AR4 WG2
Post
06/04/07, Arthur Max, All-night meeting needed to approve climate change report, (Source).
06/04/07, Lake Superior warming faster than surrounding climate, (Source).
06/04/07, Comments, (Source).
06/04/07, Gerald Traufetter, UN Global Warming Report - The Age of the Climate Refugees?, (Source).
06/04/07, Spiegel, Merkel on UN Climate Study - "Report Confirms Climate Change Is a Fact", (Source).
06/04/07, Aquecimento Global - EUA e China questionam novo relatório da ONU, (Source).
06/04/07, Andreia Fanzeres e Eric Macedo, Relatório-catástrofe, (Source).
07/04/07, Alana Gandra, Pesquisadora quer índice para medir qualidade de vida e desenvolvimento ambiental, (Source).
08/04/07, NYT Editorial, Hot and Cold, (Source).
10/04/07, Frank Hornig, Spiegel Interview with NASA Climate Expert James Hansen, (Source).
06/04/07, Arthur Max, All-night meeting needed to approve climate change report, (Back).
BRUSSELS — An international global warming conference approved a report on climate change Friday, chairman Rajendra Pachauri said, after a contentious marathon session that saw angry exchanges between diplomats and scientists who drafted the report.
“We have an approved accord. It has been a complex exercise,” Mr. Pachauri told reporters after an all-night meeting.
Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change vowed never to take part in the process again.
“The authors lost,” said one participant. “A lot of authors are not going to engage in the IPCC process any more. I have had it with them,” he said on condition of anonymity because the proceedings were supposed to remain confidential. An Associated Press reporter, however, witnessed part of the final meeting.
The climax of five days of negotiations was reached when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1 degree Celsius, and in a tussle over the level of confidence attached to key statements.
The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised the most objections to the phrasing, most often seeking to tone the certainty of some of the more dire projections.
The final report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.
It predicts that up to 30 per cent of species face an increase risk of extinction if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius above the average in the 1980s and 90s.
Areas that now suffer a shortage of rain will become even more dry, adding to the risks of hunger and disease, it said. The world will face heightened threats of flooding, severe storms and the erosion of coastlines.
06/04/07, Lake Superior warming faster than surrounding climate, (Back).
DULUTH, MINN. — Lake Superior has been warming even faster than the climate around it since the late 1970s due to reduced ice cover, according to a study by professors at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
Summer surface temperatures on the famously cold lake have increased about 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1979, compared with about a 2.7-degree increase in the region's annual average air temperature, the researchers found. The lake's “summer season” is now beginning about two weeks earlier than it did 27 years ago.
“It's a remarkably rapid rate of change,” Jay Austin, an assistant professor with the university's Large Lakes Observatory and Department of Physics, told the Star Tribune newspaper. Mr. Austin co-authored the study with geology professor Steve Colman.
The study is based on data collected by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration buoys on the lake and on 102 years' worth of daily temperature readings at a hydroelectric plant near Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.
Mr. Austin said the surface temperature increase is not only “a symptom of climate change,” but also could reinforce itself. A trend toward warmer winters would mean less winter ice cover, which would allow more solar radiation of the lake and continued warming, he said.
Lake Superior freezes over completely about once every 20 years, according to the Minnesota DNR's climatology office. If trends continue, it could be routinely ice-free by about 2040, the study found. This would cause water levels to continue to drop because the lake loses more water to evaporation in a winter without ice cover than it does during the summer. In recent months, the lake's level has been lower than at any equivalent time since 1926.
06/04/07, Comments, (Back).
Borat K. from Glorious nation of, Kazakhstan writes: The article stated "...In recent months, the lake's level has been lower than at any equivalent time since 1926."
Hmmm, was there Global Warming caused by human activity in the 1920's?
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Borat K: Probably not - and your point is? Why is it so hard for people like you to grasp a simple concept and fact? Specifically, that human activity does have an impact on the planet. And the follow on to that is that the total effect of all inputs is cumulative. This article is most interesting in providing hard evidence for the consequences of a reduction in ice cover at the poles. less reflection more absorption of heat. The term feed back loop comes to mind here.
r z from Edmonton, Canada writes: Orest, it's you who is having trouble grasping a simple concept and fact. Human activity does have an impact on the planet, but to make a leap to humans changing the climate requires solid, irrefutable science, which is nowhere to be found.
Any person with a scientific interest knows that you research and keep an open mind to all data, from all sides, before you come to a conclusion.
Science rarely supports an hysterical conclusion.
David Simon from Canada writes: Bring back the Edmund Fitzgerald-less water means a shorter trip.
Mr. Mr. from Windsor, Canada writes: This is getting very serious and thus far Canadians have yet to say they're willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to reduce green house emissions.
Posted 06/04/07 at 9:23 AM EDT
Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: Funny how they chose 1970 as the base data. 1970 happens to be the coldest part of the last cooling period when we were all running around frightened of global cooling and nucleqar winter.
Typical of the global alarmists to selectively pick intervals that overly dramatize shifts of climate. Very bad science but very effective politics!
EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: I live near the banks of the St. Lawrence, it is April 6 and there is still a large portion of ice cover. It is usually clear by this date. It is also colder than heck. Please let the global warming begin!
Pat Gesner from Canada writes: Interesting report. What about other implications. Should holiday makers not plan for boating this year by the shores of this lake -is the water level that low? Surely there must be increased survailences of the ecology of the lakes. Even if nothing can be done (2degree rise is supposed to cause coral kill off in seas of the globe)would not data collection be of use. It always is good to have hard facts -never know when it would sway a decision. It would be nice to know if funding would shift. Better this than wasting money on bribes by the foreign services to determine the status of a criminal Iman with canadian citizenship obtained through lying. (Why indignant? He hid from his wife-to-be that he was a wanted man and never told her that as his wife she may be exiled from her family instead of living with them. He's a clever lier, good at picking a faithful wife- she did not dump him when he finaly reveled his criminal status a month after marriage. What a country and western "stand by my man" song she would make! )
D. Hall from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Interesting implications for what we will see in the arctic over the next couple of decades.
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ r z from Edmonton: I note that you were conspicuously absent in the comments section of the article re the consequences of overhunting of sharks that was posted here last Friday. The article is locked now, but it was open for quite a while. The article described the consequences of the demand in China for shark-fin soup. The end result is that the scallop fishery on parts of the US east coast is no longer existant because the population of rays, that are one of the main foods of sharks, has exploded due to the destruction of ther shark population. OOPS. And this is an ewasy to follow trail. Atmospheric gasses are trickier and climate is much more complex than food chains. You should also read the article about the politically driven suppression of science in the most recent IPCC report. Main culprits: US, China and Saudi Arabia. Co-incidence? I don't think so! r z - you really need to work on that logic and comprehension thing. What would really help you is losing that political ideology thing that is driving you.
Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: The authors of this report were cautious about attributing the results of their study to climate change, and they were also cautious about the implications for stratification on Lake Superior. At present, my understanding is that Lake Superior takes about 180 years to completely turn over, so how much warmer water on the surface will add to the stratification process in terms of time is speculative. The authors acknowledge this. Notwithstanding, that the water levels on Lake Superior are at their lowest in over 80 years, and that the surface temperature has increased significantly is a concern. For instance, in shallower waters, where temperatures obviously warm more quickly, what impact will this have on the coaster brook trout spawning beds as we know the trout are extremely sensitive to temperature increases.
Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes: Earle Anthony from Sudbury:
You are right about the tendency of the media and some scientists to "cherry pick" data in space and time to make a point. This article is a case in point.
The all time record high year for Superior lake levels appears to be 1985, which was well into the "2nd" global warming phase of the 20th century. In fact, Superior water levels show a steady increase through the period 1860 to 1950, when global warming was progressing steadily also.
All the Great Lakes with the exception of Huron/Michigan are probably within 15 cm of their long term (140 year) average. H-M are about 60 cm below the long term average. However, the record low on an annual basis for H-M looks to be 1964, so even here the cause for alarm may not be as large as the article would have you believe.
Regards, BRK
Long Live Canada from Canada writes: BRK, thanks for the additional info.
Posted 06/04/07 at 11:38 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
eloise hamilton from United Arab Emirates writes: I suspect that by the time there is irrefutable scientific proof, it will be too late. Unfortunately it is not only humans who wil be decimated, (serve them right). By the time we are significantly affected, we will have already decimated all other species by loss of habitat, and pollution.
Joel Cooper from Canada writes: I have lived on the shore of Lake Superior since 1982. I don't know how direct the connection is between climate and water level. Water flow out of Superior at Sault Ste Marie is managed for water power, ship navigation and helping raise or lower water levels in the lower Great Lakes. We had a family cottage on Lake Erie. In the mid-60's the water levels were very low. In the mid-80's there was panic because of shore erosion caused by high water levels. Water levels there are on the decline again. Lake Superior was cold and foggy in the 1980's. Water levels were higher. This cooler period has been attributed to part of a world-wide cooling period following a volcanic eruption in the 70's. My diary shows that form 1984 to 1997 my side of the lake froze in late January or early February and broke up in late March to mid-April (poor ice cover in 1983, 1992 and 1995). Starting in 1998, the lake rarely freezes strong enough to go skating for more than a couple of days at the most. Summer water temperatures are definately warmer now. It is not unusual to have water temperatures of 22C along the shore of the lake in July and August. Surface water temperature out in the open lake can reach 20C. There are far less foggy days as well (I'm not complaining!). We have had also had lower rainfall and snowpack in the eastern Lake Superior watershed for the last 3 years.
06/04/07, Gerald Traufetter, UN Global Warming Report - The Age of the Climate Refugees?, (Back).
The picture painted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is one of blighted nations and millions of desperate immigrants fleeing climate disaster. But experts disagree about whether the bleak vision will ever come true.
Once upon a time, a warming climate tempted the Romans into northern Europe -- as far as northern Germany and even into Britain. Hundreds of years later cooling weather drove Germanic tribes from Scandinavia into the south. Vikings settled Greenland after it warmed up, only to leave when it froze again.
Climate, in short, has long triggered mass migration. And the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that more may be on the horizon. The second part of its extensive report on global warming, released on Friday, warns that coming climate-related disasters may kick off a worldwide exodus of Biblical proportions. Indeed, according to the International Red Cross, 25 million people have already started to shift from places blighted by environmental problems -- a figure that would top the current number of war refugees across the globe.
