Global Warming & Climate Change: Humans' Reactions & Responses

[Anonymous]

Interesting Solution........

SLEIPNER PLATFORM, Norwegian North Sea (Reuters) -- Norway's biggest company reckons it has found the key to a green and profitable future by burying greenhouse gases underground.

The oil and gas group Statoil operates the world's only commercial gas platform in the North Sea to separate carbon dioxide (CO2) from gas and reinject it beneath the seabed instead of releasing it to the air.

"The method has enormous potential. Our imagination is the only limit," said Sleipner platform chief Edvin Ytredal. The storage could prove profitable under planned CO2 emissions trading schemes.

Rising 200 meters (650 feet) above the sea surface with two giant burning flares, the Sleipner gas platform looks like a monster polluter.

But underneath it has been stashing away one million tons of CO2 gas every year since 1996, or the equivalent of the amount produced by about 110,000 Norwegians a year.

An eight-story block houses about 200 workers, a gym, bible study room and a motorcycle club on top of a complex production facility pumping gas from the reservoir, splitting the CO2 from the gas, reinjecting the greenhouse gas back into the seabed and piping the CO2-free gas to Norway and to Europe.

C02 is the main gas targeted by the international 1997 Kyoto pact aimed at cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming. The pact prompted the European Union to launch the world's first international emissions trading scheme in 2005.

State-controlled Statoil would like to be paid to bury CO2 produced by big fossil-fuel burners in Europe such as steel plants or coal-fired power plants which will have to cap their emissions.

"If that solution adds up financially, it would be a dream scenario for Statoil," said Jan Karlsen, Statoil's senior vice president for gas sales. But he said it was too early to predict the practical and financial viability.

Risky business?
Several obstacles remain -- so far it is unclear whether CO2 reinjection will be an accepted way of getting rid of climate gases as part of the Kyoto mechanisms. It is also unsure what non-EU member Norway's position in the scheme will be.

And some environmental groups believe CO2 reinjection might be risky, fearing that the gas might leak into the sea and harm marine life. CO2 is a clear, non-toxic gas but can be disruptive in heavy concentrations.

"We are critical because we don't know whether this is a permanent solution. No one knows whether the CO2 will stay in the reservoir in 100 or 1,000 years," said campaigner Truls Gulowsen of the environmental group Greenpeace.

"The more we store greenhouse gases away, the bigger the potential climate bomb is and the longer it will take to get rid of the real problem -- the burning of fossil fuels," he said.

Statoil says there is no sign of leaks from Sleipner -- and that natural gas has stayed below ground for millions of years.

Offshore taxes in Norway, the world's third biggest oil exporter, pumping about three million barrels of oil per day, are 78 percent. Statoil says it is saving one million crowns ($143,000) every day in CO2 taxes by reinjection.

To cut the CO2 content, Statoil lets a soap-like chemical called amine react with the gas under high pressure, splitting CO2 from the gas and pumping it back into the Utsira reservoir about 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) below the seabed.

It estimates that Utsira can hold 600 billion tons of CO2. The world's total human emissions are 23 billion tons a year.

Gas at the Sleipner West field contains up to nine percent CO2 -- almost four times the maximum 2.5 percent limit for sale in the market and forcing Statoil to cut the CO2 content.

Sleipner West is the only commercial CO2-injecting platform in the world, but there are other similar experimental projects, including in the United States.

Statoil's giant Snoehvit natural liquefied gas (LNG) project in the Barents Sea is due to come on stream in 2006 with the same technology. And environmental authorities recommend that any future Arctic development should have CO2 reinjection.

Even with CO2 reinjection, there is always a certain amount of emission. At Sleipner, the two flares are constantly burning for security reasons -- in case of a leak, the gas will be burned instead of being released to the air.

 

[oll_lewis]

Kyoto tax for US imports?

Demand for 'Kyoto tax' on the US
Countries refusing to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases should face trade sanctions, according to a British independent think-tank.
The United States has not signed the Kyoto agreement on climate change and Russia has indicated it may follow.

The New Economics Foundation wants the EU to tax imports from these countries because they enjoy a competitive disadvantage as energy costs increase.

