Four New Species of King Crabs Discovered

LiveScience Yahoo News 6 Dec 09;

Kings crabs are among the ocean's largest crustaceans, so you'd think scientists might know quite a bit about them.

As with much in the sea, however, there is much to learn.

In fact today researchers announced they'd found four new species of king crabs, brining the total known to 113.


The image shows Lithodes galapagensis, the only king crab species yet recorded from the seas around the Galapagos Islands. Credit: NOCS

Importantly, one of the new species lives around the Galapagos Islands, in warm water. King crabs had once been thought to be confined to chilly climes.

"We are only now beginning to understand the incredible diversity of animals living in the deep sea," said Sally Hall, a doctoral student at the University of Southampton and the discoverer of the new species.

"King crabs include some of the largest crustaceans currently inhabiting Earth," Hall said.

The new species are Paralomis nivosa from the Philippines, P. makarovi from the Bering Sea, P. alcockiana from South Carolina, and Lithodes galapagensis from the Galapagos archipelago.

It is now clear that species of deep-sea king crab live in most areas of the world's oceans, but many more species remain to be discovered.

"The oceans off eastern Africa, the Indian Ocean and the Southern Ocean are all particularly poorly sampled," said Hall: "We need to know which king crab species live where before we can fully understand their ecology and evolutionary success."

Read more!

Wolf recovery at crossroads in the Southwest

Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press Yahoo News 6 Dec 09;

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – A decade has passed since the federal government began returning endangered Mexican wolves to their historic range in the Southwest. It hasn't worked out — for the wolves, for ranchers, for conservationists or for federal biologists.

And that has resulted in frustration and resentment by many involved in the reintroduction program along the Arizona-New Mexico border, a landscape of sprawling pine and spruce forests, cold-water lakes and clear streams.

"I believe in being a good steward of the land and preserving it for generations to come, but this is ridiculous," said Ed Wehrheim, who heads the county commission in Catron County, in the heart of wolf country. "I've had ranchers' wives come to me just bawling because everything they and their parents have worked for is going down the drain."

Four ranches have gone out of business since the wolf reintroduction began and another four are expected to do the same before next summer, Wehrheim said.

The region has been hit by drought and cattle prices aren't what they used to be, but Wehrheim said pressure from environmentalists and hundreds of livestock kills by Mexican gray wolves over the past decade have only made things worse.

Environmentalists argue that grazing practices are part of the problem and the wolf reintroduction program has failed because of mismanagement by the federal government.

In the middle stands Bud Fazio, coordinator of the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction program.

The program is at a crossroads and Fazio said he hopes to bring everyone back to the table to find a way to move forward, quell concerns of critical environmentalists and gain the confidence of wary ranchers.

"One thing about wolves is they bring out extreme emotions and feelings and attitudes, so it is an extra challenge," he said. "There is some middle ground. There is some balance, but my sense is that so far we haven't found that in the Southwest and we need to."

A subspecies of the gray wolf, the Mexican wolf was exterminated in the wild by the 1930s. The government began reintroducing wolves in 1998 along the Arizona-New Mexico line, in a territory of more than 4 million acres interspersed with forests, private land and towns.

There are about 50 wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, but that's half of what biologists had hoped to have by now.

Federal, state and other officials involved in wolf recovery are scheduled to meet next week in Albuquerque for the first of many "frank discussions" about the future of the program, Fazio said.

Part of the reason for the talks is a recent settlement with environmentalists that called for an end to a three-strikes rule that allowed wildlife managers to trap or shoot wolves that had killed at least three head of livestock within a year.

The settlement also made clear that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has control over the program, rather than a committee formed in 2003 to bring other agencies into the recovery effort.

The original rule that established the reintroduction program still allows managers to remove problem wolves, but Fazio said officials will now consider many factors — such as the wolf's genetic value to the program and its reproductive success — before making decisions on keeping an animal in the wild.

"Everything remains on the table in terms of an option for managing wolves and that does include removal of live animals or lethal removal," Fazio said. "What is different is that a whole suite of things, broader than before, will be taken into account."

Wehrheim and the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association maintain the settlement changes nothing because the wolf program had already started to leave wolves with more than three strikes in the wild. They pointed to the Middle Fork pack, which was blamed for 10 livestock kills in two months.

The pack includes four pups and two adults, both of which are missing their front left paws.

Federal biologists say the pack is now hunting elk and relying less on strategically placed food caches.

Ranchers say that leaving the maimed wolves in the wild encourages them to go after easy prey such as calves.

"It's a problem of the program, not a problem of the wolf," Catron County Manager Bill Aymar said.

The Center for Biological Diversity also has been critical of the program, but the group believes the wolves should be left in the wild and critical habitat declared for the species to recover.

Wehrheim told New Mexico legislators in Santa Fe this week that ranchers in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona can't afford to live with the wolves if the program remains unchanged and the federal government's plan for compensating livestock losses goes unfunded.

"It's very, very serious for Catron County and all of the wolf recovery area," he said. "We don't see any ranching existing with the wolf. We don't see any hunting existing with the wolf. We're talking tens of millions of dollars of loss."

He gave the example of a third-generation ranch that harvested about 200 calves annually before going out of business earlier this year. The operation was capable of bringing in more than $1 million in tax and other revenues to the county.

Tod Stevenson, director of the New Mexico Game and Fish Department, testified that his agency and the state want to make sure Catron County and its ranchers can survive on the landscape.

"That's the best way that we can continue to manage wildlife, is to have them as partners out there on the ground," he said. "It's critical that we come up with a balance to achieve that."

Read more!

Species survival counts too

University of Queensland Science Alert 7 Dec 09;

Queensland researchers have unveiled a new strategy for saving the world's forests on the eve of crucial climate change talks in Copenhagen.

