing officials Thursday for failing to provide
information for the new study. "The pattern of secrecy and
misrepresentation that began at the time of the accident continues to
this day, where sloppy practices are done under a cover of darkness,"
said Dan Hirsch, a physicist and co-chairman of the advisory panel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Study Says Lab Meltdown Caused Cancer
Scientists say details about the 1959 accident near Simi Valley
continue to be withheld. Other contamination at the site is much
clearer.
Radioactive emissions from a 1959 nuclear accident at a research lab
near Simi Valley appear to have been much greater than previously
suspected and could have resulted in hundreds of cancers in
surrounding communities, according to a study released Thursday.
Chemical contamination from rocket engine testing at the site
continues to threaten soil and groundwater in the area around
Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the study also found.
The nuclear meltdown, which remained virtually unknown to the public
until 1979, could have caused between 260 and 1,800 cases of cancer
"over a period of [not that "many"] decades," the study concluded.
But the advisory panel that oversaw the five-year study, conducted by
an independent team of scientists and health experts, said it could
not offer more specifics about potential exposure to carcinogens
because the Department of Energy and Rocketdyne's owner, Boeing Co.,
did not provide key information.
"This lack of candor...makes characterization of the potential health
impacts of past accidents and releases extremely difficult," the panel
concluded.
Boeing officials vigorously disputed the findings, saying the study
was based on miscalculations and faulty information.
"We disagree entirely with the report's conclusion," said Phil
Rutherford, a health, safety and radiation manager for the company. He
cited a Boeing-commissioned study released last year that found
overall cancer deaths among employees at the field lab and at Canoga
Park facilities between 1949 and 1999 were lower than in the general
population.
The Boeing report contradicted findings from an earlier UCLA study
that found elevated cancer deaths among workers exposed to high levels
of radiation.
Critics chided Boeing officials Thursday for failing to provide
information for the new study.
"The pattern of secrecy and misrepresentation that began at the time
of the accident continues to this day, where sloppy practices are done
under a cover of darkness," said Dan Hirsch, a physicist and
co-chairman of the advisory panel.
The lab was opened on a craggy plateau in easternmost Ventura County
in 1948 as the nearby San Fernando and Simi valleys were on the cusp
of a postwar population boom. Originally operated by North American
Rockwell, it conducted nuclear research for the federal government for
more than four decades before ceasing those operations in the late
1980s. It has also been the site of more than 30,000 rocket engine
tests, the thunderous explosions serving as a Cold War-era
hallmark for nearby residents.
The 2,850-acre site has been the source of much controversy since the
nuclear accident was first widely publicized in 1979. A team of UCLA
graduate students obtained documents through the Freedom of
Information Act detailing the meltdown.
The disclosure resulted in a number of environmental studies that
found widespread radioactive and chemical contamination at the lab. In
turn, several investigations into the potential impact on the health
of lab workers and area residents were triggered.
The advisory panel was created by local legislators in the early 1990s
to oversee some of the studies. Its new report specifically focuses on
how the lab's operations, which included decades of rocket engine
testing, may have affected the health of people in nearby communities.
The study, paid with federal funding, asserted that the rocket engine
tests had caused chemical contamination of water and soil in nearby
areas in recent years and "may indicate pathways for other
contaminants."
Among the scientists' other key findings:
* As much as 30% of the most worrisome
compounds associated with nuclear testing at the lab, iodine-131 and
cesium-137, may have been released into the air. But Boeing's
utherford said data from the site's own airborn monitoring system
refustes taht claim [oh really? then what percent insteaad of 30%?
they don't even bother telling us what the "correct" number is if the
30% is too unfair...!]
...* For years, IN VIOLATION OF RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITING SUCH ACTIVITY,
radioactive and chemically contaminated components were disposed of at
an open-air sodium burn pit at the field lab, polluting soil and
groundwater.
* Perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel, migrated off the lab site,
toward populated areas, IN SURFACE WATER RUNOFF. Other contaminants
may have spread off site in this manner as well, the report said.
The report also disclosed little-known information about lab
operations: It was home to 10 nuclear reactors and numerous low-power
reactors, plutonium and uranium carbide fabrication plants and a "hot
lab" used for remotely cutting up irradiated nuclear fuel shipped in
from other federal nuclear plants.
[suprised? do you think the federal government doesn't
omit certain "details" about the labs they say they want to do A, B,
and C, when the labs secretly also do X, Y, and Z in
secret from the public? -ED]
About 150 people attended a public meeting Thursday night to discuss
the report's findings. Many of those in the audience are residents or
former residents of the area surrounding the field lab.
They said they appreciated the findings and hoped the report would
spur regulators to force a thorough cleanup of the site.
Marjorie Weems, who lives on property adjoining the site, said her
daughter, Priscilla, 34, had to have part of her thyroid removed 13
years ago and worries about a possible connection to the lab's
operations.
"It's been such a coverup for so many years," said Weems, 62, whose
husband, now retired, worked at the lab. "They lied and lied and lied
and said there was no contamination. But now we know that's not true."
At the time of the 1959 nuclear accident, little information appeared
in the media. Lab officials released a statement saying "no release of
radioactive materials to the plant or its environs occurred, and
operating personnel were not exposed to harmful conditions."
The advisory panel overseeing the most recent study accused the lab's
operators of maintaining a pattern of deception and secrecy ever
since.
For instance, it said researchers discovered that a meteorological
station was atop the nuclear reactor on July 13, 1959, when fuel rods
ruptured and partially melted, emitting radioactive gases into the
plant and the atmosphere.
When the researchers requested the station's weather data to try to
determine how far radioactive gases may have traveled from the hilltop
lab, Boeing officials refused, asserting that the information was
"proprietary -- a trade secret," the panelists said in the report.
"How can you possibly declare a trade secret which way the wind blew
on a certain day?" Hirsch said.
Boeing officials said they do not recall any specific requests for
weather data, adding that such information might not even exist. [umm,
yeah, sure, whatever, let's use two different excuses Boeing, nice
job.. -ED]
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rocketdyne6oct06,0,125472.sto...
= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
** New email: econdemocracy[at]gmail[dot]com