Rich industrial nations, after decades of pouring more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than poor countries, can adjust to the changes if they invest enough money; but the poorest parts of Central America, Asia and Africa will suffer harshly from flooding and drought. This conventional wisdom in the climate controversy has opened a human-rights debate: Now it's not just globalization, closed markets, or the consequences of colonialism that have robbed the poor of their opportunities -- it's also greenhouse gases. Will coming decades see millions of "climate refugees" flowing north from the floodplains and deserts of Africa or Latin America?
"Horror-movie scenarios"
This question is still wide open among scientists. Experts can't agree if climate refugees even exist. Oxford-based ecologist Norman Myers argues they do, and says the number could soar to as high as 200 million within 50 years. "These people see no alternative to seeking asylum elsewhere, as hazardous as the attempt (to get there) might be," he says.
His colleague Stephen Castles, at Oxford's International Migration Institute, contradicts these horror-movie scenarios. "Myers and others simply take the climate predictions at face value and look at how many people live in the areas that will be flooded," says the author of "The Age of Migration," a now-standard text. This method, says Castles, leads to exaggerated refugee estimates.
He says it's more accurate to research how people actually respond in a given area to environmental disaster, war, or widespread poverty. "What we see is something else -- immigration is generally not the main strategy." When living conditions do get unbearable, people also tend to move within their own countries -- only rarely do they cross national borders.
Immigration experts in countries like Bangladesh tend to agree. Along with low-lying islands like the Maldives, Bangladesh is an early indicator of climate-change prophecies, and even there, sea levels aren't rising all at once. Parts of the country can be protected with dikes; other parts may have to be abandoned, but the people can be resettled. "Only a few will really flee to India," says Castles.
The crucial issue is how well governments react to disasters. After the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, most of the 300,000 displaced residents returned a few months later. After the Pinatubo volcano erupted in the Philippines, though, a large-scale return took years. But the capacity of a nation to respond isn't just a matter of money, as the US government's desultory response to Hurricane Katrina showed in 2005. "It has more to do with decisiveness and organization, and with the struggle against corruption and mismanagement" within a government, says Castles. Overly dramatic predictions of mass migration, he says, mainly serve to aggravate xenophobia: "Right now a tide of refugees is already lapping against the EU's shores," he points out.
Land reform against the apocalypse?
Thomas Faist, a sociologist at the University of Bielefeld, also resists the shrill language his colleagues have started to use. "I don't want to deny the problem," the professor says. "But we can't lose sight of the fact that there are other far more decisive reasons for people to leave home." Floods and desertification are happening now; at the same time people are going hungry and trying to flee. But Faist argues that their ultimate reasons for leaving boil down to ethnic conflict, or economic as well as political mismanagement. He thinks climate change is just an exacerbating factor. Anyone who wants to stop a stream of immigrants has to address its underlying cause, and he doubts the climate can be cited as a root cause for all conflicts raging through all the poor parts of the world.
Faist therefore believes that pots of emergency-fund or "just in case" money for the countries most affected by climate change will be useless. "What they need from us is technological help, drought-resistant seeds, and political support to help the governments react," he says. "Climate change should not be exploited as a cause, to relieve developing nations of their own responsibilities."
The difference between good and bad political management can be seen in Turkey. In the west, where land reform has been underway for decades, the farming sector has flourished; people can support themselves and export their products. In eastern Turkey, where most farmland still belongs to a handful of huge landlords, productivity is low, poverty is high, and many people are leaving for the cities.
"Western Turkey," says Faist, "is in better shape to deal with climate change."
06/04/07, Spiegel, Merkel on UN Climate Study - "Report Confirms Climate Change Is a Fact", (Back).
The United Nations on Friday issued its most dramatic warning yet about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on the planet. European political leaders say we must cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a climate change process that is already underway.
Climate change in the coming century may lead to disasters ranging from famine in Africa to the thinning of Himalayan glaciers, according to the long-awaited second part of an extensive United Nations report on global warming. More than 100 countries represented in the UN's panel on climate change spent a tense Thursday night in Brussels trying to agree unanimously on the language of a final draft.
The report, prepared by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), provides the first confirmation from the entire international scientific community that the burning of fossil fuels by humans is one of the main culprits of global warming.
Scientists "have finally established at the global level that there is an anthropogenic, there is a man made climate signal coming through on plants, animals, water and ice," said Martin Parry, co-chair of the IPCC working group the assembled report. "This is the first time this signal has been confirmed at the international level."
Desertification and water shortages
The report claims that global warming will lead to desertification, droughts and rising seas and that those living in the tropics will be the worst hit -- from sub-Saharan Africa to the Pacific islands. Billions could face water shortages, and ocean levels might rise for centuries to come. It could lead to a sharp drop in crop yields in Africa and bring heatwaves to Europe and North America. Europe's Alpine glaciers will disappear and much of the coral that comprises Australia's Great Barrier Reef will die from bleaching.
The scientific conclusions -- based on 29,000 sets of data -- also said that up to 30 percent of the Earth's species faced a higher risk of vanishing if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average in the 1980s and '90s.
"The urgency of this report prepared by the world's top scientists should be matched by an equally urgent response from governments," said Hans Verolme, director of the global climate change program at the conservation organization WWF. "Doing nothing is not an option."
Merkel to address issue at G-8 summit
The contents of the report, most of which had already been leaked to the media in recent weeks, prompted political leaders to call for action, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "The report confirms that climate change is a fact," Merkel told the Munich daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. "That's why we need quick and determined action to limit the rise in temperatures worldwide and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. I will also address the issue at the G-8 summit. My aim is, insofar as possible, to involve all states in taking responsibility for climate protection. "
Merkel said she hoped recent European Union actions might help to push China and the United States -- the world's two largest sources of greenhouse gases -- to do more to reduce emissions. In March the EU's 27 member states agreed cut greenhouse gas emission by at least 20 percent from 1990 levels over the next 13 years. In addition, it agreed that at least one-fifth of all of the EU's energy would come from renewable sources by 2020.
Speaking on Friday, EU Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas warned that the report "further underlines both how urgent it is to reach global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and how important it is for us all to adapt to the climate change that is already under way."
"Scientific vandalism"
Originally, the report was to be released on Friday morning at 10 a.m., but the presentation was delayed for hours as heated discussions continued as countries like China, Russia and the US continued to lobby for the removal of parts of the report.
US delegates also opposed a passage warning of the prospects of "severe economic damage" to parts of North America. But the main tension in Brussels between some authors of the report and some political representatives was not over the scientific findings, but over a 21-page summary that would be shown to policymakers.
Earlier this week, the summary said scientists had "very high confidence" that natural systems around the world "are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases."
"Very high confidence," in the language used by the report, translates to a 90 percent certainty. Delegates from China and Saudi Arabia lobbied for "high confidence" instead, or 80 percent certainty -- and after a dramatic hours-long protest by three scientists on Thursday night, the milder language went in.
"The authors lost," said one of the scientists. "A lot of authors are not going to engage in the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) process anymore. I have had it with them," he told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
Though Washington and Beijing ultimately succeeded in changing very little of the text, the political tug o' war drew sharp criticism in Germany. "We are happy that we were able to prevent this kind of scientific vandalism in the end," Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel told Reuters TV. "The people have a right to find out about the consequences that threaten them if we are unable to stop climate change."
Still, the final version is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming. "Certain passages were lost for time or for lack of agreement," Parry said, "But I don't think in any respect that the message was lost."
In the first part of the study -- released in February in Paris -- the IPCC concluded with 90 percent certainty that humans were the main cause of global warming since 1950. That alone was an unprecedented statement by a global body; but this section of the report details how species, water supplies, ice sheets and regional climate conditions were already being affected.
Friday's report was the second of four to be released by the IPCC this year. The findings of those reports are expected to serve as a guide for negotiations over extending the Kyoto Protocol, the main UN plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2012.
06/04/07, Aquecimento Global - EUA e China questionam novo relatório da ONU, (Back).
Os especialistas em clima publicaram nesta sexta-feira em Bruxelas um diagnóstico alarmante dos graves efeitos do aquecimento global, depois de uma noite discussões nas quais vários países, principalmente Estados Unidos e China, questionaram suas conclusões.
"Acabamos de terminar uma reunião de maratona, que foi produtiva, mas cansativa", concluiu com alívio o presidente do Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas da ONU (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, em uma entrevista coletiva. "É um relatório muito bom e espero que chame a atenção do mundo inteiro", acrescentou Pachauri.
Antes do ano 2080, estimam os especialistas no documento de 1,4 mil páginas, até 3,2 bilhões de seres humanos estarão expostos a uma severa escassez de água e 600 milhões à fome por causa das secas, degradação e salinização do solo.
A cada ano entre dois e sete milhões de pessoas sofrerão com inundações, principalmente nas áreas costeiras onde a pressão demográfica aumenta e nos grandes deltas da África ocidental, da Ásia ou do Mississippi. As populações pobres, inclusive nas sociedades prósperas, serão as mais vulneráveis à mudança climática, segundo as conclusões dos estudos do IPCC.
"Isto requer nossa atenção, pois os mais pobres são também os menos aptos para adaptar-se", comentou Pachauri, ao apresentar as conclusões dos especialistas em Bruxelas. Com um aumento superior a 2ºC ou 3ºC em comparação a 1990, o aquecimento climático terá impactos "globalmente negativos" em todas as regiões, acrescenta o IPCC.
"É muito provável que todas as regiões registrem reduções dos lucros ou aumentos dos custos por causa de aumentos de temperatura superiores a 2ºC ou 3ºC", destaca o informe. "No entanto, algumas regiões polares e de baixas latitudes sofrerão custos líquidos mesmo com pequenos aumentos de temperatura", acrescenta o documento.
"Serão necessárias medidas de adaptação para enfrentar estes impactos", afirmou nesta sexta-feira Martin Parry, co-presidente do grupo de trabalho do IPCC responsável pelos impactos do aquecimento. "O aquecimento é inevitável por causa das emissões passadas (de gases que provocam o efeito estufa), e os esforços de atenuação vão demorar décadas para apresentar resultados", advertiu.
