Simon

Photo credit: suburbanbloke Man-made climate change will render half of the world’s inhabited areas unliveable. And we humans will not be able to adapt to a warmer climate as good as previously thought, a US climate expert warned during a climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. Steven Sherwood, a climate expert at Yale University, warned that parts of China, India and eastern USA will become so warm during the summers that people will not be able to lose heat by sweating, and thus making those parts unliveable. The physiological limits of the human body will begin to render places impossible to support human life if the average global temperature rises by 7C on pre-industrial levels, he said. "There will be some places on Earth where it would simply be impossible to lose heat," Sherwood said. "This is quite imaginable if we continue burning fossil fuels. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't end up there." During the climate conference scientists said that global temperature could rise by 6 degrees this century and warned that the IPCC reports have underestimated the climate crisis. And they are not alone in criticizing the conservative IPCC estimates. During the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently scientists warned that the pace of climate change ”have largely outpaced” the models and estimates from the IPCC 2007 report. Also read: - The rise in global sea levels is up to three times worse than previously predicted by the conservative estimates from IPCC - Carbon cuts will only give us a 50/50 chance of saving the planet

Photo credit: Blyzz New research from the Helsinki University of Technology's Advanced Energy Systems in Espoo, Finland, shows that with the help from global cooperation and investment renewable energy will “exceed all previous estimates.” According to the new findings renewable energy technologies like wind and photovoltaics could supply 40% of the world's electricity by 2050. But this could only become a reality if the renewable technology is backed up by adequate financial and political support. If not, the renewable share is likely to hover somewhere below 15 percent. "Our findings demonstrate that with global political support and financial investment, previous notions that the potential for renewables was in some way limited to a negligible fraction of world demand were wrong," Peter Lund from the Helsinki University of Technology's Advanced Energy Systems said. "If we prioritize and recognize the value of renewable energy technologies, their potential to supply us with the energy we need is tremendous." Previous projections have put the renewable share at only 12% by 2030. Also read: 10% of U.S. Energy Now Comes From Renewable Energy Sources

After the Kingsnorth Climate Camp in August last year I heard that the police had been in overwhelming numbers and that there had been some “clashes” with the protestors. But I could never imagine how ruthless the actions from the UK police actually were against the peaceful and legal protestors until I saw this video: Earlier this month Lib Dem MP David Howarth held a press conference in Westminster to present a “highly disturbing and potentially explosive report” about how the police in the UK turning into a police state by “criminalising legitimate protest”. “The report, produced by the Climate Camp's legal support team and entitled Policing of the Kingsnorth Climate Camp: Preventing Disorder or Preventing Protest?, is devastating for the police. It documents a concerted campaign by police to deter, smear, intimidate, harass, and criminalise UK citizens who did nothing more than attempt to exercise their right to peaceful protest in the name of an important cause. The following film accompanies the report and fully conveys the extent of the scandal.” The report came to the conclusion that the police had use “unlawful, repressive and disproportionate” force against the protestors and residents in Kingsnorth. For example was protestors and local resident’s property seized on a large scale: “Property was seized on a scale previously unheard of and in a manner designed to obstruct and undermine the very existence of the Camp and intimidate attendees.” In the video above a little kid is being interview. He said that the police confiscated his crayons because he could “commit a crime with crayons”: "They took my crayons because apparently they said you can draw on banners and that you can, um, commit a crime with crayons." The report also notes that the police used “sleep deprivation and psychological operations” against the protestors: “Sleep deprivation and psychological operations were used, involving frequent dawn raids, low flying helicopters at night, false alarm massing of police officers and vans, and early morning wake up calls with loud music playing ‘Flight of the Valkyries’, ‘Hi de Hi’, duck and dog noises, and ‘I fought the law and the law won’.” Since the Climate Camp campaign started in 2006 not a single protestor has ever been convicted of any violent offence. Yet, the report notes, the legal and peaceful camp “continues to experience disproportionate and repressive policing”. The report also cast light on a deliberate attempt to “deflect criticism through misinformation” from the UK Government and the police: "Government justified the heavy-handed approach by revealing that 70 police officers had been injured policing the protest; but a freedom of information request revealed that these 'injuries to police' included such things as heatstroke, toothache and insect bites. Vernon Coaker, the Home Office minister who had made the claim about police injuries, was later forced to apolgise to the House and admit that "there were no recorded injuries to police officers sustained as a result of direct contact with the protestors." The police operation at the Kingsnorth Climate Camp ended at a cost of £5.9 million and involved 1,500 officers from 26 forces. Is the climate crisis turning democratic governments into police states who foolishly try to protect corporate and political interests, instead of trying to solve the real problems? What do you think? Unfortunately I think we will see more brutal police force, against protestors and climate change refugees, in a near future when the effects of climate change become more and more prominent in our societies. Read more: - Meet the new Britain: just like the old one where green protesters are spied on - Why protesters are now stalkers

