EcoRadio

Category: Uncategorized

  • Elevated Carbon Dioxide Making Arid Regions Greener

    Elevated Carbon Dioxide Making Arid Regions Greener

    May 31, 2013 — Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

    Share This:

    Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

    The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports.

    “Lots of papers have shown an average increase in vegetation across the globe, and there is a lot of speculation about what’s causing that,” said Donohue of CSIRO’s Land and Water research division, who is lead author of the new study. “Up until this point, they’ve linked the greening to fairly obvious climatic variables, such as a rise in temperature where it is normally cold or a rise in rainfall where it is normally dry. Lots of those papers speculated about the CO2 effect, but it has been very difficult to prove.”

    He and his colleagues present their findings in an article that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

    The team looked for signs of CO2 fertilization in arid areas, Donohue said, because “satellites are very good at detecting changes in total leaf cover, and it is in warm, dry environments that the CO2 effect is expected to most influence leaf cover.” Leaf cover is the clue, he added, because “a leaf can extract more carbon from the air during photosynthesis, or lose less water to the air during photosynthesis, or both, due to elevated CO2.” That is the CO2 fertilization effect.

    But leaf cover in warm, wet places like tropical rainforests is already about as extensive as it can get and is unlikely to increase with higher CO2 concentrations. In warm, dry places, on the other hand, leaf cover is less complete, so plants there will make more leaves if they have enough water to do so. “If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves, and this should be measurable from satellite,” Donohue explained.

    To tease out the actual CO2 fertilization effect from other environmental factors in these regions, the researchers first averaged the greenness of each location across 3-year periods to account for changes in soil wetness and then grouped that greenness data from the different locations according to their amounts of precipitation. The team then identified the maximum amount of foliage each group could attain for a given precipitation, and tracked variations in maximum foliage over the course of 20 years. This allowed the scientists to remove the influence of precipitation and other climatic variations and recognize the long-term greening trend.

    In addition to greening dry regions, the CO2 fertilization effect could switch the types of vegetation that dominate in those regions. “Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect,” Donohue said. “Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in CO2.”

    “The effect of higher carbon dioxide levels on plant function is an important process that needs greater consideration,” said Donohue. “Even if nothing else in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will still see significant environmental changes because of the CO2 fertilization effect.”

    This study was funded by CSIRO’s Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia.

    Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

     

  • Population growth erodes sustaniable energy gains – UN report Fri, 31 May 2013

     Population growth erodes sustaniable energy gains – UN report Fri, 31 May 2013

    cli-ene cli-for cli-pol cli-cli
    Enlarge image
    A view of the Furnas hydroelectric dam in the city of Sao Jose da Barra in the state of Minas Gerais in Central Brazil, January 14, 2013. REUTERS/Paulo Whitaker
    TweetRecommendGoogle +LinkedInBookmarkEmailPrint

    Jump down to related content

    LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – The world has made important progress towards improving energy efficiency, using more renewable sources of power and providing basic electricity to every household over the last two decades.

    But the gains have barely been enough to keep up with population growth and surging energy demand and are far short of what is needed to curb climate change, a new UN-backed energy report suggests.

    In the last 10 years, 1.7 billion people around the world gained access to electricity. But the world’s population grew by 1.6 billion over that same period, nearly wiping out the gains. Similarly, rising energy demand effectively eliminated half the energy efficiency savings and 70 percent of the gains from growth in renewable energy over the past decade.

    “Even to stand still, we have to run extremely fast. That’s the challenge,” said Vivien Foster, a sustainable energy leader at the World Bank and one of the lead authors of the Global Tracking Framework report, released on Friday.

    Based on household survey data from 180 countries around the world, the report examines progress over the last 20 years towards three sustainable energy goals the United Nations Secretary General has set for 2030: universal access to electricity and fuel sources other than firewood or dung for cooking; a doubling of renewable energy as a share of global energy use; and a doubling of the annual rate of improvement in energy efficiency.

    About 70 countries around the world have signed up to try to meet the “Sustainable Energy for All” goals.

    The report – the first to track progress on such goals – aims to drive better policy on sustainable energy as well as to support the inclusion of energy issues in new sustainable development goals (SDGs), which are expected to be adopted next year to replace the expiring Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

    1.2 BILLION WITHOUT ELECTRICITY

    Access to clean and sustainable energy remains an enormous problem around the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Globally 1.2 billion people have no access to electricity and 2.8 billion cook with firewood and other “solid fuels” that can cause health problems and that help fuel widespread deforestation.