---------------------------------
The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo!
Mail.
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1) Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database |
Polls | Members | Calendar
This discussion list is linked to the Green World Press Review
http://ecquologia.it/sito/pag706.map?action=all&field.joined.id=32532
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/green-press-review/
To subscribe green-press-review-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Hiya Brooke and welcome!

wow... this group was formed to greater promote last years HUGE "walk for
warming"....

our little group has held firm and strong for a year.

Happy anniversary everyone :-)

all 62 of you :-)

the BESTEST Climate Change Activists ever!

may we do greater things together!

Warmest regards
Anne
ps...
have you signed the petition yet?
;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: novorivus
To: ClimateChangeAction@...
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 2:20 PM
Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Walk Against Warming


Gidday Climate Change Action,

My name is Brooke and I'm part of Climate Action Brisbane
(http://groups.yahoo.com/
group/CAB_Team/).  We're organising the Brisbane Walk Against Warming which I'm
sure
you are all aware of, though I wanted to hop on the list to check out what
you've been up
to and to let you know about the details for this event.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Climate_Action_Brisbane/ is our public group site
that
has information about the day and files that you can print and put up or hand
out to
advertise the event.

http://www.walkagainstwarming.org/ has the details for Australia.

http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org/ has information about the international
walks
against warming.

We'd love to see you all there.  We'd also love to have any input on the event
before it
happens so please join our group and send us a message.  Don't forget your
umbrellas on
the day!

Keep cool,

Brooke

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "hugh spencer" <hugh@...>
To: <Oz-envirolink@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 8:25 PM
Subject: [Oz-envirolink] solar subsidy petition


There is an online petition to put some pressure on the Federal government
to stop phasing out solar power subsidies,

  http://sunrisefamily.com.au/current/petition/

may be browser sensitive - wouldn't work with Netscape 7, but with Internet
Explorer.

