Showing posts with label Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Mumbai's Vast Garbage Dump Burning

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

Leaving aside the pretense and presumptuousness of the global dalliance with pretty or powerful women, urban air pollution will continue to kill from unmonitored sources - landfills, industry effluents, leaf-burning, other wastes, brick kilns, I could go on, (Vehicular emissions get counted with goofy emission factors and incomplete sales data because the anti-fossil fuel maniacs are gullible enough to see demons anywhere).

While the Neros play fiddles and experts do Water Boiling Tests. I have seen and inhaled landfill smokes. I have yet to see an epidemiological study on varying composition of pollutants, and differential toxicities according to population characteristics (changing rapidly over time as urban populations increase and so do land pressures).

Why bother?

@ Wall Street Journal - Mumbai's Vast Garbage Dump Burning


Tuesday, April 01, 2014

In 1928, the Senate Thought Bad Air Quality was Killing Senators (Wash.Post)

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

In 1928, the Senate appropriated funds to knock out walls in the chamber because they thought bad air quality was killing senators. From Washington Post.

According to the "History of the United States Capitol"

It was predictable. Elect a former public health commissioner to the United States Senate and wait for the recommendations about an unhealthy working environment. Royal Copeland entered the Senate in 1923 after a five-year term as commissioner of the New York City Board of Health. A practicing physician and a medical educator, the New York senator wasted little time in reaching a conclusion about the quality of the air in the Senate Chamber. He cited the deaths of 34 incumbent senators over the past 12 years and suggested that their lives had probably been shortened by the poor quality of the air in the chamber. In the winter, the dry heated air was blamed for the spread of influenza, bronchitis, and the common cold; in the summer, excessive heat and humidity sapped members' energy and tested their tempers.

In June 1924, as the increasingly warm late spring days again called attention to this perennial problem, the Senate adopted Senator Copeland's resolution directing Capitol officials to consult with leading architects to develop a plan that would improve the "living conditions of the Senate Chamber." ...

On May 11, 1928, the Senate approved funding of $500,000 to accomplish the project. Five days later, however, Senator Copeland abruptly requested that his proposal be "indefinitely postponed" because it was "no longer necessary." The reason for this sudden reversal lay in a separate appropriation of $323,000 to produce a ventilation system that had been endorsed by a team of public health experts. Tests demonstrated that the chamber could be made comfortable and healthy—without the cost and disruption of knocking down walls—through an innovation, designed by the Carrier Corporation, known as "manufactured weather." Work began early the following year and, by August 1929, the Senate had in place its first air conditioning system.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

National Food Festival in Delhi (December 16-22, 2013)

today..

From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

Photos in the text are from http://www.thedelhiwalla.com

Among the things I miss out on. Not that I would've been able to go or eat much if I was in Delhi.


As a youngster, I used to wish I could stay on the streets (near my home, on the frontage of shops) or railway platforms (where I could also bathe in the open) and live on street foods, read, sing. Near my middle and high school, one man started with a cart some 50 years ago. Now there are some 20 such carts and stalls, some with tables and chairs set in the open in an area given up by the city authorities in exchange for promises to keep it clean and the food fresh. Thousands of people walk or drive over every Sunday evening. Once a vendor called up his grandfather from the back to come speak with me as his old customer.


Street food is not a distinct South Asian phenomenon; but Indian cities have the greatest variety (incl. Chinees Food, Pijja and Makroni, Bargad and Fris) . From tea to full meals. And it has evolved from eateries for specialized groups (brahmins) or cooks (brahmins, because other castes would not eat anything made by someone below their castes) and even sureties of purity ("100% Dalda Ghee", which was hydrogented oil).


Those were in shops or run out of homes, and they still are. But carts and stalls have grown phenomenally during my lifetime. Small towns, highway junctions, railway stations (on the platforms and outside), beaches, temples, markets, malls, everywhere you see food and drinks in a country that has some 200+ million under- and malnourished people including, I am guessing, 100 million children.

A lot of it is because of migrant or transient labor, single workers, and now has become the main snack alternative for the middle class. And of course tea, coffee, and soda are for everybody all the time. Or ready-to-eat seasonal fruits - watermelon - and vegetables - cucumber - and juices - sugarcane, now orange, pineapple, musambi. Then of course roasted peanuts, chickpeas, dry fried snacks and biscuits.


On the carts, own or rented. Netting sometimes as little as $2 a day in Delhi. Walking miles and miles for their set place, sometimes paying the police or the gangs their cut, and yes, sometimes giving the beggars some leftovers at night.


A little over a year ago I developed the concept of "outsourcing of the kitchen". This is surely a major example. Now there are home deliveries and take outs, and the middle class of course has household help to run fetch the food and drinks. This is where cooking has been growing rapidly, along with institutional cooking in dormitories, hospitals, office buildings, and restaurants of course. And then there is the food processing, canning, packing, freezing industry - from chips and cereals to fish and dairy/meat products.


That is a cooking market segment ignored by those who cook up "improved stoves" programs, because most of them are obsessed about the poor in their imaginations and marketing brochures, not the real people who cook to eat or purchase food outside. They also ignore the poor who in fact work in such outsourced kitchens, from chopping and hauling to running the stoves and cleaning up. Or their working conditions, and their environmental conditions - water and air quality, food quality throughout the supply chain. The street food industry in India is also a major employer of children, just as children go as cooks and servants in the homes of the better off or in other areas of food preparation and service.


What the poor need is training in home economics, domestic and food sciences, food marketing, not just stoves.


Who knows, cleaner, fresher, more efficient street food may be better nutrition for the burgeoning urban masses. As Anil Rajvanshi said some time ago, the poor don't have the luxury to cook own meals. And as we find in the rich countries, the poor go for cheap prepared foods (in the US, qualifying for food stamps), and nearly everybody including the rich has either no time for or forgotten cooking (don't even know their vegetables).

The energy problem of the human machine is rarely even thought of.

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Steve Colbert on Cooling the Earth: An All-Chocolate Dinner

today..

From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

Happy holidays! Enjoy the show. There are enough people to be saved right now from the climate.

Link to the article on NY Times Blog.


The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

by Andrew Revkin

I’ve been meaning to post this since Tuesday, but better late than never. I encourage you, as a tonic for anything that ails, to watch Stephen Colbert’s conversation with David Keith, the Harvard professor of applied physics and public policy, on his book, “A Case for Climate Engineering.”
The discussion is all aimed at humor, of course, with Colbert reacting to Keith’s argument for blunting global warming with sun-blocking sulfate aerosols this way:
So we owe acid rain an apology, is what you’re saying.
And to drive the point home further, he adds:
This is the all-chocolate dinner. I get to have my CO2 and I get to spray sulfuric acid all over the Earth.
But behind the laughs, they end up circling to serious issues, including the question I’ve explored here several times: Who gets to set Earth’s thermostat?

