Earth Hour’s global switch off to highlight momentous action for earth
100 days out from the annual ‘lights out’ event, Earth Hour 2011 prepares to showcase a growing global community committed to taking environmental actions that go beyond the hour.
From its inception as a single-city initiative in 2007, Earth Hour has grown into a global movement where hundreds of millions of people from every continent join together to acknowledge the importance of protecting our planet.
Inspired by thousands of stories of people going beyond the hour, Earth Hour 2011 will ask individuals, businesses and governments the world over to add more to the annual switch off by showcasing how they are taking action to preserve their environment.
Earth Hour 2011 will ask the world to:
• Switch off your lights for Earth Hour at 8.30pm, Saturday 26 March 2011 and celebrate your commitment to the planet with the people of the world
• Sign up and Share stories of your actions that benefit the planet on earthhour.org
• Sustain your actions beyond the hour
“Earth Hour’s rapid growth over four years has proven that hundreds of millions people want to do more to protect their planet.” said Andy Ridley, Co-founder and Executive Director of Earth Hour.
“Whether it’s a child changing a classroom or a president changing a country, people, organizations and governments everywhere are invited to switch off their lights for Earth Hour 2011 and commit to taking action beyond the hour,” Andy said.
In February, earthhour.org will launch a platform enabling participants to share stories of what they’re doing or plan to do to make a real difference to their environment in the year ahead, showing that, no matter how big or small, together our actions add up.
Earth Hour 2010 was the largest voluntary action for the environment in history with lights going out across 128 countries and over 4,500 cities worldwide. Earth Hour 2011 will again see hundreds of millions of people across all continents come together to celebrate an unambiguous commitment to the planet by switching off their lights for one designated hour.
The 100-day countdown to Earth Hour 2011 has begun, the iconic ‘lights out’ event that has seen some of the world’s most recognized landmarks, including the Forbidden City, Eiffel Tower, Buckingham Palace, Golden Gate Bridge, Table Mountain, Christ the Redeemer statue and Sydney Opera House switch off in a global celebration of the one thing that unites us all – the planet.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits, Researchers Find:
Reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming centuries, according to research findings from Purdue University and the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Researchers for the first time have calculated the highest tolerable "wet-bulb" temperature and found that this temperature could be exceeded for the first time in human history in future climate scenarios if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate.
Wet-bulb temperature is equivalent to what is felt when wet skin is exposed to moving air. It includes temperature and atmospheric humidity and is measured by covering a standard thermometer bulb with a wetted cloth and fully ventilating it.
The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences who co-authored the paper that will be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Although areas of the world regularly see temperatures above 100 degrees, really high wet-bulb temperatures are rare," Huber said. "This is because the hottest areas normally have low humidity, like the 'dry heat' referred to in Arizona. When it is dry, we are able to cool our bodies through perspiration and can remain fairly comfortable. The highest wet-bulb temperatures ever recorded were in places like Saudi Arabia near the coast where winds occasionally bring extremely hot, humid ocean air over hot land leading to unbearably stifling conditions, which fortunately are short-lived today."
The study did not provide new evaluations of the likelihood of future climate scenarios, but explored the impacts of warming. The challenges presented by the future climate scenarios are daunting in their scale and severity, he said.
"Whole countries would intermittently be subject to severe heat stress requiring large-scale adaptation efforts," Huber said. "One can imagine that such efforts, for example the wider adoption of air conditioning, would cause the power requirements to soar, and the affordability of such approaches is in question for much of the Third World that would bear the brunt of these impacts. In addition, the livestock on which we rely would still be exposed, and it would make any form of outside work hazardous."
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change central estimates of business-as-usual warming by 2100 are seven degrees Fahrenheit, eventual warming of 25 degrees is feasible, he said.
"We found that a warming of 12 degrees Fahrenheit would cause some areas of the world to surpass the wet-bulb temperature limit, and a 21-degree warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment," Huber said. "When it comes to evaluating the risk of carbon emissions, such worst-case scenarios need to be taken into account. It's the difference between a game of roulette and playing Russian roulette with a pistol. Sometimes the stakes are too high, even if there is only a small chance of losing."
Steven Sherwood, the professor at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who is the paper's lead author, said prolonged wet-bulb temperatures above 95 degrees would be intolerable after a matter of hours.
"The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," Sherwood said. "Although we are very unlikely to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the next."
