Fuente: The Guardian
Comentario: Tenemos nuestras serias dudas de que realmente haya despertado. Ahora bien, es cierto que se habla cada día más del tema. ¿Serán los remordimientos de conciencia?

The year the world woke up

Climate change In 2006, the public, politicians and industry have all shown significant signs that tackling global warming is on the agenda after scientific studies showed the pace of change gathering speed. John Vidal reports

Not before time, the west awoke in 2006 to the vast economic, political and social implications of climate change - and twigged that it presented as many opportunities as threats to humanity. As temperature and rainfall records tumbled, and unseasonal, intense heatwaves, droughts and floods struck many countries, local and national politicians scrambled to beef up their green policies and credentials, some businesses found they could make a packet from trading carbon, and a broad-based global social and ecological movement emerged, linking climate change to social justice, as well as to poverty and lifestyles.

A plethora of scientific reports underpinned the global phenomenon throughout the year, which was officially the warmest ever recorded in Britain and the sixth warmest the world has known. It was, globally, a tad cooler than 2005, the hottest ever, but it continued a trend: the eight hottest years ever recorded have been in the last 10 years.

A succession of alarming reports came out. James Lovelock, the British scientist who devised the Gaia theory - that living organisms affect the environment - forecast planetary wipeout; government studies showed that Australia, in the middle of a "1,000-year" drought, would get even hotter and drier, and that worldwide crop yields would decrease. The Gulf Stream, which warms northern Europe, was found to be slowing, the tundra to be melting faster than previously thought, and satellite images showed that major rivers of Africa are carrying significantly less water than before. Monsoons were even more erratic across the Indian sub-continent, Arctic sea ice was predicted to disappear - along with polar bears - by 2040, and almost all the world's glaciers, in many cases providing water for cities, were confirmed to be in retreat.

As the decline of winter sports in Europe was being contemplated, scientists became increasingly confident about linking the evident warming to manmade emissions. Others, previously quiet, spoke loudly: Sir David Attenborough, bishops and celebrities all called on people to make climate change the great moral issue of our times. The few remaining contrarians in the scientific and political establishment became increasingly isolated.

Most serious issue

In Europe, polls showed climate change to be the second most important issue, behind unemployment, with 93% of people wanting action taken. Spurred by Tony Blair's insistence that it was the "most serious issue facing mankind", and chief scientist David King's warning that global warming was "more dangerous than terrorism", the Tory leader David Cameron launched an immediate and serious pitch for the mainstream green vote with a trip to the Arctic. Labour, worried, astutely appointed David Miliband as the new environment secretary in place of Margaret Beckett. Within months, he had called for a complete rethink of national politics, saying that the environment movement today was as significant as the unions had been to the rise of Labour 100 years ago.

As the political and lifestyle debate spilled into all areas of British life, the government was criticised for doing little. Latest UK carbon dioxide figures showed emissions rising in 2005 to the highest level they had ever been under Labour. Other figures showed that UK greenhouse gas emissions fell slightly by 0.3m tonnes to 656m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent between 2004 and 2005, but that net emissions of C02 increased - the third consecutive annual rise.

The long-awaited climate review in March talked of conservation and technological change, but was slammed for its perceived timidity. Meanwhile, the Department for Transport (DfT) was singled out for promoting a huge growth in airport and road capacity, and Gordon Brown was criticised for barely addressing the issue in successive budgets.

Only the Stern review of the economics of climate change brought the Treasury any respite. It broke fresh intellectual ground by arguing that the presumption of economic growth was no longer valid in view of climate change, and that not addressing it could lead to an economic upheaval on the scale of the 1930s' Depression. For the first time, a figure was put on the pollution costs of carbon emissions: £50 a tonne.

But the scale of what needed to be done was constantly ramped up. A report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University factored in aviation and shipping emissions for the first time and concluded that the UK needed a 90% cut in emissions, not 60%, by 2050. At current rates, the government will only just meet its mandatory Kyoto target of a 12% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

On a global level, the situation was found to be worsening rapidly. Last month, the Global Carbon Project said a record 7.9bn tonnes of carbon passed into the atmosphere in 2005, compared with 6.8bn tonnes in 2000. Indeed, the growth rate of CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2005 was more than 2.5% a year - in the 1990s it was less than 1% a year. The finding parallelled figures released by the World Meteorological Organisation, showing that the rise in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had accelerated in the last few years.

The US went ahead with plans for over 150 new coal-fired power plants, and China for some 550. The International Energy Agency forecast that China's expanding use of coal will lead it to surpass the US as the largest emitter of CO2 by 2009. China responded by announcing targets of 16% of all energy from renewables by 2020.

But even as many environment groups said the world had only a decade or more to stabilise emissions before potential runaway climate change set in, those who could really influence change moved slowly; 160 countries meeting in Nairobi could not even agree what to do when the Kyoto agreement runs out in 2012.

However, the global financial community at last stirred. Wall Street investors, insurance companies and pension fund managers, who between them manage trillions of dollars in assets, were pushed throughout 2006 to re-evaluate their exposure to climate change and the risks of doing nothing. US insurance companies found that $2 trillion in real estate was at risk from future storms in the coastal communities of Florida alone.