Photo credit: azrainman New research from the UK Met Office, one of the world’s leading providers of environmental and weather-related services, shows that the world’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions would only offer a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rises below the two degree threshold. Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office states: "Even with drastic cuts in emissions in the next 10 years, our results project that there will only be around a 50% chance of keeping global temperatures rises below 2 °C. "This idealised emissions scenario is based on emissions peaking in 2015 and quickly changing from an increase of 2–3% per year to a decrease of 3% per year. For every 10 years we delay action another 0.5 °C will be added to the most likely temperature rise." The new research shows that early action against man-made climate change is a must to be able to avoid the doomsday scenarios that comes with a two degree increase in global temperatures. “These new figures suggest quite unambiguously that the world is on course for calamity unless rapid action can be taken which is far more drastic than any politicians are so far contemplating – never mind the general public. If action is sluggish or non-existent, the model suggests that climate change is likely to cause almost unthinkable damage to the world; under a "business-as-usual" scenario, with no action taken at all and emissions increasing by more than 100 per cent by 2050, the end-of-the-century rise in global average temperatures is likely to be 5.5C, with a worst-case outcome of 7.1C – which would make much of life on earth impossible.” The new findings from the UK Met Office were presented at the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions Congress in Copenhagen last week. And they will put even more pressure on the countries around the world now starting to gather and negotiate in Copenhagen for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference this December – the last chance we have to take action against “the greatest threat the world has ever faced”. Al Gore says the world will agree on a new and better climate deal this time. He argues that a "political tipping point" regarding climate change has been reached: "There is a very impressive consensus now emerging around the world that the solutions to the economic crisis are also the solutions to the climate crisis," he says. "I actually think we will get an agreement at Copenhagen." I am on the other hand not that optimistic. Sure, we might reach an agreement in Copenhagen. But will it be a strong agreement that actually take the new scientific findings into account? Or will it surrender to short-sighted economic gains from corporate interests? I do see light in the tunnel. With the election of Barack Obama we got rid of the ignorant and idiotic stopping block, that is to say George Bush and the Republican Party. But even Obama is showing signs of weakness. Todd Stern, the Obama administration’s new top climate-change negotiator, says that a 25% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 is "not possible": “It’s not possible to get that kind of number. It’s not going to happen,” And so far all the climate conferences and talks have ended in a total failure. The climate targets that have been set and agreed on are too conservative and don’t take the science into account. And pretty much all the reductions that countries so far have managed to do have been by outsourcing the pollution to poorer developing countries. For example the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznań, Poland, ended in embarrassment for the European Union when it’s leaders failed to agree on a strong climate deal. George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, even called the new EU deal for “carbon colonialism”. What we need is a new stronger climate deal that is based on science and not corporate interests. We need a climate deal with a goal of 350 ppm as a level to balance and stabilize the CO2 in our atmosphere. And we need a climate deal that includes sanctions against countries that do not follow the climate roadmap. Is that really too much to ask for?

Photo credit: 8zil During a climate change summit in Copenhagen last week, with more than 2,000 researchers from 80 countries attending, scientists warned that global sea levels could rise with more than a metre, or more, by 2100. The rising sea levels, they warn, will displace 10% of the world’s population, around 600 million people who live in low-lying countries. Just last week I told you that scientists are warning that the pace of climate change “have largely outpaced” the models and estimates from the IPCC 2007 report. And now this report shows that the rise in global sea levels is up to three times worse than previously predicted by the conservative estimates from IPCC . "I would predict sea level rise by 2100 in the order of 1m," Prof Konrad Steffen, of the University of Colorado, said. "It could be 1.2m or 0.9m, but it is 1m or more seeing the current change, which is up to three times more than the average predicted by the IPCC. It is a major change and it actually calls for action." Dr John Church, of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research in Tasmania, said: "The most recent satellite and ground based observations show that sea-level rise is continuing to rise at 3mm per year or more since 1993, a rate well above the 20th-century average. The oceans are continuing to warm and expand, the melting of mountain glaciers has increased and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are also contributing to sea level rise." Katherine Richardson, head of the Danish government's commission on climate change policy, said that the IPCC report from 2007 was an "invaluable document". But she also noted that the report would be “years out of date” when the next big UN climate negotiations start in Copenhagen this year. Also read: Climate expert says sea levels could rise 4 meters this century

