BaCCaCC

(Bradford and Calderdale against Climate Change) is the local branch of the National Campaign against Climate Change. We aim to raise awareness of the dangers of climate change, and to campaign locally and nationally for action to mitigate those dangers. We are non-sectarian and inclusive and will collaborate with any organisation or individual that seriously wishes to work for the preservation of relatively benign climate conditions.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Lovelock and Nuclear Power


James Lovelock, in his new book that will be out later in the year, The Revenge of Gaia, has suggested that it is probably already too late to stop climate change, that by the end of the century we are probably going to exceed the Palaeocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum that led to the extinction of 95% of the world's species 54 million years ago. This event was an 8 degrees Celsius rise in temperature that occurred in just a few years, probably triggered by the melting of methane hydrates beneath the sea bed releasing billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere all at once (methane being many times as powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2).

Lovelock is best known for his Gaia hypothesis, which states that the planet is a self regulating system, that planet and biota (the sum of all the lifeforms on the earth) interact in a way that keeps the earth fit for life, of which process the carbon cycle is a major component. The extra dimension that the human emissions have given to this cycle since industrialisation (the burning of first coal then oil, thus releasing billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere that was previously underground) means that the feedback mechanisms that keep the earth's climate fit for life, now work against us. Positive feedback mechanisms ensue. Melting sea ice due to global warming in the arctic means that white reflective ice is replacing by dark absorbing ocean, thus heating up the planet more and melting more ice. Melting peat bogs in Siberia release more methane into the atmosphere, which heats the planet up more and melts more peat bogs. As the planet heats up, plants themselves (our major carbon 'sink') give out more CO2 and CH4 (methane), which heats the planet up more. Read the full story in the excellent Scotsman.

Lovelock is a well-known advocate of nuclear power for mitigating, if not solving, the problem of climate change, and is a Conservative. However, Zac Goldsmith who is part of the Conservative's Quality of Life Policy Review, has gone against majority party opinion by referring to nuclear power as an 'option of last resort'. I spoke to my MP, Philip Davies (Con., Shipley) last week and he was very concerned about climate change, but was keeping an open mind about nuclear power, like David Cameron himself.

Kevin Anderson, a researcher in the Hadley Centre for the Study of Climate Change, is dismissive of the nuclear option, which could only ever be a minor contributor to emissions cuts. He wants to see far more investment in renewables and in minimising energy waste by better insulation of houses, etc. Read the full story here.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Sharp increase in carbon levels in atmosphere means global warming will speed up




An article by the Independent on Sunday's Environmental Editor, Geoffrey Lean, in today's Indie tells us that measurements of the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is done by the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration every year on Mauna Loa, have shown a sharp rise in the past year. In January 2005 they were about 376 parts per million(ppm), on Friday they hovered around 379. That's an increase of 3 ppm in a year. In the 1950s, when the measures were first taken, the average annual increase was about 1ppm, in the 1990s it was 1.6 ppm. Last year the increase had been about 1.8 ppm over the previous year, so this is a whopping increase. The Indie doesn't have a free archive, so check the story at USA Today.

From 1900-2000, the Earth heated up, on average, by 1 degree Centigrade, most of which was due to human carbon emissions. Now the rate of growth of emissions is speeding up, so will climate change, and its catastrophic effects, which have in the last year included the record-breaking (in number and intensity) hurricane season (Tropical Storm Zeta lasted into January, a full five weeks after the official end of the season), the first Atlantic cyclone to make landfall in Europe in recorded history (Tropical Storm Vince), and the accelerated melting of Arctic Sea Ice, permafrost in North America and Siberia (threatening a giant methane burp from a previously frozen peat bog), and the Greenland ice cap. There has also been drought in Southern and Eastern Africa, and unseasonable cold weather on the Indian subcontinent. Extinctions are progressing at a rate unseen for millions of years, a third of amphibian species are imminently under threat.

Why this sudden increase? Two words maybe: China and India? The fact that these two countries are developing rapidly, and in the same dirty way that we did, using their vast reserves of cheap coal, means that we in the developed North have got to get our act together, and first cut our emissions, then help them to switch to cleaner technologies. But what does the world's biggest (per capita) polluter do? Why, they join with the world's second biggest per capita polluter and host the 'Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate' in the latter's back yard. This includes China and India as well as the US and Australia (for 'twas they), which sounds like a good thing, but this 'alternative to Kyoto' sets only voluntary targets and says that the use of fossil fuels is a reality for this century. This is denial on a grand scale!

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Climate Change Sceptic Converted







Kerry Emmanuel, who is a hurricane specialist, and has been to say the least cautious on anthropogenic global warming is now saying that he has changed his mind after the disastrous and unprecedented hurricane season (we have got up to Tropical Storm Zeta recently, weeks after the season 'officially' ended). He says that New Orleans was relatively lucky, and he definitely would not live anywhere near the coast! Read the full interview in today's New York Times here.