Climate change and South America: New beginnings in an old story

Like the rest of the world, South America (SA) is experiencing considerable environmental degradation. This is both a cause of and because of climate change; a result of human greed and apathy toward the natural world – a self-destructive social paradigm . Historically, SA has not been a significant factor in driving climate change (although currently Latin America as a whole is responsible for 12% of the annual global greenhouse gas emissions). That said, this does not mean the continent has escaped the some of the more deleterious effects of human environmental meddling.

Throughout South America (also Mexico), glaciers are in retreat (see these earlier posts). This tendency is particularly pronounced in the southern portion of the continent, Patagonia. In Chile, glaciers in the region have receded up to 580 meters due to reduced rainfall and rising temperatures in the region over the last century. Earlier this year, glaciers in Argentina were observed to break up in the winter for the first time. However, two glaciers have proven to be exceptions to the larger trend – one in Argentina and one in Chile are currently expanding.

The danger presented from the melting glaciers is not merely cosmetic. Rather, the receding glaciers represent a threat to the fresh water supply for both the local populace and agriculture. No glaciers means no fresh water, a dire situation. Still, local governments follow the same path. Recently in Argentina, a carefully crafted law meant to protect this resource was rejected in favor of business development and 'progress'. In Chile, near-future plans to address climate change are widely seen as insufficient.

One of the major sources of GHG emissions in SA (and globally) is deforestation. In an earlier post, some of the issues and attitudes regarding towards the Amazon rain forest were examined with the hope that Brazil would exercise the moral choice of conserving the rain forest for the long-term benefit of all. The actions of the Brazilian government tell one story; the annual tally of forest loss tells another.

The Brazilian government is making an attempt at conservation. A show of force with a crackdown on illegal loggers and a pledge to reduce the rate of deforestation by half in the next decade are some high-profile actions taken recently. Unfortunately, the annual amount of forest cleared has risen for the first time in three years. This is being driven by farmers and cattle ranchers clearing forest in response to capitalize on high commodity prices around the world.

Deforestation is not confined solely to Brazil, but rather endemic throughout the region. And while the effects on the global climate are significant, the local and regional impacts can also be large. For example

• In Colombia, deforestation is behaving synergistically with an unusual rainy season, exacerbating flooding along with avalanches and landslides -- 50 people have been killed, 85 injured, nine are missing and 735,000 have been left homeless. A local meteorologist notes “Human beings are the problem...Cutting down trees in the river basins means that the rains are not contained, but sweep down rapidly into streams and rivers, which rise and overflow.”

• In Paraguay, one of the last uncontacted indigenous tribes is being threatened as their forest homeland is reduced to cattle pasture. More tragically, the lands are protected under some native title legislation; the national government isn't (can't or won't?) enforcing the law.

Like the rest of the world,a common theme in SA appears to be the inability of many of the continent's governments to affect meaningful measures to halt the slide of environmental degradation, opting instead for the illusory panacea of short term economic growth. That said, many nations on the continent are experimenting with new forms of governance. Ecuador's new constitution states: "Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution." That is, it grants explicit rights to Nature. Early next year, Bolivia is likely to enact a new constitution that empowers the long-suffering indigenous people of that nation.

There is no guarantee of success, though -- significant hurdles remain to be overcome. More trials of this sort are needed to develop a new zeitgeist, a different way of living for the 21^st century. The current paradigm of the global North has run its course; an apparent dead end of financial insolvency, endless warfare and destruction of the natural world. The world should learn from and improve upon these experiments. We may well be witnessing the beginnings of a 'New American Century', but this time led from the South and based on the principles of social justice and environmental sustainability.

**
Image: Wikipedia

Climate change: The state of play

The upcoming years promise to be challenging for all. The problems humankind faces are many. Global economic meltdown , food shortages and peak oil are but three of the (interrelated) problems we face. But most serious problems -- threatening not just the social fabric but the very means of our existence --are the myriad environmental issues we face, including (but not limited to) anthropogenic climate change.

Unfortunately many seem to doubt the reality of this fact. The skeptics, deniers, delayers, inactivists -- call them what you will -- are numerous, outspoken and seemingly appear to be achieving their goal preventing meaningful action in addressing these issues. They operate through misleading statistics, a twisting of the facts and observations and ad hominem attacks* on persons attempting to illuminate these issues. Willful ignorance and viewing the world through an ideological lens appears to be the order of the day.

How do we know climate change is happening? There are many ways to examine this question. The most common method is through use of a globally-averaged temperature, As discussed in a previous post, this unambiguously shows a long-term upward trend, apparent since the mid-70s.

Unfortunately, people tend to focus on the short-term weather noise and so 'don't see the forest for the trees'. Or they deny that CO2 really does absorb (and emit) IR radiation, minimizing the effects of humanity's contribution to the composition of the atmosphere (even without the warming, the addition of CO2 is probably not a good thing). Or they blame the Sun or natural variability, all of which have been considered by climate scientists. These effects aren't zero, but they aren't large enough to explain the observed rises, either. And there are, without a doubt, genuine data quality issues, but again not large enough to explain the temperature rise.

There are perhaps better ways to spread the message. I try to do this here at planet doom? By using observations of changes occurring in the natural world: to animals and/or ecosystems. Many scientists do this more rigorously, but their results don't appear to be widely publicized or promoted. There's lot happening that is unprecedented and this provides very strong evidence of climate change.

Perhaps we should ask the indigenous people of the world, who are more attuned to the natural world and remain closer to their traditional ways of life. Are the people of small island nations (like the Maldives or Kiribiti) confused as their homes disappear into the sea, a result of warmer temperatures and rising sea levels? Are the Inuit mistaken as they lose their way of life as a result of the massive changes to Arctic? What about observations from all over Africa?

These issues are real, and the time for acting on solutions is now. But for these solutions to happens we not only need (metaphorically speaking) to be on the same page, but reading from the same book! It is time to accept our responsibility for these issues (particularly those of us in the Global North).

But there are no 'magic bullets'. There is not one simple solution to all of our climate change and other environmental woes (nor to our economic, food or energy crises either, for that matter...). Radical shifts in society, occurring over several generations, will be required. New ways of thinking and living are needed.

Realistically, the adult generations of today are going to be unable to fully accommodate these changes required; our worldview is too ingrained to be changed easily with much success. Too much change in too short of a time results in paralysis and future shock. The best we can hope for at this point is to begin this long process: put a price on carbon and other environmental 'externalities'; seek out alternative energy sources and embrace energy efficiency and conservation measures. We also must avoid apocalyptic thinking. The most important step is to inculcate an awareness of environmental thinking and lifestyle into the youth (both alive and unborn) of today. These are the best steps to insure future generations.

