BP oil spill: Unbelievable photos from what is really going on along the coast of Louisiana

“It’s BP’s Oil”

— Photos by John Hazlett and Mac McClelland

Running the corporate blockade at Louisiana's crude-covered beaches

• Close this Share Box

  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  by Mac McClelland, Mother Jones, May 24, 2010

Elmer's Island Wildlife Refuge, even after all the warnings, looks worse than I imagined. Pools of oil black and deep stretch down the beach; when cleanup workers drag their rakes along an already-cleaned patch of sand, more auburn crude oozes up. Beneath the surface lie slimy washed-up globules that, one worker says, are "so big you could park a car on them."

It's Saturday, May 22nd, 2010, a month into the BP spill, and I've been trying to get to Elmer's Island for the past two days. I've been stymied at every turn by Jefferson Parish sheriff's deputies brought in to supplement the local police force of Grand Isle, a 300-year-old settlement here at the very southern tip of Louisiana. Just seven miles long and so narrow in some spots that you can see from the Gulf side to the inland side, Grand Isle is all new clapboard and vinyl-sided bungalows since Katrina, but still scrappy—population 1,500, octuple that in tourist season. It's also home to the only route to Elmer's, a barrier island to the west. I arrived on Thursday with my former University of New Orleans lit prof, John Hazlett; a tandem kayak is strapped to his Toyota Tacoma. At the turn to Elmer's Island Road, a deputy flags us down. Can't go to Elmer's; he's just "doing what they told me to do." We continue on to Grand Isle beach, where toddlers splash in the surf. Only after I've stepped in a blob of crude do I realize that the sheen on the waves and the blackness covering a little blue heron from the neck down is oil.

The next day, cops drive up and down Grand Isle beach explicitly telling tourists it is still open, just stay out of the water. There are pools of oil on the beach; dolphins crest just offshore. A fifty-something couple, Southern Louisianians, tell me this kind of thing happened all the time when they were kids; they swam in rubber suits when it got bad, and it was no big deal. They just hope this doesn't mean we'll stop drilling.
The blockade to Elmer's is now four cop cars strong. As we pull up, deputies start bawling us out; all media need to go to the Grand Isle community center, where a "BP Information Center" sign now hangs out front.
Grand Isle residents are not amused by the beach
closing.
Inside, a couple of Times-Picayune reporters circle BP representative Barbara Martin, who tells them that if they want passage to Elmer they have to get it from another BP flack, Irvin Lipp; Grand Isle beach is closed too, she adds. When we inform the Times-Pic reporters otherwise, she asks Dr. Hazlett if he's a reporter; he says,  "No." She says, "Good." She doesn't ask me. We tell her that deputies were just yelling at us, and she seems truly upset. For one, she's married to a Jefferson Parish sheriff's deputy. For another, "We don't need more of a black eye than we already have."

"But it wasn't BP that was yelling at us, it was the sheriff's office," we say.

"Yeah, I know, but we have…a very strong relationship."

"What do you mean? You have a lot of sway over the sheriff's office?"

"Oh yeah."

"How much?"

"A lot."

When I tell Barbara I am a reporter, she stalks off and says she's not talking to me, then comes back and hugs me and says she was just playing. I tell her I don't understand why I can't see Elmer's Island unless I'm escorted by BP. She tells me BP's in charge because "it's BP's oil."

"But it's not BP's land."

"But BP's liable if anything happens."

"So you're saying it's a safety precaution."

"Yeah! You don't want that oil gettin' into your pores."

"But there are tourists and residents walking around in it across the street."

"The mayor decides which beaches are closed." So I call the Grand Isle police requesting a press liason, only to get routed to voicemail for "Melanie" with BP. I call the police back and ask why they gave me a number for BP; they blame the fire chief.

I reach the fire chief. "Why did the police give me a number for BP?" I ask.

"That's the number they gave us."

"Who?"

"BP."

When I tell Chief Aubrey Chaisson that I would like to get a comment on Barbara's intimations—and my experience so far—that BP is running the show, he says he'll meet me in a parking lot. He pulls in, rolls down the window of his maroon Crown Victoria, and tells me that I can't trust the government or big corporations.

When everyone saw the oil coming in as clear as day several days before that, BP insisted it was red tide—algae. Chaisson says he's half-Indian and grew up here and just wants to protect the land. When I tell him BP says the inland side of the island is still clean, he spits, "They're fucking liars. There's oil over there. It's already all up through the pass." The spill workers staying at my motel later tell me they've been specifically instructed by BP not to talk to any media, but they're pissed because BP tried to tell them that the crude they were swimming around in to move an oil containment boom was red tide, dishwashing-liquid runoff, or mud.
The next morning at breakfast, the word at Sarah's Restaurant is that the island will have to be shut down; the smell of oil was so strong last night one lady had to shut all her windows and turn on her AC; if her asthma keeps up like this, she'll need to go on her breathing machine tonight.

Local workers make ten dollars an hour cleaning
up the same beach again and again.

 I've corralled Irvin Lipp, who drives me and a few wire photographers out to Elmer's. (He tells me ruefully that he has history with Mother Jones, having once been a flack for Dupont.) The shoreline is packed with men in hats and gumboots and bright blue or white shirts. Nearly all are African-American, all hired from around New Orleans. They tell me they've been standing in these exact same spots for three days. It's breathtakingly hot. They rake the oil and sand into big piles; other workers collect the piles into big plastic bags, and still other workers take them to a plant where the sand is separated out and sent to a hazardous-waste dump and the oil goes on for processing. Then the tide comes in with more oil and everybody starts all over again. Ten dollars an hour. Twelve hours a day. When I joke with one worker that he should pocket the solid gobs of oil he's digging up to show me how far beneath the sand they go, he stops dead and asks me if BP's still trying to use the oil they all collect. "Aw, I knew it!" he says. Another leans on his rake to ask me, "Have they at least shut the oil off yet?" He randomly picks three spots in a three-foot-wide expanse of sand that he's already raked clean and drops his rake in an inch deeper to show me how the oil bubbles up from underneath. He can't count how many times he's raked this same spot in the 33 hours he's worked it since Thursday, but one thing he's sure of, he says, is that he'll be standing right here tomorrow and the next day, too.
They take these bags to a plant and separate out the sand so they can process the oil.  
Another problem is that after surface cleanup, raking the sand brings up more oil.

Mac McClelland is Mother Jones' human rights reporter, writer of The Rights Stuff, and the author of For Us Surrender Is Out of the Question: A Story From Burma's Never-Ending War. Read more of her stories and follow her on Twitter.

Remarks by Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, May 24, 2010, on the BP Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster and our addiction to oil

Majority leader Harry Reid went to the Senate floor today to deliver his take on the connection:

“It’s been nearly five weeks since oil started spewing into the Gulf of Mexico and onto our shores.  Millions of gallons, miles of polluted coastline and more than a month later, the consequences of our oil addiction are as clear as the Gulf’s waters once were.