Signed-up countries are currently meeting in Italy to discuss the treaty.

New Economics Foundation spokesman Andrew Simms told BBC Radio 4's Today programme EU countries would be within their rights to "work out the cost of the free ride America is getting" and raise that amount.

"There are very few signals the United States understands - they do understand economic signals," Mr Simms added.

"There is only a certain amount of time people can go around behaving like teenagers who don't have to care about anybody else," he told Today.

"We are about half a century away from being ecologically and economically bankrupt because of global warming."

The British diplomat who proposed environmental sanctions 20 years ago, Sir Crispin Tickell, told the programme the United States' refusal to sign the United Nations Climate Change Convention was the "height of irresponsibility".

The protocol, negotiated to implement the convention, requires industrialised countries to cut their emissions of six gases which scientists believe are exacerbating natural climate change.


Signatories will by some time between 2008 and 2012 have to cut emissions to 5.2% below their 1990 levels.

But many scientists say cuts of around 60-70% will be needed by mid-century to avoid runaway climate change.

The protocol will enter into legal force when 55 signatories have ratified it, including industrialised countries responsible for 55% of the developed world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 1990.

Some critics say President Bush's decision that the US, which emits more greenhouse gases than any other country, would not ratify the protocol has already condemned it to irrelevance.

The agreement faces collapse without ratification from Russia, which is responsible for 17% of global emissions, but seems to be pulling away from backing it because it says it will limit economic growth.

A senior Russian adviser said the country would not sign the agreement, although another minister then said he supported it.



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/3296819.stm

Published: 2003/12/06 14:41:57 GMT

© BBC MMIII

 

[Anonymous]

Much as I'm an environmentalist (never owned a car, paid-up Greenpeace member, plant trees as a hobby etc. etc.) you have to understand that global warming does not sound bad to everybody. Try living in a poor part of Moscow, where they regularly have minus 20 in the winter, and you can't afford to heat your flat properly. Or try living in Mongolia in a Ger (animal skin tent) in the minus 30 which they quite often have in the winter. Other poor parts of the world, such as the Asian stans, and parts of China and South America, also have the most bitter cold in winter.
I guess it's a swings-and-roundabouts type thing. What is the greatest good for the greatest number in this situation? Should we say goodbye to whole countries (The Maldives and Vanuatu to name but two) if we can warm up Siberia and make it fertile? Also the fact that weather changes naturally over time without the influence of humankind.
I'm not sure what will happen to our climate if Kyoto collapses. I do know, howevr, that global warming is not on most people's list of priorities. In fact, when they tried putting up the tax on petrol, which is, after all, a nice green measure, people rose up and refused to pay the tax! Most people don't want to change unless they really have to. Right now, they don't.

Big Bill Robinson

 

[oll_lewis]

Actully I hate to explane this to anyone in denial about it but climate change is a big deal. I studied polution in my final year of university and the out look is extreamly grim, the prevailing school of thought either the tropics become unbarably hot (goodbye to a lot of animal and plant species, widespread drought and famine), this would also result in flooding for the colder areas as the ice caps melt. not just normal floods, a rise in sea level. This means most of the south east of Britain and just about all non mountainus reagions of the US into the middle of the continent will be underwater. Somehow I think when that happens the majority of Americans will perhaps want something done about co2 emissions, however by that time it will be too late as the gulf streem will by this point be non existent. unfortunatly it is the gulf streem and the other warm water channels that stop earth from going into ice ages not looking too rosie for those moscow winters now, is it?

Normaly this whole process takes several million years, with the temperatures fluctuating around a stightly incressing or decressing mean anual temperature, the trouble is this time it's happening extreamly fast due to green house gasses. Kyoto is basicly damage limitation and only the start of measures to hopefully not turn the plannet into a sh*t hole WITHIN OUR LIFETIMES. All air polution neads to be delt with now not 40 years down the line wether it's CFC's, heavy metal pollution or green house gasses.

 

[Anonymous]

I was interested in Lord Flashheart's comment that, and I quote "just about all non mountainous regions of the US into the middle of the continent will be underwater".
Well that would certainly be poetic justice for the energy-profligate, environment-wrecking, gas-guzzling so-and-sos on the other side of the herring pond, wouldn't it now?

