Tornado Tutorial: Recognizing hook echoes on the radar images (by Shaun Tanner of the wunderground)

Quick Radar and Tornado Tutorial


by Shaun Tanner, wunderground, May 25, 2011


For the second straight day, the Storm Prediction Center in Norman, OK, is forecasting a high risk of severe weather (Figure 1). This time, the high risk of severe weather is directly over areas that have suffered through a record-setting flood of the Mississippi River of the past few weeks.

Figure 1. The convective outlook for Wednesday, May 25, 2011. Note the high risk in the Mississippi Valley.

If you are in the high or moderate risk area today, or even if you are just watching from the sidelines, the best way to prepare yourself for severe weather is to know what is coming well before it makes its way into your backyard. So, I have put together a quick and easy tutorial on how to read radar so that you know if a tornado is on its way toward you. I will try to use images from Tuesday's outbreak as an example.

Pinpointing exactly what you are looking at while looking at radar can be difficult, for sure. I was sitting with my fellow meteorologists yesterday watching the outbreak on radar while at the same time monitoring a TV station that was trying to cover the story. At one point, there were at least 3 tornadoes on the ground, and we were getting confused about which ones the TV meteorologists were talking about. And we are meteorologists! So if you get confused, don't worry. The bottom-line is to pay attention to local warnings and take cover when told to do so.

Storm Tracks
Weather Underground radar offers a unique feature that can let you track thunderstorms and potential tornadoes quick and easy. To see these storm tracks, simply go to the radar you are interested in and then choose something in the Storms dropdown menu. Then click Update Radar Map. What you get will look somewhat like Figure 2. The yellow squares represent thunderstorms that are producing hail, the yellow diamonds are mesocyclones (don't worry, another discussion), and the pink triangles represent possible tornado locations. Basically, the radar location "thinks" a tornado might there. This is where I usually start. If you see a pink triangle, or if there are really menacing reds and purples approaching your location, I would move onto the next step.

Figure 2. Storm tracks of various thunderstorms and possible tornadoes.

Hook Echo
A hook echo is the easiest way to recognize a tornado signature on radar. But, be wary, just because there is no hook echo present does not necessarily mean there is no tornado present. A hook echo looks a lot like Figure 3. Do you see the hook pretty much in the middle of the image? What you are looking at is the radar representation of a tornado. So, if you have a pink triangle for a storm track, and you see a hook echo, then you most likely have got yourself a tornado, and you should take cover if you are in its path. You can monitor the path of the tornado by watching the loop of the radar. GENERALLY, tornadoes follow a southwest to northeast path, but they can have a mind of their own sometimes. So, if you are close to the path of a tornado, then it is best to take cover, even if you think you are outside of its "path."

As a tornado gets "older," it may become "rain-wrapped" and harder to pinpoint. Figure 4 is a radar image from Tuesday, May 24, 2011, of a mature tornado that cruised north of Oklahoma City, OK. Admittedly, this tornado representation may be hard to see. But, it is there. See near the middle of the image where a swirl of deep red is next to a swirl of light green? That is the tornado. This tornado is almost "rain-wrapped." When a tornado becomes "rain-wrapped," it can be particularly dangerous because it becomes very difficult to see on radar and on the ground. If you can't see it coming on the ground, then you have no idea where it is or where it is heading. So, it is best to catch these tornadoes before they become "rain-wrapped," if possible.

Figure 3. This radar image was taken Tuesday, May 24, 2011. You can see the hook echo in the middle of the image, and it represents a strong tornado that approached Norman, OK. This tornado is the one that caused the evacuation of the Storm Prediction Center.

Figue 4. Radar of an almost rain-wrapped tornado from May 24, 2011, north of Oklahoma City, OK.