“It’s also become clear that the companies responsible for this spill were poorly prepared for this possibility.  There’s no question that they failed to adequately invest in the technology necessary to respond to such a catastrophe.

“Days have turned into weeks while the experts continue to experiment with ways to stop the spill.  We still don’t know when the end will come so the clean-up can begin.

“Every year, these companies rake in record profits.  Then they turn around and spend that money on trying to find more oil.  It’s time they also find safer ways to drill for it and handle it.

“The five top oil companies have made three quarters of a trillion dollars in profits alone over the past decade.  But the amount they’ve invested in cleanup technologies is negligible.

“And they’ve invested embarrassingly little in alternative fuels that would make us more secure both at home and abroad.  I don’t mind oil companies or any other company making money.  But these multibillion-dollar corporations are getting rich at the expense of our national security, our economy and our environment.

“Every day we pay unfriendly regimes to feed our oil addiction is a day we are less safe.   Everyone who stands in the way of diversifying our economy makes it harder for businesses to recover, for the unemployed to find work and for our communities to prosper.  And every time we see precious water and wildlife coated in crude oil, the threat to our environment is impossible to ignore.

“Weaning ourselves off of oil is a hard fact for us to face.  We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but produce less than 3 percent of it.  It’s not a change we can make overnight.  But if we don’t start, the next disaster could make the current one look like a drop in the bucket.

“I’m tired of waiting for oil companies to get the message.  America needs clean alternatives more urgently than ever.  In the meantime, those responsible for this spill must foot the bill, and I will do everything I can to make sure they do.  Taxpayers will not pick up the tab."

Eric Normand: The Tennessee deluge of 2010: Nashville’s ‘Katrina’ and the dawn of the superflood

The Tennessee deluge of 2010: Nashville’s ‘Katrina’ and the dawn of the superflood

from Climate Progress, May 22, 2010

One of the epic extreme weather events in U.S. recorded history devastated one of America’s great cities this month.   But the status quo media has barely told the story of Nashville’s Katrina (let alone its link to human-caused climate change).

Since the great Tennessee deluge of 2010 foreshadows the shape of things to come for many of the world’s great cities if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, I’m going to begin a multipart series on it.  Uber-meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters and I have already touched on the link to warming already (see AP: Calling deadly Tennessee superstorm an “unprecedented rain event” did “not capture the magnitude”), and I’ll have more scientific analysis on that next week.  What follows is some straightforward — but stunning — reporting on the disaster by guest blogger Eric Normand, a Tennessee-based writer and musician.

The rain began falling on the morning of Saturday, May 1st, 2010, and by the time it finished, approximately 36 hours later; it had dumped a record rainfall of between 12 and 20 inches across Middle and Western Tennessee, devastating 52 of Tennessee’s 95 counties. Rivers that normally spanned 100 feet across swelled to a half-mile or more, flooding cities, towns, and roadways, washing away homes and bridges, destroying businesses and infrastructure, and leaving thousands homeless. At least 33 people died across Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky; some while trapped in cars on flooding interstates, others who were swept away from flooding homes by the raging waters, while thousands more were left stranded in remote communities without power or communication for days. Water plants were decimated, the Grand Ole’ Opry and many other historic buildings and icons damaged or destroyed, and more than $1.9 billion of damage has been sustained to the private sector in Nashville alone.

And where was our national media in all of this? During the flood, and in the days that followed, mainstream news media like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, provided minimal coverage of this disaster, a disaster that is likely to be the costliest non-hurricane water related disaster in American history. Our plight was dwarfed by the Gulf oil spill and the New York City car bomber which, while being important stories, were not the only stories. In spite of the American press corps residing under a blanket of ineptitude, all levels of government, combined with an army of volunteers, quickly began to mobilize.

“The President was on the phone to me before the sun came up practically on Monday morning” stated Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen. FEMA administrator Craig Fugate, along with Bredesen and Nashville Mayor Karl Dean, toured flooded areas later in the day. By Tuesday, several counties had been declared federal disaster areas which began to allocate funding for the relief effort (the number of counties declared federal disaster areas would eventually reach 42). By Wednesday, almost 300 members of the Tennessee National Guard were assisting in rescue and relief efforts and the Red Cross was present early on as well.

In the center of this disaster were the people of Tennessee who showed great strength and unity from the onset, when thousands of volunteers showed up at multiple locations; filling sandbags, assisting with boat rescues, and helping with other relief efforts. Community centers and churches across the state became havens for families who lost homes. Schools became water distribution centers. Some citizens even took it upon themselves to rent excavation equipment to clear roads, as the county road crews were overwhelmed.
When officials announced the need to conserve water, water usage almost immediately decreased.

While all this was going on, the minimal media depiction was that of a flood that primarily affected Nashville. And while a small percentage of America was hearing about a flood in Music City; 20,000 people in Hickman County, some 50 miles south of the capital, were completely cut off and isolated and without power or communication for almost a week. Much of their community was devastated and many roads and bridges were washed out, with months of repairs still ahead. On Highway 7 in Maury County, an area the size of three football fields collapsed. The city of Clarksville, some 80 miles to the northwest of the capital, was also particularly hard hit, with dozens of small businesses on Riverside Drive under 4 to 5 feet of water. An AT&T call center was flooded, rendering 1400 people out of work indefinitely, and 2 weeks after the disaster, one neighborhood of homes was still under water. In fact this storm system also killed four in Arkansas, and flooded many parts of Mississippi and Kentucky, where it caused statewide damage estimated at more than $30 million. All of this was accompanied by, essentially, no national media coverage to speak of.

This is the worst disaster to hit the state of Tennessee since the Civil War, and all these statistics and facts don’t even begin to paint the picture of the loss and suffering had by many. For some, the disaster will remain a part of their lives for a long time to come. Thousands of damaged or destroyed homes and businesses were not in flood zones, leaving many with mortgages on structures that no longer exist, and without insurance money to rebuild. Thousands have also lost their jobs and livelihoods. Communities and infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed over an area that spans thousands of square miles, with the totality of destruction still yet unknown.

So while the people of Tennessee are rebuilding, most of the nation remains unaware, and most will unlikely ever know the whole story. Tennesseans will survive, rebuild, and emerge from this wreckage, but for many, life will never be the same. Natural disasters affect everybody as we are all interconnected. After Katrina, thousands of hurricane refugees relocated to neighboring states to restart their lives, Tennessee among them, and this catastrophe will inevitably have its own unique set of social and economic impacts that will be far-reaching as well.

