Welcome to follow the headlines on global warming.

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

Friday, March 11, 2005

Sudden change

For those of us who remember the movie "the Day after Tomorrow" one of the things that aroused sceptisism was the unexpectedness of climate change in the movie. Sudden hurricanes and extreme cold cyclones aroused little suspicion. Well I dont want to scare you but there is an intersting stydy by Pen State Researchers concerning the treshold theory of sudden climate phenomenas.

"However, some environmental effects are not smooth and show a threshold response. For a long time nothing or very little happens and then suddenly a large change occurs." Keller and William E. Easterling

Reminds me of last summers hurricanes and typhoons. I was in Japan at the worst season, during six weeks I experienced four Typhoons and several Eathquakes. It was rather interesting and intimidating. Another good example in this winters exessive snowfall in central and eastern Europe.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Farting giants

Currently 144 countries have signed the Kyoto protocol. Only 2 Developed countries have not, U.S.A and Australia. The interesting fact is that during Clinton administration U.S.A was planning to ratify the pact. 7% below the emission levels of 1990. However Clinton never ratified the treaty and when Bush came into the office U.S.A was pulled out from the treaty.

Well, 16th of February 05, when Kyoto treaty saw the daylight there was no statements in American political major parties webpages. Only green party declared the 16th of Feb. to be the "day of shame" for U.S for not ratifying the pact. This makes the picture look rather desperate, if neither of the major parties of U.S show no interest in taking care of the global warming. Perhaps this will be the weapon for Democrats to hit Bush and Republicans in the next elections. Anyway they seem to be only dedicated to continue the Bush down campaing rather that concentrating on real political debate.

Well it is rather enjoyable entertainment to follow when waiting next major hurricane to strike Florida. Perhaps this is the plan in the first place... to have all the retired killed, saves in pension expenses!

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Details of Kyoto Protocol

United nations web service is a great way to get to know what Kyoto Protocol actually is. Pages list the content of the treaty. Check the pages to understand the reason for the treaty, its functions and desired goals.


This blog is dedicated to inform readers about the current goings on in the field of global warming. Blog seeks to provide accurate, unbiased information concerning recent scientific tests, political desisions and results of international conferences. Please feel free to provide your own comments and thoughts.

eXTReMe Tracker