Climate Change - Human Activities the Cause, Mea Culpa! But Consider 1816, the Year Without Summer!

The entire world seems sold on Global Warming and Climate Change - caused by human activities emitting carbon dioxide - and therefore the need to "green" planet Earth. Nobel prizes were awarded to the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and Al Gore several years ago; at the recent Copenhagen conference (follow-on to the Kyoto Protocol Climate Change Conference of 1997), President Obama led leaders of 192 nations in agreement with its principles, promising heavy financial reparations to 3rd world nations.

Scientists have calculated that emissions of carbon dioxide by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring, industrial operations and breathing, amount to perhaps 30 billion tons per year. They also estimate that volcanic eruptions, a candidate consideration for cause, can normally emit between about 145 to 255 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, on average, including both subaerial and submarine fissures and vents. This seems to indicate that human activities may release perhaps 100 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes - thus, there seems to be a reasonable basis for the universal concern: human activities are impacting the climate of planet Earth - and in a negative manner - causing global warming.

However, Mother Nature must indeed have a strong sense of humor - on the heels of the international guilt-admitting furor at Copenhagen by world leaders and President Obama in support of Global Warming - along comes the coldest winter in recent decades. And now, with Obama's EPA poised to levy severe pollutant restrictions and harsh financial penalties on American industry, there comes a volcanic eruption in Iceland that has devastated the air-transport industry, closing down almost all flights over Europe for a week, with attendant cost consequences which may bankrupt major airlines(absent bail-outs by governments).

The reality of major natural catastrophes: this recent eruption of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano (or Krakatau, or earthquakes, or tsunamis, or hurricanes, or cyclical coolings and warmings of ocean or atmosphere), should warn decision-makers that planet Earth is huge and complex, and that feel-good, simplistic ideologies dictating industrial restrictions and financial reparations (the EPA or the Cap and Trade bill) can cause great national economic damage while pursuing a noble cause ("greening" planet Earth) - but may provide little benefit.

Within the first 72 hours of the eruption of Eyjafjallajokull volcano, Iceland's Institute of Earth Sciences reported the average discharge rate of ash at 750 tons per second or 65 million tons per day - equivalent to the normal average annual discharge - and in just the first few days. The plumes of ash reached over seven miles into the skies; about 100,000 flights were cancelled, ten million passengers stranded; bankruptcy of major airlines distinct possibilities. There is also a caveat appendage to this Icelandic eruption - a similar eruption in Iceland in 1821 lasted for 13 months!

In light of the Iceland volcano eruption, a look at causes for global warming and climate change - other than man-kind activities - seems warranted. The summer of 1816 is considered to be one of the coldest on record, studied by many weather scientists. The year is known as the "Year Without a Summer"; it is also known as the "Poverty Year", due to widespread destruction of crops. Severe climate abnormalities during the summer destroyed crops in Northern Europe, Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada, and average global temperatures decreased sufficiently to cause significant agricultural failures around the world.

Of great interest to environmentalists were the unusual events prior to the summer of 1816: the previous year, the eruption of the 13,000-foot Mount Tambora volcano in Indonesia had hurled an estimated 37 to 100 cubic miles of fine dust, cinders and ashes more than 15 miles into the atmosphere. The estimates of deaths were about 10,000, the blast being heard 970 miles away. Meteorologists believe the eruption caused the greatest amount of volcanic dust to be ejected into the atmosphere in history. In addition, Earth's atmosphere had already been polluted by previous eruptions of other volcanoes, Mayon and Luzon volcanoes in the Philipines in 1814, and the Soufriere volcano on St. Vincent Island in the Caribbean in 1812. The dust from all these eruptions combined and lingered in the stratosphere - shielding Earth from the sun's rays - thus enabling heat to escape from Earth - resulting in reducing Earth's temperature.

The most likely cause of the severe climate change seems therefore, to be the volcanic influences. Proponents note the numerous large volcanic eruptions preceding 1816: Soufri?re and St. Vincent in 1812: Mayon and Luzon in the Phillippines in 1814; Tambora in Indonesia in 1815. The Tambora eruption has been estimated to be the most violent in historical times, the explosion believed to have blown 150 to 180 cubic kilometres of material into the atmosphere. (For a comparison, the infamous 1883 eruption of Krakatau ejected only 20 cubic kilometres of material into the air - and yet it affected sunsets the world over for several years after).

The seemingly most reasonable scientific "proximate" cause of drastic climate change during 1816 is therefore the volcanic theory of climatic influence: greatly increased volcanic activity causing immense amounts of ash and dust to be blown and trapped high in the atmosphere, causing increased reflection of solar radiation (instead of absorption at the Earth's surface), resulting in globally decreased temperatures on Earth.

Puny man and his activities seem trivial and inconsequential relative to the whimsicality and power of Mother Nature, plus the complexity and immensity of planet Earth, and the primary influence of our Sun.

Aaron Kolom qualifies as a "rocket scientist" with over 50 years aerospace engineering: Stress Analyst to Chief of Structural Sciences on numerous military aircraft, to Corp. Director Structures and Materials, Asst. Chief Engineer Space Shuttle Program through first three flights (awarded NASA Public Service Medal), Rockwell International Corp.; Program Manager Concorde SST, VP Engineering TRE Corp.; Aerospace Consultant.

Aaron L. Kolom - from Brainwashed* and Miracles**
* The Perceived Mind-Set of the Secular Elite re Darwin Evolutionism!
** To Believe in Them - Have Faith - In Science and Logic!

Visit website at http://www.brainwashedandmiracles.com to learn a bit about Science vs the Bible, from conflict to confirmation.

Climate Change - Deception Or Ignorance?

The unproven theory that global warming is being caused by mans' industrial activities is a theory being supported by Alarmists. Their opponents, the Realists, regard the theory as being completely unproven but are prepared to listen to anything that may confirm the theory.

This international debate is the cause of much controversy with the Alarmists insisting their position is solid, whilst the Realists say much more concrete evidence is needed. Looking at the Alarmists' position two questions need to be asked - are they scientifically ignorant, or are they engaged in deception?

More accurate data needed before trends can be ascertained

What the Alarmists need to do is provide more compelling evidence to support their position. All they rely on at the moment is current data and compare it to climatic events since the 1890s when modern recording of temperatures began.

The major problems with this constricted approach are twofold:

Firstly, the instruments used today to measure such attributes as air temperature, sea temperature etc. are infinitely more accurate and sophisticated than those in use 50 years ago, never mind 110 years ago. So that begs the question - how accurate is any data older than say 10 years? The Alarmists have yet to clarify this point.

The second problem concerns the time period over which the current data has been collected. 110 years may provide a start, buy that's all it is, a start. Realistically though, 110 years in comparison to the scientifically recognized age of the earth being - 4.5 billion years - is statistically unsustainable.

To get a valid and meaningful understanding of recent changes in the worlds' temperature and the future trends in the area of climate change, the absolute minimum time frame to analyze such data should be no less than a thousand years.

As this is just not possible, the Alarmists are being too free and easy with the very limited information at their disposal. They're making a mountain out of a molehill, and the susceptible people in our societies are taking all this in and making the loudest noise. Hysteria is well under way.

The role of the UN in this deception

Recent reports issued by the UN's committee on climate change laid the blame for this perceived problem clearly at the feet of the industrial western world. Two reports made in early 2007 pointed to the damage being caused by industrial pollution leading to an increase in greenhouse gases, and an imbalance between the CO2 and oxygen in the worlds' atmosphere. The UN said quite clearly that this problem was caused by the ever-increasing expansion of industrial activity by the established western nations and the emerging industrial countries, notably China and India.

No mention was made of other factors that could be responsible for this atmospheric imbalance - factors that could have a profound influence.

Firstly no mention was made of the practice prevalent in third world countries of mass deforestation. ie the clearing of forests to enable land to be used for agriculture. As trees emit oxygen and take in CO2 they're able to keep in balance the relationship between these two gases. Trees help in controlling greenhouses gases, something the UN has not yet accepted.

The other factor the UN failed to mention was the explosion in the worlds' population over the past 50 years. In that time world population has grown from 2 billion to over 6 billion. As the human body converts oxygen into CO2, the omission of this from the UN reports add suspicion to their motives.

So if man is responsible for any increase in greenhouse gases, then more than industrial pollution is the cause. If the UN were to take a more responsible attitude to this, then they'd be a whole lot more credible.

Why are the Alarmists deceiving Us?

Why? What have they got to hide?

Why do they continually tell the world that of the ten hottest years on record, six have occurred within the past 10 years? This has been seen to be false. NASA recently reported that these 10 hottest years occurred before 1950, with the hottest decade being the 30s.

What about the influence of volcanoes on the amount of CO2 in the air?

Why do they keep repeating the line that over 5,000 scientists have signed a document saying that man-made climate change is happening, and ignoring the fact that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 PhDs have said that this theory is rubbish?

Why do the Alarmists refuse to answer the basic question - what caused climate change in the 12 previous occasions it's occurred during the life of the earth?

After 12 periods of climate change caused by Mother Nature, or for the religious inclined, God, Allah, Jehovah, why should the activities of man be responsible for present events?

And this last point raises a very important issue - what gives the Alarmists the right to think they can reverse Mother Nature or God? What gives Al Gore and his ilk the right to play God?

And why are the worlds' religious leaders saying nothing about this?

This is an attempt to put some balance into the ongoing international controversy that is the theory of man-made climate change.