Humans at rest generate about 100 watts of energy from metabolic activity. Wet-bulb temperature estimates provide upper limits on the ability of people to cool themselves by sweating and otherwise dissipating this heat, he said. In order for the heat dissipation process to work, the surrounding air must be cooler than the skin, which must be cooler than the core body temperature. The cooler skin is then able to absorb excess heat from the core and release it into the environment. If the wet-bulb temperature is warmer than the temperature of the skin, metabolic heat cannot be released and potentially dangerous overheating can ensue depending on the magnitude and duration of the heat stress.
The National Science Foundation-funded research investigated the long-term implications of sustained greenhouse gas emissions on climate extremes. The team used climate models to compare the peak wet-bulb temperatures to the global temperatures for various climate simulations and found that the peak wet-bulb temperature rises approximately 1 degree Centigrade for every degree Centigrade increase in tropical mean temperature.
Huber did the climate modeling on supercomputers operated by Information Technology at Purdue (ITaP), Purdue's central information technology organization. Sherwood performed the wet-bulb calculations.
"These temperatures haven't been seen during the existence of hominids, but they did occur about 50 million years ago, and it is a legitimate possibility that the Earth could see such temperatures again," Huber said. "If we consider these worst-case scenarios early enough, perhaps we can do something to address the risk through mitigation or new technological advancements that will allow us to adapt."
Reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming centuries, according to research findings from Purdue University and the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Researchers for the first time have calculated the highest tolerable "wet-bulb" temperature and found that this temperature could be exceeded for the first time in human history in future climate scenarios if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate.
Wet-bulb temperature is equivalent to what is felt when wet skin is exposed to moving air. It includes temperature and atmospheric humidity and is measured by covering a standard thermometer bulb with a wetted cloth and fully ventilating it.
The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences who co-authored the paper that will be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Although areas of the world regularly see temperatures above 100 degrees, really high wet-bulb temperatures are rare," Huber said. "This is because the hottest areas normally have low humidity, like the 'dry heat' referred to in Arizona. When it is dry, we are able to cool our bodies through perspiration and can remain fairly comfortable. The highest wet-bulb temperatures ever recorded were in places like Saudi Arabia near the coast where winds occasionally bring extremely hot, humid ocean air over hot land leading to unbearably stifling conditions, which fortunately are short-lived today."
The study did not provide new evaluations of the likelihood of future climate scenarios, but explored the impacts of warming. The challenges presented by the future climate scenarios are daunting in their scale and severity, he said.
"Whole countries would intermittently be subject to severe heat stress requiring large-scale adaptation efforts," Huber said. "One can imagine that such efforts, for example the wider adoption of air conditioning, would cause the power requirements to soar, and the affordability of such approaches is in question for much of the Third World that would bear the brunt of these impacts. In addition, the livestock on which we rely would still be exposed, and it would make any form of outside work hazardous."
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change central estimates of business-as-usual warming by 2100 are seven degrees Fahrenheit, eventual warming of 25 degrees is feasible, he said.
"We found that a warming of 12 degrees Fahrenheit would cause some areas of the world to surpass the wet-bulb temperature limit, and a 21-degree warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment," Huber said. "When it comes to evaluating the risk of carbon emissions, such worst-case scenarios need to be taken into account. It's the difference between a game of roulette and playing Russian roulette with a pistol. Sometimes the stakes are too high, even if there is only a small chance of losing."
Steven Sherwood, the professor at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who is the paper's lead author, said prolonged wet-bulb temperatures above 95 degrees would be intolerable after a matter of hours.
"The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," Sherwood said. "Although we are very unlikely to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the next."
Humans at rest generate about 100 watts of energy from metabolic activity. Wet-bulb temperature estimates provide upper limits on the ability of people to cool themselves by sweating and otherwise dissipating this heat, he said. In order for the heat dissipation process to work, the surrounding air must be cooler than the skin, which must be cooler than the core body temperature. The cooler skin is then able to absorb excess heat from the core and release it into the environment. If the wet-bulb temperature is warmer than the temperature of the skin, metabolic heat cannot be released and potentially dangerous overheating can ensue depending on the magnitude and duration of the heat stress.
The National Science Foundation-funded research investigated the long-term implications of sustained greenhouse gas emissions on climate extremes. The team used climate models to compare the peak wet-bulb temperatures to the global temperatures for various climate simulations and found that the peak wet-bulb temperature rises approximately 1 degree Centigrade for every degree Centigrade increase in tropical mean temperature.
Huber did the climate modeling on supercomputers operated by Information Technology at Purdue (ITaP), Purdue's central information technology organization. Sherwood performed the wet-bulb calculations.