Radial Velocities
This might seem like hard-core meteorology, and therefore, might scare people off. But, in fact, it is a quite ingenious way of determining fast rotation, like a tornado. Figure 5 shows the radial velocities of one of the tornadoes that went past near Oklahoma City, OK, on May 24, 2011. Sometimes tornadoes can be hard to spot looking at this type of image, but this one is crystal clear. The actual radar site for this image is just off the lower right of the image. You can tell because this is where all the lines are converging. Using the scale on the left, the reds and oranges represent air that is moving away from the radar site, and the blues and greens are air that is moving toward the radar site. If no tornado were present, you would see blues and greens south of the radar site and reds and oranges north of the site. Because tornadoes are actually pretty small in scale and spin very rapidly, the tornado in the image will be represented by greens and blues right next to reds and oranges. Can you spot it? Pretty close to the middle of the image. Think about what that is telling you. It is saying that the air on the left side of the tornado is moving toward the radar site, while the air on the right is moving away. In order for that to happen logically, the air has to be rotating very quickly. In this case, the tornado is spinning counter-clockwise, which is the way that "most" tornadoes rotate.

Figure 5. Radial velocities of a tornado that moved past Oklahoma City, OK, Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

If all of this is confusing, which I have no doubt that it is, then never fear. The meteorologists at the NWS are very good at what they do. So, if they tell you to take cover in various Tornado Watches and Warnings, then do it. Stay safe everybody!


http://www.wunderground.com/blog/shauntanner/show.html?entrynum=176

Brave New Foundation: Tell Secretary Clinton to Say No to the Kochs

Brave New Foundation: Tell Secretary Clinton to Say No to the Kochs 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has the ability to stop Koch Industries, Inc., from profiting off a pipeline that would carry the dirtiest oil on Earth through six states, one of America's most important aquifers and almost 2,000 miles of American homes and farmland. Help us reach our goal of 50,000 individuals telling Secretary Clinton to say No to the Kochs and Yes to protecting Americans at (to sign the petition): http://kochbrothersexposed.com/tellclintonno

Send your own comments on the pipeline direct to the state department here:

http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/CommentFset?OpenFrameSet

The Guardian: Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink. Record rise, despite recession, means 2 °C target almost out of reach

Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink

Exclusive: Record rise, despite recession, means 2 °C target almost out of reach


by Fiona Harvey, Environment correspondent, guardian.co.uk, May 29, 2011

Economic recession has failed to curb rising emissions, undermining hope of keeping global warming to safe levels Photograph: Dave Reede/All Canada Photos/Corbis

Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.


The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" – is likely to be just "a nice Utopia", according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.


Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6 Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data.


"I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say."


Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change for the Treasury in 2006, warned that if the pattern continued, the results would be dire. "These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a 'business as usual' path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path ... would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4 °C by 2100," he said.


"Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce."


Birol said disaster could yet be averted, if governments heed the warning. "If we have bold, decisive and urgent action, very soon, we still have a chance of succeeding," he said.


The IEA has calculated that if the world is to escape the most damaging effects of global warming, annual energy-related emissions should be no more than 32 Gt by 2020. If this year's emissions rise by as much as they did in 2010, that limit will be exceeded nine years ahead of schedule, making it all but impossible to hold warming to a manageable degree.


Emissions from energy fell slightly between 2008 and 2009, from 29.3 Gt to 29 Gt, due to the financial crisis. A small rise was predicted for 2010 as economies recovered, but the scale of the increase has shocked the IEA. "I was expecting a rebound, but not such a strong one," said Birol, who is widely regarded as one of the world's foremost experts on emissions.


John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said time was running out. "This news should shock the world. Yet even now politicians in each of the great powers are eyeing up extraordinary and risky ways to extract the world's last remaining reserves of fossil fuels – even from under the melting ice of the Arctic. You don't put out a fire with gasoline. It will now be up to us to stop them."


Most of the rise – about three-quarters – has come from developing countries, as rapidly emerging economies have weathered the financial crisis and the recession that has gripped most of the developed world.


But he added that, while the emissions data was bad enough news, there were other factors that made it even less likely that the world would meet its greenhouse gas targets.