Published today in leading journal Science, the research suggests wealthy countries participate in a carbon payment system to encourage developing countries to keep their forests to avert a looming extinction crisis, in addition to avoiding dangerous climate change.

Experts from the University of Queensland and James Cook University assessed the ability to slow down species extinctions using both carbon-focused and biodiversity-focused strategies.

“We found that, dollar for dollar, a carbon-focused approach will contribute little to slowing biodiversity loss and save far fewer species than will a biodiversity-focused strategy that targets the most imperilled forests,” said lead author and the University of Queensland researcher Oscar Venter.

The study reveals if carbon payments focus narrowly on carbon and ignore threatened biodiversity, carbon-trading alone won't be enough to stave off large-scale extinctions of tropical species, according to co-author Dr Kerrie Wilson from the University of Queensland.

“The problem is that the Amazon basin in South America, where there's still quite a lot of surviving forest, is the cheapest place to reduce emissions, but threatened species are concentrated in countries like Madagascar and the Philippines, where only a few scraps of forest remain,” said co-author Professor William Laurance from James Cook University.

Fortunately, the authors found that a compromise is possible.

“If you tweak things a little, putting some carbon funds into countries that are good value for carbon but also biodiversity-rich, like Cameroon and the Philippines, you can save twice as many threatened species and still do a great deal to combat global warming,” said co-author and director of the University of Queensland's Ecology Centre Professor Hugh Possingham.

Mr Venter said billions of dollars will be spent on forest carbon initiatives in the next decade, and these could hold huge benefits for vanishing ecosystems and wildlife if engineered in the right way.

The team's findings are expected to draw much attention at the forthcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen, where international leaders are hoping to hammer out a final strategy for combating global warming.

Read more!

Earth Checkup: 10 Signs of the Planet's Health

livescience.com Yahoo News 6 Dec 09;

With world leaders gathering at a U.N. summit in Copenhagen to brainstorm ways to quash increasing temperatures and hold back rising seas, LiveScience takes a look at the state of Earth's ecosystems and its inhabitants - from polar bears to us. Here are 10 signs of how well (and not-so-well) our planet is doing.

10. Arctic Meltdown

After dramatic meltdowns in recent summers that have left Arctic ice thinner than in the past, some scientists are increasingly worried about the future survival of Arctic sea ice. One recent study estimated that Arctic waters could be ice free during the summer in as few as 30 years, much sooner than previous estimates. Such catastrophic melt could reinforce the global warming trend and further imperil Arctic residents, from humans to narwhals and polar bears, which were first listed as an Endangered Species in May 2008.

9. Collapsing Antarctic Ice

Antarctica has seen its share of melt as well: In April, an ice bridge believed to pin the Wilkins Ice Shelf in place snapped. Wilkins is one of nine Antarctic ice shelves that have receded or collapsed in recent decades - the most dramatic collapses were those of the Larsen A and B shelves, which abruptly crumbled in 1995 and 2002, respectively. Most of the dramatic melting has occurred in the Antarctic Peninsula, the only part of the southernmost continent that juts north of the Antarctic Circle. In contrast, the interior of the frozen continent was thought to be cooling, but earlier this year, new research suggested that these vast ice sheets are also experiencing warming, though the trend has so far been masked by the cooling influence of the ozone hole. The 47 countries that have ratified an agreement called the Antarctic Treaty have agreed to tourism limits to protect the continent's fragile ecosystems.

8. Ozone Hole Recovery

It's been more than 20 years since scientists discovered the gaping hole in the ozone layer, which normally protects Earth's denizens from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. Since then efforts to ban or reduce the chemicals that eat away at the ozone in the stratosphere have initiated the gradual recovery of the hole. This recovery will take decades, though, because these pollutants hang around for a long time. So far the ozone hole over Antarctica has remained about the same size, fluctuating year to year with changes in wind circulation patterns. While it will still take some time for the ozone hole to recover, if countries hadn't acted to ban ozone-destroying substances, the situation could have been much worse.

7. Ocean Dead Zone Expansion

For years now, so-called oceanic dead zones - pockets of the sea where oxygen is so depleted that many fish, crustaceans and other aquatic species can't survive, such as in the Gulf of Mexico - have been a growing concern. These suffocating spaces are primarily formed when fertilizer runoff pours in from rivers and promotes algae blooms that eat up all the oxygen as they die and decompose. Controlling fertilizer runoff could improve the situation fairly quickly. But some studies have suggested that increased crop growth for producing biofuels could send more fertilizer running downstream.

6. Corals in Crisis

Coral reefs, sometimes called the "rainforests of the ocean," are critical marine habitats. But reefs from the Caribbean to the Great Barrier Reef have been under pressure in recent decades from overfishing, pollution, disease, warming waters and ocean acidification. Ocean waters become more acidic as they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As the water becomes more acidic, it dissolves the minerals used by corals and other animals to build their skeletons. A 2007 study found that this stressor alone could make most current coral habitats too acidic for reef growth by 2050. And so the outcome of the climate summit in Copenhagen, where great minds are hashing out ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions among other issues, will have implications for the survival of the world's coral reefs.

5. Vanishing Forests

On land, the actual rainforests aren't fairing much better, thanks in large part to deforestation. Forested areas, particularly rainforests, are key areas of biodiversity. They also absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, and so clearing such trees could boost greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, the rate of deforestation is about 32 million acres a year, or 36 football fields a minute. This amount of forest clearing generates nearly 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund). One verdant sign: Fewer trees were cut down in the Brazilian Amazon this year than since record-keeping began in 2000, according to the WWF. Even so, the Amazon did lose swaths of forest, just not as much. Asia and Africa have seen rising rates of deforestation. Forests in the United States and Europe are fairing better, as reforestation has occurred in the last decade.

