The article in Science Daily reported: “The researchers estimate that the oceans last year took up a record 2.3 billion tons of CO2 produced from burning of fossil fuels. But with overall emissions growing rapidly, the proportion of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by the oceans since 2000 may have declined by as much as 10%.” This is the first time scientists have actually measured the change.

The study was pretty extensive. The article said it reconstructed the annual accumulation of industrial carbon from 1765 to 2008. As expected carbon uptake by the world’s oceans rose sharply trying to keep pace in the 50’s. By 2,000 carbon emissions reached “such a pitch that the ocean’s ability to absorb it declined even though the oceans absorb more each year in absolute tonnage. Today, the oceans hold about 150 billion tons of industrial carbon, the researchers estimate–a third more than in the mid-1990s.”

Of all the oceans, the Southern Ocean around Antarctica is most important. Carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater than in warmer waters. About 40 percent of carbon emissions enter the oceans through the Southern Ocean. As oceans warm up, and acidify, they become less capable of absorbing carbon dioxide.

Bottom line as stated by the study’s lead author, Samar Khatiwala: “Natural mechanisms cannot be depended upon to mitigate increasing human-produced emissions. “What our ocean study and other recent land studies suggest is that we cannot count on these sinks operating in the future as they have in the past, and keep on subsidizing our ever-growing appetite for fossil fuels.”

Amen, and add to that the world’s overtaxed and disappearing rainforests, and previously frozen Arctic carbon sinks.

Read the article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091118143211.htm.

While neither president was compelled to disclose their final positions going into Copenhagen’s Climate Change Summit next month nor did they declare any numerical emissions targets, they publicly agreed that the outcome at Copenhagen “should include emission reductions targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.” Of course they acknowledged that responsibilities will be different for every country and based on respective capabilities of those countries.

What peaked my attention in all of this is that the U.S. and China both agreed that whatever happens in Copenhagen the “outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries; promote technology development, dissemination and transfer; pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change[].” So the U.S. and China agree with financial assistance to developing countries the subject of a recent blog of mine about Third World countries demanding climate reparations in the form of financial assistance from developed countries. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/11/u-s-out-of-step-with-climate-debt-issues/.

I’m not sure whether President Obama or President Hu of China agrees with the concept of these climate reparations per se but they did agree on the financial assistance to poorer countries. I’m just wondering how Obama is going to break this news to climate skeptics divided again along party lines when these skeptics won’t even admit man is creating the climate problem. As I said, many in the U.S. are in a misstep with the rest of the world concerning climate change.
Meanwhile, the two presidents hashed out quite a cooperative between the U.S. and China on many fronts. The article listed six initial elements:

1) Establishment of the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center

2) The launch of the U.S.-China Electric Vehicles Initiative

3) The launch of a new U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Action Plan

4) The pledge to promote cooperation on cleaner uses of coal, including large-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects

5) The launch of a new U.S.-China Shale Gas Resource Initiative

6) U.S.-China Energy Cooperation Program

There is more launching going on with that list then at Cape Kennedy, which is all well and good since so many arguments that keep the U.S. from moving forward on climate initiatives center around pointing the finger at China’s pollution. But considering Americans are contrary, and big polluting industries are gearing up for a fight against cleaning up our act, it’s going to be a big upward struggle to get moving—China or no China.

Read the details: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2009/2009-11-17-01.asp.

While the U.S. is still talking industry friendly carbon offsets and emissions trading, a growing portion of the rest of the undeveloped world has something completely different in mind. In a nutshell, they resent us and blame the U.S. and other industrialized countries for the climate change problems they are ALREADY experiencing. Undeveloped countries will be presenting the concept of “climate debt” at the summit. They want “rich countries to pay reparations to poor countries for the climate crisis.” This is a radical departure from where the U.S. is right now. Heck, I’m still arguing with TEFLON COATED DENIERS that mankind is indeed producing too much pollution causing accelerated climate change. Deniers simply will not admit that maybe 7 billion people and their consumption habits like millions of food animals, and industrial pollution, plus deforestation due to population increase just might be over-polluting a closed environment no longer equipped to clean up effectively.

The article explained that the U.S. thinks of climate change as a “we” problem, but a growing number of countries view climate change as a problem created predominantly by the “few.” The coalition of Latin American and African governments stress big differences between who caused the crisis and those who suffer it the most right now.
The chief economist for the World Bank says the equation amounts to “75 to 80% of developing countries suffering the most even though they contribute collectively only about 1/3 of greenhouse gases.” The article further reported, “Developed countries, which represent less than 20 percent of the world’s population, have emitted almost 75 percent of all greenhouse-gas pollution that is now destabilizing the climate.” Yes science has a way of measuring pollution output now, where it came from, and what it costs in real money. This in and of itself should put a crimp in the deniers argument that mankind isn’t the culprit, it’s just nature. But…

So as the article stated, “Climate debt is about who will pick up the bill.” It went on to explain:

The grass-roots movement behind the proposal argues that all the costs associated with adapting to a more hostile ecology — everything from building stronger sea walls to switching to cleaner, more expensive technologies — are the responsibility of the countries that created the crisis. ‘What we need is not something we should be begging for but something that is owed to us, because we are dealing with a crisis not of our making,’ says Lidy Nacpil, one of the coordinators of Jubilee South, an international organization that has staged demonstrations to promote climate reparations. ‘Climate debt is not a matter of charity.’

The U.S. alone, which comprises barely five percent of the global population, contributes 25 percent of all carbon emissions. And while developing countries like China and India have also begun to spew large amounts of carbon dioxide, the reasoning goes, they are not equally responsible for the cost of the cleanup, because they have contributed only a small fraction of the 200 years of cumulative pollution that has caused the crisis.

Did you notice that China is considered a developing country? The U.S. tends to put China up there as a super power but truth is China still has more underdeveloped rural areas of population than not. And while they may still be building coal fired plants, they are emerging as a world leader in wind and solar, and are in the midst of building the largest smart grid in the world. We gripe about lost jobs in the U.S. The politics that keeps us from moving forward for renewable energy has cost us the jobs shipped to China to produce the parts for our largest wind farm in Texas. It wasn’t just about cheaper labor or materials in this instance. We simply didn’t have the labor in place, or the manufacturing facilities.

What should really make us sit up and take notice is that the idea of “climate debt” is “supported by the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change — ratified by 192 countries, including the United States.” The framework not only asserts that “the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries,” it clearly states that actions taken to fix the problem should be made “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities.” Uh oh. They’ve got us in writing on this.

But Angelica Navarro, the chief climate negotiator for Bolivia, pushed the notion farther at U.N. climate negotiations in June in Bonn, Germany presenting the argument that not only are poorer countries already suffering the effects of climate change but in this new environmental arena they will not be able to enjoy the advantages of cheap fossil fuels in order to grow as the U.S. and other developed countries were able to do. They will bear a much higher cost burden to grow economically. But Navarro just didn’t point fingers. She presented a 3-point solution.Rich countries need to:

• Pay the costs associated with adapting to a changing climate
• Make deep cuts to their own emission levels “to make atmospheric space available” for the developing world
• Pay Third World countries to leapfrog over fossil fuels and go straight to cleaner alternatives.

Third World countries are tired of promises. They see what many of us see that the U.S. is going to stall on climate change along political lines. These countries cannot afford to wait around. And the list is growing with 49 countries taking their demands to Copenhagen in December with at least 240 environmental and development organizations calling for the same. Germany has recently acknowledged the concept of climate debt by paying Ecuador millions over a course of years to leave a huge cache of oil in the ground under Yasuni National Park part of the Amazonian rain forest. Other European countries are interested in following suit.

