Sydney's Forum Home

Search
   
Members

Calendar

Help

Home
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 


Politics of Climate Change
 Moderated by: sydneyst  

New Topic

Reply

Print
AuthorPost
sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Sep 27th, 2017 06:55 pm

Quote

Reply
Dirty Little Story of Biofuels, Merkel and Climate Change
Includes Story about Rainforest Loss

http://www.monbiot.com/2017/09/21/the-smog-chancellor/



excerpt:


Merkel and the European Commission ignored repeated warnings that the likely consequences would include malnutrition and massive environmental destruction, as land was converted from forests or food crops to fuel production. The European biofuel rule is now a major driver of one of the world’s greatest environmental disasters: the razing of the Indonesian rainforests and their replacement with oil palm.

Not only has this wiped out vast and magnificent ecosystems, and the orangutans, tigers, rhinos, gibbons and thousands of other species they supported; but it has also, by burning trees and oxidising peat, caused emissions far higher than those produced by fossil fuels. What makes this history especially bitter is that the target she derailed in 2007 was the one that had first been proposed, in 1994, by a German environment minister called – let me think –  ah yes, Angela Merkel.

Last edited on Wed Sep 27th, 2017 07:07 pm by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat May 2nd, 2015 02:15 pm

Quote

Reply
Fossil Fuel Industry Funding of Climate Denial

full detail at http://divestharvard.com/the-fossil-fuel-industry/



Last edited on Sat May 2nd, 2015 02:33 pm by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Sep 18th, 2012 09:36 am

Quote

Reply
Koch Sponsor Theory Repudiated on Monitoring Bias

http://desmogblog.com/urban-heat-island-favorite-skeptic-myth-debunked-again-time-koch-funded-science

Urban Heat Island – Favorite Skeptic Myth Debunked Again, This Time By Koch-Funded Science

Climate skeptics are once again proven wrong, and this time even Koch money can't skew the facts.
 
Have you heard the one from climate deniers that the “Urban Heat Island” effect has ruined all the weather stations and made the data they collect completely useless? The deniers claim any warming trend seen from these temperature recordings is from concrete buildings and asphalt roads – and that climate change is therefore a myth?
 
That would be false. Says whom, you ask?  How about a new Koch-funded scientific study?
 
An investigation by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project released yesterday once again thoroughly dispatches the skeptic myth about the “Urban Heat Island” (UHI) effect.

Many global warming skeptics have long claimed that the urban heat island effect is so strong that it has skewed temperature measurements indicating that global warming is happening. The skeptics argue that efforts to curb global warming pollution are therefore unnecessary, citing their pet theory that surface temperature stations were swallowed by, or moved closer to, cities, thus skewing surface temperature records on the whole.
 
The BEST papers – which still must go through rigorous peer review – confirm what climate scientists have correctly stated previously, demonstrating without doubt that “very rural” temperature stations miles from any new “UHI” towns or cities have also recorded warming at 0.9 degrees Celsius over the last century. 



To put it plainly, even the Kochtopus denial machine will have a tough time trying to twist this Koch-funded project’s findings. It looks like the Kochs backed the wrong horse here - one wonders whether they thought Hadley CRU would be proven wrong?

Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2015 01:41 pm by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Jan 4th, 2012 11:34 am

Quote

Reply
David Attenborough: Frozen Planet was not alarmist about climate change

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/03/david-attenborough-frozen-planet-climate-change

Attenborough hits back at claims made by former chancellor Nigel Lawson that natural history series lacked objectivity

Sir David Attenborough in Frozen Planet. Photograph: BBC

excerpts:

Sir
David Attenborough has hit back at claims made by the former chancellor Nigel Lawson that his recent natural history series Frozen Planet promoted climate change "alarmism" and lacked objectivity.

Ahead of the final
BBC episode in early December, Attenborough wrote a personal plea in the Radio Times warning of the impending dangers of global warming, in which he pointed to scientific evidence that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. The article prompted criticism from Lawson who is a prominent climate sceptic. He wrote in the same issue that "when it comes to global warming [Attenborough] seems to prefer sensation to objectivity" and that "Sir David's alarmism is sheer speculation".

Speaking to the Guardian, Attenborough strongly refuted the suggestion that he lacked objectivity: "I am very, very cautious about making sensationalist claims about how disastrous continuing change will be. The most extreme and sensationalist claim I make, or statement that I make, is that a rising sea level that keeps rising – and it looks as though it could well do – will flood some of the greatest cities in the world, including London. It is an accurate statement and not an exaggerated one."

The series, which ran from late October to early December 2011 – and earned consolidated viewing figures of 11 million – included a final episode,
On Thin Ice, in which the presenter highlighted the impact of global warming on the polar regions – a task he says he finds far from enjoyable.

"I wish that I didn't have to educate people on climate change," said Attenborough. "I would much rather make films which are simply unadulterated pleasure in the natural world. But if you are aware of what's happening to the natural world then you have to have some sense of responsibility. People should be aware of the danger that it is in. It's not the sort of programme that I particularly want to make for enjoyment's sake. It's the kind of programme that I have to make, otherwise it would be irresponsible."