In some ways, the 21^st century hasn't begun yet. Sure the numbers have ticked over, but globally we remain mired in 'twen-cen' modes of thought. Old paradigms die hard, and it will probably take a Cataclysm – an environmental disaster of unprecedented magnitude – to fully shake of these outdated modes of thought. We can wish otherwise, but many of the current doubters will remain unconvinced until it is no longer possible to believe otherwise.

These doubters don't have a complete hold on the world, though. Some nations** are making the effort to move into the 21^st century. K-Rudd is calling for the adaption of an CO2 emissions trading scheme here in Australia, tentatively to begin in 2010. Many are opposed because it will 'destroy the economy' (like that isn't happening already?) and many only see the flaws in it. Given the size of Australia's population, the scheme won't 'save the world'. That is not the reason it needs to be adopted, though. Rather, it's about leadership. The countries that can break the old modes of thought will be leaders in the future. This scheme may be (and most likely will be) imperfect...these things can be fixed in the future (according to the plan, it will be reviewed in 2013...). Will it be enough? Unlikely, but it is a start.

***

*Unfortunately, this tactic is used by all sides of the debate. For my taste, too many climate/environment blogs revolve around the people and politics rather than the issues at hand, with many comments threads (and the posts themselves) rapidly devolving in to mud-slinging and personality conflicts.

** The European Union also has a multi-national trading scheme for CO2. The US tried, albeit unsuccessfully. Maybe after 'the world's biggest polluter' and his Congressional cohorts are gone...

Image: The Age

Geo-engineering III

It's baaaack! And guess who the villain is this time.

I've stated my opposition to various geo-engineering schemes before. It's a terrible idea, a band aid solution to avoid making the changes to the world that are needed. It potentially has extremely negative unintended consequences and it may not actually work at effectively reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, touted as its main benefit.

This article reports on 'ocean fertilization' issues being discussed at a UN biodiversity conference (my emphasis):

Practically all developing countries want the UN conference to approve a global moratorium on 'ocean fertilisation' until scientific evidence can prove that the practice does not bring new pollution risks. But some industrialised countries, led by Australia, want to avoid a strong ban.

Is this another part of K-Rudd's long-term climate plan? Australia isn't alone on this, though. Brazil is also involved, acting as a provocateur. Perhaps this is their intended 'offset' plan in return for however much they decide to exploit the Amazon. From the article:

..."what Australia wants on 'ocean fertilisation' is obvious. It wants that the UN convention on biological diversity does not touch the subject, and transfer it instead to the London convention" on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter...[which] is being updated through the London Protocol, which will eventually replace the former. Under the new protocol, all dumping is prohibited except for acceptable waste on the "reserve list".

The leading global company in the business is the Australia-based Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC). The Australian government's support for the company and for 'ocean fertilisation' has won it the Greenpeace nomination for the Golden Chain Saw Award for the worst polluters.

Here is the link to Ocean Nourishment Corporation. It sounds so benign, doesn't it? How could anyone possibly be against nourishment? I always worry when the top of the web page proclaims that it “is an ethical organisation”. It seems a bit defensive to me. They don't want to dump iron in the ocean, rather urea. Their advertised benefits are twofold: 1.) The removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, and; 2.) Stimulating the base of the food chain, thereby increasing ocean production.

The logic on the second item to be that because “oceans represent 70% of the earth's surface but currently provide only 6% of human protein every year”, the oceans must be underutilized. (That slacker ocean is not pulling its weight!). Given the level of overfishing humanity has been applying to the planet, that idea seems a bit of a stretch.

From a casual reading of their website, much of what they are proposing to do is unproven. To be fair (and provided they follow their stated protocols), they would seem to be trying to do the experiment in some kind of sane way. But I question the need for the experiment at all.

Unfortunately, short of the international moratorium on fertilization noted in the original article, it would seem that the general populace has little choice in whether this experiment is performed or not.

Besides ONC, a handful of private companies, all registered in the U.S., are planning to launch 'ocean fertilisation' projects in unregulated high seas after specific projects in the Philippines, Ecuador, Oman, and Morocco provoked a storm of complaints from civil society groups.

The unmitigated pursuit of profit never stops. Many are threatened so that a few can enrich themselves. We really don't understand the ocean ecosystem well enough to start performing such radical experimentation on it. There is lots that can go wrong and there are many potential unintended consequences. The Precautionary Principle dictates that we avoid this line of inquiry at this time. We have other solutions we can try; there is no need for desperation yet. And this is a desperate solution.

**

Image: Diatoms through the microscope, Wikipedia.

Brazil and the future of the Amazon rain forest

Brazil has been in the news as of late, with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva defending his government's environmental stewardship of the Amazon rain forest, saying the world needed to understand that the Amazon belonged to Brazilians.

Some concern is warranted, given the dramatic resignation of the environment minister a few weeks ago. An excellent article detailing the background of the situation notes that after a series of lost battles to implement the government's own stated environmental policies, Marina Silva gave up, feeling the battle was lost. Pro-development forces have won.

It is now likely that the government will move rapidly to build more highways and hydroelectric power stations within the Amazon region, making it easier for agribusiness and mining companies to move in.

This anecdote sums up this attitude:

One day, Lucio Flores, a Brazilian Terena Indian, was travelling by truck through the Amazons region alongside a local landowner. Looking at the dense tropical forest around, the landowner said, "Look at this, there is nothing here."

A little further as they left the forest to cross a soybean plantation, the landowner exclaimed: "But here there is soy!" To him, forest was nothing, soy everything.

...For [Flores], the story was a symbol of the opposed views dividing the business community and indigenous peoples. "For agro business, nature is nothing," Flores said. "For us, it is all."

Brazil's case is legally right given the international political system. It's their forest, they can raze it if they so please. But that choice threatens the globe with climate instability and environmental calamity for many years to come. Such a decision would not be a sound ethical choice.

The attitude reflected in the anecdote above is analogous to the idea of terra nullius, or 'empty land' employed in the conquest of Australia. Today the idea is seen for the ruse it is, scurrilous behaviour on the part of colonists. Rapaciously destroying the the rain forest in the name of never-ending 'economic growth' will similarly be seen by future generations as the atrocity that it is

Lula's amusement that countries who were among the world's worst polluters want to talk about preserving the rain forest points to the need for leadership on this and other environmental issues by the Global North. Brazilians can't be forced to preserve the rain forest or even use it sustainably. The richer nations must act decisively, not just talk -- lead by example.

Ultimately, it is in Brazil's interest to preserve the forest as well as the globe's. Everybody will pay for climate change in the end. If Brazil wants to be a leader in the 21^st century, over-exploitation of a one-time gift from Nature for fleeting 'growth' is a poor choice. Visionary thinking is required to develop new models for living harmoniously with the environment. In some ways, beginning from a less-damaged environmental state could provide a head start for developing these methods. This is a saner path to future leadership.