"These temperatures haven't been seen during the existence of hominids, but they did occur about 50 million years ago, and it is a legitimate possibility that the Earth could see such temperatures again," Huber said. "If we consider these worst-case scenarios early enough, perhaps we can do something to address the risk through mitigation or new technological advancements that will allow us to adapt."
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Another Oldie But Goodie: Mark Mills 1998 CO2 Compliance Burden Study
In the interest of ensuring public access to climate-related documents that may be hard to find, I am posting here the original, June 1998 study by technology analyst Mark P. Mills of the sprawling compliance burdens of EPA regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
The study, entitled A Stunning Regulatory Burden: EPA Designating CO2 As A Pollutant, estimated that applying CAA permitting requirements to CO2 would compel EPA to regulate over 1 million small- and mid-size businesses.
In September 2008, Mills and his daughter Portia updated the study for the Chamber of Commerce in a report entitled A Regulatory Burden: The Compliance Dimension of Regulating CO2 as a Pollutant.
Although superceded by the later report, the June 1998 report remains highly relevant to the climate policy debate.
A Stunning Regulatory Burden was a direct response to the April 1998 Memorandum by then EPA General Counsel Jonathan Z. Cannon asserting EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Petitioners in Massachusetts v. EPA partly relied on the Cannon memorandum to press their claim that EPA had a statutory obligation to issue an endangerment finding and regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles under Sec. 202 of the Act.
Most importantly, the June 1998 Mills study reminds us that EPA had to know all along that a victory for petitioners in Massachusetts v. EPA would dramatically expand its regulatory reach beyond any plausible delegation of regulatory authority from Congress.
Yet during all the years when the case was being litigated (Sep. 2004 - April 2007), EPA never pointed out the regulatory ramifications of a victory for petitioners. Only long after losing case, in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (July 2008) and Tailoring Rule (October 2009), did EPA acknowledge that the endangerment finding tees up the very sorts of regulatory excesses Mills warned about a decade earlier.
The 5-4 majority in Mass v. EPA decided in favor of petitioners partly in the belief that an endangerment finding would not lead to ”extreme measures” (p. 531). But according to the Tailoring Rule, unless EPA “tailors” — that is, amends — the CAA, the endangerment finding will lead inexorably to a host of “absurd results” that conflict with and undermine congressional intent.
The question arises: Why didn’t EPA explain this when it really mattered? Why did EPA pull its punches in Mass. v. EPA? Why didn’t EPA make the case that the endangerment finding sought by petitioners would lead a regulatory cascade that Congress never intended and would not approve?
I think the answer is obvious. For EPA, losing the Massachusetts case meant gaining the power to regulate fuel economy for the auto industry and, more importantly, the power to determine climate and energy policy for the nation. Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that EPA wanted to be thrown into the greenhouse briar patch all along.
In the interest of ensuring public access to climate-related documents that may be hard to find, I am posting here the original, June 1998 study by technology analyst Mark P. Mills of the sprawling compliance burdens of EPA regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
The study, entitled A Stunning Regulatory Burden: EPA Designating CO2 As A Pollutant, estimated that applying CAA permitting requirements to CO2 would compel EPA to regulate over 1 million small- and mid-size businesses.
In September 2008, Mills and his daughter Portia updated the study for the Chamber of Commerce in a report entitled A Regulatory Burden: The Compliance Dimension of Regulating CO2 as a Pollutant.
Although superceded by the later report, the June 1998 report remains highly relevant to the climate policy debate.
A Stunning Regulatory Burden was a direct response to the April 1998 Memorandum by then EPA General Counsel Jonathan Z. Cannon asserting EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Petitioners in Massachusetts v. EPA partly relied on the Cannon memorandum to press their claim that EPA had a statutory obligation to issue an endangerment finding and regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles under Sec. 202 of the Act.
Most importantly, the June 1998 Mills study reminds us that EPA had to know all along that a victory for petitioners in Massachusetts v. EPA would dramatically expand its regulatory reach beyond any plausible delegation of regulatory authority from Congress.
Yet during all the years when the case was being litigated (Sep. 2004 - April 2007), EPA never pointed out the regulatory ramifications of a victory for petitioners. Only long after losing case, in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (July 2008) and Tailoring Rule (October 2009), did EPA acknowledge that the endangerment finding tees up the very sorts of regulatory excesses Mills warned about a decade earlier.