Os cientistas advertiram que o aquecimento afetará todas as formas de vida na Terra. "Entre 20 e 30% das espécies vegetais e animais terão um risco crescente de extinção se o aumento da temperatura mundial for de entre 1,5 e 2,5ºC em comparação a 1990", adverte o IPCC. "Há agora em todos os continentes sinais de mudança climática que afetam os animais e as plantas, e temos prova", anunciou Perry.
China, Arábia Saudita, Rússia e Estados Unidos questionaram alguns parágrafos do "resumo para os que decidem", um texto de 20 páginas que resume as 1.400 do informe para os governos do planeta. Pequim se opôs a um trecho que destacava o "risco muito elevado de que vários sistemas naturais se vejam afetados pelas mudanças climáticas", segundo uma fonte ligada às negociações.
A delegação chinesa questionou as bases científicas do caráter "muito elevado" do risco, segundo a mesma fonte. Para responder a este país, um grupo de cientistas entregou uma carta de protesto à presidente do Grupo II do IPCC, a americana Sharon Hays, na qual afirmavam que o alto grau de confiança estava provado cientificamente.
Já os Estados Unidos pediram e conseguiram a eliminação de um parágrafo que indicava que a América do Norte "deve enfrentar localmente graves danos econômicos e perturbações substanciais de seu sistema socioeconômico e cultural", segundo um observador das negociações. "É a primeira vez que os políticos questionam desta maneira a ciência", destacou um delegado.
A coordenadora da delegação americana em Bruxelas afirmou que a mudança climática representa um desafio mundial que requer soluções internacionais. "Uma das principais mensagens deste documento é que a mudança climática representa um desafio mundial e todos reconhecemos que isto necessita de soluções internacionais", declarou Sharon Hays.
"Porém, a maioria dos efeitos da mudança do clima serão sobretudo sofridos regionalmente e é verdade que algumas regiões no mundo são mais vulneráveis que outras, como por exemplo a África, pequenas ilhas ou as regiões polares", acrescentou.
Segundo a primeira parte do relatório do IPCC, divulgado em fevereiro em Paris, a temperatura média da Terra pode subir entre 1,1ºC e 6,4ºC até 2100, em comparação a 1990. A melhor estimativa situa o aumento médio entre 2ºC e 4ºC, segundo as possibilidades socioeconômicas estudadas.
06/04/07, Andreia Fanzeres e Eric Macedo, Relatório-catástrofe, (Back).
Mesmo com o linguajar mais conservador possível – como tem sido o tom de pareceres políticos sobre aquecimento global – o segundo relatório do Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas (IPCC) diz, com todas as letras, que o fenômeno provocado pelo homem já exerce grandes impactos sobre o mundo natural. O documento, considerado o “coração” dos estudos sobre clima por destacar como as alterações na atmosfera vão afetar o meio ambiente e as populações, foi publicado nesta sexta-feira após uma semana de lentos acordos entre os cientistas que laboravam o texto final para divulgação.
Por causa do furor mundial provocado pelo primeiro relatório, lançado em fevereiro, as delegações da Arábia Saudita, Estados Unidos, China e Índia pressionaram desta vez por um tom bem mais ameno. E conseguiram. De acordo com reportagem da Associated Press, pelo menos três dos cientistas presentes à maratona de reuniões ficaram insatisfeitos com o texto final, principalmente em relação ao grau de confiabilidade em algumas informações científicas: 80%, em vez de 90% como queriam pesquisadores que assinam o documento original.
Apesar disso, os cientistas transmitiram recados muito claros. Por exemplo: se os termômetros subirem entre 1,5 a 2,5 graus Celsius, cerca de 20 a 30% das espécies do mundo estarão sob risco de extinção. E uma parcela muito mais expressiva dos seres vivos será extinta caso a temperatura suba 5º C. A essa temperatura, 30% de todas as áreas inundáveis próximas à costa também estarão liquidadas. Com apenas um grau acima da média, haverá um incremento na quantidade de corais mortos nos oceanos e poderá se considerar a mortandade generalizada desses seres marinhos com a elevação de mais 3,5ºC. A partir dessa temperatura, esperam-se ainda grandes perdas na produção de cereais em latitudes baixas e, desde já, deve aumentar a quantidade de óbitos humanos causados por ondas de calor, desnutrição, doenças cardio-respiratórias e infecciosas.
Só que tudo isso não está num futuro distante. Há hoje evidências muito fortes de que os impactos aos habitantes do planeta já são sentidos. As prematuras quedas de folhas, migração de aves e cardumes nos rios, além da deposição de ovos fora de época deram aos pesquisadores 90% de certeza de que o aquecimento global tem antecipado a primavera e modificado os hábitos de uma enorme gama de espécies. Os cientistas afirmam que é possível ter um alto grau de certeza de que o número e tamanho de lagos formados pelo derretimento de glaciares aumentaram. Comunidades construídas próximas a esses lagos podem sofrer com enchentes repentinas. Os ecossistemas do Ártico e da Antártica também estão sendo afetados pela mudança de temperatura. Os predadores do topo da cadeia alimentar são as maiores vítimas.
Áreas críticas
De acordo com o relatório, milhões de pessoas que vivem nas cercanias dos nos mega-deltas da Ásia e África devem sofrer com alagamentos anuais por volta de 2080. São áreas baixas, mas densamente povoadas, que já se encontram em risco devido a tempestades tropicais e não têm muitos recursos para investir em medidas de adaptação. Ilhas pequenas também são especialmente vulneráveis, dizem os cientistas.
As áreas costeiras são as que mais sofrerão conseqüências negativas em termos de indústria e sociedade. Esses efeitos, no entanto, variam enormemente ao redor do mundo. Como tem sido amplamente divulgado há algum tempo, as comunidades mais pobres serão as maiores prejudicadas. O aumento de freqüência e intensidade de eventos meteorológicos extremos - como tempestades, furacões e nevascas- demandará mais dinheiro e investimentos. Não à toa, a África é vista como um dos continentes mais vulneráveis às mudanças. Por volta de 2020, entre 75 e 250 milhões de africanos devem enfrentar falta d'água por causa do aquecimento. Além disso, a produção agrícola deve ficar seriamente comprometida. O relatório diz que alguns países devem ter suas área de plantio irrigada pela chuva diminuída em 50% por volta de 2020.
As projeções do relatório para a América Latina em 2050 também não são animadoras. O aumento da temperatura e a presença de menos água no solo devem de fato transformar parte da Amazônia em savanas e áreas reconhecidas hoje como semi-áridos sofrerão processo de desertificação – fenômeno também previsto para áreas agricultáveis. A expectativa é que as produções de grãos e carne recuem e que o acesso mais restrito à água afete não só a agricultura, mas as populações humanas e a geração de energia. O aumento da temperatura e do nível dos mares deve provocar enchentes nas regiões mais baixas da América do Sul e modificação nos estoques pesqueiros do sudeste do Pacífico. Os corais do Caribe estão em risco.
Difícil remediar
Apesar das notícias do aquecimento em geral terem um tom de tragédia anunciada, alguns (há que se reconhecer, poucos) pontos do relatório são de conseqüências positivas das mudanças no clima. Estudos em áreas de clima temperado revelam que haverá menos mortes por exposição ao frio, por exemplo. Antes que o leitor esboce um sorriso, no entanto, o texto crava o punhal: esse dado, diz o relatório, deve ser ofuscado pelo efeito negativo do aumento das temperaturas ao redor do globo, com ondas de calor, especialmente nos países em desenvolvimento. Da mesma forma, as mudanças devem ser positivas, a princípio, no Norte da Europa, com efeitos mistos, como demanda reduzida por aquecimento e aumento dos campos de cultivo. No decorrer das mudanças, no entanto, os efeitos negativos (como inundações no inverno e instabilidade no solo) também devem acabar com a felicidade climática dos europeus.
Os pesquisadores reconhecem que ainda é difícil mensurar o que exatamente poderá ser evitado com adaptações de infra-estrutura para as populações, tampouco podem estimar quanto tudo isso vai custar à economia. Mas não têm dúvidas de que providências nesse setor precisam ser tomadas o quanto antes no campo tecnológico, comportamental, gerencial e de políticas públicas. E lembram que não vai adiantar elaborar medidas para mitigar o problema do aquecimento global se não existirem esforços para tornarem alguns ambientes menos vulneráveis a poluição, ao desmatamento, exploração predatória e a outras ameaças.
A partir da próxima semana, o IPCC vai publicar relatórios regionais sobre os impactos das mudanças climáticas. Um deles abrange especificamente o Brasil, e será divulgado no dia 10 de abril em São Paulo. No dia 4 de maio sai o último relatório do IPCC em 2007, em Bangkok, quando poderão ser conhecidos os esforços internacionais e as tecnologias disponíveis para evitar o agravamento das mudanças climáticas e para mitigar as ações já em curso.
07/04/07, Alana Gandra, Pesquisadora quer índice para medir qualidade de vida e desenvolvimento ambiental, (Back).
A necessidade de estabelecer um indicador que refletisse o desenvolvimento sustentável em nível global levou a engenheira do Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social, Ana Raquel Martins, a criar um novo índice, o IDH Ambiental. O novo indicador é tema de estudo apresentado por Martins na Universidade Federal Fluminense no final de 2006 e resulta da combinação entre o IDH - Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano, que mede o grau de desenvolvimento dos países, e o ISA - Índice de Sustentabilidade Ambiental, desenvolvido por pesquisadores norte-americanos e apresentado pela primeira vez em 2002, no Fórum Econômico Mundial.
O índice analisa cinco dimensões dos países: sistemas ambientais, estresses, vulnerabilidade humana, capacidade social e institucional e responsabilidade global. As variáveis encontradas são objeto de comparação entre os diferentes países pesquisados.
A idéia, segundo a técnica do BNDES, era partir do índice mais trabalhado e reconhecido internacionalmente, que é o IDH, e verificar se esse índice de desenvolvimento humano consegue refletir também a sustentabilidade desse mesmo desenvolvimento. “Por isso, a gente teve essa vontade de acrescentar no IDH uma componente de sustentabilidade ambiental”, externou Martins.
Para isso, foi adotado o ISA, cuja 1primeira versão data de 2004, com uma segunda versão apresentada no ano seguinte. Dessa forma, o IDH Ambiental inclui componentes do IDH de longevidade, renda e educação, acrescentando-se o indicador de sustentabilidade ambiental do ISA. O objetivo era “entender se os países que tivessem alto IDH teriam também esse alto IDH chamado híbrido, com essa componente de sustentabilidade ambiental”, explicou.
