An emerging body of evidence suggests that the changing global climate is already affecting infectious disease transmission patterns. At a symposium today at the 58th annual meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene in Washington D.C., experts reported that such changes are expected to have a profound impact on global public health.

“There is concrete evidence that the global climate is changing, and these changes are expected to greatly impact human health as surface temperatures rise, agricultural belts shift, and extreme weather events become more commonplace,” Mary H. Hayden, Ph.D. of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said in a statement. “Although most scientists agree that climate change is underway, the role it plays in infectious disease transmission is still in contention. The evidence presented today suggests that climate change will exacerbate the challenges of controlling infectious diseases in the developing world.”

Climate change is expected to impact global health through a variety of factors including greater heat stress, air pollution, respiratory disease exacerbation, and changes in the geographic distribution of vector-, food- and water-borne disease.

“The complexity of such influences requires that the next generation of climate and health scientists undergo training to ensure that they can address climate-related public health challenges. Such preparation will be critical as the population of at-risk individuals continues to grow,” said Dr. Hayden, who is a program coordinator of a joint NCAR/US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention postdoctoral fellowship combining public health applications and climate science.

NCAR Director Eric J. Barron, Ph.D., who discussed the potential use of available weather and climate models in health forecasting, noted that “we are moving into the age of ‘decision-making’ with regard to climate change after decades of focusing on reducing uncertainties in attribution and prediction.”

“Health has huge potential and should be first in line for greater investment to improve the decision-making process because of its clear ties to weather and climate,” Dr. Barron said in a statement. “Whereas the medical community has tended to respond in a ‘point-of-service’ manner — reacting to incoming cases with almost no discipline of forecasting — health/climate forecasting has real potential if we can design monitoring algorithms or a robust predictive capability.”

The aim of the symposium, “Changing the Climate: A Data-Driven Discussion About Climate,” was to address the use, utility, and limitations of weather and climate models toward a goal of providing data-driven evidence of the links between weather, climate, specific pathogens and ultimately, human health. The symposium included several evidence-based presentations by speakers from the US Centers Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Columbia University’s International Research Institute on the established effects of climate variability/change on specific climate-sensitive diseases such as meningitis, malaria, plague and other vector-borne bacterial pathogens.

While the world scrambles to find clean energy solutions, somewhere, every minute of every day, saws buzz through a forest, cutting down one of nature’s antidotes to carbon pollution.

Saving forests in the Congo will help save endangered gorillas (Photo: John Martin)

Each year the world loses about 50,000 square miles of wooded lands, enough to fill an area the size of Pennsylvania. The rapid clearing of tropical forests accounts for nearly 20 percent of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions (partly due to trees being burned) — more than all transportation vehicles combined.

Increasingly, though, companies and non-profits are trying to stem the loss of woodlands to curb global warming and save habitat and native economies.

On Tuesday, The Walt Disney Company announced it will invest $7 million to save and restore forests in the Amazon, the Congo and the United States.

The projects aim to fight climate change, improve the quality of life in local communities and save jeopardized wildlife from gorillas in Africa to songbirds in North America.

“Disney has always been a conservation leader,” said Disney President and CEO Robert A. Iger, in a statement. “Now, more than ever, it’s essential to take swift action to preserve our most vulnerable natural environments for future generations and to be innovative in achieving that goal.”

Rainforest Management in the Congo and the Amazon

Disney is giving $4 million to increase protection of forests in the Tayna and Kisimba-Ikobo Community Reserves in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Alto Mayo conservation project in Peru, two vital tropical forest regions.

The programs, managed by Conservation International, will help secure watersheds and save habitat for plants and animals, many of them threatened or endangered, including the gorilla and okapi in the Congo and the Andean spectacled bear and yellow-tailed woolly monkey in Peru.

The majority of Disney’s contribution will finance community management of these forests, help expand sustainable livelihood practices among local villages and provide for an analysis of the carbon-saving aspect of the project.

Both of these tropical forest efforts are expected to decrease carbon emissions by stopping slash and burn agriculture and to benefit local communities economically. CI estimates that Disney’s expenditure will prevent 900,000 tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere over the next five years.

“This commitment by Disney represents the largest single corporate contribution ever made to reduce emissions from deforestation and will help build confidence in these activities that generate such compelling climate, local community and biodiversity benefits,” said Peter Seligmann, CEO and Chairman of Conservation International.

Reforestation in the Lower Mississippi Valley

Disney also is partnering with The Nature Conservancy to provide more than $2 million to support a pilot reforestation project in the Lower Mississippi Valley.

Restoring forests in the Mississippi Valley will help preserve habitat and mitigate carbon air pollution (Photo: Emily Whitted)

Working with private landowners in Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas, The Nature Conservancy expects to restore up to 2,000 acres of former forest land, planting trees in permanent easements to assure their longevity.

The reforestation will help alleviate carbon pollution and also expand the North American habitat of migrating songbirds and the black bear.

“Protecting forests is one of our most powerful tools in the fight against climate change,” said Mark Tercek, President and CEO of The Nature Conservancy, in a news release. “This innovative project will give private landowners the support they need to join the global fight against climate change and restore local habitats for the betterment of both people and nature. We are proud to partner with Disney to protect critical habitat and ensure these incredible forests will be around for generations to come.”

Redwood Forest Management in Northern California

Disney also will invest $1 million in The Conservation Fund’s forestry work along California’s North Coast, where the group owns and sustainably manages two redwood forests in Mendocino County.
The project was set up to demonstrate that improved forest management, with selective harvests and verified carbon offset sales, can benefit the environment and the economy. Indeed, here in an area rich in natural resources, the well-being of humans, plants and animals are closely entwined: Healthy forests, watersheds and streams are needed to support Coho salmon, steelhead trout, spotted owl and other wildlife — and the people

Northern California Forest (Photo: Matthew Gerhart, Conservation Fund)

that depend on them.