Highly paid comedians aren’t alone in touching on engineering the climate in a lighthearted way. In case you missed it, here’s a student-shot video explaining geo-engineering, which I first highlighted in my 2008 post “Fun With Mirrors and Dust – a Climate Fix?”:


Sunday, July 21, 2013

Climate Change - 2 b 2 or not 2 b 2 (deg C)

today..

From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

A piece from the Economist, leaked from second order draft of IPCC AR5 WG III (which deals with "mitigation", not physical science per se). Followed by a note from WG III secretariat cautioning that it's seven months to publication.

How much of the actual, observed GMST increase is or will be natural v. anthropogenic, nobody says and nobody asks. One of the many confusions or frauds about climate change politics. (My take: it doesn't matter. Human sensitivity to climate is far more important, at every point in time, than climate sensitivity to carbon.)
So, will the 2x of carbon lead to an increase of 2 degree C or not? 

Is it 2 b 2 or not 2 b 2?

Do-be-do-be-do. (Combining Krishna - do the right thing - and Buddha - be aware in order to be).
***********

The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away.

Select paragraphs from the article...

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.” 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which embodies the mainstream of climate science, reckons the answer is about 3°C, plus or minus a degree or so. In its most recent assessment (in 2007), it wrote that “the equilibrium climate sensitivity…is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded.” The IPCC’s next assessment is due in September. A draft version was recently leaked. It gave the same range of likely outcomes and added an upper limit of sensitivity of 6°C to 7°C.

A rise of around 3°C could be extremely damaging. The IPCC’s earlier assessment said such a rise could mean that more areas would be affected by drought; that up to 30% of species could be at greater risk of extinction; that most corals would face significant biodiversity losses; and that there would be likely increases of intense tropical cyclones and much higher sea levels.
New Model Arm.

The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are based partly on GCMs. Because these reflect scientists’ understanding of how the climate works, and that understanding has not changed much, the models have not changed either and do not reflect the recent hiatus in rising temperatures. In contrast, the Norwegian study was based on an energy-balance model. So were earlier influential ones by Reto Knutti of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich; by Piers Forster of the University of Leeds and Jonathan Gregory of the University of Reading; by Natalia Andronova and Michael Schlesinger, both of the University of Illinois; and by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Centre (who is also a co-author of the new Norwegian study). All these found lower climate sensitivities. The paper by Drs Forster and Gregory found a central estimate of 1.6°C for equilibrium sensitivity, with a 95% likelihood of a 1.0-4.1°C range. That by Dr Aldrin and others found a 90% likelihood of a 1.2-3.5°C range.

Read more.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Counting the Health Benefits of Renewable Electricity in the United States

today..

From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala


Looking at the Supplementary Info, some of the assumptions are questionable. So the numbers and merit orders open to doubt, but at least some effort is made to count for health benefits. Seems like the authors did cover quite a few modeling issues, though. 

"you have to take into account the sort of energy that’s likely to be displaced by the new solar panels and wind turbines... The regions with the biggest wind or solar resources aren’t always the most beneficial places to build renewable energy, at least in the very near term."

Duh! They should've listened to Kirk Smith eons ago - "If one is going to put carbon in the atmosphere anyway, CO2 is the least damaging from climate point of view". And health, by the way. 

All emissions, all impacts considered, even coal-fired electricity is better than direct coal use for cooking and heating in South Africa.

And grid electricity with some mix of coal, gas, hydro for substituting gasoline and diesel in small vehicles in urban areas. (Depends on location, costs, confounding variables).

Dan Klein and Ralph E. Keeney did something similar 10-odd years ago, but seems to have been neglected for reasons of political correctness, I suppose. 

Don't forget nuclear was advocated in the northeastern US for reduction of health pollutants from coal. What matters is marginal costs, which keep changing.

*************

News coverage from the Washington Post

At first glance, it might seem obvious where the United States should focus on building more renewable energy. Stick the solar panels in sunny Arizona and hoist up the wind turbines on the gusty Great Plains, right?

Well, not necessarily. A recent study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University offered another way to look at the issue. A solar panel built in cloudy New Jersey can actually offer more overall benefits than one built in Arizona — when you take into account all the carbon dioxide and other pollutants that get reduced. Likewise, a new wind farm in West Virginia can deliver more health benefits than one built in California, at least in the short term.

The reason, say the researchers, is that you have to take into account the sort of energy that’s likely to be displaced by the new solar panels and wind turbines.

Out in Texas or Oklahoma, wind turbines would crowd out relatively clean natural gas-fired plants. That would cut down on carbon-dioxide emissions and other pollutants. But it’s not quite as big a deal as, say, building a wind farm in Ohio — where the wind would displace coal power and lead to a 20 percent bigger reduction in pollutants that are heating the planet or causing respiratory problems.
The regions with the biggest wind or solar resources aren’t always the most beneficial places to build renewable energy, at least in the very near term. Here’s a map of the most wind-rich areas in the United States (the redder the breezier):
And next we have a map of where wind power would deliver the most benefits, once you factor in the reductions from pollutants like sulfur or particulates, which have been linked to health problems from asthma to heart attacks:
By the same metric, here are the most beneficial places to stick solar panels:
Note that California sees somewhat fewer benefits — in part because the state has already spent so many years cleaning up its energy supply compared with other states.

Now, to be clear, the researchers aren’t saying that California’s clean-energy spree in recent years has been pointless. Switching from natural gas to renewable energy has still led to a drop in carbon-dioxide emissions, which helps slow the pace of climate change at the margins and curbs other pollutants. The authors note that “the social benefits from existing wind farms are roughly 60% higher than the cost of the Production Tax Credit, an important federal subsidy for wind energy.”
But the authors do suggest that Congress could take these regional variations into account when structuring tax benefits for clean energy. “[T]hat same investment,” they note, “could achieve greater health, environmental, and climate benefits if it were differentiated by region.”

One final point: This study largely takes into account the existing power grid in the United States and focuses on near-term benefits. But in theory, it would also be possible to build gigantic wind farms in the Great Plains and then transmit that electricity all over the United States, to places like Ohio and West Virginia, through new high-voltage transmission lines. That would be a way of developing the most promising resources and delivering high benefits.

But there’s a big hitch. As Matthew Wald explained in the New York Times this weekend, these grand schemes always run afoul of the balkanized nature of the power grid. ”The technology, the engineering skill and even the money are all available, experts say, but the ability to reach agreement on such a grid is not,” Wald wrote. “For now, there is simply no momentum for a transmission system that would connect the best sites for renewable energy with the biggest areas of demand.”

Further reading: All credit to David Biello for the link to the Carnegie Mellon study, which was written by Kyle Siler-Evans, Inês Lima Azevedoa, M. Granger Morgana, and Jay Apt and published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Here are some of the assumptions the study made.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Air Pollution in China Responsible for People Dying 5.5 years Earlier than the National Average

today..

From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

Breakneck growth chokes. "Mr Li estimates the shorter life expectancy identified by the study in northern China is equivalent to reducing the workforce there by one-eighth."

Not quite true. Economic growth and rising incomes permit better health care, greater productivity, and contribution to longevity. So the net cost may be much less than this alleged reduction. Or even negative.

