MVCAC June 2007

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1 participants
3 discussions

Global Warming to uproot millions
by Duane330＠aol.com 23 Jun '07

23 Jun '07

from the June 21, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0621/p10s01-wogi.html Global warming may uproot millions In the coming decades, the effects of global warming are likely to turn millions into refugees. By _Brad Knickerbocker_ (http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=C2F2E1E4A0CBEEE9E3EBE5F2…) | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor GLOBAL WARMING IS likely to uproot millions of people, forcing them to leave their homes and in the process create large-scale political, economic, and military challenges. In fact, say a growing number of experts, it's already beginning to happen. "Human-induced climate and hydrologic change is likely to make many parts of the world uninhabitable, or at least uneconomic," writes Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York, in the current online issue of Scientific American. As a result, he says, "Over the course of a few decades, if not sooner, _hundreds of millions of people may be compelled to relocate because of environmental pressures_ (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=31&articleID=E82F5561-E…) ." Rising sea levels, stronger cyclones, the loss of soil moisture, more intense precipitation and flooding, droughts, melting glaciers, and changing snow-melt patterns are among the problems humanity will face, says Dr. Sachs. He warns: "Combined with the human-induced depletion of groundwater sources by pumping, and the extensive pollution of rivers and lakes, mass migrations may be unavoidable." The Christian Aid agency predicts that by 2050 global warming could displace as many as 1 billion people. "All around the world, predictable patterns are going to result in _very long-term and very immediate changes_ (http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12976) in the ability of people to earn their livelihoods," Michele Klein Solomon of the International Organization of Migration told Reuters. "It's pretty overwhelming to see what we might be facing in the next 50 years. And it's starting now." Forced migration linked to climate change is part of a larger problem: refugees due to floods, famine, and other environmental conditions. In 2002, the United Nations estimated that there were about 24 million environmental refugees. _By 2010, about 50 million people will have migrated for environmental reasons_ (http://www.enn.com/globe.html?id=1651) , according to a 2005 study by Norman Myers, a professor of environmental science at Duke University in Durham, N.C., the Associated Press reported recently. Thomas Downing, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute, told French news service AFP: "There is going to be a lot of population movement linked to climate. ... Not all will be permanent refugees, but _when you add climate to other forces that push people beyond the capacity to cope_ (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_Could_Lead_To_Millions_O f_Climate_Refugees_999.html) , the numbers will increase." While concern is rising for low-lying island nations and sub-Saharan countries especially vulnerable to drought, some experts say climate-caused forced migration already has happened on a large scale in North America – in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute points out that the 2005 hurricane _"forced a million people from the [city] of New Orleans_ (http://sundaytimes.lk/070527/Columns/inside.html) and other small towns on the Mississippi and Louisiana coasts in the United States to move inland, either within states or neighboring states, such as Texas and Arkansas," according to an article in Sri Lanka's The Sunday Times. But the largest numbers of those forced to move by climate change are likely to be in developing countries, especially those threatened by desertification, AFP reported this week after the United Nations' annual World Day to Combat Desertification on June 17. "By 2025, _Africa could lose as much as two-thirds of its arable land_ (http://www.terradaily.com/2007/070615023018.6zxs5ha8.html) compared with 1990, and there could be declines of one-third in Asia and one-fifth in South America. Migration – from the Sahelian regions to the West African coast, from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe, from Mexico to the United States – will be an inevitable consequence as poor people are driven off their land." Among the most threatened are people in Bangladesh, reports the Chicago Tribune. Writes Tribune foreign correspondent Laurie Goering: "Bangladesh is hardly the only low-lying nation facing tough times as the world warms. But scientists say it in many ways represents _climate change's 'perfect storm' of challenges_ (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0705010817may02,1,703300…) because it is extremely poor, extremely populated, and extremely susceptible.... The extent of Bangladesh's coming problem is evident in Antarpara, a village stuck between the Jamuna and Bangali rivers five hours northwest of Dhaka, the capital. In it and other low-lying villages nearby, more than half of the 3,300 families have lost their land to worsening river erosion. Some have moved their homes a dozen times and are running out of places to flee." Meanwhile, according to a report on the People & the Planet website, "_climate refugees are already fleeing from the catastrophic rise in sea levels" in the Ganges River delta_ (http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3036) of India. According to Sugata Hazra, director of Jadavpur University's school of oceanographic studies, over 70,000 people will be rendered homeless in the next 13 years due to the rising seas. By contrast, officials in Israel worry that climate change will mean less water for them. Warns Gidon Bromberg, director of the Israeli office of Friends of the Earth – Middle East, on the website of The Jewish Chronicle of Pittsburgh: "There will be less water available for Israel, but there will also be less water available for Israel's neighbors, and that will make [compliance with] existing peace treaty commitments more difficult between Israel and Jordan. ... And it makes difficult future agreements to be struck between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, between Israel and Syria, and between Israel and Lebanon." Thousands of people have died or been driven from their homes in the Darfur region of Sudan, says UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon in a recent column in The Washington Post. Mr. Ban sees _a direct link between social and political unrest in Darfur and its roots in an ecological crisis_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR200706150…) , at least partly attributable to climate change. Ban writes: "Two decades ago, the rain s in southern Sudan began to fail. ... Scientists at first considered this to be an unfortunate quirk of nature. But subsequent investigation found that it coincided with a rise in temperatures of the Indian Ocean, disrupting seasonal monsoons. This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming." Similarly, _political instability resulting from climate-caused forced migration is becoming a major concern among senior military officers_ (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/15/america/NA-GEN-US-Global-Warming-…) , reports the International Herald Tribune . In a recent report, retired senior officers warned that in the next 30 to 40 years, wars could be fought over water resources, hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels, and refugees fleeing other effects of global warming. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicted. "We will pay for this one way or another," wrote retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, former commander of US forces in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms, and that will involve human lives." ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

