HOW THE INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT STOPED THE CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING?

Climate Change, Global warming is a term widely used to describe a potentially dramatic rise in the annual average global surface Temperature of the Earth. Estimates of how big that temperature increase will he range from 1L5"C to 4"C. If such a change in temperature occurs it is most likely that there will be other alterations to our climate. The rainfall distrib­ution might change and the frequency of severe weather events, such as hurricanes and typhoons, might increase. All the variables that we use to describe the weather and climate might undergo a profound alteration. Most scientists believe that there is good evidence that this change is due to increas­ing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases in the Earth's atmosphere. These greenhouse gases act to trap outgoing thermal radiation which then warms the Earth. But why is carbon dioxide increasing, what is the real cause? To answer that question we need only to look around at our homes, our schools and our workplaces. Since fire was discovered we have been burn­ing fuels that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. With The onset of the industrial revolution in the 1700s, increasing use has been made of fossil fuels which release large amounts of carbon dioxide when burnt. The industrial and domestic energy demands of our mod­ern society mean that approximately 7 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon from car­bon dioxide is released every year. Consequently, as our technological ability has increased so has our potential for altering the environment in which we live.

With such profound consequences, and the culprit for the changes known, it might be thought negligent of the global community if no attempt was made to address the situation. Consequently, there have been world-wide efforts to tackle global warming. By 1988 the global scientific community had been canvassed and the consensus opinion was that the predicted changes in climate were significant enough to warrant action to curb greenhouse gases. The Toronto Conference in Canada that year led to the netting up of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC] by the World

Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The role of the IPCC was to examine the scientific evi­dence and report back to the world's leaders. There Followed a series of high profile meetings aimed at addressing this problem which led to the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. At this meeting, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] was adopted by the signatories. This was essentially a commitment to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that would not endanger the climate system and was interpreted by most signatories as meaning a return to 1990 emission levels of greenhouse gases by the year 2000. Most developed nations will fail to meet this reduction.

There were no targets set in 1992 and when the signatories met in Berlin in spring 1995, little was agreed other than that emission targets for beyond the year 2000 needed to be set by 1997. In July 1996 the second Conference of Parties was held jn Geneva (CoP-2) and this was more positive. The USA, perhaps the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, endorsed action. By December 1997 and the third meeting in Japan [CoP-3], the Kyoto Protocol agreed- targets for a group of six greenhouse gases. An overall target, rather than individual targets for each gas, was set, thereby allowing rising emissions of one gas to be offset by extra reductions of another gas. It was agreed that developed countries would cut emissions by 5.2 per cent by 2008-2012, The USA agreed to a reduction of 7 per cent and the European Union (EU) to 8 per cent. In November 1998, the fourth meeting in Buenos Aires [CoP-4] was to decide on the implementation strategy for the Kyoto Protocol, Instead, most of the decisions were left for a rolling programme over the next two years. Many issues were left unresolved and it is unclear whether enough has been done to stabilize the climate. By mid 1999 the USA was still refusing to cut its own emissions until certain key developing countries accept greenhouse gas emission targets. Without some sort of resolution soon the whole policy process is m danger of stalling. It looks increasingly likely that we will be unable to stop global warming.

Why has so little been achieved despite dire warnings, increased public environmental commitment and exhortations for businesses to 'go green'? Partly the answer lies in the complexity of the problem; there is no quick fix. Every facet of life in the modern developed world seems to require the consumption of fossil fuels, but the most serious impediment to change is the perception that for increased economic growth there must be continuously rising energy consumption, and consequently increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The argument is that to put the brakes on carbon dioxide emissions will seriously impede our economic welfare. Some of the most powerful lobbying groups in the world have been highly successful at getting this message across, not only to politicians and policy-makers, but also to the public.

Paradox of Global Warming, Climate Change and Earn Money Online

Paradox of Global Warming, Climate Change and Earn Money Online

(Global Warming Problem)

By Jacob Paradox

In Indonesia by self, entering year 2006 have happened storm wind in some territorial waters resulting floods in area of around coast till by day. As a result all fishermen cannot go down to sea to look for fish, so that they experience of a period to not have income. Not to mention close of rainfall him result landslide and floods in some areas. This events of course still have bearing with global warming effect damage of environment. If cause of this global damage do not overcome to be depressed as small as possible, of course damage of environment which have happened this will going worse which as a result also will harm all that live the including useses. Biggest contributor of damage of environment by totally, is pollution generated by combustion of fossil fuel, like coal, oil fuel, and natural gas on a large scale. From that combustion cause the happening of glasshouse emission as cause of global warming.

Environment problem it is true not problem one of the just state, but have become responsibility all state and nation. Along of that various effort conducted people to prevent to add the destroying of environment. Like carried out him of KTT Earth, Protocol Kiyoto, etc. Even some states which still exploit fossil fuel, trying to lessen glasshouse effect by using natural gas fuel which economically very competition when compared to usage of coal or petroleum. Only in fact natural gas also remain to generate CO2, but slimmer if compared to usage of coal and petroleum. Despitefully even also natural gas also generate methan during the process of him, that all the can result damages of environment. Even recently emerge other theory concerning glasshouse effect, like according to American say that Sun activity variable which was at the going up of him of global.

But lessen combustion of fossil fuel for accomplishment of requirement of energy of course have big benefit, at least as step thrift of existing natural resources reserve to be utilized by our offspring wait.