    The problem is worst in rural areas, but experts are particularly concerned about cities, where virtually all of the expected world population increase – from some 7 billion now to 9 billion by 2050 – is expected to occur, Foster said.

    From 1990 to 2010, the percentage of people with access to electricity rose from 76 percent to 83 percent worldwide, she said, but in urban areas the increase was just one percent, albeit from an already high level of 94 percent.

    Today, about 20 percent of the world’s electricity comes from renewable sources, particularly hydropower and biofuels. Brazil, with ample supplies of both, has become one of the world’s renewable energy leaders, alongside countries like Norway and Sweden.

    But China has also achieved huge gains in energy efficiency, with what Foster called “by far the fastest rate of improvement” of any country in the world, cutting its use of energy on a “truly massive” scale.

    “If China had not gone aggressively after this energy agenda, it would have consumed twice as much energy over the last 20 years as it did,” she said.

    Every region in the world, with the exception of the Middle East, has seen improvements in energy efficiency over the last 20 years, the report noted.

    But such changes are occurring too slowly, in too few countries, the report suggests. To bring about more rapid progress on energy access and sustainability – and, as a result, climate change – efforts need to focus on changing policy in what the report terms “high impact countries,” those with the biggest populations and worst problems.

    INDIA NEEDS TO BE A FOCUS

    India – home to 25 percent of the world’s population without access to electricity and the highest number of people using firewood or other similar fuels to cook – heads that list. But countries like the United States and Russia also need big gains in energy efficiency and even China has much more to do, the report said.

    Currently, the world is on track to fall at least a third short of its goal to double the share of renewable energy used by 2030, the report noted, and improvements in energy efficiency are just half of what is needed.

    Changing that will require focusing on what Foster called the “fast-moving” countries to try to work out what is working there. Policy “is the next frontier,” she said.

    Christoph Frei, secretary general of the World Energy Council, said another key will be persuading political leaders that there is more political risk in lagging behind on sustainable energy than pushing ahead. Cutting fossil fuel subsidies may be politically risky, he and others said, but forcing populations to endure blackouts, health problems from pollution or soaring fuel prices can also have risks.

    The report faced criticism at its launch on Friday in London for including fuelwood as a “renewable” source of energy, despite evidence of widespread deforestation and unsustainable use of forests around the world. Foster said the authors of the report – including researchers from organisations such as the International Energy Agency and Practical Action, a nongovernment organisation – may try to track deforestation in order to better define whether fuelwood is “sustainable” for updates on the report.

    The report, based on data held by the International Energy Agency, the United Nations, the World Bank and the World Health Organisation, will be updated every two years, Foster said.

     

     

  • Fears sea-level policy may slash $1bn off property values

    Fears sea-level policy may slash $1bn off property values

    By DAMON CRONSHAW

    May 31, 2013, 10:45 p.m.

    • HIGH AND DRY: Marks Point resident Peter Johnston’s house and contents insurance has risen 280 per cent in one year. Picture: Marina NeilHIGH AND DRY: Marks Point resident Peter Johnston’s house and contents insurance has risen 280 per cent in one year. Picture: Marina Neil

    RESIDENTS fear Lake Macquarie City Council’s controversial actions on the risks of sea level rise will wipe more than $1 billion off the value of properties.

    But some believe the loss could be worse, with homes  worthless because they cannot be sold.

    Some say their properties already won’t sell and insurance premiums are skyrocketing – problems they blame on the council’s sea level rise measures.

    But the council says  changes in property values are a result of the global financial crisis, housing supply and interest rates, not council predictions of sea or lake level rise.

    In a statement the council also said  sea and lake level predictions in 2050 or 2100 played no role in the calculation of insurance premiums.

    However, Marks Point resident Barbara Davis, who is leading an action group on the matter, said the council was ‘‘destroying people’s lives’’.

    The council had placed notations relating to flood and sea level rise on section149 property certificates of about 10,000 properties, and residents say the move has devalued many properties.

    Mrs Davis said the action group called for the council to revoke the notations, but council officials said they were legally obliged to keep them.

    The council said the state government required councils to ‘‘consider information on historical and projected future sea level rise, which is widely accepted by competent scientific opinion’’.

    Marks Point resident Karen Mahoney said the sale of her home had fallen through because banks were only willing to lend up to 50per cent of the value of the property.

    Ms Mahoney said banks had attributed this to the property’s section149 notation.

    She had been willing to ‘‘wear the loss’’ of $200,000 to $300,000 from a high of $895,000, before the buyer pulled out.