Like most people, the author takes a keen interest in the world-wide controversy of climate change and global warming, and the alleged effect this will have on life on earth. He also takes an interest in more mundane issues such as weight loss tips and the best deals offered by satellite TV.

The Importance of Developing Countries in Climate Change Initiatives

There has been a lot of talk surrounding the recent G8 summits and the unwillingness of developing countries to join in on environmental programs. It may not seem that important to include these developing economies in a climate control plan. Given the current statistics about energy use and pollution creation in which the US and other developed countries top the list it stands to reason that what the developing world is doing isn't that important. However, there are several key factors that are not being considered that make the developing countries of the world a very important part of any global climate change discussion.

First off, as we in the US are seeing now, once you have an established method of power generation, it becomes more difficult to change. The life cycle of a power plant is very long and it takes much of this lifecycle to recoup the costs of development. This means that power plants being developed today in developing countries to meet their growing electrical needs will still be in use 25 years from now. It is much easier to start out producing clean energy then it is to transfer to it after the fact. If developing countries continue to use dirty power generation to meet demand today, everyone will pay the price in the long run.

The second reason that we must be concerned about power generation in developing countries is the size of the populations in many of these countries. As countries like India and China start using more energy on a per-capita basis and approach the levels of more developed countries there is going to be a huge demand for electricity generation due to the massive size of their populations. If allowed to continue to meet this demand with dirty power generation methods they will over time create a huge pollution problem, the effects of which will be felt everywhere in the world.

If allowed to continue unchecked, the increase in dirty power generation in the developing world will offset any reductions in pollution made in developed countries. The world cannot afford to continue producing pollution at current levels, the goal of any environmental plan as to be to reduce global emissions. These developing countries are therefore a huge threat to any environmental program that is really trying to fix the problem. This is not to say that the developed countries in the world shouldn't reduce their emissions if developing countries don't agree to as well. Any effort to reduce emissions is better than none. However, it is important to get the support of developing countries in stopping global climate change. Without their help, nothing we do can truly stop the problem, it will just put it off.

About the Author: Barret Hudson is a representative of Green Collar Operations, a home weatherization company in Austin, TX. We specialize in home energy efficiency improvements. More information at http://www.greencollaroperations.com

Climate Change and Your Retirement - A Changing Future

Most people will look at their future and decide where they wish to live, how to spend their time and how best to afford it. They may even consult financial planners and know what they will do with their time once retired. They usually do not look at their future from the perspective of climate change and global warming and the outcome of an ever-increasing burden on the ecology.

One of the most important issues for all of humanity is to have a sustainable environment and sustainable living conditions. This issue is however, still ignored by most people. While it is likely there will no longer be an environmentally sustainable future left within the next 25 years not many people are taking notice of this fact. This will mean that the future we would all like, one with favorable ecological conditions, may no longer be a certainty.

Most people would like to have a future whereby all their needs are met including enough fresh, clean air, clean water and to be able to live in a sustainable environment. They do not expect a future with such severely reduced forests, that these forests can no longer support the environment, or a potential future with lack of fresh, clean air. However, with the current trend of ever-increasing pollution and continual further devastation of forests there will soon no longer be a future that can sustain all people.

While the country in which you live can influence the quality of your lifestyle, it cannot control the way the planet's ecological structures respond to the ever-increasing pollution and ecological damage which is becoming an increasing burden. Changing weather patterns are already happening more and more and are a result of climate change.

Our forests can soon no longer adequately supply oxygen, which is a major contributor to humanity's health and well-being. In addition, the oxygen we breathe might also become more and more contaminated because of man-made chemical processes as well as fall-out from volcanic eruptions. Within the next five to seven years this diminishing of fresh clean air will become a real environmental issue.

The climate is changing due to global warming and ecologically unsustainable environments. This, in turn, is creating the untenable situation whereby, most likely within the next fifteen years, many rivers will no longer be able to support humanity. Also, because of the amount of pollution that flows into rivers there may no longer be adequate fresh water supplies. This may begin to affect many more people in the next ten years.

While most of us do not look at our future from an ecological perspective, it is important to begin to think of what the result will be of the current continuing ecological devastation and how this may affect your future. The current climate change issues as well as the ever-increasing pollution are creating an ecological disaster situation that can no longer be fixed and nature is not capable of restoring itself

Humanity will need to make adequate changes to their lifestyle, as there are no longer other options. It is running out of time.

Mia's book "New Concepts for Business and Humanity" contains all the information she received about a possible bleak future for humanity. A future mainly affected by global warming. Your future is at stake. You need to review where you wish to live within the next fifteen years because of the changing climate, which will affect us all.

Mia has the ability to channel Truth. Her ability to channel has been recognized by many people who received personal guidance. Her latest book "New Concepts for Business and Humanity" contains information about a different future than most expect. A free download of the first chapter is available from her website http://www.miadenhaan.com

Could the Global Financial Crisis Be the Window of Opportunity to Seriously Address Climate Change?

It seems that in the face of the current global financial crisis we have all but forgotten a much greater issue, one with ramifications of monumental and potentially catastrophic proportions.

We are missing a window of opportunity to tackle both climate change and the global financial crisis

As long ago as November 1992, a document signed by sixteen hundred of the world's leading scientists, including half of all the Nobel Prize winners at that time, issued a warning to all humanity that human beings and the natural world were on a collision course. The document listed all the pending crises in the atmosphere, water resources, soils, the oceans, forests, biodiversity and over-population. The same eminent persons warned that no more than one or a few decades at the most remained to avert the threat of vast human suffering and misery and admonished world leaders that great changes in our stewardship of the Earth and its resources were needed to avoid the irretrievable mutilation of our global home.

Alas, humanity has virtually ignored these most astoundingly important pronouncements, losing nearly two decades in which we could and should have begun the introduction of tangible measures to preserve and protect the biosphere against further harm.

There is little doubt that every year lost has contributed massively to the potential hardships and suffering our children and grandchildren will endure.

Is global warming part of Earth's natural cycle?

Scientists tell us that approximately one hundred million years ago when the continents were arranged differently, Earth was in fact 5 to 15 degrees (C) warmer than it is today. Of course that was long before the existence of Homo sapiens. Then, as the continents drifted apart, the planet cooled steadily. Ice core samples taken from the Arctic show that over the last nine thousand years the Earth's temperature has been relatively stable.

That stability lasted until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. However, since that time, there has been a marked rise in temperature. Because the temperature rise has been over a relatively short period and it has coincided with increased greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and de-forestation, there can be little doubt that the progressive heating of the planet is due to man's activities. Nevertheless, temperature increase has been most marked since the 1950's when consumerism became the Western World's new code for living and factories geared for the war effort, switched to pumping out products for the new "throw away" age.

With the emergence of China and India's industrial economies that are now pumping seemingly endless volumes of harmful pollutant gases into the atmosphere, the rate at which temperatures are escalating each year is sounding alarm bells around the world. Al Gore in his sensational cinematographic epic The Inconvenient Truth brought the message home to millions. Except for diehard sceptics, Gore finally dispelled the last vestige of arguments asserting that global warming is merely a natural phenomenon. Since Gore's movie many climate scientists have in fact backed calls for a "global-wide call to arms" in the fight against potentially fatal climatic changes.

Unfortunately, to this day, some hold the belief that only one or two degrees spread over the next fifty or so years will make little difference. Regrettably for the world, there are many politicians and business leaders among these deniers of the facts.

These ill-informed folk should speak to those residing on low lying nations such as Tuvalu, The Maldives, Bangladesh and many coastal areas of just about every nation that's not landlocked. They would soon discover unfortunate folk of these and many other nations are under imminent threat from rising sea levels.

In addition to the growing inundation of heavily populated nations, we are already experiencing an increase in the severity and frequency of devastating tornadoes, cyclones and storms. Most climatologists now attribute these events and changing weather patterns to the over-heating of our planet.

Droughts have also increased in severity and duration, while polar ice caps along with all of the world's glaciers and the Greenland ice shelf are melting at alarming rates. Africa's and Asia's deserts continue to expand, forcing many poor communities to abandon traditional homelands, throwing greater strain upon the ability of impoverished and bankrupt nations to respond to the growing number of the new ecological refugees.

Vector-born diseases such as malaria and encephalitis are now becoming common in areas previously immune from such threat.

As crops regularly fail through lack of rain, starvation is a growing problem while in the planet's oceans, many marine species are under threat of extinction from higher seawater temperatures, increased acidification, the loss of corals and sea grasses and the rapid proliferation of marine vermin such as, the Crown of Thorns starfish. Meanwhile, grass has been discovered growing in the arctic for the first time. While this enables some creatures to move closer to the North Pole, many species such as polar bears and emperor penguins which are dependant upon cold conditions are threatened with extinction. Flowers are blossoming, birds are migrating and frogs breeding 2 to 3 days earlier with each passing decade and while some life forms flourish in warmer temperatures, others have been forced from their habitats. With the thawing of vast areas of tundra, massive quantities of methane (which is five times more damaging that CO2) are being released into the atmosphere exacerbating the already critical problem we blithely call, "the greenhouse effect."

The world's oceans affect our weather more than many realise. They are in fact, massive natural engines driving climates and weather patterns across the globe. As warm water from the equator is driven northward by wind and air currents, evaporation and the formation of sea ice contribute to the density of arctic seawater which then cools, sinks and returns southward again.