Worsening poverty

Crucially, a popular movement emerged, driving the social and financial agenda in all developed countries. In the UK, most large anti-poverty and development groups finally grasped the implications of climate change for poor countries. As partner groups in Africa, Asia and Latin America reported that it was already worsening poverty, some of the traditional barriers between environment and development groups disappeared.

Meanwhile, many religions and faith groups discovered the environment. The Church of England took steps to reduce its footprint, and the powerful evangelical movement in the US pressured President Bush to address "creation care". Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Catholics, the Greek Orthodox church and other faiths all urged their followers to take action.

The growing concern was reflected in Britain in early November when 20,000 people - possibly the largest environment protest ever staged in Britain - marched in London and elsewhere for action. Direct action groups such as Plane Stupid emerged and anti-airport expansion community groups began to work together. Britain's heaviest carbon polluters were identified and 4,000 people camped outside Drax power station in Yorkshire. Greenpeace stopped work at Didcot, and others stormed 4x4 car showrooms.

Increasing anger was directed at the government, which appeared to be following a business-as-usual agenda with transport, while arguing that emissions trading would suffice. In October, Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute warned that it would be impossible to meet the UK's 60% carbon reduction target by 2050 without curbing aviation growth - yet a few weeks later the DfT backed plans to massively expand most of Britain's airports.

By the end of the year, government was publicly more committed than ever to addressing climate change, but privately in semi despair at the mismatch between intention and reality and how long it was taking to achieve a low carbon economy.

Fuente: IPS
Comentario: No se trata de algo muy distinto de lo que se viene diciendo frecuentemente...


Oceans Warming and Rising

BERLIN, Dec 21 (IPS/IFEJ) - Ocean levels will rise faster than expected if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, a leading German researcher warns.

Using data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans at the University of Potsdam near Berlin estimates that sea level could rise 140 cm by 2100.

Rahmstorf, member of the German Advisory Council on Global Change, is considered a leading European researcher on global warming and its effect on oceans.

"The semi-empirical model we used to process NASA data showed a proportional constant sea level rise of 3.4 mm per year per degree Celsius," Rahmstorf told IPS. "Then we applied this constant proportionality to future earth surface warming scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), and came to estimate that by the year 2100, sea level could rise between 50 and 140 cm above the level measured in 1990."

Through the 20th century, global warming led to an average 20cm rise in sea level. But most computer models of climate change used at present significantly underestimate sea level rise, Rahmstorf said. "Future projections of sea level based on these climate models are therefore unreliable."

Currently, sea level is rising at three cm per decade, faster than projected in the scenarios of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Rahmstorf added.

The IPCC, an intergovernmental team of scientists carrying out a wide range of research related to climate change, was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environmental Programme. The IPCC aims to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for understanding of climate change, its potential impact, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Scientific research has found that industrial activities have produced greenhouse gas emissions considerably higher than levels observed before the industrial revolution.

Concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most potent of greenhouse gases, has risen from about 280 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere in the year 1750 to about 380 ppm today.

This rise is primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent, deforestation. Scientists estimate that if the present emissions trend continues, the atmosphere could heat up by about five 5 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Studies by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research suggest that this would roughly be the temperature difference between an ice age and a warm stage. But while the rise of average temperatures by some five degrees between the last great ice age and today took 5,000 years, the new global warming would need only 100 years.

Rahmstorf acknowledged that forecasts of global warming and its effects on sea levels continue to be marked by uncertainty. "The fact that we get such different estimates using different methods shows how uncertain our sea level forecasts still are," Rahmstorf told IPS.

A major reason for the uncertainty is the behaviour of the large ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

A likely consequence of a massive melting of the ice masses on the North Pole could be the breakdown of the North Atlantic Current (NAC). The NAC is the northern extension of the Gulf Stream, and constitutes a warm water current flowing between Britain and Iceland. This has considerable impact in moderating the North European and Scandinavian climate.

"One critical factor for the continuation of this current is the amount of fresh water that enters the Northern Atlantic region in the future," Rahmstorf said. "This will depend in large part on the speed at which Greenland's ice sheet melts."

Rahmstorf, who earlier this year co-authored a research paper titled 'The Future Oceans -- Warming Up, Rising High, Turning Sour' said that reliable prediction on the risk of a total stoppage of deepwater formation in the Northern Atlantic is not possible given present knowledge.

But he pointed out that experts have evaluated that risk at more than 50 percent if global warming is between three and five degrees.

Rahmstorf said greenhouse gases emissions are also increasing the acidity of oceans. "In the atmosphere carbon dioxide does not react with other gases, but in the ocean it dissolves, contributing to the acidification of seawater," Rahmstorf said. This acidity is a serious threat to marine biodiversity.

"There is a good chance to avoid such dangerous climate change if global warming caused by human activities is limited to two degrees in the coming decades," Rahmstorf said.

(*This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS - Inter Press Service and IFEJ - International Federation of Environmental Journalists.)

Fuente: Teleobjetivo
Comentario: ¿Quedará todo ésto en tablas al final?

Eso es lo que afiman muchos investagores; el último, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, responsable de investigaciones especiales en el Observatorio Astronómico de Pulkvo. Este investigador afirma que en el 2012 comenzará un descenso de las temperaturas que desembocará en una nueva era glaciar.