**

Image: Mouth of the Amazon river, northern Brazil. False-color MODIS image from 26May08.

Corporate climate change complicity

In news that should come as no surprise to even casual readers of planet doom?, a recent study in Nature indicates that even with the relatively modest(!) ~0.5 degree or so of anthropogenic warming we've experienced [solar cycle magnitude is about 0.1 degrees], we are witnessing large changes to the planet's physical and biological systems. The damage is quite evident already:

Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Biological systems also were impacted in a variety of ways, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and plant and animal species moving toward Earth's poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.

And the evidence of humankind's destructive path grows. Seemingly oblivious to the consequences, it seems likely that we are going to do next-to-nothing to prevent this calamity. Adaptation is to be our selected path. That has made clear. Our corporate leaders have dispatched their minions to 'manufacture uncertainty' about the climate (and other environmental issues, too...).

These act not just by creating doubt, but also by impugning the motives of scientists and researchers: They're out to protect their jobs,doing it for the $$$ (yeah, right), reveling in their 15 minutes of fame and the like...Other, more sinister theories as to the motives of climate scientists also exist. There are also attempts to formulate government policy, as well..

Why are the corporations complicit in the continuation climate change? What are their motives? First, some background.

A corporation is a soulless, non-human entity designed to make money. A collection of individuals equipped with all the human rights, but none of the responsibilities. It pursues financial rewards amorally, with a complete disregard for anything other than the bottom line. Corporations dominate the Global North; they exert enormous influence over the political process and define a significant fraction of mass culture through advertising and media control. They are legally bound to maximize profits. Their interests are not the same as the general populaces.

The harsh tactics arise for several reasons. On one level, near-term profits may decline if climate change mitigation efforts enacted. Some costs will be incurred. If the costs are too large or the changes demanded are too great, their position of power in society is threatened and the plan of extending corporate governance globally becomes harder to fulfill.

The rush for profits has already contributed to the ongoing global food crisis. Through the use of IMF and World Bank, corporations (and the bankers who run the numbers...) have warped global food production. Nations that were once self-sustaining for basic food production now require imports, provided by multinational conglomerate coroporations. And climate change offers the opportunity to extend this control(my emphasis):

BASF, Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dupont and biotech partners have filed 532 patent documents around the world for crops genetically altered to adapt to rising temperatures, the ETC Group's report says.

The companies are banking on climate change being the "silver lining" that shifts public perception of genetically altered crops, the report says. The companies see "an opportunity to assert that agriculture cannot win the war against climate change without genetic engineering," the report says. "In other words, industry claims that biotech crops will offer essential adaptation measures."

This kind of monopoly -- the top 10 seed companies control 57 percent of the global seed market, according to the report -- is damaging to the world food market because it limits what kind of research will occur and who will have access to the results, said Hope Shand, ETC's research director.

Revealing not only the profit motive behind maintaining the status quo, but also the long-term strategy. Controlling the world's food supply means control over who lives and dies.

Ultimately it's a fool's game, though. Doing nothing to mitigate climate change insures drastic changes to our world. Money will only protect from the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation for so long. Nature always bats last, and it doesn't like to lose. We must resist the 'easy' path of inaction and at least try to do something. It may be too late, but the path we are seemingly heading down guarantees failure.

Gaining wisdom through adversity: Lessons of cyclone Nargis

The immediate threat from Cyclone Nargis has passed; the floodwaters have receded. To date 22 000+ 'official' deaths have been acknowledged by the military government; the death toll is likely higher, with 100 000 being a widely quoted figure. The high toll taken as a result interaction of a strong tropical cyclone and several natural and human factors. A low-lying river delta affected by widespread land clearing; the complete unpreparedness of the public, resulting from a lack of warnings to the public and the (relatively) unusual location and timing of the cyclone.

And the situation continues to worsen. To date, the government has refused international aid, allowing disease and malnutrition to take hold. While the military junta enriches itself, it fears a loss of power as anger mounts at the inept response, as has happened in the past.

While a singular event like Nargis cannot be explicitly attributed to climate change, there are lessons to be learned about our future life as the Great CO2 Enhancement Experiment (35% and rising!) continues to evolve. There will be no stopping the experiment. The delayers and doubters have won the socio-political battle, at least for now. Until the Cataclysm little more than token efforts toward climate mitigation will be made (on a global basis...)

What do the impacts of Nargis mean for adaptation to future climate change, since that is to be our path? I think it means we have a long way to go towards that goal. Given this performance, large parts of the world -- like Myanmar – are woefully under-prepared for current weather and climate, much less any more frequent and/or extreme future climate scenarios. The fact that this happened in the Global South under a highly repressive regime is of little consequence; you could make the same argument for New Orleans and Katrina, as well.

Adaptation is going to be more difficult and expensive than currently imagined. While it may seemingly be the only politically feasible thing now, it isn't the best path. The world-at-large is not ready for theses sorts of disastrous events now. Continued warming likely brings ever-worsening storms. The human desire to live by the sea (at high population densities) adds to the cost of these storms -- more people affected, more damage done. These pressures will only increase in the future. Increased amounts of disease, hunger and endemic poverty a possible result.

While some adaptation is required (because we're already committed to some change over the next 50 years or so), mitigation is a far better option. Better to avoid the risks, if at all possible. Both answers require a massive societal change in the end; changing now with a bright green lifestyle now gives us a chance to avoid some of the more drastic effects. Doing nothing almost guarantees a bad result.

The resistance to mitigation come from our leaders –- bankers, lawyers, businessmen – inappropriately insist on absolute certitude when dealing with the future. The future is nothing put a set of ever changing probabilities, nothing is certain until the moment is past. The probabilities are myriad. Instead of waiting for certitude, a risk management based approach of climate change should be taken, where risk is the likelihood of something happening times the consequences of that action. Such an analysis (triple bottom line) would undoubtedly indicate the wisdom a in doing what we can today to try to prevent tragic events like Cyclone Nargis from occurring more frequently.

***

Image: TRMM satellite estimates of total rainfall and cyclone intensity from Nargis. EO Natural Hazards

TEOTWAWKI

An excellent post over at The Island of Doubt:

It's hard to say just when humanity stopped trying to prevent climate change. Some say only a few prescient individuals ever really took the threat seriously until the dramatic events of 2012. But by then, of course, it was too late to do anything about it. Still, if we have to pinpoint a specific time that the public conversation began to switch from how to avoid catastrophic global warming to learning to live with the consequences, 2008 would be as good a candidate as any.

A similar line of thought has been occurring to me recently. The doubters and deniers have 'won' the battle, at least on the 'socio-political' side of things -- we aren't going to act in any meaningful way to reduce our ever-increasing GHG emissions. This announcement by Russia make that quite clear; GHG reductions are in the 'too-hard' basket. Even the homeless (in the global North) have large carbon footprints. This may change, but only after The Cataclysm. Until then, it's full speed ahead!