Ana Raquel Martins admitiu que apenas o cruzamento entre o IDH, que media 177 países à época da coleta dos dados, com o ISA, que media cerca de 145 países, resultando numa relação de 139 nações com as duas medições, já fez com que alguns países mudassem de lugar no ranking internacional.
No caso do Brasil, ele pulou da 54ª posição no IDH para a 39% no IDH Ambiental, situando-se na 11ª posição no ISA. Considerando apenas as variáveis ambientais, o Brasil está à frente dos Estados Unidos (44º colocado), Japão (29º) e Alemanha (30º). (Agência Brasil)
08/04/07, NYT Editorial, Hot and Cold, (Back).
Last week began with a Supreme Court decision declaring that the federal government had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and all but ordering the Bush administration to do so. It ended with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the world’s authoritative voice on global warming — warning that failure to contain these emissions will have disastrous environmental effects, especially in poorer countries, which are least able to defend themselves and their people against the consequences of climate change.
One would hope that these events would shake President Bush out of his state of denial and add his authority to the chorus of governors, legislators and business leaders calling for an aggressive regulatory and technological response to the dangers of global warming. They haven’t. When asked about the Supreme Court decision, the president said he thought he was already doing enough.
He argued further that there was little point in the United States’ doing any more unless other polluters like China acted as well. That ignores the reality that no developing country is going to move unless the United States — which produces one-fourth of the world’s emissions with only 5 percent of its population — takes the lead.
The report from the intergovernmental panel was the second of three due this year. The first concluded with “90 percent certainty” that humans had caused the rise in atmospheric temperatures over the last half-century. The most recent focused on the consequences, few of them positive.
The northern latitudes will have longer growing seasons. But elsewhere climate change will lead to more severe storms, the flooding of tropical islands and coastlines inhabited by hundreds of millions of people, the likely extinction of at least one-fourth of the world’s species and, in poorer countries in Asia and Africa, drought and hunger.
Some of these changes have begun. “We’re no longer arm-waving with models,” said Martin Parry, the co-chairman of the team that wrote the report. But the report also makes clear that while emissions already accumulated in the atmosphere make some damage inevitable, the worst can be avoided if the world’s nations take swift action to stabilize and then reverse emissions.
What must be avoided, the report said, is a rise of 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the point at which truly devastating effects will begin to kick in. But such a rise is almost inevitable over the next century if the world continues to do business as usual.
The panel’s next paper will discuss alternatives to business as usual. These policies will almost certainly require a major shift in the way energy is produced and used, as well as massive investments in new technologies. They will also be expensive. But what the world’s scientists are telling us, with increasing confidence, is that the costs of doing nothing will be far greater than the costs of acting now.
10/04/07, Frank Hornig, Spiegel Interview with NASA Climate Expert James Hansen, (Back).
'We Need to Take Action Soon'
James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, spoke to DER SPIEGEL about the causes and consequences of global warming -- and why there are only ten years left to steer the world away from climate catastrophe.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Hansen, temperatures in Central Park reached 22 degrees Celsius (71.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in January, the Alps lacked snow throughout the season -- is winter being erased by global warming?
James Hansen: Weather and climate are two different things, which often confuses people. The average temperature is now 0.8 degrees Celsius higher than in the last century, with three-quarters of the increase happening in the last 30 years. But compared to the usual weather fluctuations, that's quite small. You can have a ten-degree variation from day to day in the weather. You can have anomalies of an average of several degrees over one month, and you still don't have to worry. However, this does not indicate we can stop thinking about this issue: We've just experienced the warmest January in 127 years of record-keeping.
SPIEGEL: Even so, a global warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius over 100 years doesn't sound very dramatic.
Hansen: There's another half degree Celsius in the pipeline due to gases already in the atmosphere, and there's at least one more half degree to come due to power plants which we're not going to stop immediately. Even if we decide now we've got to slow down as fast as is practical, there's still going to be enough emissions to take us to the warmest level that the planet has seen in a million years. That's enough to take us close to and possibly beyond what I would say is a dangerous level.
SPIEGEL: How can you be so sure of that?
Hansen: We know a lot about the history of the Earth. If we want to keep the planet looking close to what it looks like now, then we had better not accept an increase by more than one degree Celsius. Because if temperature goes up another two or three degrees Celsius, it will be the temperature of the middle Pliocene about 3 million years ago. That was a very different planet. There was no sea ice in the Arctic in the warm seasons, and the sea level was about 25 meters higher. We will be headed towards this situation if we continue with business-as-usual.
SPIEGEL: Who or what is responsible for the warming of our planet?
Hansen: I would say it's approximately 102 percent man-made. We know very well that the climate would have been heading towards a colder climate if it weren't for human-made emissions. We've been in an interglacial period now for almost 12,000 years, and we know that this period peaked 6,000 or 8,000 years ago. We were headed slowly toward cooler climates until humans came along. And now humans have sent us off in a completely different direction.
SPIEGEL: Just recently the United Nations Panel on Climate Change declared that it is now 90 percent certain that global warming is real. Doesn't this come a bit late?
Hansen: You know, we said that a long time ago, but that's okay. This panel involves more than one hundred nations including Saudi Arabia and others. Those countries have to be dragged kicking and screaming to this sort of conclusion. The panel, by the way, is very reluctant to say anything about sea level change, although the evidence that has accumulated in the last two or three years is impressive.
SPIEGEL: What does it show?
Hansen: We've gotten fantastic measurements from a gravity satellite. They explain exactly how Greenland and West Antarctica are changing in mass and how much mass they're losing to the ocean. We have other observations of ice quakes on Greenland and ice streams speeding up, and we see processes occurring which make me very concerned about the stability of ice sheets.
SPIEGEL: What exactly do you fear will happen?
Hansen: The disintegration of ice sheets will be a non-linear process, and that means it can change very rapidly. You can have relatively slow changes for a while, but once you reach a certain instability, you get sudden collapse and a very large change. We know pretty well from the history of the earth that when ice sheets have disintegrated in the past, they have disintegrated very rapidly. During the last melting period, the sea level went up 20 meters in 400 years, which is one meter every 20 years.
SPIEGEL: What makes you so sure about such a dramatic melting this time? Other scientists claim this process may take thousands of years.
Hansen: I think that's a very dangerous assumption. I would be very surprised if we didn't get a big change this century. We need to commission a study of this problem and bring in the best scientists so that they can look at it. We need to take action soon.
SPIEGEL: You've made the point that we have only 10 more years to prevent the worst consequences of global warming. Why?
Hansen: Let's contrast two different scenarios. The first one I call business-as-usual which is the typical UN scenario. It shows a continued increase in the annual emissions of CO2 of about 1 or 2 percent per year. That's what leads you to at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius global warming in this century. An alternative scenario is designed to keep global warming at about one additional degree or less. It requires that CO2 emissions actually decrease on a global average by at least a few tens of percent by mid-century. By the end of the century, you have to stabilize things, which means you would need a 60 to 80 percent reduction in emissions.
SPIEGEL: What happens precisely if your business-as-usual scenario applies?
Hansen: This will put us 40 percent above our 2000 emissions ten years from now. Then it will become very difficult to halt global warming and get back to the alternative scenario.
SPIEGEL: What does this mean? When will New York be flooded?
Hansen: That's hard to answer because it is a non-linear process. But this much is clear: the sea level, which up until a century ago was rather stable, increased by about 15 centimeters in the last century and is now increasing at a rate of 35 centimeters per century, 3.5 centimeters per decade. So the rate has gone up, and if it ratchets up a few more times, pretty soon you're talking about really significant change.
SPIEGEL: What other effects do you expect besides this?
Hansen: I'm really concerned about the extermination of species. If climatic zones move, animals and plants need to migrate. Studies have found that 1,700 species have already moved poleward at a rate of six kilometers per decade in recent decades. But climate zones are moving poleward at a faster rate, about 50 km per decade, and it will become 100 km per decade with business as usual. Combine that with the fact that so many species have been confined to certain areas due to humans having taken over so much of the planet, and you'll see it may be very difficult for them to migrate. So it's likely that a large fraction of the species could go extinct.
SPIEGEL: Which nation on earth is most responsible for global warming?
Hansen: Some US politicians are making the argument that China is soon going to be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and that's true. Within a few years, they will pass the US. But climate change depends upon the cumulative emissions over time because much of the CO2 we emitted in 1850 is still here and it's still damaging. So it's not only about the present emissions. Therefore, the US is responsible for more than three times the amount of emissions than any other country, with China and Russia being next, and Germany and Great Britain after that.
SPIEGEL: George W. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto protocoll right at the beginning of his presidency, and he declared he doesn't want to do anything that might hurt the US economy.
Hansen: Who is going to bear the moral burden? The politicians who deny there is a problem today will no longer be in office once the effects of global warming are felt. The frustrating part is that the solutions actually make sense for other reasons.
SPIEGEL: Because changes in US energy use would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?
Hansen: Exactly. Our waste of energy has resulted in all kinds of problems, including the current ones in the Middle East.
SPIEGEL: What needs to be done?
Hansen: We are still facing a solvable problem. Oil and gas are running out anyway and we should use that resource very conservatively. It's amazing how much energy is compacted into these fossil fuels. The architects and building engineers tell us they can now make buildings which use only half as much fossil fuel as current buildings. We have not improved our vehicle efficiency since about 1980. So there is a lot of potential for energy saving. Yet we are wasting these resources. Furthermore, instead of shutting down existing coal plants across the country, American energy corporations are planning to construct 100 new ones.
SPIEGEL: What can people do on a personal level to help slow climate change?
Hansen: If an individual goes out and reduces his emissions, it's a nice example and it shows that it can be done. But even if a lot of people comply, what is the result? It reduces the price of fuel, and then it'll be so cheap, somebody else will burn it.
SPIEGEL: What do you propose instead?
Hansen: The most important thing that people can do is influence the government. The most critical policy element has to be a slowly growing price on carbon emissions. It has to be fast enough to have an impact and affect industries and their investments and innovations. But it has to be slow enough so there is time for these new technologies to develop, so consumers can choose and buy new, more efficient technologies. We should have started on that a long time ago.