In 2004, submarine exploration beneath the arctic ice cap discovered that only two of the seven gigantic cold water columns that help drive ocean circulation were functioning. Alarmed scientists reported that global warming is threatening the ability of these currents to operate. They found the remaining columns were pathetically weak in comparison to their normal function, raising speculation that rising temperatures may completely shut down thermohaline circulation with potentially catastrophic consequences for Northern Europe, Russia and The United Kingdom.

There is no longer any doubt that the major cause of entire ecosystems collapsing is anthropogenic, although such factors as the Earth's orbital path, volcanic eruptions on the sea floor and beneath the arctic ice, gravitational changes, energy from deep space and sun spot activity all play a part. However, where changes in temperature result from such causes, the Earth's ecosystems could probably compensate and adapt without significant harm to life. On the other hand, the planet's complex systems are clearly unable to cope with man's intervention.

Because there are so many factors contributing to the climate change debate, scientists really do not know what will happen within the next five years let alone the next fifty. Nevertheless, few would deny the devastating consequences of man's impact upon the planet, or that these will continue for thousands of years even if we were to halt all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow (and that's obviously not going to happen). Despite the best efforts of scientists so far, most predictions and prognosis have proved inaccurate. For example, the rates at which the arctic icecap is melting, the disappearance of glaciers and changing weather patterns have exceeded the worst predictions.

If there is a collapse or further significant slowing of thermohaline circulation, no one knows whether Northern Europe will become appreciably warmer, cooler, or even plunge into a new ice-age!

Most climate experts would now agree, we cannot afford to adopt a wait and see approach while climate change boffins continue with more computer modelling and study the complex web of interdependent factors.

Even if we still believe that global warming and climate change are just part of the Earth's natural cycles, the outcomes will be the same as if they are anthropogenic. There will be massive misery and suffering if we fail to act now.

Merely reacting to changing circumstances will not suffice; we must become super-proactive and assume that worst-case scenarios will become our reality. We must rapidly implement counter-measures and form long term plans to cope with a crisis that is unprecedented in ferocity and magnitude since the history of man.

Meanwhile, back to the global economic meltdown

While the pain of industry bankruptcies, mortgage foreclosures and job loss is very real in the hardships inflicted upon those most affected, we cannot afford to drop the ball when it comes to climate change. Indeed, the suffering we are now experiencing as a consequence of corporate greed, and the undoubted lack of appropriate checks and balances on lending, will seem insignificant compared with the prognosis of many of the world's top scientists, should we fail to heed their warnings.

In the hope of boosting consumption, governments appear to be almost throwing money at national economies with "bailout" packages and handouts to citizens, while many are left wondering if it is a gigantic gamble that's destined to fail. After all, when any individual spends more than he or she earns, thus ending up owing creditors, isn't it responsible and logical to knuckle down, work hard, repay debts and live within one's means?

Surely, when in financial trouble, any sane person wouldn't go out and borrow more money and spend it just to maintain a lifestyle which has proved disastrously extravagant? Haven't too many of us been living in a fool's paradise of rampant consumerism and excessive personal luxury? Is the plight of the nation any different just because it is on a much bigger scale? Didn't the economic house of cards have to come crashing down at some point?

Where should taxpayer's money be going?

Maybe, the strategy of borrowing against the future to ease present pain will work, but is it fiscally responsible to prop up industries based on fossil-fuel technologies when oil reserves are running out and environmental costs of polluting the biosphere at current rates will spell our demise?

If we are going to mortgage our children's future, should we not be looking at spending money on infrastructure projects that will not cause further environmental damage and will improve the quality of life for our citizens in the future? This would seem the right moment to also accelerate the development and introduction of environmentally sustainable technologies and other measures with maximum long-term benefits to all humanity?

Here are some worthwhile suggestions where government subsidies could have lasting benefits:

1. Establishment of giant solar power plants similar to that due to come on line in California

2. Solar, wind, geothermal hot rock (GHR) and tidal power,

3. Hybrid motor vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell and electric cars and other technologies yet to evolve,

4. Solar hot water systems, thin-film photovoltaic cells,

5. Double glazing and eco-friendly buildings and homes,

6. Water tanks, grey water systems,

7. Household water treatment systems that re-use water over and over,

8. Domestic wind turbines,

9. Research into the development of "water from air" devices,

10. Making current buildings and homes energy efficient,

11. Designing new buildings for sustainability,

11. Better city and town planning which discourages automobile usage and encourages patronage of energy efficient, zero emission public transport.

Injection of capital in such areas would undoubtedly create new jobs. In addition, by offering incentives to existing companies, who are currently struggling to survive and urging them to divert productive capacity into the examples outlined may save countless jobs which could otherwise be lost.

Australia, like many nations has vast deserts and straddles latitudes from tropical to temperate zones. Traditionally, the nation's food bowl has been in the cooler south, however, these agriculturally productive areas are drought-stricken and have been for so for several years, devastating production. The hotter north now bears the brunt of more severe cyclones and their inherent flooding.

While the large percentage of the country's population has dealt with water restrictions, abundant rains fill northern catchments to overflowing with much of this water running to waste in the oceans. Met with cries of, "too expensive," proposals to pipe water from northern dams, rivers and lakes to satiate the south's needs never get passed the drawing board, but perhaps should be revisited with an eye on drought-proofing the nation and assuring it is able to play its part in feeding a world whose hunger grows exponentially each year.

More now than ever before, we need leaders with vision and courage and if viewed through a different perspective, the global economic crisis might just be a blessing in disguise.

Alan Greenhalgh is a former New Zealand Police Sergeant and Inspector in The Australian Protective Service, a division of the Federal Police tasked with providing counter terrorist response and diplomatic and consular protection.

As a former member of the N.Z. Police Search and Rescue, Diving, Armed Offenders and elite Team Policing Squads, Alan was also tasked with controlling local gang elements in New Zealand. He has many enthralling anecdotes in his repertoire of police life and is well qualified to write about the human condition. He was the first security manager for Western Australia's parliament house and having completed a major security review resigned to pursue a career in private enterprise. After working for two years as a private investigator he retired to pursue a long held dream to write.

Throughout Alan's careers he authored various in-house manuals and as a security analysts wrote may publications covering matters predominantly related to security, although in his spare time he studied the writer's craft and composed bush ballads.

To learn more about climate change and help pressure governments and world leaders to act meaningfully, go to the not-for-profit website: http://www.upthem.org

Climate Change - Threat To The Earth And Lives

Today, the unwise use of the natural environment due to ignorance, poverty, overpopulation and greed amongst others has led to the degradation of the world, especially African environment. This degradation occur as Africans attempt to adjust their selfish endless wants and desires for food, shelter, recreation, infrastructural facilities, and have led to soil erosion and desertification and that over crowding has led to the spread of shanty towns and urban blight, all of which would worsen if the present population growth continues. The consequence of this environmental mismanagement is threats.

Climate change is certainly no longer alien. Already, its effects are being felt in the world. one of the pronounced effects of climate change is the gradual warming of the atmosphere which could portend doom for the inhabitants of the earth. A warming atmosphere means rise in sea level, which could lead to coaster flooding, and more diseases such as malaria, West Nile disease, dengue fever and river blindness. Climate change is an "unprecedented" threat to food security and this affects the whole world. Droughts are getting worse and climate uncertainty is growing. The world is getting warming (global warming). "Global warming means that that many dry areas are going to get drier and wet areas are going to get wetter. Africa is truly facing the greatest catastrophe in human history. If nothing is done to proffer sustainable solutions to this threat, large part of the continent may be wipe off. Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth said that "Climate change is overwhelming the situation in Africa... unless we take genuine steps now to reduce our emissions, people in the developed world will be condemning millions to hunger, starvation and death".

I'm on a short time research on the effects of this problem in the island area of Lagos, Nigeria...My research so far shows that climate change represents a nightmare scenario for the future of the people of the world. Areas such as Lekki, Victoria Island in Lagos could become submerged. The sea level is rising at an alarming rate, drought and erosion are hitting deep many cities and lives are in serious danger. The consequence of these problems would be dramatic declines in rainfall and a fall in crop yields that could make previous famines look like small tragedies. There are likely to be severe water shortages in many parts of the African continent. We are even seeing the signs of this, as the people are living in great fear even when the words "Climate Change" is a confusing term to them because they lack the proper understand of it.

Despite these diseases such as malaria, West Nile disease, dengue fever and river blindness that were mentioned above, the governments are not even concern about the threat of climate change. Even journalists and media houses are busy promoting political "corruptors" and businesses/organizations that lacks personal or corporate social responsibility rather than educating the common people via public awareness of this devil called "Climate Change". Anyway, many of African journalists don't even know what climate change is all about. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE. We must stop the various causes of climate change such as:

-Deforestation

-Desertification

-Urbanization

-Degradation

-Pollution

-Unplanned Industrialization, and

-Corruption

It is time for positive action against climate change

Okon E. Promise is a motivational speaker, environmentalist, business and leadership consultant. He has helped multitudes of people to reached and maximised success. He speakes and consults on business, leadership, entrepreneurship and personal development/effectiveness. He is a C.E.O of a marketing and branding company in Nigeria. He also organizes seminars on the aforementioned areas. He is working on bringing up an NGO for poor and disable people. He is a columnist with 4sight magazine and one of those championing the course for a "NEW NIGERIA" and the reformation of the "AFRICAN CONTINENT" as a whole. He resides in Lagos, Nigeria.