• About 80% of the power stations likely to be in use in 2020 are either already built or under construction, the IEA found. Most of these are fossil fuel power stations unlikely to be taken out of service early, so they will continue to pour out carbon – possibly into the mid-century. The emissions from these stations amount to about 11.2 Gt, out of a total of 13.7 Gt from the electricity sector. These "locked-in" emissions mean savings must be found elsewhere.


"It means the room for manoeuvre is shrinking," warned Birol.


• Another factor that suggests emissions will continue their climb is the crisis in the nuclear power industry. Following the tsunami damage at Fukushima, Japan and Germany have called a halt to their reactor programmes, and other countries are reconsidering nuclear power.


"People may not like nuclear, but it is one of the major technologies for generating electricity without carbon dioxide," said Birol. The gap left by scaling back the world's nuclear ambitions is unlikely to be filled entirely by renewable energy, meaning an increased reliance on fossil fuels.


• Added to that, the United Nations-led negotiations on a new global treaty on climate change have stalled. "The significance of climate change in international policy debates is much less pronounced than it was a few years ago," said Birol.


He urged governments to take action urgently. "This should be a wake-up call. A chance [of staying below 2 degrees] would be if we had a legally binding international agreement or major moves on clean energy technologies, energy efficiency and other technologies."


Governments are to meet next week in Bonn for the next round of the UN talks, but little progress is expected.


Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, said the global emissions figures showed that the link between rising GDP and rising emissions had not been broken. "The only people who will be surprised by this are people who have not been reading the situation properly," he said.


Forthcoming research led by Sir David will show the west has only managed to reduce emissions by relying on imports from countries such as China.


Another telling message from the IEA's estimates is the relatively small effect that the recession – the worst since the 1930s – had on emissions. Initially, the agency had hoped the resulting reduction in emissions could be maintained, helping to give the world a "breathing space" and set countries on a low-carbon path. The new estimates suggest that opportunity may have been missed.

Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2 ºC is getting bleaker. CO2 emissions reach a record high in 2010; 80% of projected 2020 emissions from the power sector are already locked in

Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2 ºC is getting bleaker

CO2 emissions reach a record high in 2010; 80% of projected 2020 emissions from the power sector are already locked in

by International Energy Agency, May 30, 2011

Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in history, according to the latest estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

After a dip in 2009 caused by the global financial crisis, emissions are estimated to have climbed to a record 30.6 Gigatonnes (Gt), a 5% jump from the previous record year in 2008, when levels reached 29.3 Gt.

In addition, the IEA has estimated that 80% of projected emissions from the power sector in 2020 are already locked in, as they will come from power plants that are currently in place or under construction today.

“This significant increase in CO2 emissions and the locking in of future emissions due to infrastructure investments represent a serious setback to our hopes of limiting the global rise in temperature to no more than 2 ºC,” said Dr Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the IEA who oversees the annual World Energy Outlook, the Agency’s flagship publication.

Global leaders agreed a target of limiting temperature increase to 2 °C at the UN climate change talks in Cancun in 2010. For this goal to be achieved, the long-term concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be limited to around 450 parts per million of CO2-equivalent, only a 5% increase compared to an estimated 430 parts per million in 2000.

The IEA’s 2010 World Energy Outlook set out the 450 Scenario, an energy pathway consistent with achieving this goal, based on the emissions targets countries have agreed to reach by 2020. For this pathway to be achieved, global energy-related emissions in 2020 must not be greater than 32 Gt.This means that over the next 10 years, emissions must rise less in total than they did between 2009 and 2010.

“Our latest estimates are another wake-up call,” said Dr Birol. “The world has edged incredibly close to the level of emissions that should not be reached until 2020 if the 2ºC target is to be attained. Given the shrinking room for manœuvre in 2020, unless bold and decisive decisions are made very soon, it will be extremely challenging to succeed in achieving this global goal agreed  in Cancun.”

In terms of fuels, 44% of the estimated CO2 emissions in 2010 came from coal, 36% from oil, and 20% from natural gas.