The interview was conducted by Frank Hornig
(Back)
06/04/07, Lake Superior warming faster than surrounding climate, (Source).
06/04/07, Comments, (Source).
06/04/07, Gerald Traufetter, UN Global Warming Report - The Age of the Climate Refugees?, (Source).
06/04/07, Spiegel, Merkel on UN Climate Study - "Report Confirms Climate Change Is a Fact", (Source).
06/04/07, Aquecimento Global - EUA e China questionam novo relatório da ONU, (Source).
06/04/07, Andreia Fanzeres e Eric Macedo, Relatório-catástrofe, (Source).
07/04/07, Alana Gandra, Pesquisadora quer índice para medir qualidade de vida e desenvolvimento ambiental, (Source).
08/04/07, NYT Editorial, Hot and Cold, (Source).
10/04/07, Frank Hornig, Spiegel Interview with NASA Climate Expert James Hansen, (Source).
06/04/07, Arthur Max, All-night meeting needed to approve climate change report, (Back).
BRUSSELS — An international global warming conference approved a report on climate change Friday, chairman Rajendra Pachauri said, after a contentious marathon session that saw angry exchanges between diplomats and scientists who drafted the report.
“We have an approved accord. It has been a complex exercise,” Mr. Pachauri told reporters after an all-night meeting.
Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change vowed never to take part in the process again.
“The authors lost,” said one participant. “A lot of authors are not going to engage in the IPCC process any more. I have had it with them,” he said on condition of anonymity because the proceedings were supposed to remain confidential. An Associated Press reporter, however, witnessed part of the final meeting.
The climax of five days of negotiations was reached when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1 degree Celsius, and in a tussle over the level of confidence attached to key statements.
The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised the most objections to the phrasing, most often seeking to tone the certainty of some of the more dire projections.
The final report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.
It predicts that up to 30 per cent of species face an increase risk of extinction if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius above the average in the 1980s and 90s.
Areas that now suffer a shortage of rain will become even more dry, adding to the risks of hunger and disease, it said. The world will face heightened threats of flooding, severe storms and the erosion of coastlines.
06/04/07, Lake Superior warming faster than surrounding climate, (Back).
DULUTH, MINN. — Lake Superior has been warming even faster than the climate around it since the late 1970s due to reduced ice cover, according to a study by professors at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
Summer surface temperatures on the famously cold lake have increased about 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1979, compared with about a 2.7-degree increase in the region's annual average air temperature, the researchers found. The lake's “summer season” is now beginning about two weeks earlier than it did 27 years ago.
“It's a remarkably rapid rate of change,” Jay Austin, an assistant professor with the university's Large Lakes Observatory and Department of Physics, told the Star Tribune newspaper. Mr. Austin co-authored the study with geology professor Steve Colman.
The study is based on data collected by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration buoys on the lake and on 102 years' worth of daily temperature readings at a hydroelectric plant near Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.
Mr. Austin said the surface temperature increase is not only “a symptom of climate change,” but also could reinforce itself. A trend toward warmer winters would mean less winter ice cover, which would allow more solar radiation of the lake and continued warming, he said.
Lake Superior freezes over completely about once every 20 years, according to the Minnesota DNR's climatology office. If trends continue, it could be routinely ice-free by about 2040, the study found. This would cause water levels to continue to drop because the lake loses more water to evaporation in a winter without ice cover than it does during the summer. In recent months, the lake's level has been lower than at any equivalent time since 1926.
06/04/07, Comments, (Back).
Borat K. from Glorious nation of, Kazakhstan writes: The article stated "...In recent months, the lake's level has been lower than at any equivalent time since 1926."
Hmmm, was there Global Warming caused by human activity in the 1920's?
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Borat K: Probably not - and your point is? Why is it so hard for people like you to grasp a simple concept and fact? Specifically, that human activity does have an impact on the planet. And the follow on to that is that the total effect of all inputs is cumulative. This article is most interesting in providing hard evidence for the consequences of a reduction in ice cover at the poles. less reflection more absorption of heat. The term feed back loop comes to mind here.
r z from Edmonton, Canada writes: Orest, it's you who is having trouble grasping a simple concept and fact. Human activity does have an impact on the planet, but to make a leap to humans changing the climate requires solid, irrefutable science, which is nowhere to be found.
Any person with a scientific interest knows that you research and keep an open mind to all data, from all sides, before you come to a conclusion.
Science rarely supports an hysterical conclusion.
David Simon from Canada writes: Bring back the Edmund Fitzgerald-less water means a shorter trip.
Mr. Mr. from Windsor, Canada writes: This is getting very serious and thus far Canadians have yet to say they're willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to reduce green house emissions.
Posted 06/04/07 at 9:23 AM EDT
Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: Funny how they chose 1970 as the base data. 1970 happens to be the coldest part of the last cooling period when we were all running around frightened of global cooling and nucleqar winter.
Typical of the global alarmists to selectively pick intervals that overly dramatize shifts of climate. Very bad science but very effective politics!
EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: I live near the banks of the St. Lawrence, it is April 6 and there is still a large portion of ice cover. It is usually clear by this date. It is also colder than heck. Please let the global warming begin!
Pat Gesner from Canada writes: Interesting report. What about other implications. Should holiday makers not plan for boating this year by the shores of this lake -is the water level that low? Surely there must be increased survailences of the ecology of the lakes. Even if nothing can be done (2degree rise is supposed to cause coral kill off in seas of the globe)would not data collection be of use. It always is good to have hard facts -never know when it would sway a decision. It would be nice to know if funding would shift. Better this than wasting money on bribes by the foreign services to determine the status of a criminal Iman with canadian citizenship obtained through lying. (Why indignant? He hid from his wife-to-be that he was a wanted man and never told her that as his wife she may be exiled from her family instead of living with them. He's a clever lier, good at picking a faithful wife- she did not dump him when he finaly reveled his criminal status a month after marriage. What a country and western "stand by my man" song she would make! )
D. Hall from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Interesting implications for what we will see in the arctic over the next couple of decades.
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ r z from Edmonton: I note that you were conspicuously absent in the comments section of the article re the consequences of overhunting of sharks that was posted here last Friday. The article is locked now, but it was open for quite a while. The article described the consequences of the demand in China for shark-fin soup. The end result is that the scallop fishery on parts of the US east coast is no longer existant because the population of rays, that are one of the main foods of sharks, has exploded due to the destruction of ther shark population. OOPS. And this is an ewasy to follow trail. Atmospheric gasses are trickier and climate is much more complex than food chains. You should also read the article about the politically driven suppression of science in the most recent IPCC report. Main culprits: US, China and Saudi Arabia. Co-incidence? I don't think so! r z - you really need to work on that logic and comprehension thing. What would really help you is losing that political ideology thing that is driving you.
Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: The authors of this report were cautious about attributing the results of their study to climate change, and they were also cautious about the implications for stratification on Lake Superior. At present, my understanding is that Lake Superior takes about 180 years to completely turn over, so how much warmer water on the surface will add to the stratification process in terms of time is speculative. The authors acknowledge this. Notwithstanding, that the water levels on Lake Superior are at their lowest in over 80 years, and that the surface temperature has increased significantly is a concern. For instance, in shallower waters, where temperatures obviously warm more quickly, what impact will this have on the coaster brook trout spawning beds as we know the trout are extremely sensitive to temperature increases.
Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes: Earle Anthony from Sudbury:
You are right about the tendency of the media and some scientists to "cherry pick" data in space and time to make a point. This article is a case in point.
The all time record high year for Superior lake levels appears to be 1985, which was well into the "2nd" global warming phase of the 20th century. In fact, Superior water levels show a steady increase through the period 1860 to 1950, when global warming was progressing steadily also.
All the Great Lakes with the exception of Huron/Michigan are probably within 15 cm of their long term (140 year) average. H-M are about 60 cm below the long term average. However, the record low on an annual basis for H-M looks to be 1964, so even here the cause for alarm may not be as large as the article would have you believe.
Regards, BRK
Long Live Canada from Canada writes: BRK, thanks for the additional info.
Posted 06/04/07 at 11:38 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
eloise hamilton from United Arab Emirates writes: I suspect that by the time there is irrefutable scientific proof, it will be too late. Unfortunately it is not only humans who wil be decimated, (serve them right). By the time we are significantly affected, we will have already decimated all other species by loss of habitat, and pollution.
Joel Cooper from Canada writes: I have lived on the shore of Lake Superior since 1982. I don't know how direct the connection is between climate and water level. Water flow out of Superior at Sault Ste Marie is managed for water power, ship navigation and helping raise or lower water levels in the lower Great Lakes. We had a family cottage on Lake Erie. In the mid-60's the water levels were very low. In the mid-80's there was panic because of shore erosion caused by high water levels. Water levels there are on the decline again. Lake Superior was cold and foggy in the 1980's. Water levels were higher. This cooler period has been attributed to part of a world-wide cooling period following a volcanic eruption in the 70's. My diary shows that form 1984 to 1997 my side of the lake froze in late January or early February and broke up in late March to mid-April (poor ice cover in 1983, 1992 and 1995). Starting in 1998, the lake rarely freezes strong enough to go skating for more than a couple of days at the most. Summer water temperatures are definately warmer now. It is not unusual to have water temperatures of 22C along the shore of the lake in July and August. Surface water temperature out in the open lake can reach 20C. There are far less foggy days as well (I'm not complaining!). We have had also had lower rainfall and snowpack in the eastern Lake Superior watershed for the last 3 years.
06/04/07, Gerald Traufetter, UN Global Warming Report - The Age of the Climate Refugees?, (Back).
The picture painted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is one of blighted nations and millions of desperate immigrants fleeing climate disaster. But experts disagree about whether the bleak vision will ever come true.
Once upon a time, a warming climate tempted the Romans into northern Europe -- as far as northern Germany and even into Britain. Hundreds of years later cooling weather drove Germanic tribes from Scandinavia into the south. Vikings settled Greenland after it warmed up, only to leave when it froze again.
Climate, in short, has long triggered mass migration. And the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that more may be on the horizon. The second part of its extensive report on global warming, released on Friday, warns that coming climate-related disasters may kick off a worldwide exodus of Biblical proportions. Indeed, according to the International Red Cross, 25 million people have already started to shift from places blighted by environmental problems -- a figure that would top the current number of war refugees across the globe.