4. Water Stress

It's essential to life as we know it, and though the planet's surface is two-thirds water, pollution is making it unsuitable for the humans who drink it and the animals that live in it. The effects of global warming are also altering the patterns of water availability for drinking and agriculture: Already arid regions will likely get drier, and rising sea levels could force salty sea water into normally freshwater aquifers. Some scientists say western U.S. water supplies are already being impacted by climate change and that policy advisors need to set better management practices. Depending on where they are grown, the crops used to make biofuels could stress local water supplies.

3. Atmospheric Buildup

This year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, paving the way for regulations of emissions. Some companies and nations have already pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but many of these goals have not been met. That and the rapid pace of development in countries like China and India have kept levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases rising globally, and at a faster rate than in previous years. China leads all nations in total emissions, but the United States is still number one in emissions per capita. Many proposals for cap-and-trade systems, methods for trapping carbon dioxide emissions underground and alternative forms of energy have been put forward, but it's up to governments and other groups to put them into action.

2. Animals in Peril

As wild lands are plowed over, built upon or otherwise altered, the animals and plants that dwell there also come under pressure. In fact, the 2009 Red List of Threatened Species issued by the World Conservation Union identified more than 17,000 species threatened with extinction out of the nearly 48,000 assessed.

Tigers, elephants, rhinos, and several species of primates are known victims of habitat change - and poaching - in Africa and Asia. Frog populations across the globe have been decimated by the spread of a deadly fungus. In the oceans, sharks, whales, dolphins and some species of fish are also hurting. The news isn't all bad, as many bird populations are recovering thanks to the ban on DDT. Polar bears were placed on the Endangered Species List last year, which means they will have protection under the Endangered Species Act. On the other end of the Earth, however, new studies have found that penguins are also in peril due to a combination of changes in climate, overfishing and pollution.

1. Humans Impacted

While we are the significant force behind much of the change to Earth's systems, those effects can come back and impact us through our health and changing environmental conditions that we must adapt to. This feedback will be magnified as human populations continue to grow. In 2007, the world population passed the 6 billion mark. That year also marked the first time in human history that more people were living in urban settings than rural areas. All 6 billion of us must compete for limited resources, including water, food and fuel. Some scientists say that we have already reached the limits of what our planet can support and that we need to curb population growth for the health of our species and the planet.

Read more!

Dubai debt woes may cut CO2 but much more needed

Andrew Newby Yahoo News 6 Dec 09;

DUBAI (AFP) – Dubai's debt crisis may make a small dent in its greenhouse gas emissions but the Gulf emirate faces an enormous task to cut carbon to the levels to be proposed at the UN climate summit starting this week.

Dubai and the rest of the United Arab Emirates have the world's highest per capita carbon footprint according to the authoritative WWF Living Planet report, which says the federation must slash them 75 percent to be sustainable.

"Dubai is quite simply an environmental catastrophe," John Foster, a British Green Party member who worked in Dubai for three years and a half years, told AFP.

"Dubai is the epitome of unsustainable living at a time when 'sustainability' is the word on world leaders' lips as they gather in Copenhagen to set out a global road map to combat climate change," said Foster, former editor of Banker Middle East.

The WWF's most recent version of its study found that an average of around 9.5 hectares (23.5 acres) of land per person were needed to provide the resources and waste facilities used by people in the UAE, slightly more than the amount taken up by Americans, the second worst offenders.

If the world's resources are not to run out, the average global requirement must be reduced below 2.1 hectares (5.2 acres) per person, the campaign said in the biennial analysis issued in late 2008.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wants developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas production at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit).

Masood Ahmed, the International Monetary Fund's Middle East chief, told the Financial Times last week that the Dubai economy could contract again in 2010 after Dubai World's shock request for a six month halt to debt payments.

Phil Dickie, WWF international news editor, said the global downturn has led to a reduction in CO2 emissions in some industrial countries and "we would expect something similar" if Dubai's debt moratorium sparks a deceleration of the local economy.

However, while agreeing that the UAE has a lot of work to do, he said the UAE's rulers are fully aware of the problem and are taking action.

"We are actually cooperating with them and a former member of the WWF staff has gone to work on the Masdar project," Dickie told AFP.

The Masdar Initiative, launched by the government of Dubai's neighbouring emirate Abu Dhabi, is splashing out 22 billion dollars to build the world's first carbon neutral city.

Spread over 6.5 square kilometres (2.5 square miles), Masdar City is scheduled to house 55,000 people when ready in 2015 and will run totally on renewable energy.

Despite its rulers' environmental concerns, the UAE sold oil worth more than 100 billion dollars last year, making it the second biggest exporter in the OPEC cartel, only behind Saudi Arabia.

In June, Abu Dhabi won an international vote to host the new International Renewable Energy Agency after it promised loans worth 50 million dollars a year to promote the use of renewable energy in developing countries.

"Many see a contradiction between us being one of the largest oil exporters in the world and our seeking to house the agency," Reem al-Hashemi, a state minister, told AFP at the time.

"On the contrary, this confirms the commitment of a fossil fuel exporter to the enhancement of renewable energy. Since we export energy, we want to export all kinds of it," she added.

"The UAE is committed to environmental issues as a top priority," Hashemi said.

In September, classes started at the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, billed as the world's first graduate academic institution dedicated to research into alternative energy, environmental technologies and sustainability.

Dubai's own efforts to reduce its carbon emissions are centred on practical measures within the city. A metro rail line opened in September, the first in the Gulf Arab region, and another is under construction.

