Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageHot Global Warming News

By Johnny Simpson     Jun 6, 2008 in Environment
The Paris-based IEA says $45 Trillion is needed to combat Global Warming. Meanwhile, the $6 Trillion Climate Security Act is dead for this year, and Seattle is considering banning beach bonfires to save the earth. Or you can buy chocolates instead.
First, on the IEA study from Yahoo News:
The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.
"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.
A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.
Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.
Meanwhile, the Lieberman-sponsored Climate Security Act is dead in the water, for this year at least.
From the Politico blog:
'Dems Yank Global Warming Bill'
Apparently three days of debate was enough for what many senators called "the most important issue facing the planet."
With little chance of winning passage of a sweeping 500-page global warming bill, the Senate Democratic leadership is planning to yank the legislation after failing to achieve the 60-vote threshold needed to move the bill to the next stage.
After a 48-36 vote on the climate change bill, the Senate is likely to move on to a separate energy debate next week.
The legislation collapsed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the poor timing of debating a bill predicted to increase energy costs while much of the country is focused on $4-a-gallon gas.
On top of that, a number of industrial state Democrats like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio were uncomfortable with the strong emissions caps that would have created a new regime of regulations for coal, auto and other manufacturing industries.
Republicans, for the most part, held firm against a bill they said would cost billions in regulations while pushing the cost of gas higher. Seven Republicans, mostly moderates, voted for the procedural motion on the legislation while four Democrats voted against it.
President Bush has already promised to veto the legislation, but it is expected to rise from the Congressional ashes next year, as both Obama and McCain have expressed support for the bill.
And the city of Seattle is considering banning beach bonfires to save the earth.
From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Seattle Parks and Recreation might do what even this week's chilly weather couldn't -- douse the long tradition of beach bonfires at Alki and at Golden Gardens.
Park department staff is recommending reducing bonfires at the two beaches this summer and possibly banning them altogether next year.
The park board will hear the recommendation Thursday, and the city plans to run public-service announcements and hand out brochures later this month about the effects of bonfires on global warming.
According to a memo to the park board from the staff released Thursday, "The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon ... emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming."
Under the proposal, the department in July would reduce the number of fire rings at Alki from six currently to three and at Golden Gardens from 12 to seven.
Then later this year, the department would consider banning bonfires or requiring fees and permits to reduce the number of bonfires next year.
It's the second time in the past few years the tradition of lounging by a fire at the beach has run up against the environmental ramifications of bonfire smoke.
So you can soon add the Seattle bonfire fees and fines to the $45 Trillion proposed by IEA.
Lastly, chocolate lovers no longer need feel guilty about their sinful habits.
Or at least some of them.
From Breitbart:
Want to buy a day's worth of carbon offsets with your chocolate bar? How about donating to breast cancer research with your breath mints? Candy with a conscience is one of the latest trends to come out of the annual confectioner's convention as manufacturers jostle to grab the attention of consumers on increasingly crowded store shelves.
New Zealand's Bloomsberry chocolates had been selling trendy, tongue-in-cheek chocolate bars in the United States for less than two years when they were approached by Whole Foods to develop Climate Change Chocolate.
Wind turbines and a huge footprint cover the chocolate bar's boxes and the wrapper is speckled with tips on how to be more green like "let the sun shine in. Opening curtains and blinds to capture the warmth of the sun saves on heating and your cat will love you for it!"
Marketed as the "first taste of a lower-carbon lifestyle," Bloomsberry donates 55 cents from each bar to TerraPass to pay for 133 pounds of carbon offsets, which is the average American's daily carbon impact.
"We've sold enough in the first quarter that it's comparable to taking 900 cars off the road for a year," said Kerry Laramie, vice president sales and marketing for Bloomsberry's US division.
"That's 9.3 million pounds of carbon offsets."
Discuss amongst yourselves.
More about Global warming, Congress, Iea
Latest News
Top News