"It shows how high the cost of pollution is in terms of human life – and that it is worth it for the government to spend more money to solve the pollution issue, even if we have to sacrifice growth.”

Gibberish.

Source controls will not affect aggregate growth; just ban small coal users, shut down old plants and factories, and give incentives for boiler/furnace switch to gas and electricity (INCLUDING coal fired electricity) and early retirement of locomotives and vehicles.

When would environmentalists develop a holistic picture of costs and benefits? I suppose so long as gullibility is as bad as pollution.

*********

In News

CNN Money, June 9th, 2013
Air pollution cuts life expectancy by 5.5 years in China.

USA Today, June 9th, 2013
In China, air pollution report brings despair, humor.

Wall Street Journal, July 9th, 2013
Air Pollution From Coal Use Cuts Lifespans in China.

New York Times, July 9th, 2013
Pollution Leads to Drop in Life Span in Northern China, Research Finds.

Washington Post, Junly 8th, 2013
Coal pollution in China is cutting life expectancy by 5.5 years.

Financial Times, July 8th, 2013
China smog cuts 5.5 years from average life expectancy.

National Geography, July 8th, 2013
Coal burning shortens lives in China.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

What’s Good for the Climate May Not be Good for the Air

today..

From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala


Repeat after Kirk Smith: "If one is going to put carbon in the atmosphere anyway, CO2 is the least harmful of all.. "
Even Obama and Xi accepted as much two days ago.

IEA says we can't afford 20 years of listlessness. 

No, we can't afford 20 years of hysteria, circus, jumping up and down, screaming and tears. 

Health first. Save lives and enhance productivities, employment. Empower people to defend themselves; save them from the saviors of the earth. 

**********
An article from Euractiv

Trade-offs: What’s good for the climate may not be good for the air

From wood stoves to diesel engines, the European Union has promoted fossil fuel alternatives and technology to help meet its obligations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions blamed for climate change. But these are also contribute to dirty air, leaving regulators to figure out some legislative repair work.

Some efforts appear to be paying off. In a new report, the European Environment Agency (EEA) says the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions fell 3.3% in 2011 and were 18.4% below 1990 levels. That would put the EU well on its way of achieving a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by the end of this decade.
The Eurostat statistical agency, meanwhile, reported that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell 2.1% in 2012 after declining 4.1% a year earlier.

But numbers on carbon emissions aren’t necessarily good news for air quality – the focus of the EU’s Green Week this week.

A ‘major’ environmental problem

The EU’s achievements mean little while the rest of the world still pumps out record levels of carbon, and Europe’s methods for cutting greenhouse gases come with side effects, including higher emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), ground-level ozone (O3), soot and sulphur that have both short- and long-term effects on human health.

“Air pollution remains one of the major environmental problems in Europe, affecting health and well-being of European citizens,” the EEA says in a new report on the impact of pollution on human health.

Air pollution was ranked as one of the top-10 risk factors for health globally, according to a global review of the burden of diseases published in December last year by the British medical journal The Lancet.

According to the study, over 430,000 premature deaths and over 7 million years of healthy life were lost across Europe in 2010 from exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), with 166,000 premature deaths in Western Europe, 95,000 deaths in Central Europe, and 169,000 deaths in Eastern Europe, which includes Russia.

“Everyday exposure to outside air pollution in Europe is now recognised as one of the big factors affecting our health,” said Anne Stauffer, deputy director of Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL). “For the first time, the Global Burden of Disease assessment has ranked an environmental factor among the more widely discussed ‘life-style’ risk factors, such as tobacco and alcohol.”

Trade offs

Markus Amann, an expert on air pollution and greenhouse gases, said European policies show there are trade-offs in reducing greenhouse gases. “Ill-designed climate policies can result in higher particulate matter emissions,” he told a recent air quality conference in Brussels.

Amann, who works at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, mentioned support for diesel engines as a case in point.

While diesel engines were promoted in Europe for their lower carbon emissions, they are blamed for stubbornly high levels of gases like nitrogen oxides (NOx) that contribute to ozone and acid raid.

Technological advances using advanced selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of NOx in vehicles, industrial smokestacks and ships are now required or are being phased in under EU and international standards to help deal with the problem. The technology can cut NOx emissions by as much as 90%, yet because older vehicles and some industrial plants are exempt, it could be years before the benefits of these technologies are realised.

Another example are biofuels and biomass, which have been promoted though European policies, including the Renewable Energy Directive, as part of the bloc’s carbon-cutting efforts. Yet their impact is far from benign.

Spurred by a combination of concerns over high food prices and doubts about the climate benefits of plant-based vehicle fuels, the European Commission last October made a U-turn on its policies that set targets to encourage the use of ethanol and biodiesel.

Where there’s smoke, there’s pollution

Mark Lawrence, the scientific director of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in the German city of Potsdam, says biomass is considered green and advertised as such.

“If you think about the grey, brown and black smoke plumes above chimneys, you will see that this is not so green,” Lawrence told the science conference co-sponsored by his institute.

“But probably nobody I’ve talked to in the public is aware of the pollution that comes out of their chimneys. They are aware of the smoke that comes out, but they think it’s something that is just an irritant to their neighbours.”

Wood stoves are considered climate friendly because they emit relatively little carbon, but they contribute to air quality problems because the produce black carbon – an ingredient of soot – and NOx, which health officials say contribute to respiratory and cardiovascular problems, and environmental campaigners say contribute to ozone and affects plants and wildlife when they mix with rain to produce acidic deposits.

Lawrence was among the speakers at the conference on air quality and climate change, held on 21 May in Brussels, who pointed to the often divergent policies where efforts to combat climate change without considering the effect on air quality.

“If the policies are enforced, I think they are adequate to meet the limit values. With the human health concerns, science tells us that there are no thresholds, so they benefit from reducing it to very low concentrations.”

Scandinavian countries in general have been leaders in reducing CO2 emissions, and in using biomass for heating and energy, but they also exceed the Air Quality Directive’s annual mean value of NOx, which is 30 micrograms per cubic metre.

NOx emissions decline

Overall, NOx emissions have fallen since the 1990s, though at a much slower pace than other leading pollutants. When exposed to solar radiation, NOx reacts with other chemicals and gases to form ozone, which is harmful to humans and ecosystems and acts as a greenhouse gas. It also mixes with rain and is carried through the air, affecting areas well beyond its source of emission.

Health and environmental experts point to another culprit in NOx and soot pollution: biomass, or the use of wood and plant waste for home and water heating. Figures show that about half of the EU’s renewable energy targets are set to be achieved through the use of biomass.

Wood stoves, which are billed as a renewable energy and have grown in popularity across Scandinavia and in Central Europe, produce soot and high levels of NOx, black carbon – fine particulates that create soot - that are culprits in ground-level pollution and acid rain. Black carbon also contributes to climate change.

Experts at the Brussels conference said more effort needs to be put into coordinating climate and pollution policies to avoid the policies that address one problem but may create another.