Even though I didn’t lose any loved ones or personal property in this flood, what I have lost, is piece of mind. Three weeks after this epic storm, a rainstorm fell in middle Tennessee, causing flood warnings in five counties. While it didn’t cause widespread flooding, it put us all on edge. I used to like rainy days, their once mellow mood almost comforting. Now I fear them. As a nation, we must get our collective heads out of the sand and better understand this world we live in. The absence of this monumental event from our MSM was irresponsible and reckless, leaving us all vulnerable to the next extreme precipitation event. We may not be able to change the weather patterns, but we can at least prepare for what they can do. And if our media could begin to cover all of the pertinent stories in this new dawn of the superflood, we just might stand a chance.

I have put up a slide show that  shows some of the damage in my community. Most of these pictures were taken within 10 miles of my home in Pegram, TN. You can also read more about the flood at my blog.

Guest Blogger Eric Normand is a Tennessee-based writer and musician. Originally from New England, where he attended the Berklee College of Music, he is currently authoring his first book “The Nashville Musician’s Survival Guide.”

Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate: Ocean heat content increases update

Ocean heat content increases update

by Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate, May 21, 2010

There is a new paper in Nature this week on recent trends in ocean heat content from a large group of oceanographers led by John Lyman at PMEL. Their target is the uncertainty surrounding the various efforts to create a homogenised ocean heat content data set that deals appropriately with the various instrument changes and coverage biases that have plagued previous attempts.

We have discussed this issue a number of times because of its importance in diagnosing the long term radiative imbalance of the atmosphere. Basically, if there has been more energy coming in at the top than is leaving, then it has to have been going somewhere – and that somewhere is mainly the ocean. (Other reservoirs for this energy, like the land surface or melting ice, are much smaller, and can be neglected for the most part.)

The main problem has been that over time the network of XBT probes and CTD casts has been replaced by the Argo float network which has a much greater coverage and more homogeneous instrumentation. However, connecting up the old and new networks, and dealing with specific biases in the XBT probes is difficult. An XBT (eXpendable Bathy-Thermograph) is a probe that is thrown off the ship and whose temperature readings as a function of time are transferred to a profile in depth from knowledge of how fast the probe falls. Unfortunately, this function is a complicated one that depends on the temperature of the water, the depth, the manufacturer of the probe etc. Various groups – working with the same basic data – have shown that there were biases in the XBT associated with incorrect calibrations and have attempted to make better corrections.

The latest paper is a consensus effort from many of the people involved in the previous work and shows how robust the recent decades warming of the ocean has been. Indeed, the ‘best estimate’ for the changes in the top 700 m seems to be a greater warming than seen in the NODC data and more than even the models were suggesting:



One thing that is interesting to note is that the interannual variability – particularly in the transition period between the two observing systems (1995–2005 say) is very dependent on exactly how you do the corrections, while the longer term trend is robust. This ties in directly with comments by Kevin Trenberth in this recent paper and in an accompanying commentary to the Lyman paper that while the energy budget changes over the long term are explainable, the changes over short time frames are still very difficult to quantify.

As usual, this is unlikely to be the very last word on the subject, but this is more evidence that the planet is basically behaving as the scientists think it is. And that isn’t necessarily good news.

Link:  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-content-increases-update/

John M. Lyman et al., Nature (2010), Robust warming of the global upper ocean

Nature, 465 (20 May 2010) 334–337; doi: 10.1038/nature09043

Robust warming of the global upper ocean

John M. Lyman, Simon A. Good, Viktor V. Gourestski, Masayoshi Ishii, Gregory C. Johnson, Matthew D. Palmer, Doug M. Smith and Josh K. Willis

Abstract

A large (~10²³ J) multi-decadal globally averaged warming signal in the upper 300 m of the world’s oceans was reported roughly a decade ago¹ and is attributed to warming associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases^{2, 3}. The majority of the Earth’s total energy uptake during recent decades has occurred in the upper ocean³, but the underlying uncertainties in ocean warming are unclear, limiting our ability to assess closure of sea-level budgets^{4, 5, 6, 7}, the global radiation imbalance⁸ and climate models⁵. For example, several teams have recently produced different multi-year estimates of the annually averaged global integral of upper-ocean heat content anomalies (hereafter OHCA curves) or, equivalently, the thermosteric sea-level rise^{5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16}. Patterns of interannual variability, in particular, differ among methods. Here we examine several sources of uncertainty that contribute to differences among OHCA curves from 1993 to 2008, focusing on the difficulties of correcting biases in expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data. XBT data constitute the majority of the in situ measurements of upper-ocean heat content from 1967 to 2002, and we find that the uncertainty due to choice of XBT bias correction dominates among-method variability in OHCA curves during our 1993–2008 study period. Accounting for multiple sources of uncertainty, a composite of several OHCA curves using different XBT bias corrections still yields a statistically significant linear warming trend for 1993–2008 of 0.64 W m^-2 (calculated for the Earth’s entire surface area), with a 90-per-cent confidence interval of 0.53–0.75 W m^-2.

Link:  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/abs/nature09043.html

Hermann F. Jungkunst, Nature Geosci., 3 (2010), Soil science: Arctic thaw

Nature Geoscience, 3 (2010) 306-307; doi: 10.1038/ngeo851

Soil science: Arctic thaw

Hermann F. Jungkunst^* 

Institute of Geography, Landscape Ecology, University of Gottingen, Goldschmidtstrasse 5, D-37077 Gottingen, Germany

Abstract

The organic matter stored in frozen Arctic soils could release significant quantities of carbon dioxide and methane on thawing. Now, laboratory experiments show that re-wetting of previously thawed permafrost could increase nitrous oxide production by 20-fold.

---

Introduction

Arctic soils store tremendous amounts of organic matter. Over millennia, cold, wet conditions have slowed the breakdown of plant material in the Arctic, and large quantities of carbon and nitrogen have built up in permanently frozen ground — termed permafrost. Global warming threatens to thaw these frozen soils and release large quantities of methane and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere¹. Nitrous oxide — another potent greenhouse gas — can also be emitted from permafrost soils, but the relationship to thawing is uncertain². Writing in Nature Geoscience, Elberling and colleagues³ show that the addition of the original nitrogen- and carbon-rich meltwater to thawed permafrost cores, sampled from Greenland, stimulates nitrous oxide production.

Microbial breakdown of soil organic matter can produce three greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The magnitude of emissions is not only dependent on temperature, but also on water and oxygen levels. The quality and abundance of soil organic matter — which is heterogeneously distributed in most soils — will also influence gas flux from the soil to the atmosphere.

As the Arctic climate warms, the upper, active layer of permafrost soils, which melts each summer, could thicken, facilitating the breakdown of previously frozen organic matter by soil microbes. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that newly thawed permafrost releases large volumes of methane and carbon dioxide^{1, 4}. Furthermore, freeze–thaw cycles can promote nitrous oxide emissions⁵: in the Arctic, permafrost melting creates a mosaic of wet and dry soil conditions — due to small differences in topography and drainage — that favour nitrous oxide production⁶.

Elberling and colleagues show that the production of nitrous oxide just beneath the active layer can be extraordinarily high when permafrost soils undergo melting and subsequent re-wetting in a laboratory environment³. They examined the effect of thawing on nitrous oxide production in permafrost cores up to three metres in length, collected from a wetland site in northeastern Greenland. To mimic freeze–thaw conditions, cores were thawed, drained and subsequently re-wetted with the original meltwater, which contained high concentrations of ammonium and dissolved organic matter. Rates of nitrous oxide production were low in the frozen and thawed cores. However, there was a 20-fold increase in nitrous oxide production throughout the entire depth of the permafrost soils on re-wetting with the original meltwater; production rose to 18 μg nitrogen per hour per kg of soil. The fact that the addition of carbon- and nitrogen-rich water triggered nitrous oxide production suggests that the carbon and nitrogen cycles in these soils are tightly connected. Measurements of nitrous oxide production in permafrost soils collected from an additional five wetland sites suggest that the high rates of nitrous oxide production observed in the Greenland soils are not unique.

However, not all of the nitrous oxide produced following re-wetting will escape to the atmosphere. Some will be consumed within anoxic micro-zones in the active layer. To gauge the amount of nitrous oxide actually emitted, Elberling et al. measured nitrous oxide emissions from one of the thawed and re-wetted cores from northeast Greenland: only 31% of the nitrous oxide produced was emitted to the atmosphere, although this is still equivalent to 34 mg of nitrous oxide per square metre per day. In fact, emissions of this magnitude exceed those from bare peat patches, match most of those from highly fertilized agricultural sites, and are only beaten by emissions from highly fertilized and compacted potato fields⁷ (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. High daily nitrous oxide emissions from Arctic, temperate and tropical soils.

Elberling et al. examined the impact of thawing on nitrous oxide production in permafrost soils³. They found that thawing alone had little impact on nitrous oxide levels, but re-wetting with the original meltwater significantly stimulated production. Experiments on one core suggest that only a third of the nitrous oxide produced following re-wetting is released to the atmosphere. Error bars represent the standard deviation.

Full size image (27 KB)

Of course, their findings need to be verified in the field. A key uncertainty is how plants — which compete with soil microbes for ammonium and nitrate — will influence the production and emission of nitrous oxide. Given that strong nitrous oxide emissions are found in vegetation-free patches of sub-Arctic tundra², and that plant cover will probably increase in the Arctic region owing to rising temperatures, the impact of vegetation on nitrous oxide emissions deserves examination.

Elberling and colleagues show that nitrous oxide emissions from thawed permafrost can equal those from highly fertilized agricultural soils³. But science is not an Olympic sport, where faster, higher and longer are the only results that count. It is important, too, to understand the more subtle feedbacks, such as those between the Arctic carbon and nitrogen cycles.

*e-mail: hjungku@gwdg.de

Link:  http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n5/full/ngeo851.html

F. Straneo et al., Nature Geosci., 3 (2010), Rapid circulation of warm subtropical waters in a major glacial fjord in East Greenland

Nature Geoscience, 3 (2010) 182-186; published online 14 February 2010; doi: 10.1038/ngeo764

Rapid circulation of warm subtropical waters in a major glacial fjord in East Greenland

Fiammetta Straneo^1,*, Gordon S. Hamilton², David A. Sutherland^1,6, Leigh A. Stearns^2,6, Fraser Davidson³, Mike O. Hammill⁴, Garry B. Stenson³ and Aqqalu Rosing-Asvid⁵

Abstract

The recent rapid increase in mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet^{1, 2} is primarily attributed to an acceleration of outlet glaciers^{3, 4, 5}. One possible cause of this acceleration is increased melting at the ice–ocean interface^{6, 7}, driven by the synchronous warming^{8, 9, 10} of subtropical waters offshore of Greenland. However, because of the lack of observations from Greenland’s glacial fjords and our limited understanding of their dynamics, this hypothesis is largely untested. Here we present oceanographic data collected in Sermilik Fjord, East Greenland, by ship in summer 2008 and from moorings. Our data reveal the presence of subtropical waters throughout the fjord. These waters are continuously replenished through a wind-driven exchange with the shelf, where they are present all year. The temperature and renewal of these waters indicate that they currently cause enhanced submarine melting at the glacier terminus. Key controls on the melting rate are the volume and properties of the subtropical waters on the shelf, and the patterns of along-shore winds, suggesting that the glaciers’ acceleration has been triggered by a combination of atmospheric and oceanic changes. Our measurements provide evidence for a rapid advective pathway for the transmission of oceanic variability to the ice-sheet margins.

1. Department of Physical Oceanography, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA
2. Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, USA
3. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St John’s, Newfoundland, A1C 5X1, Canada
4. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Mont-Joli, Quebec, G5H 3Z4, Canada
5. Department of Birds and Mammals, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Postboks 570, 3900 Nuuk, Greenland
6. Present addresses: School of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA (D.A.S.); Department of Geology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA (L.A.S.)

*Correspondence e-mail: fstraneo@whoi.edu

Link:   http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo764.html

B. Elberling, H. H. Christiansen & B. U. Hansen, Nature Geosci., 3 (2010), High nitrous oxide production from thawing permafrost

Nature Geoscience, 3 (2010) 332-335; published online 4 April 2010; doi: 10.1038/ngeo803

High nitrous oxide production from thawing permafrost

Bo Elberling^1,2,3, Hanne H. Christiansen³ and Birger U. Hansen¹

Abstract

Permafrost soils contain nearly twice as much carbon as the atmosphere¹. When these soils thaw, large quantities of carbon are lost, mainly in the form of methane and carbon dioxide^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}. In contrast, thawing is thought to have little impact on nitrous oxide emissions, which remain minimal following the summer thaw⁴. Here, we examined the impact of thawing on nitrous oxide production in permafrost cores collected from a heath site and a wetland site in Zackenberg, Greenland. Rates of nitrous oxide production in the heath soil were minimal, regardless of the hydrological conditions. Although rates of nitrous oxide production in the wetland soil were low following thawing, averaging 1.37 μg N h⁻¹ kg⁻¹, they were 18 μg N h⁻¹ kg⁻¹ for permafrost samples following thawing, drainage and rewetting with the original meltwater. We show that 31% of the nitrous oxide produced after thawing and rewetting a 10-cm permafrost core—equivalent to 34 mg N m⁻² d⁻¹—was released to the atmosphere; this is equivalent to daily nitrous oxide emissions from tropical forests on a mean annual basis ¹⁰. Measurements of nitrous oxide production in permafrost samples from five additional wetland sites in the high Arctic indicate that the rates of nitrous oxide production observed in the Zackenberg soils may be in the low range.

1. Department of Geography and Geology, University of Copenhagen, DK-1350 Copenhagen, Denmark
2. Department of Biology, The University Centre in Svalbard, UNIS, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Norway
3. Department of Geology, The University Centre in Svalbard, UNIS, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Norway

*Correspondence e-mail: be@geo.ku.dk

Link to abstract:  http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n5/abs/ngeo803.html

John Cook, Skeptical Science: Robust warming of the global upper ocean

Robust warming of the global upper ocean

by John Cook, Skeptical Science, May 23, 2010

[Dear Readers, Right now the links embedded in this post are not working -- I have sent John a message, so I imagine he will fix them, soon.  If you want to go to the pubs, then go to the link at the bottom of this post, and I am pretty sure at some point the links will be working. Tenney]

Most of global warming goes into the ocean. Consequently, the amount of heat accumulating in the world's oceans is a vital cog in our understanding of climate. A number of teams across the world have performed analyses of ocean heat observations. While there's year-to-year differences between the various estimates, they all show essentially the same long-term trend. Now members from the various teams have combined their efforts into a single 'best estimate' of ocean heat (Lyman 2010). What they find is robust warming in the upper ocean over the 16 years from 1993 to 2008.

When reconstructing ocean heat content, the greatest source of uncertainty is biases in expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data. XBTs are dropped from ships and measure water temperature as they sink. One example of uncertainty is estimating how the rate at which the XBTs fall has changed over time as the instruments have subtly changed. This fall rate is used to work out the depth at which temperature is measured. The various teams working on the problem make their own choices on how to adjust for the various XBT biases. We can see the differences arising from these choices by overlaying the curves produced by each team.


Figure 1. Ocean Heat Content anomaly from various teams. Ocean heat is calculated from 0 to 700 metres (Lyman 2010).

All the curves show significant warming of the global upper ocean  from 1993 to 2008. While there are differences in year-to-year variability, the long-term warming rates are broadly consistent. The various datasets were then combined into a 'best estimate' of ocean heat content including a comprehensive estimate of the total uncertainty. This is shown in Figure 2: the black line is the composite estimate of upper ocean heat content anomaly and the uncertainty marked in vertical black lines.

Figure 2. Ocean heat content anomaly curves from various teams (colour) and composite ocean heat content anomaly (black) (Lyman 2010).

In the same issue of Nature is a follow-up article, Global change: The ocean is warming, isn't it? (Trenberth 2010). Kevin Trenberth summarises the results of Lyman 2010 and gives a broader perspective. The general gist of his article is, loosely paraphrasing, "yes, the upper ocean is warming, fine, now where's my damn missing heat!?!"

The most interesting feature in Trenberth's article is a comparison of upper ocean heat (the top 700 metres) versus ocean heat down to 2000 metres deep. In the following graph, the black line shows the 'best estimate' upper ocean heat curve from Lyman 2010 (the black line in Figure 2 above). The pink line is the long-term warming trend which averages 0.64 watts per square metre over the whole Earth. This is the global average, an indication of the planet's energy imbalance. The blue line is the observed rate of heat accumulating in the global ocean down to 2000 metres, calculated from von Schuckmann 2009.


Figure 3. Changing heat content of the global ocean. Black curve is changes in upper ocean heat content (0-700 metres). Pink line is trend in upper ocean heat content. Blue line is trend in ocean heat content down to 2000 metres (Trenberth 2010).

When we look at ocean heat down to 2000 metres since 2003, the global ocean has been warming at a rate of 0.77 watts per square metre. When averaged over the entire Earth, the warming is 0.54 watts per square metre. This is a rough estimate of how much heat is building up from 2003 to 2008. Note that the blue trend is greater than the black line over the same period. This means that more heat is accumulating at greater depths than 700 metres.

In summary, the oceans show a robust warming trend from 1993 to 2008. The observed rate of warming has slowed somewhat compared to the 16 year trend but the ocean is still accumulating heat.

Link:  http://www.skepticalscience.com/Robust-warming-of-the-global-upper-ocean.html

J. E. Tierney et al., Nature Geosci., (2010), Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500

Nature Geoscience, published online 16 May 2010; doi: 10.1038/ngeo865

Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500

Jessica E. Tierney* (Brown University Department of Geological Sciences, Box #1846, Providence, RI 02912, U.S.A.), Marc T. Mayes (Brown University Department of Geological Sciences, Box #1846, Providence, RI 02912, U.S.A., and Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1710 University Ave., Madison, WI 53726, U.S.A.), Natacha Meyer (Brown University Department of Geological Sciences, Box #1846, Providence, RI 02912, U.S.A.), Christopher Johnson (Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, 1040 E 4th St., Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A., and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, U.S.A.), Peter W. Swarzenski (United States Geological Survey, 400 Natural Bridges Drive, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, U.S.A.), Andrew S. Cohen (Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, 1040 E 4th St., Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A.) and James M. Russell (Brown University Department of Geological Sciences, Box #1846, Providence, RI 02912, U.S.A.)

 

Abstract

Instrumental observations suggest that Lake Tanganyika, the largest rift lake in East Africa, has become warmer, increasingly stratified and less productive over the past 90 years (refs 1,2). These trends have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change. However, it remains unclear whether the decrease in productivity is linked to the temperature rise^{3, 4}, and whether the twentieth-century trends are anomalous within the context of longer-term variability. Here, we use the TEX₈₆ temperature proxy, the weight per cent of biogenic silica and charcoal abundance from Lake Tanganyika sediment cores to reconstruct lake-surface temperature, productivity and regional wildfire frequency, respectively, for the past 1,500 years. We detect a negative correlation between lake-surface temperature and primary productivity, and our estimates of fire frequency, and hence humidity, preclude decreased nutrient input through runoff as a cause for observed periods of low productivity. We suggest that, throughout the past 1,500 years, rising lake-surface temperatures increased the stratification of the lake water column, preventing nutrient recharge from below and limiting primary productivity. Our records indicate that changes in the temperature of Lake Tanganyika in the past few decades exceed previous natural variability. We conclude that these unprecedented temperatures and a corresponding decrease in productivity can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming, with potentially important implications for the Lake Tanganyika fishery.

*Correspondence e-mail: Jessica_Tierney@brown.edu

Link:  http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo865.html

Unprecedented Warming in East Africa's Lake Tanganyika; Lake's surface waters are warmest in 1,500 years

Unprecedented Warming in East Africa's Lake Tanganyika

Lake's surface waters are warmest on record

Local fishermen troll the waters of Lake Tanganyika, catching sardines--for now.

National Science Foundation, May 16, 2010

Lake Tanganyika, the second-oldest and second-deepest lake in the world, could be in for some rough waters.