The challenge of improving and maintaining quality of life for people in all countries while limiting CO2 emissions has never been greater. While the IEA estimates that 40% of global emissions came from OECD countries in 2010, these countries only accounted for 25% of emissions growth compared to 2009. Non-OECD countries – led by China and India – saw much stronger increases in emissions as their economic growth accelerated.

However, on a per capita basis, OECD countries collectively emitted 10 tonnes, compared with 5.8 tonnes for China, and 1.5 tonnes in India.

http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959

T. Boone Pickens slams Koch brothers on gas bill: "They don't answer to anybody!"

Pickens slams Koch brothers on gas bill: 'They don't answer to anybody'

by Ben Geman, The Hill, May 27, 2011

Billionaire energy magnate T. Boone Pickens slammed Koch Industries on Friday for its opposition to legislation he’s promoting that provides tax credits to jumpstart use of natural gas in the trucking industry.

“They don't ever come toe-to-toe. They don’t get up and discuss these issues or anything. They are very mysterious,” Pickens said on CNBC.

“Their company, these guys are worth $40 billion, they don’t have to answer to anybody, and it is a private company and they avoid some reporting that public companies have to do,” Pickens added.

Koch — which is helmed by billionaire brothers active in conservative causes — is opposing the natural-gas legislation alongside an array of right-leaning groups, including the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, and the Club for Growth. They allege it represents undue government meddling in energy markets.

Informed that Charles Koch had declined the network’s invitation to appear, Pickens replied, “They won’t come on. They just send a statement is all they do.”

The bill would provide billions of dollars worth of tax credits and other provisions to spur transition to natural gas-powered vehicles, which Pickens and other backers call a vital way to curb reliance on oil imports.

But in a statement earlier this month against the bill, an executive with Kansas-based Koch Industries, which is active in refining, polymers and other sectors, said the company has “consistently opposed subsidies that distort markets.”

“We maintain that the marketplace, while not perfect, is the best mechanism for allocating resources to consumers. People deciding what fuels to purchase, instead of the government, is best for consumers and our country,” said Richard Fink, executive vice president for the company. He said that Koch does not question Pickens' "intentions or integrity," but added: 

"We believe history has demonstrated over and over that these subsidies end up undermining the long-term prosperity of the country. For these principled reasons, we oppose this bill (HR 1380) to give tax incentives to buyers and makers of natural gas-powered vehicles and related infrastructure."

But Pickens noted the company benefits from subsidies that bolster the ethanol industry and more broadly defended the bipartisan legislation, which was introduced by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) and has over 180 co-sponsors.

“I am trying to get away from the terrorists. I think that the money that we pay to OPEC, it gets in the hands of the Taliban,” Pickens said, calling use of domestic natural gas a viable alternative. 

He also noted that the bill would provide the tax credits for a limited number of years, unlike longstanding ethanol tax subsidies.

“I just want the 18-wheelers and with those I can cut OPEC in half, and my help from the government [is] a five year and out,” Pickens said.

The interview comes a day after a pair of Republicans dropped their support for the legislation, joining two others who abandoned it earlier in the month. But the bill is attracting new co-sponsors too.

Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) signed onto the bill Thursday, and Reps. Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed on earlier in the week.

3 more pages here:  http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/163711-pickens-slams-kochs-on-gas-bill-they-dont-ever-come-toe-to-toe

UK undermining Europe's tar sands ban, say campaigners

Environmentalists accuse coalition of caving in to Canada by blocking attempt to restrict controversial fuel

• Terry Macalister, guardian.co.uk, May 30, 2011

Environmental activists from the UK and Canada highlight the role of British companies including Shell and BP in exploiting Canada's tar sands, in a protest in central London last year. Photograph: Teri Pengilley

Britain is being accused of undermining a European-wide drive to ban forecourt sales of petrol and diesel derived from the carbon-heavy tar sandsof Canada.