Lawrence Selzer, president and CEO of The Conservation Fund, joined the other environmental leaders in issuing a statement of gratitude for the Disney gift:

“Across America, forests are shrinking; 35 acres here, 500 there,” Selzer said. “The decline is so incremental, it masks a crisis. In partnership with leading companies such as Disney, we are pioneering new approaches to forest conservation and climate change. We’re proud to collaborate with Disney on this critical effort.”

Disney’s forest preservation investment is part of the company’s plan, announced last March, to meet aggressive 3 to 5 year goals to reduce emissions, waste, electricity and water use, and to limit its impact on ecosystems.

In addition to the investment announced today, Disney has recently committed to planting close to 3 million trees in Brazil’s Atlantic Rainforest and in the fire-ravaged areas in the mountains surrounding greater Los Angeles through contributions from the  Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund and local donations.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

New ground measurements made by the West Antarctic GPS Network project, composed of researchers from The University of Texas at Austin, The Ohio State University and The University of Memphis, suggest the rate of ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been slightly overestimated.

“Our work suggests that while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates,” Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator for the project, said in a statement. “So the take home message is that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels. It is the rate that is unclear.”

In 2006, another team of researchers used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites to infer a significant loss of ice mass over West Antarctica from 2002 to 2005. Those satellites do not measure changes in ice loss directly but measure changes in gravity, which can be caused both by ice loss and vertical uplift of the bedrock underlying the ice.

Now, for the first time, researchers have directly measured the vertical motion of the bedrock at sites across West Antarctica using the Global Positioning System. The results should lead to more accurate estimates of ice mass loss.

Antarctica was once buried under a deeper and more extensive layer of ice during a period known as the Last Glacial Maximum. Starting about 20,000 years ago, the ice began slowly thinning and retreating. As the ice mass decreases, the bedrock immediately below the ice rises, an uplift known as postglacial rebound.

Postglacial rebound causes an increase in the gravitational attraction measured by satellites and could explain their inferred measurements of recent, rapid ice loss in West Antarctica. The new GPS measurements show West Antarctica is rebounding more slowly than previously thought. This means that the correction to the gravity signal from the rock contribution has been overestimated and the rate of ice loss is slower than previously believed.

The researchers do not yet know how large the overestimation was. A more definitive correction will be conducted by other researchers who specialize in interpreting satellite data. Previous estimates of postglacial rebound were made with theoretical models. Analysis of the direct GPS results into new models are expected to produce significant improvements in estimations of ice mass loss.

A team from The University of Texas at Austin’s Jackson School of Geosciences (Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator), The Ohio State University’s School of Earth Sciences (Michael Bevis), and The University of Memphis’ Center for Earthquake Research and Information (Robert Smalley, Jr.) performed the project.

By now you’ve heard the dire predictions for how sea level rise would affect Miami. Basically this city, already imperiled by worsening hurricanes, is in the bulls-eye for rising oceans too.

But did you realize that a one meter sea level increase — now believed by many scientists to be a likely outcome of global warming by 2100 — would put Philadelphia underwater?

Greenland Ice Flow (Photo: NASA)

Yes, the city of Brotherly Love would be among the large family of coastal cities potentially devastated by coastline changes. And not in the too-distance future either.

According to glacier and ice shelf expert Dr. Gordon Hamilton, Philadelphia could experience troubles decades before that 2100 benchmark if storm surges pushed rising oceans inland.

In other words, there is no magic threshold when the seas, warmed by the atmosphere and swelled by melting ice sheets, will spill over their old boundaries. There is a steady creep occurring now. But flooding, hastened by storms, could happen well before the ocean’s reach the 1 meter increase (absent any serious human action to slow the current progression).

Hamilton, a research professor at the University of Maine who studies melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica , and Dr. Asa Rennermalm, a Rutgers University professor who studies Arctic and Greenland ice sheets,  are kicking off a lecture tour today to spread this news about how the oceans are rising even faster than projected just a couple years ago.

The first talk was this morning at the Wagner Free Institute in Philadelphia followed by a demonstration at the Adventure Aquarium in Camden, N.J. Subsequent engagements will take the pair to Miami; Washington, New York City and several other cities. The tour, dubbed the “hip boot tour” to emphasize the reality of the coming floods, is sponsored by Clean Air-Cool Planet, a non-profit dedicated to fighting global warming.

None of these cities where the scientists will be speaking will be spared by rising sea levels. Just as most mega-cities around the globe will be affected, because so many population centers sit on the coast or on rivers that lead directly to the coast. Cities like Paris. And Philadelphia.

Talking to Hamilton is a bit like previewing one of those apocalyptic movies where the world suffers from monster storms, vast floods, temperature changes and incredible destruction of infrastructure.

At a one-meter rise, for instance, the subway entrances in Manhattan would be at the water level, which means the subways would be inundated, permanently, said Dr. Hamilton, whose degree is in geophysics.

One doesn’t need a degree in geophysics to understand the consequences of the nation’s financial capital being underwater. Having St. Louis and Chicago on dry ground would not ameliorate the devastation to humans and world trade.

In Philadelphia, a 1 meter increase would flood the downtown district and areas along the river. Harbor trade would be shut down and on the east side, Camden, N.J., would be inundated. Across New Jersey, aquifers would likely be contaminated with sea water.

Neighborhoods at higher elevations, north and west of Philadelphia would remain dry.

Parts of Florida at 33 feet above sea level and below are shown flooded (Image: NASA.)

In Miami, nothing would be unaffected. A 1 meter sea level rise would put most of the city underwater, and it wouldn’t be alone. “Most of Florida’s big cities would be severely affected,” Hamilton said. Models overlaid on satellite images show Miami, the Keys, St. Petersburg and Tampa under water. The everglades would become a saltwater marsh and aquifers in the state would become brackish or completely salinated.