It is also building a one billion dollar tram line, which, among other stops, will link the metro network to the monorail which runs up the trunk of Dubai's iconic Palm Jumeirah tree-shaped island resort.

But Foster, who stood for the Green Party in the London constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow in the last British general election, is unconvinced.

"It's window-dressing, PR and spin, which Dubai is a master of. People will not use the metro over their 4x4s, partly because of the status of the 4x4, which has become the modern-day equivalent of a thoroughbred Arabian stallion.

"Dubai is the city of excess in every sense of the word. You can see this as you drive from the airport past manicured lawns and the grand greens of Emirates Golf Course, all soaked in water -- water that has been reclaimed at great expense in a wholly unsustainable way.

"You can see this as you drive past the unregulated construction of hordes of towers on your way to 'New Dubai' which has been reclaimed from the sea, but at the cost of a rare coral reef."

Read more!

Coal throbs at the heart of India growth engine

Reuters 7 Dec 09;

KORBA, India (Reuters) - A thin coat of coal dust covers everything from trees to houses in Korba, a coal mining town in central India which lies at the heart of the country's struggle to balance economic growth with climate change concerns.

Green Business

The air is heavy with smoke and dust spewing out of numerous mines and power plants in a region that powers hundreds of factories in the country's industrial west and lights up millions of homes.

Although India has announced a new climate plan which identifies renewable energy such as solar power as key elements, coal remains the backbone of energy supply in a country where almost half the 1.1 billion population still has no electricity.

"Coal-fired power will stay for the next 20-25 years at least," said R.D. Sonkar, chief engineer at one of Korba's many thermal power stations.

"Look at the high cost of solar and wind energy. Can we afford? Power from renewable energy will have to wait, I think."

As the world meets in Copenhagen for crucial negotiations on a global pact to fight climate change, part of the debate will be on how developing countries such as India tackle the use of fossil fuel without hampering their growth.

India, the world's fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter though still low on per-capita emissions, is under pressure to cut pollution to battle climate change while demand for power increases as its middle class clamors for more cars, TVs and housing.

India set a goal on Thursday for slowing the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions, saying it was willing to rein in its "carbon intensity" -- the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted per unit of economic output -- by between 20 and 25 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels.

ECONOMIC ENGINE

The big emerging economies have often insisted that rich nations have caused global warming by spewing out greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution, and want to see deep cuts by these rich nations before joining the effort.

Current global pacts do not require developing nations to cut emissions, but rich countries are obliged to do so.

The December 7-18 U.N. talks in the Danish capital are aimed at settling a legally binding deal after arguments between rich and poor nations about who should cut emissions, by how much and who should pay.

As the world discusses the implications of climate change and plans to cut emissions, experts say it is coal towns such as Korba that will shape India's efforts to eradicate poverty.

"There is a lot of focus on clean coal and super critical technology to increase efficiency, but coal will remain central," said Sunita Narain, member of the prime minister's council on climate change.

"There are two aspects -- affordability of coal in a country where there is a lot of poverty and large-scale generation that is required to reach power to a huge portion of the population."

Coal is seen as the solution to India's power shortage, a daunting barrier to development in a country where massive rural poverty means people cannot afford costly electricity produced from renewable sources.

Last year, the country faced a 16.6 percent shortfall during hours of peak consumption and a 9.9 percent gap for energy generation, World Bank figures show.

The country has 10 percent of the world's coal reserves, the biggest after the United States, Russia and China, but it also imported about 70 million metric tons of high grade coal this fiscal year, mostly for making steel.

The country plans to add 78.7 gigawatts of power generation during the five years ending March 2012, most of it from coal, which now accounts for about 60 percent of India's energy mix.

RENEWABLES

In comparison, renewables such as wind, solar and bio-mass contribute only 8.8 percent to generation and, though there are plans to scale up solar power generation to 20 gigawatts by 2022, it depends on international finance and technology.

A landmark nuclear deal with the United States may herald a new chapter in clean energy in India, but long gestation periods for nuclear reactors and high cost are a deterrent.

Even if the country is on track with its renewable energy plans, coal will still account for about 55 percent of its power supply by 2030, according to Indian government figures.

"Clearly, it's not a question of choice for India. Coal will remain at the core but what will change is there will be more thrust on clean coal technology," said Ashok Sharma, climate change expert at Halcrow Consulting India.

India issued a national climate change policy last year, identifying renewable energy like solar power, and energy efficiency as key elements.

Already, its carbon and energy use per unit of GDP are both below that of the United States and China. And India had only about 12 vehicles per 1,000 people in 2007 compared to over 800 in the United States.

India's industrial electricity tariffs are, on average, the highest in the world, a measure aimed at deterring wastage.

"India's focus is a combination of improved coal, enhanced efficiency, some use of gas, solar and wind power ... eventually it's about positioning yourself for the future technology," said Nitin Desai, one of the architects of India's climate policy.

"You can't immediately say I won't use coal -- you have to look at the balance of energy security."

(Additional reporting by Sujeet Kumar; Editing by Sugita Katyal)

Read more!

India's climate change dilemma

Just as its economy powers ahead, it is told to curb the engines of growth
Ravi Velloor, South Asia Bureau Chief Straits Times 7 Dec 09;

For thousands of years, Indians lived their lives in close proximity to nature, their rhythms set by the life-giving monsoons.

Cow dung cakes, brushwood and coconut shells served as fuel for their hearths. Industrialisation was slow and limited to pockets such as Kolkata, Kanpur, Chennai and Mumbai until the latter half of the 20th century.

Mahatma Gandhi, the father of Indian independence, pointedly wove his own coarse homespun garments, encouraging his flock to work on self-sufficiency and cut dependence on industrial goods. If ever a country lived by the dictum that 'small is beautiful', it was India.