Cheers

hugh


_______________________________________________
Oz-envirolink mailing list
Oz-envirolink@...
http://lists.altnews.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oz-envirolink

http://www.kalkadoon.org/
Great articles, including:

Palm Island 2004 Watch house death.
Queensland Coroners Findings
http://www.kalkadoon.org/index.php/2006/10/04/palm-island-2004-watch-house-death\
-qld-coroners-findings/

Sustainable Housing:
http://www.kalkadoon.org/index.php/sustainability/

Palm Island Housing Report:
http://www.kalkadoon.org/index.php/palm-island-housing-report/

with gratitude to John and Theresa
:-)

http://www.no-waste.org/
resources are very good :-)

i have subscribed to their elist and forward further links:

Current Campaigns of The Environment Centre, NT..
http://www.ecnt.org/html/cur_other_toxics_nukedump.html

I was led to these pages by this story:

ACTION ALERT
(August/ September 2006)
New proposal for McArthur River diversion and open cut mine currently before
NT Government for approval!
http://www.ecnt.org/html/cur_mining_mcarthur_submit.html

a

Gidday Climate Change Action,

My name is Brooke and I'm part of Climate Action Brisbane
(http://groups.yahoo.com/
group/CAB_Team/).  We're organising the Brisbane Walk Against Warming which I'm
sure
you are all aware of, though I wanted to hop on the list to check out what
you've been up
to and to let you know about the details for this event.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Climate_Action_Brisbane/ is our public group site
that
has information about the day and files that you can print and put up or hand
out to
advertise the event.

http://www.walkagainstwarming.org/ has the details for Australia.

http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org/ has information about the international
walks
against warming.

We'd love to see you all there.  We'd also love to have any input on the event
before it
happens so please join our group and send us a message.  Don't forget your
umbrellas on
the day!

Keep cool,

Brooke

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,20528850-923,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1004-02.htm

(Download this free book arguing for the decommodification of... the
air!: http://www.dhf.uu.se )

For immediate release

On Eve of Nairobi Climate Conference, New Book Exposes Scandal of Carbon
Trading
“Bad for the South, bad for the North, and bad for the climate”

International negotiators are trying to find ways to further the carbon
market in Africa at the November 2006 climate summit in Nairobi. A new
book published this week exposes the dangers and promotes eco-friendly
alternatives.

The book is published by Sweden’s Dag Hammarskjold Foundation together
with the international Durban Group for Climate Justice and the UK-based
NGO The Corner House.

Carbon Trading argues that the Kyoto Protocol and the EU Emissions
Trading Scheme are ineffective and unjust, and that carbon trading is
particularly detrimental to African interests.

Carbon trading ‘dispossesses ordinary people in the South of their lands
and futures without resulting in appreciable progress toward alternative
energy systems,’ said Larry Lohmann of The Corner House, the book’s
editor. ‘Tradable rights to pollute are handed out to Northern industry
to allow them to continue profiting from business as usual. At the same
time, Northern polluters are encouraged to invest in supposedly
carbon-saving projects in the South, very few of which promote clean
energy at all.’1

‘This is the most absurd and impossible market human civilization has
ever seen,’ said Indian activist and researcher Soumitra Ghosh, a
contributing author on carbon projects in the South. ‘Carbon trading is
bad for the South, bad for the North, and bad for the climate.’

‘Claims that carbon credits mitigate climate change have not been
verified’, added Jutta Kill of Sinks Watch, another contributor to the
book. Carbon trading impedes positive investment in the South while
thwarting popular movements against subsidies for fossil fuel
extraction, she said.

In detailed case studies from nine Third World countries, the book shows
how carbon offset projects such as those promoted under the Kyoto
Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have had a detrimental
impact on local communities. At the same time, they prolong
industrialized countries’ excessive pollution of the atmosphere.2
Included are projects to ‘offset’ Northern emissions using tree
plantings on contested lands in Uganda and Tanzania.