Combustion of fossil fuel like coal and petroleum on a large scale, conducted people for power plant, industrialization, and transportation. Special for the fuel of power plant, in fact usage of fossil fuel have been depressed as small as possible, caused by modern technology which use other fuel is non more fossil economize productively, ad for and do not generate pollution. Beside that even also fossil fuel like the price oil fuel of tending to increasing, supply of also very limited. People not possible to have to depended continuously to oil fuel, because in a moment the reserve of will used finished. Therefore for Indonesia nowadays the moment of us exploit fuel of non fossil to various need like for power station. Thereby besides partaking strive the continuation of environment globally, also as step thrift of natural resources reserve which have progressively attenuated in this country.

If mentioned problem of us tie on Online Earn Money hence can be seen by result of him if can look for advantage pass media of on lino mean they earn to save environment of program of Earn Online Money from internet.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Senin 25 February 2008)

Get More Subject Information In Global Warming:

Acid rain, air pollution, al gore, alternative energy, alternative fuel, an inconvenient truth, Biofuel, Carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide emissions, carbon emissions, carbon footprint, carbon neutral, carbon offset, carbon offsets, clean air, climate, climate change, conservation, Emissions, energy, energy conservation, energy efficiency, environment, environmental, environmental issues, environmentalist, environmentally friendly, Global climate change, globalwarming, greenhouse, greenhouse effect, greenhouse gas, greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gases, Hybrid, Inconvenient truth, Kyoto protocol, kyoto treaty, Peak oil, pollution, pollution control, Recycle, recycling, renewable energy, Save gas, solar,,solar panels, Water pollution, wind power

Aviation and global warming (Global climate change)

KEEPING THE SKIES FRIENDLY

Aviation and global warming

By Giovanni Bisignani

Is aviation a major contributor to global warming? Is it the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions? Hyperbole characterizes the debate on aviation and climate change. Who to believe? Politicians? Environmental activists? Airlines? Scientists?

So let's look at the facts. And let's take them from the world's most authoritative body on this issue, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC estimates that aviation today is responsible for 2 percent of global CO2 emissions with a total climate change impact of 3 percent. These figures have remained largely unchanged over the last two decades, despite the growth of air traffic.

Projecting forward to 2050, the IPCC has aviation at 3 percent of global CO2 emissions and 5-6 percent of climate change impact. We are and will remain a small part of the big problem of climate change. Nonetheless, aviation's carbon footprint is growing, and that is politically unacceptable for any industry. The challenge is to keep the many benefits of aviation - unprecedented global mobility that supports 32 million jobs and $3.5 billion worth of economic activity - while eliminating its negative impacts. The solution is not to return to the days when flying was reserved for the well-to-do by making it artificially expensive with even more taxes. Punitive economic measures like emissions trading will not have a big impact on aviation's environmental performance.

With 28 percent of costs coming directly from fuel, the airline industry has the strongest incentive of any industry to keep fuel consumption low. Positive measures - tax credits to encourage faster re-fleeting or grants to fund alternative fuel research - would deliver better results. Unilateral European proposals to include aviation into its emissions trading scheme have put economic measures at the center of a political debate, partially fueled by the approaching Kyoto deadlines. But regional initiatives are no way to solve a worldwide issue.

A meeting currently taking place in Montreal is our best opportunity for a global solution. Government leaders responsible for civil aviation are meeting at the Triennial Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Environment tops their agenda. If emissions trading is going to be imposed on airlines, we must make sure it is effective. The ICAO needs to work towards a global emissions trading scheme that states could implement on a mutual consent basis. This is what the drafters of Kyoto had always envisaged. But the industry is pushing governments for much loftier goals. In June, I proposed a vision for the industry to aim for carbon-neutral growth in the medium-term and to develop zero-carbon emissions technology within 50 years.

Since then, I have met with aircraft manufacturers, engine makers, fuel-suppliers and airlines. Nobody has all the answers, but no one said our goal was impossible. On the contrary, it is absolutely achievable. Remember, this is the industry that went from the Wright Brothers to the jet age in just five decades.

The critical question is: How do we turn the vision into reality? The first part of the answer is efficiency. It is the best way to take us to carbon neutral growth. Airlines are investing billions of dollars in new, more fuel-efficient aircraft. In the last four decades, fuel efficiency increased 70 percent and will improve a further 25 percent by 2020. Better air traffic control, including straightening air routes, and more efficient operations can reduce fuel burn by 18 percent.

Unfortunately, politics often gets in the way of good common sense. Uniting Europe's skies offers the biggest single opportunity to improve aviation's environmental performance. But after 15 years of talks, a Single European Sky is still just an idea. This political failure results in 12 million tons of unnecessary carbon emissions each year. The second part of our vision is technology. It is the only way to zero emissions. Quite simply we need to build better planes and more efficient engines powered by non-carbon sources. Some potential building blocks already exist - solar power, hydrogen cells and biofuel.