The Co-op and green groups claim coalition ministers are refusing to back other countries which want tar sands specifically named in a new fuel quality directive scheduled to come into force this autumn.

"It is extremely disappointing that the UK has caved in to pressure from Canada, which sees Europe as setting a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow, potentially closing one market after another," said Paul Monaghan, head of social goals and sustainability at the Co-op.

"If it really does want to be the greenest government ever, it must lead by example and not be swayed by aggressive Canadian lobbying," he added.

Canada's tar sands are the world's largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia but can require up to three times the amount of greenhouse gases to extract from the earth. They often need steam to be injected into the heavy bitumen before it can be broken up and brought out of the ground – unlike traditional oil extracted through drilling a well.

Campaigners, who also fear the "fracking" process will poison underground aquifers, have long claimed that fully exploiting Canada's tar sands alone would be sufficient to take the world to the brink of runaway climate change. But companies at the heart of these operations, such as Shell, insist the CO2 content is exaggerated and can be dealt with through the use of carbon capture and storage.

Tar sands were originally named in draft proposals from the European Commission which were drawn up to ensure that member states were able to meet the legally binding target of reducing greenhouse gas by 6% by 2020.

But by last year – following intense lobbying from the Canadian government – all references to tar sands were dropped, triggering a campaign by the Co-op, WWF and others for the words to be reinserted.

The European climate change commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said in March that tar sands would be put back in the draft fuel proposals. If member states agree, implementation would cause the new standards to be introduced in the autumn of this year.

On Monday the Department for Transport said the government was totally committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuels, but questioned whether the European Union was going in the right direction with tar sands.

"Be in no doubt, we want to address the higher emissions of fuel derived from all heavy crudes, not just single out one particular source," said the department. "We are pushing the European Commission to agree a method for assessing the emissions of fossil fuels from different sources as part of the fuel quality directive as soon as possible. Such a methodology, based on sound science, could be a key means to reduce emissions."

But the Co-op and other campaigners see this as a "stalling tactic" pursued by the Canadian lobbyists and fear that British opposition could encourage other major countries to follow suit and capsize the wider directive.

Tar sands have become increasingly controversial, with green groups putting down motions at recent annual general meetings of Shell, BP and Statoil of Norway calling on them to halt their operations in Alberta, Canada.

"The ecological consequences of tar sands are now greater than those of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The difference is that they happen in slow motion," said Nina Jensen of WWF Norway during the Statoil's AGM last week.

"Statoil would never have been allowed to do this in Norway," she said, referring to the energy-intensive tar sands.

But Statoil management argued that tar sands are an essential energy resource that must be exploited to quench the world's thirst for energy, which is predicted to rise 40% in the next 20 to 30 years. Statoil's chief executive, Helge Lund, said: "These resources are an important part of future energy supplies."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/30/uk-undermining-tar-sands-ban

WaPo Editorial Board Opinion: Harassing climate-change researchers [on the continuing illegal harassment of Dr. Michael Mann by Koch brothers stooge Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli]

Harassing climate-change researchers

Editorial Board Opinion, The Washington Post, May 29, 2011

FREEDOM OF information laws are critical tools that allow Americans to see what their leaders do on their behalf. But some global warming skeptics in Virginia are showing that even the best tools can be misused.

Lawyers from the Environmental Law Center at the American Tradition Institute (ATI) have asked the University of Virginia to turn over thousands of e-mails and other documents written by Michael E. Mann, a former U-Va. professor and a prominent climate scientist. Another warming skeptic, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), recently demanded many of the same documents to determine whether Mr. Mann somehow defrauded taxpayers when he obtained research grants to study global temperatures.

A judge quashed Mr. Cuccinelli’s chilling “civil investigative demand.” But even though Mr. Mann wasn’t an agent of the commonwealth in any practical sense when he worked at U-Va., the university hasn’t been able to dismiss ATI’s requests, since Mr. Mann’s e-mails are public records in a technical sense. U-Va. agreed last week that it will hand over all the material that state law obliges it to release by Aug. 22.