There was also speculation that the episode would be dropped when aired in America, due its focus on global warming. However, the Discovery Channel has confirmed it will air the entire series in the US in March 2012.

When questioned on the likelihood that American audiences would not want to see the final episode, Attenborough said: "I don't know how solid a decision that was, but I do know that when I was an administrator and we used to buy from overseas, we decided how much of it we wanted to show. Of course if you make the programme, then you're jolly sorry that they aren't going to use it." He adds. "It was tempting to say that it was reactionary North American people who don't believe in climate change, but I think that was probably quite unjustified. I would have regretted it had it happened, but in the end of course it didn't."

Last edited on Wed Jan 4th, 2012 11:38 am by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Dec 20th, 2011 01:25 pm

Quote

Reply
Amy Goodman and Greenpeace:

Dirty Dozen Strive to Impede Climate Action

Hide Behind Greenwashing at Durban

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/07/derailing-durban-climate-change-conference

excerpts




 
The Indigenous Environment Network stages a protest against Shell outside its Durban refinery during the UN Climate Change Conference 2011. Photograph: Nic Bothma/EPA

High above the pavement, overlooking Durban's famous South Beach and the pounding surf of the Indian Ocean, and just blocks from the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where up to 20,000 people gathered, seven activists fought against the wind to unfurl a banner that read "Listen to the People, Not the Polluters". It was no simple task. Despite the morning sun and blue sky, the wind was ferocious, and the group hanging the banner wasn't exactly welcome. They were with Greenpeace, hanging off the roof of the Protea Hotel Edward.

Inside, executives gathered at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), an organisation that touts itself as "a CEO-led organisation of forward-thinking companies that galvanizes the global business community to create a sustainable future for business, society and the environment".


Down at street level, as the police gathered and scores held signs and banners and sang in solidarity with the climbers, Kumi Naidoo lambasted the WBCSD, labeling it one of Greenpeace's "Dirty Dozen".

see:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2011/DirtyDozeninDurban.pdf


"Our goal here today was to highlight how governments are being unduly influenced by a handful of corporations who are trying to adversely influence the climate negotiations that are happening here in Durban. They are holding the climate hostage."

Later, at the UN conference inside the Alfred Luthuli International Conference Center, named after an early president-general of the African National Congress and the first African to win the Nobel Peace Prize, Naidoo told me about that morning's action:


"We are not opposed to the idea of dialogue with corporations, but clearly corporations are not actually moving as fast as we need them to move and, in fact, are actually holding us back. Therefore, we think that calling them out, naming and shaming them, is critically necessary so that people know why these climate talks here are not actually going as fast as we need them to go."
 

The "Dirty Dozen" in Durban include Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and BASF, along with industry trade groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, the WBCSD and the American Petroleum Institute.

Geenpeace highlighted these corporations and corporate umbrella groups for their presence in Durban, and for their actions throughout the global-climate-change negotiating process, in undermining meaningful progress. The full report, titled "Who's holding us back? How carbon-intensive industry is preventing effective climate legislation", details how these corporations not only derail national legislation on climate change across the globe, but are also gaining privileged access to the global negotiations like these crucial United Nations talks in Durban.

Former South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu addressed a rally before the summit, describing climate change as a "huge enemy … We are saying this is the last chance: please, for goodness' sake, take the right decision, this is the only world we have, the only home we have, if it is destroyed, we all sink." Former Irish President Mary Robinson added:

"People are suffering because of the impact of climate change, those who are suffering most are not responsible, so the rich world has to take its responsibility, we have to have a continuation of Kyoto, a track that leads to a fair, ambitious and binding agreement, and we have to do it here in Durban."
There is a growing consensus here in Durban that the United States is the main impediment to progress at these crucial talks. A consortium of 16 of the major environmental groups in the US wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who directly oversees the US climate negotiations. They pointed out that, while President Barack Obama originally campaigned on a promise to lead in global climate negotiations, "three years later, America risks being viewed not as a global leader on climate change, but as a major obstacle to progress."

The fossil-fuel industry exerts enormous influence over the US government, and over the US public, with tens of millions of dollars on lobbying and PR campaigns to shape public opinion. Kumi Naidoo, who has been jailed many times for his
activism, compared the struggle against apartheid to the fight against climate change:


"If people around the world can actually unite – trade unions, social movements, religious leaders, environmental groups and so on, which we saw in the march on Saturday – I pray and hope that we will have a similar kind of miracle to get these climate negotiations to deliver a fair, ambitious and legally binding outcome."


 
• Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

© 2011 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate

Last edited on Tue Dec 20th, 2011 01:39 pm by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Oct 19th, 2011 03:31 pm

Quote

Reply

Attached Image (viewed 747 times):

fergieoccupy5jpeg.jpg

Last edited on Thu Oct 20th, 2011 02:58 am by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Sep 15th, 2011 05:48 am

Quote

Reply
Is It Weird Enough Yet?

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: September 13, 2011 

 
Every time I listen to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota talk about how climate change is some fraud perpetrated by scientists trying to gin up money for research, I’m always reminded of one of my favorite movie lines that Jack Nicholson delivers to his needy neighbor who knocks on his door in the film “As Good As It Gets.” “Where do they teach you to talk like this?” asks Nicholson. “Sell crazy someplace else. We’re all stocked up here.” 