Urgent Call - Global Warming and Climate Change

All over the world, countries are experiencing climate change and it's effect to the global environment. Some scientists have claimed that if we don't act now, the damage to our ecosystem will be irreparable. The Amazon Forest is a victim of deforestation for several years. Because of this, different species of animals and rare plants are fast diminishing in numbers. Forest fires is also a factor. Let us not forget the ever present air pollution, improper waste management and the continued use of non biodegradable materials. Mankind was taught for several generations about the importance of having a clean environment and taking care of it for the future generations' sake. However, we have to admit that some doesn't bother anymore because of living a busy life, doesn't have the time nor the interest.

Alarming news of tragedy that erupted globally has spurned researchers to give a hint or to come up with a definite resolution to the problem, but alas, it will take billions of hands to work hand in hand to achieve this seemingly impossible feat. Several countries and industries have already taken steps to introduce products that are environment friendly. For household items there are detergent soaps, bags and kitchen appliances that are made to help minimize the harmful pollutants present in the air that causes the "greenhouse effect". Refrigerators are one of the kitchen appliances that was remodeled to be "CFC" free. Chloroflourocarbon is a pollutant mostly present in air conditioners, refrigerators and other cooling appliances implicated in the acceleration of the ozone layer depletion.

There will be change if all people will help. Solar powered cars are invented, a machine that converts dirty or rainwater to be pottable. Two years ago, biodiesel as an alternative fuel was introduced. It garnered a lot of support from the government and several non profit organizations. Proper waste management, recycling and compost are just few of the simple ways we can help Mother Earth to survive. There's the gasifier that converts municipal solid waste, sewer sludge, petroleum and oily wastes, animal manures, biomass, scrap tires and coal into a renewable resource of energy that can provide electric power for homes, equipment, power plants and motor vehicles.

A joint effort will spur the changes and get the balanced ecosystem back. We can help even in out own ways as industries strive to invent machinery that doesn't harm the environment. I hope that future generations have a clean and environment to live in. The Blue Planet.

An Open Letter to World Leaders on Climate Change

The newly released report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is frightening. International policy makers must pay heed to its findings and act now to prevent untold disaster. The debate is over-climate change is happening and will get worse if our nation's leaders do not act now. Time is not on our side as we are currently experiencing massive economic and social impacts of a changing global climate. These impacts will only get worse if we continue to put off the inevitable changes we must all support.

Money must be diverted now by governments to address global warming. Laws must be passed now if we are to avoid massive loss of life and population displacement. How many Katina's can we endure? How will the Australians survive without water? As the glaciers melt how many people will suffer and what conflicts will arise? Economies are suffering now-this is not a future scenario.

Exxon reported record earnings. Other oil companies are sure to follow. Tax these usurious profits and put the money into alternative, no polluting fuels. Force the auto industry to mass produce green cars and give massive tax breaks to the consumers. Force to coal fired plants to stop their pollution now. Will this cost a lot of money? Yes, but the cost of not acting will cost even more to economies and lost lives. If the world were to unite to stop certain disaster, untold new jobs ands industries would be created.

What good are all the wars and conflicts if the battles are won but the planet dies? What good are the oil fields if there is no one left to use the oil? What will sectarian violence win if there are no children left to inherit your victories? Look at what is happening to our world and stop playing the fiddle while our planet is being destroyed.

We must unite as citizens of one planet and make our leaders address this most pressing issue. Health legislation, ethics reforms, tax code changes and any other rule we can think of making means nothing in comparison to the climate changes we now face. People often come together when faced with disaster. From ice storms, tsunamis, floods, hurricanes and other disasters, the best of humanity surfaces when catastrophe strikes. But if the catastrophes strike the entire planet, will there be able anyone to help? Who will send food, clothing and shelter if all are stricken? Ignoring climate change will not make it go away. More studies will not make it go away.

Only strong action by all the governments and all people will solve this crisis. And as the IPCC report says, even if we ended all pollution now, there will still be consequences. Are we ending all pollution now?

Please, save the lives of our children. Please, do not let this planet die!

Mr. Harris was born in Massachusetts. He attended The American University in Washington, D.C. and received his degree in Political Science. His graduate work was done at the University of Northern Colorado and Howard University. While in D.C., he spent several years working for local and regional government agencies. Upon moving to Maine he worked with three governors and served as the Assistant Director of the Maine State Planning Office. He worked on a White House Task Force for the development of a National Rural Policy and later served as Rural Policy Coordinator at the Federal Regional Council of New England. He has worked on gubernatorial and senatorial political campaigns and currently works in Special Education.

Mr. Harris is co-author of the novel WAKING GOD and is a nationally syndicated and featured writer for The American Chronicle. He is working on Book II of the Waking God trilogy and writing features for literary E-zines. His second novel, A MAINE CHRISTMAS CAROL has been released by Cambridge Books. Contributing writer for UPI's Religion&Spirituality web site.

A Brief Introduction to Climate Change and Global Warming

One aspect of being a green business is being aware how much carbon and other greenhouse gases the business emits into the atmosphere. We have all heard the terms global warming, climate change and greenhouse gas but as they are often used interchangeably, it can be difficult to understand exactly what these terms mean. However understanding these terms is important before taking action to reduce emissions from the business. Here is a brief guide to the most common terms:

Global Warming: The phrase global warming refers to an overall warming of the planet based on the average temperature over the entire surface. Global warming has both natural and manmade causes with the main manmade cause being increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases spread around the earth forming a cover trapping solar energy that would normally be radiated into space resulting in increased temperatures.

Climate Change: Although the expressions climate change and global warming are used interchangeably, they do mean different things. The term climate change refers to long term regional changes in climate including temperature, humidity, wind, rainfall and severe weather events. Like global warming, climate change has both natural and manmade causes with the manmade causes of climate change being credited to increased levels of greenhouse gases. Natural causes of climate change include the continental drift, volcanoes and ocean currents.

Greenhouse Gases: These gases are what prevent solar radiation from being discharged to space and are the main cause of both climate change and global warming. Some greenhouse gases such as chlorofluorocarbons are synthetic while others such as carbon and water vapour occur naturally in the environment. While some greenhouse gases occur naturally, human beings have altered the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through their activities such as burning coal, oil, natural gas and wood.

Air Pollution: Air pollution is a related problem and many of the pollutants responsible for poor air quality and smog are also greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. Discussions about air pollution usually focus on visibility and air quality but reducing emissions that cause air pollution will also reduce greenhouse gas levels.

Ozone Depletion: Ozone depletion is a different but related problem to climate change and global warming. The ozone layer is a gaseous layer in the upper atmosphere that absorbs ultra violet radiation. A reduction in the ozone layer causes more ultra violet radiation to reach earth which can affect crop growth and cause health problems such as skin cancer. Closer to the earth ozone is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

The good news is the problem of ozone depletion is understood and measures have been taken to protect the ozone layer. Climate change however is still a serious environmental concern and further action is needed to address it. Having a basic understanding of these terms is the first step in deciding the role your green business has in addressing these issues. Find out more about how the Montreal Protocol may impact refrigerant management in your business. For more information on green business, visit http://www.greenbusinessnotebook.com, a popular website that specializes in green business practices for small to medium enterprises.

The Debate Rages On Between Global Warming Alarmists and Climate Change Research

There is a huge debate as to weather the warming of the planet which is rather insignificant considering the geological record is the cause of human activity. That is to say pollution, urban heat and emissions of green house gases. The Global Warming folks say man is mostly to blame for any changes. And the Climate Change researchers say, mankind's activities are a drop in the bucket of the over minor changes we see.

Rather than debate this chaos and controversy consider this. We are all in this together and perhaps we should use the Global Warming Alarmists to our advantage to build redundancies in the flows of our civilization. I tend to agree we need to protect our civilization from changes, which might catch us off guard; Water supplies, extreme weather, etc.

That makes sense, so rather than beating my head against the Global Warming Alarmists Walls, I would rather use them to serve my will to beef up our civilizations flows to withstand and/or adapt to, without disruption any sudden change, whether from a man-made caused war or Mother Nature.

Meanwhile I watch China's deserts over take some cities and think well, there is another challenge facing mankind's civilizations, thus there is plenty to think on to and lots of challenges to fix. The way I see it more CO2 is good for forests, which then produce oxygen. Holes in the Ozone can be good too. All the things we think we are doing to help climate change may be doing nothing but driving companies off shore to less over regulated lands.

Economically speaking the whole thing is causing quite a bit of changes in mankind's monetary flows and is not necessarily helping strengthen or help the people of various lands. There are so many inter-related issues to this issue.

Urban heat is one thing mankind is doing by planting concrete everywhere, but those changes in weather flows are generally regional and dissipate. However in the "Butterfly Affect" scenarios, we know everything is connected of course. So, there may be more to that, but somewhat insignificant over all considering the Peruvian Volcano this week put out more debris in the atmosphere than 4-months of USA pollution in one day. Consider all this in 2006.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Climate Change and Bangladesh - Victim of Global Warming Or Victim of Global Politics?

People may say a lot of things but to me the main disadvantage of being one of the members of a LDS (Least Developed Nation) is that no one really cares about whether we exist or not. I never would have said something like this if it were not for the results of the last conference on climate change. I am talking about the COP (Conference of Parties) 15 that happened in Copenhagen last year. Something similar to the following was supposed to happen: 1) The developed countries would take responsibilities for their actions and compensate for that accordingly, 2) The Most Vulnerable Countries (MVC) would get enough financial and technical support to enhance and develop their adaptation processes, 3) A legally binding accord would be created which would limit the carbon emission amount for the developed countries and the G77+China group, 4) The accord would also ensure that the MVCs would get continuous support in the future to battle the climate change impacts. Unfortunately we all know what happened, very disappointing indeed but that is the current reality.