The deniers and doubters wrong on the science, though. Theirs is a Pyrrhic Victory, with all of humanity paying the cost, all so that we can continue Our Way of Life.

For the birds, too

In a previous post I discussed some observations of some of the apparent impacts of anthropogenic climate change on the avian co-inhabitants of the planet. Unfortunately for the birds, climate change is not an isolated issue. Humanity's alterations to the environment extend well beyond climate change -- there is little we have left untouched. Environmental degradation from human activities is rampant, a product of the endless pursuit of unchecked 'economic growth'. And the birds are beginning to pay the price.

Pesticides. Lessons from the 1960s are going unheeded. Songbirds in the Americas are being wiped out from the use of highly toxic pesticides and chemicals for export agriculture in Latin America. That these chemicals are dangerous has been well-understood since the early-1960s, with the publication Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.

By some counts, half of the songbirds that warbled across America ’s skies only 40 years ago have gone, wiped out by pesticides or loss of habitat...

The migratory songbirds in most trouble include the wood thrush, the Kentucky warbler, the eastern kingbird and the bobolink...

While the pesticide usage is the proximate cause for the die-off, the underlying fault is found in our economic system. By 'externalizing' environmental costs , along with the exploitation of the citizens of the global South, maximum profit be created from the system.

Habitat destruction. Migratory and endemic shorebirds in Australia “...have suffered a massive collapse in numbers over the past 25 years”.

A large scale aerial survey study covering the eastern third of the continent by researchers at the University of New South Wales has identified that migratory shorebirds populations there plunged by 73% between 1983 and 2006, while Australia's 15 species of resident shorebirds - such as avocets and stilts - have declined by 81%. The study is published in the scientific journal Biological Conservation.

"This is a truly alarming result: in effect, three-quarters of eastern Australia's millions of resident and migratory shorebirds have disappeared in just one generation," says an author of the report...

"The wetlands and resting places that they rely on for food and recuperation are shrinking virtually all the way along their migration path, from Australia through Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and up through Asia into China and Russia."

Most the the lost wetlands are claimed for human use. Agriculture and industry are the main culprits. As global economic growth (and population) expands, the pressure on the land rises. The demand for biofuels contributes. This is a global problem. For example, conservation programs in the US are under threat as farmers rush to take advantage of record-high prices for agricultural commodities.

Climate Change. Climate change affects bird in many subtle but potentially threatening way. Birds respond to various environmental cues – for example, the presence of water or a certain type and abundance of vegetation – to determine their behaviors.

Early experience affects where birds breed for life in some species. Birds from areas with poorer food and shelter have harder lives compared the nearby neighbors in richer environments. As the landscape changes in conjunction with the climate, some birds may simply not survive. For example, changes to migration timing caused by the observed earlier arrival of spring could be disastrous. If another species a bird depends on (for food, say) doesn't make the equivalent change, then it will be unavailable when needed. Recent reports from around the globe indicate that some bird species' migration habits are changing, while others are seeing shifts in their historic ranges.

Some, if not most, of the observed climate change is direct result of CO2 emissions, a byproduct of the “cheap” fossil fuel-based energy that runs our society. Again, by externalizing the environmental costs (e.g. pollution), our economic system covers up the true costs, allowing some corporation to register a 'profit'. The general public bears the cost with an increasingly altered ecosystem. A public subsidy of personal enrichment.

**

So, will we awaken to a global silent spring someday soon? If such a thing were to happen, one would hope that it would serve quite effectively as a Cataclysm, an un-ignorable environmental clarion call. However, it's not just one thing that needs to be fixed. Toxic pollution, wanton land clearance, ongoing and future climate change, CO2 emissions – all are playing a role and all must be tackled simultaneously. Humanity is running a dangerous experiment on the planetary ecosystem.

The worldwide decline in numbers in birds is a warning sign. A proverbial canary in a coal mine. A common theme in the problem is the economic system we choose to follow. A big part of the solution is to change to the accounting in society. True environmental costs must be factored in. The hyper-consumerism of the global North must be culled. The paradigm of 'endless growth' smashed by the reality of finite resources.

Failure to heed the warning has dire consequences, and not just for birds. Allowing the environmental consequences of our actions to remain unchecked creates an unacceptable risk for the future of our children. Climate change and these other environmental problems are real, no matter how much we may wish otherwise. We must act now with wisdom and foresight to correct the perverse incentives for environmental harm in our current economic system. We should do it not just for ourselves, but for the birds, too.

***
Images: by me!

Note: The birds pictured aren't particularly threatened in any way...

On raising environmental awareness

The defining issue of the early-21^st century is the environment. Widespread awareness of humanity's climate and environmental issues is growing. The global adoption of Earth Hour this past Saturday is symbolic of the dawning realization that our lifestyle is increasingly damaging the planet. People are gradually developing some mindfulness towards the issues and demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice, even in a small way, to solve the problems.

For all the good of Earth Hour, though, much remains to be done. The event was only a symbol. “Turning off lights for 60 minutes isn't going to stop the Antarctic ice sheets melting, stop thousands of Pacific Islanders losing their homes from rising sea levels or stop the Earth's temperature rising one jot.” Many didn't participate. In general, the paramount importance of climate change and other environmental issues remains understated and unappreciated in broader society. This is not accidental.

Using ethically-questionable tactics akin to those derived by the tobacco lobby, huge amounts of resources are dedicated to obfuscating the issues at hand ultimately creating confusion, delay and apathy towards the issues. Creating a desire to wait until some later time to act is a risky tactic. The motivations for such behaviour are unclear to me; I would guess extreme self-interest, a rigid ideology and/or a profit uber alles worldview. But missing from this paradigm is the awareness that we are all in this together. Money may buy a temporary refuge, but we all need the ecosystem to survive.

Unfortunately, these tactics are having an effect. The desire for delay is working. But time is running short for society to act. The window to affect positive environmental change is closing. Failure to decisively act within the next 5-10 years likely guarantees radical (irreversible) alterations to the natural environment. Indeed, such changes are already beginning to be observed – The canaries are dying, one by one. But it is apparently not enough to create the critical mass required to tackle the issues

So what will bring about the shift in worldview required to tackle this 21^st century challenge? It will likely require some an event of phenomenal magnitude -- a Cataclysm – to galvanize the world into unified action. A event so large that any lingering doubts of the environmental perils we face will be obliterated.

Sadly, I suspect that we will see such an event in the coming years. The exact form remains unknown and, in fact the Cataclysm will probably be something we didn't see coming at all. The tragedy is that this is the alarm needed to shake the complacency of society. There will still be doubters after the event, just as there are still people today who believe in creationism and that the earth is flat. But we won't listen anymore; the lies and distortions will no longer have any sway. We can only hope that it is not too late for meaningful action.