The world's airlines - IATA's 240 members - are committed to the vision. Manufacturers are aligned. All are working hard. It is now time for governments to come on board. Through ICAO, governments must set challenging but realistic targets in two important areas. First we need targets to improve air traffic management and eliminate unnecessary fuel burn. Then we need technology targets in a roadmap. This will provide regulatory certainty to back major investment decisions by manufacturers and airlines. So, please, less hyperbole and more concrete actions.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Jumat 22 February 2008)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

Get More Subject Information In Global Warming:

Acid rain, air pollution, al gore, alternative energy, alternative fuel, an inconvenient truth, Biofuel, Carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide emissions, carbon emissions, carbon footprint, carbon neutral, carbon offset, carbon offsets, clean air, climate, climate change, conservation, Emissions, energy, energy conservation, energy efficiency, environment, environmental, environmental issues, environmentalist, environmentally friendly, Global climate change, globalwarming, greenhouse, greenhouse effect, greenhouse gas, greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gases, Hybrid, Inconvenient truth, Kyoto protocol, kyoto treaty, Peak oil, pollution, pollution control, Recycle, recycling, renewable energy, Save gas, solar,,solar panels, Water pollution, wind power

Dire climate warning linked to China and India (Climate Change, Solar Power)

Dire climate warning linked to China and India

By Elisabeth Rosenthal

ROME: The average global temperature will rise to a devastating level by 2030 if China and India do not begin curbing energy use and carbon emissions immediately, officials of the International Energy Agency predicted Wednesday.

Speaking at the World Energy Congress, the officials noted that 60 percent of the global increase in emissions from 2005 to 2030 would come from India and China. By next year, China will overtake the United States as the leader in carbon emissions, the agency predicts; some studies suggest that this has already occurred.

Citing a World Energy Outlook from the agency last week, the officials said that if current development trends continued unchanged, total carbon emissions would rise by 57 percent by 2030, leading to a global temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, or 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit, by 2030.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations entity that presents its final report in Valencia, Spain, on Saturday, has estimated that global emissions would cause a warming of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Many scientists say 2 degrees is the threshold beyond which there would be significant social and economic disruption.

The agency officials said that by 2015, China, the United States and India would be ranked 1, 2 and 3 respectively in global emissions, accounting for more than half of the world's total, the officials said. "So without moving these three countries, we should expect no realistic results in reducing emissions," said Fatih Birol, chief economist of the agency and the report's chief author.

Such pronouncements by the agency in the past week have put new pressure on China and India, as well as the United States, to participate for the first time in global environmental treaties, like the Kyoto Protocol, that specify emissions limits. That treaty expires in 2012 and world leaders will meet in Bali, Indonesia, next month to develop a follow-up program.

China and India have resisted inclusion in global climate-change pacts, saying that emissions limits would be a severe handicap for their economies and efforts to improve the lives of citizens. The United States has refused to participate in plans that involve emissions caps, especially if developing countries are not included. Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, noted that emerging economies deserved help in environmental improvement, which is often costly. "It is a question of sharing the burden and how to do it. That is at the heart of the negotiations," he said by telephone.

Indeed, T. Sankaralingam, managing director of NTPC, India's largest utility, said climate concerns inevitably took a back seat in countries that were still trying to pull millions of people out of poverty. "The priority for our country is economic growth and accessibility to energy for the people," he said at the energy congress. "We need to build power plants, and transportation systems." He noted that 600 million people in India have no access to electricity. "People below the poverty line should not be denied the benefits of economic growth," he said.

Nobuo Tanaka, the designated executive director of the International Energy Agency, recognized the needs of people "striving for social and economic change" and the "concerted efforts" China and India have made recently to begin to address environmental problems. Still, he called the current trajectory "unacceptable." "We are all for China to grow, but we want it to grow with policies," he said. Who should bear responsibility for installing cleaner technologies in developing countries like India and China remains a huge open question.

"We in the developed world will have to help pay for the transformation not only in our own country but in other countries as well," said Kurt Yeager of World Energy Council Energy and Climate Change Study Group, USA.

But in recent weeks, agency officials have stressed that if a solution was not found to curb the growth of energy use and improve energy efficiency in India and China, the trend would become harder and harder to reverse. China and India are building huge numbers of power plants to meet energy over the next 10 years, and 90 percent will burn coal. Coal is a highly polluting but relatively inexpensive source of power, making it the choice for developing countries. While technology exists to make coal plants somewhat cleaner, it is expensive.

"What choices China and India make will be with us for 60 years," said Birol, the agency economist. "These are locked in investments."

Birol added: "Here in Europe in Brussels, in Paris, we talk about biofuels and photovoltaic cells. But in the world it is coal that increases most in the energy mix, especially in India in China." Likewise, choices made in construction and manufacturing today in developing countries will leave a long-lasting legacy. Cheap but low efficiency appliances like refrigerators and air conditioners being manufactured in countries like China to supply upwardly mobile populations will create emissions for years to come.

Measured in square meters, one half of the world's construction is in China, Birol said, and the quality of windows and walls is poor, so the resulting buildings waste enormous amounts of energy. "They will be with us for decades," he said.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

British companies to fight climate change together (Climate Change, Solar Power)

British companies to fight climate change together

By Julia Werdigier

LONDON: The largest British companies, including BP, Tesco and BT Group, pledged to offer greener products and invest in research and technology as part of a wider push to reduce carbon emissions and serve as models for other countries.

In a concerted effort, 18 of the top British top companies — ranging from carmakers and airlines to retailers and banks — were to publish a report Monday in which they promised to develop new products and services that would allow customers to cut their carbon footprints. The initiative is also intended to send a message to companies around the world to move climate change higher up their agendas. "Carbon needs to be part of the DNA for businesses just like health and safety has become over the years," said Richard Lambert, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, which helped coordinate the report.

They also said they would develop a standard for all companies involved in the initiative to regularly report their carbon emission levels, invest in technology and emission-saving projects, and promote "greener" behavior among their own employees, starting with the reduction of emissions from company cars and offices. The group did not say how it planned to ensure that its members stuck to their pledges but said the savings from cutting emissions would encourage them to do so.