It is the month of March and already we feel the heat burning our skins. I live in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. That day I had to go to Jahangirnagar University from Uttara on a chore, and after all of a sudden I realized that something does not feel right; the scorching sun was behaving in somewhat of an unusual way. I told myself that this was not supposed to be like this, at least not at this time of the year. The heat was unusual and already intolerable. Is it because of Global Warming? Should be! Then I wondered how it would feel during the summer time, a very scary thought indeed!

I believe many international negotiations are going on in many different parts of the world. Speculations have been done about how much monetary support a country like Bangladesh should be getting. I agree to the fact that funding is necessary for Bangladesh to tackle the adverse climate change effects; necessary embankment building, infrastructure development, and a lot of researches need to be done. It is being forecasted that a 1m sea level rise will inundate one third of the land in Bangladesh, the entire Sundarban will be under water, imagine that! So, I understand the necessity of the funds that the developed countries should provide for us.

What I don't understand is that when we get the funds do we, as a country keep our mouths shut and let those who pollute, pollute some more?! Shouldn't we be raising our voice against those who are causing this dreadful climate change! Apparently Bangladesh is the Ground Zero for Global Warming induced calamity. So as a victim, Bangladesh should show objection against the developed countries and urge them to reduce their carbon emission by a significant amount. People have doubts about the time predictions, but everyone is agreeing to the fact that climate change has already started and is happening. Therefore, if nothing is done immediately to mitigate the situation then countries like Bangladesh will have no future regardless of the funds it gets.

Bangladesh faces a lot of frightening consequences because of global climate change. Among the most startling are agricultural devastation, deterioration of health and increasing number of deadly diseases, millions of climate refugees, economic downfall, and even national security issues. Imagine a situation where millions of people after losing everything they owned, moving towards the cities for a better life. Majority of these people would be either farmers or fishermen; skills which are useless in urban settings. Consequently they would be getting involved in either begging or they would be taking a more drastic measure and start mugging. Let's say, 1% of those millions of helpless people decide to commit crimes; imagine the effects! That is a scary thought indeed and we should be ready for something like it if we do not act now. Bangladesh requires a lot of funds to prepare as much as possible to face the consequences of global warming. But it also has to raise its voice against those who are actually responsible for this completely unwanted dreadful situation. The developed countries must agree to a legally binding agreement to reduce its carbon emission, and they must do so within a very short time.

"With great powers come great responsibilities" - which is very true, and the industrialized nations should realize it themselves instead of simply making movies about it. No matter how much prepared a country like ours is, climate change will eventually take its toll if the developed nations do not do something immediately; they need to reduce carbon emission and they need to do it quickly. Bangladesh definitely requires the immense funding to prepare itself for which it has absolutely no fault whatsoever; but it also needs to urge the governments of the developed countries to do what is right and reduce the pollution.

I am a final year student of North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. I love to express my opinions and my ideas through writings. It is a pleasure for me if my articles are read and appreciated for their usefulness. I am also a part of the AUTUMN foundation.

Winter Arctic Blast Proves Climate Change is Real

Climate change was a very bad choice of words for global warming believers. Climate always changes naturally making it impossible to intelligently blame climate change on global warming. Even when there is some evidence of anthropogenic or man-made warming it is impossible to tell how much. The evidence for natural weather trends causing climate change is overwhelming. Take the recent arctic blast with unusually cold weather in several warm climate states. Florida, Alabama and Texas are just a few of the southern states with global freezing. I was personally in Tennessee, Kentucky and North Carolina the week of January 3rd, 2010 where it was freezing with temperatures well below average. This is real climate change.

Global warming believers are from two different camps yet the same. One camp honestly believes there is global warming and some can be convinced otherwise when lies and fraud are revealed. The other camp has a lot to be gained financially and will easily believe lies because the love of money is more important to them then the truth. A better name for this group can be called the crooked or con camp. The con camp does not care how much money they take from tax payers, how much energy cost rise or how much they have to change the numbers. You see, as long as the con camp gets what it wants nothing else matters. Like a robber of a store, if the customer gets in the way then they may have to empty their wallet too. Or worse. Con camp practitioners will change temperature readings, falsely report their ability to improve pollution standards or anything else to achieve their objective. Cap and Trade has made it easy for some companies and foreign governments to falsify pollution improvements. This in turn can allow these companies and governments to dishonestly earn millions of dollars of carbon credits.

How these two camps are yet the same is obviously because they both believe in global warming but for totally different reasons. The proof of my statements are the percentages of climate change skeptics is growing. With the freezing arctic blast hitting the U.S.A., much of Europe, China and many other countries some others will know the futility of their global warming claims. The real alarmists who think the world will end because of global warming will always be the hardest to convince. But be aware that when summer is back with record hot temperatures these global warming alarmists will be back in full swing.

So what is to be said to these alarmists that will not listen to reason? Nothing. Just repeat the facts of natural climate change and reasonable people will be won over to the truth one by one. Global freezing weather with arctic blast across many states and countries should help convince some. Oh, but I did read somewhere that cold weather is caused by global warming. Al Gore must be laughing all the way to the bank.

http://www.globalfreezing.com

The Case for Action Against Climate Change

Climate change has become a frequently discussed issue over the past years and probably one of the principal reasons for this is that there is hardly a day without there being a major news story about unusual meteorological or weather events.

Last Summer and Autumn of 2007, we have seen floods in the US and in the UK. Drought in parts of Australia has been severe than usual and massive forest fires have affected California and Greece. However, the unexpected extent of melting in the north west passage of the Arctic by far has been most dramatic as can be seen from satellite images showing a much smaller ice cap right across the Arctic region.

The single biggest environmental threat facing the planet is global climate change. Climate change can occur naturally, and many argue that despite the majority scientific view that the cause is human activity, the cause is natural. Many argue that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere reported to have risen dramatically is somewhat exaggerated considering that the actual amount compared with the other gases is still very small. They reason that as it is still a very small proportion of our atmosphere, how could it be having the effect attributed to it?

Nevertheless, despite questions of this sort, the climate change or global warming we have seen does match the rise in human population and activity since the start of the industrial revolution. It would be a rare man indeed who would deny that. Hence, most of us are beginning to accept global warming as a reality, and furthermore that humans caused climate change is a fact.

Climate change impacts will range from affecting agriculture, further endangering food security, sea-level rise and the accelerated erosion of coastal zones, plus increasing intensity of extreme weather events. The reality of climate change, and mankind's causal role in the process, are facts that must now be universally accepted.

Further accelerating the rate of climate change is the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Sadly, those who will suffer the most are the poor, the young and the weak. Children in developing countries are likely to face the greatest risks from climate change.

Nevertheless, we should not despair. There is much to be done, and much that can be done which will make a difference. The Kyoto Protocol is the international plan to reduce climate change pollution. Europe has led the diplomatic efforts which produced the Kyoto agreement. It is far from perfect but it is the option available to us which can promote change in the developing nations.

Rich countries, like the US and Australia may not want to take action to address climate change. That is understandable, as their economies will suffer if it puts extra costs on businesses. It is argued that it is not proven yet that the extra burden will actually yield the degree of improved sustainability we need in order to recover in time to avoid the worst effects. Such ideas have been strongest in the US although gradually it is becoming less common. Former US vice-president Gore who now shares the Nobel peace prize for his work on climate change may have been instrumental in delivering the message of the disastrous effects of climate change and how man has greatly contributed to global warming.Across the whole US, local governments are also increasingly addressing climate change with their own solutions, giving much room for optimism.

It was decided at Kyoto that the developed nations would reduce their emissions, and that they would also pay the developing nations to avoid or reduce their rising emissions of carbon dioxide. It was reasoned that the best way to get this to work would be to create a market out of "carbon credits", the carbon tonnages saved by investment from the west. The market would allow the high carbon emitting companies in the developed nations offset their continued emissions at home by paying for emissions savings overseas. This would have the additional benefit of raising the income of the poorest nations.

The British government, which is convinced that climate change has to be tackled, is leading the United Kingdom in its ambitious self-set targets for emissions reductions. Many other European nations also have similar policies in place. Scandinavian countries are even more advanced in their emissions reductions programmes than the UK.

The cost associated with the effects of climate change is projected to increase substantially over time with rising temperatures, and the longer we delay the worse it will be. To state that is simple common sense.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is one of the organisations which is working globally and in the UK to raise awareness about the causes and impacts of climate change and the available solutions. Wildlife organisations stress that biodiversity will be severely affected by climate change and sea-level rise, with an increased risk of extinction of very many species.

For some species however, the climate will be good, but at great human cost. The unobtrusive mosquito's story illustrates a sobering consequence of climate change. Fewer frosts and generally warmer temperatures will allow the spread of diseases like malaria into more temperate climates. The species best suited to adapting may not be the ones people want to survive.

So, the science is clear: climate change is happening, and it is linked directly to human activity. To bring climate change to a halt, global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly. But by how much, and how soon must we change our habits?

Many of the temperature data and computer models used to predict climate change are themselves uncertain, but experts now agree that the world needs to react very quickly now, or the problem of control will become exponentially more difficult.