ATI’s motives are clear enough. The group’s Web site boasts about its challenges to environmental regulations across the country. Christopher Horner [one of the worst bought and paid for liars in the country], its director of litigation, wrote a book called “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.” (We wonder whether the “alarmists” who wrote the National Research Council’s latest report on climate change are threatening, fraudulent or merely deceptive.) And ATI declares that Mr. Mann’s U-Va. e-mails contain material similar to that which inspired the trumped-up [by fossil-fuel interests] “Climategate” scandal, in which warming skeptics misrepresented lines from e-mails stored at a British climate science center [Repeat: NO DATA WAS ALTERED! NO WORK WAS SUPPRESSED! SCIENTISTS ABSOLVED BY AT LEAST 5 DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS! THIS WAS ALL TO TORPEDO THE COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE, AND THE KOCHS GOT THEIR MONEY'S WORTH].

Going after Mr. Mann only discourages the sort of scientific inquiry that, over time, sorts out fact from speculation, good science from bad. Academics must feel comfortable sharing research, disagreeing with colleagues and proposing conclusions — not all of which will be correct — without fear that those who dislike their findings will conduct invasive fishing expeditions in search of a pretext to discredit them. That give-and-take should be unhindered by how popular a professor’s ideas are or whose ideological convictions might be hurt.

Teresa A. Sullivan, U-Va.’s president, said that the university will use “all available exemptions” from the state’s public records law [Hear! Hear!]to shield Mr. Mann. And a university spokesperson said that U-Va. anticipates that most of the documents at issue will be exempt under a statute that “excludes from disclosure unpublished proprietary information produced or collected by faculty in the conduct of, or as a result of, study or research on scientific or scholarly issues.” The university is right to make full use of such exemptions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harassing-climate-change-researchers/2011/05/27/AG1xJMEH_story.html

Peter Sinclair: GOP Gov. Chris Christie: “We have an obligation to reduce our Greenhouse Gas emissions.” Translation: I am running for President in 2016.

GOP Gov. Chris Christie: “We have an obligation to reduce our Greenhouse Gas emissions.” Translation: "I am running for President in 2016."

by Peter Sinclair, Climate Denial Crock of the Week, May 27, 2011

If you had any question whether GOP darling Chris Christie was going to enter the 2012 race, those are now answered.

Surveying the reality-free Tea Party freak show that is the current republican presidential field, Christie has opted out. And he has fired the first shot of his 2016 campaign by committing himself to a program of free-market incentives for combatting climate change, reducing greenhouse emissions, and accelerating New Jersey’s development of renewable energy and conservation.
The video above is a shortened version of  the 14-minute statement released on May 26, titled “The Future is Green.” Click here to see the long version.

Christie starts out with some red meat for his right flank, by withdrawing from RGGI,the 10 state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which conservatives hate due to the price on carbon that is the heart of that program. That much is standard GOP politics in the age of Sara Palin science.
From there, however, he quickly veers into frontiers of rational thought unknown to GOP candidates for some years:



• “...Our commitment continues to combatting climate change, and looking for new, clean, and cleaner energy sources...”
• “ ...we’re committed to putting in place policies that actively work to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and achieve the 22.5 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard target by 2021...”
• “The future for New Jersey is in Green  energy...”
• “No New Coal permitted in New Jersey. From this day forward, any plans that anyone has regarding any type of coal based generation in New Jersey is over…we know that coal is a major source of CO2 emissions, we will no longer accept coal as a new source of power in the state.…we need to commit in New Jersey to making coal a part of our past.”
• “We’re going to work to make New Jersey number one in offshore wind production…We will be receiving applications for more than 3000 MW of offshore wind in the next 2 weeks...”
• “We’re going to go further in solar energy...”
• Encourage the construction of natural gas plants
• ”will look at” additional nuclear units
• “The cleanest energy is the energy that you don’t use… the state has to lead in terms of conservation, and so we’re going to lead by example on energy efficiency.”
• ”we remain completely committed to the idea that we have a responsibility as a state to make the environment of our state, and the world, better...
• “…we have an obligation to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.”