    Charlestown-based Russell Property Partners’ owner John Russell said the notations were ‘‘causing people difficulty in selling and making sales fall over’’.

    ‘‘Insurance and finance companies are avoiding loans on properties with these notations,’’ Mr Russell said.

    ‘‘You can shop for banks all you like, but mortgage insurance companies are making those decisions.’’

    Mr Russell said the council ‘‘needs to put on the table what it’s going to do to protect these homes’’.

    The council said it was developing a plan, which included options to ‘‘defend against or modify the flood risk’’, such as levees and private retaining walls.

    Marks Point resident Peter Johnston, among others, estimated sea level rise notations would cause Lake Macquarie property values to drop by at least $1billion.

    They based the estimate on projected devaluations of the 10,000 properties with notations.

    Belmont real estate agent Sue Price said $1billion might be an overestimation, but properties at Marks Point had been devalued.

    ‘‘It’s hard to say where this will end,’’ Mrs Price said.

    Pensioner Elaine Wolfe, of Pelican, feared she would not be able to sell her house to move to an aged care home when needed.

    ‘‘Will the council come and look after me?’’ Mrs Wolfe said.

    Marks Point resident Phil Jones provided documents to show that NRMA Insurance had increased his home and contents’ insurance policy from $3375 last year to $7562 this year – a 124per cent increase.

    A letter NRMA sent to Mr Jones said: ‘‘We take into account data … which may include local council flood mapping’’.

    Lake Macquarie council altered its flood plan last year to include sea-level rise risk.

    A council report said insurance premium increases had ‘‘mistakenly been attributed to local government flood risk management policies, flood mapping, and policies on sea level rise’’.

    The Insurance Council of Australia said sea-level rise was ‘‘not covered and not considered’’ in premiums, blaming increases on factors including building big homes in highly hazard-prone areas.

    Marks Point resident Rob Antill said the council’s approach to sea level rise had  cost him $1million because a development he had planned had become unviable.

    Lake Macquarie councillor Ken Paxinos said he was ‘‘ashamed’’ of the council’s sea level rise actions.

    Sustainability manager Alice Howe told councillors on Wednesday  the council had ‘‘a duty of care to consider sea level rise in planning and development decisions’’.

    Fighting to stay afloat

    MARKS Point resident Peter Johnston said he believes  Lake Macquarie City Council’s sea level rise policy would leave many people with properties worth nothing.

    ‘‘A house isn’t worth anything if you can’t sell it,’’ Mr Johnston, 62, said.

    Some houses could not be sold in Marks Point because of council actions on sea level rise, he said.

    He recently received a letter from NRMA Insurance saying his house and contents insurance had risen from $1017 to $3872 – a 280per cent increase in one year.

    He had worked hard for his three-bedroom weatherboard house, he said.

    ‘‘We might live on the water, but I’m a carpenter by trade and I worked in the coalmines,’’ he said.

    ‘‘This is our nest egg.’’

    He said the council was not listening to residents’ concerns. It  was spending money on sea level rise actions when ‘‘it should be fixing potholes’’, Mr Johnston said.

    ‘‘Sea level rise might or might not occur,’’ he said.

  • Another budget in massive deficit

    28 May 2013, 6.19am EST

    Another budget in massive deficit

    Now that the federal budget is out of the way, it’s time to look at another budget soon to be massively in deficit – Australia’s greenhouse emissions budget. Last week, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide rose above 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in approximately 3 million years…

    F625xr3s-1369372546
    What percentage of the world’s fossil fuel do we have the right to burn? OzinOH/Flickr

    Now that the federal budget is out of the way, it’s time to look at another budget soon to be massively in deficit – Australia’s greenhouse emissions budget.

    Last week, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide rose above 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in approximately 3 million years. Without deep and rapid cuts to greenhouse gas emissions over the next two decades, we face a world of catastrophic climate change with rising average temperatures, rising seas, and extreme weather events.

    So what is Australia’s fair share of the effort necessary to avoid such outcomes? This question lies at the heart of the Climate Change Authority’s (CCA) new issues paper and its task of recommending on Australia’s future targets.

    How much carbon does the world have up its sleeve?

    In 2009, the international community – including Australia – agreed to hold global warming to below 2°C. Developed nations and major industrialising countries then pledged voluntary national mitigation targets for 2020. (Australia adopted an unconditional short-term emissions target to cut national greenhouse emissions by 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.) However, collectively, these pledges fall well short of what is required to keep warming below 2°C, or the much safer target of 1.5°C.