Bill Robinson

 

[Anonymous]

having recently been working in canada (labarador) i was surprised to find that the climate was surprisingly mild, in fact they had the hottest day there this year since 1942, also rather disturbingly there has always been snow on the ground there before halloween, however this year the snow fell late and was very light, soon to thaw out again. the winter has come late there this year, the current temp out there is -16, which is still relativly warm.

I'm also quite disillusioned with the very small and inadequate measure's whith which the global community is attepting to resolve the problem, i'm not normally paranoid but i think the current legislation is nothing but a sweetener to quiet the masses!

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Now I may be wrong but it might lower the amount of heat but it will also cut the amount of salr radiation which might have some knock on effects on plants which take in C02 and give out O2 which might make global warming worse!!

Giant space shield plan to save planet

Mark Townsend
Sunday January 11, 2004
The Observer

Humanity could not exist without it - yet in an extraordinary plan that underlines the catastrophic implications of climate change, scientists now want to curb the Sun's life-giving influence to save mankind from its biggest threat: global warming.

Key talks involving the Government's most senior climate experts have produced proposals to site a massive shield on the edge of space that would deflect the Sun's rays and stabilise the climate.

Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of metallic 'scatterers' would be ejected into the upper atmosphere under the plans. In addition, billions of tiny barrage balloons could serve as a secondary barrier to block rays from the Earth's nearest star.

On land, giant reservoirs holding saline water could be built to offset the rise in sea levels caused by the melting of the polar ice-caps. The oceans, too, would be modified to cope with the planet's increasingly warmer weather. Massive floating cloud-making machines would be dotted across their surface while, below, large plantations of algae would be grown to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

The theories were discussed by Britain's most eminent climatologists at a meeting in Cambridge last week to analyse the latest theories to tackle the problem of the planet heating up. They included the Government's chief scientist, Sir David King, who warned last week that climate change was the most severe problem facing civilisation.

Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre, said: 'These are exotic ideas and we probably will have to come up with the right mixture. But the problem has not gone away, so we think this analysis is just in time.

'The present climate policy does not seem to be working. We are not saying we have the magic bullet, but this is a desperate situation and people should start thinking about the unconventional. Preventative plans on a larger scale are needed.'

Environmentalists maintain that the solutions are so radical they serve only to underscore how unprepared governments are to deal with the threat. Last week researchers predicted that a quarter of land animals and plants will die out because of global warming over the next 50 years.

Scientists, however, argue that until the United States and Russia ratify international agreements to limit the emission of greenhouse gases they will have little choice but to explore new methods to save the planet.

Extreme technological fixes include deploying tens of billions of wafer-thin metal plates less than a centimetre wide into the Earth's low orbit via space rockets. These would be specially built to allow space-bound rays to pass while at the same time absorbing a significant amount of solar energy before bouncing it back into space. They would be designed to stay in place for a century.

Similar solutions include the release of massive nets of ultra-fine metal mesh into the upper atmosphere by aircraft to prevent the Sun's rays from reaching Earth. Alternatively, millions of metallic-coated super-pressure balloons - similar in design to a children's party version, although a fraction of the size - would be filled with helium and released until they reach the stratosphere 35,000ft above the Earth. Trapped in parcels of air, they would stay up for about five years before falling to earth and being replaced.

All the methods are designed to block about 1 per cent of the Sun's rays, enough to protect at least one million square kilometres of the Earth and significantly cool the planet.

Inspiration came from studying the effects of volcanic eruptions in Indonesia in 1814. During these explosions, enough material was spewed into the upper atmosphere to cause temperatures to fall by up to 30 per cent for almost three years, roughly the amount some predict that they will rise to by the end of this century.

Academics from California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who told government scientists about the billion-pound scheme, claim it will increase crop yields, because plants would be less damaged by the Sun's harmful rays. The scheme would create more spectacular sunrises and sunsets, deeper blue skies and would reduce the cancer risk for sunbathers and children.