That India is rapidly vanishing.

Consumer goods produced are seeping into its 600,000 villages, breaching the dykes put up by the Mahatma.

Importing far more than they export, India's growing appetite for industrial goods is helping economies in Asia, Europe and the American continent. Meanwhile, a ballooning population is pressing on its resources, from water to coal and foodgrain.

Now, when its accelerating economy is poised to lift the lives of millions from poverty, India is being told to curb the smokestacks and wheels driving its growth. And this, when 76 million Indian homes do not yet have electricity connections.

The country's carbon footprint, at 1.1 tonnes per capita, is a third of China's and one-twentieth that of the United States, comparisons that draw rage in this country when its people are told they have to curb their emissions.

So far, India's political class has stood firm against the pressure. But it is not easy to ignore friends such as US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Last week, New Delhi shifted a tiny inch from its rigid stance, setting the first targets as it announced an intention to trim its carbon intensity by as much as a quarter by the year 2020.

'We will, on our own, cut emission intensity by 20 per cent to 25 per cent if we get support from the international community,' Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told Parliament last Thursday. The target, he said, would be voluntary and non-binding.

India is sending Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the most senior figure in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Cabinet, as its top negotiator to Copenhagen.

Dr Singh himself confirmed at the weekend that he will be there, probably for the final two days, Dec 17 and 18.

But Indian officials say that while the country wants to be seen as a deal maker and not a deal breaker, much of the success of the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference will depend on how much and how far rich nations will travel to assist the developing countries.

'Unless we have a substantial amount of financial resources put on the table and effective mechanisms for transfer of climate friendly technologies to developing countries, it would be very difficult to

really think in terms of a very substantive outcome,' says Mr Shyam Saran, Dr Singh's special envoy on climate change. 'These things are interlinked.'

In some ways, even as it resists the pressure publicly, officials here privately do not mind the global pressure to improve environmental standards.

Politicians are fully aware of the environmental challenges.

Just take the issue of sea level rise alone. India has a 7,600km coastline, and areas such as the Hooghly delta in the east and Kutch in the west are particularly vulnerable. But ministers are also aware of the unpopularity that doing right sometimes entails.

Take national capital New Delhi. Drawing strength from an order of the Supreme Court some years ago, the Delhi government ordered all trishaws and buses in the city to move to using liquefied natural gas. Polluting industries were relocated out of the capital.

Delhi-wallahs can now see starry skies again because the polluting haze that darkened the skies has vanished.

So, they happily welcome the opportunity to shift the blame somewhere else, and external pressure is a handy excuse.

Officially, India says it will guarantee only this - that at no point in time will its per capita emissions exceed that of the average in developed countries. But that is pure grandstanding and a maximum position from which it will certainly recede.

For instance, India has already dropped the demand that the developed world cut its emissions by 40 per cent by 2020.

'I am not theological about this,' says Environment Minister Ramesh. 'One has to be realistic. The PM's orders to me are to be constructive...Make sure there is an agreement.'

Where India thinks it can fix things, there is movement. Indian cars are built to European emission standards, and there are plans to raise the bar for more fuel efficient vehicles.

A dedicated rail freight corridor is being built across the breadth of the country that can move thousands of tonnes of freight far more efficiently than the polluting diesel trucks.

Meanwhile, it claims to have one of the most pro-active plans for a greener future, including a target of generating 22,000MW of electricity from solar power in 12 years.

Between 1990 and 2005, carbon intensity was reduced by 17 per cent, or about 1 per cent annually. Now, it will be further reduced by between 1.2 per cent and 1.5 per cent annually until 2020.

'In this respect, the domestic target will be important and must be supported,' New Delhi's Centre for Science and Environment, a private think-tank, said in a statement at the weekend.

Indian officials think slashing carbon intensity by as much as a third is do-able, even as they may not be able to cut total emissions.

'Energy inefficiencies in our industry are endemic,' says Mr D. Raghunandan, secretary of the Delhi Science Forum.

He says the real difficulty is not with the big polluters, but the hundreds of thousands of small-scale units.

'They just won't have the funds to acquire and shift to greener technologies,' he says.

Read more!

Can drivers be persuaded to go green?

Marc Cieslak, BBC News 4 Dec 09;

Green cars powered by alternative fuel sources have become more visible on the roads in recent years.

One cause could be the introduction of legislation and higher taxes to penalise drivers of gas-guzzling vehicles by governments around the world.

But another factor is an increase in the range of eco-friendly cars on offer. These include hybrids with a combination of petrol engines and electric motors, fully battery-powered electric vehicles and even experimental ones running on algae.

Japanese automotive giants, in particular, have been stepping up their manufacturing of environmentally-friendly cars.

Lack of infrastructure

Mitsubishi is the first to mass produce an electric car which is expected to be available for sale in Europe next year.

The firm has produced the i-Meiv which is based on an existing petrol car widely available in Japan.

The green model has seen the petrol engine replaced with an electric motor, while a lithium-ion battery is stored underneath the cabin area and also stabilises the car.

Heavy batteries can reduce the performance of a green car by weighing it down and making it slower.

The batteries can also take up to eight hours to fully charge, so these cars are a long way away from being as convenient as a quick stop at the local petrol station.

Andrew Davis, director of the UK's Environmental Transport Association (ETA), told Click that currently eco-friendly vehicles lack an infrastructure to supply them with fuel.

Although he points out that there is a practical alternative.

"Electric cars have the advantage that the infrastructure is there in the houses - people are able to drive the car onto their own drives to charge it quite easily," he said.

Free charging

Quick charging stations across Japan are attempting to speed up the fuelling time - they can charge about three quarters of the Mitsubishi i-Meiv's battery in 30 minutes for a range of around 80 miles.