Hamilton says he shows people how their city’s coastline would change, but also tries to get local audiences to see the global nature of the problem.  “Not only are you flooding downtown DC, but hundreds of millions of people in Southeast Asia like Bangladesh, ” he said.

The key point of the tour is not just to demonstrate impending devastation, but to explain that the threat is more imminent than was predicted by the Interplanetary Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just two years ago.

In 2007, the IPCC warned that the sea levels would rise a little more than half a meter and possibly more. Even at that less drastic increase, the “the impacts are virtually certain to be overwhelmingly negative,” scientists wrote.

That prediction was based on the best available science.

What didn’t make the report, Dr. Hamilton said, was that in 2005, geophysicists studying the freshwater ice sheets in Greenland and changes in Antarctica had witnessed an alarming quickening in the speed of some glaciers as they carried ice toward the ocean.

In Greenland, some of these rivers of ice “were doing these crazy things,” he said. Some were moving 45 meters in a day — about the distance of one half a football field. In glacial terms, they were moving very fast. You could hear the ice cracking, he said.

“Almost over night, in the course of 9 to 10 months, they started moving about three times faster than they had been,” Dr. Hamilton said.

Scientists know the changes were prompted by global warming, and that the ice melts can grow exponentially, with water in crevasses contributing to the problem. But they still don’t understand what it all means. Some glaciers later slowed, but others sped up, Hamilton said. The net effect is likely to be a faster melt, with more water raising the ocean levels worldwide.

“Our talks right now are to emphasize that the picture has changed dramatically. If you were to take a consensus among my colleagues who work in Greenland and Antarctica, everybody is likely to say that it (sea rise) is more likely to be a meter.”

If not more.

“Politicians,” he said, “regardless of their political leanings on climate change need to be aware that they’re ethically bound to consider the upper bounds of sea level change…It’s delinquent for people to say they’re going to plan for the minimum (possible change) and then in 50 years time find that huge amounts of their infrastructure is flooded because they didn’t pay attention.”

• The lecture tour dates and cities are:

• Oct. 20 – Philadelphia

• Oct. 21 -  Portland, Maine

• Oct. 22 – Tampa, Fla.

• Oct. 23 -  Tampa, Fla.

• Oct. 24 – Miami, Fla.

• Oct. 27 -  Wilmington, N.C.

• Oct. 28 – Norfolk, Va.

• Oct. 29 – Hampton, N.H.

For details on those talks see the Clean Air-Cool Planet website. For more information on melting ice and rising ocean levels, as well as other predicted outcomes of global warming, see the US Global Change Research Program 2009 report (East Coasters can see the section on the Northeast) or the  IPCC reports at the United Nation’s website.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

This number shows Earth’s collective 3 trillion-plus metric tons of combined greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

You’ll notice that it is a BIG number. And it’s already outdated. This picture was captured yesterday. Look at the counter today on the web, and the number will be bigger.

The volume of greenhouse gases is constantly ticking upward. Much faster than a watch. Steady as an oil derrick. As ominously as a time bomb.

“It keeps on going up while we’re talking and discussing possible policy; it keeps going up,” says Ronald Prinn, co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change,  the group behind this carbon counter and one of two major entities that measure global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“Things are happening. We’re burning fossil fuels. We’re producing greenhouse gases and adding to the stockpile in the atmosphere,”

Carbon counter billboard in NYC. (Photo: Eric Rank, Deutsche Bank)

In New York City, this carbon counter looms large  in Manhattan, thanks to a near-70-foot billboard topped by the moving meter that was launched by Deutsche Bank’s Asset Management Division to raise awareness about climate change. The billboard, just outside Penn Station and Madison Square Garden, was erected this summer, and stands as a reminder to all who pass by, such as those attending the United Nations Climate Summit this week.

The summit, a prequel to the Copenhagen Conference in December, brought together US President Barack Obama and China’s President Hu Jintao, who both explained some measures their countries would take to curb climate change. It offered jolting pronouncements, like the one from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that scientists’ models leave “no space” for inaction.

We talked with Dr. Prinn, a professor of Atmospheric Science who directs the MIT Center for Global Change Science, about those latest projections and the basic science behind them.

First, he explained, the carbon counter in NYC presents an aggregate of the 40 greenhouse gases, the largest one, far and way, being carbon dioxide in the atmosphere worldwide.

What does this number really mean? The atmosphere is so big, it seems like it could handle a certain amount of carbon.

Indeed, nature has ways to process or absorb carbon, replies Prinn. But there are limits and we’re testing them. Since the industrial age began (say 1750), the world has been adding carbon to the air from the burning of fossil fuels –  coal, oil, gasoline — faster than natural elements can absorb it. The Earth’s forests and oceans, which serve as carbon “sinks,” are being tapped out. And we’ve been aggravating the situation by chopping down the forests that can capture and hold carbon.

So the carbon cycle is out of whack, and the excess is building up in the air. Carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, builds up for a long time because it can persist in the atmosphere for more than 100 years.

To restore balance we need to find non-polluting energy solutions, get off fossil fuels and re-examine agriculture, too, because cattle contribute a potent greenhouse gas, methane, Prinn said.

What happens if we don’t?

“If we decide to do nothing for the next 90 years, if we decided that we don’t care about global warming, we can increase this (carbon) number by factors of two to three.”

You mean it would…”Yes, a doubling or tripling.”

Dr. Ronald Prinn, director of the MIT Center for Global Change Science

In terms of temperature, that amount of carbon in the air would mean Earth would be on average about 10 degrees Centigrade warmer by 2100 or – get ready to be singed – 18 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

This new, hotter prognosis is the result of recent analysis, published on MIT’s website in May, showing that global warming is occurring much faster than previously thought.

Under such change, both arctic poles would be nearly or completely melted. Their extinction would mean the oceans would rise dramatically, enough to put Bangladesh under water – along with parts of Florida and significant portions of both US coastlines.

