The Nordonia News -
The climate changes occurring thoughout the world have been predicted and debated over the past decade. Yet, as more and more evidence emerges as to reality of climate change that implications are becoming scarier. This poses a serious issue to the emerging campaign for control of the General Assembly. The implications (detailed in the AP story below) are sobering.
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley, Ap Special Correspondent – Sat Feb 21, 6:57 pm ET
CAPE TOWN, South Africa – If we don't deal with climate change decisively, "what we're talking about then is extended world war," the eminent economist said.
His audience Saturday, small and elite, had been stranded here by bad weather and were talking climate. They couldn't do much about the one, but the other was squarely in their hands. And so, Lord Nicholas Stern was telling them, was the potential for mass migrations setting off mass conflict.
"Somehow we have to explain to people just how worrying that is," the British economic thinker said.
Stern, author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, was one of a select group of two dozen — environment ministers, climate negotiators and experts from 16 nations — scheduled to fly to Antarctica to learn firsthand how global warming might melt its ice into the sea, raising ocean levels worldwide.
Their midnight flight was scrubbed on Friday and Saturday because of high winds on the southernmost continent, 3,000 miles from here. While waiting at their Cape Town hotel for the gusts to ease down south, chief sponsor Erik Solheim, Norway's environment minister, improvised with group exchanges over coffee and wine about the future of the planet.
"International diplomacy is all about personal relations," Solheim said. "The more people know each other, the less likely there will be misunderstandings."
Understandings will be vital in this "year of climate," as the world's nations and their negotiators count down toward a U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December, target date for concluding a grand new deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol — the 1997 agreement, expiring in 2012, to reduce carbon dioxide and other global-warming emissions by industrial nations.
Solheim drew together key players for the planned brief visit to Norway's Troll Research Station in East Antarctica.
Trying on polar outfits for size on Friday were China's chief climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua, veteran U.S. climate envoy Dan Reifsnyder, and environment ministers Hilary Benn of Britain and Carlos Minc Baumfeld of Brazil.
Later, at dinner, the heavyweights heard from smaller or poorer nations about the trials they face as warming disrupts climate, turns some regions drier, threatens food production in poor African nations.
Jose Endundo, environment minister of Congo, said he recently visited huge Lake Victoria in nearby Uganda, at 80,000 square kilometers (31,000 square miles) a vital source for the Nile River, and learned the lake level had dropped 3 meters (10 feet) in the past six years — a loss blamed in part on warmer temperatures and diminishing rains.
In the face of such threats, "the rich countries have to give us a helping hand," the African minister said.
But it was Stern, former chief World Bank economist, who on Saturday laid out a case to his stranded companions in sobering PowerPoint detail.
If the world's nations act responsibly, Stern said, they will achieve "zero-carbon" electricity production and zero-carbon road transport by 2050 — by replacing coal power plants with wind, solar or other energy sources that emit no carbon dioxide, and fossil fuel-burning vehicles with cars running on electric or other "clean" energy.
Then warming could be contained to a 2-degree-Celsius (3.4-degree-Fahrenheit) rise this century, he said.
But if negotiators falter, if emissions reductions are not made soon and deep, the severe climate shifts and sea-level rises projected by scientists would be "disastrous."
It would "transform where people can live," Stern said. "People would move on a massive scale. Hundreds of millions, probably billions of people would have to move if you talk about 4-, 5-, 6-degree increases" — 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. And that would mean extended global conflict, "because there's no way the world can handle that kind of population move in the time period in which it would take place."
Melting ice, rising seas, dwindling lakes and war — the stranded ministers had a lot to consider. But many worried, too, that the current global economic crisis will keep governments from transforming carbon-dependent economies just now. For them, Stern offered a vision of working today on energy-efficient economies that would be more "sustainable" in the future.
"The unemployed builders of Europe should be insulating all the houses of Europe," he said.
After he spoke, Norwegian organizers announced that the forecast looked good for Stern and the rest to fly south on Sunday to further ponder the future while meeting with scientists in the forbidding vastness of Antarctica.