 Thanks Mr. Perry and Mrs. Bachmann, but we really are all stocked up on crazy right now. I mean, here is the Texas governor rejecting the science of climate change while his own state is on fire — after the worst droughts on record have propelled wildfires to devour an area the size of Connecticut. As a statement by the Texas Forest Service said last week: “No one on the face of this earth has ever fought fires in these extreme conditions.”

Remember the first rule of global warming. The way it unfolds is really “global weirding.” The weather gets weird: the hots get hotter; the wets wetter; and the dries get drier. This is not a hoax. This is high school physics, as Katharine Hayhoe, a climatologist in Texas, explained on Joe Romm’s invaluable Climateprogress.org blog: “As our atmosphere becomes warmer, it can hold more water vapor. Atmospheric circulation patterns shift, bringing more rain to some places and less to others. For example, when a storm comes, in many cases there is more water available in the atmosphere and rainfall is heavier. When a drought comes, often temperatures are already higher than they would have been 50 years ago, and so the effects of the drought are magnified by higher evaporation rates.” 

CNN reported on Sept. 9 that “Texas had the distinction of experiencing the warmest summer on record of any state in America, with an average of 86.8 degrees. Dallas residents sweltered for 40 consecutive days of grueling 100-plus degree temperatures. ... Temperature-related energy demands soared more than 22 percent above the norm this summer, the largest increase since record-keeping of energy demands began more than a century ago.” 

 There is still much we don’t know about how climate change will unfold, but it is no hoax. We need to start taking steps, as our scientists urge, “to manage the unavoidable and avoid the unmanageable.” If you want a quick primer on the latest climate science, tune into “24 Hours of Reality.” It is a worldwide live, online update that can be found at climaterealityproject.org and will be going on from Sept. 14-15, over 24 hours, with contributors from 24 time zones.

Last edited on Thu Sep 15th, 2011 05:52 am by sydneyst

sydneyst
Administrator


Joined: Mon Mar 10th, 2008
Location: Seattle, USA
Posts: 1082
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Sep 5th, 2011 07:15 pm

Quote

Reply
House Republicans Seek to Remove U.S. Funding for UN Climate Efforts


Their primary targets are the IPCC and UNFCCC, key programs designed to educate policymakers about climate science and slow warming worldwide
By Elizabeth McGowan, InsideClimate News
Aug 26, 2011




Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) has introduced an amendment to restrict U.S. funding used to mitigate the impact of global warming overseas/Credit: Gage Skidmore
WASHINGTON—House Republicans are applying a search and destroy tactic to international funding for global warming this budget season. It goes like this: Ax any line items with the words "climate change."

Their primary targets are a pair of crucial United Nations initiatives designed to slow warming worldwide and educate policymakers about the evolving science of climate change.

On the chopping block for 2012 are millions in funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's leading scientific advisory body on global warming. The IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore in 2007, and governments often use its periodic reviews of climate risks to set targets for reducing carbon emissions.

The GOP-led effort would also cut all U.S. funding for the 19-year-old U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main forum for the global effort to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases. UNFCCC climate treaty talks are mired in longstanding rich-poor rifts and mistrust of the United States for its refusal to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and accept binding emissions limits.

Those who support the cutbacks say they are a sign of severe belt-tightening times. But critics say Republicans are using the budget crisis to hide their loathing of any kind of climate initiative.

Even though eliminating funding for IPCC and UNFCCC has little chance of gaining traction in the Democrat-majority Senate, some worry that the negative messages these efforts are sending will reverberate around the globe and neuter this nation’s ability to lead on the climate front.

"We cannot disengage from the world," said Jake Schmidt, who directs international climate policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy organization. "Yes, these are tough fiscal times but zeroing out these funds is not going to put us back in the black."

But Nicolas Loris, an environmental policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said scaling back funds for global warming is a fiscal necessity.

"When we're trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt, it's necessary to consolidate and prioritize where we're getting our biggest bang for the buck," Loris said. "If the IPCC has the clout people say it does," perhaps countries in Europe or elsewhere could pick up the funding. "I don't think the IPCC is going to disappear."

He added that the financial squeeze shouldn't jeopardize this country's status as a leader on climate change.

...One-Two Punch

The strategy to gut U.S. international global warming funding progressed from talk to action in the form of a one-two July legislative punch before Congress left town for its August recess.

The first punch, which could very well pass the full House, is the appropriations bill passed by the subcommittee responsible for funding the State Department and foreign operations. The second punch came from Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.). He attached an amendment to a separate House authorization bill that would restrict funding to mitigate the impact of global warming overseas. Mack serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and chairs its Western Hemisphere subpanel. His amendment, more symbolic than realistic, is considered less likely to pass.

http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110825/ipcc-unfccc-climate-change-house-republicans-budget-appropriations-state-department

Last edited on Mon Sep 5th, 2011 07:18 pm by sydneyst


 Current time is 11:34 am




Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez