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 my fault the tree had to go. I planted it on the berm to my canal and figured the roots would head that way eventually. Well, wrong. The roots headed under the pool. The tree grew so tall that the leaves floated into the pool too easily. The tree had to go although I considered shutting the pool down for good. That’s how much I cared for the tree.

I’m not alone in my feelings for live things I’ve grown. My husband was bummed too. When you raise something from a twig that is a straight 25 ft. tall beauty, it becomes part of your home’s landscape. This particular tree is or rather was a hybrid poplar—no floating cotton. I love poplar leaves. They blow in the wind all dangly like drop earrings. I took offense when the tree service referred to it as simply “an ole cottonwood” and quickly interjected that it was a hybrid poplar that I raised from a twig.

Well, it’s gone now. Besides missing it on the bank, I wondered just how much that one tree filtered the air. I’ve seen statistics but couldn’t remember. I also wondered if evergreens did a good job filtering since needles are a much smaller surface area than leaves where all the pollution control basically takes place. We just put in a nice, live, green, “noisy neighbor” fence of 5 Canadian Cypress (love the texture of this evergreen) and about 15 arborvitae. Maybe they collectively took the poplar’s place for pollution control.

I found some interesting things about all trees and their ability to filter pollution rummaging around for the evergreen vs. deciduous answer to my question. Someone else wanted to know the same and also if air pollution goes up in cold winter areas when deciduous trees are bare? I found some answers:

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service describes how trees reduce air pollution as follows: Help to settle out, trap and hold particle pollutants (dust, ash, pollen and smoke) that can damage human lungs.

Trees remove gaseous pollutants like CO2 by absorbing them through the pores in the leaf surface. Particulates are trapped and filtered by leaves, stems and twigs, and washed to the ground by rainfall. At the same time trees replenish the atmosphere with oxygen.

They produce enough oxygen on each acre for 18 people every day.

And, absorb enough CO2 on each acre, over a year’s time, to equal the amount you produce when you drive your car 26,000 miles.

Although evergreen trees have needles rather than large “typical” leaves, they also fulfill the air pollution reduction that is described for other trees. In winter evergreen trees do photosynthesis, but to a lesser extent than in summer so they also contribute, to some degree, in reducing air pollution.

http://www.rtpi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12908.

I also found on americanforests.org that “Professor David Nowak of the USDA Forest Service conducted research in 50 US cities and developed a methodology to assess the air pollution removal capacity of urban forests with respect to pollutants.” This research is then used to determine how much city parks with trees do to clean the air using what is called “CITYgreen software—a desktop GIS program that calculates the value of trees to urban environments.” This program can estimate the amount of pollution deposited in a given area based on pollution data from the nearest city. Then it estimates how much is being removed based on the amount and coverage trees. The trees can then be assigned a dollar value relative to cleaning up pollution.
http://www.americanforests.org/graytogreen/air/.

I read that this dollar value is what is effectively driving areas of Africa to adopt a plan to stop the pillaging of land, forests, and especially animal life. It’s a shame to have to put a price tag on something in order to preserve it, but at this point I’m in—whatever works. Personally, I think land, forests, and creatures have inherent priceless value just because they exist for us. The beauty of these living ecosystems/creatures will be sorely missed in years to come. One third of all mammals are already on the path to extinction. Mankind is taking too much and not giving enough back. Balance is necessary, something Native Americans tried to tell us about from the get go. We either slaughtered or rounded up the Native Americans.

So we may not be getting it right yet, but there is some amazing work being done that constantly improves the data we have to determine how much we are actually polluting, how much is cleaned by forests/trees, and how pollution is affecting the general climate and for how long. Hopefully an informed public will move toward what is right for the earth more quickly than a neglectful public driven by climate change that gets horrendously worse.

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

But what about cities like New York that made the least toxic list? What are they doing right? Mayor Bloomberg of New York is in a race to be the greenest city in the country. New York already has a head start since most people there use mass transit to get around, not their car. And taxis and buses went hybrid long ago. I did a blog about New York’s “greening” in 2007. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2007/10/ann-arbor-adds-new-hybrid-buses-new-york-city-is-number-one-in-energy-efficiency/.

If New York can do it, other cities can clean up too. If we continue to advance toward a cleaner future the toxicity levels we are experiencing will lessen, there will be less immunodeficiency diseases from overload at every level–air, water, food, and pharmaceuticals. Cleaning up is greening up. It means a healthier life for every living thing.

Read the list: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/02/toxic-cities-pollution-lifestyle-real-estate-toxic-cities.html.