CO2 Uptake In The Oceans
by Duane330＠aol.com 22 Jun '07

22 Jun '07

CARBON UPTAKE RECONSIDERED.... Approximately half of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning remains in the atmosphere; the rest is absorbed by the ocean or incorporated by the terrestrial biosphere in roughly equal measures. Two studies reassess the uptake of CO2 by these sinks (see the Perspective by _Baker_ (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5832/1708) ). In order to understand the relative role of different parts of the terrestrial biosphere as carbon sinks, global measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration must be interpreted by "inversion" models to determine how uptake, emission, and transport contribute to the seasonal and regional differences. Previous studies have suggested that there must be a strong carbon sink in the Northern Hemisphere, and that the tropics are a net carbon source. Stephens et al. (p. _1732_ (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5832/1732) ) report that global vertical distributions of CO2 in the atmosphere are not consistent with that interpretation but are more consistent with models that show a smaller Northern Hemispheric carbon sink and possibly strong carbon uptake in the tropics. The rate of uptake of CO2 depends on the difference between the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and that which would exist if the ocean and the atmosphere were at equilibrium. Le Quéré et al. (p. _1735_ (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5832/1735) , published online 17 May) report that the rate of uptake by Southern Ocean, one of the most important CO2-absorbing regions, has slowed relative to what would be expected based solely on how fast the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen since 1981. They attribute this shortfall to an increase in windiness over the Southern Ocean that increases the outgassing of natural CO2. The increased windiness has also been ascribed to human activity, and the authors predict that this relative trend will continue. This Week in SCIENCE, Volume 316, Issue 5832 dated June 22 2007 ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Urgent. NIETC vote Mon. or Tue.
by Duane330＠aol.com 17 Jun '07

17 Jun '07

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO OTHERS WHO AREN'T CONNECTED YET. THANKS! Dear Citizen: On April 26, 2007, the Department of Energy issued two draft National Interest Electric Transmission (NIET) Corridor designations. SEE ATTACHMENTS 1 AND 2 for maps of the corridors. If these draft NIET Corridor designations are approved, they would include all or parts of eleven states and the District of Columbia for 12 years or more. THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HAS ALSO IDENTIFIED CONGESTION AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, PARTS OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON, THE MIDDLE OF CALIFORNIA, AND SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA. FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO THE DOE WEBSITE. All across the country, citizens are expressing serious objection to these draft NIET Corridor designations. Citizens are concerned about the size and life span of the corridors, the process by which they are being considered, and the potential eminent domain and environmental ramifications of the corridors. Even citizens who do not reside in states that would be impacted by these draft NIET Corridor designations are objecting to them. SURELY OUR NATION COULD FORMULATE BETTER 21ST CENTURY ENERGY POLICY THAT WOULD NOT INVOLVE THE DESIGNATION OF MASSIVE NIET CORRIDORS! In response to the draft NIET Corridor designations, Congressman Hinchey (D - New York) and Congressman Wolf (R - Virginia) have co-sponsored an Amendment to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2008, that says: NONE OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE IN THIS ACT MAY BE USED BY THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY TO DESIGNATE ANY GEOGRAPHIC AREA AS A NATIONAL INTEREST ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR UNDER SECTION 216(a) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT (AS ADDED BY SECTION 1221 OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005), AND NONE OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE IN THIS ACT MAY BE USED BY THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION TO TAKE ANY ACTION RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OR ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT UNDER SECTION 216(b) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. This Hinchey/Wolf Amendment would postpone the designation of NIET Corridors for a one-year period. SEE ATTACHMENT 3 FOR THE CONGRESSMEN’S LETTER DATED JUNE 12, 2007, WHICH ADDRESSES THE REASONS WHY YOUR CONGRESSMAN OR CONGRESSWOMAN SHOULD SUPPORT THEIR AMENDMENT. The Hinchey/Wolf Amendment probably will be introduced on the House floor for a vote on Monday or Tuesday of this week. That’s why it’s so important for you to EMAIL AND FAX your Congressman NOW if you oppose the DOE’s draft NIET Corridor designations and if you support the Hinchey/Wolf Amendment. Use this link to email your Congressman and to identify a fax number: _http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/?lvl=L_ (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/?lvl=L) SEE ATTACHMENT 4 FOR SAMPLE LETTERS YOU CAN USE OR MODIFY IN PREPARING YOUR EMAIL AND FAX. Thank you for your attention to this important issue! Barbara Kessinger Haymarket, Virginia PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO OTHERS WHO AREN'T CONNECTED YET. THANKS! ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC June 2007