So we have developed countries already paying Third World countries not to produce more fossil fuel but to preserve environmental assets like forests. Meanwhile, some U.S. citizens and of course our massively wealthy fossil fuel industry look ill prepared to except not only the blame for much of the world’s pollution but even the concept that mankind has indeed caused environmental problems at all.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30841581/climate_rage/3.

• It’s voluntary. The decision to issue loans is up to local governments
• The process for distributing loans under the bonds is also left to the local unit of government
• The loans would not exceed a 20-year re-payment period
• The interest rate on the loans would not be more than 0.5% higher than the interest rate on the bond.
• The loan is qualified through the property rather than the owner’s credit rating
• Repayment of the loan would be made through winter and summer property taxes and would remain with the property in the event of a sale.
• The loan is qualified through the property not the owner’s credit rating so that more homeowner’s and businesses would qualify.
• Homeowner’s and businesses would perform more energy improvements.
• Property owners would generate their own renewable energy
• The need for manufacturing, service, contracting, and building jobs in the green sector would increase from demand.
• This bill does not impact the state as far as money because the only caveat for property owners—no state tax credit for any of this. And the loan programs are not dependent on state budget support.

This bill could lead to property owner’s earning a percentage of all excess energy they produce beyond their own needs, as it should be. It’s one heck of an incentive to move forward on renewable energy. Germany has a solar program that is similar. The government offers cash incentives for solar or wind devices. Property owners earn a percentage of what they produce. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2007/10/germany-jump-starts-alternative-energy-push/.

 
Imagine getting money back for energy instead of paying a recurring monthly bill that restricts us from being as cool as we would like or as warm? Conservation spurs innovation. No one likes to cut back do they? We do so out of conscience. But if someone comes up with a way around it, we’re in.

Read the whole blog by Brady about the new House Bill: http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/15764/sheltrown-to-introduce-michlib-green-energy-legislation.
http://www.mlive.com/mudpuppy/index.ssf/2009/11/michigan_rep_joel_sheltrown_to.html.

New administrator declaring that global warming pollution “endangers” Americans’ health and well being
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/04/epa-administrator-issues-proposed-ruling-on-global-warming/.

Being ordered by the courts to come up with mercury emission standards in two years.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/02/stricter-mercury-rules-on-the-way/.

Latest air study showed many U.S. cities flunking horribly
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/04/us-cities-recent-air-quality-reports%e2%80%94not-good/.

Non-existence when it comes to enforcement of the clean water act.
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/12/collapse-of-national-clean-water-act-enforcement-program/.

Plus, the largest and longest government report on the affects of global warming on the U.S. was completed and predicted bad consequences.
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/07/predictions-from-completed-government-report-on-global-warming/.

Senator Voinovich (R) Ohio and Senator Inhofe (R) Oklahoma put their request for the EPA study in writing, and although Voinovich read this request, Inhofe refused to expound on what his party wanted but reiterated it was in writing and left. The reason for leaving is that there is an (EPW) Environment and Public Works rule that at least two members of the minority have to be present before opening a markup, but it is not necessarily binding.

The funny part came when I actually listened to Senator Voinovich request the EPA do this modeling first so that Republicans can be informed with the latest reports. No wonder Inhofe didn’t want to expound. Voinovich ended up complaining about the EPA that when it did modeling before it used assumptions that were unrealistic. He said the EPA’s modeling is only as good as the assumptions built into it. What? Why would one request the EPA to do all this unnecessary work when one wasn’t satisfied with the EPA’s methodology to begin with? Is this the same type of convoluted request as wanting to be included then not showing up?

I state that the Republican senator’s request is unnecessary work because of the government’s recently completed and extensive global warming study that puts many parts of our country in a precarious position. And this same committee heard 54 witnesses on nine panels relative to climate change just last week. So there is already a large amount of climate change data available for review. Senator Boxer also brought in EPA officials to answer any questions the Republican senators might have. But a lot of good any of this important and recent information is when Republicans aren’t there to hear it.