A full understanding of the environment-at-large is still a way off. The feedbacks and interactions between the different spheres are subtle and difficult to discern. But we know enough to get a general idea of what will likely happen. And research from both the arts and sciences demonstrate that the outcome is likely to be bad. The consequences of our actions are potentially enormous. If we don't want to pay the price, then the best course for humanity is prompt action to stabilize anthropogenic climate change, stop polluting, reduce the population and adopt a 'bright green' lifestyle. Proaction, not the more-typical reaction, is a more sensible course to follow. But it won't come unless we demand it of ourselves and our leaders.

***

Image: NASA Visible Earth

Composite satellite image of 5 Atlantic TCs in 2005. Image via EurekAlert!

Hope or despair?

There are reasons for hope. Society-at-large is increasingly tuning out the climate change deniers and doubters. Global warming is now widely recognized as a very real and very serious threat to civilization as we know it. Many are proposing a wide-ranging set of solutions. Some are promising, but many questions remain. Careless or rash actions could easily lead to despair.

One feasible solution involves capturing CO2 and storing it in sausage shaped bags which are subsequently dumped in the ocean. While this is apparently technically feasible with contemporary technology, the whole idea is really unpalatable to me. Haven't we done enough damage to the ocean? We've already wiped out a lot of the fish and created an enormous pool of plastic rubbish in the Pacific, all while slowly acidifying the ocean. Human impacts on the ocean are visible from space. This “solution” just adds insult to injury, even if it is “safe”.

Some new materials (chemicals) have been produced which are able to selectively capture CO2. Quoting from the link:

The carbon dioxide is captured using a new class of materials designed by Yaghi and his group called zeolitic imidazolate frameworks, or ZIFs. These are porous and chemically robust structures, with large surface areas, that can be heated to high temperatures without decomposition and boiled in water or organic solvents for a week and still remain stable.

Rabett Run points out that the energy cost may be too high for this to be feasible on an industrial scale. My concern is different than that. History suggests we have a poor track record when it comes to using new chemicals. Metaphorically speaking, It always blows up in our face. CFCs were considered stable. DDT was supposed to save the world. Look how well those turned out. This trend continues as the world discovers that the environmental contamination from our “harmless” chemicals is looking like more of a problem than originally believed. Chemicals in our waters are affecting humans and aquatic life in unanticipated ways. Dilution is NOT the solution. Terrestrial life is also affected by endocrine disrupting chemicals, although the net effect isn't clear at this time. Before we unleash some new chemical on the world, can we thoroughly test it and understand its interactions with the natural world?

Geo-engineering solutions remain a possibility, but fortunately these seem to be falling out of favor. The company that hoped to make money through ocean geo-engineering, Planktos, has stopped its field tests thanks to a “highly effective disinformation campaign waged by anti-offset crusaders.” I'm proud to have contributed. Further studies are continuing to suggest that geo-engineering through aerosol enhancement is likely to be very problematic. I think we shouldn't waste research time or money on these efforts. They could only possibly be used as a last resort, and if the situation gets that dire we are unlikely to be able to mount such an effort. Better to use to the money to better understand the increasingly dissonant 'music of the spheres' as a whole.

In the 'Are you serious?'-category comes 'To save the world we may have to waste it'. This is pretty cynical, and it is not clear to me what the author's intent truly is. It's funny in a black humor sort of way, or if you are feeling incredibly nihilistic, both of which I have been known to appreciate. But such a 'solution' cannot be genuinely considered. Maybe this is a manifestation of despair.

The above solutions (mostly) rely on some sort of techno-optimism. With just the right fix, everything will be alright. Such solutions allow humans to continue to live outside the bounds of the eco-system. Unfortunately, people are part of the natural world, and we must live within it. Solutions that offer real hope will take this into account. There can't be one quick fix, but rather many small steps which add up to a greater whole. The sole focus can't just be on the climate, either. Instead, the whole gamut of environmental problems we face must be addressed simultaneously. Any one of them alone could do us in.

Some steps (among many) could include: Organic fertilizers in agriculture can take up more CO2 in the soil, cutting waste and inefficiency, stopping deforestation, development of alternate energy sources, economic and social reforms. Population control is essential. In short, a societal change towards a more sustainable, less resource-intensive society. Maybe it is true that there is not enough time for a “reinvention of the world's cultures”, but that is the direction we must head to solve this problem in the long term. Perhaps we have to adopt some of the band-aid solutions noted above, but that entails enormous risk and they should only be used as stopgap measures. Recent studies suggest that human cultures are subject to natural selection, just like genes. To survive the challenge,the world and the Global North needs to rein itself in and live within the limits imposed by Nature. The cultures that do this the best will be the writers of history in the future. Nature wins in the end every time. If it finds us lacking, we lose.

There is reason to hope, though, as solutions are on the horizon. A path for long-term, permanent solutions exists with contemporary technology. But the problems we face are large, and most still do not understand the magnitude of the task at hand. Societal collapse requires adjustment, too. This can easily lead to despair. Prompt, but thoughtful action is needed to avoid this state.

***

Image: www.utahlifecoach.com (via Google Image Search, not an endorsement!)

Breaking down in Bali

All's not well at the UNFCCC conference in Bali. News reports suggest that the negotiations to create a roadmap for the post-Kyoto climate agreements are becoming bogged down. It would seem that the various nations of the world have come with their set-in-stone predetermined positions rather than coming to honestly negotiate. And they aren't moving from those positions.

Following the findings of the IPCC, the draft UN resolution is calling for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40% by 2020.In the same objections we we have all heard before, the Canadians (with support the US) have said:

"The agreement should include binding emission reduction targets for all major emitters.

"Developed countries should be required to take action more quickly, but major industrialised developing countries should also have binding targets."

And the pro forma response from the developing nations is that their per-capita emissions are a long way below western levels, and that taking on targets would slow their economic growth.

Stop me if you've heard this before...

Of course, the US -- the prime supporter for the exploitative capitalism which has done so much of the damage -– is acting to undermine the talks, pushing to hold their own, separate meetings. They have, along with the EU, also pushed for a lowering of trade barriers for so-called green goods to gain access to markets. All for their advantage, of course.

It is particularly sad to see Australia's (apparent) complicity in all of this. While ratifying Kyoto was a good thing, new PM Rudd had rapidly backed off election promises to set emissions targets,while blaming the previous government for their inaction on the issue. It is especially disheartening because one of his main agenda items was making a difference on climate issues. But it looks like the same old game so far...