Pumping nutrients into the world's oceans remains another weapon under consideration. This would encourage the growth of vast underwater algae blooms to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Scientists believe 'large-scale ocean fertilisation' could act as a substitute for the world's disappearing forests, which act as a huge natural sponge for soaking up carbon dioxide from the air.

Massive floating cloud-making machines could also become a feature of the oceans. These solar-powered contraptions would spray seawater droplets of a precise size into the sky to help encourage the formation of low-level clouds.

Other ideas being looked at include the burial of carbon dioxide emissions underground. Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Roger Higman said: 'Climate change is the biggest environmental threat the world faces. It is important for scientists to explore imaginative ways to tackle its impacts, but technical fixes must not be used as an excuse for failing to reduce the growing levels of greenhouse gases.'

This week the Government will announce how it proposes to implement the most significant piece of climate change legislation since the Kyoto protocol, Europe's greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1120510,00.html

 

[Anonymous]

I`d say we should just paint everything white.

 

[SoundDust]

why not just pour some water on the sun? or would that create a universe-sized sauna?

One good volcanic eruption will solve global warming in a trice, and we're probably overdue in this area.

that Caldera thing in yellowstone park?

 

[Anonymous]

Well, the US is one of the large producers of CO2, so blowing them up might well solve the problem.

 

[Anonymous]

Before we undertake grandiose plans to counteract global warming, I think we probably ought to determine that 'the greatest threat facing mankind' is a real effect. So far we have a lot of claims, but not much in the way of proof.

A good second step would be to determine the cause of global warming, if it even exists. The current crop of 'experts' remind me of nothing so much as medieval physicians prescribing cures for the plague, each with his own pet theory of the disease's cause. Does anyone really expect to be able to predict the effects of an action on the planet's climate when no-one has ever successfully modelled that climate? I'd trust these climate experts a lot more if they could actually make long-term weather predictions that were more accurate than rolling dice.

Lastly, and most importantly, we ought to ask ourselves if a warmer climate would be a good or bad thing. I'm rather of the opinion that we'd benefit from it. Some land would be lost, but I thnk the land remaining might be more liveable. Certainly the growing season in the northern latitudes would be longer

 

[Anonymous]

Lastly, and most importantly, we ought to ask ourselves if a warmer climate would be a good or bad thing. I'm rather of the opinion that we'd benefit from it. Some land would be lost, but I thnk the land remaining might be more liveable. Certainly the growing season in the northern latitudes would be longer

Sorry, Windwhistler, it's comments like that, that kinda, almost, make me wish that The Netherlands and Bangladesh were nuclear powers!

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Before we undertake grandiose plans to counteract global warming, I think we probably ought to determine that 'the greatest threat facing mankind' is a real effect. So far we have a lot of claims, but not much in the way of proof.

No what we have are models which are then tested against actual climatic measurements and what we find time and again (except if you listen to the handful of climatologists funded by the oil industry) is that the models are actually underestimating the rate of climate change.

Also global warming won't just make things warmer it will lead to greater climatic instability. It is likely that the melting water from the Greenland ice cap will disrupt the North Atlantic Drift Current. If that gets nudged from its current course (or even stopped) then the UK (and northwestern Europe) will be plunged into its own mini-Ice Age (technically we will get the weather we deserve for our latitude). Within a generation the UK will go from supporting 60 million people to only a handful of reindeer herders. Thats just an example - things like El Nino will also get much worse.

Also low lying countries will be flood, ecosystems will massively change, thousands of species will go extinct. If the deepsea frozen methane deposits start melting then we are really in very deep trouble.

In the end this is a science which I'm afraid will never give you solid answers - its all about hypothesis creation and testing but the testing shows things look bad. By the time you have your definitive proof it will be far too late (it is probably far too late anyway).

Emps

 

[mejane]

I'll resist the urge to merge this into the other global warming/climate change debates (I don't have the energy)

Global warming does not mean that we all be nice and happy (apart from the drowned places). It means centuries of climatic and social chaos; mass extinctions of plants and animals and general bad things.

A solar shield etc, if erected in time (and, it is hardly necessary to say, using as little non-renewable fuel as possible) would deflect our guilt for a while, but would solve nothing.