Geologists have determined that the East African rift lake has experienced unprecedented warming during the last century; its surface waters are the warmest on record.

That finding is important, the scientists state in this week's on-line issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, because the warm surface waters likely will affect fish stocks upon which millions of people in the region depend.

"This result is in addition to those from other African lakes showing that changes in regional climate have a significant impact on the lakes, and on the human populations that depend on the lakes' resources," said Paul Filmer, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the research.

The scientists took core samples from the lakebed that laid out a 1,500-year history of the lake's surface temperature.

The resulting data showed that the lake's surface temperature, 26 °C (78.8 °F), last measured in 2003, is the warmest the lake has been for a millennium and a half.

The team also documented that Lake Tanganyika experienced its largest temperature change in the 20th century. The change has affected its unique ecosystem, which relies upon nutrients from the depths to jumpstart the food chain on which fish survive.

"Our data show a consistent relationship between lake surface temperature and productivity such as that of fish stocks," said Jessica Tierney of Brown University, the paper's lead author. "As the lake gets warmer, we expect productivity to decline, and we expect that it will affect the fishing industry."

Cores were taken in 2001 by Andrew Cohen, a geologist at the University of Arizona, and in 2004 by James Russell, a geologist at Brown University.

Lake Tanganyika is bordered by Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, and Zambia--four of the poorest countries in the world.

An estimated 10 million people live near the lake, and depend on it for drinking water and for food.

Fishing is a crucial component of their diets and livelihoods: up to 200,000 tons of sardines and four other fish species are harvested annually from Lake Tanganyika.

The lake, one of the richest freshwater ecosystems in the world, is divided into two levels. Most of the animal species live in the upper 100 meters, including valuable sardines.

Below that, the lake holds less and less oxygen, and at certain depths, it has no oxygen.

The lake depends on wind to churn its waters and send nutrients from the depths toward the surface. These nutrients are food for algae, which supports the lake's entire food web.

But as Lake Tanganyika warms, the mixing of waters is lessened; fewer nutrients are funneled from the depths to the surface.

More warming at the surface magnifies the difference between the two lake levels; even more wind is needed to churn the waters enough to ferry nutrients toward the upper layer.

The researchers' data show that during the last 1,500 years, intervals of prolonged warming and cooling are linked with low and high algal productivity, respectively, indicating a clear link between past temperature changes and biological productivity in the lake.

"People throughout south-central Africa depend on the fish from Lake Tanganyika as a crucial source of protein," Cohen said. "This resource is likely threatened by the lake's unprecedented warming and the associated loss of lake productivity."

Climate change models show a general warming trend in the region, which would cause even greater warming of Lake Tanganyika's surface waters.

Some researchers believe that the declining fish stocks in Lake Tanganyika can be attributed mainly to overfishing, and Tierney and Russell say that may be a reason.

But they note that the warming in the lake, and the lessened mixing of critical nutrients, is exacerbating the fish stocks' decline, if not causing it.

"It's almost impossible for it not to be," Russell said.

Media Contacts Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 cdybas@nsf.gov
Richard Lewis, Brown University (401) 863-3766 richard_lewis@brown.edu


The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, its budget is about $6.9 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 45,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes over 11,500 new funding awards. NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

Link:  http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116956&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click

A. J. McMichael & K. B. G. Dear discuss the new Sherwood & Huber PNAS paper

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1004894107

Climate Change: Heat, Health, and Longer Horizons

Anthony J. McMichael* and Keith B. G. Dear

National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia

Public concern over climate change impacts has mostly focused on the economic, physical, and political domains. The consequences for various industries, agriculture, livelihoods, national gross domestic product, property, infrastructure, and electoral prospects have captured most attention. In this issue of PNAS, Sherwood and Huber (1) apply a longer than usual perspective on climate change and conclude that, because of limits to human tolerance of heat, much of Earth’s surface may not be habitable by 2300. Their important, related, and overarching statement is that “current assessments are underestimating the seriousness of climate change” (1). They argue that, whereas high-profile threats such as sea level rise and economic slowdown have caused widespread anxieties, their impacts on human communities would pale into insignificance in a world that might, thermally, become partly or wholly uninhabitable by humans.

This chord needs to be struck. The world’s human population is playing for higher stakes than have generally been recognized. Global climate change (along with today’s other human-induced, largescale systemic environmental changes) poses great risks to the planet’s existing life-support systems and conditions. Nearly all of the adverse consequences of climate change—reduced regional food yields, freshwater shortages, increased frequency of extreme weather events, coastal population displacement, changes in the ecology and geography of infectious agents, declines in farming community incomes, and biodiversity losses with accompanying disruption of ecosystem functions—will converge adversely on human biology and health.

Climate change, ultimately, is a threat to our biological health and survival (2). There are four main threads to the authors’ argument about future heat extremes.

(i) When the modifying effect of humidity on perceived (i.e., physiologically experienced) heat is allowed, the present range of extreme climatic conditions around the globe is actually rather limited: the hottest places tend to be dry, so that wet-bulb temperatures (TW) essentially never exceed 31 °C.
(ii) For reasons of physiology and physics, TW values above 35 °C cannot be tolerated even under ideal conditions of shade, ventilation, and rest; therefore, there is little leeway.
(iii) Climate modeling suggests that increases in global mean temperatures will give rise to similar increases in maximum TW, in a ratio of at least 3 °C TW for every 4 °C of global warming.
(iv) Global mean temperatures may well rise by more than 10 °C, probably not this century but within the coming three centuries.

The authors may seem—at least on current thinking—to have stretched the limits of plausibility (1). To date, we have not had to think seriously about a foreseeable future world that is 10–12 °C warmer than today. However, as they point out, such temperature increases are not off the predictive scale if current trajectories continue and if full consequent global heating is realized over the next three centuries. Furthermore, given inherent scientific uncertainties about the future behavior of the climate system under changing conditions, recent modeling is as likely to have underestimated future changes as to have overestimated them. Indeed, much recent trend data indicate just that type of disparity between previous forecasts and actual geophysical outcomes (3, 4).

Stretching the Time Horizon

Most of the prevailing discussion and modeling of climate change extends only to 2100 or even earlier, whereas this paper looks out further to 2300. This extension is important and necessary. First, as Sherwood and Huber (1) point out, climate change will not stop in 2100 if emissions continue. Therefore, because the trajectory beyond 2100 will depend largely on what is done or not done in this century, the longer vision should guide us now. Second, the further into the future our outlook, the more serious it gets—potentially, catastrophic.

Climates that differ drastically from the present are well within the long experience of Earth but well outside human experience. However, such climatic conditions are not impossible in the relatively near future.

Within the wider arena of research and policy on climate change, there is now an increasing focus on the need for adaptive strategies. Human-induced climate change is almost certainly already occurring, and more of it is in the pipeline regardless of the actions that we might take today. While the world community struggles to agree on and implement effective international reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), adaptive responses are becoming increasingly necessary and important, especially for areas of high risks and populations of high vulnerability.