I don't want to be completely cynical as the conference isn't over yet, but basically it looks like we humans are going to pursue our great 'carbon dioxide enhancement experiment' to the bitter end. Some climate scientists also see an agreement as unachievable. The early warning signs aren't enough to make us realize the harm we are doing. Instead we hold out faint hopes that technology or the Sun will somehow save us. I suppose that, like a train wreck or some natural calamity, raises unfolding climate change makes for fascinating 'disaster porn', as well as unveiling some fascinating scientific questions. But I'd personally rather not be titillated in that way, and there are lots of other scientific enqueries to make.

Solving the issue all comes down to economics. A fundamental problem of our society is that we live our lives in servitude to an malignant economy that has been specifically constructed to externalize costs to the greater environment. Nothing matters but the financial bottom line. Little penalty is applied in our current system for destruction of our 'natural capital', be it air, land or sea. A healthy economy should serve our needs, not vice versa. Further, we are conditioned through relentless advertising to consume at all costs in a futile attempt to fulfill our otherwise meaningless existence. Community and family have become unimportant, replaced by extreme competition. This is all completely artificial, a man-made construct. It doesn't have to be this way. Taking back the world from the bankers and the economists is a key step to repairing the environmental damage to our world. I don't know what comes after, but it's got to be better than leaving our children a legacy of social chaos, a disaster-plagued landscape and an ocean full of nothing but jellyfish.

Climate change: Who pays?

In the lead-up to the UNFCCC Bali conference, many of the difficult issues facing negotiators have been reported in the press. Many of the issues deal with the question 'Who pays?', which is discussed in the following. The answers thus far are all over the map and depend on where on the map you are. Most nations support calls for action, but few seem willing to lead. I fear that many are still underestimating the enormity and urgency of the situation. For instance, there is little agreement on what constitutes dangerous climate change.

Many developing nations say the “rich” countries should pay. India is pledging to keep its per-capita emissions lower than those of the rich world. China argues that global warming is primarily the fault of Western industrialised nations and they should be made to bear the brunt of cleanup costs. Other Latin American nations, including Brazil, offer much the same rationale.

Many of the developed world nations brings similarly short-sighted reasons primarily based on their self interest and a perceived financial threat. The United States has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol primarily because China is exempted from greenhouse gas reductions. Canada, once a world leader in environmental issues, has lost its way , a result heavily influenced by industry interests. Until recently Australia followed a similar path to the US, but the newly elected government is seeking to remedy this situation. Japan and Europe are meeting their obligations under the treaty through purchase/transfer of carbon credits and have been generally willing participants and leaders on the issue.

There is merit in the arguments of both rich and poor countries. Rich countries did create most of the problem, largely through energy intensive, wasteful consumer-driven lifestyles. This story on the desire for perceived bargains shows that we are generally unwilling to give up this lifestyle. This report, issued in the US, holds out the idea that CO2 can be reduced without a change to the consumer lifestyles. (What about the rest of the environment?). This lifestyle choice perpetuates the problem. At the same time, nations like China and India can do more. While their per capita numbers are low, those two nations are quite high in total emissions, ranking among the developed nations. This is a result of the environmental issue that is rarely discussed: overpopulation.

In the rich nations, there is an obligation to lead, assist developing nations with adaptation and technology transfer, and to change our lifestyles to something more ecologically sustainable. Repairing the environmental damage within those countries is also an obligation. In developing nations, the onus is to prevent future environmental damage (e.g. avoid deforestation), reduce population growth and develop sustainable economies, with the assistance of the rich nations. All nations need to act in concert to deal with the increasing number of natural disasters and to be willing to welcome and accept climate refugees as the need arises.

As it stands now, the various attitudes displayed by the 'two sides' reflect a deep disconnect with reality and a general failure to truly grasp the scale of the problem. Instead, the focus is only blame (and the avoidance thereof). The truth is we all have a moral obligation to do what we can. None of us are free from blame, and it is a pointless waste of time to partition it out. We all have to live with the consequences of climate chaos and we all need to bear the cost, each according to their ability.

More on geo-engineering

Following my recent post on the perils of geo-engineering via iron fertilization of the ocean, several more related items have hit the news. Below is a synopsis of these items.

A new paper reported in National Geographic News provides further evidence for a significant (if not dominant) role of hydrogen sulfide in producing the mass extinction at the end of the Permian 250 million years ago. I was following a Scientific American article which hypothesized the same thing, along with the mechanism. This new article supports that mechanism, but any possible link with geo-engineering remains speculation on my part.

From ScienceDaily (and elsewhere)...”Research performed at Stanford and Oregon State Universities suggests that ocean fertilization may not be an effective method of reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...”

Basically, this method of sequestering carbon only works in the plankton sinks to the deep ocean. However, the authors found that “...less carbon was transported to deep water during a summertime bloom than during the rest of the year”.

In short, it doesn't appear that carbon is effectively sequestered using this methodology. Still, these findings apparently don't dissuade some:”Some scientists have suggested that verification may require more massive and more permanent experiments. Together with commercial operators they plan to go ahead with large-scale and more permanent ocean fertilization experiments” (emphasis added).

There are already efforts underway to begin a commercial venture based on this idea, regardless of any potential consequences. Actually, the experiment has been performed numerous times since the mid-1990s, as noted here. Here is the chief of the Planktos Corp says, responding to criticism

The iron ore to be used in the test is the same as dust blown naturally by the wind into the ocean...

"Hundreds of millions of tons of dust are landing in the ocean every year. How can anyone suggest that our 50 tonnes of rock dust will provoke some cataclysmic result?"

He is, of course, correct in this assertion. One experiment isn't going to make a big difference in the grand scheme of things...I see several problems with this, nonetheless, and remain opposed to the idea in general.

Consider the simple arithmetic of the company's proposal. If the vast amounts of dust are already landing on the ocean and we still face ever-rising CO2 levels (2006 highest on record), how much more are dust/whatever is going to have to put in for this to be effective? It would seem to be an unfeasible amount given the numbers above. To truly sequester enough CO2 by this method would likely entail severe damage to the marine ecosystem. I don't think that this company is truly interested “sav[ing] the planet from the ravages of fossil fuels”, but rather profiteering on genuine societal problems. IMO, this behaviour is unethical.

This attitude is symptomatic of the larger problem at hand here. The “profit motive” is part of the attitude that got us into the current environmental mess we face in the first place. It seems unlikely to present a particularly useful solution to the problem. This just signals that we can keep doing what we want to the planet heedless of the consequences. Replacing this attitude is the key to the problem. There are lots of easier steps to take before we consider grandiose schemes -- Energy conservation, alternate energy research, emissions cuts,agricultural reform, better land management,a reduction in consumerism – let's try those before we resort to the extremely risky steps involved in schemes like geo-engineering.

Fortunately, wiser heads are beginning to prevail on this issue. There are more general calls, from the World Conservation Union for example, going out to at least do more farsighted research into the issues before simply charging in and hope it works out for the best. Personally, I think we should focus on other, more mundane alternatives first, rather than shilling out our limited research funding into crazy schemes designed to fix environmental problems with little or no cost.