    Research shows that the collective effort of all those pledges would still lead to global average warming of around 4°C and catastrophic climate change. This deficit in international effort is now commonly called the “ambition gap”.

    Climate scientists have put numbers to this gap by estimating a global carbon budget. This budget defines the amount of emissions that can still accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere if we are to stay below 2°C. Using 2000 as the baseline, we now know that that we can add a further 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere to keep warming under 2°C.

    Human activities have already added some 420 billion tonnes (give or take 50 billion tonnes) of CO2 to the atmosphere since 2000. In other words, we have used almost half our quota in 13 years. Climate scientists estimate that, conservatively, only another 500 billion tonnes of CO2 can be added to give us a 75% chance of staying below the 2° limit.

    The world needs to cut its annual emissions of CO2-equivalents by 8 to 13 billion tonnes by 2020 to have a reasonable hope of bridging the “ambition gap”. Cutting by the larger of these amounts offers a better chance of achieving the 2°Celsius goal.

    How do we divide it up?

    It’s all very well to know our limits, but sharing the burden of cutting emissions is proving difficult. How do we divide up the budget so everyone gets a fair slice?

    One way is to divide the remaining 500 billion tonnes of possible greenhouse emissions by the world’s population of 7 billion. This approach gives each human alive today some 71.5 tonnes as their equal part of humanity’s remaining greenhouse budget allocation. Each person can use their quota entirely, or pass the remainder onto their successors. Multiplying the per capita quota by the population of a country gives you its national carbon budget.

    Another option – for determining 2020 targets – is for all national emitters to accept a share in reducing their annual emissions to bridge the “ambition gap” of 13 billion tonnes.

    These approaches aren’t fair. They are merely mathematically proportionate. They demand an equal response of states and their citizens whether nations are wealthy and industrialised or poor and least developed.

    In other words, these approaches “excuse” the massive material benefits that some nations have gained from burning fossil fuels. They also ignore future population growth, the needs of some 2 billion additional humans who will be alive in 2050. A more equitable approach would take into account each nation’s development needs (reflected in its national wealth), its capacity to mitigate, its population projections, and its historical contribution to emissions and to mitigation.

    Nevertheless, these strictly proportionate approaches to burden sharing offer an indicative initial guide to Australia’s share of effort.

    What is Australia’s share?

    In 2012, Australia emitted around 578 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2-equivalents. It ranks 12th among the planet’s 190-plus nations for its domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Its per capita emissions are among the world’s highest. Further, when emissions from Australian coal exports are added to its domestic greenhouse emissions, Australia is the source of nearly 4% of total global emissions. In all, Australia is a major emitter, a very significant contributor to global warming, and should shoulder part of this additional reduction burden.

    If we take the first approach, using a per capita allocation of the remaining global carbon budget and Australia’s present population, Australia’s total remaining emissions budget is some 1.65 billion tonnes. At current emissions rates, Australia will exhaust its total remaining carbon budget within the next three years – unless our economy ceases to exist in that time, or unless we buy substantial amounts of international emissions units to compensate for our emissions. It seems Australia is destined to consume much more of the global emissions budget than is its fair share.

    The second approach – which involves accepting a share of the extra 13 billion tonnes cut necessary to bridge the ambition gap – means reducing Australia’s emissions by a further 195 million tonnes per annum by 2020 (1.5% of the 13 billion tonnes). This would be the same as raising Australia’s present 2020 mitigation target of -5% to around -40%.

    Of course, Australia’s fair share in 2020 would need to be even greater because Australia ranks very high on international indices of national and per capita development, wealth and GDP. Ethically, halving our emissions by 2020 begins to look like the minimum appropriate option.

    From even this brief analysis it’s clear that Australia has the responsibility and the need – given its ecological vulnerability – to adopt a much tougher 2020 emissions abatement target.

    We are overspending carbon like there’s no tomorrow. Our current -5% target for 2020 is one of the weakest of any developed nation. It is expediently constructed to avoid domestic economic and political angst, and shows us to be – in terms of international mitigation effort – a nation of emissions bludgers.

    In the run-up to the September election, we need to hear how competing political parties intend to address Australia’s carbon budget deficit. How will they bring it under control? Where’s the plan for a low-carbon economy? Labor’s cuts in funding for renewable energy, and Abbott’s promised axing of a carbon price that is already too low and his proposed demolition of the Clean Energy Fund, will move us even faster and further into the red.

    A target that halves Australia’s emissions by 2020 can be firmly justified ethically and scientifically. This tougher target is also technologically and economically feasible – but that’s another story.