Rich industrial nations, after decades of pouring more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than poor countries, can adjust to the changes if they invest enough money; but the poorest parts of Central America, Asia and Africa will suffer harshly from flooding and drought. This conventional wisdom in the climate controversy has opened a human-rights debate: Now it's not just globalization, closed markets, or the consequences of colonialism that have robbed the poor of their opportunities -- it's also greenhouse gases. Will coming decades see millions of "climate refugees" flowing north from the floodplains and deserts of Africa or Latin America?
"Horror-movie scenarios"
This question is still wide open among scientists. Experts can't agree if climate refugees even exist. Oxford-based ecologist Norman Myers argues they do, and says the number could soar to as high as 200 million within 50 years. "These people see no alternative to seeking asylum elsewhere, as hazardous as the attempt (to get there) might be," he says.
His colleague Stephen Castles, at Oxford's International Migration Institute, contradicts these horror-movie scenarios. "Myers and others simply take the climate predictions at face value and look at how many people live in the areas that will be flooded," says the author of "The Age of Migration," a now-standard text. This method, says Castles, leads to exaggerated refugee estimates.
He says it's more accurate to research how people actually respond in a given area to environmental disaster, war, or widespread poverty. "What we see is something else -- immigration is generally not the main strategy." When living conditions do get unbearable, people also tend to move within their own countries -- only rarely do they cross national borders.
Immigration experts in countries like Bangladesh tend to agree. Along with low-lying islands like the Maldives, Bangladesh is an early indicator of climate-change prophecies, and even there, sea levels aren't rising all at once. Parts of the country can be protected with dikes; other parts may have to be abandoned, but the people can be resettled. "Only a few will really flee to India," says Castles.
The crucial issue is how well governments react to disasters. After the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, most of the 300,000 displaced residents returned a few months later. After the Pinatubo volcano erupted in the Philippines, though, a large-scale return took years. But the capacity of a nation to respond isn't just a matter of money, as the US government's desultory response to Hurricane Katrina showed in 2005. "It has more to do with decisiveness and organization, and with the struggle against corruption and mismanagement" within a government, says Castles. Overly dramatic predictions of mass migration, he says, mainly serve to aggravate xenophobia: "Right now a tide of refugees is already lapping against the EU's shores," he points out.
Land reform against the apocalypse?
Thomas Faist, a sociologist at the University of Bielefeld, also resists the shrill language his colleagues have started to use. "I don't want to deny the problem," the professor says. "But we can't lose sight of the fact that there are other far more decisive reasons for people to leave home." Floods and desertification are happening now; at the same time people are going hungry and trying to flee. But Faist argues that their ultimate reasons for leaving boil down to ethnic conflict, or economic as well as political mismanagement. He thinks climate change is just an exacerbating factor. Anyone who wants to stop a stream of immigrants has to address its underlying cause, and he doubts the climate can be cited as a root cause for all conflicts raging through all the poor parts of the world.
Faist therefore believes that pots of emergency-fund or "just in case" money for the countries most affected by climate change will be useless. "What they need from us is technological help, drought-resistant seeds, and political support to help the governments react," he says. "Climate change should not be exploited as a cause, to relieve developing nations of their own responsibilities."
The difference between good and bad political management can be seen in Turkey. In the west, where land reform has been underway for decades, the farming sector has flourished; people can support themselves and export their products. In eastern Turkey, where most farmland still belongs to a handful of huge landlords, productivity is low, poverty is high, and many people are leaving for the cities.
"Western Turkey," says Faist, "is in better shape to deal with climate change."
06/04/07, Spiegel, Merkel on UN Climate Study - "Report Confirms Climate Change Is a Fact", (Back).
The United Nations on Friday issued its most dramatic warning yet about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on the planet. European political leaders say we must cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a climate change process that is already underway.
Climate change in the coming century may lead to disasters ranging from famine in Africa to the thinning of Himalayan glaciers, according to the long-awaited second part of an extensive United Nations report on global warming. More than 100 countries represented in the UN's panel on climate change spent a tense Thursday night in Brussels trying to agree unanimously on the language of a final draft.
The report, prepared by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), provides the first confirmation from the entire international scientific community that the burning of fossil fuels by humans is one of the main culprits of global warming.
Scientists "have finally established at the global level that there is an anthropogenic, there is a man made climate signal coming through on plants, animals, water and ice," said Martin Parry, co-chair of the IPCC working group the assembled report. "This is the first time this signal has been confirmed at the international level."
Desertification and water shortages
The report claims that global warming will lead to desertification, droughts and rising seas and that those living in the tropics will be the worst hit -- from sub-Saharan Africa to the Pacific islands. Billions could face water shortages, and ocean levels might rise for centuries to come. It could lead to a sharp drop in crop yields in Africa and bring heatwaves to Europe and North America. Europe's Alpine glaciers will disappear and much of the coral that comprises Australia's Great Barrier Reef will die from bleaching.
The scientific conclusions -- based on 29,000 sets of data -- also said that up to 30 percent of the Earth's species faced a higher risk of vanishing if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average in the 1980s and '90s.
"The urgency of this report prepared by the world's top scientists should be matched by an equally urgent response from governments," said Hans Verolme, director of the global climate change program at the conservation organization WWF. "Doing nothing is not an option."
Merkel to address issue at G-8 summit
The contents of the report, most of which had already been leaked to the media in recent weeks, prompted political leaders to call for action, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "The report confirms that climate change is a fact," Merkel told the Munich daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. "That's why we need quick and determined action to limit the rise in temperatures worldwide and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. I will also address the issue at the G-8 summit. My aim is, insofar as possible, to involve all states in taking responsibility for climate protection. "
Merkel said she hoped recent European Union actions might help to push China and the United States -- the world's two largest sources of greenhouse gases -- to do more to reduce emissions. In March the EU's 27 member states agreed cut greenhouse gas emission by at least 20 percent from 1990 levels over the next 13 years. In addition, it agreed that at least one-fifth of all of the EU's energy would come from renewable sources by 2020.
Speaking on Friday, EU Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas warned that the report "further underlines both how urgent it is to reach global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and how important it is for us all to adapt to the climate change that is already under way."
"Scientific vandalism"
Originally, the report was to be released on Friday morning at 10 a.m., but the presentation was delayed for hours as heated discussions continued as countries like China, Russia and the US continued to lobby for the removal of parts of the report.
US delegates also opposed a passage warning of the prospects of "severe economic damage" to parts of North America. But the main tension in Brussels between some authors of the report and some political representatives was not over the scientific findings, but over a 21-page summary that would be shown to policymakers.
Earlier this week, the summary said scientists had "very high confidence" that natural systems around the world "are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases."
"Very high confidence," in the language used by the report, translates to a 90 percent certainty. Delegates from China and Saudi Arabia lobbied for "high confidence" instead, or 80 percent certainty -- and after a dramatic hours-long protest by three scientists on Thursday night, the milder language went in.
"The authors lost," said one of the scientists. "A lot of authors are not going to engage in the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) process anymore. I have had it with them," he told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
Though Washington and Beijing ultimately succeeded in changing very little of the text, the political tug o' war drew sharp criticism in Germany. "We are happy that we were able to prevent this kind of scientific vandalism in the end," Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel told Reuters TV. "The people have a right to find out about the consequences that threaten them if we are unable to stop climate change."
Still, the final version is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming. "Certain passages were lost for time or for lack of agreement," Parry said, "But I don't think in any respect that the message was lost."
In the first part of the study -- released in February in Paris -- the IPCC concluded with 90 percent certainty that humans were the main cause of global warming since 1950. That alone was an unprecedented statement by a global body; but this section of the report details how species, water supplies, ice sheets and regional climate conditions were already being affected.
Friday's report was the second of four to be released by the IPCC this year. The findings of those reports are expected to serve as a guide for negotiations over extending the Kyoto Protocol, the main UN plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2012.
06/04/07, Aquecimento Global - EUA e China questionam novo relatório da ONU, (Back).
Os especialistas em clima publicaram nesta sexta-feira em Bruxelas um diagnóstico alarmante dos graves efeitos do aquecimento global, depois de uma noite discussões nas quais vários países, principalmente Estados Unidos e China, questionaram suas conclusões.
"Acabamos de terminar uma reunião de maratona, que foi produtiva, mas cansativa", concluiu com alívio o presidente do Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas da ONU (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, em uma entrevista coletiva. "É um relatório muito bom e espero que chame a atenção do mundo inteiro", acrescentou Pachauri.
Antes do ano 2080, estimam os especialistas no documento de 1,4 mil páginas, até 3,2 bilhões de seres humanos estarão expostos a uma severa escassez de água e 600 milhões à fome por causa das secas, degradação e salinização do solo.
A cada ano entre dois e sete milhões de pessoas sofrerão com inundações, principalmente nas áreas costeiras onde a pressão demográfica aumenta e nos grandes deltas da África ocidental, da Ásia ou do Mississippi. As populações pobres, inclusive nas sociedades prósperas, serão as mais vulneráveis à mudança climática, segundo as conclusões dos estudos do IPCC.
"Isto requer nossa atenção, pois os mais pobres são também os menos aptos para adaptar-se", comentou Pachauri, ao apresentar as conclusões dos especialistas em Bruxelas. Com um aumento superior a 2ºC ou 3ºC em comparação a 1990, o aquecimento climático terá impactos "globalmente negativos" em todas as regiões, acrescenta o IPCC.
"É muito provável que todas as regiões registrem reduções dos lucros ou aumentos dos custos por causa de aumentos de temperatura superiores a 2ºC ou 3ºC", destaca o informe. "No entanto, algumas regiões polares e de baixas latitudes sofrerão custos líquidos mesmo com pequenos aumentos de temperatura", acrescenta o documento.
"Serão necessárias medidas de adaptação para enfrentar estes impactos", afirmou nesta sexta-feira Martin Parry, co-presidente do grupo de trabalho do IPCC responsável pelos impactos do aquecimento. "O aquecimento é inevitável por causa das emissões passadas (de gases que provocam o efeito estufa), e os esforços de atenuação vão demorar décadas para apresentar resultados", advertiu.