Electric cars are mostly designed as city cars, but Tokyo's urban commuters have just a handful of electric charging stations.

The city is lagging behind some Western cities, such as London where there are 200 charging stations.

One Japanese chain of convenience stores is working to increase the number of charging stations with the help of local government.

Lawson stores are piloting a free charging scheme, and it runs and fuel its own fleet of electric commercial vehicles.

"In the future maybe the use of electric cars will be more widespread… that's why we are trying to introduce more charging stations," said Yuji Katayama from the store chain.

Japan is leading the way when it comes to some new technologies.

Wireless transfer

Engineers at Wasada University are collaborating with Showa Aircraft Industry on a project to replace plug-in charging stations completely.

They have adapted an electric city car to charge its batteries wirelessly through inductive charging - electromagnetic fields are used to transfer energy from the base station to the vehicle's battery.

Similar technology is found in small devices like electric toothbrushes.

The project envisages that charging plates would be placed in parking bays, or even on buses which could refuel as they allow passengers on and off.

Hydrogen fuel cells

Toyota has produced a family-sized car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. Mixing hydrogen and oxygen creates electricity to power a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, and its only emission is water.

The cars are refuelled at a hydrogen pump, but these are as yet very scarce.

Fuel suppliers will have to invest heavily in a hydrogen infrastructure before consumers feel the vehicles are a viable option according to Andrew Davies at ETA.

"Those sorts of technologies could be used by the bus sector and the truck sector," he said.

"It might then trickle down to the private user for the private car, but we will have to see it worked in the commercial sector first," he predicted.

Watch Click on the BBC News Channel, Saturday 5 December, 11.00 (GMT).

Read more!

Public worldwide wants action on climate change: poll

Yahoo News 7 Dec 09;

LONDON (AFP) – Most people worldwide believe climate change is a very serious problem that their governments must tackle, a poll said Monday, as the landmark Copenhagen summit on the issue was set to get under way.

However the poll of more than 24,000 people also showed concern about rising global temperatures from man-made emissions has dropped in the United States and China -- the world's two biggest polluters.

Sixty-four percent of people think climate change is a "very serious" problem, up from 44 percent of those polled in 1998, according to the GlobeScan survey conducted for Britain's BBC World Service.

"The poll shows strong worldwide support for action on climate change, in spite of the recession," GlobeScan chairman Doug Miller said.

"However, the mixed opinions in the United States and China suggest leadership in Copenhagen may need to come from others," he said.

Despite the global economic downturn, 61 percent worldwide support government investment to address the issue, even if it meant that it harmed their national economy, the poll conducted in 23 countries said.

In the US and China, the largest emitters of carbon dioxide, support for government action is high, with 89 percent in communist China and 52 percent in the US.

But serious concern for the issue in these countries has fallen from 50 percent in the US in 2007 to 45 percent this year, and from 59 percent to 57 percent in China -- both below the worldwide average.

Concern in rising power India is also below average at 45 percent, along with Australia (58 percent), where legislation on a carbon-trading scheme has twice been rejected in parliament.

The poll comes as talks in Copenhagen are set to start Monday, gathering 192 nations under the flag of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Its task is to craft a global pact that will dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions -- invisible gases that trap solar heat and warm the atmosphere, interfering with Earth's delicate climate system.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon voiced optimism Sunday that the crunch talks would lead to binding limits for harmful emissions, but experts warn of major stumbling blocks as countries wrangle over the burden-sharing.

According to the poll, 44 percent of people -- and majorities in 10 of the 23 countries polled -- want their government to "play a leading role in setting ambitious targets to address climate change" in Copenhagen.

Some 39 percent think their government should "adopt a more moderate approach and support only gradual action."

And six percent want their government to oppose any agreement.

Support for government action is relatively high in Europe, including 62 percent in Britain, 57 percent in France and 55 percent in Germany.

Canada (61 percent), Australia, (57 percent), Japan (also 57 percent) and Brazil (53 percent) also favour strong leadership on the issue.

In the US, 46 percent want strong action -- outstripped by people wanting moderate action (36 percent) or opposition to any agreement (14 percent).

The poll of 24,071 people was conducted between June 19 and October 13.

World concerns about climate change dwindle: survey
Reuters 7 Dec 09;

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - World concern about climate change has fallen in the past two years, according to an opinion poll on Sunday, the eve of 190-nation talks in Copenhagen meant to agree a U.N. deal to fight global warming.

Green Business

The Nielsen/Oxford University survey showed that 37 percent of more than 27,000 Internet users in 54 countries said they were "very concerned" about climate change, down from 41 percent in a similar poll two years ago.

"Global concern for climate change cools off," the Nielsen Co. said of the poll, taken in October. It linked the decline to the world economic slowdown.

In the United States, the number two emitter after China and the only industrialized nation outside the U.N.'s existing Kyoto Protocol for curbing emissions, the number of those very concerned fell to 25 percent from 34.

President Barack Obama wants to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, and plans to join more than 100 world leaders in Copenhagen at the end of the December 7-18 meeting to try to reach a new U.N. deal.

China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, was among few nations surveyed where the number of people very concerned rose, to 36 from 30 percent.

The survey indicated the highest levels of concern were in Latin America and Asian-Pacific countries, topped by the Philippines on 78 percent which was struck by Typhoon Ketsana in September. The poll did not cover most of Africa.

Those least concerned by global warming, blamed on human emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, were mainly in eastern Europe. Estonia was bottom with just 10 percent saying they were very concerned.

Jonathan Banks, Business Insights Director Europe of the Nielsen Co., said that worries about climate change may now be picking up with the focus on Copenhagen.