Jane.

[edit] that wot emps said above, only better [/edit]

 

[Anonymous]

Actually a solar shield might be exactly what we need, perhaps not now, but in the long term; placed in the Lagrange1 position, (where the SOHO satellite is now) it could collect solar energy for use on Earth and in the Earth/Moon system;

this collected energy could bring power to the Earth's population, as well as propel space craft (using ion drive electric propulsion) between Earth and the rest of the solar system; if the Earth is too hot, the swarm gathers together and provides shade; if too cool the swarm orbits the L1 point more distantly and the Sun shines straight through. Sunlight could even be concentrated on the Earth to prevent the next glaciation...

Because the individual elements of the swarm are insubstantial discs they don't represent much mass to be launched into position; in any case most of this mass will be mined from the Moon.

Many of the planets in the galaxy will need some sort of sunshade or mirror arrangement to make them habitable, when and if we finally get there...

 

[Anonymous]

Every time a climatic anomaly is observed, there's a whole Greek chorus virtually trampling one another in their haste to tell the public that it's just exactly the sort of thing they've been expecting all along to see.

You'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical.

If these people have such a deep and certain understanding of how the earth's weather system works, then why don't they predict these changes in advance? It'd do a great deal to convince skeptics such as myself if they could make a few verifiable short term predictions, instead of confining themselves to long-term forecasts and asking us to take them on faith.

 

[FelixAntonius]

Every time a climatic anomaly is observed, there's a whole Greek chorus virtually trampling one another in their haste to tell the public that it's just exactly the sort of thing they've been expecting all along to see.

You'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical.

I fully agree with you Windwhistler.

Theres money & research grants to be made in doom-saying. It's likely that someone is going to pay you to find why somthing is going wrong.

But, if everything is going just fine theres no research money in it!!!

 

[intaglio]

OK, so what are my thoughts on climate change?

I do not know whether humans are making the climate change; but neither do the supporters or opponents of this theory. The problem is that the climate is an immensely stable chaotic system. ...

So, humans effecting destructive climate change is not proven but possible. Given the possibility is it wise for us to continue in a manner which might cause immense harm?

My view is no, amending our ways will have very little effect except on the monetary economy and could save lives; in addition such alterations to our habits will have a significant effect upon biodiversity and quality of life. ...

 

[Anonymous]

Well said, Intaglio. For the record, it wasn't you I was sniping at, but rather the people (one hesitates to call them scientists) who, when confronted with an interesting observation about an unusual event in nature, immediately conclude that the gods are angry with us, and we must all make sacrifices to appease them. At bottom, that seems to be what's going on with the true believers of Global Warming.

I agree with your three points, but I can't really accept the conclusion that you reach. Changes would cost money, and lead to substantial disruption in the western lifestyle. At the same time, though, there's no special reason to believe that any particular combination of changes by humans would have any effect, good or bad, on the climate. I've yet to see evidence that anyone understands the weather system enough to predict an outcome based on a given set of inputs. Until that can be done, we're just thrashing about blindly with good intentions. That leaves aside the entire question of whether our input is even capable of causing a global effect.

When I'm faced with a choice of wait and gather more data vs. embark on a disastrously expensive program that may possibly have a good or a bad effect, if it even has any effect at all, I'm inclined to wait and gather data.

 

[Anonymous]

When I'm faced with a choice of wait and gather more data vs. embark on a disastrously expensive program that may possibly have a good or a bad effect, if it even has any effect at all, I'm inclined to wait and gather data.

That's why we're screwed.

 

[intaglio]

...Changes would cost money,

As I said

and lead to substantial disruption in the western lifestyle.

Dubious, the Monetary economy is another robust chaotic system. In addition the Western lifestyle has survived wars, market crashes and pandemics.

At the same time, though, there's no special reason to believe that any particular combination of changes by humans would have any effect, good or bad, on the climate. I've yet to see evidence that anyone understands the weather system enough to predict an outcome based on a given set of inputs.

True as far as it goes, however it is possible to a previous set of inputs that seemed sustainable and if we are too far from near equilibrium for that to work CO2 and methane production can be easily brought back up to current rates

Until that can be done, we're just thrashing about blindly with good intentions.