Sherwood and Huber (1) argue, however, that mass dependence on increasingly intensive air conditioning in

a seriously overheated future world, even if affordable and equitably available, would overload any currently imaginable energy-supply system. However, might there be science fiction-type solutions to counter such extremes of future heat, given today’s rapid and accelerating technological changes? After all, 300 years ago, the height of technology was wind power (steam power was first applied in 1712), and high-speed transportation was by stagecoach. Although living enclosed in glass cool-houses might appeal to some, that straw is far too distant to grasp at and is one that only a minority would probably be able to grasp if and when the time came. Trusting in future fantasy would be foolish, futile, and perhaps, fatal.

If the authors (1) are approximately right, then reliance on adaptation must not be allowed to engender complacency about the primary need to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Meanwhile, adaptation is a necessary transitional strategy now, and pleasingly, many adaptive strategies will also enforce the immediate strengthening of currently deficient public-health and related social/infrastructural programs in many countries (5).

Acclimatization to Heat: Biological Limits

Within the more usual time horizon, spanning only decades of climate change, there has been discussion about the possibilities of physiological acclimatization in response to future increased exposures to extreme heat (6). Further, that discussion has often been predicated on the likely future increases in climatic and weather variability that are anticipated to accompany climate change. Sherwood and Huber (1), however, focus particularly on the prospect and consequence of substantial changes in mean temperature conditions over several centuries along with accompanying changes in the distribution of maximum temperatures. Even if variability changes little, a higher mean temperature implies more frequent exceeding of physiologically tolerable thermal limits. For mean temperature increases of 4–6 °C or more, it is implausible that human biology, as currently constituted, could adapt physiologically.

It is instructive, therefore, that the authors (1) remind us of the time frame of biological evolutionary processes. As they point out, the fossil record shows that the evolutionary changes evoked by the slow fluctuating processes of global cooling over the past 65 million years have typically yielded increases in warmblooded mammalian body size, thereby reducing heat dissipation to the external environment. Thus, we human mammals cannot expect to undergo any useful heritable biological adaptation during the evolutionary nanosecond of just the next several centuries. The genus Homo has a particularly high rate of biological evolution, in part because of behavioral drive (7), and this is well-illustrated by the emergence and spread of the lactase allele within the last 10,000 years in response to the novel inclusion of dairy foods in the human diet (8). Indeed, the rate of genetic evolution in humans has been extraordinarily rapid over this time (9).

Admittedly, we are in unknown territory here, given that the unprecedented size of today’s human population has grown from millions to billions within the historical, not the geological, past. A larger gene pool allows more rapid response to environmental changes, as does an increase in interbreeding between regional genetic strains. Furthermore, “a population that suddenly increases in size has the potential for rapid adaptive change” (9). Even so, biological evolutionary adaptation to a warmer climate would seem likely to require scores or even hundreds of generations, not just several hundred of years.

Also, the authors (1) note that a much hotter world would not only be less  less livable but would be a world wherein economic productivity would fall, both because of the disrupted production processes in nature (agriculture, forests, and fisheries) on which we depend and the impaired work capacity under overheated conditions (10).

There has been negligible recognition of this latter category of impact in the climate-change science literature. Indeed, major international bodies such as the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program have yet to adequately acknowledge this basic consequence of climate change and impaired work capacity, and they do not include it in their projections and plans for social and economic development.

Reinforcing the Case for Action, Now

This paper helps broaden the vista of questions that human health researchers (11), anthropologists (12), and social scientists in general should now explore. Estimations of economic impacts in dollar terms, a checklist of climate-endangered (nonhuman) species, anticipated proportions of coastline inundated—these are all easily and intuitively understood, and they are very important. Beyond those, however, the greater challenge is to understand, quantify, and communicate the many adverse impacts on human health that will result from plausible scenarios of climate change. Whereas that may seem an unduly anthropocentric priority, in reality it will help to spur international action to abate climate change, which in turn will protect other species. Anyway, having got ourselves into this quandary, we humans are both obliged and entitled to ask what the consequences for us might be and how we should resolve the problem.

Although this paper focuses on just one key climatic exposure (future thermal stress), it provides a clear  warning that we need to acquire a better and fuller understanding of the stakes that we may ultimately be playing for over several centuries. It, thereby, invites equivalent research questions in other areas of climate-change risk assessment: are there similar limits to compensatory food production, freshwater generation, and disease control in a much warmer world beyond 2100? Political discussion to date has toyed with the goal, probably already wishful thinking, of averting even the 2 °C rise that is the recognized indicative guardrail against dangerous interference with the climate system. Consideration of longer-term, more severe impacts should serve to focus attention on what now, ominously, seems to be a more likely outcome and with a more absolute limit beyond which we must not go.

Link:  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/17/1004894107.full.pdf

James Hansen: Remarks in the National Assembly of France, May 2010

Remarks in the National Assembly of France, May 2010

by James Hansen

The European Climate Foundation kindly helped arrange a discussion about global climate change at the French National Assembly while I was in Paris last week. The handout that I provided to the members is attached here. The principal points that I made were:

Climategate. Matters used in the past year to discredit climate science and reduce concern about global warming in the eyes of the public, upon closer examination, actually strengthen the case that rapid climate change is underway and warrants action by policymakers.

Matters addressed: (1) recent cold winter, (2) mountain glacier retreat (inordinate publicity re minor IPCC errors), (3) global temperature change (East Anglia e-mails).

Target CO2. Reality of ongoing global change, specifically: trends of Arctic sea ice, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass balance, shifting climate zones, ocean acidification and coral reef deterioration, and Earth's energy imbalance all lead to the conclusion that the target atmospheric CO2 that humanity must aim for is less than 350 ppm. The ultimate target may need to be significantly less than 350 ppm, depending upon other climate forcings, but "<350 ppm" tells us what we need to know: fossil fuel emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible.

Fossil fuel reservoirs. Implications of climate re exploitation of geophysical reservoirs of carbon: (1) coal emissions must be phased out rapidly, (2) unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, cannot be exploited, (3) we should not go after every drop of oil/gas on the planet.

Reality. Governments worldwide are ignoring these conclusions from the science. In their policy discussions they seemingly do not appreciate a fossil fuel/economics "law" that is as sure as the law of gravity: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, the world will keep burning them.

I did not write my talk, except the final few paragraphs, which were:

It is not my job to suggest policy, and I certainly will not interfere in French politics. However, I would like to note that we, the world, desperately need some nation to stand up and tell the other nations the truth: we cannot solve the climate/energy problem without a rising price on carbon, a tax. Cap-and-trade with offsets will not work. And China and India will never accept a cap – why should they, as long as their per capita emissions are much smaller than the West?* There needs to be a steadily rising price on carbon, with the money collected distributed to the public.