So far, Africa has been largely left out of the CDM, as carbon project
investment has gravitated to richer developing countries such as China,
India, Brazil and Korea. Yet if more carbon investments are made, the
book argues, the result is likely to be neither climatically effective
nor people-friendly. ‘Carbon trading slows down the social and
technological change needed to cope with global warming by unnecessarily
prolonging the world’s dependence on oil, coal and gas,’ Lohmann said.

Moreover, evidence from South Africa is particularly disturbing, as the
World Bank and large corporations like Sasol demonstrate the
untenability of emissions trading projects, in Durban and Steel Valley.
As major Clean Development Mechanism pilot schemes, a methane extraction
project at Africa’s largest landfill and a Mozambique-SA natural gas
pipeline are flawed beyond repair.

Sajida Khan, a cancer victim who has fought hard against the Durban
project, warns: ‘The poor countries are so poor they will accept crumbs.
The World Bank know this and they are taking advantage of it.’

Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation
and Power is available for download at http://www.dhf.uu.se. A paper
edition will be published by the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation in November.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. Carbon trading has two parts. First, governments hand out free
tradable rights to emit carbon dioxide to big industrial polluters, as
under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Second, companies buy additional
pollution credits from projects in the South that claim to be emitting
less greenhouse gas than they would have without the carbon market
investment.

2. Carbon trading was made the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol at the
insistence of the US, which claimed that its trading scheme to reduce
sulphur dioxide emissions had been a great success, and remained in
place after the US pulled out of the treaty. Carbon Trading
demonstrates, however, that the US’s sulphur dioxide scheme was
radically different from the Kyoto Protocol’s trading arrangements and
dealt with a radically different problem.

INDIGENOUS AUSSIES AMONG FIRST
CLIMATE CHANGE VICTIMS

via :COORABIN"
Wednesday, 04 October, 2006
Media release: Catholic Earthcare

Indigenous communities living on Torres Strait Islands, including the island
home of the late land rights campaigner Eddie Mabo, are among the first
"official victims of climate change", says Catholic Earthcare executive
officer, Col Brown.

Speaking to a Rockhampton Diocesan Commission of Environmental Awareness
gathering, Mr Brown said that the available evidence on climate change
"calls for urgent responses at both church and government level".

Mr Brown was responding to research recently released by CSIRO scientist Dr
Donna Green which highlights that over the past two years, half of the
populated islands of the Torres Strait have been hit by unprecedented
flooding from surging king tides.

Dr Green, who was on one of the Torres Strait Islands in February when
monsoonal king tides struck, found that of the 14 inhabited islands
scattered throughout the Torres Strait, at greatest risk were the sandy
coral cays of Poruma, Iama, Masig and Warraber in the central Strait, and
the north-western islands of Saibai and Boigu.

"While we don't have historical records of sea levels in the Torres Strait,
we do know that climate change is causing sea levels to rise in this region
and is increasing the intensity of extreme weather events," Mr Brown quoted
Dr Green as saying.

"The people of the Torres Strait who live so closely and sensitively with
the sea and land are clearly the innocent victims of climate change - a
deadly phenomena fuelled by the extravagant lifestyles of many mainland
Australians."

Mr Brown says research suggests that Australians, per head, are still the
biggest emitters of greenhouse gases on the planet, which scientists claim
are contributing to a rise in the earth's temperature.

"We are duty bound to do all in our power to help them (the Torres Strait
Islanders) either stay on their islands for as long as possible, or resettle
to the mainland with dignity," he added.

The Earthcare representative called upon the Federal Government to "lift
their performance in tackling global warming" and asked businesses to put
the "health of the planet before shareholder profits."

Mr Brown says people of faith must "roll up our sleeves and play our part as
well."

"From Catholic Earthcare's perspective this is the ultimate social justice
question because it's about the survival of the planet," he said.

"It's the creator's supreme gift that we're trashing. So there's no bigger
issue than safeguarding God's supreme work."

