Welcome to follow the headlines on global warming.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Claciers do melt.

All over the net one can find blogs, newsarticles, message boards that debate if Global Warming is actually human caused or not. Here is one example... Blog for Bush

What people seem to forget is that regardless of this globe is for sure getting warmer. In some 30 years when claciers melt alltogether and the sealevel rises aproximately 7 meters. This problem is real and threathning. Instead energy seems to be wasted into fighting if human emissions are the reason or is it simply a planetary change we cannot influence.

Would it be wise to take the risk and try to prevent the process by reducing emissions, if in the end those who think humans cause the warming are after all right? I am starting to gather a stock of swimming suits for future. Helsinki is sinking to hell. (this comment is a joke, all religiously enlightened readers do not fret)

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Right vs. Left

Green parties tend to fall more to the left in the political spectrum, but nowadays one can hardly find a party that has not included enviromental action plan into their platform. Actually green parties around the world have achieved their goal by simply existing. That has forced others to take their viewpoints into consideration. Green parties therefore have moved little towards the center and embrased other social and economical matters. This varies from country to country but generally the fundamentalism about environment has declined within green parties. This is the fashion in EU.

In U.S the case seems to be different.

Environmental protection doesn't have to be a left-versus-right issue, but in the 35 years since the first Earth Day, it certainly has been.
Amy Ridenour's national center blog, April 09

Environmental protection is not left-versus-right issue.

Accepting the facts

When we take a look at the media coverage that concerns global warming there are huge differences between the countries. Coverage within EU is mainly concentrated on reporting the phenomenas and possible means to fight against them. Process of implementing Kyoto protocol and political desisions concerning the issue. One quite interesting fact is that there is no debate about whether or not humans really influence to global warming or not. Eu seems to have accepted the fact that the case is so. Perhaps this is because EU has already implemented the protocol and started the process, the political lobbying agains the protocol is waste time and money.

On the contrary in U.S the debate about the human influence is very hot. This probably is because it still is usefull for Kyoto opposers to arouse suspicion towards the whole thing. The interesting fact is what in the end is so different between U.S and EU that the coverage is so contrary. In healthy democratic system only relevant issues are brought to debate. The absense of suspicion in the press with in EU towards if human actually influence global warming or not is probably a sign that political climate is little bit more healthy than in U.S.

Thursday, April 07, 2005


There is a lovely debate concerning the global warming. It is little old, but shows very well the basic ideas and polarisation of sides. Besides it is very entertaining!

Lawrence Lesligs Blog

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Finnish study shows cooling effect of forests.

Aerosol is the word today. As we are used to assosiate the word with spraycans and deodorants it has a little bit negative connontation.

However Finnish Aerosol Research reveals that forrest are functioning as controllers of warmth on earth. Forests emit aerosol particles that reflect sunlight and warmth back to the space. These aerosil clouds are born as a side effect photosyntesis that ultimately supports life on earth.

Warming increases the growth of forests that consequently adds more aerosol production to cool down the warming. Concern however is the rapid depletion of worlds forests. Comming years the forests will be used as a method to get more liberties within Kioto and EU treaties concerning the control of global warming.

University of Helsinki, Division of Atmospheric Sciences

EU leads Kyoto 'carbon revolution'

EU is certainly the champion of the fight against Climate Change. It is leading the struggle by implementing emission trade and demanding actions from its members. This system will become worldwide by 2008 following the quidelines of Kioto protocol.

EU has internal trade system but currently there are four EU strates that have not joined the family. Chech Republic, Italy, Greece and Poland. UK is also whining about its emission rates within the scheme.

At the moment CO2 is the only gas that is traded and at the moment the prize is somewhere around 7 Euros. Prize is influenced by factors like weather. Cold winters increase heating and if there is no rainfall hydropower has to be replaced by burning fossile fuel. Industrial growth is more steady factor because of the slow process and developing clean technology.

Source BBC

Increasing CO2

Carbon Dioxide keeps increasing in the athmosphere reports American scientist. Havaiian lab on top of Mauna Loa Volcano (Noaa) reports its studies to have shown that since 1958 the amount of CO2 has been increasing. Growth rate since sixties has doubled over the past decade with some fluxuation. This variation can be expalined by changes in the rate how oceans and flora soak up carbon dioxide. Overall finding however is that man made contribution has been influencing the development of the figures.