IEA sees stalled progress

But Europe’s climate and pollution efforts, no matter how divergent, still put it ahead of other regions of the globe. The International Energy Agency reported recently that CO2 emissions have changed little since 1990, despite regulatory efforts and the rise in renewable energy production.

“The drive to clean up the world’s energy system has stalled,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said when the Paris-based organisation released its clean energy monitoring report. “Despite much talk by world leaders, and despite a boom in renewable energy over the last decade, the average unit of energy produced today is basically as dirty as it was 20 years ago.”

“As world temperatures creep higher due to ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide – two thirds of which come from the energy sector – the overall lack of progress should serve as a wake-up call,” van der Hoeven said.

“We cannot afford another 20 years of listlessness. We need a rapid expansion in low-carbon energy technologies if we are to avoid a potentially catastrophic warming of the planet, but we must also accelerate the shift away from dirtier fossil fuels.”

Monday, May 20, 2013

Go Fish Somewhere Else (NPR)

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

"As oceans warm — a result of climate change — fish maintain their preferred water temperature by moving away from the equator and toward the poles."

"80 percent of our seafood is imported, and we don't know whether fishermen are catching our swordfish in the tropics or the North Atlantic. Also, half of all seafood is now produced in enclosures — not caught in the wild.

 But if it's invisible to us, that's not the case for many people who rely on their local fisherman for protein."

Time to find alternative protein sources for the poor of the South.

Or reduce CO2 emissions perhaps?

************* From NPR **********

Climate change is gradually altering the fish that end up on ice in seafood counters around the world, according to a new study.

"The composition of the [global] fish catch includes more and more fish from the warmer areas, and cold-water fish are getting more rare, because the temperatures are increasing," says at the University of British Columbia, a co-author of the study.

As — a result of climate change — fish maintain their preferred water temperature by moving away from the equator and toward the poles.

So, for example, people in Denmark are now encountering swordfish, which you'd normally find in the Mediterranean and off the coast of Africa.

"In British Columbia, where I live, we have Humboldt squid, giant squid from Mexico," Pauly says. "They eat all the herrings and stuff, and people don't know them. They are stranded on the beach, and people think they are sea monsters."

And fishermen have scuffled over Atlantic mackerel quotas, as the fish moves north to new grounds around Iceland.

The new study in Nature shows these anecdotes aren't simply a fluke. Data from fish catches from around the world show it's happening everywhere the ocean is warming — which is .

This trend isn't obvious at American fish counters. That's because 80 percent of our seafood is imported, and we don't know whether fishermen are catching our swordfish in the tropics or the North Atlantic. Also, half of all seafood is now produced in enclosures — not caught in the wild.

But if it's invisible to us, that's not the case for many people who rely on their local fisherman for protein.

"In the tropics, there are lots of developing countries' fisheries where their ability to adapt to changes in the resources is much lower," says William Cheung, the report's lead author. Like Pauly, he's at the University of British Columbia's Fisheries Center in Vancouver.

The paper documents a migration of some species out of the tropics, as they seek cooler waters. But there are no fish to replace the ones that are leaving. As a result, "these fisheries in the tropics will be most vulnerable to climate change impacts," Cheung says.

The United States will gradually feel the effects as well.

"Imagine a reef fish that is driven by temperature into North Carolina or the Delaware coast," Pauly says. "That reef fish will not find reefs. It's like you having to move, but you cannot take your furniture with you, or your house. That is the problem."

Many fish will have a hard time adapting to this very rapid change, he says.
at the National Institute for Aquatic Resources in Denmark was not involved in the research, but he's impressed by the result.

"This is suddenly a wake-up call," he says. "It's a strong suggestion that climate change is here. It's real, and it's really starting to affect what we catch and, therefore, what we eat."

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Biomass 'Insanity' May Threaten EU Carbon Targets

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

"Around half of the EU’s target for providing 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 will be made up by biomass energy from sources such as wood, waste and agricultural crops and residues, according to EU member states’ national action plans.

Wood makes up the bulk of this target and is counted by the EU as ‘carbon neutral’, giving it access to subsidies, feed-in tariffs and electricity premiums at national level.

But because there is a time lag between the carbon debt that is created when a tree is cut down, transported and combusted – and the carbon credit that occurs when a new tree has grown to absorb as much carbon as the old one – biomass will increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the interim.
Where were these folks the last 15 years??? Rather, for all their post-middle school years?

And of course, they possibly haven't heard of Kirk Smith. Even if EU folks don't burn their wood in open, inefficient fires, I am sure it's not all in power plants either.

Oh, well. I thought boreal forests are net warmers (since they reduce the albedo effect by reducing snow exposure as they expand). Perhaps European forests should be converted into charcoal and exported to Africa, where forests will re-grow faster and have a real sink contribution. "Renewable biomass" means you can grow it anywhere.

*****
Article was published on Euractiv, April 2nd, 2012
Biomass "Insanity" May Threathen EU's Carbon Targets

The EU’s emissions reduction target for 2020 could be facing an unlikely but grave obstacle, according to a growing number of scientists, EU officials and NGOs: the contribution of biomass to the EU’s renewable energy objectives for 2020.

On 29 March, a call was launched at the European Parliament for Brussels to reconsider its carbon accounting rules for biomass emissions, and EurActiv has learned that the issue is provoking widespread alarm in policy-making circles.

“We’re paying people to cut their forests down in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we are actually increasing them. No-one is apparently bothering to do any analysis about this,” one Brussels insider told EurActiv.

“They’re just sleepwalking into this insanity,” he added.

Around half of the EU’s target for providing 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 will be made up by biomass energy from sources such as wood, waste and agricultural crops and residues, according to EU member states’ national action plans.

Wood makes up the bulk of this target and is counted by the EU as ‘carbon neutral’, giving it access to subsidies, feed-in tariffs and electricity premiums at national level. 

But because there is a time lag between the carbon debt that is created when a tree is cut down, transported and combusted – and the carbon credit that occurs when a new tree has grown to absorb as much carbon as the old one – biomass will increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the interim.

Carbon neutrality

“It is wrong to assume that bio-energy is ‘carbon neutral’ by definition, it depends what you replace it with” Professor Detlef Sprinz, the Chairman of the independent Scientific Committee advising the European Environment Agency (EEA) told EurActiv.

“If you replace a growing forest by energy crops under the current accounting rules of the EU, you may very well increase greenhouse gas emissions.”
An opinion of the EEA's Scientific Committee last September, argued that “legislation that encourages substitution of fossil fuels by bioenergy, irrespective of the biomass source, may even result in increased carbon emissions – thereby accelerating global warming.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also says that biomass can only be considered carbon neutral if all land use impacts have been considered first.

The EU is aware of the issue and a proposal that could impose binding criteria for biomass for energy production, delayed many times, had been expected later this year but may be delayed again.

Forest-rich Scandinavian countries oppose binding biomass criteria – Finland and Sweden produce 20% and 16% of their energy from biomass – while industrial interests tend to support criteria that ignore combustion emissions and carbon stock losses from burning wood.