***

James Hrynyshyn at The Island of Doubt has a good take on the issue, commenting on the debate started at The Intersection.

Bamboozled!

A few days ago, I heaped some scorn on a scheme that the (now outgoing!) Australian government has adopted to the tune of $A10 million; an unproven technology to make rain, even when there are no clouds. As presented, the details on the whole endeavor were sketchy, from how the technology was supposed to work to the funding and decision making process. Well, another news item has appeared with a few clues about how the device is supposed to work which confirms my earlier suspicion that this is complete and utter nonsense. In addition, a cloud physics expert and member of the WMO Weather Modification panel is quoted. He basically says (albeit much more diplomatically) that we, the Australian people, have been hornswoggled! Sold up the river by a deceitful MP (who unfortunately was re-elected), apparently in an effoty to line his campaign donor's pockets.

Here is a quote from this new article, focusing on how it (allegedly) is supposed to work. I will give a few of my own scientific criticisms afterward (My graduate research was on cumulus and storm dynamics, so I do have some insight into this...)

Scientists involved in testing the Australian Rain Corporation technology, including Professor Jürg Keller of the University of Queensland, say the ionisation system uses a ground-based device to attract water molecules.

These condense, generating heat that, in turn, triggers an up-draft of the kind that occurs when clouds form naturally.

The basic idea here just seems fanciful, not reality-based. Excuse me for being technical (for background, here is Wiki's cloud physics article, though it is not particularly insightful...), but some problems that I see with this are:

• Where is this moisture coming from? From the moisture in the air above the device, or is it attracting it from10s to 100s of km away, an alluring siren's song that the water vapor molecules just can't resist?

• With the most hydrophilic of cloud condensation nuclei, you might get an extremely small drop at say 90% RH (relative humidity). This is very rare. Generally, a small supersaturation (i.e. 100+%) is required to get a small drop to form and grow. If, as claimed, it can produce rain “under a blue sky” (i.e. presumably not 100% RH), how do the drops grow to precipitation size in this?

• Generally in a cumulus cloud (which would appear to be the model they are working off of...), the updraft comes before the water condenses and droplets form, not after as suggested here. In fact, the water is often detrimental to the kinetic energy of the updraft. It doesn't follow that because water condenses, an updraft and rain will form. Think of fog. Think of cumulus clouds that don't rain.

• An unstable environment is required for cumulus clouds. The influence of the broader environment doesn't even seem to be considered here.

These are just a few of the more obvious problems with this. The whole idea seems vaguely reminiscent of the whole cosmic ray/climate connection which has been posited but is in fact generally unsupported by either careful theoretical considerations or the data. There is very little correlation between the temperature trends and cosmic ray activity.

The scandal here is not with proposing new ideas and hypotheses. Rather the issue is way it has been done. It all seems very underhanded and 'hush-hush'. Apparently, no one with any genuine expertise was consulted on this. If they were consulted , their advice was ignored. By all means, let's apply science and innovation to help mitigate our climate problems . But not large handouts to campaign donors with half-baked ideas (and please, let's not dump stuff into the ocean). The appearance of impropriety is too strong (please, let's have an inquiry into this). It is very difficult to get research funding in Australia and there are numerous innovative and unfunded researchers whose projects offer a genuine chance at making a contribution. Let's fund those, rather than chasing mirages in the desert.

A bigger picture

Today is Blog Action Day, where 15000+ bloggers all speak out on one issue, the environment. As that is the usual focus of planet doom?, I have decided to focus on the big picture today. What are our most pressing problems and what are we going to do about it. I always vaguely talk about solutions. Today I expand on some of those ideas. It turned out to be a bit of an extra-long rant, but I hope you will enjoy it anyway!

***

To me, climate change is obvious. Yes, I know, paleoclimate studies tell us the climate has changed many times in the past and that climate change is a natural phenomenon. But many of the more extreme changes deduced from past evidence were not entirely “natural”; rather, they were the result of some greater climate forcing being applied (which have mostly arisen from natural phenomenon).

But the recent changes are unprecedented. The forcing in the case is humanity's uncontrolled CO2 enhancement experiment; since the dawn of the Second Industrial Revolution in the mid-19^th century, humans have -- heedless to the consequences – added approximately 35% to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is a radiatively active gas -– absorbing infrared radiation and affecting the climate -- has been known for over 100 years. The effects of this enhancement on today's climate are readily apparent. To name a few:

• Rising global temperatures

• unprecedented heat waves

• record melting of Arctic sea ice

• longer, more intense drought

• global sea level rise

• enhanced precipitation

• Increased atmospheric water vapour

The effects listed abovecan be thought of as 'primary' effects. These flow through the environment and produce more subtle 'secondary' effects. These aren't any less threatening, just indirect. Just a few

• worldwide food shortages

• water shortages

• climate refugees and warfare

• increased wildfires

• emergence and spreading of disease

Climate change is not a isolated issue; rather, it goes hand-in-hand with many other environmental issues like overpopulation, overfishing, deforestation, desertification and the like. The root causes of most of these problems are our self-interested greed, the idea that our species exists 'outside' of nature – the Earth was created for us to exploit – and the “she'll be right, mate” attitude taken towards the dilemmas created by our poor stewardship of the planet.

The beginning of the end for these attitudes was revealed in 1962 with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which helped launch the modern environmental movement. Despite this wake-up call, our complacency large remains today. Like syphilitic emperors of yore , we fiddle with trivialities – the latest mobile phone, Britney Spears, or “monitizing” our inane blogs (planet doom? is proudly ad-free)– while our civilization burns around us.

To be fair, we have taken some small steps to rectifying our environmental problems ; for example, more of us recycle now and the use of more efficient light bulbs is encouraged or even mandated in some places. But these are but small initial steps for the long journey ahead. Individual action is important, but nothing less than a re-thinking of our current worldview and a re-organization of society will be needed to overcome the problems we face. Some big, but prudent, steps are needed now to maintain a decent standard of living and avoid a complete collapse of our society. These must be implemented in a global framework; if we don't all pull together, nothing will get done

Some of the things I think need to be done are listed below. These are some broad themes,developed from the various readings I have done over the months/years. They are woefully short on detail. I don't personally have all the answers (and neither does anyone else...). It is obviously impossible to do all of these immediately, but we need to start working towards these goals to avoid an even worse fate.

Reduce Pollution

• Stop emitting greenhouse gases now! Carbon dioxide is a serious problem, a noxious effluent from our way of life. Cap-and-trade or carbon tax needed to provide the economic motivation

• Agricultural reform. Current farming practices wreak havoc on the environment. Pesticides, fertilizer runoff, erosion, soil degradation...There's got to be a better way

• More public transport. Drive less, walk more, ride a bike. We can't all drive a high-environmental impact vehicle for every little trip.