"There is an urgency, and the sooner we do it the better and the cheaper," said Ben Verwaayen, chief executive of the telecommunications company BT and chairman of the task force group, whose members employ two million people worldwide and generate more than £1 trillion, or $2.06 trillion, in revenue. The report is the result of British businesses addressing issues raised by The Stern Review, a study published last year on the impact of global warming on the economy that was commissioned by the British government. The review, led by the government's top economist, Nicholas Stern, concluded that spending about 1 percent of global gross domestic product on stabilizing emissions today would avoid having to pay about 5 percent to 20 percent in the future. Such predictions have ensured that global warming has remained high on the government's agenda, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pledged to establish an advisory committee to help it meet its target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.

But some businesses have been skeptical in the past about government initiatives to introduce legislation on curbing emissions because they fear it would put them at a competitive disadvantage to rivals that are not bound by such laws. Lambert acknowledged at a press briefing Friday that competition issues were a concern but that British companies could use the need to cut emissions as an opportunity to become leaders in low-carbon technologies.

Iain Conn, head of BP's refining and marketing division, said that the return from some emission-reduction projects has more than covered investments in the necessary technology. Many companies have not yet realized they can actually make money from investing in such technology, he said. The report said that responsibility to cut climate-changing emissions lies with consumers, who through their purchases influence about 60 percent of British emissions; companies, which can enable customers to act by offering greener products; and the government, which should use tax cuts as an incentive for consumers. Consumers should be encouraged through tax cuts and cheaper products, for example, to invest in better insulation of their homes, an improvement whose financial benefits takes years for a consumer to recoup, the group said. In addition, if people were encouraged to buy the most efficient car in each class today, new car emissions could be reduced by a third. Further investments in air traffic management systems could cut fuel consumption by 12 percent, the report said.

Britain is responsible for about 4 percent of global emissions, more than its share of the 14 percent contributed by all 27 European Union member states. Within Britain, about 90 percent of emissions come from the transport, building, power and industrial sectors, and each sector will have to focus on different methods to cut emissions, the report stated. The building industry can cut most emissions by improving the structure of buildings and the use of lights, according to the report. The power industry can cut emissions by using more waste recycling, but also with the use wind and nuclear energy.

Some of the group's members, including Tesco and Shell, are already members of a similar but smaller group called .

The Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, which is currently working with the government to tackle climate change. Verwaayen said that if consumer and business behavior starts to change within the next two years, the cost for each household to keep emissions down could be limited to about £100 a year by 2030. "We need to support the consumer with better information and more choice" to make it easier for them to limit emissions, Verwaayen said.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

Australia ratifies Kyoto pact (Climate Change, Solar Power)

Australia ratifies Kyoto pact

By James Grubel

CANBERRA: Australia's new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, took the oath of office on Monday and immediately signed documents to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, ending his country's decade of opposition to the global climate agreement.

The move isolates the United States, which will now be the only developed nation not to ratify the agreement which sets binding limits on developed countries to curb the carbon emissions blamed for global warming. "This is the first official act of the new Australian government, demonstrating my government's commitment to tackling climate change," Rudd said in a statement. Climate scientists said the development was a major step for Australia and sent a clear message to Washington.

"This has given America no excuse now. They are now the only country who won't ratify Kyoto, they are the ones most responsible for the problem and they are not living up to their responsibility," said Barry Brook, professor of climate studies at Adelaide University. Rudd, 50, led the centre-left Labor party to victory at the November 24 election, ending nearly 12 years of conservative rule, by promising a new generation of leadership and committing to sign the Kyoto pact. The former conservative government refused to ratify Kyoto, saying it would unfairly hurt the Australian economy with its heavy reliance on coal for energy and export income, while countries like India and China were not bound by targets.

But a new report from the environment think tank the Climate Institute, written by government and university scientists, found that Australia's economy could easily cope with strong cuts in greenhouse emissions.

It said growth would fall by only 0.1 percent of gross domestic product annually if Australia set a target of 20 percent cuts in emissions by 2020 and aimed to be carbon neutral by 2050. "Leading the way on climate is an affordable, prudent and achievable investment," Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said on Monday.

Shortly after Rudd was sworn in, the Kyoto decision was approved by Governor-General Michael Jeffery, who represents Queen Elizabeth in Australia's constitution and who must approve all international treaties. Under U.N. guidelines, full ratification takes place 90 days after the United Nations receives the formal Instrument of Ratification, meaning Australia will be a full member of the Kyoto club by the end of March.

The way is now clear for Rudd to play a stronger role at the U.N. climate talks in Bali, which opened negotiations on Monday on new carbon emission targets for beyond 2012. He is to lead a delegation of four Australian ministers at the conference. The previous government said Australia would meet its Kyoto targets, despite not ratifying the pact, but Rudd said the latest advice suggested it would miss its target to curb greenhouse emissions growth to 108 percent of 1990 levels by 2012.

"We are currently likely to exceed, or overshoot, our target by one percent," Rudd said, adding that Australia faced penalties under new targets beyond 2012. Rudd has set a long-term target of cutting carbon emissions by 60 percent of 2000 levels by 2050, but has yet to announce an interim target for emissions by 2020.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

U.S. asked to regulate airplane pollution (Climate Change, Solar Power)

U.S. asked to regulate airplane pollution

The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO: A coalition of states, cities and environmental groups is urging the U.S. government to curb global warming pollution from planes and other aircraft.

California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia were to file a petition Wednesday asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from domestic and foreign aircraft departing or landing at American airports. New York City and the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Southern California have also joined the states' petition.