En este artículo, el investigador ruso afirma que empezaremos a observar un descenso de temperatura entre el 2012 y el 2015, que culminará entre el 2050 y el 2060 dando paso a una era glaciar que prevee durará unos 60 años. La causa de este descenso de temperatura será un cambio en el ciclo solar, que no tendría nada que ver con la actividad humana

Teorías sobre el cambio climático hay muchas; el atribuirlo a un ciclo solar no es una idea nueva; de hecho, es una de las principales bazas de los opositores al protocolo de Kioto. La evidencia mas importante la tenemos en la llamada pequeña edad de hielo; un periodo que se extiende desde mediados del S.XIV hasta mediados del S.XIX, durante el cual las temperaturas fueron anormalmente bajas. No hubo ninguna explicación para este fenómeno hasta que el astrónomo Edward Maunder, tras estudiar los archivos históricos de las observaciones del sol, detectó que durante la pequeña edad del hielo el Sol había presentado un número anormalmente bajo de manchas solares, destacando el periodo 1645 a 1715, durante el cual no había observado ninguna mancha (este periodo se conoce como el mínimo de Maunder); da la casualidad de que uno de los años mas fríos de la pequeña edad de hielo fue 1650.

De todas formas, la teoría de la actividad solar no es la única que predice una próxima era glaciar; en los últimos años se ha formulado una teoría que, por paradojico que parezca, predice que el efecto del calentamiento global será una era glaciar. La respuesta a esta aparente contradicción hay que buscarla en las corrientes marinas.

Como podemos observar en el dibujo, las corrientes llevan las aguas cálidas del trópico a latitudes mas elevadas, evitando así que estas zona se congelen; en las zonas polares, el agua se enfría y eso la empuja de nuevo hacia el sur (las corrientes cálidas van por la superficie, las frías por el fondo marino). Como hemos dicho, una de las funciones básicas de esta corriente es calentar las latitudes mas elevadas, por lo que si dejara de fluir, estas zonas se congelarían; de hecho, muchos climatólogos atribuyen las eras galciares a un mal funcionamiento de estas corrientes.

¿Como puede el calentamiento global provocar una era glaciar? Muy simple; el calentamiento está provocando que los hielos polares se derritan, liberando una gran cantidad de agua dulce que interfiere en el funcionamiento de las corrientes y les hace perder fuerza. De momento no notamos su efecto, porque el calentamiento también provoca que la temperatura de estas corrientes sea mayor, lo que compensa la pérdida de fuerza; pero cuando los hielos polares hayan retrocedido lo suficiente, las corrientes se detendrán, lo que provocará una repentina caida de las temperaturas.

¿Quien tiene razón? Lo mas probable es que todos tengan una parte de razón; los efectos de la acción humana sobre el entorno saltan a la vista, como también son obvios los efectos de las corrientes marinas y el Sol; la clave está en determinar los porcentajes de responsabilidad de cada uno de estos elementos; en cualquier caso, una cosa está clara, nuestro conocimiento de como funciona el planeta es aún muy pequeño.

Fecha: 23 - nov - 2006
Fuente: The Guardian

Comentario: Parece quedar demostrado que contra el cambio climático tiene que tomar medidas todos los países de la tierra. Lógicamente, empezando por el que más contamina (EEUU). Parace claro que esto tiene que ser un acuerdo global para que precisamente aquellos que tomen las medidas, no sean los más perjudicados

Unilateral action on climate change could ruin economy, says CBI chief

The government will put jobs and investment at risk if it adopts a go-it-alone approach to tackling climate change, says the new director general of the Confederation of British Industry.

Richard Lambert, preparing for next week's CBI conference in London - his first at the helm of the country's leading employers' organisation - said ministers must find a way of cutting carbon emissions "without destroying our economy".

In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Lambert said: "There are very legitimate concerns that unilateral action by the UK could seriously damage the competitiveness of our economy, with consequences for jobs and investment. CBI members don't say you shouldn't be talking about this. They all recognise it as a challenge and some see it as a business opportunity.

"But there are serious competitiveness issues. The biggest challenge in policy terms is to arrive at a sensible balance between averting climate change and protecting jobs on the other hand."

CBI members thought the European Union's emissions trading system was flawed, but saw it as "the only game in town". Ideally, it should provide incentives for the good and punish the bad, but he said the system - in its second year - should be given time to bed down. "We should be working like anything to tackle its shortcomings because we need to arrive at a robust price for carbon if everything else is going to flow from that."

Mr Lambert said the right incentives were needed to provide the resources for big new investment in electricity capacity, including nuclear, and to ensure there were international partnerships that could "bring about emissions reductions in a way that does not destroy our economy".

Britain faced the threat of an energy crisis over the coming months, he said. "There is a risk of a very sharp [cold] spell in the first half of the winter that could cause problems." But the risks reduced during the second half as Britain's capacity to import energy increased with new infrastructure projects coming on stream.

During his first few months in the job, the CBI chief had picked up growing discontent among members about a range of issues, including tax and regulation.

"There is a sense that people are fed up out there," he said, citing 35 new items of employment law since 1997, higher taxes, pensions, red tape and the "cack-handed" extradition treaty with the United States that had seen British businessmen hauled before US courts. "There is a bunch of stuff that concerns them. They have seen a loss of momentum in government as we wait for change to take place."