Calamitous changes would face areas in the Southwest US and Mexico which would be too hot and dry for many crops; border disputes would break out across the globe between nations fighting over water and arable land.

“I think that for us to do nothing about this issue would be irresponsible to future generations, it would be saying we don’t care,’’ says Prinn. “In fact the people who would see this happening would be children born today, it’s a good chance at least in the rich countries they’ll be alive in 2100. Significant fractions of them will experience these big changes and stresses on the planet.”

And yet, “one has to be careful not to say that this would be the end of humanity.”

To a scientist, says Prinn, this is a problem requiring immediate action, but not one that calls for panic or incendiary rhetoric.

We have to take it a step at a time. First we slow the meter, he says. Then we stabilize it. Then we try to turn it back.

Our generation’s job is to slow it, to examine the 20 or so low-emissions energy solutions on the table  – nuclear power, wind power, solar generation, conservation – and move in the right direction.

Then the next generation can use the latest technology, which could be much improved, to roll the numbers back in coming decades.

It took awhile for Earth to get to this point, he said.  Carbon dioxide, the most abundant and one of the most persistent greenhouse gases can reside in the atmosphere for 120 years; methane, the second most significant greenhouse gases, can last nine years. So it will take many changes to work off the overload.

“Under no circumstances is this to say it’s the end of humanity,’’ reiterates Prinn. “It is a wake-up call. It’s time to slow that counter down and make it steady. Then we can talk about lowering it.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Not convinced that climate change matters? The Union of Concerned Scientists has concluded that if Americans adopt that stance, they’ll be gambling not just with their lungs, but with their pocketbooks.

The UCS surveyed 60 studies to better examine the anticipated financial toll of global warming if we fail to “dramatically curb emissions.” The nonprofit released the findings today in a report called “Climate Change in the United States: The Prohibitive Costs of Inaction”.

It found that rising sea levels, intense hurricanes, flooding, impaired public health and strained energy and water resources would all add up to one monumental price tag.

“By late this century, the Midwest could be inundated with more torrential rainstorms costs tens of billions of dollars [in crop and property damage]. California, Washington and Oregon could be hit with an additional billion dollars in property damage from wildfires every year. The Northeast and Northwest, meanwhile, could lost most of their snowpack, which would kill the ski industry,” said Lexi Shultz, deputy director of the Climate Program at UCS.

But wait, there’s good news: The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration says that developing clean energy and taking steps to slow global warming emissions would be affordable. The EIA says that the cost of fighting global warming would only cost each American household about $10 a month in increases in their energy bills by 2020.

The UCS wants us to stack that price tag of about $120 a year against the staggering costs of inaction. If climate change continues unchecked, with temperatures climbing by 7 to 11 degrees by 2100, the UCS report projects that:

• The federal government could end up spending billions fighting wildfires (which would increase by as much as 53 percent in 2100) considering the feds spent $200 million fighting just three wildfires last year in California.

• California would also suffer from heat-related public health issues and associated costs of billions to mitigate the human effects of ground-level ozone, which would worsen under climate change.

• The loss of snowpack would make many recreation areas in the Northeast and the Northwest unsuitable for skiing and snowmobiling, costing, conservatively, a loss of $405 million in annual skiing revenues.

• Reduced snow melt in all of the nation’s mountainous regions could affect water flow in streams and ultimately cost farmers, such as those in New Mexico where the loss of water from reduced snowmelt could cost $21 million a year by 2080.

• Shrinking snowpack would have huge impact in Oregon and Washington on many industries. Losses to the coldwater fishing (angling) industry could ultimately cost about $1 billion annually.

• In the Northeast, sugar maples would lose habitat, meaning annual loss of $5 to $12 million just to that industry.

• Sea level rise all along the East Coast would require seawalls. Possible cost in the Northeast: Up to $1.2 billion, and more in the Southeast

• In the Southeast, where a projected rise of 18 inches is anticipated in sea levels, the beach recreation industry could incur $11 billion in cumulative damages by 2080.

• Georgia alone could lose 5,000 tourism jobs.

• Florida could be especially hard hit, experiencing residential real estate losses of as much as $60 billion a year by 2100, due to sea level rises. The tourism industry could be slapped with more than $175 billion in annual losses due to beach erosion. Property damage from hurricanes could top $100 billion annually by 2100.

• In the Midwest, flooding and heavy downpours predicted by a collaboration of 13 federal agencies, could cause billions of dollars of crop damage and exacerbate erosion, raising the price of food production. Looking at just one state, Illinois, the annual costs to agriculture could reach $9.3 billion.

• Alaska, where warming is occurring disproportionately faster than in other states, would suffer continued damage to infrastructure as the permafrost melts, costing up to $6 billion just by 2030.

As for those who might ask whether these projections are alarmist, a spokesman for the UCS notes that the report was based on “mainstream” studies and that scientists, if anything, tend to err on the of conservatism.

“Most climate scientists acknowledge that current methods of predicting the consequences of climate change may underestimate the real impact and costs of climate change. More carbon dioxide is staying in the atmosphere as the ocean absorbs less and less over time. At the same time, ice sheets appear to be melting more rapidly than scientist have expected,” said Aaron Huertas, press secretary for the UCS, which is based in Massachusetts.

“…If these costs seem large it’s only because our dependence on the relatively stable climate of the past century or so is immense,” Huertas said. “Every home, every crop, every road — our entire civilization — has been built for today’s climate. A rapid shift in our climate will mean major disruptions for our way of life.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The increase in size and frequency of large hurricanes that make landfall from the Gulf of Mexico also is resulting in more tornadoes that form from the storms, according to a new report from researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

“As the size of landfalling hurricanes from the Gulf of Mexico increases, we’re seeing more tornadoes than we did in the past that can occur up to two days and several hundred miles inland from the landfall location,” James Belanger, a doctoral student in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and lead author of the paper, said in a statement.