By accepting the science of global climate change, Christie joins John Huntsman as a small but significant minority calling for the return of reason and science to the Grand Old Party.

Huntsman’s position has made him an extreme outlier among those considered potential candidates for 2012, and he’s quickly backtracking to “now is not the time to act” apologies. The remaining candidates are furiously distancing themselves from any hint of ever accepting overwhelming scientific consensus.

Christie is obviously writing off 2012 as the political catastrophe that it might take to wake Republicans to the climatic catastrophe, preparing for the future, and betting that a few more years of pounding floods, heat waves, tornadoes, and droughts in Iowa should prepare the ground for some much needed rational thought in the GOP.

Extra: See here for a 2010 Town Hall meeting for Christie’s evolving thought on RGGI and the climate issue:


It’s instructive that you can see in this edit of Christie’s remarks some editorial comment from whatever right wing group posted it.

Up till now, believing in science was enough to make one a turncoat in “conservative” circles. Let’s see if that begins to change.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/05/27/gop-gov-chris-christie-i-am-running-for-president-in-2016-we-have-an-obligation-to-reduce-our-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

NYT: China’s Interest in Farmland Makes Brazil Uneasy [as well it should!]

China’s Interest in Farmland Makes Brazil Uneasy

Photo: Daniel Kfouri for The New York Times. A farmer working in his soybean field in Uruaçu, Brazil. Demand for soybeans in China has brought Chinese investors here.

by Alexie Barrionuevo, The New York Times, May 26, 2011

URUAÇU, Brazil — When the Chinese came looking for more soybeans here last year, they inquired about buying land — lots of it.

Photo: Daniel Kfouri for The New York Times. A new railroad line in Uruaçu, Brazil, will carry soybeans to a port for shipping to China. Brazil's economic links with China have helped it prosper, but Brazil is selling mostly raw materials.

Photo: Daniel Kfouri for The New York Times. A farmer harvested soy in Uruaçu, Brazil.

Officials in this farming area would not sell the hundreds of thousands of acres needed. Undeterred, the Chinese pursued a different strategy: providing credit to farmers and potentially tripling the soybeans grown here to feed chickens and hogs back in China.

“They need the soy more than anyone,” said Edimilson Santana, a farmer in the small town of Uruaçu. “This could be a new beginning for farmers here.”

The $7 billion agreement signed last month — to produce six million tons of soybeans a year — is one of several struck in recent weeks as China hurries to shore up its food security and offset its growing reliance on crops from the United States by pursuing vast tracts of Latin America’s agricultural heartland.

Even as Brazil, Argentina and other nations move to impose limits on farmland purchases by foreigners, the Chinese are seeking to more directly control production themselves, taking their nation’s fervor for agricultural self-sufficiency overseas.

“They are moving in,” said Carlo Lovatelli, president of the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries. “They are looking for land, looking for reliable partners. But what they would like to do is run the show alone.”

While many welcome the investments, the aggressive push comes as Brazilian officials have begun questioning the “strategic partnership” with China encouraged by former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The Chinese have become so important to Brazil’s economy that it cannot do without them — and that is precisely what is making Brazil increasingly uneasy.

“One thing the world can be sure of: there is no going back,” Mr. da Silva said while visiting Beijing in 2009.

China has become Brazil’s biggest trading partner, buying ever increasing volumes of soybeans and iron ore, while investing billions in Brazil’s energy sector. The demand has helped fuel an economic boom here that has lifted more than 20 million Brazilians from extreme poverty and brought economic stability to a country accustomed to periodic crises.