In general, we can reduce our demands on nature and the tonnages of carbon dioxide emitted by adopting sustainable development. Sustainable development can increase the capacity for adaptation and mitigation, and reduce vulnerability of societies to the impacts of climate change. Humans are already adapting to climate change, and further adaptation efforts will be necessary during coming decades.

There is much that can be done to stop catastrophic climate change but decisive action is needed from governments and industry now. Today, action is occurring at every level to reduce, to avoid, and to better understand the risks associated with climate change.

New technologies are part of man's adaptation and are being developed which are 'green' and will help reduce or even reverse climate change effects. These technologies will help us to be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

Delaying emission reduction measures limits the opportunities to achieve low stabilization levels and increases the risk of severe climate change impacts.
Climate Change for Better or Worse is a web site which was launched to help you understand what climate change is and how you can take action to combat it. Without action, climate change will cause the extinction of countless species and destroy some of the world's most precious ecosystems, putting millions of people at risk. Diseases, declining crop yields, and natural disasters are just a few of the other impacts of climate change that could follow and devastate the world's most vulnerable communities.

Vist the link below for additional information.



Steve Evans is an environmental consultant and expert visit his web site at the Climate Change for Better or Worse - Articles Index page

Carbon Auction To Solve Climate Change Problem Urged

The worsening effects of climate change to human lives have been raised to global concern. Most nations around the world are finding possible solutions in controlling the adverse consequences of its impact to the people.

In Norway, a finance minister recently suggested auctioning off permits to industries worldwide emitting carbon dioxide and the profits that will be collected are expected to be used in helping nations with limited resources in combating greenhouse effect.

Norwegian finance minister Kristin Halvorsen said that looking more closely to the amounts of pollutants being emitted in the atmosphere will help nations monitor the safe level emissions and control the damaging effects of global warming. If only nations will be willing to participate in this drive to control pollutants, she said, then all will take their share in shelling out expenses to help those poor countries having difficulty in combating climate change effects.

Halvorsen, during an interview, said implementing a quota system, a small portion of the auction can serve as revenues of humanitarian agencies like United Nations or Green Peace International and any other organizations. In so doing, funding for environmental awareness and activities will be strengthened and projects for poor nations will be addressed immediately.

The minister said her proposal is just one of the possible solutions to the existing problems of climate change being faced by nations worldwide. This suggestion was well received by other officials of the United Nations, but its implementation is still under negotiation. One aspect that they are dealing with at present is the way how the aid will be distributed from the rich to the poor nations. Another is the willingness of industrialized nations to take part in the program.

Currently, regulations on the carbon emissions based on the Kyoto Protocol have not made any quota or monitoring system in any nation. Countries were given the autonomy to set their own system based on their targets.




Maynard Joseph Delfin finished AB Journalism (cum laude) at the University of Santo Tomas. He has worked as book editor, deskman, copy editor and research and publications officer in leading publishing and research companies in the Philippines. Read more of his blogs at http://maynard_delfin.instablogs.com

How Credible Are Climate Change Skeptics?

The US House of Representatives has voted on clean energy and climate legislation.  Thank Goodness say most of the world!  However it has really brought out the skeptics in force.

There are two types of skeptics (or skeptics depending on what country you live in):

- The ultra conservatives who hate change even more than the rest of us and

- The geologists whose research is largely funded by the mining and especially the coal and oil industry.

We need to remember that geologists are trained to look DOWN at the soil, earth's crust and BACK to the past and Atmospheric physicists look UP at the atmosphere and at what is happening NOW and in the future.

They have totally different training.  In face many geologists do not study physics at all and there is less training in common between geologists and atmospheric physicists than a gynecologist and a dentist and you would not dream of mixing those two groups of medical professionals up.  And we are talking about climate change and our weather patterns, not simply global warming. 

In Australia we have Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist and one whose work has discredited by the majority of the scientific community because it defies some of the laws of physics, publicising his new anti climate change book.  He has labelled climate change theory an "ascientific, urban, religious, fundamentalist movement" promoted by academics and activists who would be "unemployable outside taxpayer-funded climate institutes".

Plimer says that climate change has become the new Western religion with the elements of failed European socialism and Christianity and it imposes guilt on the community, creates a fear of damnation, demands appeasement by selling indulgences to the faithful, ignores any contrary information, demonises dissenters."  This all sounds a bit UGH to me.

He is partially right in that climate always changes and there have been greater and more rapid changes in the past and we've had varying carbon levels in the past.  But what is happening now is different, the atmospheric changes have been measured and are purely caused by man made pollution.  The current problem is superimposed on top of the history described by Plimer and has a shorter time frame.

The greenhouse effect is not new   it was predicted over 30 years ago to my certain knowledge because while my kids were small I taught secondary school biology so that I had school hours and holidays to fit in with my family.  I taught about the potential for global warming then but never seriously thinking we would let things get as bad as they are now.

In Australia we have another "voice of reason" our Family First senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on climate change and apparently according to the "expert" the world is not warming now, and humans aren't changing the climate.

The government and the country's top scientists have tried to convince Senator Fielding, who holds a crucial vote in the upper house, that global warming is real.  But he's released a document setting out his position and he says "Global temperature isn't rising".

I would love the bulk of scientists who are warning us of the need for urgent action to be wrong but there is too much evidence they are right and the risk to my grandchildren is too great to take. I refuse to gamble with their future!

The naysayers are having campaigns on TV and behind closed doors to scare politicians and put our children's future at risk.

Exxon, the world's largest oil company still funds lobby groups to question global warming, despite its public pledge to cut support for climate change denial.  If ExxonMobil wants to fund climate change denial then it should be honest about it and not tell people it has stopped.

ExxonMobil's company records show they gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the National Centre for Policy Analysis in Dallas, which received $75,000, and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, which received $50,000.  Interestingly the latter was a co-sponsor of the very same climate-change skeptics conference in Washington last month attended by Family First senator Steve Fielding.

Oil and coal are big business and I guess we can expect them to be reluctant to move their investment into new areas but we should also expect our large corporations to have basic honesty. 

Jean Cannon is an enviro-entrepreneur -both a scientist and a business person and has been both for over 20 years. She is also a concerned grandmother who looks to the future her small grandchildren will face as adults if we do not start to live within our environmental means.

Jean's core message is that it is easy to be green and in going green you reduce your expenses and become more profitable. She is an energy management and sustainability consultant and has now taken her business online and world wide as part of her own carbon steps to reduce her previously large travel emissions.

Jean helps small to medium businesses worldwide to understand how they can benefit by saving costs, increasing efficiency and employee loyalty as well as accessing "green" markets with internationally recognised green certification, ISO 14001.

Get past the hype and confusion and get my Free Report to "Learn the Strategy for Going Green to Both Protect the Environment and Your Business from Risks or Profit Losses!" at http://www.enviro-action.com/online or go direct to http://enviro-action.com where you will see me interviewed in Australian National TV twice. Either way, be sure that you opt in to get my free report and regular newsletter

Supreme Court Rules on Climate Change

On April 2, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently possesses the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and that it cannot evade its statutory responsibility to exercise that authority. The majority opinion written by Associate Justice John Paul Stevens resolved the issue of whether the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. On account of that decision, the political and economic landscape has moved farther away from the scientific debate in a direction toward laying a framework for stemming greenhouse gas emissions.

In reaching the decision that the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the Supreme Court highlighted the Clean Air Act's expansive language. It noted that the Clean Air Act declares, "The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare..."

Furthermore, when it comes to greenhouse gases, the Court found no evidence of Congressional understanding that there was something sacrosanct about greenhouse gases that they should be exempted from air pollution regulation. Instead, such gases fit the the Clean Air Act's definition of an "air pollutant." That Act defines an "air pollutant" as "any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive...substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air." The sweeping nature of the language strongly suggests that it was Congress's intent at that time to give the EPA sufficient authority to respond to existing and new air pollution issues that could arise in the future.

Air pollutants that impacted property, animals, weather, and climate were all subject to the EPA's regulatory authority. In fact, the Clean Air Act defined the public "welfare" to include, among other things, "effects on...weather...and climate." As such, if one adopted a strict constructionist view that the Supreme Court should interpret laws based on the original intent of the Congress at the time those laws were drafted, one would have no choice but to conclude that Congress intended that the EPA have wide-ranging authority to regulate air pollutants, including greenhouse gases, and that such regulation could seek to mitigate weather or climate impacts.

In explaining the EPA's authority concerning greenhouse gas emissions, the Supreme Court shot down the EPA's fairly recent claim that, in its view, it lacked such authority. The Court illuminated the fairly recent origins of the EPA's position. In doing so, it referenced an April 1998 memo written by Jonathan Z. Cannon, then EPA General Counsel that affirmed that the EPA understood that it possessed such authority as distinct from its decision at the time to refrain from exercising that authority. Cannon wrote, "While CO2, as an air pollutant, is within EPA's scope of authority to regulate, the Administrator has not yet determined that CO2 meets the criteria for regulation under one or more provisions of the Act. Specific regulatory criteria under various provisions of the Act could be met if the Administrator determined under one or more of the provisions that CO2 emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to adverse effects on public health, welfare, or the environment." That view was reaffirmed by his successor, Gary S. Guzy, in testimony before the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee in October 1999. At no time subsequent to the testimony did Congress adopt legislation--binding or non-binding--that attempted to restrict or rescind the authority Cannon and Guzy described. This inaction on the part of Congress provided additional support that it was the intent of Congress at the time to give the EPA sufficiently broad authority that included the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Afterward, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA's failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In the years since the Clean Air Act was enacted and especially in the past 20 years, scientific understanding of climate change and the role greenhouse gases play in driving climate change, has advanced markedly. In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that "emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of...greenhouse gases [which] will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface." In 1995, the IPCC reaffirmed this earlier finding while cautioning, "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors." In February 2007, the IPCC concluded that there is at least a 90% certainty that human emissions of greenhouse gases have been driving the ongoing climate change.