"We want the EPA to take their head out of the sand and actively promulgate rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, told The Associated Press. The agency "has taken a very passive and unimaginative approach to combating global warming."

Aviation is responsible for about 3 percent of overall carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration expects domestic aircraft emissions to rise 60 percent by 2025, according to the petition.

The petition asks the environmental agency to develop rules to reduce aircraft emissions by requiring operators to increase fuel efficiency, use cleaner fuels or acquire lighter, more aerodynamic airplanes.

Earthjustice, an environmental law firm in Oakland, California, plans to file a similar petition on behalf of Friends of the Earth, Oceana and the Center for Biological Diversity.

Officials at the environmental agency said it would review the petitions but defended its efforts to combat global warming.

The United States "has invested over $37 billion on climate change science, technology and tax incentive programs - more than any other country in the world," the agency said in statement.

The Air Transport Association, which represents major American airlines, said establishing a greenhouse gas emissions standard for aircraft engines was not necessary "when the commercial airlines already are driven to be as fuel efficient and environmentally conscious as possible."

U.S. airlines have doubled their fuel efficiency over the past three decades and are committed to increasing fuel efficiency an additional 30 percent by 2025, the association said.

The petition comes as thousands of government officials, climate scientists and environmentalists from almost 190 nations meet in Bali, Indonesia, this week for the annual United Nations climate change conference.

California and several conservation groups filed a similar petition in October asking the environmental agency to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases from cargo ships, cruise liners and other oceangoing vessels.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

Bali draft says all nations must join climate fight (Climate Change, Solar Power)

Bali draft says all nations must join climate fight

By Alister Doyle and Gerard Wynn

NUSA DUA, Indonesia: All nations must do more to fight climate change, and rich countries must make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts, a draft proposal at United Nations talks said on Saturday.

The four-page draft, written by delegates from Indonesia, Australia and South Africa as an unofficial guide for delegates from 190 nations at the December 3-14 talks, said developing nations should at least brake rising emissions as part of a new pact. It said there was "unequivocal scientific evidence" that "preventing the worst impacts of climate change will require (developed nations) to reduce emissions in a range of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020." The draft is the first outline of the possible goals of talks on a new global deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which binds just 36 developed nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

"Current efforts ... will not deliver the required emissions reductions," according to the text, obtained by Reuters, that lays out a plan for averting ever more droughts, floods, heatwaves and rising seas. "The challenge of climate change calls for effective participation by all countries," it said. The United States is outside the Kyoto pact and developing nations led by China and India have no 2012 goals for limiting emissions. Echoing conclusions this year by the U.N. climate panel, it said global emissions of greenhouse gases would have to "peak in the next 10 to 15 years and be reduced to very low levels, well below half of levels in 2000 by 2050."

THREE OPTIONS

The draft lays out three options for how to proceed after Bali -- ranging from non-binding talks over the next two years to a deadline for adopting a new global pact at a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009. Rich nations should consider ways to step up efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases by setting "quantified national emission objectives", the draft says. Poor countries should take "national mitigation actions ... that limit the growth of, or reduce, emissions," it says. It adds that "social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities" for poor nations. Delegates will report back on Monday with reactions.

Earlier, trade ministers from 12 nations met for the first time on the sidelines of a U.N. climate conference, opening a new front in the global warming battle. Their two-day discussions ending on Sunday focus on easing tariffs on climate-friendly goods to spur a "green" economy. About 20 finance ministers will join the fringes of the Bali meeting on Monday and Tuesday. "Climate change solutions open up important opportunities for jobs and trade," Australian Trade Minister Simon Crean told reporters. Ministers at the trade meeting included those from the United States, Australia, Brazil and India.

Differences over who should take the blame for, and do most to curb, emissions threatened to deadlock the main talks. Canada and Australia joined Japan on Saturday in calling for commitments from some developing countries. But developing nations would find it "inconceivable" to accept binding targets now, said the U.N.'s climate change chief Yvo de Boer. An alliance of 43 small island states urged even tougher action to fight climate change, saying they risked being washed off the map by rising seas. Outside the conference centre, Balinese dancers used sticks to burst black balloons labelled "CO2", the main greenhouse gas.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

China rejects mandatory cuts on greenhouse gases (Climate Change, Solar Power)

China rejects mandatory cuts on greenhouse gases

By The Associated Press

BALI, Indonesia: China insisted Friday that it would not consider mandatory cuts on greenhouse gases, saying the United States and other industrialized countries should take the lead in fighting climate change by being less extravagant. China, which some believe has surpassed the United States as the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, also questioned the fairness of binding cuts when its per-capita emissions are about one-sixth those of the United States.

It said, too, that it had only been pumping pollutants into the atmosphere for a few decades, whereas the West has done so for hundreds of years. "China is in the process of industrialization, and there is a need for economic growth to meet the basic needs of the people and fight against poverty," said Su Wei, a top climate expert for the government and member of its delegation at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali. "I just wonder whether it's fair to ask developing countries like China to take on binding targets," Su said. "I think there is much room for the United States to think whether it's possible to change its lifestyle and consumption patterns in order to contribute to the protection of the global climate." Delegates from nearly 190 nations are attending the gathering, which runs from Dec. 3 through Dec. 14 and is charged with initiating negotiations that will lead to an international accord to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Kyoto, which has not been ratified by the United States, commits three dozen industrialized countries to cut their greenhouse gases an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels between next year and 2012, when it expires. After years of dodging the issue and appearing defensive on global warming, diplomats and activists say, China is playing a constructive and positive role at the Bali conference.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