The findings, reported in Geophysical Research Letters’ Sept. 3, 2009, issue and online, are the first to quantify the risk of tornadoes from hurricanes. While it is well known that tornadoes may form in the area where hurricanes strike land, there hadn’t been detailed research because observations of tornadoes were too sporadic prior to the installation of the NEXRAD Doppler Radar Network in 1995.

Belanger and co-authors Judith Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Tech, and research scientist Carlos Hoyos wanted to create a model using the more reliable tornado record that’s existed since 1995. Their model for hurricane-induced tornadoes uses four factors that serve as good predictors of tornado activity: size, intensity, track direction and whether there’s a strong gradient of moisture at midlevels in the storm’s environment.

The team looked at 127 tropical cyclones from 1948 up to the 2008 hurricane season and went further back to 1920, modifying their model to account for the type of data collected at that time. They found that since 1995 there has been a 35 percent percent increase in the size of tropical cyclones from the Gulf compared to the previous active period of storms from 1948-1964, which has lead to a doubling in the number of tornadoes produced per storm. The number of hurricane-induced tornadoes during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons is unprecedented in the historical record since 1920, according to the model.

“The beauty of the model is that not only can we use it to reconstruct the observational record, but we can also use it as a forecasting tool,” Belanger said.

To test how well it predicted the number of tornadoes associated with a given hurricane, they input the intensity of the storm at landfall, it’s size, track and moisture at mid-levels, and were able to generate a forecast of how many tornadoes formed from the hurricane. They found that for Hurricane Ike in 2008, their model predicted exactly the number of tornadoes that occurred, 33. For Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the model predicted 56 tornadoes, and 58 were observed.

The team’s next steps are to take a look to see how hurricane size, not just intensity (as indicated by the Safir-Simpson scale), affects the damage experienced by residents.

“Storm surge, rain and flooding are all connected to the size of the storm,” said Curry. “Yet, size is an under-appreciated factor associated with damage from hurricanes. So it’s important to develop a better understanding of what controls hurricane size and how size influences hurricane damage. The great damage in Galveston from Hurricane Ike in 2008 was inconsistent with Category 2 wind speeds at landfall, but it was the large size that caused the big storm surge that did most of the damage.”

Related video:

KTRK Houston: Bolivar struggles to return after Ike

Barbara Ettinger and Sven Huseby knew their documentary about ocean acidification would have to pass a high test to avoid overwhelming a public already grappling with the many technical facets of climate change.

To sound the alarm about yet another looming global warming catastrophe, the potential destruction of all marine life, their film would have to be engaging, accessible, down-to-earth.

Happily, A Sea Change: Imagine a World Without Fish succeeds on all those levels. Humanizing this critical issue like no previous film or book, it follows the soft-spoken Huseby on an odyssey of discovery as he meets with scientists and activists in Alaska, Seattle, California and Norway trying to understand the phenomenon of ocean acidification.

Gently, the story drives home what’s at stake: A healthy planet for future generations, embodied in this case by Sven and Barbara’s spirited grandson, Elias, age 5. The irrepressible Elias serves as the film’s touchstone, reminding us of the urgency of his grandfather’s mission and of the simple wonders of beach and ocean.

Sven writes “home” about his discoveries to Elias, who lives in California (where in real life, he watches Blue Planet and is known as “a very verbal fellow”). He tells him he’s deeply worried about the oceans, but adds that as a former teacher, “I really believe the power to change begins with knowledge.”

On his travels, Sven considers how he’ll explain to Elias about this problem that should rightly fall outside the scope of childhood — the potential complete destruction of the oceans via acidification, the result of the seas absorbing humankind’s carbon dioxide emissions.

In asking, what are we leaving behind for our kids and grandkids, A Sea Change doesn’t mince words.

But this inter-generational interplay also lends the film a warmth, and keeps it clear of the rocky shoals where more strident, proselytizing documentaries sometimes crash. Sven is on a fact-finding mission, not a soap box. His director and wife, Barbara Ettinger, uses ample footage from expert subjects, but also keeps them off the preaching podium.

A Sea Change deliberately reaches out to people of all ages and political stripes. Kids will enjoy Elias’s viewpoint. Newcomers to the subject will appreciate Sven’s Mr. Rogers-like approach to interviews. The film is paced to allow for periodic reflection, and beautifully filmed along the rocky coasts of the Pacific Northwest and Norway, all the way to the Arctic, where we see and hear the ice dropping into the sea.

Sven ultimately meets a score of scientists and environmentalists who are passionate about their mission to save the oceans (which cover more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface). He also visits with artist Maya Lin to ponder the psychology of why we haven’t been better ocean stewards.

The film, released this spring, is being featured this week at the Downtown Film Festival-Los Angeles on Aug. 20 (Thursday at 7 p.m.) and will have its New York City premiere at the American Museum of Natural History on Sept. 13. It is also playing at cinema festivals around the world. It was conceived of in late 2006 when Sven and Barbara were both struck by the New Yorker article, “The Darkening Sea” by Elizabeth Kolbert. Barbara, a filmmaker, and Sven, a former teacher and headmaster of the Putney School in Vermont, considered themselves enlightened people; Barbara’s last film had even tackled a regional environmental fight. Yet the ocean article was startling.

“We were flabbergasted that we’d never heard of the phenomenon of acidification of the sea,” Sven said last week from his home in upstate New York.

The couple set out to investigate. Sven pursued financing (eventually signing several foundations to back the movie), as Barbara figured out how to turn the story into a film that could reach a wide audience.

“We made a very clear decision. I guess part of it is who we are as people. We didn’t want to make an apocalyptic film. But what we see in this area of ocean acidification are some very big issues,” Sven said in an interview with GreenRightNow.

Much of what the film crew uncovered was disturbing, he said; “I got pretty depressed the first half of this film as we interviewed scientist after scientist.”