"Economic woes temporarily knocked the climate change issue off the top line agenda, but as the recession is now beginning to recede, we expect the Copenhagen summit to push this important issue to the front again," he said.

Worldwide, air and water pollution followed by climate change were the top three environmental concerns for the world population, the survey found.

(Editing by Matthew Jones)

Read more!

Climate pledges 'put world on track for 3.5 C rise'

Marlowe Hood Yahoo News 6 Dec 09;

PARIS (AFP) – Current pledges from rich and developing nations for cutting carbon pollution will stoke potentially catastrophic warming by century's end, according to a study released on Sunday on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.

National commitments proposed so far for the December 7-18 UN conference would mean the global temperature would rise by 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times, way over a 2.0 C (3.6 F) threshold widely considered safe, the study said.

The study said concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) would hit about 650 parts per million (ppm), according to the tally published by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and energy specialists Ecofys.

"The pledges on the table will not halt emissions growth before 2040, let alone by 2015 as indicated by the IPCC [the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and are far from halving emissions by 2050 as has been called for by the G8," said Niklas Hoehne of Ecofys.

"Instead, global emissions are likely to be nearly double 1990 levels by 2040 based on present pledges."

The Copenhagen conference gathers the 192-member UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Its task is to craft a global pact that will dramatically reduce man-made carbon emissions -- invisible gases that trap solar heat and warm the atmosphere, interfering with Earth's delicate climate system.

Hoehne said that pledges by developed countries so far were currently projected to be 13 to 19 percent below 1990 levels.

But forest credits that these countries are likely to claim against their emission target would lower this contribution by around five percent.

The IPCC, the UN's panel of climate scientists, says cuts of around 25-40 percent reductions by industrialized countries by 2020 from 1990 levels would be needed to achieve the 2 C (3.6 F) target.

For developing countries, emissions cuts of 15 to 30 percent by 2020 against "business-as-usual" scenarios are needed to avoid crossing the 2 C (3.6 F) threshold.

Voluntary promises by China to make gains in energy efficiency and vows, also non-binding, by Brazil and Indonesia to tackle deforestation, will be a big help, said the paper.

Overall, developing country emissions are projected to be close to the IPCC range, it added.

In contrast, a report issued Sunday by climate economist Nicholas Stern and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) concluded that closing the "emissions gap" could be somewhat easier than thought.

"Existing proposals from developed and developing countries constitute a big step towards a level consistent with the 2 C (3.6 F) goal," which would require that CO2 emissions stay under 44 billion tonnes in 2020, their report said.

"Taking countries' highest intentions would take the world to around 46 billion tonnes (of carbon)," meaning that only a two-billion-tonne shortfall would have to be bridged.

To achieve this, though, "would require governments over the next two weeks and over the next few years to match words with deeds, and ambition with actions," Stern said.

"If they do, we could embark on the most dynamic and creative period of the world's economic history, an new energy and industrial revolution."

Read more!

Climate: CO2 unleashes more warming than thought: study

Richard Ingham Yahoo News 6 Dec 09;

PARIS (AFP) – Carbon dioxide indirectly causes up to 50 percent more global warming than originally thought, a finding that raises questions over targets for stabilising carbon emissions over the long term, a study said on Sunday.

In a paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience, British scientists said a tool commonly used in climate modelling may have badly underlooked the sensitivity of key natural processes to the warming caused by CO2.

As a result, calculations for man-made global warming on the basis of carbon emissions may be underpitched by between 30 and 50 percent, they said.

The study was coincidentally published on the eve of a 12-day UN conference in Copenhagen aimed at providing a durable solution to the greenhouse-gas problem.

The authors stressed that the more-than-expected warming would unfold over a matter of hundreds of years, rather than this century.

The findings do not mean that the predictions for temperature rise by 2100, established notably by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), should be rewritten, they said.

"We don't want to be overly alarmist here," said lead author Dan Lunt of Britain's University of Bristol.

"But if people are thinking about stabilising CO2 at a certain atmospheric level, or putting together a treaty, or having a debate about what the levels should be, it really is important to know what the long-term consequences of those emissions are going to be, because CO2 hangs around for so long."

Lunt and colleagues decided to test a widely-used climate model on an epoch called the mid-Pliocene warm period, about three million years ago, when Earth heated up in response to natural processes.

Cores drilled from ocean sediment provide a good idea about atmospheric carbon levels and temperature at the time.

What the team found, though, was that the CO2 levels in the Pliocene -- around 400 parts per million (ppm) -- were not consistent with the warming, which was around three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than today.

The difference could only be fully explained by the long-term loss of icesheets and and changes in vegetation, says the paper. These changes cause Earth's surface to absorb more solar radiation, which causes more warming, and so on.

When applied to what awaits us this century, the adjusted model suggests that nothing significantly different will happen compared to what has already been estimated.

"In that time scale, we don't think the Greenland icesheet is going to melt completely or that East Antarctica will melt. That was what we saw in the model for three million years ago, but it is unlikely to take place in the next century," said Lunt.

Where it poses a dilemma, though, is how to fix a target for stabilising CO2 emissions so that future generations, centuries from now, are not hit by this long-term warming mechanism.

A popular goal is to limit warming since pre-industrial times to 2 C (3.6 F), a figure that in mainstream climate models typically equates to about 450 ppm. At present, Earth's CO2 concentrations are at around 387 ppm.

Lunt says that today's level may already be too high in this context.

"Our work says that at 400 parts per million, you are looking at more than two degrees C [3.6 F].

"To stabilise at two degrees C, you would have to aim for something like 380 ppm. But remember, this is the sort of level that applies if you want a long-term commitment that goes on for centuries, for generations to come."

Read more!

