Dear EarthTalk: It has been said that global warming will bring a new ice age. Is this true or only fiction?

While no one can be sure what and how severe the effects of global warming will be, it is entirely possible that one outcome of our profligate use of fossil fuels could be an ice age. The theory goes that a warming-induced influx of cold, fresh water into the North Atlantic from melting polar ice caps and glaciers could shut down the Gulf Stream, an underwater channel of warm ocean water that winds its way north from the Caribbean and moderates temperatures in the northeastern U.S. and Western Europe.

The result, some scientists speculate, would be a return to ice age conditions. In the extreme, glaciers and freezing temperatures would render large swaths of the civilized world uninhabitable and would kill off untold numbers of species unable to move or adapt. A less dire version would still cause bitterly cold winters, droughts, worldwide desertification and crop failures, and trigger resource wars across the globe.

Of course, over the history of geological time the planet has endured vast shifts in temperature and many ice ages and subsequent warm-ups. The last major ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when extensive ice sheets covered large parts of what we now call North America, Europe and Asia. Many climate scientists believe the planet oscillates between warmer and colder periods without human intervention due to various factors related to its orbital path and also variations in heat output from the Sun on a millennial scale—and that we are naturally heading toward another ice age, regardless of greenhouse gas emissions, over the next several dozen millennia.

But others believe those very emissions might just save us from the freezing throes of another ice age. In a study published in the September 4, 2009 issue of the Science magazine, researchers report that human-induced climate change is quite possibly fending off what had been presumed to be an inevitable descent into a new ice age based on data collected across various Arctic regions in recent years.

The study found that after a slow cooling of less than half a degree Fahrenheit per millennium as a result of a cyclical change in the orientation of the North Pole and the Sun, the Arctic warmed by some 2.2 degrees just since 1900, with the decade from 1998 to 2008 the warmest in 2,000 years. Without human intervention, researchers would expect summer temperatures in the Arctic to cool for another 4,000 years or so as the North Pole gets further from the Sun, but in fact, researchers believe, global warming is reversing this trend.

“The slow cooling trend is trivial compared to the warming that’s been happening and that’s in the pipeline,” reports the study’s lead author Darrell S. Kaufman of the University of Arizona. Of course, only time will tell whether our relatively short-term flood of pollutants will have a pronounced long-term effect on the planet’s geological-scale warming/cooling dynamic. In the meantime, most responsible individuals and governments are working to lower their carbon footprints to try to take man back out of the climate equation once and for all. Hopefully our grandkids’ grandkids will be around to thank us.

CONTACT: Science Magazine.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

Post from: The Good Human

Will Global Warming Bring A New Ice Age?

You may also enjoy:

1. Global Warming, Human Illness And Loss Of Life.
2. EarthTalk: Does A Cold Winter Mean That Global Warming Is Bunk?
3. EarthTalk: Talking To A Climate Change Skeptic.
4. EarthTalk: Why They Won’t Admit That Polar Bears Are In Trouble.
5. EarthTalk: On Technological Climate Change Fixes.

I just finished reading a great article in GOOD magazine about the COP15, and their analysis of it pretty much says the same thing – while small changes might get agreed on, nothing major is going to change. They give a final grade of “B” for a predicted final compromise, but don’t give such good grades on other important points:

- On emission reductions, non-E.U. rich nations will balk at deep cuts & agree to a meager 10% by 2020 – 11 years from now.

- On financing of initiatives, there will only be vague market mechanisms put in place, with details to be worked out later.

- On reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation, only a pencil sketch of a system will be drawn up followed by years of further negotiations.

- On adaptation to climate change issues, only a vague agreement to fund some measures will be discussed.

- On enforcement, well, it will remain unresolved and/or lax as it has been for the Kyoto Treaty.

As the climate change demonstrations the other day showed (350.org), we are running out of time to change our behavior. Unfortunately, many believe that most of the industrialized nations showing up at COP15 will only be there for one thing, and that is to retain their standard of living and not make any drastic cuts in their emissions. Let’s hope we are all wrong and our leaders/negotiators can put aside the “me first” attitude that pervades our political spectrum and learn to work together for the future of all of us. After all, we are all in this together.

Post from: The Good Human

No New Treaty Expected At COP15, But…

You may also enjoy:

1. Greenwash Of The Week: Climate Greenwash Awards 2009
2. Quick Green Reads For The Weekend Volume 136.
3. EarthTalk: Talking To A Climate Change Skeptic.
4. What Does ‘Carbon Neutral’ Really Mean?
5. Quick Green Reads For The Weekend Volume 133.

In addition to the high oil prices and the financial crisis, the study does say that the “increased use of new renewable energy sources, such as biofuels for road transport and wind energy for electricity generation, caused a noticeable mitigating impact on CO2 emissions.” That is even better news, which means that our growing expansion into renewables for energy creation is starting to work – news that we all need to hear to continue moving forward with our own plans and to also push our Representatives to continue to “go green”.

Here are some more facts from the report that definitely bode well for our environment in the long term…if we keep up the momentum:

-The lower increase of CO2 emissions was mainly due to a decrease in global fossil oil consumption of about 0.6%, the first global decrease since 1992.

