Major institutional building will be necessary if a new climate treaty is to move from the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to sectoral crediting as planned by the EU, a European Commission official said last week (22 October). A sectoral crediting mechanism to replace the CDM in competitive industrial sectors of advanced developing countries such as China and India could hit the wall due to lack of institutional capacity, a Brussels climate change conference warned. Such a mechanism, generating credits once a sector has reached an agreed baseline for emission reductions, is fundamentally different from the CDM in that it deals with entire industrial sectors rather than individual installations, said Jürgen Lefevere, policy coordinator for international climate change negotiations at the Commission's environment directorate.
A sectoral crediting mechanism to replace the CDM in competitive industrial sectors of advanced developing countries such as China and India could hit the wall due to lack of institutional capacity, a Brussels climate change conference warned.
Such a mechanism, generating credits once a sector has reached an agreed baseline for emission reductions, is fundamentally different from the CDM in that it deals with entire industrial sectors rather than individual installations, said Jürgen Lefevere, policy coordinator for international climate change negotiations at the Commission's environment directorate.
From 10:10 to the government's Act On CO2 campaign, it is now widely accepted that tackling climate change will require tackling behaviour change too. But until now, a key piece has been missing from the puzzle - psychology. The study of human behaviour has been conspicuous by its absence from the climate change debate. The assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have provided the scientific evidence of human impact on the climate, and a glimpse of what the future may hold if we don't act fast. But while the consensus may be growing on the need for changes in behaviour, we're no closer to understanding how we're going to do it. Attempting an unprecedented shift in human behaviour without the input of psychologists is like setting sail for a faraway land without the aid of nautical maps. Psychological research shows that most people in the UK don't feel personally threatened by climate change because it is vague, abstract and difficult to visualise. This means that doomsday scenarios and apocalyptic language are unlikely to work - although fear can motivate behaviour change, it only works when people feel personally vulnerable. Clearly, exaggerating the threat of climate change is not an option. So how can climate change be made more relevant to people's lives?
The assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have provided the scientific evidence of human impact on the climate, and a glimpse of what the future may hold if we don't act fast. But while the consensus may be growing on the need for changes in behaviour, we're no closer to understanding how we're going to do it. Attempting an unprecedented shift in human behaviour without the input of psychologists is like setting sail for a faraway land without the aid of nautical maps.
Psychological research shows that most people in the UK don't feel personally threatened by climate change because it is vague, abstract and difficult to visualise. This means that doomsday scenarios and apocalyptic language are unlikely to work - although fear can motivate behaviour change, it only works when people feel personally vulnerable. Clearly, exaggerating the threat of climate change is not an option. So how can climate change be made more relevant to people's lives?
So how can climate change be made more relevant to people's lives?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
The comments section has been taken over by very verbose and aggressive (and paid?) trolls, which makes one wonder whether it's actually a practical proposal that threatens the coal, oil, and nuclear industry.
They're completely different concepts. CO2 production, global warming.
God, will the confusion wrought by anti-nukes never end? Align culture with our nature.
asdf did not conflate oil, coal and nuclear. He suggested those industries might be paying astroturfers. Is that unthinkable?
Climate summit loophole lets palm oil producers cull vital wildernessA vital safeguard to protect the world's rainforests from being cut down has been dropped from a global deforestation treaty due to be signed at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December. Under proposals due to be ratified at the summit, countries which cut down rainforests and convert them to plantations of trees such as oil palms would still be able to classify the result as forest and could receive millions of dollars meant for preserving them. An earlier version of the text ruled out such a conversion but has been deleted, and the EU delegation - headed by Britain - has blocked its reinsertion. Environmentalists say plantations are in no way a substitute for the lost natural forest in terms of wildlife, water production or, crucially, as a store of the carbon dioxide which is emitted into the atmosphere when forests are destroyed and intensifies climate change.
A vital safeguard to protect the world's rainforests from being cut down has been dropped from a global deforestation treaty due to be signed at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December.
Under proposals due to be ratified at the summit, countries which cut down rainforests and convert them to plantations of trees such as oil palms would still be able to classify the result as forest and could receive millions of dollars meant for preserving them. An earlier version of the text ruled out such a conversion but has been deleted, and the EU delegation - headed by Britain - has blocked its reinsertion.
Environmentalists say plantations are in no way a substitute for the lost natural forest in terms of wildlife, water production or, crucially, as a store of the carbon dioxide which is emitted into the atmosphere when forests are destroyed and intensifies climate change.
WASHINGTON - Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press. The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs? In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time. "If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina. Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.
The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.
Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming. In an interview with The Times , Lord Stern of Brentford said: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better." Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas. Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times , Lord Stern of Brentford said: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
During an average wet season, the city of Los Angeles sends 100 million gallons of storm water into the Pacific each day. Because it carries various effluents to the ocean, that water had, for many years, been handled as pollution. But a new California law seeks to expand the role of storm water management to incorporate strategies that will use it as a resource. The Stormwater Resource Planning Act, SB 790, allows municipalities to tap funds from two of the state's existing bond funds for projects that reduce or reuse storm water, recharge the groundwater supply, create green spaces and enhance wildlife habitats. The measure takes effect Jan. 1. .... SB 790 allows agencies to apply for and, if approved, draw on funds remaining from Proposition 50, the $3.44-billion water security bond passed by California voters in 2002, and Proposition 84, the $5.4-billion safe drinking water bond passed in 2006. Exactly how much money is left from those bonds is unclear. .... According to Wing Tam, assistant division manager for the bureau's watershed protection division, the money will fund an expansion of the city's rainwater harvesting projects and green infrastructure, including large cisterns, stream restoration, biofiltration and downspout disconnections. "It's important for us to capture storm water and use it as a resource," said Tam, who noted that the city's paradigm shift from viewing storm water as pollution to seeing it as a resource has been a gradual process evolving through 10 years of pilot projects. "Not only does that help us with water quality, but quality of life. A wetland park deals with water quality, but it also creates a park for people to use. It's multiuse. That's our future," Tam said.
The Stormwater Resource Planning Act, SB 790, allows municipalities to tap funds from two of the state's existing bond funds for projects that reduce or reuse storm water, recharge the groundwater supply, create green spaces and enhance wildlife habitats. The measure takes effect Jan. 1. ....
SB 790 allows agencies to apply for and, if approved, draw on funds remaining from Proposition 50, the $3.44-billion water security bond passed by California voters in 2002, and Proposition 84, the $5.4-billion safe drinking water bond passed in 2006. Exactly how much money is left from those bonds is unclear. ....
According to Wing Tam, assistant division manager for the bureau's watershed protection division, the money will fund an expansion of the city's rainwater harvesting projects and green infrastructure, including large cisterns, stream restoration, biofiltration and downspout disconnections.
"It's important for us to capture storm water and use it as a resource," said Tam, who noted that the city's paradigm shift from viewing storm water as pollution to seeing it as a resource has been a gradual process evolving through 10 years of pilot projects. "Not only does that help us with water quality, but quality of life. A wetland park deals with water quality, but it also creates a park for people to use. It's multiuse. That's our future," Tam said.