Thrashing about with good intentions is surely better than thrashing about with no intentions. Sorry, I know that's a cheap shot

When I'm faced with a choice of wait and gather more data vs. embark on a disastrously expensive program that may possibly have a good or a bad effect, if it even has any effect at all, I'm inclined to wait and gather data.

What worries me about waiting to gather sufficient data is that by that time it would be too late. As for disasterously expensive I'm old enough to remember when the motor industry claimed that it would be disasterously expensive to introduce catalytic converters, or safety devices such as air bags, or cars that wouldn't explode when rammed up the tailgate. These are trivial examples in context but significant in that once publicity force legal changes the law forced the manufacturers into abandoning the old ways and still they made money.

 

[Breakfastologist]

But, if everything is going just fine theres no research money in it!!

There is plenty, just ask the Bush administration and the texas oil money that pay their wages. The consumption industry needs everything to be going fine in order to continue making more and more stuff for people to consume. This is particularly true of petroleum - a government-sanctioned rise in the price of petrol would probably result in an armed revolution in the us. Basically, for american culture to continue it needs enough research to prove that everything is going fine to outweigh the research from every other internationally respected source that states that things are getting worse and that climate change is a serious danger, or at least to sow enough doubt that it can justify it's blindfold approach to the global environment.

My feeling is that there was a point, probably somewhere between 1910 and 1930 when we could have easily averted the problems we now confront. There is too much momentum now, though. Too many people, too much money depending on atmospheric pollution. There is nothing we can do. I expect that the next world war will be a direct consequence of climate change destroying farmland and leaving a huge part of the world's population with nothing to eat and nothing to lose, hungry for someone to blame.

 

[Anonymous]

I expect that the next world war will be a direct consequence of climate change destroying farmland and leaving a huge part of the world's population with nothing to eat and nothing to lose, hungry for someone to blame.

The real money's on Water, or the lack of it, I'm afraid.

 

[Breakfastologist]

A good point - perhaps water will be less of a problem with so much less farmland to irrigate...

 

[tzb57r]

I have to agree. The water shortage is already upon us. In the Middle East the wall between Palestine and Israel is being diverted to include wells on the Israeli side. Egypt and it neighbours up-the-Nile may yet go to war over damming projects. The Red Sea has gone down by 10s of meters in the last 30 years. All over the world fossil water resources are being tapped via deep wells and modern drilling techniques. Last summer I was in the Sahara where large Oasis are now supported by deep drilling for ancient water that is not being replenished. c.f. the Sahara desert has been reducing in size over the last 50 years not expanding which is the conventional wisdom, so visit before its all gone.

Global warming may make this worse by increased surface evaporation but may also compensate by increased rainfall, but I rather think that ever increasing human demands on fresh water (Chemical Industry, irrigation, drinking for humans and domestic animals) will outstrip the effects of global warming in the next 20 years.
The UN have already highlighted the problems of fresh water in the middle east and North Africa but the Western powers have plenty of water and care little (certainly Scotland has too much fresh water in my opinion). While technology to produce fresh water from sea water may be developed in the short term (new Osmosis techniques, or distillation), both of these are energy intensive and not yet large scale techniques.

I believe that certain areas of the world will run out of water long before they run out of oil. While a man without a tank of petrol is pissed off, a man without a glass of clean water is a desperate man.

Personally, to conserve global water supplies, I am moving over to drinking nothing but lager.

 

[Pete Younger]

Personally, to conserve global water supplies, I am moving over to drinking nothing but lager.

I knew I was doing something right.

 

[FelixAntonius]

Personally, to conserve global water supplies, I am moving over to drinking nothing but lager.

I knew I was doing something right.

What's wrong with cyder????

A naturaly growing organic product????

HIC!!!!!:laughing:

 

[Anonymous]

What Tony Blair has to say.

PM gives dire warning on climate


Mr Blair wants to use Britain's G8 presidency to push for change
Urgent action is needed now to combat the world's "greatest environmental challenge" - global warming, the prime minister has said.
The effects of climate change would be felt within a generation unless action was taken now, he warned.