As the scientific consensus was solidifying, Europe and various States, including California and Massachusetts, were becoming increasingly concerned about the issue. In contrast, the EPA maintained a course that could reasonably be described as "regulatory indifference." The combination of growing public concern over climate change, the observed effects of climate change, and the EPA's regulatory indifference, sparked litigation that culminated in the Supreme Court's decision. With Massachusetts arguing that the EPA's failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions was contributing to the injury inflicted on its coastal areas from a rising sea-level, the Supreme Court ordered that the EPA comply with its obligation under the Clean Air Act to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the Court narrowed the EPA's discretion to avoid such action, declaring, "Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do... If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming EPA must say so. That EPA would prefer not to regulate greenhouse gases because of some residual uncertainty...is irrelevant. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding."

In sum, the Supreme Court unambiguously declared that the EPA has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It then ordered the EPA to use that authority to begin the process, while imposing a formidable hurdle against the EPA's continuing to avoid such regulation. This precedent will likely lead to broad changes in America's regulatory framework over time. However, it likely will not lead to an economic "massacre" that some critics have predicted in the wake of the Supreme Court's opinion. In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly addressed the concern over unreasonable regulation in adding, "EPA would only regulate emissions, and even then, it would have to delay any action 'to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance.'" As a consequence, especially given the strong scientific consensus on the issue, the Supreme Court has now cleared the way for the political environment to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Don Sutherland has researched and written on a wide range of geopolitical issues.

Climate Change in Africa

Climatic changes on the African continent are threatening the valuable agricultural and tourism industries. These 2 areas make up a large part of Kenya's income. A report suggests that tourism in Africa, which makes up for three per cent of the world's tourism, may change with climate change.

The report says increased warming will induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century. The threat of flood risks and water pollution-related diseases in low lying regions and coral reef bleaching due to climate change could impact negatively on tourism. Mozambique is growing as a tourist destination, however in 2000 it was in the world news due to massive floods which took the lives of hundreds of people, these floods have occurred again in early 2007, deterring tourist from the beautiful country.

Africa is home to the best Safari parks in the world, including the Masai Mara Game Reserve in Kenya and the Kruger National Park in South Africa, but due to global warming and climate change it is expected that about 10% of the species current populations are projected to decline in coming years

By 2080 it is estimated that areas of arid and semi arid land in Africa are likely to increase by 5 - 8 %. Crop revenue in Africa could fall by up to 90 per cent by 2100, and wheat production - one of Africa's greatest sources of income - in Africa might disappear altogether by the 2080.

If sea level was to rise by only 1 meter, the coastal areas of Kenya would loss massive areas which three main crops grow in the country, namely mangoes, cashew nuts, and coconuts, loss of these crops could cost the country almost US$500 million. If sea levels do rise it is feared that costal agriculture could be at risk of inundation and soil salination.

Climate change will also affect human health in Africa. Malaria distribution has already increased in the past decade and is expected to continue to move into these previously cooler areas, it is estimated that by the 2080s an additional 80 million people will likely be at risk of malaria.

Areas of Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Burundi which have not previously had malaria could also experience changes which will allow malaria carrying mosquitoes to thrive there by the 2050s.

Humans' ability to recover from disease and illness could also be affected by climate change in Africa. Many countries are already suffering from massive HIV / Aids pandemics, and with changes in moisture and temperature in the continent diseases could become harder to fight.

More about Climate change in Africa

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Business Environmental Leadership Council

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change was established in 1998 as a non-profit, non-partisan and independent organization whose mission is to address global warming (Pew). Alongside the creation of the Pew Center was the Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC). BELC was created in the belief that businesses must develop efficient and effective solutions in addressing the climate problem. BELC has grown into the largest U.S. based association of corporations focused on addressing climate change. It currently consists of forty-one members representing $2 trillion in market capitalization and over three million employees (BELC). Many sectors are included, such as oil, gas, transportation, utilities, chemicals, and many more.

Many well known companies are part of BELC, including: Boeing, BP, GE, Hewlett-Packard Company, IBM, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Maytag, Novartis, Toyota, and many other companies with tremendous market influence (BELC). It is extremely interesting to note that the Pew Center doesn't receive money from the companies of the BELC. Instead, it receives its money from The Pew Charitable Trusts ("Pew Charitable"). The Pew Center and BELC companies hold four core beliefs. First, they accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about climate change to finally do something about it. Second, businesses can and should establish and meet emission requirements, invest in new, more efficient products, practices, and technologies. Third, they recognize that The Kyoto Protocol is the first step in the international process. They believe that the countries that have joined the Protocol must implement the market-based mechanisms that are written into the Treaty. And lastly, they believe that significant progress can be made in both addressing climate change and sustaining economic growth in the United States (BELC). Before getting into the transnational controversy that the Pew Center and BELC is engaged in, examining the problem of global warming is needed to understand the context and scope of the issue.

Global Warming is a huge problem threatening the very existence of our species on this planet. In 2002, the Pentagon predicted that a sudden change in the Earth's climate could cause

Prolonged droughts in northern Europe and the United States [that would] lead to acute food and water shortages, while typhoons and hurricanes devastate low-lying regions like Bangladesh. Africa is crippled by disease and famine; southern Europe is flooded with millions of refuges; in the Persian Gulf, Chinese and U.S. naval forces square off over access to Saudi oil fields. (Goodell 132)

This is what our own government believes will happen if the Earth's temperature goes up a couple of degrees! Ross Gelbspan points out that since the start of industrialization in the 19th century, the human thirst for fossil fuels has gotten to the point where most scientists believe that global temperatures have risen at least 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century ("Boiling" 24-27). In addition, the evidence shows that carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) over the last hundred years to about 380ppm today ("Denial" 16a). That means that within the next hundred years, if we keep up our pace, carbon dioxide levels will go up to a lot more than 480ppm because the amount of pollutants and greenhouse gases we are using keeps going up and up. The Pew Center has a policy program that does four main things to try to help the international and domestic community (the United States is responsible for 25% of global greenhouse emissions) clean up it's act. First, it produces independent, non-partisan analyses of global warming policy alternatives in the United States and abroad. Second, it educates key decision-makers about policy options. Third, it encourages the domestic and international community to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. And lastly, they produce reports, policy briefs, working papers and Legislative/Administrative Proposals (Pew).

The Pew Center is located in Arlington, Virginia. Its measures and activities extend throughout the globe, especially because global warming is an issue affecting every nation. How can the world trust the Pew Center and BELC when the BELC companies are comprised of so many companies historically known to be huge polluters? This seems like a conflict of interest domestically. The United States hasn't signed the Kyoto Protocol, and the Pew Center admits "The Kyoto Protocol is the first step in the international process" (Pew). When the President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Eileen Clauseen, was asked why the U.S., the largest producer of carbon dioxide, has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, her response was, "...no, it has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. President Bush has also made it clear that the U.S. will not ratify the Protocol..." Clauseen goes on to say that

Most countries were waiting for the outcome of the November meeting in The Hague before moving forward with ratification. They are now awaiting decisions that might be made in Bonn. But whether enough countries ratify it for it to enter into force is an open question. The EU has indicated that it will ratify, and other may as well. It will take 55 countries representing 55 percent of developed country emissions for the treaty to enter into force" ("Global").

Clauseen has acknowledged that it will take a substantial effort to reduce the current carbon dioxide levels in the air. It's a complicated and controversial issue. On one hand, you have developed countries reducing their emissions and finding energy alternatives. We even have the United States acknowledging the threat of global warming. However, a huge problem lies within developing countries. These countries, located in regions such as South American and Asia, will add to the carbon dioxide level as they economically improve and as the standard of living for its people increases (Balaam 463). But this increase comes at a cost. We may see a "second wave" of industrialization sweep the developing world and create more climate problems. Or, the industrialized nations must help developing countries economically expand without destroying the world. However, creating "green and clean" infrastructure in developing nations becomes a huge monetary issue.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the BELC are engaged in a transnational controversy that extends all over the globe and includes extremely poor third world countries as well as very rich countries. They are ultimately trying to reduce and eliminate global warming. Global warming affects all nations, and all nations have contributed to the problem. Thus, the key question is whether or not you can trust the Pew Center, and especially the BELC, in finding a solution. There are many actors involved in this initiative. Because the United States only contains 4% of the world's population yet emits 25% ("Global"), it's a huge actor because this problem is of global proportions. The leaders of many top businesses are also key actors because their companies are partly responsible for the environmental problems we face. Herein lies a conflict of interest and an open door for criticism. Many of these top businesses are a part of the BELC. Most of these companies are huge polluters and are, according to the Pew Center and BELC, trying to cut down on their emissions and come up with new alternative energy sources. How sincere are these companies in actually addressing global warming? Are they willing to accept the financial losses associated with being 'green' and 'clean'? Other actors include all the heads of nations, NGOs, environmental and green groups, and even every single individual who makes an effort to reduce pollution.