Sustainability criteria are one climate area in which the US leads Europe. The Environmental Protection Agency there has already conducted a public consultation on how to account for emissions from biomass burning, and submitted a legislative proposal.

EU despair

Several EU officials spoken to by EurActiv expressed despair at the lack of enthusiasm for tougher accounting rules by the EU’s energy directorate, which holds the biomass portfolio.

“I don’t think they have any intention of considering the carbon emissions from wood combustion. They are not convinced that it’s an important enough issue,” one said.

Asked whether the current pattern of biomass production and use would prevent a 20% reduction of carbon emissions by 2020, he replied “the certainty is 100% because there is hardly any [wood-based] biomass that wouldn’t increase emissions. The question is for how long?”

There are no reliable accounting figures measuring the length of time that Europe will suffer a ‘carbon deficit’ caused by the use of biomass for energy, in particular harvesting timber for that.

But “the risk of having emissions for too long I think is very high,” the official said. “I see a very significant risk that we will increase emissions for several decades to come.”

Carbon deficit

There is consensus that when a carbon deficit extends beyond 30-50 years, it is no longer of use in the EU's present strategy to decarbonise Europe by 2050.

One report last month by the US-based Southern Environmental Law Center using woody biomass for a modelled expansion of power generation, found that it would take 35-50 years to provide an ongoing carbon reduction benefit.

Biomass from composted waste or agricultural residues is a highly efficient way of reducing carbon
emissions, but critics say that the EU has vague and ill-conceived definitions of what constitutes residue in many cases.

It does not, for instance, take into account the impact that removing crop residues such as straw can have in depleting the soil's carbon stock, with resulting increases in fertiliser and irrigation use, and lower yields.

Equally, a felled tree instantly produces wood with a higher carbon footprint than coal because burning a 100-year-old tree will release all the carbon it has absorbed into the atmosphere, and it its replacement will take 100 years to reabsorb the same amount of carbon.

The EU’s current accounting rules do not distinguish between residues or woods used in this way, and more sustainable biomass, terming them both ‘carbon neutral’ without consideration of bio-recovery times .

“These calculations have just not been done,” an EU source told EurActiv. “No one has looked at this in sufficient seriousness.”

Friday, February 17, 2012

Science: Want to Fight Global Warming? Don't Just Focus on CO2

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

Yesterday's gushing story by NY Times reminded me that this all started a year ago, at the AAAS meeting.

Tami says, ""Previously, the analyses have focused only on one pollutant, or on entire economic sectors, but this is not how policy is done."

Precisely. Sources do processes. And processes do substances. Processes (of which emissions are mere by-products, and KP GHGs are co-emitted with SLGHGs and cooling GHGs) need to be changed to make a change in substances (emissions).

The fanaticism of One-Devil (CO2) One God (renewables for grid feed-in) was bad policy (pushed the nuclear bandwagon, for one, and turned away China and India), and bad politics (Al Gore lost, so did Barack Obama on that issue, and so might Newt Gingrich).

As simple as that. Wrong process, wrong substance (outcome). (Now if only that message gets through to the FCCC, we'll be out of this national accounting of blames and credits.)

Kirk Smith said over ten years ago: "If we are going to put carbon in the atmosphere anyway, CO2 is the least harmful of all from climate point of view". (Or health, which is what matters ultimately.)

The basic issues are (i) incomplete combustion, (ii) co-emissions of cooling GHGs, and (iii) livestock and paddy rice.

And the basic message should be - all emissions, all impacts.

**************

Want to Fight Global Warming? Don't Just Focus on CO2
by Eli Kintisch, Science Magazine, 17 February 2011, 6:25 PM
 

WASHINGTON, D.C.­Carbon dioxide is the elephant in the room for any discussion of how to stem global warming. But a new report suggests that tackling emissions of two other short-lasting pollutants­methane and the black component of soot­could slow expected warming by a full 0.5¢ÂªC beyond what targeting CO2 alone could accomplish by 2070.

The report, which will be discussed here Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes ScienceNOW), includes a lot of uncertainty. But it fits with what scientists have learned about these pollutants in recent years. Methane is a more potent warming agent than CO2, although its duration in the atmosphere is measured in decades rather than centuries. Methane also contributes to asthma-causing pollution. Black carbon, the product of burning wood or other carbon-based fuels, heats the air directly, accelerates the melting of any snow it lands on, and creates so-called brown clouds that warm the sky. Although harmful to the hundreds of millions who breathe it each day, black carbon settles out of the atmosphere in a few weeks. So reducing emissions of it would have a nearly immediate impact on global temperatures.

In the study, an international team of researchers first examined 2000 different pollution-control measures for the two pollutants and chose 16. The measures include stemming methane leaks from coal mines or landfills and stopping black carbon pollution from primitive stoves and diesel construction equipment. The scientists then ran two separate climate models to learn how the rate of global warming might change if the 16 measures were deployed, with and without carbon dioxide controls.

Under control runs without any pollution controls, the global temperature rose by 2.5oC­plus or minus about 0.7oC­by 2070. Stemming CO2 (to an atmospheric level of 450 ppm) reduced that warming by about 0.5oC. Deploying the 16 controls reduced the warming by an additional 0.5oC, again with big error bars. (Since 1850, scientists estimate Earth's temperatures have risen by 0.7oC.)

"I was surprised when we looked through 2000 control measures and it turned out that doing just 16 of them could make a big dent in climate," said Drew Shindell, a researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City who co-coordinated an international writing team on the report.
"It's the first time a group has picked out actual measures that might improve forcing by short-lived pollutants," says pollution-control expert Tami Bond of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, who was not an author on the study. "Previously, the analyses have focused only on one pollutant, or on entire economic sectors, but this is not how policy is done."

David Fahey, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, said that the researchers will need to do additional analyses to reduce the "significant( uncertainties associated with the role of black carbon in the climate." But he said that the promise of reducing emissions and improving human health made the analysis an "important" contribution to the field.

The report did not undergo formal peer review, but Bond and Fahey were among hundreds of outside scientists who submitted comments before the study was released. On Wednesday of next week, environment ministers from around the world meeting at the United Nations will receive the preliminary version of the full report and begin to discuss how to implement some of its findings, said a spokesperson for the United Nations Environment Programme, which sponsored the report along with the World Meteorological Organization.

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Why Energy Efficiency Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be (TIME)

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

Because crackpots don't understand what it is - advancing the PPF.

"Saving" energy has no meaning in and of itself. When it reduces total cost (not just energy cost), you have enabled people to use that money for anything else, including using more energy (the so-called rebound effect). Which is good for economic growth and well-being.

******

Why Energy Efficiency Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be
By Bryan Walsh Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2012

City photos from "The Power of Cities".

When New Yorker writer David Owen moved his family from Manhattan to a small town in northwestern Connecticut in 1985, it seemed like a green decision. Their tree-shaded house had been built in the 1700s and sat across from a nature preserve. Deer, wild turkeys and even bears could be seen in their yard; woods surrounded their neighborhood. It was a bucolic country existence, something out of a nature poem.


