climate change

Target Atmospheric CO2

If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm ... If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

2 degrees is guaranteed disaster

Two degrees Celsius is guaranteed disaster... It is equivalent to the early Pliocene epoch [between 5.5 and 2.5 million years ago] when the sea level was 25m higher. What we don't know is how long it takes ice sheets to disintegrate, but we know we'd be starting a process which then is going to be out of control. Because the way it works – the planet is out of energy balance, most of the additional energy is going into the ocean, which melts the ice shelves, which then allows the ice sheets to discharge ice more rapidly – if you want to stop that and you've pushed it up to two degrees, then you've got to cool off the ocean. Well that's going to take hundreds of years. So you would have a situation which can't be fixed except with some geo-engineering, which is a pretty awful inheritance to leave for our children....

We've reached a point where it's clear we can't burn all the coal or unconventional fossil fuels [such as oil from tar sands, deepwater drilling and sources revealed by melting ice]. We've got to phase them out. The large pools of oil and gas that are readily available to Russia, Saudi Arabia and the Middle Eastern countries is enough to get us well over 450ppm1.

  • 1. In 2008 Hansen published a paper with some ten co-authors, "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?" which redefined our understanding of what constitutes dangerous climate change. It concluded that we need to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 390 parts per million (ppm) to below 350

ecological footprints

The Ecological Footprint tracks the area of biologically productive land and water required to provide the renewable resources people use, and includes the space needed for infrastructure and vegetation to absorb waste carbon dioxide (CO2). It also shows a consistent trend: one of continuous growth (Figure 2). In 2007, the most recent year for which data is available, the Footprint exceeded the Earth’s biocapacity — the area actually available to produce renewable resources and absorb CO2 — by 50 per cent. Overall, humanity’s Ecological Footprint has doubled since 1966. This growth in ecological overshoot is largely attributable to the carbon footprint, which has increased 11-fold since 1961... However, not everybody has an equal footprint and there are enormous differences between countries, particularly those at different economic levels and levels of development.

WWF

scarcely important protest does not go on for ever



A few unanswered questions from the BBC's brief report on yesterday's blockade - the most notable feature of which is contained in its choice of title:

Campaigners blockading oil refinery in Essex disperse

!!!

Question: How long after the protesters arrived did they disperse?

The BBC doesn't say. Just that:

Murray Smith from Crude Awakening said the activists decided to leave as they felt they had achieved their objectives for the day.'

Question: What was the effect of the 7 hour long blockade?

The BBC doesn't say. Just that:

A spokeswoman for Petroplus, which owns Coryton refinery, had said during the protest that operations were running normally and the protest had been "a police matter" as it was on a public highway.

However, protesters claimed to have stopped about 50 tankers travelling on The Manorway.

Qu: Could the BBC have bothered to find out -

a) whether oil is normally transported out of the refinery along the Manorway (and how much, in 7 hours)

b) whether there are any other routes out of the refinery, and whether these were used yesterday (there are none)

c) what 'operations running normally' means, if tankers were unable to leave the refinery for 7 hours

Qu: Whose interests are the BBC serving?

(This is not a question)

fossil fuels and war

The Pentagon devours about 330,000 barrels of oil per day (a barrel has 42 gallons), more than the vast majority of the world's countries. If the U.S. military were a nation-state, it would be ranked number 37 in terms of oil consumption - ahead of the likes of the Philippines, Portugal, and Nigeria - according to the CIA Factbook.

The amount of oil consumed per soldier per day in wartime has increased by 175 percent since Vietnam, given the Pentagon's increasing use and number of motorized vehicles. A 2010 study by Deloitte, the financial services company, reports that the Pentagon uses 22 gallons of oil per day per soldier deployed in its wars, a figure that is expected to grow 1.5 percent annually though 2017.

The worst offender is the Air Force, which consumes 2.5 billion gallons of aviation fuel a year, and accounts for more than half of the Pentagon's energy use. Under normal flight conditions, a F-16 fighter jet burns up to 2,000 gallons of fuel per flight hour. The resulting detrimental impact on the Earth's climate system is much greater per mile traveled than motorized ground transport due to the height at which planes fly combined with the mixture of gases and particles they emit.

flying to save the world

Dear Irene Khan

I am delighted to see that Amnesty is at last making explicit the link between human rights and climate change. Perhaps you have done so before, and I have failed to notice. In any case, I have felt for a long time that human rights organisations - and Amnesty in particular - have been remiss in failing to identify climate change as a human rights issue.

In view of your latest appeal to political leaders in the run-up to Copenhagen, and your recognition that "the effects of climate change will be felt most by people experiencing human rights abuses because they are poor or vulnerable" - I wonder if you could reassure me on two specific points relating to your organisation?

The first concerns the number of air flights undertaken by employees of Amnesty International. I am sure you are aware that air travel is by far the most carbon-intensive form of travel, and that the carbon footprint of one international flight per year is approximately equal to an individual's total carbon quota for the whole year, if carbon allowances were to be distributed equally about the globe. The carbon footprint of your employees is almost certainly several magnitudes higher than it should be if the crisis of climate change is to be averted - and if the poor and vulnerable are not to suffer more than they are at the moment. I would like to know whether Amnesty has any plans to address this issue.

Secondly, I have had numerous conversations with employees from numerous human rights organisations - many of them from Amnesty International - in which I have raised the issue of air travel and the carbon footprints of those who claim to be working for the poor and vulnerable. Almost universally, human rights workers do not see climate change - and their own behaviour, particularly in relation to air travel - as a human rights issue. Sadly, this is true for your own employees as well. Indeed, the normal reaction from Amnesty staff to the suggestion that they should at least reconsider their use of air travel has been to laugh it off, or dismiss it out of hand.

Are you happy that this is the message being delivered by your own staff in relation to the links between human rights and climate change - and do you have any plans to address perceptions within your own organisation which are entirely at odds with the urgency of the issue?

I would be very grateful for your response to these two points.

With thanks

[antarchi]

Syndicate content