In examining the international political economy of the global environment, there are four aspects of environmental problems in general: "...the environment as a communal good, the increasingly global scope of environmental problems, the proliferation of actors involved in these issues, and the multidimensional makeup and linkage between the immediate causes and effects of environmental issues" (453). A very positive example was when Alcan joined BELC on October 18. "Alcan is a multinational, market-drive company and a global leader in aluminum and packaging...aerospace applications, bauxite mining and alumina processing" (Michaud). Alcan has had great success in reducing its greenhouse gases. It has proven that it's possible to address global climate change while maintaining competitive excellence, growth, and profitability.

The reason Alcan is such a positive example is because

The principal vehicle for this effort is Alcan's GHG emissions reduction program, TARGET, which was implemented in 2001 and is a key component of the Company's Environment, Health and Safety (EHS FIRST) management system. In TARGET's first four years, Alcan's cumulative GHG reduction objective was set at 575,000 tonnes of CO2e. By the end of 2004, Alcan far surpassed this by recording a reduction of 2.9 million tones of CO2e (Michaud)

This one company, a member of BELC, set its own policy and reduced its emissions 2 million tones more than its original goal! It is definitely interesting to note that according to Anik Michaud, the Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the United States' largest philanthropies, established the Pew Center. It has an influential voice in improving the environment and is dedicated to providing credible information and innovative solutions to address global climate change. Maybe the Pew Center is sincere in its efforts to help global warming, seeing how it was actually setup by a charity. It's important to understand some of the IPE problems regarding global climate change before examining what the Pew Center has done about it.

The environment has been severely abused as a result of economic growth, industrialization, trade, and investment policies of the developed nations. As more international trade and investment occurs, more industrially manufactured products and services are produced that require vast amounts of energy resources (Balaam 460). Over the last hundred years, the countries that are now industrialized have become so at the cost of the environment. A key environmental problem is in regards to growth in developing nations and there effect on environmental problems. This is a key reason why the Bush administration hasn't signed the Kyoto Protocol; the protocol doesn't call for an equal proportion of emission reductions for industrialized and developing nations. However, developing nations counter and say that they would mean vast amounts of international aid in order to economically and industrially prosper and curb emissions at the same time. It is interesting to note "Many of the newly industrialized countries (NICs), such as China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, and India among other, have also been criticized for their failure to take the environment into account (Balaam 460).

Thus, one can see that the Pew Center must address the climate issue globally and that BELC is needed in order to actually accomplish the reduction of greenhouse gases. What the Pew Center has done is put together a group of many top companies that operate in many countries. Because the Pew Center's goal is addressing global climate change, having all of these top companies pledging to do there part makes the Pew Center more credible and puts them at an advantage over other environmental groups because it has ties to these forty-one companies that represent over $2 trillion in market capitalization. As Alcan illustrated, these companies are actually doing their part in curbing emissions while still maintaining economic growth.

After extensive research, it's fair to say there are no major critics of The Pew Center on Global Climate Change. As a matter of fact, a Pew Center quote was used to debunk a critic of global warming in a PBS article. A huge critic of global warming is Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Halifx, Nova Scotia. He wrote "Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public...and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are" ("Debating"). The PBS article used this quote from the Pew Center to debunk Professor Chylek

Addressing climate change is no simple task. To protect ourselves, our economy, and our land from the adverse effects of climate change, we must ultimately dramatically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases...shifting away from a century's legacy of unrestrained fossil fuel use and its associated emissions in pursuit of more efficient and renewable sources of energy. Such a transformation will require society to engage in a concerted effort, over the near and long-term, to seek out opportunities and design actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ("Debating")

Most outsiders and environmental groups see the Pew Center as a step in the right direction. They also view the BELC as a collection of companies who are trying to make a difference. There are always going to be environmentalists so out of touch with reality that they believe every single industry or machine that pollutes should be destroyed and that every single area that is not used by humans should be reforested and inhabited by animals. They don't realize the economic catastrophe this would cause: Millions would lose jobs because the companies they work for would be closed because they release emissions, millions would starve. This isn't worth cleaner air and more animals flocking about. Never mind losing jobs, because cars would be illegal, how would anybody get to work in the first place? The emphasis is clear. This is the extreme side of the spectrum. The other extreme side is polluting and profiting so much that eventually, the planet would become financial rich but uninhabitable. Thus, the Pew Center's approach is correct. Addressing the issue while sustaining economic growth is complicated but has proven to be possible.

It seems that The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is a very reputable and positive organization that is using its resources to address global warming. The research has shown that different sources all agree that both global warming is a huge threat and that the Pew Center is positively addressing it. The Pew Center receives its funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Trusts will invest $204 million in fiscal year 2006 to provide organizations and citizens with fact-based research and practical solutions for challenging issues ("Pew Charitable").

A great deal of evidence shows that the BELC are actually making a difference and curbing their emissions. Some companies are even exceeding Kyoto goals. Because the BELC companies openly admit that enough is known about global warming to address it, they actively participate in emission curbing activities. For example, BELC member BP Amoco "plans to bring its own carbon emissions to 10 percent below its 1990 level by 2010, exceeding the Kyoto goal of roughly 5 percent for industrial countries. ("Social"). Dupont, another BELC member, has already cut its 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent. They plan to reduce them by 65 percent by 2010. This also proves that meeting the Kyoto goal is not only possible, but also surpassing it is as well ("Social"). Other BELC companies, such as Toyota and Boeing are advancing company-wide programs for reducing carbon emission. Toyota was the first automaker to mass-produce a hybrid car, the Prius ("Social"). Some BELC companies are also looking for alternative energy sources. BP Amoco and Dutch Shell have been investing heavily in new sources of energy. "BP Amoco is now a leading manufacturer of solar cells. Shell, already a major player in both wind and solar cells, is also investing heavily in hydrogen and will likely open the world's first chain of hydrogen stations in Iceland" ("Social").

With the evidence presented, it's quite evident that a coalition of top companies, contrary to what one might think, are actually addressing the global climate issue. The deeper political economic issues behind all of this include political pressure from companies (non-BELC) that lobby hard for lax industrial regulations, environmental groups that lobby the opposite, the need to address this issue with every single country in the world, the need to unite with every country to fight this battle, and lastly, addressing the climate issue while still growing economically. There are many actors involved from many different perspectives. From the industrial side, business leaders are trying to lobby for regulations that help them. From the environmental side, organizations like the Pew Center are main actors because they are independent, non-partisan, and in this case, encompass many top companies that have been proven to take measures into their own hands and address the global climate issue. There are other actors as well, such as researchers who are trying to find that next big energy alternative, and each individual, who is ultimately affected by decisions that are made by the upper levels, because environmental policy and economic issues go hand in hand. In answering cui bono, one must first realize that The Pew Center on Global Climate Change isn't looking to make a profit; The Pew Charitable Trusts contains billions of dollars. The BELC represents over $2 trillion in market capitalization and 3 million workers, so profit isn't a big deal to them. The environment benefits. The people who live on this planet benefit. When addressing Global Warming and than asking cui bono, the answer is "Everybody."

There are many interesting things I discovered as I researched the Pew Center and BELC. At first, I thought that a center that is comprised of so many companies that have historically been polluters made me think that they are in this for some kind of profit or publicity. However, as I dove into the information, I began to discover some interesting things. The Pew Center is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, thus BELC companies don't contribute at all to the Pew Center. The Pew Center and BELC have formed a mutually advantageous relationship not centered on money. My research has showed that both The Pew Center and BELC companies heavily address the climate issue. This issue is very controversial to begin with. Even though all scientists believe global warming is occurring, not all agree that it's a big threat. Some believe there is no need to curb economic growth to address this issue. However, the Pew Center and BELC realize that the evidence shows there really is a threat. Globally, it's a very complicated situation. Poor nations don't have the means to help global warming, and this is why a system needs to be setup where the international community helps these poor nations economically advance without destroying the environment. Industrialized nations must unite together to use their resources to rescue the planet from the condition The Age of Oil put us in. At first look, when you see an organization partnered up with very big companies, you would believe that it is not a good thing for the environment. But if you look at all they have done over the years, you can clearly see the BELC companies regularly exceed Kyoto goals and that the Pew Center regularly pushes for greenhouse gas emissions and even gives proposals to the United States government that fights this issue.

Works Cited

Balaam, David N., and Michael Veseth. Introduction to International Political Economy.

BELC. 12 Dec. 2005. Pew Center. 13 Dec. 2005

http://www.pewclimate.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc/ "Debating 'Global Warming'." 22 Apr. 2005. PBS 13 Dec. 2005

Gelbspan, Ross. "Our denial is at Category 5." USA Today 26 Sept. 2005.

Gelbspan, Ross. "Boiling Point." Nation 8 Aug. 2005.

Center. 23 Dec. 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/advertisers/pew062701.htm

Goodell, Jeff. "WAS IT GLOBAL WARMING?" Rolling Stone Dec. 2005.

Michaud, Anik. "Alcan Joins [BELC] to address global climate change." CNW Group. 18 Oct. 2005

Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 12 Dec. 2005. Pew Center. 13 Dec. 2005

http://www.pewclimate.org The Pew Charitable Trusts. 12 Dec. 2005. Pew Center. 13 Dec. 2005

Social Funds. 26 July 2000. "Global Climate Coalition Cools Down." 13 Dec. 2005

For Discounted Land For Sale, Visit Silver Discount Properties. You can buy land for huge discounts, and even sell your own land!.