As the native Norwegian and former private school headmaster travels from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest US to a scientists’ outpost in Tromsoe, Norway, a dark cloud emerges. Everything out in the deep blue is in jeopardy. The oceans have been absorbing the earth’s mounting CO2 emissions, but now, all life, from the tiniest marine creatures to those at the top of the food chain – to humans – is paying a toll.

“For 20,000 years, we’ve had a relatively stable environment. Now, there are going to be a lot of extinctions,” reports Dr. Jeff Short, then with NOAA, now the Pacific Science director for Oceana.

“Ocean chemistry is being altered on a scale not seen for millions of years,” says marine professor, Dr. Edward L. Miles, ot the University of Washington: “And we don’t know what the consequences will be.”

When the oceans turn acidic, Sven explains in our interview, “it’s like dropping a piece of chalk into vinegar.” That’s an exaggeration, but what happens to the chalk shows how shellfish, coral and the delicate, tiny pterapods at the foundation of the marine food chain are being affected.

Increasing carbon emissions here on land mean more ocean acidity, which is sapping the oceans’ capacity to support life and pushing them to the brink. Fish populations are thinning, coral is dying and the Ph of the water is nearing fatal levels for many species.

We get many visuals. Sven interviews a chemistry teacher who demonstrates with baby teeth what acid (in the form of a soda) can do to a calcium coating, like those on the pterapods. (You’ll understand the oceans better, and reconsider your next Coke.)

Similar mini-tutorials keep us hanging in with Sven as he bikes, hikes and hovers on several coastlines, explaining the threat to our oceans – and during the last part of the film, what can be done to save them.

It’s an enjoyable ride, even under that brooding cloud. Our amazingly robust 65-year-old narrator, his glib grandson, and the fleet of people working to solve things make for an eye-opening tale. There are poignant moments, like when the author of the New Yorker piece Kolbert commiserates with Sven about leaving such an ailing planet for our children.

“I continue to think about that remark and trying to turn this thing around,” Sven says in our interview.

A Sea Change does offer hope, on several coasts. There are the lawyer activist in California, wind engineers in Norway, executives at Google and others, who believe pollution can be stopped and alternative energy harnessed to turn back the carbon clock.

Even in unlikely spots, such as the century-old Solstrand Hotel in Norway, which now operates on renewable energy from the ocean, there’s hope.

How can ordinary people help? “They can think about their carbon footprint,” says Huseby. “They can ask themselves how can they decrease the fossil fuel they use for transportation. They can ask how well have they insulated their homes…through conservation alone we can do the most. It’s not that expensive and it can have a huge impact.”

And, he adds, you should contact your Congressional representative.

“It sounds old-fashioned, even quaint. But it’s really important that people write to their representatives and stress that they want to get off fossil fuels…They all say they need the push. So let’s start pushing.”

Details:

A Sea Change: Imagine a World Without Fish
Director/producer: Barbara Ettinger; co-producer: Sven Huseby; co-producer: Susan Cohn Rockefeller; editing: Toby Shimin; cinematography by Claudia Raschke-Robinson; associate producer: Ben Kalina.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Related video:

Watch the trailer for A Sea Change:

When we put our shoes on, we don’t really think about where they’ve been before they got to us.

Most likely, they were manufactured somewhere overseas, China or Vietnam perhaps, then shipped to the United States. But where did the material used to manufacture them come from? Are your shoes made of leather? If so, there’s a chance they’re contributing to climate change — and the illegal destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

Greenpeace International says rainforests are being needlessly lost not just to the meat trade but to the leather industry, as cattle ranches expand illegally in Brazilian Amazon region.

In June, Greenpeace released Slaughtering the Amazon, a three year investigation into the deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. The group found that illegal incursions by cattle ranchers were rapidly depleting the forests, which released large quantities of greenhouse gases otherwise stored in the tropical environment.

“Forest destruction accounts for almost 1/5 of global emissions-that is more climate pollution than all the world’s cars, trucks, trains, planes, and ships combined,” said Lindsey Allen, Forest Campaigner for Greenpeace.

“Slaughtering the Amazon” estimates that illegal expansion of cattle ranches is responsible for 80% of all deforestation, and according to Greenpeace, “the cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for an average of one acre lost every 8 seconds.”

Usually, this would be when we would expect for someone to tell us to pay attention to where our steak is coming from. It’s true that Brazil is now the world’s largest beef exporter, and the meat trade is a huge player in deforestation. But the actual beef is not the only big money maker.  The hides of the cattle play a larger role than you might imagine in its value.

Leather accounts for more than one quarter of the total value of the cattle trade for Brazil. The report states that “the Brazilian leather industry’s total export revenue in 2008 was $1.9 billion from some 24,800,000 million hides.” The largest use of the leather is not furniture or garments, but shoe production.

Bertin, the world’s largest leather trader, receives their hides from the Brazilian Amazon and supplies brands such as Nike, Adidas/Reebok, Timberland, Prada, Geox, and Clarks.

These surprising details contained in the “Slaughtering of the Amazon” were eye-opening to these shoe manufactures. Nike took the first step.

“When Greenpeace brought this issue to our attention we knew that Amazon deforestation is a serious concern and one that required we immediately look into our supply chain and leather sourcing,” stated Kate Meyers, Corporate Communications Manager for Nike. The company has developed a new policy that’s asking suppliers to verify where they’re getting their leather.

Putting Leather on a More Sustainable Track

Nike is giving suppliers until July 1, 2010, to create a transparent system showing none of the leather came from ranches responsible for illegal deforestation. Nike also will require that suppliers join the Leather Working Group by December 2009.

“Our hope for the new policy is that through the Leather Working Group the industry will work together over the next 12 months to institute a traceability system that the entire industry can use,” said Meyers.

The Leather Working Group (LWG), founded in 2005, is engaged in reducing environmental impacts through the footwear leather supply chain. They audit leather manufacturers, ranking them on environmental stewardship. The LWG will help set the traceability and measurement requirements for the new system, which will be incorporated into current protocol.