Business was equally uncertain about David Cameron's Conservatives. "Everybody understands that he wants to put the party into a different place, but there are some areas of concern about the way he's doing it." He cited the recent hardline stance taken by Tory MEPs on environmental law that had "raised eyebrows in our sister organisations across Europe".

Some firms were thinking of moving to lower-cost tax jurisdictions. "Some are going to Dublin. I imagine that more are considering it. The chancellor has lots to think about. We need to compete; he needs the money. He can't promise miracles. It's like turning a supertanker around. But it's time to signal a change of direction."

Importing labour to deal with the UK skills shortage was not the solution. "Our members felt - not all of them but enough - that while it may be rational for a company to solve skill shortages by bringing in foreign workers, it was not rational for society to do that. We need to be investing heavily, both government and business, in raising the skills of our workforce."

Britain had benefited from immigration in terms of raising demand, easing labour bottlenecks and keeping down inflation. There now needed to be a pause while the government assessed whether Britain had the schools and homes to cope with a further inflow in migrant labour.

On balance, Mr Lambert said Britain's liberal approach to foreign takeovers had been beneficial. There were issues about the loss of research and development and design to the new owners' home bases, but overall "we're well up on the game".

He cited the case of the City. "I would not have bet 25 years ago that it would be in the position it finds itself in today - it's really putting the breeze up New York as an international financial centre."

9 - nov - 2006
Fuente: The Guardian

Comentario: nadie podrá decir que no se estaba avisando.

Only a decade left to avoid climate change, says thinktank

The world has less than a decade to reverse the growth in greenhouse gas emissions if dangerous climate change is to be avoided, according to a report from a thinktank that goes further than the landmark Stern review last week.

Lord Stern's report said that unless greenhouse emissions were tackled the world faced an economic downturn on a par with the great depression.

Yesterday's report from the Institute of Public Policy Research suggests Lord Stern's analysis was too conservative and governments need to move further and faster. To minimise the risk of a 2C rise - seen as the threshold for dangerous climate change - the authors say global carbon dioxide emissions would need to peak between 2010 and 2013.

By 2015 to 2020 the world would need to be cutting carbon emissions by 4%-5% annually and by mid century CO2 levels should be 70%-80% below what they were in 1990, say Paul Baer and Michael Mastrandrea, experts in risk analysis. The government's "aspiration" is to cut carbon emissions by 60% by 2050. "It is the timetable for action, above all, that our research shows we urgently need to rethink," wrote Simon Retallack, head of the IPPR's climate change team, in a foreword to the report. "We do not have decades in which to bend the CO2 curve: we have less than 10 years. The gap between what is necessary and what seems feasible clearly looms large. But if we want to avoid significant risks of appalling global harm we will need to re-examine what is feasible."

If the global average temperature rises by more than 2C, the report predicts, more than 2 billion people will be affected by drought and some of the world's most diverse ecosystems, including coral reefs and the Amazon rainforest, will be severely damaged.

But Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, told the Guardian in an interview ahead of publication of the Stern review that it was looking increasingly unlikely that the world would be able to stay below the 2C threshold. Carbon dioxide levels are 383 parts per million and rising at 2ppm per year. He believed it would be politically realistic to stabilise CO2 at between 450 and 550 ppm, which would translate into a global average temperature rise of 2.2 to 3.5C.

Yesterday Tony Blair received a petition signed by 150,000 people and delivered by six children. The petition, from the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition, called for a climate change bill in next week's Queen's speech to cut UK CO2 emissions by at least 3% annually.

Fuente: ambientum

Europa entra en una nueva era energética. Los precios del gas y del petróleo se han casi duplicado en los dos últimos años. Se prevé que la dependencia europea de las importaciones llegará al 70 por ciento en 2030 por la disminución de nuestras reservas de hidrocarburos y el aumento de la demanda, lo que afectará a nuestra seguridad energética. Tenemos que mejorar nuestras infraestructuras: en los próximos 20 años necesitaremos un billón de euros para cubrir la demanda energética prevista y sustituir las infraestructuras obsoletas. Y nuestro clima está cambiando debido al calentamiento del planeta

Son desafíos comunes a todos los ciudadanos y países europeos. Exigen una respuesta europea común. La UE está en buena posición. Tenemos el poder de compra que supone ser el segundo consumidor mundial de energía. Somos uno de los continentes con mayor eficiencia energética. Somos líderes globales en formas nuevas y renovables de energía, en desarrollo de tecnologías bajas en carbono y en gestión de la demanda.

Y sin embargo, el planteamiento europeo en materia de energía ha sido disperso, no ha sido capaz de conectar políticas y países diferentes. Esto tiene que cambiar.

La Comisión Europea publica hoy un Libro Verde sobre el desarrollo de una política energética europea coherente. Nuestro objetivo es una energía sostenible, competitiva y segura. Si la UE es capaz de adoptar un planteamiento común y articularlo con una voz coherente y unida, Europa podrá liderar la búsqueda mundial de soluciones para la energía.

No hay respuestas fáciles. Pero el Libro Verde abrirá un gran debate público sobre la forma de afrontar la nueva realidad energética.

¿Qué proponemos?