Yesterday the new climate change movie “The Age of Stupid” had premiere in the UK. The movie stars Pete Postlethwaite as an archivist in the devastated world of the future, asking the question: "Why didn't we stop climate change when we still had the chance?" He looks back on footage of real people around the world in the years leading up to 2015 before runaway climate change took place. The movie has already received positive reviews in the press and celebrities, politicians and environmentalists have all praised it. The Guardian has said the movie is “fascinating”. And that “the message, never stated but constantly emerging, is that we all have our self-justifying myths. These myths prevent us from engaging with climate change.” The New Statesman says the movie is “anything but a good-guys-versus-bad-guys polemic. It is angry but nuanced, despairing but strangely motivating.” Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London have praised the movie and said that "every single person in the country should be forcibly made to watch this film". George Monbiot, Britain’s leading green commentator, has said that "it is a captivating and constantly surprising film: the first successful dramatisation of climate change to reach the big screen". I am definitely looking forward to watch this movie. Maybe. Just maybe it will be better than Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. What do you think? Watch the Trailer: The Age of Stupid: final trailer, Feb 2009 HD from Age of Stupid on Vimeo. The movie is directed by Franny Armstrong, produced by John Battsek and will be released in UK cinemas on 20 March 2009, followed by other countries. The movie will be followed by a “Not Stupid” campaign that will help put "serious pressure on the decision makers at Copenhagen in December”. Live Poll[poll id="7"]

James Randerson, currently Guardian's environment website editor and formerly Guardian science correspondent and deputy news editor with New Scientist magazine, says that the phrase “climate change deniers” makes more harm than good as it links the climate deniers with Holocaust denial. “[...]the denial phrase allows them to claim that the debate around global warming is a purely political argument. It isn't and it is dangerous for that notion to gain any traction. Plus I've seen the phrase "eco-Nazi" repeated too many times on blogs to want to sink to that level of debate.” Instead he argues that because climate change deniers recklessly and “sometimes” deliberately deny established scientific facts a more fitting label for these deniers would be “climate change creationists”: “How do you sum up an intellectual stance that has a pre-conceived position that is unyielding to the most compelling evidence; ignores mounting and alarming data from numerous scientific fields backing up the opposing position; and clutches at the most ephemeral of straws that can be twisted to support its arguments? How to capture the sheer head-in-the-sand-fingers-in-the-ears bloody mindedness? […]Climate change fact-ignorers? A little too cumbersome I think. Climate obfuscators? Better, but still not quite right. Climate change creationists. A suggestion from a friend that I believe sums them up perfectly. Although people have linked the two groups before, as far as I can see no one has used the phrase before. Think about it. They operate in very similar ways. They have a fixed position and ignore evidence that does not fit their case. And they cherry-pick shreds of data that do appear to back them up. They play up the "it's just a theory" debate just like the creationists and they paint themselves as valiant scientific mavericks who are supposedly ignored and vilified by the establishment. Worst of all they have been pushing their own version of "teach the controversy".” Although I find the climate change creationist label a pretty good idea I can’t stop thinking that it might not sound bad in the ears of religious fanatics in USA. So, yeah. I think I will continue to label them as climate deniers.