• Energy conservation. Insulate your house and use efficient appliances. Turn your telly off, it rots your mind anyway.

• Develop alternate energy sources. Eliminate coal, oil and gas to the extent possible. We've likely hit peak oil anyway, so it's not viable for too much longer. Avoid nuclear if possible. Let's try solar and wind power

Social Reform

• Reduce the population. There are too many of us. Encourage people to have fewer children. If we don't do it, disease or warfare or some other calamity will do it for us...

• Stop consumerism. Going shopping should not be a source of entertainment. We don't need most of the stuff that we buy/use. More stuff does not make you happier. Ask yourself, “Do I really need this?” before you make a purchase.

• Work for global fairness and justice. The current system works through plunder and exploitation of the poor. This needs to stop. Instead of us-vs-them, let's work towards creating a mutually inclusive society where everyone is entitled to a minimum standard: healthy food, clean water, basic medical care, a safe environment and a right to meaningful employment.

• Change our personal values. More respect for the environment. Less focus on material things.

Economic Reform

• Develop a sustainable capitalism. Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the other ones that have been tried. It, in one form or another, is here to stay. But it needs to account for environmental factors. The environment provides many services which aren't currently accounted for. These need to be taken into account to measure the true costs of our actions.

• Stop militarizing the economy. Our basic capitalistic society collapsed in 1929. It was jump-started by WW2, and the insane military build-up has continued since then. Our whole economy is based on bigger bombs, more guns and always finding an enemy to fight. It is a destructive, poisonous way to live life, and if the half a trillion dollars spent on the largely pointless Iraq war had been spent tackling the problems we face, we would be a lot closer to the solutions we need. This economic system is beginning to break down as well.

So is this a Utopian pipe dream? Of course it is, but it is at least something to strive for. Will we ever reach it? I doubt it, as it involves overcoming a lot of basic human biological nature, like selfishness, greed and looking out for one's tribe. But it is something to try for. The alternative is to give up and continue along our current dead-end path. And that is not possible. We cannot give up. We have a moral imperative to future generations to avert our future course away from its current path. I don't want my family or my children's children to live on planet doom.

Profit uber alles?

To effectively combat environmental degradation and climate change, we need to listen to one another – as individuals, as states and as nations – to work together to overcome these global crises. Instead, we are seeing a selfish “me-first” sort of attitude at all levels

In Inner Mongolia, the grasslands are turning to sand. The deserts in this region of China are expanding – now ~28% of the land surface, up from 18% in 1994. It hasn't rained in 6 years. Sandstorms are increasingly common, increasing respiratory problems in the region, especially for children and the elderly. These problems are due to desertification, an old problem largely due to unsustainable development, including over-cropping, over-grazing, improper irrigation practices, and deforestation. It is largely preventable. Rather the government chooses to pursue profit, with year-round grazing and coal mining.

In Egypt, the government also chooses a destructive path for the future, attempting to “green the desert”. The government is encouraging people to move to the desert by pursuing a plan to reclaim 3.4 million acres of desert over the next 10 years. The plan involves massive irrigation from the Nile river. This is a disastrous and irresponsible plan, likely (in the long run) to cause more problems than it solves. The strain on resources will be enormous, and will create tensions between nations that share the Nile. These sorts of environmental tensions are dangerous, given the growing evidence of environmental links to the genocide in neighboring Darfur, Sudan.

A final example of short-sighted behaviour comes from Indonesia. There, the government is practicing “eco-extortion”, demanding payment of $5-$20 per hectare not to destroy its remaining forests. To me, this reeks of greed and pure profit motive. “Pay us or we'll damage the environment” -- a fit of childish pique. The developed nations of the world do have an obligation to assist still-developing nations in overcoming the perils inherent in our current future path. As a matter of fairness, these nations need to have their standards of living raised, but this sort of blackmail should be resisted.

While these examples are focused on the developing world, these nations are merely following the example the developed nations have set in the past. We are more guilty of these sins. Our behaviour must be changed if we expect others to follow. Leading-by-example is the best way to blaze the trail forward.

The current focus on short term profits is unhealthy, a hangover of the sort of 19^th and 20^th century thinking which brought about this mess in the first place. It is time for humanity to grow beyond this and redefine prosperity. A new economy is needed, with proper accounting for the “services” the environment provides. A move away from rampant consumerism and endless economic growth and acceptance that the word's resources are finite is crucial.

The more things change...

As the months pass, it becomes more and more obvious that the climate is changing. Yet many of the developed nations of the world, particularly the United States and Australia continue their recalcitrant foot-dragging ways, refusing to enact even the simplest measures to combat anthropogenic climate change.

In a just-published study in Geophysical Research Letters, there is now a suggestion that we have weakened the so-called Walker circulation, the Pacific-wide east/west circulation, an crucial part of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. Record sea-level pressures in Darwin, Australia, weaken trade winds and high sea surface temperatures in the Pacific are all linked, resulting in a period of unprecedented El Nino dominance of the climate. These changes are profound, and destined to wreak further havoc on the climate system, particularly in Australia.

AS events unfold, more of the populace of the world seek positive climate action. Two of three people polled in a 21-nation survey indicate that 'major steps' are needed soon to effectively combat global warming. Eighty percent believe humans are the source of the observed climate change.

At the same time, the leaders of the world's two leading emitters of greenhouse gases, the United States and Australia (per capita), remain with their heads stuck in the sand, refusing to take meaningful action. Bush refuses to attend UN climate negotiations organized in New York to kick off post-Kyoto negotiations for fear of 'damaging the economy'. Alexander Downer, Australia's Foreign Affairs minister, says we need to move on from the Kyoto protocol (which it is not a part of), apparently preferring the 'aspirational' targets of the toothless APEC proposal negotiated a few weeks ago in Sydney. The nations seem to be waiting for some technological miracle (which may or may not come), rather than making the hard choices required to effectively manage the situation.

To be fair, not all of the citizenry of these two countries are ignorant of the dangers of climate change. Australia's top policeman notes that the impacts of climate change are the biggest security threat of the future. US-based studies are suggesting that centralized coal and nuclear power plants should be phased out in favor of alternate energy sources. Australians also desire alternate energy sources, but would prefer some subsidies from the government to lower the cost. The token gestures made to date are not satisfactory.

There is hope and the time to act in these countries is coming soon. An election is immanent in Australia, expected to occur by the end of the year. National US elections will be held in little over a year. The citizenry of these nations must see through the sophistry of the current leadership and elect insightful leaders who are willing to place the environmental and climate issues of the forefront of the public policy agenda where they belong. The stakes are high and the time for dithering is past. We must act now to insure stability for future generations.