Unidad. La UE debe hablar con una sola voz en el plano internacional, especialmente con los grandes productores y consumidores de energía. Debemos utilizar el tamaño de nuestro mercado y todos nuestros instrumentos para manejar nuestra dependencia energética, diversificar nuestro abastecimiento y conseguir apoyos internacionales para hacer frente a los nuevos retos. Será esencial un nuevo partenariado con nuestros proveedores más próximos, incluida Rusia. Debemos capitalizar el interés mutuo de Europa y de sus principales proveedores más próximos por crear mercados de energía seguros, abiertos y en expansión. Y debemos intensificar nuestra cooperación con nuestros principales socios de Oriente Medio, Asia y América.

Integración. Debemos crear un mercado verdaderamente único de la electricidad y el gas. Sería una garantía de seguridad, competitividad y sostenibilidad. Los mercados abiertos benefician a los consumidores. Crean la plataforma a largo plazo que es esencial para la inversión. Son el contexto adecuado, paneuropeo, para los proyectos de fusiones en curso. En energía, como en otros ámbitos, Europa prospera cuando suprime barreras, no cuando las refuerza.

Solidaridad. La integración debe ir acompañada de solidaridad. Europa debe responder mejor a las fluctuaciones de los mercados y del abastecimiento, y además replantearse su política de reservas de emergencia de petróleo y gas.

Fuente: ABC

Fuente: 13 mar (Noticias 24 horas)

Además, los 20 ríos más grandes del mundo son interrumpidos por grandes presas y una quinta parte de las especies de agua dulce están en peligro de extinción. Éstas son algunas de las conclusiones del Informe del desarrollo mundial del agua del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA) que será publicado esta semana y que ayer adelantó el diario británico The Independent.

Mientras que ríos como el Nilo o el Indo llegan muy reducidos al mar, otros como el Colorado o el Río Amarillo rara vez llegan al mar y algunos como el Río Grande o el Jordán están secos en gran parte de su cauce.

El informe será presentado durante una conferencia internacional que se iniciará el próximo jueves en Ciudad de México. Entre sus datos se señala que unas 45.000 grandes presas bloquean los ríos del mundo, reteniendo el 15% del caudal total de agua que solía fluir de la tierra al mar. De hecho, actualmente los embalses cubren casi el 1% de la superficie terrestre del planeta. Aunque la ONU reconoce que aumentará la demanda de estas infraestructuras, recomienda que no se realicen en los ríos que siguen fluyendo libremente.

Pero también el cambio climático es una amenaza para los ríos, como se ha observado en el Amazonas, que el pasado otoño vivió la peor sequía de la historia. Asimismo, en el río Yukon en Alaska, el mayor cauce del mundo libre de embalses, los salmones están muriendo al aumentar el calor del agua.

Fuente: BBC

Comentario: La sociedad del capitalismo debería de reaccionar si se comienza a evaluar el precio (en dinero) que supondrá nuestra falta de sentido biológico!

Climate change could cut global growth by a fifth, up to £3.68 trillion in total, unless drastic action is taken, a key review is warning.

But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, economist Sir Nicholas Stern said.

Without action up to 200 million people could become refugees as their homes are hit by drought or flood, he added.

An international plan to tackle climate change is needed to prevent a global recession, the government review said.

The Stern Review, which is published on Monday, will say the key to solving the crisis is getting the big polluting countries, such as the US and China, to cut their emissions.

Sir Nicholas will say we have to make polluters "pay the price" for the problems they are causing the planet.

'Global recession'

Sir Nicholas's report warns unless the world moves to cut green house gases we are heading for a "catastrophic climate change" which would create the worst global recession ever seen.

The Stern Review forecasts that 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) must be spent on tackling climate change immediately.

It warns that if no action is taken:

• Floods from rising sea levels could displace up to 100 million people
• Melting glaciers could cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world's population

• Wildlife will be harmed; at worst up to 40% of species could become extinct
• Flood and droughts may create tens or even hundreds of millions of 'climate refugees'

Africa is likely to be most harmed by climate change and Sir Nicholas says we have a "moral duty" to cut emissions and help poorer nations adapt to changes in the climate.

The study will spark a fierce political debate on green taxation as this is the first major contribution to the global warming debate by an economist, rather than a scientist.

'Environmental price'

Already Environment Secretary David Miliband is considering a range of taxes designed to change people's behaviour to offset global warming.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party said it was examining the possibility of taxing air travel.

BBC environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said some economists say climate science is so uncertain that we should not spend huge amounts now to cut emissions.

However the review says failure to act early could end up costing between 5% and 20% of global GDP and render large parts of the planet uninhabitable with poor nations hit first and hardest.

Switching to cleaner energy sources, like wind and solar, can help use avoid the worst of the damage, it adds.

Green taxes, carbon trading schemes and changing behaviour will help reduce the effect of climate change - but any schemes should encompass the globe, it continues.

Unilateral moves would not be enough, says Sir Nicholas. For example, if the UK shut down all of its power stations tomorrow, the reduction in global emissions would be wiped out in just over a year by increased emissions from China.

'Urgent deal needed'

The review calls on the international community to sign a new pact on greenhouse emissions by next year rather than in 2010/11, when they had planned to agree a successor to the Kyoto agreement on cutting carbon dioxide and other gas emissions.

Even if immediate action is taken to cut pollution, slow acting greenhouse gases will continue to have an effect on the environment for another 30 years, it adds.