Mr Brown's comments come as Christians, scientists and community leaders
prepare to meet in Melbourne next week for the "Climate Change Conference"
co-organised by Catholic Earthcare and the Melbourne Catholic Commission for
Justice, Development and Peace.

The conference will be opened by Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart.

Stop the G8+5, Defend Oaxaca!
*Click here to join the action, join us from Oct
3-4th<http://bang.calit2.net/sdhacklab/oaxaca/basta.htm>
*http://sdhacklab.org/oaxaca
*
* *EDT Mirror of Action Page<http://www.thing.net/%7Erdom/ecd/oaxaca/index.html>
*
  *Espanol aqui <http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/119045.shtml>*

  The borderlands Hacklab <http://sdhacklab.org/>, Electronic Disturbance
<http://www.thing.net/%7Erdom/ecd/ecd.html>
Theater<http://www.thing.net/%7Erdom/ecd/ecd.html>and Rising
Tide North
<http://risingtidenorthamerica.org/>America<http://risingtidenorthamerica.org/>c\
all
for a virtual sit-in against the websites of the G8+5 and the
Mexican government during the G8+5 meetings on October 3-4th, 2006 in
Mexico.


  While the Mexican government tries to play host to the G8+5 Gleneagles
Dialogue on Climate Change, it is mounting a massive violent attack on the
people of Oaxaca. Apparently the Mexican government thinks it can cleanse
the country of its growing pro-democracy rebellion while laying out a red
carpet to world politicians including the G8 Energy Ministers. The
neoliberal project of corporate globalization and fossil-fuel-based "energy
security" that causes global warming is built on massive violence, from
armies to riot police to militarized borders, to turn the global south into
its sweatshop and repress the uprisings for justice, democracy, and
sustainable livelihood of the people in Mexico and other countries.

While the neoliberal model of industrial "development" sees the remaining
indigenous and "undeveloped" lands of the Earth as territories for
capitalist exploitation of natural resources and human labor, the
schoolteachers leading Oaxaca's popular pro-democracy strike have a
different vision. By taking direct action to shut down the tyrannical rule
of their state governor Ulises Ruiz Ortiz, the people of Oaxaca are teaching
that another world is possible.

On Sunday, October 1, 2006, a headline in the Mexico City daily Milenio
proclaimed, "Preparations for war in Oaxaca," while Mexico City's El
Universal newspaper reported that helicopters, planes and 15 troop trucks
had assembled in Huatulco, a Pacific tourist getaway and military hub a
short flight — but a long and difficult drive — from Oaxaca city.
  According to the independent news website
Narconews.com<http://narconews.com/>,
which has been
  covering the Other Campaign of the Zapatistas, on Sunday, October1, 2006:

"The Mexican Navy carried out a reconnaissance operation over the buildings
and public spaces occupied by the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca
(APPO in its Spanish initials). Two MI-17 helicopters and one CASA C212 Navy
airplane with registration number AMP-118 flew over the streets of the city
– where opponents of Governor Ulises Ruiz Ortiz have maintained several
encampments over the past 130 days – for about 40 minutes."

"The zocalo, or central city square, the Oro and La Ley radio stations, the
state government building, the Brenamiel and El Rosario radio antennas, as
well as the Department of Finance building – all places where the rebels
have installed protest camps – were reconnoitered by low-level flights of
military aircraft. As they passed over the Radio Oro facilities, the two
helicopters were fruitlessly "attacked" with fireworks that teachers of the
National Education Workers' Union local Section 22 launched from Conzatti
Garden. The airplane then made four more passes over the areas around the
zocalo and returned to the airport, where five other military aircraft were
stationed. At 5:30 that afternoon, the naval surveillance plane and two
AMHT-202 and AMHT-205 helicopters landed on a city airstrip and let out 18
soldiers in black-and-grey camouflage, bulletproof vests, helmets and
firearms."