Os cientistas advertiram que o aquecimento afetará todas as formas de vida na Terra. "Entre 20 e 30% das espécies vegetais e animais terão um risco crescente de extinção se o aumento da temperatura mundial for de entre 1,5 e 2,5ºC em comparação a 1990", adverte o IPCC. "Há agora em todos os continentes sinais de mudança climática que afetam os animais e as plantas, e temos prova", anunciou Perry.
China, Arábia Saudita, Rússia e Estados Unidos questionaram alguns parágrafos do "resumo para os que decidem", um texto de 20 páginas que resume as 1.400 do informe para os governos do planeta. Pequim se opôs a um trecho que destacava o "risco muito elevado de que vários sistemas naturais se vejam afetados pelas mudanças climáticas", segundo uma fonte ligada às negociações.
A delegação chinesa questionou as bases científicas do caráter "muito elevado" do risco, segundo a mesma fonte. Para responder a este país, um grupo de cientistas entregou uma carta de protesto à presidente do Grupo II do IPCC, a americana Sharon Hays, na qual afirmavam que o alto grau de confiança estava provado cientificamente.
Já os Estados Unidos pediram e conseguiram a eliminação de um parágrafo que indicava que a América do Norte "deve enfrentar localmente graves danos econômicos e perturbações substanciais de seu sistema socioeconômico e cultural", segundo um observador das negociações. "É a primeira vez que os políticos questionam desta maneira a ciência", destacou um delegado.
A coordenadora da delegação americana em Bruxelas afirmou que a mudança climática representa um desafio mundial que requer soluções internacionais. "Uma das principais mensagens deste documento é que a mudança climática representa um desafio mundial e todos reconhecemos que isto necessita de soluções internacionais", declarou Sharon Hays.
"Porém, a maioria dos efeitos da mudança do clima serão sobretudo sofridos regionalmente e é verdade que algumas regiões no mundo são mais vulneráveis que outras, como por exemplo a África, pequenas ilhas ou as regiões polares", acrescentou.
Segundo a primeira parte do relatório do IPCC, divulgado em fevereiro em Paris, a temperatura média da Terra pode subir entre 1,1ºC e 6,4ºC até 2100, em comparação a 1990. A melhor estimativa situa o aumento médio entre 2ºC e 4ºC, segundo as possibilidades socioeconômicas estudadas.
06/04/07, Andreia Fanzeres e Eric Macedo, Relatório-catástrofe, (Back).
Mesmo com o linguajar mais conservador possível – como tem sido o tom de pareceres políticos sobre aquecimento global – o segundo relatório do Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas (IPCC) diz, com todas as letras, que o fenômeno provocado pelo homem já exerce grandes impactos sobre o mundo natural. O documento, considerado o “coração” dos estudos sobre clima por destacar como as alterações na atmosfera vão afetar o meio ambiente e as populações, foi publicado nesta sexta-feira após uma semana de lentos acordos entre os cientistas que laboravam o texto final para divulgação.
Por causa do furor mundial provocado pelo primeiro relatório, lançado em fevereiro, as delegações da Arábia Saudita, Estados Unidos, China e Índia pressionaram desta vez por um tom bem mais ameno. E conseguiram. De acordo com reportagem da Associated Press, pelo menos três dos cientistas presentes à maratona de reuniões ficaram insatisfeitos com o texto final, principalmente em relação ao grau de confiabilidade em algumas informações científicas: 80%, em vez de 90% como queriam pesquisadores que assinam o documento original.
Apesar disso, os cientistas transmitiram recados muito claros. Por exemplo: se os termômetros subirem entre 1,5 a 2,5 graus Celsius, cerca de 20 a 30% das espécies do mundo estarão sob risco de extinção. E uma parcela muito mais expressiva dos seres vivos será extinta caso a temperatura suba 5º C. A essa temperatura, 30% de todas as áreas inundáveis próximas à costa também estarão liquidadas. Com apenas um grau acima da média, haverá um incremento na quantidade de corais mortos nos oceanos e poderá se considerar a mortandade generalizada desses seres marinhos com a elevação de mais 3,5ºC. A partir dessa temperatura, esperam-se ainda grandes perdas na produção de cereais em latitudes baixas e, desde já, deve aumentar a quantidade de óbitos humanos causados por ondas de calor, desnutrição, doenças cardio-respiratórias e infecciosas.
Só que tudo isso não está num futuro distante. Há hoje evidências muito fortes de que os impactos aos habitantes do planeta já são sentidos. As prematuras quedas de folhas, migração de aves e cardumes nos rios, além da deposição de ovos fora de época deram aos pesquisadores 90% de certeza de que o aquecimento global tem antecipado a primavera e modificado os hábitos de uma enorme gama de espécies. Os cientistas afirmam que é possível ter um alto grau de certeza de que o número e tamanho de lagos formados pelo derretimento de glaciares aumentaram. Comunidades construídas próximas a esses lagos podem sofrer com enchentes repentinas. Os ecossistemas do Ártico e da Antártica também estão sendo afetados pela mudança de temperatura. Os predadores do topo da cadeia alimentar são as maiores vítimas.
Áreas críticas
De acordo com o relatório, milhões de pessoas que vivem nas cercanias dos nos mega-deltas da Ásia e África devem sofrer com alagamentos anuais por volta de 2080. São áreas baixas, mas densamente povoadas, que já se encontram em risco devido a tempestades tropicais e não têm muitos recursos para investir em medidas de adaptação. Ilhas pequenas também são especialmente vulneráveis, dizem os cientistas.
As áreas costeiras são as que mais sofrerão conseqüências negativas em termos de indústria e sociedade. Esses efeitos, no entanto, variam enormemente ao redor do mundo. Como tem sido amplamente divulgado há algum tempo, as comunidades mais pobres serão as maiores prejudicadas. O aumento de freqüência e intensidade de eventos meteorológicos extremos - como tempestades, furacões e nevascas- demandará mais dinheiro e investimentos. Não à toa, a África é vista como um dos continentes mais vulneráveis às mudanças. Por volta de 2020, entre 75 e 250 milhões de africanos devem enfrentar falta d'água por causa do aquecimento. Além disso, a produção agrícola deve ficar seriamente comprometida. O relatório diz que alguns países devem ter suas área de plantio irrigada pela chuva diminuída em 50% por volta de 2020.
As projeções do relatório para a América Latina em 2050 também não são animadoras. O aumento da temperatura e a presença de menos água no solo devem de fato transformar parte da Amazônia em savanas e áreas reconhecidas hoje como semi-áridos sofrerão processo de desertificação – fenômeno também previsto para áreas agricultáveis. A expectativa é que as produções de grãos e carne recuem e que o acesso mais restrito à água afete não só a agricultura, mas as populações humanas e a geração de energia. O aumento da temperatura e do nível dos mares deve provocar enchentes nas regiões mais baixas da América do Sul e modificação nos estoques pesqueiros do sudeste do Pacífico. Os corais do Caribe estão em risco.
Difícil remediar
Apesar das notícias do aquecimento em geral terem um tom de tragédia anunciada, alguns (há que se reconhecer, poucos) pontos do relatório são de conseqüências positivas das mudanças no clima. Estudos em áreas de clima temperado revelam que haverá menos mortes por exposição ao frio, por exemplo. Antes que o leitor esboce um sorriso, no entanto, o texto crava o punhal: esse dado, diz o relatório, deve ser ofuscado pelo efeito negativo do aumento das temperaturas ao redor do globo, com ondas de calor, especialmente nos países em desenvolvimento. Da mesma forma, as mudanças devem ser positivas, a princípio, no Norte da Europa, com efeitos mistos, como demanda reduzida por aquecimento e aumento dos campos de cultivo. No decorrer das mudanças, no entanto, os efeitos negativos (como inundações no inverno e instabilidade no solo) também devem acabar com a felicidade climática dos europeus.
Os pesquisadores reconhecem que ainda é difícil mensurar o que exatamente poderá ser evitado com adaptações de infra-estrutura para as populações, tampouco podem estimar quanto tudo isso vai custar à economia. Mas não têm dúvidas de que providências nesse setor precisam ser tomadas o quanto antes no campo tecnológico, comportamental, gerencial e de políticas públicas. E lembram que não vai adiantar elaborar medidas para mitigar o problema do aquecimento global se não existirem esforços para tornarem alguns ambientes menos vulneráveis a poluição, ao desmatamento, exploração predatória e a outras ameaças.
A partir da próxima semana, o IPCC vai publicar relatórios regionais sobre os impactos das mudanças climáticas. Um deles abrange especificamente o Brasil, e será divulgado no dia 10 de abril em São Paulo. No dia 4 de maio sai o último relatório do IPCC em 2007, em Bangkok, quando poderão ser conhecidos os esforços internacionais e as tecnologias disponíveis para evitar o agravamento das mudanças climáticas e para mitigar as ações já em curso.
07/04/07, Alana Gandra, Pesquisadora quer índice para medir qualidade de vida e desenvolvimento ambiental, (Back).
A necessidade de estabelecer um indicador que refletisse o desenvolvimento sustentável em nível global levou a engenheira do Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social, Ana Raquel Martins, a criar um novo índice, o IDH Ambiental. O novo indicador é tema de estudo apresentado por Martins na Universidade Federal Fluminense no final de 2006 e resulta da combinação entre o IDH - Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano, que mede o grau de desenvolvimento dos países, e o ISA - Índice de Sustentabilidade Ambiental, desenvolvido por pesquisadores norte-americanos e apresentado pela primeira vez em 2002, no Fórum Econômico Mundial.
O índice analisa cinco dimensões dos países: sistemas ambientais, estresses, vulnerabilidade humana, capacidade social e institucional e responsabilidade global. As variáveis encontradas são objeto de comparação entre os diferentes países pesquisados.
A idéia, segundo a técnica do BNDES, era partir do índice mais trabalhado e reconhecido internacionalmente, que é o IDH, e verificar se esse índice de desenvolvimento humano consegue refletir também a sustentabilidade desse mesmo desenvolvimento. “Por isso, a gente teve essa vontade de acrescentar no IDH uma componente de sustentabilidade ambiental”, externou Martins.
Para isso, foi adotado o ISA, cuja 1primeira versão data de 2004, com uma segunda versão apresentada no ano seguinte. Dessa forma, o IDH Ambiental inclui componentes do IDH de longevidade, renda e educação, acrescentando-se o indicador de sustentabilidade ambiental do ISA. O objetivo era “entender se os países que tivessem alto IDH teriam também esse alto IDH chamado híbrido, com essa componente de sustentabilidade ambiental”, explicou.