Action groups and development agencies have welcomed the review and urged the government to take action to protect poor countries from the effects of climate change.

"Poor communities, who have contributed least to climate change, are suffering the most from its effects. Current efforts to respond to climate change are simply not urgent enough," said Tearfund Advocacy Director, Andy Atkins.

Christian Aid added it hoped the review would focus world leaders' attention on the need for urgent action.

"This is an issue far more important than mere economics. People's lives are already being ruined by climate change and millions more are facing cataclysmic change for the worse," said the group's senior climate change analyst, Andrew Pendleton.

Fuente: EFE
14-9-2006

Tema: Cambio Climático

El País, Editorial 26-02-2006

Los datos sobre los efectos del cambio climático son cada vez más preocupantes. Era sabido que la fusión de los hielos árticos alcanzó el año pasado una cota histórica, en paralelo con la temperatura media del planeta y el número total de huracanes y tormentas tropicales, pero las últimas mediciones realizadas en Groenlandia han superado las predicciones más pesimistas. La cantidad de hielo de los glaciares de Groenlandia que se precipita en las aguas del Atlántico Norte casi se ha duplicado en los últimos cinco años, debido probablemente a que la temperatura del aire en el sur de esa gigantesca isla helada ha subido tres grados en los últimos 20 años. La pérdida de masa helada ha aumentado de 90 kilómetros cúbicos al año en 1996 a 224 en 2005.

El calentamiento de Groenlandia es responsable de medio milímetro anual en la subida global del nivel del mar, que ya alcanza tres milímetros por año. De seguir esta aceleración en la fusión de los hielos, los primeros perjudicados por el aumento del nivel de los océanos serán los países pobres con grandes núcleos de población al nivel del mar. Pero no serán los únicos: el agua procedente de esa fusión no tiene sal, y los modelos climatológicos predicen que esa inyección de agua dulce alterará la corriente del Golfo y causará un notable enfriamiento de la mitad norte de Europa. Todos estos efectos no son un problema hipotético para remotas generaciones futuras. Están ocurriendo ya, y son en parte consecuencia del CO2 emitido al quemar gasolina, carbón y petróleo en la industria y los motores de nuestros coches.

Los argumentos científicos para recortar las emisiones de CO2 de manera drástica son cada día más aplastantes, y constituyen en sí mismos una llamada urgente a la acción personal y política. Los gases que ya hemos emitido garantizarían un calentamiento sostenido durante décadas aun cuando no quemáramos una gota más de gasolina desde mañana, pero el fenómeno sólo puede acelerarse si persistimos en nuestras actuales pautas de consumo energético. España, castigada por la sequía, debe corregir cuanto antes su lamentable trayectoria de incumplimientos con los compromisos de Kioto, el único programa internacional sensato y viable para reducir las emisiones globales de CO2. Las medidas inmediatas deben incluir el recorte del consumo de calefacción y aire acondicionado -el diseño de los edificios tiene mucho que ver con ello-, un estímulo decidido a las energías renovables y la restricción drástica del uso del coche. Groenlandia es la última llamada de atención. No esperemos a la siguiente.

Tema: Crisis Energética

24 feb'06
CanalEmpresaSostenible/La Vanguardia

La dependencia del petróleo no sólo se ha convertido en insostenible para el clima, sino también en inconveniente desde el punto de vista geopolítico. La inestabilidad creciente en Oriente Medio, sumada a la reciente crisis del gas ruso, ha puesto en evidencia en muchas capitales occidentales la necesidad de reducir la dependencia energética. Y aquí, Washington y París caminan al mismo paso. Si el presidente de Estados Unidos, George W. Bush, se ha lanzado a una vigorosa campaña en favor de las energías alternativas, el presidente francés, Jacques Chirac, pone el acento en el desarrollo de la energía nuclear.

Chirac expuso recientemente, en un acto con las fuerzas vivas del país celebrado en el Elíseo, los ejes principales de su política energética. El presidente francés abogó, como Bush, por potenciar la investigación y producción de energías sustitutivas del petróleo, como los biocarburantes - cuya producción se quintuplicar á, dijo, en el plazo de dos años-, el hidrógeno o las pilas de combustible, así como desarrollar nuevos modelos de vehículos eléctricos o híbridos en diez años. En este terreno, se comprometió a que, de aquí al 2007, un tercio de los vehículos de la administración pública utilicen biocarburantes. Ya suprimir, en veinte años, todo consumo de petróleo en las flotas de las grandes empresas públicas de transporte colectivo: la RATP de París y la compañía ferroviaria SNCF.

El presidente francés también aludió a la necesidad de desarrollar las centrales de carbón limpias.Pero, por encima de todo, defendió el relanzamiento de la energía nuclear. Francia, con 59 reactores en funcionamiento, es el segundo productor mundial de energía nuclear, por detrás de Estados Unidos. El 78,2% de la electricidad que se produce en el país tiene origen nuclear.

El proyecto estrella de Chirac es el prototipo de un nuevo reactor nuclear de cuarta generación, que debería poder entrar en servicio en el año 2020 y que será más seguro y más limpio que los actuales. Esta nueva generación de reactores, además de generar energía eléctrica, permitirá también producir hidrógeno y desalar agua del mar. La Comisaría para la Energía Atómica (CEA) francesa trabaja ya sobre tres tipos posibles de reactor, en concertación con un foro internacional del que forman parte diez países.