Mauna Loa laboratory is one of the most credible unit in the field of climate research. Its location is ideal for test because there are very few external factor influencing on samples. Air is kind of mixed up.

Source BBC

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Nuke 'em

How about nuclear power then?

As we are talking about the global warming and means to stop it we should address the Nuclear power issue.

At the moment it is the only affordable way to make energy without large amounts of pollution. Do you think it is a good idea to build more nuclear power station in order to fight against global warming? This is a topic that everybody usually feels something about, so please comment!

For those who are not fully aware of what I am talking about please visit following links for information.

World Nuclear Assosiation
Green peace, campaing overview -Nuclear-

Greenpeace, a good cause by wrong means?

Greenpeace remains to be the most visible organisation to promote the caring for out environmental future. Press pictures the organisation as very fanatic and loud group of environmental freaks. Sometimes this certainly is true, in situations where individuals chain themselves to the trees in order to prevent them from being chopped down. Or to the fishing ships for that matter.

They seem to fight for good causes, but are the means nessessary the right ones? World does not change in a second at least not very often.

Here is a quote from Greenpeace web pages concerning the Kioto negotiations.

"Vested interests like the fossil fuel industry and heavy energy users interfered and obstructed at every turn. Oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia kept up a constant whine for compensation for loss of oil revenue and politicians of all persuasions ducked and dived and tried to avoid any decisions they thought would make them unpopular at home."

What do they expect? Politicians are always protecting the interest of their own and sometimes perhaps interests of their own countries. What is the strategy of greenpeace, is it to appeal on a common people or to the ultimate enviromental activists. The radical "chain yourself on a tree" attitude is questionable action to get the common people to their side. Radicals are there already anyeway. After all average person is concerned of environment but not really in to the radical activity.

My suggestion to greenpeace is to re-evaluate its strategy. In 80's radicalism was interesting, but 20 years later the world is diffrent. It seems that those, moderate organisations such as green parties in different countries are suffering because of radical imago of greenpeace. After all there is a certain link between these groups. Past elections have shown that enviromental parties have stuck with few seats in the parliaments and are doomed to sit in the opposition.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005


European community countries are currently the most active in creating a global conversation on the problems of global warming. Being one of the biggest industrial countries, UK has taken a good attitude in debate about the means of fighting the phenomena.

Recently it has become clear that countries are unwilling to make rough cuts in the infrastucture of their industries. Meaning for example letting go (banning) of fossil fuel industry. Quite often opinions tend to favour technological solutions and nuclear power. Desision makers are afraid of their respective countries economies, which is naturally reasonable.

Questions however is if there is enough being done to develop clean solutions? Is the process fast enough to safe the environment.

whole story by reuters

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Spring at Himalaya

Happy news from Himalya, provided by Reuters

Trading poop

Britain's opposition shadow enviromental secretary has a new "roadmap" to reduce the emisissions in UK. It is a welcome viewpoint overall but question is if it simply is there to gain popularity among the voters. Next elections are to be held in June 2006.
"In a keynote speech on Monday, the shadow environment secretary pledged to put Britain back on track to meet its Kyoto protocol targets. A second priority would be securing international agreement on the way forward beyond Kyoto, he said. Yeo said he was personally committed to protecting the environment, and was becoming increasingly concerned about the impact of global warming. The shadow spokesman also called for an end to "warm words" on the issue and criticised the government for its addiction to rhetoric and targets without a coherent and credible plan of action."

UK as a memeber of European union has emission trading shemes for companies to reduce the numbers to reach the Kioto treaty. Current sheme is for years 1998-2006, first year the achievement was a reduction of 4.64 million tonnes CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) Emission trading scheme is a way to help countries to achieve their individual goals of Kioto treaty. Companies are allowed to buy and sell emissions, prozes are defined according to the rules of market.
Question is how this affects to the development of trade in EU and poorer EU member states. Desired goal would be if those countries especially new EU member whose economy is developing fast would target gained money to the development of green industry. Will this happen remains to be seen.

sources: Defra EU

eXTReMe Tracker