I think that it is my job as a scientist to connect the dots all the way with scientific objectivity using all empirical evidence. And it is my job, as a father and grandfather concerned about young people, future generations, and the other species that share our planet, to point out that the path the world is on, if we stay on it, guarantees that we will push the climate system beyond tipping points.

This is a moral issue, a matter of intergenerational injustice. Because of the inertia and slow response of the climate system, our generation burns most of the fossil fuels and reaps the benefits while future generations bear the costs. We, the older generations and our governments, cannot pretend that we do not understand this situation – we must accept responsibility.

Note: charts provided here (as PDF and Powerpoint) without discussion, because several people requested them. I will provide discussion of them in upcoming talks/papers, including how a fair, transparent and popular "carbon fee and dividend (green check)" would work.

*China, the United States and Europe need to agree to a carbon fee on their internal consumption of fossil fuels. Why would China agree: to avoid fossil fuel addiction, clean up its polluted air and water, avoid climate catastrophe, and economics (a leg up on clean technology).

Link to Dr. Hansen's other papers and slides from recent presentations:   http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Link to article and PowerPoint presentation:  http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2010/May2010_FrenchNationalAssembly.pdf

Sailesh Rao: Population, Consumption and the Universal Moral Code

Population, Consumption and the Universal Moral Code

 by Sailesh Rao, Climate Healers, May 18, 2010

(Please feel free to copy and repost as needed.)

In the comments section of Julia Whitty's Mother Jones article, "Population: The Last Taboo," the pioneering ecological economist, Prof. Herman Daly, is reported to have said that arguing whether environmental degradation is caused by overpopulation or overconsumption is as pointless as arguing whether a rectangle's area is caused by its length or its width. The area of the rectangle that he is referring to is, of course, total human resource consumption, while its length is the human population numbers and its width is the per capita consumption. According to the Global Footprint Network, this total human resource consumption is now 40% larger than the renewable capacity of the planet, meaning that humans are already plowing into the Earth's ecological capital year after year, diminishing it inexorably.

If this attribution is correct, Prof. Daly missed the point entirely.

Ever since Prof. Paul Ehrlich wrote his best selling book, "The Population Bomb," academics have zeroed in on overpopulation as the root cause of human induced environmental degradation, while ignoring consumption -- mainly due to its cultural underpinnings. In this context, Prof. Ehrlich said, "More than a billion people are now hungry according to the UN, even though enough food is produced that, if equitably distributed, could give everyone a decent diet. Unhappily, people have never distributed anything equally and in much of the world, the trend is in the other direction. Saying such things is like saying if the lions would only eat grass, the Serengeti could support many more of them."

The trouble with this analogy is that while lions are not known to survive as plant eaters, there are around 4 billion human beings who are living mainly on plant based diets today. As such, they are living examples demonstrating that it can be done. The overconsumption of world resources is occurring mainly due to the top 2 billion affluent human beings sprinkled throughout the earth, but concentrated in developed countries and urban areas in developing countries. These are the people who are consuming as if they are lions in the Serengeti. As the primary meat, fish, egg and dairy consumers of the world, they are also responsible for most of the energy and materials consumption as well. Unfortunately, it is the goal of multinational corporations to increase their number and affluence in order to swell their profits. As long as humans aspire to climb up this consumption ladder, these corporations would be eager to facilitate their ascent, despite the near certainty of triggering a global ecological collapse. Given the demonstrated potential of micro-financing, this mass ascent would be profitable to boot, in the short term.

According to the UN, the world population is projected to stabilize at between 8 and 10.5 billion by mid-century, if all goes well. It is probably futile to argue what the optimum human world population should be -- Prof. Ehrlich believes it to be less than 2 billion people while others are willing to tolerate up to 4 billion people -- as there are no peaceful means to achieve the required draconian reductions in population. Instead, it is much more practical to consider what the optimum human lifestyle should be given the population projections of the future -- and work on finding a joyous path towards it. This is why Saul Griffith said in the New Yorker magazine, "the world's most urgent environmental need is not for some miraculous scientific breakthrough but for a vast, unprecedented transformation of human behavior."

It is virtually certain that the behavioral transformation that is needed would include repudiating the current abuse of Life, especially by the affluent community. If affluent humans begin nurturing Life instead, the earth will begin to heal from these self inflicted wounds. While the recent Gulf oil spill is an egregious example of this abuse of Life, the average American routinely consuming 4000 animals in his/her lifetime is a far, far worse abuse of Life. The latter results in the killing of over a TRILLION animals and fishes to support just the current American population over its expected lifetime! Just think of the enormous wastage in the photosynthetic output of the planet to raise all those animals; and the opportunity cost of the marine life and terrestrial forests that could be nurtured with that photosynthesis, not to mention the carbon sequestration that would be accomplished in the process. This is the crux of the matter, not some peripheral issue that would be nice to address at some unspecified future date.

If we manage to make animal consumption taboo as part of a behavioral transformation, then there is little that corporations can do to overcome it. They will either change or perish. On the other hand, if the affluent community doesn't make this change and proceeds with the paradigm that human nature is fundamentally egotistical and destructive and needs to be centrally manipulated to achieve a desirable outcome for survival, then humans are probably heading towards extinction. This is because such humans will always find loopholes to wriggle out of their shackles and will have access to powerful tools that cause incredible damage -- a la the Gulf oil spill. Furthermore, Nature, that exquisitely designed, self correcting, life support system, abhors imbalances and mass extinction is her last ditch mechanism for correcting them. This mass extinction is well underway.

At some point during this mass extinction event, humans will change and begin nurturing every life form that's left alive because humans are not such a terminally stupid species after all. Therefore, it is not a question of whether each and every one of us will make this change, but when. And then, we will truly be implementing the universal moral code of the Abrahamic faiths, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

For, nowhere in that line does it specify "humans."

Gandhi once said, "When I despair, I remember that all through history, the ways of truth and love have always won. ...Think of it-- ALWAYS!" It is change and the triumph of truth and love that is constant in the universe, not culture and traditions. This is why we no longer burn slaves at the stake in order to illuminate our evening parties as the Romans used to do two thousand years ago, why we no longer measure our worth in the number of slaves we own as was fashionable two hundred years ago, and, why we no longer witness drunken Englishmen auctioning off their wives and children in the town square as was customary a hundred years ago. Likewise, I imagine that future generations of humans will shudder at our violent treatment of animals as documented for posterity in Earthlings.

But, I hope that these future generations will simultaneously celebrate our generation's metamorphosis that gave them the gift of life on Earth, their Garden of Eden.

Link: http://climatehealers.ning.com/profiles/blogs/population-consumption-and-the