The 5-4 majority in Mass v. EPA decided in favor of petitioners partly in the belief that an endangerment finding would not lead to ”extreme measures” (p. 531). But according to the Tailoring Rule, unless EPA “tailors” — that is, amends — the CAA, the endangerment finding will lead inexorably to a host of “absurd results” that conflict with and undermine congressional intent.
The question arises: Why didn’t EPA explain this when it really mattered? Why did EPA pull its punches in Mass. v. EPA? Why didn’t EPA make the case that the endangerment finding sought by petitioners would lead a regulatory cascade that Congress never intended and would not approve?
I think the answer is obvious. For EPA, losing the Massachusetts case meant gaining the power to regulate fuel economy for the auto industry and, more importantly, the power to determine climate and energy policy for the nation. Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that EPA wanted to be thrown into the greenhouse briar patch all along.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Global warming has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders. On the one hand, warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. On the other, the technological, economic and political issues that have to be resolved before a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions can begin have gotten no simpler, particularly in the face of a global economic slowdown.
After years of preparation for climate talks taking place in Copenhagen through Dec. 18, 2009, President Obama and other leaders announced on Nov. 15 what had already become evident — that no formal treaty could be produced anytime soon. Instead, the leaders pledged to reach a placeholder accord that would call for reductions in emissions and increased aid to help developing nations adapt to a changing climate and get access to non-polluting energy options.
This would in theory give the nations more time to work out the all-important details. Negotiators would then seek a binding global agreement in 2010, complete with firm emission targets, enforcement mechanisms and specific dollar amounts to aid poorer nations.
At the heart of the debate is a momentous tussle between rich and poor countries over who steps up first and who pays most for changed energy menus.
Within the United States, Congress is similarly fighting over legislation on climate change. The House in the summer of 2009 passed a bill outlining a cap-and-trade system that could, over the next few decades, lead to an early end to conventional use of coal and oil, fuels that have underpinned prosperity and growth for more than a century. But between stiff opposition from energy interests and the overwhelming distractions of health care reform and the economy, the legislation has stalled in the Senate.
In international discussions over climate, Mr. Obama has urged other countries not to be discouraged by the stasis on Capitol Hill, pointing to big investments in energy efficiency, solar and wind power and his move to restrict greenhouse gases using environmental regulations.
In the meantime, recent fluctuations in temperature, seized on by opponents of emissions restrictions, have intensified the public debate over how urgently to respond. The long-term warming trend over the last century has been well-established, and scientists immersed in studying the climate are projecting substantial disruption in water supplies, agriculture, ecosystems and coastal communities. Passionate activists at both ends of the discourse are pushing ever harder for or against rapid action, while polls show the public locked durably in three camps — with roughly a fifth of American voters eager for action, a similar proportion aggressively rejecting projections of catastrophe and most people tuned out or confused.
After years of preparation for climate talks taking place in Copenhagen through Dec. 18, 2009, President Obama and other leaders announced on Nov. 15 what had already become evident — that no formal treaty could be produced anytime soon. Instead, the leaders pledged to reach a placeholder accord that would call for reductions in emissions and increased aid to help developing nations adapt to a changing climate and get access to non-polluting energy options.
This would in theory give the nations more time to work out the all-important details. Negotiators would then seek a binding global agreement in 2010, complete with firm emission targets, enforcement mechanisms and specific dollar amounts to aid poorer nations.
At the heart of the debate is a momentous tussle between rich and poor countries over who steps up first and who pays most for changed energy menus.
Within the United States, Congress is similarly fighting over legislation on climate change. The House in the summer of 2009 passed a bill outlining a cap-and-trade system that could, over the next few decades, lead to an early end to conventional use of coal and oil, fuels that have underpinned prosperity and growth for more than a century. But between stiff opposition from energy interests and the overwhelming distractions of health care reform and the economy, the legislation has stalled in the Senate.
In international discussions over climate, Mr. Obama has urged other countries not to be discouraged by the stasis on Capitol Hill, pointing to big investments in energy efficiency, solar and wind power and his move to restrict greenhouse gases using environmental regulations.
In the meantime, recent fluctuations in temperature, seized on by opponents of emissions restrictions, have intensified the public debate over how urgently to respond. The long-term warming trend over the last century has been well-established, and scientists immersed in studying the climate are projecting substantial disruption in water supplies, agriculture, ecosystems and coastal communities. Passionate activists at both ends of the discourse are pushing ever harder for or against rapid action, while polls show the public locked durably in three camps — with roughly a fifth of American voters eager for action, a similar proportion aggressively rejecting projections of catastrophe and most people tuned out or confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)