El Gobierno francés, con todo, considera necesario abordar la política energética a escala europea, y por ello presentó el pasado 24 de enero en Bruselas un memorando en el que plantea la conveniencia de potenciar desde la UE la investigación sobre la energía nuclear, además de otras energías alternativas. La seguridad del aprovisionamiento energético y la lucha contra el calentamiento climático son los dos principales argumentos expuestos por París para pedir una mayor implicación económica comunitaria

Tema: Barbaridades Ecológicas

ABC
23 de febrero de 2006

ALMERÍA. El titular del Juzgado número 2 de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Almería ha ordenado la paralización inmediata de las obras del hotel que la empresa Azata del Sol construye en el paraje El Algarrobico de Carboneras (Almería), atendiendo así al recurso interpuesto por la organización conservacionista Salvemos Mojácar. La organización destacó en un comunicado que se impide, de forma cautelar, que concluyan las obras del hotel, que iba a inaugurarse hacia el mes de mayo. Según Salvemos Mojácar, «la empresa constructora y la promotora deben acatar esta orden judicial de inmediato ya que de lo contrario incurrirían en una grave ilegalidad». Contra esta decisión cabe recurso de apelación. No obstante, se precisa que es una medida cautelar, es decir, que con la paralización de las obras no se prejuzga la decisión definitiva del juez sobre el caso.

En el auto se explica que las obras están amparadas «en una licencia que presenta apariencia de ilegalidad por invasión de la zona de servidumbre de protección» establecida en la Ley de Costas que, en el caso enjuiciado, recae sobre una zona de cien metros, «invadida totalmente» por la construcción del hotel.

Pasividad de la Junta de Andalucía

El juez cree que, de no adoptar esta medida, se produciría «perturbación evidente de los intereses generales» ya que, ante el progreso de las obras, «sería más gravoso para el erario público el montante indemnizatorio ante una eventual estimación del recurso que obligara a la administración a una expropiación y posterior demolición». Desde Salvemos Mojácar se critica a la Junta de Andalucía por haber mostrado «una escandalosa pasividad frente al caso más sangrante de destrucción del litoral español».

Tema: Cambio Climático

Lo dice bien clarito el comienzo de este artículo: "Allá donde miren los científicos, ven patrones alterados en y a lo largo del Golfo de México....".

Hurricanes and humans changing Gulf's nature

Oceanographer: 'Nothing's been like this'

CNN
Saturday, January 28, 2006; Posted: 7:55 p.m. EST (00:55 GMT)

OVER THE NORTHERN GULF COAST (AP) -- Last year's record hurricane season didn't just change life for humans. It changed nature, too.

Everywhere scientists look, they see disrupted patterns in and along the Gulf of Mexico. Coral reefs, flocks of sea birds, crab- and shrimp-filled meadows and dune-crowned beaches were wrapped up in -- and altered by -- the force of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Dennis.

"Nothing's been like this," said Abby Sallenger, a U.S. Geological Survey oceanographer, during a recent flight over the northern Gulf Coast to study shoreline changes.

For him, the changes are mind-boggling: Some barrier islands are nearly gone; on others, beaches are scattered like bags of dropped flour.

Hurricanes have been kneading the Gulf Coast like putty for eons, carving out inlets and bays, creating beaches and altering plant and animal life -- but up to now, the natural world has largely been able to rebound. Trees, marine life and shoreline features tourists and anglers enjoyed in recent years were largely the same types as those 17th century buccaneers and explorers encountered.

But scientists say the future could be different. Nature might not be able to rebound so quickly. The reason: the human factor.

"Natural systems are resilient and bounce back," said Susan Cutter, a geographer with the University of South Carolina. "The problem is when we try to control nature, rather than letting her do what she does."

The seas are rising, the planet is getting hotter and commercial and residential development is snowballing. Add those factors to a predicted increase in nasty hurricanes and what results is a recipe for potentially serious natural degradation, some say.

"It may bring about a situation (in which) the change is so rapid, it's something that's very different from what the ecosystem experienced over the last three, four thousand years," said Kam-biu Liu, a Louisiana State University professor and hurricane paleoscientist. "We may be losing part of our beaches, we may lose our coastal wetlands, and our coastal forests may change permanently to a different kind of ecosystem."

Between 2004 and 2005, "we've basically demolished our coastline from Galveston (Texas) to Panama City, Florida," said Barry Keim, the state climatologist in Louisiana. "It's getting to the point that we might have to rethink what our coastal map looks like."

The Gulf, scientists say, won't turn into an environmental wasteland, but it could be less rich in flora and fauna.

Surveys of the washed out Chandeleur Islands, an arc of barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana, found nesting grounds for brown pelicans, royal terns, sandwich terns and black skimmers gone.

"Hopefully the birds will be resilient enough to move to other areas," said Tom Hess, a biologist with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. "We will have to see."

Salt water spread by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita killed marsh grasses across the Louisiana coast, leaving little left to eat for Louisiana's most hunted bird -- the duck.

"Most of the marsh where that salt water sat for a long time looks dead. It looks like it is does extremely late in the winter and you've had several extreme frosts," said Robert Helm, a state waterfowl biologist. "Where we found birds, they seemed to be concentrated in the habitat that was not impacted by the storm."