- Global emissions from coal consumption increased by 3.5% which is less than in previous years, where average annual increases were about 5%. High fuel prices, the European CO2 Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and the global recession starting after last year’s summer are the likely causes of this decrease.

- In total, CO2 emissions of the USA and the European Union decreased by about 3% and 1.5% in 2008, Although China’s emissions showed an increase of 6%, this is the lowest increase since 2001.

- In Europe, the CO2 Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) entered its next phase in the first year of the Kyoto period 2008-2012, with stricter national CO2 caps than in previous years.

- Emissions from electricity generation decreased in part due to high fuel prices and CO2 prices in the ETS causing a shift from coal to natural gas and to the use of more renewable sources for power generation.

So, give yourself a very small round of applause, and let’s keep working. Hopefully soon we can see another study saying “Global CO2 Emissions Have Stopped Rising; Now Heading In Reverse”!

Post from: The Good Human

Rise In Global CO2 Emissions Cut In Half.

You may also enjoy:

1. Global Warming, Human Illness And Loss Of Life.
2. We Need A Stringent Auto Emissions Policy Nationwide ASAP.
3. Will Global Warming Bring A New Ice Age?
4. EarthTalk: Does A Cold Winter Mean That Global Warming Is Bunk?
5. Cheaper Gas – A Double Edged Sword.

Renewable electricity standard

The bill creates a renewable electricity standard (RES) that would require large utilities in each state to produce an increasing percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. Qualifying renewable sources are wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, marine and hydrokinetic energy, biogas and biofuels derived exclusively from eligible biomass, landfill gas, wastewater-treatment gas, coal-mine methane, hydropower projects built after 1992, and some waste-to-energy projects.

Emission cuts

The bill would put a cap on emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases, and would require high-emitting industries to reduce their output to specific targets between now and the middle of the century. (This is the “cap” part of the “cap-and-trade” program.) The bill covers 85 percent of the overall economy, including electricity producers, oil refineries, natural gas suppliers, and energy-intensive industries like iron, steel, cement, and paper manufacturers.

Emission permits

Regulated industries would need to acquire permits for their emissions. (Emission permits are also referred to as “carbon credits,” “pollution allowances,” and various combinations of these words.)

If a company cuts its emissions so much that it has more permits than it needs, it can sell excess permits to other companies or bank them for future use. If a company doesn’t have enough permits, it can buy more or borrow its future credits and pay interest on them. Non-regulated entities (banks, nonprofits, people like you) can also buy and sell permits. (This is the “trade” part of the “cap-and-trade” program.) If a company’s emissions exceed its permits, it would be fined two times the fair market value of the permits it should have purchased.

How permit auction revenue would be spent

About 15 percent of the pollution permits would be sold by the federal government in the initial years of the program. Here’s how the revenue would be spent (shown as a percentage of the value of all permits):

* 15 percent would be used to offset increased energy costs for low- and moderate-income households
* 5 percent would be used to prevent international deforestation, scaling back to 3 percent from 2026 to 2030 and 2 percent from 2031 to 2050
* 2 percent would be used to help the U.S. adapt to the negative effects of climate change from 2012 through 2021, scaling up to 4 percent from 2022 through 2026 and 8 percent thereafter; half would be spent on wildlife and natural resources and the other half on other adaptation concerns, like public health

Investments in energy technology

By 2025, the bill would direct an estimated total of $190 billion to energy technologies and efficiency measures:

* $90 billion to energy-efficiency and renewable-energy technologies
* $60 billion to carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology
* $20 billion to electric vehicles and other advanced automotive technologies
* $20 billion for basic scientific research and development

Offsets

Regulated companies would be allowed to purchase carbon offsets to meet a portion of their required emission reductions—meaning they could fund clean-energy projects elsewhere instead of cutting their own emissions. This could lower the cost of complying with the new law.

Coal-fired power plants

* New coal plants could be built between 2009 and 2020, though they would be expected to adopt carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) technologies when they become commercially available
* By 2025, all coal plants built after 2009 would have to capture 50 percent of their CO2 emissions

Worker transition

* Workers displaced due to new emission regulations would be entitled to 156 weeks of income supplement (70 percent of their average weekly wages), 80 percent of their monthly health-care premium, up to $1,500 for job-search assistance, and up to $1,500 for moving assistance

Smarter cars and smarter grids

* The bill includes a “cash-for-clunkers” program that would provide roughly 1 million vouchers, ranging from $3,500 to $4,500 in value, to consumers who trade in older, less-fuel efficient vehicles for new vehicles that get better gas mileage

Post from: The Good Human

Summary Of The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill: American Clean Energy and Security Act.

You may also enjoy:

1. Is Clean Coal Really Clean? Not Really…
2. Greenwash Of The Week: Climate Greenwash Awards 2009
3. “Energy Citizen” Ads Are From The American Petroleum Institute.
4. Greenwash Of The Week: ACCCE’s Obama/Clean Coal Ads.
5. Rise In Global CO2 Emissions Cut In Half.