Stall or no stall, the U.S. going to be surprised at the biggest gathering on climate change to date in Copenhagen this Decemeber because the scheme of things has changed. Cap and trade isn’t going to cut it anymore. There is much more at stake as the rest of the world is focusing on reparations by wealthy nations for the damage done. Stay Tuned.

Watch part of the committee meeting:

Senator Voinovich’s Request for EPA study

Helix wind turbines are helical shaped (think long twisted wind catchers) scoops that catch the wind in either direction as low as 8 mph, sustained winds to 80 mph, and gusts of up to 125 mph. They are low maintenance and preliminary tests show that output is as stated, which many times is not the case with wind turbines.

The best thing to come if all goes well with the test turbines is that they are ready to crop up across the country quite easily. After all the mobile cell towers are already there. The Helix turbines will hopefully illiminate the use of any fossil fuel to operate the mobile cell towers. This looks like it may also illiminate “dead zones” in rural and remote areas of the country too because mobile towers will be stand alone, generating their own power. The article went on to say that the turbines will pay for themselves within 6 months.

Watch the turbine in motion:

E.ON is forging ahead. The company has begun construction on an offshore wind complex called the “London Array.” The first phase of this offshore wind farm will be 630MW making it also the world’s largest offshore wind production center.

Read More:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/worlds-largest-wind-farm-completed-texas-eon-renewables.php?dcitc=PESWiki.

William Kamkwamba lived such a poverty stricken life his parents at one point could not afford the $80.00 annual tuition for school. He was determined to keep up with his own education and according to the interview on GMA he absorbed a physics book and a book about constructing a basic windmill and applied what he learned. An engineer was born. William constructed a tall windmill from “what not” found laying around in the yards where he lives.

In the meantime everyone in the village thought William was crazy. They still had a tendency to believe in magic. Imagine what they thought when William’s windmill lit up a light bulb?

Flash forward and William is on Good Morning America. He has a book about how he did it. And the people of the village use the power from his windmill as a cheap way to recharge their cell phones. I figure William will not only get to go to high school at this point but will surely make it through college too.

Read the article and an excerpt on ABC New’s website: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/read-excerpt-boy-harnessed-wind-william-kamkwamba-bryan/story?id=8671370.

I saw the car on Good Morning America today and was happy to see how quickly algae is being adopted as a viable fuel. I recently wrote about the U.S. military’s testing algae as jet fuel but figured it would be a long while before we saw anything like this. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/08/u-s-navy-jets-to-use-biofuels/.

Many people know about algae, but so many more do not and will be totally surprised by it. I was recently shopping for a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid and asked if the one I was test-driving could use biofuel, which is available for this model. The sales person said no that the biofuel business is pretty much dying out blah, blah, blah. I said corn for sure but what about algae? I got that look from him. Even I wondered why I blurted out that particular and peculiar type of fuel as an example. I hadn’t heard much about it lately except the blog about the military’s interest in it. But then algae as fuel appeared on a segment of Good Morning America today. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/JustOneThing/algaeus-car-fueled-algae/story?id=8666116.

According to GMA’s website, “Josh Tickell is the creator of the Veggie Van Organization and director of “Fuel,” which was honored as best documentary at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.” He also created the “Algaeus,” the Prius that just crossed America on green crude. With very little modification, “he added a nickel metal hydride battery and a plug [],” the Algaeus got 147 miles per gallon in the city, and 52 mpg with a mix of algae and gas. The biggest thing is that the car only refueled 6 times during the 10-day trip. The Algaeus is capable of running on approximately 25 gallons of gas coast to coast.

So where do we get all this algae? Algae growth occurs naturally in bogs and swamps. Uh um, we could be tapping the methane emitted there too. There are also algae farms already in business. Sapphire Farms in New Mexico is one of them. Check out their website: http://www.sapphireenergy.com/. People have asked me about green investments. Look around. If we unleash new technology instead of stifling it there will be plenty of new investment opportunities, more jobs, more avenues to explore, like algae farms. Who knew?

