While some are still attacking Al Gore as a fear-monger for An Inconvenient Truth's supposed fantastic claims of dire global warming predictions—which naysayers unscientifically insist could happen "only after, and over, millennia"—the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has released a new report with startling conclusions that go beyond Mr. Gore's own position on coastal flooding caused by global warming, specifically, that within this generation's time, 150 million people and over $35 trillion of assets will be at risk due to coastal flooding caused by global warming. The report lists the top ten cities which face the most risk to population and property:

1. Calcutta, India,


2. Mumbai (Bombay), India


3. Dhaka, Bangladesh


4. Guangzhou, China


5. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam


6. Shanghai, China


7. Bangkok, Thailand


8. Rangoon, Myanmar


9. Miami, Florida, USA


10. Hai Phong, Vietnam

Miami, Florida, is currently the most exposed U.S. city and will remain so through 2070, its exposed assets growing from $400 billion to over $3.5 trillion in that time. Mumbai has the highest number of people currently exposed to coastal flooding. But by 2070, Calcutta, India, will be the most vulnerable, with the exposed population expected to increase over seven times to more than 14 million people.

The report notes that studies have shown that effective coastal defense plans can take upwards of 30 years to put into place urging that, "Adaptation move to the top of the policy agenda today if it is to make a difference tomorrow."

"Climate change is already happening, and concerted action is needed now to prevent its worst impacts," said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria. "A range of economic policy options is available and political commitment is needed to implement them."

The full OECD report can be downloaded here (English).

Posted on 5 December, 2007, in Global Warming
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

del.icio.us

'Everything's bigger in Texas.'

It's not just a saying. For the energy industry in Texas, it's a way of life, or rather, a way of destructive 'life:' From the latests numbers from the federal Energy Department on carbon emissions, Texas leads the way in emitting toxic greenhouse gases, more than double the next two offenders on the list, California and Pennsylvania, whose combined populations double that of Texas.

"Some states are ... polluting the planet and make all the rest of us suffer the consequences of global warming," said Frank O'Donnell, director of the Washington environmental group Clean Air Watch. "I don't think that's fair at all."

Meanwhile, President Bush, not just a Texan, but the man who ran this state for several years before he became President, has unveiled what the White House calls 'a plan' for combating climate change. Apparently, the word 'plan' now includes threats of 'Well, if you aren't going to do anything, China, then I'm not either!'

Clearly, the President's own history on this subject, his own opinions and policy-making, helped Texas arrive at its unenviable position as the worst CO2 emitter in the U.S., the country which is currently the worst CO2 emitter on the planet. Things are not necessarily looking up either, as current Texas Governor Rick Perry questions whether climate change is actually caused by man and man-made emissions.

Posted on 4 June, 2007, in Global Warming
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

del.icio.us

A number of media outlets carried the so-called 'news' on Friday of hurricane forecaster William Gray pronouncing rather decidedly that oceans, and not CO2, are to blame for global warming. The 77-year old, who has a history of railing against the science of global warming, had harsh words for those who study and accept global warming (meaning: the vast majority of scientists, government leaders, most people around the world, etc.).

Mr. Gray was not releasing new scientific data, nor was he pointing to conclusive results from a study or proposing a scientific theory related to our undeniable climate change. What he was doing was ranting to a group of Republican lawmakers in Denver. Among the 'facts' supporting his personal claims which fly in the face of current scientific data and understanding:

1. Global warming is "mush" based on unreliable computer models--Apparently he is not familiar with ice cores samples or the material evidence they provide.

2. Warming and cooling trends cannot go on indefinitely; they are beginning to level out after a very warm year in 1998--This would ignore, of course, that the hottest two years on record do not include 1998, but in fact are 2005 and 2006. And it also inanely implies that climate change scientists say that the temperature will never go back down.

3. Little-understood ocean currents are behind a decades-long warming cycle--But he understands them, mind you, just, well, nobody else.

4. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide will not produce more or stronger hurricanes--Even a child could call this one out--well, a child from New Orleans or Houston anyway.

"They're blaming it all on humans, which is crazy," concluded Gray. "We're not the cause of it."

Of course there remains some debate among the scientific community as to the workings of climate change, and there should remain room for reasonable scientific discourse. Gray's political diatribe and frustrated expression of his misfounded opinions does not meet the qualification of 'scientific debate.' Nor should it have passed the threshold of what is commonly called 'news.'

Gray has a right to think whatever he wants. And he has a right to spew to whomever he likes. But the press should be more cautious with distributing the rantings of a meteorologist as significant 'news' that there is question among scientists whether or not climate change is a serious problem.

Posted on 30 April, 2007, in Global Warming
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

del.icio.us

China About To Pass U.S. As World's Top Generator of Greenhouse Gases, the San Francisco Chronicle

Posted on 5 March, 2007, in Global Warming
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

del.icio.us

While Tony Snow is trying to convince us that America is actually doing a better job of curbing emissions than the EU--despite not having any real CO2 standards, despite having not signed the Kyoto Treaty, and despite Americans being the worst emitters of CO2 on the planet--Austraiia, also a non-signer of Kyoto, has announced that it is going to ban incandescent light bulbs, to be replaced with energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. Noting that incandescent light bulbs have hardly changed in the 125 years that they have been used, Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull described it as less of a ban than an inability to buy inefficient and wasteful product, with the phase-out becoming effective by 2009: "By that stage you simply won’t be able to buy incandescent lightbulbs, because they won’t meet the energy standard."

Posted on 20 February, 2007, in Global Warming
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

del.icio.us

When the Bush administration uses an application to protect the polar bear as its first indication that they are at least partially willing to concede that global warming isn't some black magic concocted by the Democrats, you would think even the most cynical and critical of skeptics would be willing to agree with Dubya that the polar bear may in fact be endangered, owing to a shorter hunting season and less ice mass--due to said global warming.

But those mad scientists over at the Friends of Bush network are committed to truth enough even to disagree with their lame-duck hero:

Watch out, world, because John Gibson is 'red-faced'! On Friday, he warned that the real 'problem is too many polar bears.' Without providing any link to his dubious statistics, or any proof of his facts, John angrily attacks Bush, environmentalists, polar bears, the world, et al, saying that since there exists more polar bears now than did in the 1950's, the species faces no danger of elimination--even though he admits they are watching their habitat melt--and that this is all just another piece of propaganda from environmentalists to 'get their way'. And what, John, do you think that is?

Mr. Gibson goes so far in his red-facedness to say that "the polar bear is being used by environmental groups to force the Bush administration to cave on global warming." Certainly he's not talking about the current Bush administration, which is so eager to listen to those who disagree with it, and even more eager to 'cave' when it faces the slightest bit of opposition or threat of unnecessary harm.

Environmentalists using the polar bear for gain, John? Ah, those clever, filthy-rich environmentalists! What will they think of next?!

Posted on 8 January, 2007, in Global Warming
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

del.icio.us