    Nevertheless many will argue that halving Australia’s greenhouse emissions by 2020 is wildly unrealistic. For a start, it would require multi-party political support, including for significant sectoral reforms. ‘Yeah, right!’, I hear you say. But the longer governments ignore an unavoidable and growing problem of national proportions, the greater the pain when they confront it. And as we’ve just learned from Canberra, the worse the budget deficit and its projections, the tougher the medicine in the long run.

  • the largest independent political survey ever conducted in Australia – the survey of GetUp members everywhere –

    Dear Inga ,

    You know what’s at stake this election. Now I’m inviting you to take part in the largest independent political survey ever conducted in Australia – the survey of GetUp members everywhere – to further guide our movement’s priority issues and election strategy.

    I’ve recorded a short message explaining why. Check it out, and spend a few minutes telling us what’s important to you this election.

    http://www.getup.org.au/yourvision2013

    At the last election, GetUp members championed climate action, took a case to the High Court that allowed 100,000 young Australians to get on the electoral roll, and won a massive increase in funding for mental health – among many other achievements.

    So this is your chance to shape our direction this time around.

    Thanks for all that you do,
    Sam, and the GetUp team

    GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you’d like to contribute to help fund GetUp’s work, please donate now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here. Authorised by Sam Mclean, Level 2, 104 Commonwealth Street, Surry Hills NSW 2010.

  • China buying up the world?

    China buying up the world?

    Woman buys Shuanghui supplied pork

    This week, the largest acquisition of a US firm by a Chinese company was announced. Chinese pork producer Shuanghui International had an offer of $4.7bn accepted by US meat giant Smithfield Foods, the world’s biggest pork producer.

    Just a fortnight earlier, China’s State Grid, the world’s largest utility firm, said it was investing in a couple of companies in Australia. And China is also branching out into movies. The new owner of US cinema chain AMC theatres, Wanda, is Chinese.

    Overseas investments by Chinese firms require permission from the government, because the country controls capital movements across its borders.

    But that is rarely a problem if you are in an area favoured by the Chinese government, such as food, technology, resources, etc. In other words, when a Chinese firm wanted to buy Hummer, which makes the giant off-road vehicles, that wasn’t approved.

    In fact, the government is pushing for more overseas investment as part of its Going Global policy, which was launched in 2000.

    The aim is to create multinational companies, with a particular emphasis in the areas that are important to support China’s economic development.

    There are macroeconomic benefits in helping China diversify its investments (see my earlier post on China’s global ambitions). That is why, for firms that meet those aims, the Chinese state can offer to help by financing the deals using its foreign exchange reserves.

    One way to create multinationals is to buy existing companies, especially trusted brands, as the Chinese companies hope the goodwill associated with these names will rub off on them.

    Shop selling Lenovo products in China China’s biggest PC maker, Lenovo, bought IBM in 2005

    Lenovo’s purchase of IBM’s PC business, as well as the use of the IBM brand name for five years, is the most prominent example of this. The aspiration was to make Lenovo synonymous with a global brand known for its quality.

    The deal also showcases some of the difficulties, however. A key one is that businesses that are for sale aren’t usually the most successful ones.

    So what firms such as Lenovo try to do is to make the products more cheaply. A typical Chinese merger and acquisitions strategy involves cutting costs. Plus, the product can be sold to a larger market. A Chinese owner can offer entry into one of the biggest consumer markets in the world. This can work, but can’t be taken for granted.

    Value of trust

    Nowhere is the importance of brand and quality more apparent than in the area of food products.

    Shuanghui’s reputation suffered when a banned chemical, clenbuterol, which makes meat leaner, was found in its products.

    This may explain why the Chinese firm bid $34 a share for Smithfield, more than a third higher than the value of the shares before the bid was announced.

    Of course, as pork is a staple of the Chinese diet and the country will consume more meat as it grows richer, the growth potential is sizeable.

    With outward investment in quality and brands an important part of China’s growth strategy, this may not be the biggest deal for long.

    So is China buying up the world? Well, not quite.

    China still receives more investment than it invests overseas. But big Chinese takeovers such as these are certain to keep making headlines.

    Linda Yueh Article written by Linda Yueh Linda Yueh Chief business correspondent

    Why the yuan’s value remains in dispute

    09:03 UK time, Wednesday, 29 May 2013

    China doesn’t yet have one main interest rate. Until there is one, the value of the exchange rate is unlikely to be settled.

    Read full article

    More on This Story

    More from Linda