EU agrees steep fines to cut car CO2 from 2012 (Climate Change, Solar Power)

EU agrees steep fines to cut car CO2 from 2012

By Paul Taylor Reuters

BRUSSELS: The European Commission enraged Germany and its carmakers on Wednesday by proposing tough legislation to force down emissions of carbon dioxide from cars, with steep fines on manufacturers that fail to comply. With several commissioners dissenting, the European Union executive set a four-year phase-in period from 2012 for fines on manufacturers whose fleets exceed an average of 120 grams per km of the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming. "This will send a strong signal to the world about the determination of the European Union to take bold measures on climate change," EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a news conference.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel slammed the plan as "not economically favourable", telling journalists in Berlin it would burden Germany and its carmakers disproportionately. German producers of heavier luxury vehicles such as Porsche, with by far the highest emissions of any major carmaker, BMW and Mercedes-Benz, could face billions of euros in fines unless they change course fast.

The DJ Stoxx European car sector index fell 1.4 percent, triple the broader market's decline. Shares in Porsche were down 3.87 percent. German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, often a backer of EU green initiatives, called it a "competition war" against the German car industry to benefit French and Italian rivals. But France complained that the Commission had let makers of heavier, more polluting vehicles off too lightly by varying the emission target according to the weight of the car.

Environmental campaigners accused Brussels of a sell-out for phasing in the fines over four years and setting no ambitious long-term goal. Greenpeace transport spokeswoman Franzisaka Achterberg said the EU had stood up like a lion for the world's climate at a U.N. conference but "is going down like a lamb and putting carmakers' short-term profits before our common survival".

Fines on companies for non-compliance will start at 20 euros ($28.80) per new car for each excess gram per km in 2012 on average over the whole fleet, and rise to 95 euros g/km in 2015. "The proposal is backed by credible penalties," Dimas said, noting that voluntary curbs had failed and road transport was the second-biggest source of emissions after power generation. Car producers denounced the plan, which requires makers of heavier luxury vehicles to make bigger cuts than manufacturers of smaller, lighter cars, and vowed to lobby member states and the European Parliament to fight them. "It's a bad decision. It is not balanced," Ivan Hodac, secretary-general of the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, told Reuters. "The level of penalties is totally unacceptable, up to 100 times higher than what is paid by other industries in the EU's emissions trading scheme," he said. Of the overall mandatory target, an average of 130 g/km must be achieved from improved engine technology and the rest through biofuels and more efficient gears, tires and air-conditioning. The average emissions level from cars in the EU was 163 g/km in 2004, the last year for which full data is available. The decision was reached after a showdown between industrial and environmental champions in the EU executive over how to fight climate change without penalizing European carmakers. It applies to all new cars sold in Europe, including those made by U.S., Japanese, South Korean and Chinese producers. Commission Vice President Guenter Verheugen, a German, dissented from the proposal and boycotted a planned joint news conference to announce it. He had sought lower fines and more flexibility on how companies achieve the cuts.

Several of the other 27 commissioners entered reservations in the minutes but did not demand a vote, a spokesman said. Germany's Volkswagen branded the proposal unfair, saying it would hit German firms harder than European rivals. BMW said the plan would distort the market and must be changed. Industry analysts forecast a fierce political battle. "It will lead to a political crisis. The Germans will have to pay more than the others. The rules are strange," said analyst Philippe Houchois at JP Morgan. Dimas, a Greek, argued for heavy fines as an effective deterrent to force manufacturers to invest in clean technology and produce lighter cars.

A table compiled by the Commission showed that France's Peugeot and Renault as well as Fiat of Italy would have to make the smallest cuts to attain their targets, while BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Japan's Subaru and Porsche would have to make the most progress. But carmakers will be able to team up and pool their CO2 emissions to meet the EU targets. That means makers of heavier cars will be able to buy emissions credits from producers whose fleet is below the limit.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

U.S. agency says 17 states can't set car emission rules (Climate Change, Solar Power)

U.S. agency says 17 states can't set car

emission rules

By John M. Broder and Felicity Barringer

WASHINGTON: The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. The EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, said the proposed California rules were pre-empted by federal authority and made moot by the energy bill signed into law by President George W. Bush on Wednesday. Johnson said California had failed to make a compelling case that it needed authority to write its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to help curb global warming. "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules," Johnson said in an evening conference call with reporters. "I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone."

Other states affected by the ruling included New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The decision immediately sparked a heated debate over its scientific basis and whether political pressure was applied by the automobile industry to help it escape the proposed California regulations. State officials and environmental groups vowed to sue to overturn the edict. The 17 states had waited two years for the Bush administration to issue a ruling on an application to set stricter air quality standards than those adopted by the federal government. The denial of the request, technically known as a Clean Air Act waiver, is the first of more than 50 applications that the federal government has refused to allow California to set its own pollution rules. The emissions standards California adopted in 2004 — but not been approved by the federal government — would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models. That would have translated into roughly 43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles.

The new federal law will require automakers to meet a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020. It does not address carbon dioxide emissions, but such emissions would be reduced as cars were forced to become more fuel efficient. California's proposed rules had sought to address the impact of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from cars and trucks that scientists say contribute to the warming of the planet.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said the states would go to federal court to reverse the EPA decision. "It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation," Schwarzenegger said. "We will continue to fight this battle." He added, "California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today's decision and allow Californians to protect our environment." Twelve other states — New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — had proposed standards like California's, and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah have said they would do the same.