4 comments:
The McFarland Party believes that the problem of global warming has been swept under the rug fo too long. The MP is going to not only reduce on global warming with lessening harmful admissions from transportation, but also invest in research on ways to reduce or even stop global warming. These jobs are part of the economic recovery plan for the Franklin States, the most pressing issue in the Franklin States. The MP is looking to fix all problems with the most benefits for all citizens(this current job creation and global warming decrease plan). The MP is fighting to make the Franklin States a force to be recognized. The MP is working to make the most efficient government for the people, and use policies to help the masses and not the elite.
The ReaganKnights believe that global warming has been exaggerated and is not as much of a threat as most tell us. Studies show that manmade CO2 accounts for only one tenth of one percent of the gases in Earth's atmosphere. Al Gore's mansion uses more electricity in 30 days than most houses do in a year. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? We believe that "going green" will hurt our economy. However, energy efficiency is good for homes and businesses. We will work to develop more nuclear power plants, which are safe, clean, and efficient.
There is no time like the present. And at this very moment, it is time for the Franklin States of America to step forward and take their place as an international leader. One of the best ways that could be accomplished would be to take a strong stance on global warming.
The many people called together to experience first-hand the effects and consequences of global warming understand that it is not an exaggerated issue. It is something that, if not taken care of now, will haunt our children, and our children’s children.
The Fanatical Party understands that these are hard economic times, but what could be better for our country’s future than to create “green” jobs that create “green” houses, companies, and lives? Investing in solar, wind, and alternative fuels will drastically reduce carbon emissions, therefore containing much of the warming effects. Not only are nuclear power plants expensive and time-consuming to build, they produce nuclear waste that is radioactive and is not biodegradable.
Taylor Jeromos, The Fanatical Party Leader and Spokesperson, to the citizens of The Franklin States of America
In response to Scott:
Though manmade CO2 is scarce within the atmosphere at the moment, over time, as populations increase and so does the use of fossil fuel, we will see more and more changes to the current temperature. Global Warming is real. Research has shown that temperatures have dramatically increased in the past few years, so the F.S. needs to stop procrastinating and act now. By investing in alternatice fuels, the F.S. is killing three birds with one stone. We will bring the economy out of the crisis it is now facing while joining the movement in bettering our environment. All of this and the fact that by investing in many different alternative fuels, energy prices will stay at a consistent low.
When speaking of nuclear power plants you had my agreement at efficient, but lost me at safe and reliable. Safety is the the main issue to look at with nuclear power. If I'm not mistaken, in Russia there was an actually explosion of a power plant. Even now, decades later, that city in Russia is still closed due to radiation. That does not sound safe to me. And there was even an example in the U.S. in which radiation had actually escaped one of the power plants, though no harm was done, it shows us that even a nation as great as the U.S. can make mistakes. Now is it reliable? In your reaction to Stimulus Plan Passes in the United States you stated alternative fuels as being "expensive" and "unreliable". Contradictory? Maybe. Hypocritical? Possibly. Unreliable? Yes.
You also tell us that "going green" will hurt our economy but you fail to specify how this will hurt our economy and in what way it will hurt our economy. Could you be more specific? And even if it did hurt our economy, in your theory of "Do Nothing", you state that, "...the economy will only recover if no government action is taken...", so won't the economy bounce back anyway? Throwing out random phrases will not gain my respect during this election. Please back the statements you choose to so boldly throw around. Is the rest of your party going to do this same thing if your party leader is elected Prime Minister? Will he tell our people that everything is ok and give no reason as to why? And why is it that the leader of your party has yet to comment on any stories? Is he mute? Is he illiterate? Or does he just not care? Any of these would raise much concern within me and as I'm sure, the Franklin people. As I would hope you have the best intentions for this country, my hope strays farther and farther as I come into contact with more and more of your view points. But you can only judge a man by his history. And your history, my sir, seems muddled and shady.
Post a Comment