How friendly is it? The rallies are nothing more than the tangible power of polluting industries like coal and oil that are backing them and strangling the rest of America from moving forward with clean energy jobs, work on new infrastructure to deliver that clean energy, and economic turnaround, not to mention the health aspects of cleaner air and water for generations to come.

It’s ludicrous to call this movement “friendly” to America at all. Who releases invisible, and sometimes odorless, but nevertheless harmful pollutants into the air that also ends up in our water? Who dumps chemicals, drugs, and makes huge environmental mistakes like oil spills and coal slurry spills into our waterways? And did it ever occur to anyone that when we’re assured from the different polluting entities that the parts per million or PPM that is being released is well within the limits of what is healthful for humans that there are 100’s of other industries saying likewise? So the safe limits of PPM of mercury, ammonia, carcinogens from incinerators, and the thousands of supposedly controlled substances entering the air meet up with the PPM limits of mercury, lead, pharmaceutical compounds, big Ag runoff and the like found in our drinking water that meet up with the sometimes tainted food we eat full of additives like corn syrup solids that help along the Type II diabetes problem in the U.S.

The industries that do this to our air, water, and food protest global warming as way to sideline the real issue, which is their pollution, in order stop any policies that might make them clean up their mess, and to avert new green industry that is competition. It’s one of the greediest ploys ever and polluting industry is pulling out all the stops. They put saving jobs out front at these rallies to mask the bad they do to the environment and all of us including their employees in the long run. The rise in cancer rates and new diseases isn’t a coincidence but may be more of an indication of what we’re really eating, breathing, and drinking.

These anti-environmental rallies are called “grassroots” events but DeSmogBlog dubbed them “glorified company picnics.” A New Mexico blog FBIHOP reported: “The Houston Astroturf event [was] an ‘energy employee’s rally’ a more fitting description of the closed door event that drew somewhere between 2,500-3,500 oil industry employees who were bussed in and given yellow ‘Energy Citizen’ t-shirts in “‘another high-priced photo op for the oil and gas industry.’”

It was also stated that one of the rallies in Texas was organized by the DW Turner PR firm that represents BP and Chevron.

The biggest “Friends of America” rally slated for Labor Day in West Virginia is no different. It’s backed by none other than Massey Energy that is a notoriously dirty coal company. According to the Rural Blog, The Lexington Herald-Leader reported:

Massey Energy Co. will pay a record $20 million for polluting streams around its coal mines in Kentucky and West Virginia, and spend another $10 million to prevent future problems. The lawsuit filed by the Environmental Protection Agency last May charged that Massey discharged excess amounts of metals, sediment and acid mine drainage into hundreds of rivers and streams in the two states.

The Rural Blog also included Louisville’s The Courier-Journal statement:

The civil penalty [for Massey] is the largest ever for violating wastewater discharge permits, and “stems from the massive, 300-million-gallon slurry spill in Martin County, Ky., in October 2000, often described as the southeastern United States’ worst environmental disaster, as well as 4,500 violations of Clean Water Act permits at mines in the two states. Many of the violations exceeded limits by 40 percent, with some pollutants discharged at levels more than 10 times their limit, the government said.

So if you run across Massey’s CEO Don Blankenship’s invitation to the Labor Day rally on You Tube where he says: “Hello I’m Don Blankenship and I’d like to invite you to a Labor Day rally in West Virginia. We’re going to have Hank Williams and have a good time but we’re also going to learn how environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs,” beware of the devil who likes to confuse.

Massey IS corporate America at its polluting finest. These rallies support the real extremists.

BTW the rallies aren’t limited to a few states. Michigan has one slated for September 3rd, Detroit’s Burton Manor Banquet and Conference Center.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-suits-claims/10272123-1.html
.

http://irjci.blogspot.com/2008/01/massey-paying-record-penalty-for-water.html.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/verizon_massey/?rc=homepage.