Yet for the global environment, the move was a minidisaster. The Owens' electricity consumption went up more than sevenfold, and the lack of both public transportation and dense housing that's typical of Connecticut (and much of the rest of the U.S.) meant the family had to buy several cars. And those cars got driven — a lot. Owen notes that he and his wife now put some 30,000 miles a year on their odometers, burning carbon with every gallon. Access to trees and wildlife and cleaner air in Connecticut was great, but for the climate, it's dense and efficient Manhattan — where cars are optional and living space is much tighter — that does less damage per capita.



To Owen, the move was a lesson: what looks environmentally friendly isn't always the case. That's an idea he explores in his new book The Conundrum, which argues that energy efficiency, scientific innovation and even good green intentions are actually making our climate and environmental problems worse. While we rush to buy a Prius hybrid or fetishize local organic food, we're doing little to actually reduce the carbon emissions that are warming the planet — and we may even be going backward. "We're not actually making the problem better, we're making it worse," says Owen. (See photos of new ways to boost energy efficiency.)



He centers his argument on energy efficiency, which simply means reducing waste and getting more economic output per unit of energy, and is one of the few environmental-policy options that nearly everyone can agree on. Democrat or Republican, climate scientist or climate skeptic, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who'd be against reducing wasted energy. That's why paeans to efficiency find their way into every energy stump speech, including those of President Obama, who noted in the State of the Union speech that "the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy." One of the White House's most heralded green accomplishments this term has been an increase in automobile fuel-efficiency standards, tightening them from 25 m.p.g. now to 54.5 m.p.g. for cars and light trucks by 2025.

But Owen notes improved efficiency doesn't always translate to reduced energy use, thanks to something called the "rebound effect." It's pretty simple: as we become more efficient at using energy, we can save money — which then allows us to use more of that energy than we did before. Picture it this way: you trade in your gas-guzzling SUV for a new efficient hybrid, end up paying less per mile for gasoline, and use some of the savings to drive more than you did with the SUV. The efficiency has rebounded.

It's not clear how big the rebound effect really is. Efficiency advocates say that the effect, when it exists, is limited. Amory Lovins, the head of the Rocky Mountain Institute and an efficiency evangelist, has written that "no matter how efficient your house or washing machine becomes, you won't heat your house to sauna temperatures, or rewash clean clothes." There's a limit to how much more I would drive after buying a hybrid even as my gas bill shrinks. (See why energy-efficient home improvements haven't brought your energy bill down.)

But Owen argues that the rebound effect is much broader than a one-to-one relationship. I might drive a little bit more using the savings from my more efficient car, but I might also take the rest of those savings and spend it on something else — perhaps a vacation flight, or a new television. And nearly everything we buy and consume today requires energy, from appliances to holidays. Perhaps that's the reason American electricity production grew 66% between 1984 and 2005 even as the economy overall became much more efficient. And things are likely to be even worse in a rapidly growing nation like China, where a lot of people are acquiring consumer goods and other luxuries for the first time. "Energy efficiency by itself is not a sufficient green strategy," says Owen.

Hopes that we might simply run out of fossil fuels before we've cooked the sky now seem unfounded, thanks to the discovery of new unconventional supplies like oil sands or shale natural gas. We can decarbonize the energy we use by replacing fossil fuels with solar, nuclear and other alternatives, but that will take decades at best, and we're moving far too slowly.

So if we want to bring down carbon emissions, we have to use less energy — even very efficient energy — and that likely means we'd have to live with less growth. Good luck trying to explain that to voters, though. "There is a fundamental conflict between the idea of propagating growth and the idea of reducing carbon emissions," says Owen. "But if you're in a public-policy position, it's almost impossible to say that." (See "The Worst Kind of Poverty: Energy Poverty.")

That doesn't mean energy efficiency can't be a useful environmental tool — it can, provided it's coupled with policies that effectively increase the cost of energy, so savings from efficiency are conserved rather than being spent on additional consumption. We can also change policy to promote sustainable, dense urban living. (Hong Kongers are well-off, but they use only one-third as much energy as Americans largely because they live in one of the densest cities on the planet.) And we can focus on the environmental policies that really matter. Buying local food is fine, but what matters much more is how far you drove to get to the market — or whether you needed to drive at all. "What we need to do is make more big cities like Manhattan," says Owen. "But that's a tough sell."

Indeed it is. Owen notes that he likes living in small-town Connecticut, even if it isn't great for the planet. And while everything from highway construction to zoning regulations seem designed to induce sprawl, I suspect many Americans simply don't want to live in New York City, just as they don't really care about climate change enough to accept more expensive energy or slower economic growth. "We already know what we need to do and we have for a long time," Owen writes. "We just don't like the answers." That's the conundrum — and the solution won't be easy.

Insights from Past Millennia on the Health Impacts of Climate Change

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

Anthony J McMichael PNAS paper "Insights from past millennia into climatic impacts on human health and survival" attached. Abstract below.

Except for the last sentence in the abstract, "Duh!!"

Is this science? It certainly ain't history. Collection of anecdotal tidbits, that's all.

But nor is it a uni-dimensional, deterministic tract the abstract made me afraid. (I have read McMichael's review papers before.)

It's a cautiously written paper, and I am of course unable to judge the validity of historical references. At times, however, I feel like his caution gives it a sophomoric tone - e.g. "Great civilizations decline for complex reasons"; of course, so why make grandiose claims?

As generally with mechanistic Models of Doom (see attached Solow piece from PNAS 1972), scientists ignore the role of prices and political power.

"The greatest recurring health risk has been from impaired food yields, mostly due to drying and drought. The fact that drought has been the dominant historical cause of hunger, starvation, and consequent death (70) casts an ominous shadow over this coming century, for which climate modeling consistently projects an increase in the range, frequency, and intensity of droughts (71)."

Yeah, yeah. But how droughts become famines is the interaction of human ingenuity, control, deviousness.

McMichael quotes Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts (footnote 66) but only to report out-of-context statistics.

Climate scientists like Trenberth assert all other scientists should refrain from challenging their climate dogma and stick to their discipline. Perhaps epidemiologists shouldn't pretend to be historians and philosophers. Or climate scientists, for that matter.

The last sentence in the Abstract is nonsense; it is cheaper to more directly address the climate-related health vulnerability.

Grow more food and distribute it efficiently. Address food insecurity, forget climate change abatement.