Other shoe companies also are trying to make changes. Adidas/Reebok released their policy last week.

Greenpeace, however, is not certain the Adidas/Reebok plan goes far enough, because it may not hold all suppliers accountable. The Adidas/Reebok policy restricts all leather trading with the Amazon Biome suppliers, but Greenpeace worries that other leather traders could still receive leather from the rainforest  and sell to Adidas/Reebok.

“The policy in our opinion needs to be strengthened a bit…We believe it is better to set a timeline to suppliers of leather to commit to an end of new deforestation within the Amazon,” said Oliver Salge, Head Forest and Oceans Campaigner for Greenpeace. Adidas/Reebok and Greenpeace are currently working together to develop a stronger policy.

Meanwhile, Bertin also is under guidance from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation to tighten its supply chain and make sure its operations do not encourage illegal deforestation or the illegal use of lands belonging to indigenous people.

For consumers who want to be part of the solution, environmentally friendly shoes are popping up everywhere.

• Online mega-shoe store Zappos has eco-friendly and vegan categories.

• La Sportiva has a new line of recycled shoes. Their new sustainable shoes are made of recycled rubber for the outsole and recycled nylon for the mesh, laces, webbing, and lining.

• Another brand, Simple shoes, whose slogan is “shoes for a happy planet”, offers a 100% sustainable product. You will never guess what things they use to make their shoes. Simple Shoes (pictured, right) are made out of materials such as hemp, bamboo, corks, car tires, and coconut shells.

(Photo credits: Greenpeace International, Nike, Simple Shoes.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Greenpeace’s report “Slaughtering the Amazon” notes that Brazil’s thriving and expanding cattle trade, which has made it the world’s largest exporter of beef and the top producer (along with China) of leather, has out-sized environmental consequences.

“The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is responsible for 14% of the world’s annual deforestation. This makes it the world’s largest driver of deforestation, responsible for more forest loss than the total deforestation in any country outside Brazil except Indonesia,” according to the report, the result of a three-year investigation by Greenpeace International.

The report’s findings suggest dire consequences for the planet if illegal deforestation associated with the beef and leather industries is not stopped because the Amazon rainforests absorb and hold huge quantities of carbon pollution.

“The Amazon is estimated to store 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon. If destroyed, some fifty times the annual GHG emissions of the USA could be emitted,” according to the report, which relied on government and research institute statistics.

“Slaughtering the Amazon” details how the cattle industry is growing in Brazil, fueled by favorable laws that encourage rapid growth and global companies such as Bertin, JBS and Marfrig that profess neutrality, but actually source from ranches that have moved into rainforest areas, according to the Greenpeace report, released in June.

“Greenpeace has identified hundreds of ranches within the Amazon rainforest supplying cattle to slaughterhouses in the Amazon region belonging to these companies. Where Greenpeace was able to obtain mapped boundaries for ranches, satellite analysis reveals that significant supplies of cattle come from ranches active in recent and illegal deforestation.”

Greenpeace investigators go on to explain that these goods travel into the food chain, unbeknown to consumers and often unchecked by Blue Chip companies worldwide. The products effectively vanish into the global market, becoming meat in packaged meals, leather upholstery in cars and fine Italian shoes.

Greenpeace supports many possible solutions including:

• More responsibility on the part of consumer companies in how they source and verify raw goods.
• Stronger world support for the Amazon Fund set up in Brazil  to help stop deforestation by providing alternative financial support to landowners and people living in the tropical regions — an idea that’s been roundly praised but thinly funded, mainly by Norway and Germany, according to Greenpeace.
• Leading industrialized countries must cut their carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels) to avoid a “tipping point” in which climate change careens forward unchecked. Greenpeace (among many other groups) wants world leaders to agree to this level of commitment at the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December.
• A world commitment to zero deforestation by 2015 in the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and the Paradise forests of Southeast Asia, because these forests help slow global warming and also because they are home to indigenous peoples.

Kimberly-Clark, the world’s largest personal paper products company, announced new policies today in which the paper maker will greatly increase the use of recycled and sustainably grown wood fibers in its products, which include the Kleenex, Scott and Cottonelle brands.

The move will help save forests around the globe and make the Dallas-based company a leader in producing sustainable paper products, said Greenpeace media officer Daniel Kessler. “We worked with Kimberly-Clark on this policy and it’s a landmark for forest protection; 100 percent of Kimberly-Clark’s fiber will come from sustainable sources.”

For five years, Greenpeace had pressured Kimberly-Clark to become more environmentally sensitive about the raw material used for its paper products. Greenpeace’s “Kleercut” campaign protested Kimberly-Clark’s use of virgin wood fiber in Kleenex tissues, organizing blockades and demonstrations and arguing that the company’s use of trees from Canada’s Boreal Forest and other virgin sources was contributing to world-wide deforestation.

The new fiber-sourcing policies announced Wednesday bring the long-running Kleercut campaign to an end and make public Kimberly-Clark’s plans for more sustainable business practices.

Over the next three years, Kimberly-Clark will dramatically adjust its sourcing for disposable paper products, aiming to ultimately get all of its fiber from sustainable sources. By the end 2011, the global paper product maker has promised that 40 percent of its North American tissue fiber – representing an estimated 600,000 tons – will be either recycled or certified as sustainably grown by the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC). That represents an increase of more than 70 percent over 2007 levels.

“We are committed to using environmentally responsible wood fiber and today’s announcement enhances our industry-leading practices in this area,” said Suhas Apte, Kimberly-Clark Vice President of Environment, Energy, Safety, Quality and Sustainability, in a news release.

“It is our belief that certified primary wood fiber and recycled fiber can both be used in an environmentally responsible way and can provide the product performance that customers and consumers expect from our well-known tissue brands. We commend Greenpeace for helping us develop more sustainable standards.”