Duck hunters ask themselves: If Louisiana's abundant wetlands keep getting knocked out, will the ducks head to greener fields?

"You don't go to the restaurant, find it empty, and hang around," said Charlie Smith, a duck hunter.

Katrina and Rita didn't only kill plants. They annihilated more than 100 square miles (256 square kilometers) of wetlands in Louisiana alone, scattering huge chunks of soft marshy earth.

"The hurricanes may have changed habitat in ways that we have not even begun to assess," said Harriet Perry, a fishery expert with the University of Southern Mississippi.

A lot of things are happening under the water, too.

With their towering waves -- well over 50 feet (15 meters) high during Katrina -- hurricanes move huge volumes of mud and sediment on the ocean bottom, burying clam and oyster beds and seagrass meadows where crabs, shrimps and fish hide and feed. Can the sea plants spring back?

"It depends on the light penetration, how deep they are buried, and factors like that," said John Dindo, a marine scientist and assistant director of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama.

Farther out, where the continental shelf drops off, the wild seas kicked up by the hurricanes damaged the Gulf's coral reefs.

After Rita's 30-plus-foot (9-plus-meter) waves, surveys of the coral at the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary 100 miles (160 kilometers) off the coast of Louisiana and Texas showed damage to about 5 percent of the reef. Brain and star coral was toppled and smashed into other coral heads. About 3 feet (one meter) of sand was dispersed on sand flats in the reef where trigger fish and queen conch burrow and nest.

Also, a large plume of contaminated runoff from the mainland's towns and industries befouled the reef for a couple of days, said G.P. Schmahl, the sanctuary's manager.

Coral reefs are resilient, for the most part, but like much else in nature along the Gulf Coast they could be devastated by an onslaught of powerful hurricanes and warming seas. A coral reef near Jamaica, for example, was wiped out by Hurricane Allen in 1980, Schmahl said.

"If they're hit continually with a whole variety of stressors they may not be able to recover, and that's the big concern right now," he said.

Among fish, species shift locations when runoff from towns, septic systems and farms causes algae blooms or storms change salinity levels in coastal bays and channels. Still, not all changes are detrimental: When Gulf commercial and recreational fishermen are knocked out of the water in storms, overfished species like the red snapper get some breathing room.

Nor are the effects confined to the water or the shoreline. Go inland, and millions of trees -- cypress, gum, pine, oak -- were snapped like toothpicks. Wild fires fueled by fallen timber break out and kill even more trees. And plant diseases like citrus canker and soybean rust can be spread by hurricanes from one region to the next.

The Gulf is in the midst of flux -- heavily developed, heavily fished and buffeted by climate change and storms. It's becoming a perfect place for oceanographers, marine biologists, geologists and geographers to study, said Steven F. DiMarco, an ocean researcher Texas A&M University.

"I think," he said, "people are looking to the Gulf of Mexico ever more as a microcosm of the world."

Tema: Cambio Climático

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

Tema: Cambio Climático

EFE - NASA

AUMENTO DE 0,6 GRADOS DESDE LOS 70

WASHINGTON.- El año 2005 fue el más caluroso en la Tierra desde finales del siglo XIX, cuando se comenzó a registrar la temperatura de la superficie del planeta, según ha informado la NASA.

El pasado año logró sobrepasar la marca de temperatura registrada en 1998, debido a que la zona ártica registró más calor de lo normal, según ha afirmado la NASA, en un comunicado, que apunta que el resultado viene a confirmar "la fuerte tendencia subyacente de calentamiento" de la Tierra.

Desde mediados de la década de 1970, la temperatura del planeta se ha elevado en 0,6 grados centígrados, mientras que en todo el siglo XX la subida fue de 0,8 grados.

Los datos de la NASA muestran que el calentamiento se acentúa. "Cinco de los años más calurosos en el último siglo han ocurrido en los últimos ocho", ha afirmado James Hansen, director del Instituto Goddard de Estudios Espaciales (GISS, en inglés) de la NASA, con sede en Nueva York. Lidera la lista 2005, seguido de 1998, 2002, 2003 y 2004.

En 1998 tuvo lugar el fenómeno atmosférico de 'El Niño', que consiste en un calentamiento de las aguas del Pacífico, lo que elevó la temperatura en todo el globo.

Preocupación

Sin embargo, 2005 superó los niveles de ese año incluso sin la aparición de ese fenómeno, lo que preocupa a los científicos. El calentamiento actual se produce en todo el planeta, pero está más acentuado en las altas latitudes del hemisferio norte.

En los últimos 50 años, los mayores calentamientos medidos por año y por verano se han producido en Alaska y Siberia, aunque también en la península Antártica, según los datos presentados.

Dado que estas regiones están lejos de ciudades grandes, los expertos de la NASA "tienen claro" que el calentamiento no se debe a la influencia de la contaminación de los centros urbanos.

La mayoría de los científicos cree que este fenómeno es debido a la emisión de gases que producen el llamado 'efecto invernadero', como dióxido de carbono, metano y ozono.

La NASA mantiene registros fiables de las temperaturas de la superficie desde finales del siglo XIX, que actualmente obtiene gracias a mediciones de laboratorios en tierra y cálculos desde satélites de las condiciones en el mar.