I’m not surprised this is happening. It’s good PR. I am a little surprised that Wal-Mart or Walgreens isn’t going first on this. But they won’t be able to ignore the competition for long. According to an article in USA Today, Target believes that “demonstrating their stores are green appeals to the current generation that may give Target a competitive edge.” That’s why I’m surprised Wal-Mart isn’t angling for their own way of nudging people to bring their own bags too.

I did this at my grocery store, brought my own bags that is, and the bagger just looked at me funny. Mind you I took the dozens of handled paper bags I had from everywhere else explaining that I would use them until they wore out. Hey, why not? They had groceries in them one time. When they finally fail I’ll throw them in the recycling bin with my newspapers and magazines.

My main problem with using my reusables is remembering to take them in the store to begin with. I’ve had them on the passenger seat with my purse on top of them and forgot to take them into the store. I opt for paper when I’m checking out but I still get mad because there are perfectly good bags in my car. I’m going to have to make a sign to put on my dash that reads, “Take the Bags!” Pretty soon I’ll do it automatically.

After all, changing the way we do things is just a matter of retraining. As CVS looks at it, “We reward customers for doing good things.” Ah, Pavlov’s dogs, every one of us.

Read about it:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/environment/2009-10-18-target-plastic-bags-green-environment_N.htm.

The salt was accumulating too fast to be from diffusion and his group of researchers surmised the salt was there from thermal convection. Dr. Weisbrod explained that this process happens in arid and semi-arid environments like the SW U.S. or about 60-70% of land in the world. The atmosphere cools after sunset but air within a fracture in the earth remains warm as the rock that surrounds it. Cold air is denser and falls while the warm air rises. The cold air quickly replaces the warm and when the warm air within the hole, crevice, or fracture leaves it contains gases. It’s a thermal convection process and depending on the amount of microorganism activity within the fracture or hole, it aids the process of diffusion of gases from the earth’s crust. As Dr. Weisbrod stated: ‘Carbon dioxide is diffused through the Earth’s crust or the Earth-atmosphere interface through diffusion. [] It’s possible that greenhouse gases can be transported through thermal convection in areas where we have fractures, cracks, caves, or warm holes… the same physics works for every hole in the ground.’

All I can think of was Warren Buffet’s comment that drilling for more oil is a finite process and that we’ve already drilled thousands of holes in the earth already. He’s right. I’ve also done blogs on mining and know that in the U.S. alone there are estimates of over 500,000 mines. Add to that the process of extracting natural gas by blasting beneath the earth’s surface, as well as, forcing liquid CO2 left over from “clean coal” beneath the earth’s surface and we may have really tipped the scales on the amount of fractures, fissures, holes, etc. that exist to eventually leak gases into the atmosphere.

Read more about this new discovery: http://www.greenprophet.com/2009/06/23/9872/cracks-earth-global-warming-2/.

Taking this invention a step further, the inventor Prof. Eyal Ben-Dor stated: “Dust Alert could also be used by cities and counties to develop “dust maps” that provide detailed environmental information about streets and neighborhoods, permitting government authorities like the EPA to more successfully identify and prosecute offenders. Uh oh. Currently, for example, there is no system for demonstrating how construction sites compromise people’s health.” Scientists at TAU surmise that dust maps will help city planners create open green spaces and parks to better combat concentrations of particulate pollution.

It’s a good “green” thing.

What’s up with this? The same satellite data from the UK Hadley Center used by SPPI for their July CO2 Report describes global temperatures falling fast since 2001,
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report
_july_09.pdf, yet Dr. Pope of the UK Hadley Center clearly sees warming trends specifically tied to human produced green house gases. The Climate Progress article goes on to state that even “the traditionally staid and conservative International Energy Agency annual noted in its World Energy Outlook…’Without a change in policy, the world is on a path for a rise in global temperature of up to 6C.”

The same article blames poor messaging by scientists, environmentalists, progressives and bad media coverage for leading the public to think there is a broad range of global warming that could take place. In other words, it’s no biggy. I have to admit I’ve heard more than one TV personality make fun of the fact that we’re only heating up a degree or two over a hundred years. Unfortunately that degree or two conclusion depends on massive and quick CO2 reductions, which just aren’t happening. And so confusion persists in the U.S. aided by conservatives and energy companies. In the meantime, lack of acting quickly to reduce CO2 emissions leads to a more realistic scenario of a 5C or 6C rise in temperature over the next century.

Do we really understand what that means because 6 degrees Celsius is close to 50 degrees Fahrenheit? And more than likely that rise isn’t going to happen evenly in 10-year increments. That’s a lot of heat considering the west suffered temps in the 90’s and 100’s this past summer. At 150 F that area would surely become a desert wasteland by the end of the century.

Many of us are suddenly worried about debt in the U.S., and that we are leaving too much to our children. That’s not all we’re leaving them. If we don’t start cleaning up our acts, debt will be the least of their worries.