If the waiver had been granted and the 16 other states had adopted the California standard, it would have covered at least half of all vehicles sold in America. Automakers praised the decision. "We commend EPA for protecting a national, 50-state program," said David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "Enchancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency and uncertainty for automakers and consumers." In recent weeks, the chief executives of the Detroit auto companies were in Washington to lobby for less-stringent regulations. Industry analysts and environmental groups said the EPA decision had the appearance of a reward to the industry, in return for dropping its opposition to the energy legislation. Auto industry leaders issued statements supporting the new energy law, which gives them more time to improve fuel economy than California would have. State officials reacted with dismay. The California attorney general, Edmund Brown Jr., called the decision "absurd." He said it ignored a long history of waivers granted California to deal with its special topographical, climate and transportation circumstances, which require tougher standards than those set nationally. Brown noted that federal courts in California and Vermont upheld the California standards this year against challenges by the auto industry.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

Nations agree on steps to revive climate treaty (Climate Change, Solar Power)

Nations agree on steps to revive climate treaty

By Thomas Fuller and Andrew C. Revkin

NUSA DUA, Indonesia: The world's countries wrapped up two weeks of intense and at times emotional talks here on Saturday with a two-year timetable for reviving an ailing, aging climate treaty.

The deal came after the United States, facing sharp verbal attacks in a final open-door negotiating session, reversed its opposition to a last-minute amendment by India. "We've listened very closely to many of our colleagues here during these two weeks, but especially to what has been said in this hall today," Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, who led the American delegation, told the assembled delegates. "We will go forward and join consensus," she said.

The Bush administration had earlier made a significant change in policy, ending its long-held objection to the need to formally negotiate new steps to avoid climate dangers. This time, the United States agreed to set a deadline for an addendum to the original treaty, which was signed by President George W. Bush's father in 1992. The agreement notes the need for "urgency" in addressing climate change and recognizes that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required." Still, it does not bind the United States or any country to commitments on reducing greenhouse pollution. "It starts a negotiation that allows but doesn't require an outcome where the U.S. takes a cap," or a national limit on greenhouse gases, said David Doniger, a former climate negotiator in the Clinton administration and the climate policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The agreement sets the stage for some commitments by developing countries to reduce greenhouse emissions. But it includes no language making such steps mandatory. American negotiators here had pushed hard to get developing countries, including emerging economic giants like China and India, to agree to seek cuts while retaining flexibility on how to make them. The last-minute dispute Saturday was over the wording of commitments by developing countries. The overall agreement, if completed by 2009, would also ensure continuity for parties to the Kyoto Protocol, the only existing addendum to the original climate treaty, which took effect in 2005. The Kyoto pact limits emissions by three dozen industrialized countries but has been rejected by the United States.

Its emissions caps expire in 2012, and adherents, particularly European countries, were eager to start the process of setting new limits to sustain markets in emissions credits — a keystone of the protocol. The Bush administration is increasingly under pressure domestically to take action on global warming. Climate legislation is gaining momentum in the Democrat-controlled Congress and presidential candidates from both parties are generally more engaged on the subject.

In April, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's contention that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant and ordered it to re-examine the case for regulating carbon dioxide from vehicles. Dozens of states are moving ahead with caps on greenhouse gases. The differences in philosophy at the meeting were striking and fundamental. European Union negotiators said they favored specific government-imposed caps on emissions and wanted industrial countries to lead the way. The United States favored relying on "aspirational" goals, research to advance nonpolluting energy technologies and a mix of measures, including mandatory steps like efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances — but all set by individual nations, not mandated by a global pact. Developing countries, a vaguely defined group that includes countries as different as China and Costa Rica, have long insisted that rich countries, which spent more than a century adding carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, should take the first step.

The tenor of the conference improved markedly after European nations, frustrated with the United States, threatened on Thursday to boycott talks proposed by the Bush administration in Hawaii next month. Germany's environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel, who led the criticism of the United States earlier in the week, said Friday, "The climate in the climate convention has changed a little bit. "It's true that during the last night and during the negotiations America was more flexible than in the first part of the conference. "We very much appreciate this. Not only the Americans but also other parties." Reuters reported Friday that the European Union had dropped a central demand that the guidelines for the agreement should include a reference to tough emissions targets for wealthy countries to meet by 2020. Coincidentally or not, the mood shifted after a speech Thursday by former Vice President Al Gore, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize this year for helping to alert the world to the danger of global warming.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

Bert Bolin, pioneering climatologist who won Nobel (Climate Change, Solar Power)

OBITUARY

Bert Bolin, pioneering climatologist who won Nobel

By Dennis Hevesi

Bert Bolin, a pioneering climatologist and the first chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the former Vice President Al Gore for their warnings about global warming, died Sunday in Stockholm. He was 82.

The cause was stomach cancer, Henning Rodhe, a chemistry professor and colleague of Bolin at Stockholm University, told The Associated Press. According to Stockholm University, Bolin initially planned to travel to Oslo to accept the prize on behalf of the IPCC, but was unable to do so because of poor health, The AP reported. Last month, while visiting Sweden, Gore told Bolin in a written statement: "Bert, you set up the framework for the IPCC and without your contributions we would not have come to where we are today. Thank you for starting the process."

Bolin traveled to Washington in May 1959 and, according to The New York Times, told the National Academy of Sciences that a 25 percent increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere during the 150-year period ending in 2000 could be expected. Carbon dioxide, he said then, was the cause of a warming trend of two to three degrees in the previous 50 years. He was chairman of the UN panel from 1988 to 1997 and, with scientific expertise and acquired diplomatic skills, shepherded the panel through the first two of its influential climatological assessment reports.