Paper companies, including Kimberly-Clark, have long argued that consumers prize softness in tissues and toilet paper, which the companies used to justify their use of virgin wood fibers for disposable personal care products.

But consumer tastes and desires are changing, and the focus on softness may be lessening as people become more aware of environmental degradation associated with common household products.

“Consumers vote with their dollars. We know that as consumers become increasingly concerned with supporting environmentally friendly products, they increase pressure on companies to do the right thing,” Kessler said, noting that an estimated 20 percent of global greenhouse gases come from deforestation.

The temperate Boreal Forest, like the tropical rainforests in the Southern Hemisphere, is a huge carbon sink, holding in the ground carbon that adds to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels when released. Environmentalists from Greenpeace to Prince Charles of Great Britain are passionately trying to save the forests to mitigate global warming.

Under the new agreement, Kimberly-Clark will not purchase of any fiber from the Canadian Boreal Forest that is not FSC certified by 2011, helping preserve the forest as well as endangered animals that depend upon it.

“Today, ancient forests like the Boreal Forest have won,” said Richard Brooks, Greenpeace Canada Forest Campaign Coordinator in the news release. “This new relationship between Kimberly-Clark and Greenpeace will promote forest conservation, responsible forest management, and recycled fiber as far and wide as possible.”

Dallas-based Kimberly-Clark employs 53,000 people around the world, and posted sales of $19.4 billion in 2008, according to company statements. It makes products under the Kleenex, Scott, Huggies, Pull-Ups, Kotex and Depends brands.

Greenpeace has posted a web page where consumers can thank Kimberly-Clark for this move toward more sustainable practices.

Kimberly-Clark also has other sustainability initiatives.

(Image credit: Greenpeace.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

A group of island nations, facing an uncertain future amid the threat of rising seas, says it needs the United States to take the lead in pushing for aggressive climate mitigation standards. However, after a week of discussions among the 195 countries that back the Montreal Protocol ozone treaty, the coalition said today it was unable to convince the United States to take a larger role.

The islands have proposed using the Montreal Protocol to phase down production and consumption of a group of super greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs are projected to grow so fast that they could represent up to 45 percent of CO2 emissions in 2050, assuming the climate treaty is able to stabilize CO2 emissions at 450 ppm by that date.

The final Montreal Protocol negotiations are scheduled for Nov. 4-8 in Egypt.

The Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, a non-profit group that promotes sustainable societies and protection of the environment, says the Montreal Protocol’s 2007 decision to accelerate phasing out production and consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) is contributing to the rapid growth in HFCs, which are being used as replacements for HCFCs. HCFCs cause both ozone destruction and climate warming.

“U.S. action on HFCs presents the biggest near-term climate victory now available,” Durwood Zaelke, president of the IGSD, said in a statement. “Phasing down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol would provide mandatory climate mitigation by China, India, and other developing countries,” as well as the U.S. and other developed countries. “But until the U.S. leads the fight on HFCs they won’t have the moral or political standing to compel global action.”

IGSD says the preliminary position of India and China starts is counter to that of the low-lying islands, even though both countries are already feeling impacts of climate change, including loss of snow and ice in the Hindu-Kush-Himalaya-Tibetan Plateau, which provides dry-season flow for virtually all of the major rivers of Asia. IGSD says India and China have reaped large profits from selling emissions of HFC-23 for climate credits in Europe.

The Europeans’ preliminary position is to defer the HFC issue so they can discuss it first as part of the climate negotiations, which are expected to conclude at the earliest in December 2009, though many observers believe they will drag on well into 2010.

At the moment, no treaty regulates the upstream production and consumption of HFCs. Downstream emissions of HFCs are included as one of the 6 tradable gases in the Kyoto Protocol basket.

The island proposal, submitted jointly by Mauritius and Micronesia, attempts to reconcile the ozone and climate treaties by having the Montreal Protocol phase down HFC production and consumption, just as it has done for 96 other dangerous ozone-depleting substances, which it has phased out. The climate benefit from the Montreal Protocol is 5 to 6 times greater than the Kyoto Protocol is seeking. The Montreal Protocol’s experience and history of success makes it the appropriate framework for reducing HFCs.

Eight other island States just joined the FSM-Mauritius proposal as formal co-sponsors: the Seychelles, Kiribati, Samoa, the Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Comoros, Madagascar, and Palau. South Africa, on behalf of the African Group, also supported continuing discussions of the issues raised by FSM and Mauritius.

“Getting a decision to phase down these gases this year will be a key indicator of success that we are committed to doing everything in our power to slow global warming and sea-level rise,” Sateeaved Seebaluck, lead delegate from Mauritius, said in a statement. “The Parties signaled a willingness to expand the role of the Montreal Protocol to tackle this problem that is, partly, of its own doing. We need to use the time leading up to the final negotiating session in November to resolve certain details.”

“Without immediate HFC reductions, we may win the battle against CO2, but lose the climate war,” said Zaelke. “With tipping points for catastrophic climate changes just around the corner, we need fast action on HFCs under the Montreal Protocol—a treaty that never fails.”

“This is not only an issue for islands, but all countries, including those with low-lying coastal areas or facing desertification and diminishing water supplies,” Tony Oposa, lead delegate of Micronesia, said in a statement. “I hope that future generations will be able to look back at our efforts on HFCs and see that we were up to the task, that we were serious about using all tools available to combat climate change.”

“The islands have the heart in this battle, but they’ll need the muscle of the U.S. to win,” Zaelke added. “Success on HFCs in November would be a shot in the arm for the climate negotiations.”

In addition to phasing down HFCs, the islands propose addressing emissions from the “banks” of refrigerants and other ozone- and climate-damaging gases in discarded products and equipment, such as refrigerators and air conditioners. These emissions from landfills could cancel the climate mitigation under the Kyoto Protocol unless quickly addressed under the Montreal Protocol.