Yet some experts say the partnership has devolved into a classic neo-colonial relationship in which China has the upper hand. Nearly 84% of Brazil’s exports to China last year were raw materials, up from 68% in 2000. But about 98% of China’s exports to Brazil are manufactured products — including the latest, low-priced cars for Brazil’s emerging middle class — that are beating down Brazil’s industrial sector.

“The relationship has been very unbalanced,” said Rubens Ricupero, a former Brazilian diplomat and finance minister. “There has been a clear lack of strategy on the Brazilian side.”

While visiting China last month, Brazil’s new president, Dilma Rousseff, emphasized the need to sell higher-value products to China, and she has edged closer to the United States. “It is not by accident that there is a sort of effort to revalue the relationship with the United States,” said Paulo Sotero, director of the Brazil Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “China exposes Brazil’s vulnerabilities more than any other country in the world.”

China’s moves to buy land have made officials nervous. Last August, Luís Inácio Adams, Brazil’s attorney general, reinterpreted a 1971 law, making it significantly harder for foreigners to buy land in Brazil. Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, followed suit last month, sending a law to Congress limiting the size and concentration of rural land foreigners could own.

Mr. Adams said his decision was not a direct result of land-buying by China, but he noted that huge “land grabs” in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, including China’s attempt to lease about three million acres in the Philippines, had alarmed Brazilian officials.

“Nothing is preventing investment from happening, but it will be regulated,” Mr. Adams said.

A World Bank study last year said that volatile food prices had brought a “rising tide” of large-scale farmland purchases in developing nations, and that China was among a small group of countries making most of the purchases.

Foreigners own an estimated 11% of productive land in Argentina, according to the Argentine Agriculture Federation. In Brazil, one government study estimated that foreigners owned land equivalent to about 20% of São Paulo State.

International investors have criticized the restrictions. At least $15 billion in farming and forestry projects in Brazil have been suspended since the government’s limits, according to Agroconsult, a Brazilian agricultural consultancy.

“The tightening of land purchases by foreigners is really a step backwards into a Jurassic mentality of counterproductive nationalism,” said Charles Tang, president of the Brazil-China Chamber of Commerce, saying that American farmers had bought sizable plots in Brazil in recent years, with little uproar.

Responding to the criticism, Brazil’s agriculture minister said this month that Brazil might start leasing farmland to foreigners, given the barriers to ownership.

China itself does not allow private ownership of farmland, and it cautioned local governments against granting large-scale or long-term leases to companies in a 2001 directive. China also bans foreign companies from buying mines and oil fields.

But as more of its people eat meat, China is expected to increase its soybean imports, mostly for animal feed, by more than 50% by 2020, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. Last month, Chongqing Grains signed a $2.5 billion agreement to produce soybeans in the Brazilian state of Bahia. Last October, a Chinese group agreed to develop about 500,000 acres of farmland in Río Negro Province in Argentina.

In both cases, Chinese officials proposed buying large tracts of land before local officials steered them toward production agreements.

“We are never going to sell the land,” said Juan Manuel Accatino, the minister of production in Río Negro.

Brian Willott, an American farmer who came to Brazil in 2003, said Chinese interest in buying farms had not abated. “Everywhere you go to look at a farm they say, ‘We are considering selling to the Chinese,’ ” he said.

In Goiás State, nearly 70% of the soy grown went to the Chinese last year, and the Chinese are seeking to use about 20 million acres of pastureland that has not been cultivated for decades.

“For them, the faster the better,” said Antônio de Lima, Goiás’ agriculture minister.

Farmers here say they share Chinese officials’ goal of breaking the stranglehold of international trading companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland.

But Tan Lin, a manager at the Chinese company involved in Goiás, said he doubted Chinese companies were ready to replace them.

“I don’t see that the Chinese companies working here have that expertise yet,” Mr. Tan said. But “if you can do that, it is good, of course.”

Reporting was contributed by Myrna Domit from São Paulo, Brazil, Charles Newbery from Buenos Aires, David Barboza from Shanghai and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/world/americas/27brazil.html?src=recg&pagewanted=all