"You're dealing with people from all countries, all perspectives, all different points of view; people who are strongly attached to particular ideas," Dan Reifsnyder, the U.S. State Department's deputy assistant secretary for environment and sustainable development, said Thursday. "Somehow Bert got this group to work together to produce objective scientific and technical reports that come very close to policy." The panel, created in 1988 by the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization, brought together 3,500 scientists from around the world and set them in three working groups. One examines atmospheric chemistry and greenhouse gas emissions. The second deals with the impacts of various degrees of climate change. The third researches the possibilities for mitigation.

The concerns expressed in the first of the two assessments issued while Bolin was chairman, in August 1990, led to the drafting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the first international document bringing countries together to deal with the issue. The framework, first promoted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, has 192 signatories, including the United States. The second assessment issued during Bolin's tenure, in 1995, led to the Kyoto Protocol, which called on industrialized countries to collectively limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States signed the protocol in 1998, but the document has never been sent to the U.S. Senate for its consent.

"Bert was responsible for helping to assure that the IPCC remained an objective scientific and technical body," said Reifsnyder, who worked with Bolin for many years. Bert Richard Johannes Bolin was born in Nykoping, Sweden, on May 15, 1925. He graduated from Uppsala University in 1946. He earned a master's degree in 1949 and a doctorate in 1956, both in meteorology, at Stockholm University. He was hired as an associate professor there and remained on the faculty until 1990.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)

Academia crosses disciplinary lines to address global warming (Climate Change, Solar Power)

Academia crosses disciplinary lines to address global warming

By Claudia H. Deutsch

It is a basic tenet of university research: Economists do joint studies, chemists join forces in the laboratory, political scientists share ideas about other cultures - but rarely do the researchers cross disciplinary lines.

The political landscape of academia, combined with the fight for grant money, has always fostered competition far more than collaboration. But the push to stop global warming may just change all that. For instance, the Rochester Institute of Technology in September established the Golisano Institute for Sustainability, aimed at getting students and professors from different disciplines to collaborate in studying the environmental ramifications of production and consumption.

"The academic tradition is to let one discipline dominate new programs," said Nabil Nasr, the institute's director. "But the problem of sustainability cuts across economics, social elements, engineering, everything. It simply cannot be solved by one discipline, or even by coupling two disciplines." Neil Hawkins, vice president for sustainability for Dow Jones, sees it that way, too. Dow is giving $10 million, spread over five years, to the University of California, Berkeley, to set up a sustainability center.

"Berkeley has one of the strongest chemical engineering schools in the world, but it will be MBAs who understand areas like microfinance solutions to drinking water problems," Hawkins said. That realization is spreading throughout academia. More universities are setting up stand-alone centers that offer neutral ground on which engineering students can work on alternative fuels while business students calculate the economics of those fuels and political science majors figure how to make the fuels palatable to governments in both developing nations and American states.

"We give professors a chance to step beyond their usual areas of expertise, and we give students exposure to the worlds of science and business," said Daniel Esty, director of the year-old Yale Center for Business and the Environment, a joint effort between the School of Management and the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Similar setups are getting easier to find. Last year, the University of Tennessee consolidated all of its environmental research programs under a new Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment. Arizona State University did the same in 2004, when it inaugurated its Global Institute of Sustainability. The Arizona institute reports directly to the university president and is run by Jonathan Fink, who is also the university's sustainability officer.

"We want all the departments to contribute without thinking they own the initiative themselves," Fink said. Already, experts in biogeochemistry - the study of the scientific underpinnings of earth's origins and existing biosystems - are working with social scientists to study the impact of rapid urbanization on plants and animals. It is impossible to quantify the growth of stand-alone centers. There is no naming convention - some are sustainability centers, some are environmental institutes and some are global warming initiatives.

And many do not stand alone at all, but are neatly tucked inside an existing school. Nor do the environmentally themed names necessarily convey an envirocentric agenda. Many "sustainability" centers - the Kenan-Flagler Center for Sustainable Enterprise at the University of North Carolina is a good example - address global cultures, business ethics and corporate social responsibility along with environmental issues.

The Aspen Institute's Center for Business Education compiled a list of more than 600 academic centers that, at first blush, sound like they would be stand-alone environmental facilities. Rich Leimsider, its director, figures only a handful really are. "We are seeing more centers framed as sustainability, but they may not be qualitatively different from the ethics, innovation or globalization centers of 15 years ago," he said. "Universities realize that you can discuss sustainability with a CEO and not get laughed out of the room."

But Leimsider said he does see more stand-alone centers that are devoted primarily to analyzing environmental problems, influencing environmental policy and preparing students to think collaboratively when they try to solve those problems outside the academic world.

Many of the centers have one foot set squarely outside the ivory tower. Esty said that the Yale center was developing an "eco-services clinic" that would help companies address various environmental issues. Duke University's Corporate Sustainability Initiative, which is a joint venture of its earth sciences, business and environmental policy schools, is also a founding member of the Chicago Sustainable Business Alliance. Its faculty and students have already developed a small wind turbine for private use, and have helped local businesses reduce their carbon footprints. Nor does the money for the centers necessarily come from university coffers. Often it comes from individuals who are passionate about the environment.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Kamis 21 February 2008, 07.39 pagi)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.routers.com),(www.iht.com), (www.routers.com), (www.nytimes.com)