******

Anthony J. McMichael, Feb 6,2012,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Climate change poses threats to human health, safety, and survival via weather extremes and climatic impacts on food yields, fresh water, infectious diseases, confl ict, and displacement. Paradoxically, these risks to health are neither widely nor fully recognized. Historical experiences of diverse societies experiencing climatic changes, spanning multicentury to single-year duration, provide insights into population health vulnerability— even though most climatic changes were considerably less than those anticipated this century and beyond. Historical experience indicates the following. (i ) Long-term climate changes have often destabilized civilizations, typically via food shortages, consequent hunger, disease, and unrest. (ii) Medium-term climatic adversity has frequently caused similar health, social, and sometimes political consequences. (iii) Infectious disease epidemics have often occurred in association with briefer episodes of temperature shifts, food shortages, impoverishment, and social disruption. (iv ) Societies have often learnt to cope (despite hardship for some groups) with recurring shorterterm (decadal to multiyear) regional climatic cycles (e.g., El Niño Southern Oscillation)— except when extreme phases occur. (v ) The drought– famine – starvation nexus has been the main, recurring, serious threat to health. Warming this century is not only likely to greatly exceed the Holocene’ s natural multidecadal temperature fluctuations but to occur faster. Along with greater climatic variability, models project an increased geographic range and severity of droughts. Modern societies, although larger, better resourced, and more interconnected than past societies, are less flexible, more infrastructure-dependent, densely populated, and hence are vulnerable. Adverse historical climate-related health experiences underscore the case for abating human-induced climate change.

Friday, February 03, 2012

Andy Revkin in NY Times DotEarth: Two Nobelists, Two Views (or, the Story of Cooking)

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

Some say the earth is cooking. I say look at the debate on cooking.

The two Nobelists are Mario Molina and Burton Richter, mentioned in Andy Revkin's DotEarth entry farther down. The two in turn are responding to a statement by a third Nobelist - Ivar Giaever - mentioned in a WSJ letter by other scientists.

First below, a WSJ letter on 27 Jan, signed by 16 "concerned scientists" and titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming". The headline is acceptable; the letter asks "what, if anything" needs to be done about global warming, and is an appropriate answer to "do something, anything, no matter the cost and no matter who pays" mindset. It concludes, "Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence."

Of course, science is all about 'incontrovertible' evidence that should be challenged and can be overturned. The letter only says, "There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy." Leaving open the question whether there is sufficient evidence ('balance of evidence', not 'guilt beyond a reasonable doubt') for significant but non-drastic (minimally invasive surgery, not replacement of eight joints plus kidney) action to decarbonize some parts of the world economy.

The letter maintains a Giaever, a Physics Nobel Laureate who resigned from the American Physical Society because he couldn't stomach its policy statement, "Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." As policy statements go - and APS has designated it as such - what is there to disagree with? "If no mitigating actions..", but that is evidently not the case; mitigating actions are being taken, just that some think they are not adequate. The statement says nothing about WHEN "significant disruptions" are "likely to occur", nor whether "we must reduce emissions.. beginning now" at the rate of 10% or 0.1% (besides, world GDP is getting decarbonized anyway, considering all carbon emissions).

Do scientists pause to think how irrelevant their storms in their tea-cups, fist-fights in their sand-boxes are? A few hundred million dollars of research funds may be at stake, but peanuts considering the stake.

But of course there was a fanatic reaction. Because the claim of 'incontrovertible evidence' was challenged. So the WSJ published a letter on 1 February (nice advertising success!) by not just 'concerned scientists' (which also included a former spacenaut, a couple of engineers) but annointed, credentialed "climate scientists". The college of cardinals (with R K Pachauri as the pope) squeaks, "Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition?" Well, who is to tell I have a heart condition and not a tooth condition, and what if cardiologists keep saying I need a quadruple bypass but ignore that I also have a rare blood disorder that would kill me the moment somebody cuts me up for heart surgery?

And, "In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work." Ah. Of course. Big Deal for those with reputations, and only reputations, to protect.

"Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade." Ahem.

"The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases." Nothing new here. Move on, guys. Nor in the pompous claim "The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases." Yeah, heard that so often, Rio+20 will sound like Rio, Rio, Rio, twenty times over. A broken record.

"Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused." Well, 97% of the politicians actively seeking election or re-election, or 97% of the horse-cart drivers, may agree that sky is blue, sometimes, and will remain blue during many days.

What really is their advice? None, except a stupid finding, "there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered."

THIS IS UTTER SPECULATION. Even nonsense. There is undeniable evidence that the industrialization of the Third World - based on high-CO2 power and transport - has driven decades of world economic growth. Oh, well; they only say "could" drive; nice hedging there.

Do scientists have no shame, cluttering the intellectual space with specious arguments and infantile squabbling? Or, are they prima donnas who take objection to an innocuous policy statement or another? What do they think they are - as if their policy pronouncements matter more than a couple of hoots, especially when couched in such modest language as to have any meaning at all?

What has all this to do with cooking (i.e., other than the earth)?

There're similar arguments there. The advocates of GACC have been running around like chicken littles, claiming that IAP from home cooking is killing 1.6 million children and women per year; that's 'science', even if folks don't have a clue as to what 'clean cookstoves' are (in the absence of cleaner fuels), or what they would do. Some others come in and talk about losing forests and causing erosion; more 'science'. Then opponents of 'stoves' work squabble with combustion practices, emission rates, exposures, epidemilogy; more 'science' again.

What is lost in all this is that humans have known for centuries that excessive smoke is bad. Even if they don't know that even smaller amounts of smoke can cause short- and long-term damage, they have learnt to live with it until they can escape the fuel poverty - enough money to hire someone else to collect/prepare fuel and/or to cook, and better still, to move to cleaner stove/fuel combinations. The real challenge is in developing cheaper, more reliable alternatives and getting them in the market place where it matters. The 'science' argument is valuable but immaterial.

Same with the so-called climate debate. The 'science' argument over extent and causes of change, and long-term prospects, is immaterial so long as there is a de-carbonization trend.

Repeat after Kirk Smith - "If one is going to put carbon in the atmosphere anyway, CO2 is the least harmful of all." And accept that all emissions and all impacts considered, the decarbonization trend will accelerate somewhat but not at the rate some scientists demand. Tough. Live with the climate, whether or not it changes and whether or not some scientists say this thing or that.

Even Andy Revkin says, "Meanwhile there are many things we can do that have multiple benefits." Keep one cause - human well-being - in mind; the rest will follow.

**********

Links to the articles discussed above

Wall Street Journal, January 27th, 2012
No Need to Panic About Global Warming - There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Wall Street Journal, February 1st, 2012
Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate.

NY Times, Dot Earth Blog, February 2nd, 2012
Two Nobelists Offer Views of Human-Driven Global Warming.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Snowfall in Punjab, Winter rain in Rajasthan: An Arctic Link to an Extended Winter (Live Mint)

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

The story below mentions first snow in Punjab in over half a century. I heard about a rainstorm in Rajasthan from a laborer.

Climate changes. So?


********
An Arctic link to an extended winter
On 10 January, when the index dipped to its negative phase, snow dramatically fell over much of Europe, India and Pakistan - Jacob P. Koshy (Live Mint, India)

New Delhi: Blame a combination of tropical storms and a whimsical drop in air pressure in the distant Arctic for the surprise snowfall in Punjab, the first in over half a century of the state’s meteorological history.

While the weather over northern India may have been mild for most of the winter months, international forecast agencies and analysts suggest that the January chill over north India is likely to be in line with global trends of a long-drawn winter that is likely to extend well into February.