Al Gore and The Alliance for Climate Protection have announced that they are interested in creating a new .eco domain name extension. The .eco domain extension will be for individuals to express their support for environmental causes, for companies to promote their environmental initiatives, and for environmental organizations to maintain their websites in a namespace that is more relevant to their core missions. “We fully support Dot Eco LLC in its efforts to secure the .eco top level domain through the ICANN application process and look forward to working with Dot Eco LLC to promote .eco. This is a truly exciting opportunity for the environmental movement and for the internet as a whole,” said Al Gore. But what is more exciting than a new “green” domain extension is that a majority of the profits generated from the sales of the .eco domains will be distributed to support environmental causes and organizations. Cathy Zoi, CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection said that: “The .eco initiative, as proposed by Dot Eco LLC, is a unique approach for fundraising for nonprofit environmental organizations such as ours. We are thrilled to be working with Dot Eco LLC to generate funds for our organization and to promote awareness of climate change.” “It is an honor and a privilege to be working with Al Gore and Cathy Zoi on the .eco initiative,” said Fred Krueger, CEO of Dot Eco LLC. “We are confident that we will generate substantial funds for the Alliance for Climate Protection to promote their efforts to increase awareness of climate change.” Dot Eco LLC will be applying for the .eco domain name extension idea through the ICANN gTLD application process in late 2009. So maybe in a near future you will read this blog on www.green-blog.eco?

Lord Nicholas Stern, British economist and academic who is most known for the Stern Review said, during an improvised speech at a Cape Town hotel in South Africa, that if we don't act quickly and determinedly to address climate change the world will face billions of climate refugees and extended world wars in a near future: "If the world's nations act responsibly, Stern said, they will achieve "zero-carbon" electricity production and zero-carbon road transport by 2050 _ by replacing coal power plants with wind, solar or other energy sources that emit no carbon dioxide, and fossil fuel-burning vehicles with cars running on electric or other "clean" energy. Then warming could be contained to a 2-degree-Celsius (3.4-degree-Fahrenheit) rise this century, he said. But if negotiators falter, if emissions reductions are not made soon and deep, the severe climate shifts and sea-level rises projected by scientists would be "disastrous." It would "transform where people can live," Stern said. "People would move on a massive scale. Hundreds of millions, probably billions of people would have to move if you talk about 4-, 5-, 6-degree increases" _ 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. And that would mean extended global conflict, "because there's no way the world can handle that kind of population move in the time period in which it would take place.""

Swedish designer Peter Thuvander has come up with the iYo YoYo, a nifty green alternative way to charge your iPhone or iPod. "To celebrate my new Iphone and the fact that darkness is looming over me. I´ve done this: An induction powered yoyocharger for Apple. And since solarchargers don't work at night or in Sweden half the year, this should be a smash hit." Thanks to a small Li-ion battery inside the yo-yo you build up a charge while you play with the iYo YoYo. Afterwards you can just plug in your iPod or iPhone and it will be charged. Watch the video:

Last year I reported about Vattenfall, Europe's third-largest energy company which is entirely owned by the Swedish government, and their latest greenwashing campaign. Their campaign involved a "climate manifesto" to hide their own dirty businesses, and on top of that they also created loads of small yellow plastic men which they placed around the world to show their "environmental support". Back then the greenwashing campaign faced protests from environmental organizations such as Klimax and Greenpeace. And last week the "Yellow Army Fraction" liberated 44 of these yellow plastic men from one of Vattenfall's offices in Sweden: "Yellow plastic figures has been Vattenfall's way to try fool the public that they're actually doing something about the climate change other than pollution through large scale coal fire power plants. What they didn't take into consideration was the fact that the figures would come alive and organize! Today the Yellow Army Fraction liberated 44 of their fellows in their struggle to crush Vattenfall and their dirty industry and saving the planet in the process. No more coal!" Watch the liberation: ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"> Their website: http://autonomarotter.net