Greenhouse gas cuts just 'token gestures'

Copenhagen won't prevent disaster, warns top scientist
Michael McCarthy, The Independent 7 Dec 09;

The cuts in greenhouse gas emissions being proposed at the Copenhagen climate conference, which opens today, are completely inadequate to stop dangerous climate change, one of Britain’s leading climate scientists warns.

Current proposals, including recent ones from major emitting nations such as the US, China and India, are “little more than token gestures”, compared to what the science deems necessary to give even a 50-50 chance of staying below the danger threshold, says Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester.

Writing in The Independent today, Professor Anderson cautions that with the commitments currently on the table in Copenhagen, global emissions of carbon dioxide will peak far too late for temperature rises to stay below two degrees Centigrade above the pre-industrial level, which is regarded as the limit that the earth and human society can safely stand.

Instead, they are likely to put the world on a disastrous trajectory for four degrees or even higher.

Nations must now make much more radical commitments, he says, even if it means sacrificing economic growth.

Professor Anderson is one of the world’s leading experts on CO2 emissions rates, and his comments represent a sobering reality check about just how great is the task which the world now faces in bringing global warming under control.

The meeting in the Danish capital, which lasts for the next two weeks and will be attended in its final stages by most of the world’s leaders including President Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, will attempt to construct a new climate treaty under which all countries will eventually cut back their CO2.

In the run-up to the conference, most of the world’s biggest carbon emitters, led by China and the USA, and including the European Union and Britain, have “put numbers on the table” indicating the reductions they are prepared to make, if negotiations are successful in the round.

The targets announced for the first time in the last fortnight by America, China and India, in particular, have been regarded as a considerable step forward.

But the sum of all the commitments is simply inadequate for the point where emissions peak as a whole and then start to decline to come early enough, Professor Anderson says.

The date of the emissions peak is increasingly seen as a vital point in checking the progress of the warming.

Last year, the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for climate prediction and research said that if global emissions peaked in 2015 or 2016 and then declined annually at a rate of four per cent, there would be a 50-50 chance – but no more than that – of keeping the rise in temperatures to two degrees, the goal upon which much of the world’s climate policy is premised.

For every ten years that the peak was delayed, the Hadley Centre said, the world would be committed to another 0.5 of a degree of warming.

Professor Anderson points out that there is a widespread assumption that an emissions peak might come relatively early, but asserts that the political and economic will to bring this about is actually absent.

He writes: “For example, the [Lord] Stern and the [UK] Committee on Climate Change reports are premised on global emissions reaching their highest levels by 2015 and 2016 respectively, before beginning a process of year-on-year reductions.”

He goes on: “However, amongst those working on climate change there is near universal acknowledgment that such early peaking years are politically unacceptable – yet the Stern and the CCC analyses remain pivotal in the formation of emission-reduction policy.

“The statements by the US, China and India, allied with commitments from other nations, suggest peaking global emissions between 2020 and 2030 is about as hard as the economic and political orthodoxy is prepared to push in terms of emission reductions.

“If peaking global emissions between 2020 and 2030 is left unquestioned, the cumulative quantity of greenhouse gases emitted will be sufficient to put temperatures on a 4 degrees C or higher trajectory.”

In recent years, emissions have shot up in a way no-one expected even a decade ago, largely owing to the breakneck industrialisation of China, which doubled its CO2 output over the decade from 3bn to 6 bn tonnes, and in doing so overtook the US as the world’s biggest polluter. Currently global carbon emissions are rising by nearly three per cent annually, making a four per cent annual decline as tall order indeed, and one that the present Copenhagen commitments would not remotely be able to facilitate.

There has to be a move to a radical new level of emissions cuts, Professor Anderson says, if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.

He writes: “If Copenhagen is to have any chance of kick-starting a global movement to stay below the 2 degrees C characterisation of dangerous climate change, it must inspire and instigate a rapid shift away from the current political and economic consensus.”

The first challenge, he says, is to get political buy-in to what the science is saying in relation to, at least, a 50:50 chance of not exceeding 2 degrees C.

“In brief, wealthy (OECD) nations need to peak emissions by around 2012, achieve at least a 60 per cent reduction in emissions from energy by 2020, and fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2030 at the latest.

“Alongside this, the ‘industrialising’ nations (non-OECD) need to peak their collective emissions by around 2025 and fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2050.”

He notes: “This scale of reductions is presently far removed from that which the negotiators in Copenhagen are intending to consider.”

He concludes: “The second challenge for Copenhagen, therefore, is to make a clear and explicit decision to do all that is necessary to put global emissions on a 2 degrees C pathway, even if this requires a temporary cessation in economic growth amongst the wealthy OECD nations.”

* On the eve of the conference yesterday, the UN’s top climate change official expressed confidence that the meeting would deliver a comprehensive, ambitious and effective international climate change deal. “Negotiators now have the clearest signal ever from world leaders to craft solid proposals to implement rapid action,” said Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Mr de Boer said there was unprecedented political momentum to clinch an ambitious deal in Copenhagen: “Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges together.

“So whilst there will be more steps on the road to a safe climate future, Copenhagen is already a turning point in the international response to climate change.”

However, climate sceptics will be boosted by the fact that the controversy over the stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, which has been seized on by the sceptic lobby seeking to undermine the scientific consensus, will receive an airing at the conference today. Mr de Boer said that Dr Raj Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, would refer to it in his speech during the opening ceremonies.

The UNFCCC secretariat revealed last night that 34,000 people had applied for accreditation to the meeting, taking place in a conference centre which only holds 15,000. The limit on accreditation of journalists has already been reached at 3,500 and further accreditation has been suspended, while environmental groups are being rationed as to the numbers of activists who are allowed on the site.

Read more!