In a key speech delivered on Tuesday, he said the world's richest nations had a responsibility to "lead the way".

And he pledged that Britain would argue for aviation emissions to be brought in to EU emissions trading scheme.

But action could not be taken by one country alone he warned, as he set out government plans to tackle the issue during a speech to the Prince of Wales' Business and the Environment charity.

"No one nation alone can resolve it. It has no definable boundaries," he said.

There's no doubt that in my mind that the time to act is now

Tony Blair

"Short of international action commonly agreed and commonly followed through, it is hard even for a large country to make a difference on its own.

"But there is no doubt that the time to act is now.

"It is now that timely action can avert disaster. It is now that with foresight and will such action can be taken without disturbing the essence of our way of life, by adjusting behaviour, not altering it entirely," he said.

"There's no doubt that in my mind that the time to act is now.

"If there is one message I want to leave with you it is one of urgency," he said.


On Monday, Tory leader Michael Howard accused Mr Blair of squandering the chance to lead efforts against climate change.

'Lip service'

Chief scientist Sir David King said earlier this year that climate change was a bigger problem than the threat of terrorism.

The prime minister told the meeting he did not think the US Senate would ratify the Kyoto agreement on climate change.

But at the G8 summits, which Britain chairs next year, governments had to accept the scientific evidence explicitly and say how to take the process forward.


Parts of the UK have been affected by extreme weather this year

The prime minister also faces pressure to take action to push US President George Bush to take climate change seriously.

The US has yet to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol under which industrialised nations agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.

Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker said if Mr Blair was sincere he would scrap government plans for more roads and airport terminals.

Mr Baker asked: "How many hurricanes and tornadoes will it take for the prime minister to realise that paying lip service to the environment is just no use?"

Taken from BBC On-line. 14-9-2/4
Bill.

 

[Anonymous]

Things must be serious.

BBC News Online: Russia backs Kyoto climate treaty
Thursday, 30 September, 2004

The Russian government has approved the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and sent it to parliament for ratification.

Until now, Moscow has wavered over the treaty, which can only come into force with Russian ratification.

The Kyoto Protocol sets targets for greenhouse gas emissions, which many scientists believe cause global warming and climate change.

Moscow's decision was greeted with delight by the European Union and environmental campaigners.

The necessary law on ratification is set to pass through the Russian parliament unhindered and, in theory, the treaty could come into force within three months.

The lower house, the State Duma, is dominated by the pro-Putin United Russia party.

International support

European Commission spokesman Reijo Kemppinen said in remarks quoted by AFP news agency that he was confident the treaty would come into force "against many suspicions and some might say odds".

And UK Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett praised the Russian move as "a vital step forwards for global efforts to tackle climate change".

"It is the right thing for Russia, for Europe and for the global community."

Bryony Worthington of environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth expressed delight at the Russian decision.

"This is a hugely significant development politically and it will increase pressure on countries like the US and Australia, who have so far remained outside the only international agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions," she told the BBC.

"It has to be recognised that Kyoto is only the first step and discussions must begin immediately on what happens after Kyoto," she added.

Interfax news agency said that, according to the government decision, ministries linked to the environment had been given three months to work out a series of practical measures arising from Russia's obligations.

Change of heart

Since the US, the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, pulled out three years ago, the treaty has been dependent on Russian ratification. Russia accounts for 17% of world emissions.

President Putin ended the confusion over Russia's stance in May, when he spoke of his desire to see the treaty ratified.

But divisions remained among his aides.

His chief economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, said the treaty would stifle economic growth.

Kremlin economists have questioned how Russia could reduce greenhouse gas emissions when it is enjoying an industrial revival and has set itself the target of doubling GDP within a decade.

This week top Russian scientists advised against ratification, claiming there was no evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change.

But the deciding factor appears to be not the economic cost, but the political benefits for Russia, correspondents say.

In particular, there has been talk of stronger European Union support for Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization, in response to its ratification of the treaty.

 

[intaglio]

I'm no fan of nuclear power but I have the nastiest feeling that it is going to be the only way to bring CO2 levels down quickly enough