Photo credit: jonasclemens During the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently scientists warned that the pace of climate change ”have largely outpaced” the models and estimates from the IPCC 2007 report. They warned that the pace of man-made climate change is much faster than previously expected due to increased emissions from the industrial sector and that the higher temperatures have started to trigger self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms. "We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University and member of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said. If you have been following this blog for a while you know I’ve warned on numerous occasions that the climate predictions from the IPCC have been way too conservative. And now we see scientists, like Field, from the IPCC coming out and warning us that climate change is accelerating much faster than their conservative climate models have predicted. Field said "the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious" than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC's fourth assessment report called "Climate Change 2007." The greenhouse gas emissions from the increased burning of coal in developing countries, such as China and India, have according to Field “largely outpaced the estimates used in the U.N. panel's 2007 reports”. But what is even more worrying is Field is warning that the planets feedback loops have started to kick in: “Unexpectedly large amounts of carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere as the result of “feedback loops” that are speeding up natural processes. Prominent among these, evidence indicates, is a cycle in which higher temperatures are beginning to melt the arctic permafrost, which could release hundreds of billions of tons of carbon and methane into the atmosphere, said several scientists on a panel at the meeting. The permafrost holds 1 trillion tons of carbon, and as much as 10 percent of that could be released this century, Field said. Melting permafrost also releases methane, which is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. “It’s a vicious cycle of feedback where warming causes the release of carbon from permafrost, which causes more warming, which causes more release from permafrost,” Field said.” And this is the real killer. Because if these natural feedback loops starts pumping out massive amounts of CO2 on “autopilot” it doesn’t really matter how much greenhouse gas emissions we reduce. Because then we would have passed the threshold of no return and head towards a catastrophically 6 degrees increase in global temperatures. The next climate report from the IPCC, the Fifth Assessment Report, may actually be based on up-to-date predictions and findings and will also contain policy proposals: The 2007 fourth assessment presented at a “very conservative range of climate outcomes” but the next report will “include futures with a lot more warming,” Field said. “We now know that, without effective action, climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with than we thought.”

Mayors from 400 cities around Europe have signed the Covenant of Mayors agreement and promised to go beyond EU's 20% by 2020 energy and climate goals. The whole idea with the Covenant of Mayors pact is to "go beyond" EU’s 20% greenhouse gas emission cuts and 20% renewable energy by 2020. The German city Hamburg plans to reduce emissions by 40 percent by 2020. Paris on the other hand says it hopes to reduce emissions by 25 percent over the same period. EU’s Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said the plan, which will affect 80 million Europeans, is equivalent to reforest each year a surface larger than the whole of Hungary, or taking out from the streets more than 35 million cars or closing down 20 coal-fired 50MW power plants. At a conservative estimation the plan will save around €8 billion ($10.4 billion) in energy costs every year. "Most of the energy produced in Europe is consumed in urban areas. The battle against climate change will have to fought and won in the cities. This is why, the commitment shown by Mayors across Europe by signing the Covenant of Mayors send us a strong message of hope, particularly in the difficult times that we are facing ", said Commissioner Piebalgs. Cities in non-EU member states have also backed the climate change agreement. These include cities in Switzerland, Norway, Ukraine, Turkey, Buenos Aires, Argentina and New Zealand. In USA the New York mayor Michael Bloomberg backed the EU plan and said his city would aim to reduce emissions by 30 percent by 2030. Committee of the Regions President Luc Van den Brande, speaking at the signing ceremony, said that the plan “is not for big cities alone” and that “smaller cities and towns, as well as regions as a whole” should make the environmental pledge: "The Covenant of Mayors is an excellent initiative which will continue to grow in partnership with the Committee of the Regions. Europe's ambitious targets for cutting greenhouse gases will only be met when European local and regional authorities pull together and become involved as partners. The Covenant is not for big cities alone: smaller cities and towns, as well as regions as a whole, should also be encouraged to sign the Covenant and make the environmental pledge. The Committee of the Regions is also exploring the idea of creating a network for cities and regions signed up to the Covenant, helping them to share best practice ideas and experience."

The Reality Coalition recently released a new TV ad, called "Air Freshener". It's directed by Academy Award winners Joel and Ethan Coen. In the ad a pitchman tries to sell a "Clean Coal Clean"-scented air freshener that works just as well as "clean coal." "We were excited to be part of this important project and tell another side of the 'clean' coal story," said the Coen brothers. The "Air Freshener" ad is the first in a series of ads that are directed by the Coen brothers for the Reality campaign. The new ads are designed and produced by Boulder, Colorado-based Crispin Porter + Bogusky, the agency responsible for the ground-breaking "Truth" anti-tobacco campaign. "The coal industry has spent tens of millions of dollars selling the illusion of so-called 'clean coa'," said Brian Hardwick of the Alliance for Climate Protection. "Why? Because marketing and lobbying are much cheaper than actually making coal plants clean." Hardwick continued: "Coal companies would rather protect the status quo than actually do what is necessary for coal to be truly clean and be part of an energy future that doesn’t destroy the planet. We’re challenging them to stop the bogus marketing campaign, stop their delay tactics and support real progress toward climate solutions." Watch the ad: ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295">