"Lino Celaya Luría, state secretary of Citizen Protection, confirmed that
the objective of the military flights was to "reconnoiter" the scene of the
conflict, but claimed not to know if this was the prelude to an eventual
federal operation to remove the protesters. The state official limited
himself to saying: "We were informed that a flight would occur over the
areas where the dissidents are present. We believe this is to obtain field
information on the situation."

"Meanwhile, from the occupied radio stations, the rebels again declared a
maximum alert in the face of what they imagine could be the beginning of a
removal/eviction operation against the popular and teachers' movement."

Over half of the Oaxaca's 3.2 million people, most of whom are indigenous,
live in poverty, and 21.5 percent of those over 15 are illiterate, while the
average number of years of schooling is 5.6 years -- almost two less than
Mexico's national average. Many students in Oaxaca's rural schools lack
books and desks. In May, tens of thousands of teachers seized the capital's
leafy central plaza to demand wage increases and improved school conditions.
The following month, Governor Ulises Ruiz sent police to attempt to retake
the heart of the city. Since then, radical social movements of workers,
peasants, students, women and others have joined the striking teachers,
building street barricades and taking over radio and television stations.
They demand that Ruiz resign, alleging that he rigged the 2004 election and
uses paramilitary gangs to attack dissidents. A total of five "megamarches"
were organized with the largest reaching the astonishing number of around
300,000 people, or one out of ten people who live in the state.


During the protests, as many as six people have been killed in violent
incidents which apparently involved irregular armed groups linked to the
Ruiz administration and the police, according to human rights organisations.
A number of demonstrators have also been arrested and injured, and further
assaults perpetrated against them by organized, unidentified gangs of thugs
have been reported.


One example of neoliberal "development" in Mexico with major implications
for Oaxaca is Plan Puebla Panama (PPP), a transnational
"mega-infrastructure" project that would transform the region's geography
and economy if implemented. While claiming that one of its main goals is to
improve the conditions for the people of the region, PPP is stealing land
from indigenous people for infrastructure projects to move resources more
quickly into the hands of multinational corporations and commodifying their
culture for the tourist industry. One of the projects affecting Oaxaca is
the creation of a super highway at Mexico's skinniest point, the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec, in order to move resources more readily across the land from
the Atlantic to the Pacific. This transportation corridor will be surrounded
with sweatshops, maquiladoras, operating without labor and environmental
protections. For all of these objectives, neoliberal control over the
government of Oaxaca is key to the realization of the PPP project.

Mexico has an ugly history of military repression that coincides with major
world gatherings occurring inside the country. 38 years ago today, October
2nd, the Mexican military massacred hundreds of student protesters at
Tlatelolco, just days before the 1968 Olympic Games began in Mexico City. If
military violence against the pro-democracy protesters of Oaxaca occurs
before, during or after the G8 meeting in Mexico, the G8 leaders as well as
the Mexican military must be held accountable for the injuries and death. To
prevent this, we demand that the G8 officials who are meeting this week in
Mexico must publicly speak out to condemn the possibility of another Mexican
massacre at Oaxaca.

We demand that the G8 end its support of destructive "carbon trading." The
G8 is composed of the leaders of the richest 8 countries in the world, who
are responsible for the policies of war, criminalization of cross-border
human migration, and massive environmental destruction. While they claim to
be meeting to solve the climate change crisis, they are in fact discussing
carbon trading agreements that will allow corporations to profit while
exporting their pollution to the global south. Carbon trading threatens to
turn countries like Brazil into a "carbon sink" for the global north while
ignoring the underlying capitalist ideology of endless growth and boundless
consumption that is creating massive climate change.

Help us stop the G8 by slowing the propaganda systems that the G8+5  and the
Mexican Government will be using during the meetings and the attacks to
spread disinformation about their actions. As in our previous actions,
people from all around the world will make their virtual presence manifest
on the doorstep of the G8+5 and the Mexican Government.