Ana Raquel Martins admitiu que apenas o cruzamento entre o IDH, que media 177 países à época da coleta dos dados, com o ISA, que media cerca de 145 países, resultando numa relação de 139 nações com as duas medições, já fez com que alguns países mudassem de lugar no ranking internacional.
No caso do Brasil, ele pulou da 54ª posição no IDH para a 39% no IDH Ambiental, situando-se na 11ª posição no ISA. Considerando apenas as variáveis ambientais, o Brasil está à frente dos Estados Unidos (44º colocado), Japão (29º) e Alemanha (30º). (Agência Brasil)
08/04/07, NYT Editorial, Hot and Cold, (Back).
Last week began with a Supreme Court decision declaring that the federal government had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and all but ordering the Bush administration to do so. It ended with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the world’s authoritative voice on global warming — warning that failure to contain these emissions will have disastrous environmental effects, especially in poorer countries, which are least able to defend themselves and their people against the consequences of climate change.
One would hope that these events would shake President Bush out of his state of denial and add his authority to the chorus of governors, legislators and business leaders calling for an aggressive regulatory and technological response to the dangers of global warming. They haven’t. When asked about the Supreme Court decision, the president said he thought he was already doing enough.
He argued further that there was little point in the United States’ doing any more unless other polluters like China acted as well. That ignores the reality that no developing country is going to move unless the United States — which produces one-fourth of the world’s emissions with only 5 percent of its population — takes the lead.
The report from the intergovernmental panel was the second of three due this year. The first concluded with “90 percent certainty” that humans had caused the rise in atmospheric temperatures over the last half-century. The most recent focused on the consequences, few of them positive.
The northern latitudes will have longer growing seasons. But elsewhere climate change will lead to more severe storms, the flooding of tropical islands and coastlines inhabited by hundreds of millions of people, the likely extinction of at least one-fourth of the world’s species and, in poorer countries in Asia and Africa, drought and hunger.
Some of these changes have begun. “We’re no longer arm-waving with models,” said Martin Parry, the co-chairman of the team that wrote the report. But the report also makes clear that while emissions already accumulated in the atmosphere make some damage inevitable, the worst can be avoided if the world’s nations take swift action to stabilize and then reverse emissions.
What must be avoided, the report said, is a rise of 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the point at which truly devastating effects will begin to kick in. But such a rise is almost inevitable over the next century if the world continues to do business as usual.
The panel’s next paper will discuss alternatives to business as usual. These policies will almost certainly require a major shift in the way energy is produced and used, as well as massive investments in new technologies. They will also be expensive. But what the world’s scientists are telling us, with increasing confidence, is that the costs of doing nothing will be far greater than the costs of acting now.
10/04/07, Frank Hornig, Spiegel Interview with NASA Climate Expert James Hansen, (Back).
'We Need to Take Action Soon'
James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, spoke to DER SPIEGEL about the causes and consequences of global warming -- and why there are only ten years left to steer the world away from climate catastrophe.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Hansen, temperatures in Central Park reached 22 degrees Celsius (71.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in January, the Alps lacked snow throughout the season -- is winter being erased by global warming?
James Hansen: Weather and climate are two different things, which often confuses people. The average temperature is now 0.8 degrees Celsius higher than in the last century, with three-quarters of the increase happening in the last 30 years. But compared to the usual weather fluctuations, that's quite small. You can have a ten-degree variation from day to day in the weather. You can have anomalies of an average of several degrees over one month, and you still don't have to worry. However, this does not indicate we can stop thinking about this issue: We've just experienced the warmest January in 127 years of record-keeping.
SPIEGEL: Even so, a global warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius over 100 years doesn't sound very dramatic.
Hansen: There's another half degree Celsius in the pipeline due to gases already in the atmosphere, and there's at least one more half degree to come due to power plants which we're not going to stop immediately. Even if we decide now we've got to slow down as fast as is practical, there's still going to be enough emissions to take us to the warmest level that the planet has seen in a million years. That's enough to take us close to and possibly beyond what I would say is a dangerous level.
SPIEGEL: How can you be so sure of that?
Hansen: We know a lot about the history of the Earth. If we want to keep the planet looking close to what it looks like now, then we had better not accept an increase by more than one degree Celsius. Because if temperature goes up another two or three degrees Celsius, it will be the temperature of the middle Pliocene about 3 million years ago. That was a very different planet. There was no sea ice in the Arctic in the warm seasons, and the sea level was about 25 meters higher. We will be headed towards this situation if we continue with business-as-usual.
SPIEGEL: Who or what is responsible for the warming of our planet?
Hansen: I would say it's approximately 102 percent man-made. We know very well that the climate would have been heading towards a colder climate if it weren't for human-made emissions. We've been in an interglacial period now for almost 12,000 years, and we know that this period peaked 6,000 or 8,000 years ago. We were headed slowly toward cooler climates until humans came along. And now humans have sent us off in a completely different direction.
SPIEGEL: Just recently the United Nations Panel on Climate Change declared that it is now 90 percent certain that global warming is real. Doesn't this come a bit late?
Hansen: You know, we said that a long time ago, but that's okay. This panel involves more than one hundred nations including Saudi Arabia and others. Those countries have to be dragged kicking and screaming to this sort of conclusion. The panel, by the way, is very reluctant to say anything about sea level change, although the evidence that has accumulated in the last two or three years is impressive.
SPIEGEL: What does it show?
Hansen: We've gotten fantastic measurements from a gravity satellite. They explain exactly how Greenland and West Antarctica are changing in mass and how much mass they're losing to the ocean. We have other observations of ice quakes on Greenland and ice streams speeding up, and we see processes occurring which make me very concerned about the stability of ice sheets.
SPIEGEL: What exactly do you fear will happen?
Hansen: The disintegration of ice sheets will be a non-linear process, and that means it can change very rapidly. You can have relatively slow changes for a while, but once you reach a certain instability, you get sudden collapse and a very large change. We know pretty well from the history of the earth that when ice sheets have disintegrated in the past, they have disintegrated very rapidly. During the last melting period, the sea level went up 20 meters in 400 years, which is one meter every 20 years.
SPIEGEL: What makes you so sure about such a dramatic melting this time? Other scientists claim this process may take thousands of years.
Hansen: I think that's a very dangerous assumption. I would be very surprised if we didn't get a big change this century. We need to commission a study of this problem and bring in the best scientists so that they can look at it. We need to take action soon.
SPIEGEL: You've made the point that we have only 10 more years to prevent the worst consequences of global warming. Why?
Hansen: Let's contrast two different scenarios. The first one I call business-as-usual which is the typical UN scenario. It shows a continued increase in the annual emissions of CO2 of about 1 or 2 percent per year. That's what leads you to at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius global warming in this century. An alternative scenario is designed to keep global warming at about one additional degree or less. It requires that CO2 emissions actually decrease on a global average by at least a few tens of percent by mid-century. By the end of the century, you have to stabilize things, which means you would need a 60 to 80 percent reduction in emissions.
SPIEGEL: What happens precisely if your business-as-usual scenario applies?
Hansen: This will put us 40 percent above our 2000 emissions ten years from now. Then it will become very difficult to halt global warming and get back to the alternative scenario.
SPIEGEL: What does this mean? When will New York be flooded?
Hansen: That's hard to answer because it is a non-linear process. But this much is clear: the sea level, which up until a century ago was rather stable, increased by about 15 centimeters in the last century and is now increasing at a rate of 35 centimeters per century, 3.5 centimeters per decade. So the rate has gone up, and if it ratchets up a few more times, pretty soon you're talking about really significant change.
SPIEGEL: What other effects do you expect besides this?
Hansen: I'm really concerned about the extermination of species. If climatic zones move, animals and plants need to migrate. Studies have found that 1,700 species have already moved poleward at a rate of six kilometers per decade in recent decades. But climate zones are moving poleward at a faster rate, about 50 km per decade, and it will become 100 km per decade with business as usual. Combine that with the fact that so many species have been confined to certain areas due to humans having taken over so much of the planet, and you'll see it may be very difficult for them to migrate. So it's likely that a large fraction of the species could go extinct.
SPIEGEL: Which nation on earth is most responsible for global warming?
Hansen: Some US politicians are making the argument that China is soon going to be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and that's true. Within a few years, they will pass the US. But climate change depends upon the cumulative emissions over time because much of the CO2 we emitted in 1850 is still here and it's still damaging. So it's not only about the present emissions. Therefore, the US is responsible for more than three times the amount of emissions than any other country, with China and Russia being next, and Germany and Great Britain after that.
SPIEGEL: George W. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto protocoll right at the beginning of his presidency, and he declared he doesn't want to do anything that might hurt the US economy.
Hansen: Who is going to bear the moral burden? The politicians who deny there is a problem today will no longer be in office once the effects of global warming are felt. The frustrating part is that the solutions actually make sense for other reasons.
SPIEGEL: Because changes in US energy use would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?
Hansen: Exactly. Our waste of energy has resulted in all kinds of problems, including the current ones in the Middle East.
SPIEGEL: What needs to be done?
Hansen: We are still facing a solvable problem. Oil and gas are running out anyway and we should use that resource very conservatively. It's amazing how much energy is compacted into these fossil fuels. The architects and building engineers tell us they can now make buildings which use only half as much fossil fuel as current buildings. We have not improved our vehicle efficiency since about 1980. So there is a lot of potential for energy saving. Yet we are wasting these resources. Furthermore, instead of shutting down existing coal plants across the country, American energy corporations are planning to construct 100 new ones.
SPIEGEL: What can people do on a personal level to help slow climate change?
Hansen: If an individual goes out and reduces his emissions, it's a nice example and it shows that it can be done. But even if a lot of people comply, what is the result? It reduces the price of fuel, and then it'll be so cheap, somebody else will burn it.
SPIEGEL: What do you propose instead?
Hansen: The most important thing that people can do is influence the government. The most critical policy element has to be a slowly growing price on carbon emissions. It has to be fast enough to have an impact and affect industries and their investments and innovations. But it has to be slow enough so there is time for these new technologies to develop, so consumers can choose and buy new, more efficient technologies. We should have started on that a long time ago.
The interview was conducted by Frank Hornig
(Back)
Home