While it’s well known that snow in Europe closely ties in with the intensity of winters in India, international interest in the relationship between global warming and its impact on ice cover in the Arctic has dramatically increased scientific scrutiny of how weather patterns here - such as fluctuations in atmospheric pressure, wind speeds, sea surface temperatures - may have a global impact on weather in far-flung continents.
This scrutiny has led climate scientists to develop and monitor the so-called Arctic Oscillation (AO) index, a barometer of the variation in pressure over the Arctic region.

When the AO index is positive, surface pressure is low in the polar region. This helps the middle-latitude jet stream (gusts of warm air above the Mediterranean) to blow strongly and consistently from west to east and trap the cold Arctic air within the polar region.

When the AO index is negative -as it is now-there tends to be high pressure in the polar region, weaker zonal winds and greater movement of frigid polar air into middle latitudes.

While the pressures were rising and positive until January, there’s been a steady, unexpected dip in the index since 4 January.

In fact on 10 January, when the index dipped to its negative phase, snow dramatically fell over much of Europe, India and Pakistan.

Moreover, current predictions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, as well as the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts suggest that this negative phase is likely to last well into January.

“They could be wrong too, because AO is quite erratic that way. But these models’ ability to predict the AO patterns over the next week or fortnight has considerably improved over the last few years,” said Madhavan Rajeevan, meteorologist at Indian Space Research Organisation.

Last year, too, the index was negative throughout January and triggered a longer, but relatively mild winter over India.

For most of the 20th century, during which systematic global climate records were maintained, the AO index was usually positive. Since the 1970s, almost coinciding with global concerns over greenhouse gases and warming, the index has seen fluctuating patterns.

“There are some correlations between the Indian monsoon and AO index, but it’s still to be well fleshed out, since the fluctuations of the ’70s in the ice cover (over the Arctic) are being closely monitored and they seem to be more erratic,” according to Rajeevan. “It’s not known why.”

Scientists at the India Meteorological Department (IMD) said that they didn’t monitor the AO index daily.

“Arctic seasons are known to have global repercussions, but given that hailstorms and blizzards aren’t too frequent over India, we only monitor Arctic patterns for monsoon,” said D.S. Pai, director (forecasting) at IMD.

Consistently low temperatures over January and February could affect India’s rabi or winter crop. The agriculture ministry has already issued an advisory that stronger hailstorms and colder weather could affect some of the oilseed and cotton crop, though there was unlikely to be significant damage to the key wheat crop, which is the staple of India’s rabi season.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Indian PV Plant for the Subcontinent

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

In the story below "Modi suggested to the Central Government to consider setting up huge solar power projects on Western Indo-Pak border, which can be managed by the Border Security Force (BSF)."

Since Gujarat will be in surplus, since moving huge quantities of power from the border to Pak grid will no doubt be easier and cheaper than to move it to Delhi (Gandhinagar to Gandhidham is longer than the border to Hyderabad or Karachi), and since Pakistan has severe power shortages, I raise a toast to Modi and propose a $5 billion, 2000 MW PV plant with grid connecting India and Pakistan.

Mr Modi claims he raised $450 billion for Gujarat. He should've no difficulty raising $20 billion for Gujarat investment in subcontinent peace and prosperity.

Or Dr Singh can put the deal on the table and have the rest of the world finance it.

*********

Gujarat to have 7,000 Mw surplus power by end 2012: CM
Business Standard Reporter / Mumbai/ Ahmedabad Jan 10, 2012, 00:28 IST

As an ambitious move by the Gujarat Government, the state is aiming to generate 7,000 megawatt of surplus power by the end of 2012, the state chief minister Narendra Modi said at the 10th Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas – 2012 conclave held in Jaipur on Monday.

"Gujarat had a shortage of power to the tune of 2,000 Mw in 2001. The country continues to face a similar situation now, but Gujarat has now become, a power surplus state. Gujarat currently has 4,000 Mw of suplus electricity and it will generate 7,000 Mw of surplus power by the end of 2012," a state government statement quoted Modi as saying.

In his speech at the conclave, Modi said, "Jyotigram scheme of the state government provides round-the-clock power in every nook and corner of Gujarat and on Monday state has become, a power surplus state."

Speaking on the solar power capacities in Gujarat, Modi mentioned that the state had become a global capital of solar energy generation. "Gujarat is the first state in India to have a solar energy policy which was later adopted by the Government of India. World’s largest solar park with 3,000 Mw of capacity is being established in Gujarat jointly with Clinton Foundation," said Modi.

Modi suggested to the Central Government to consider setting up huge solar power projects on Western Indo-Pak border, which can be managed by the Border Security Force (BSF).

Speaking on the global economic slowdown, the chief minister apprised that Gujarat took the initiative to host global investors' summit in 2011, which a record inflow of investment commitments to the tune of US $ 450 billion (approx. Rs 23.72 lakh crore at the current exchange rate).

He also advocated for a roundtable conference of all the States to be convened by the Prime Minister, joined by prominent economists and policy makers to address the economic slowdown.

Addressing a gathering of non-resident Indians including leaders of Gujarati community abroad, Modi shared the growth story and approach of the state towards development. He informed that according to a Government of India’s survey, Gujarat has 72 per cent employment rate, whereas rest of India stands at 28 per cent. He also proposed that Gujarat should host the 2015 Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas to mark the centenary of Mahatama Gandhi’s return to India from South Africa on January 9, 2015.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Wood Smoke and Uutdoor Air Pollution Costs Lives and Money in US Northwest

today..
From Mr. Lalloobhoy Battliwala

link to an article from NPR below, which quotes.. "In Washington, the state Ecology Department estimates that sooty pollution from sources including wood smoke and diesel exhaust contributes to 1,100 deaths and $190 million in health costs annually."

Now, should deaths be considered as savings in health costs?

*********

December 16, 2011, NPR
Where There's Smoke, There's Sickness: Wood Smoke now a major Northwest air polluter
by Robert McClure,

Wood Smoke now a major Northwest air polluter.

The warning label on the wrapping of neatly split firewood is one we're more accustomed to seeing on cigarettes or heavy-duty chemicals: "known... to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm."

But in fact, heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, asthma attacks and premature death – in addition to cancer – all are linked to wood smoke pollution. It's a finding that poses a vexing dilemma for poor and rural communities around the Northwest where wood is a cheap or even free source of heat.

And in Tacoma, where the air is so dirty it violates the Clean Air Act, authorities are gearing up for what promises to be an arduous and expensive campaign over the better part of a decade to clean up wood smoke pollution. It's an effort that already has some residents chafing at government interference, and one that will set the stage for how other Northwest communities are treated when they bump up against tightened federal pollution standards.

In Tacoma and many towns across the Northwest, wood smoke is a prime culprit in driving spikes of sooty, toxic air pollution that leave some residents – particularly asthmatics, kids and the elderly – gasping for breath. It's especially bad during sunny, cold stretches like those we've seen in recent weeks, because atmospheric conditions trap the pollution close to the ground.

Read More on NPR.