  More news and updates about the unfolding situation in Oaxaca at
http://narconews.com
  More information on resistance to the G8+5 meeting in Mexico City at
http://contrag8.revolt.org


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear All

This is my reply and invitation to the ABC Four corners programme,  "The A
Team, shown last night on Monday 2nd. October.
<http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/>

The programme lacks real balance. In this age of climate change and water
problems, I think the ramifications of the forest practice act, and its
legacy, needs to be spelled out more strongly. The science to back up our
actions was not factored into your programme. The dirty tricks you refer to
only justifies the destuction of the environment for corporate greed. The
strerotyping of environmental activist in the forest as some kind of dirty
drug maniac is an insult to those of us who have given and risked our lives
in attracting you into the forest to bare witness with us the destruction of
our native forests. Its time to give more attention to non violent citizen
actions and sollution strategies. We are in a crisis as Al Gore articulates
so well to us in  "An Inconvenient Truth"  <www.climatecrisis.org>.
Assist us in a cultural shift away from these justified jobs, towards
empowering green sollutions as in the Earth Repair Charter Global Solution
Strategy <www.earthrepair.com>.
Come to Anvil Hill actions this week, Lake Cowell, current forest actions
and most importantly the Aboriginal Tent Embassy just before and on January
26th 2007, on the lawns of Old Parliament House Canberra, where you will
find a lot of us networking discussing, empowering each other with the
general public, hosted on the land of our Aboriginal custodians about these
issues. We do encourage, formulate and comunicate sollutions that benefit us
species alike on this Earth.
You are always welcome, to listen and talk with me on these issues and
sollutions.  I am not only a masked performance artist standing in the way
of "progress".
Hope to meet you all down the track in emphasising ideas that shapes a
culture for all of us and future generations that cares for our indigenous
hertage.
Check out <www.rainbowchaitent.com>, a caring roving installation and
meeting place who I work with.

Yours Benny Zable

Greens to run anti-nuke TV ads - but we need your supportFrom: Juanita
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:58 PM
Subject: Greens to run anti-nuke TV ads - but we need your support

Australia could soon be a major exporter of uranium, selling  to countries
such as India in contravention of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT).  We could also develop a uranium enrichment plant and a major nuclear
waste dump, all under the false pretence of tackling climate change and at
the expense of investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.
The Greens are working at the national, state and local levels to stop this
madness, but we need your assistance.
On Wednesday October 4 during the SBS 9.30 news, the Greens will begin
screening an anti-nuclear TV advertisement, but we need your support to keep
the ad campaign running.
Please go to http://www.stopuraniumexport.com/ to view the ad, to find out
more about the alternatives to nuclear energy, and to donate to our
dedicated anti-nuclear advertising campaign fund. Every dollar can help,
donations are tax deductible and every dollar will be spent on this campaign
so please think about making a donation - and please forward this email to
your friends and family.
With more Greens in federal, state and local government we can keep nuclear
waste dumps and other nuclear hazards out of Australia
What can I do to help stop the spread of nuclear waste and nuclear weapons?

1) Get informed at our new website http://www.stopuraniumexport.com/
2) Donate to our dedicated anti-nuclear advertising fund at
http://www.stopuraniumexport.com/
3) Forward this email and other information to your friends and families
4) Sign our online petition at http://www.stopuraniumexport.com/
5) At the upcoming Victorian state election (November 25) and NSW state
election (March 24, 2007) remember to send a strong message  to the
pro-nuclear parties by voting 1 for the Greens
6) Help us to Rescue the Senate from John Howard at next year's federal
election by voting 1 for the Greens
7) Join your local Green group and get involved in grass roots campaigning

Just in case you dont think the Prime Minister is serious about Australia's
nuclear future, just think about his recent comment:

"We do have a longstanding policy of only selling uranium to countries that
are part of the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] regime, but we will have a
look at what the Americans have done [with India] ...We have some of the
largest uranium deposits in the world and provided the rules are followed
and the safeguards are met we are willing to sell."
- Prime Minister John Howard, 5 March 2006, Delhi.

Thank you for your support,
Juanita Wheeler
National Convenor
Australian Greens
convenor@...