^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Featured stories in this issue...
Change We Must
A federal judge is being asked to stop a scientific experiment that
has a very small chance of going wrong and destroying the Earth. This
is an opportunity to think carefully about how our laws -- and our
habits of mind -- have remained unchanged for a hundred years while
our place in the natural order has changed completely.
Letter from Sierra Club President Robert Cox
This letter to the editor from the President of the Sierra Club
explains the thinking of the Club's board of directors that led to
ousting the leadership of the Florida Chapter and allowing The Clorox
Company to use the Club's name and logo on a new line of cleaning
products.
Mobile Phones Are 'More Dangerous Than Smoking'
A brain expert warns of a huge rise in tumours and calls on
industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation from mobile
phones.
Weighing the Climate Risks of An Untapped Fossil Fuel
As the energy industry hungrily eyes methane hydrates, "The worst-
case scenario is that global warming triggers a decade-long release of
hundreds of gigatons of methane, the equivalent of 10 times the
current amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere," said David
Archer. "We'd be talking about mass extinction."
James Hansen Letter To Prime Minister of Australia
James Hansen, arguably the leading U.S. climate scientist, says,
"The conclusion that net carbon emissions must be cut to a fraction of
current emissions must be stunning and sobering to policy-makers. Yet
the science is unambiguous: if we burn most of the fossil fuels,
releasing the CO2 to the air, we will assuredly destroy much of the
fabric of life on the planet."
Study Links Parkinson's Disease To Long-term Pesticide Exposure
A study of more than 300 people with Parkinson's disease found that
sufferers were more than twice as likely to report heavy exposure to
pesticides over their lifetime compared to family members without the
disease.
One Sky, Many Owners
In this 1997 essay, Peter Barnes argues that the sky belongs to
everyone and everyone should benefit from its use. He has just
published a short, lucid book that makes the case in more detail.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #953, Apr. 3, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
CHANGE WE MUST
By Peter Montague
The New York Times carried an important story in its science section
this week. Two people have sued in federal district court in Honolulu,
trying to stop a group of scientists in Europe from conducting a
particle physics experiment that, they say, might create a black hole
that could destroy the Earth and perhaps the entire universe.
The scientists have spent 14 years and $8 billion building the Large
Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland and naturally they're itching
to give it a try. They want to smash protons into each other to see
what will happen. They say it is "very unlikely" that they will create
a black hole and even if they did, it very likely wouldn't eat the
Earth, they say.
Just to be on the safe side, they set up a research team to examine
the question. The research team didn't say exactly, "No problem." They
said, "Very, very likely, no problem." Oddly, members of the research
team are not being identified so we have an anonymous group of
scientists assuring us that experiments conducted by their colleagues
and friends (proton smashers are a small community, after all) will
not destroy the Earth. On that basis, these scientist want the judge
to give them a green light to smash lots of protons together, to see
what they can learn.
These scientists need to look at it from the point of view of ordinary
humans. It was 1980 when scientists first announced that 95% of the
mass of the universe had gone missing and could not be accounted for.
The part of the universe we can see and touch and smell is only 5% of
the whole ball of wax, they said in 1980. From gravitational effects,
which they could measure, they deduced that there had to be something
huge out there making up an invisible 95% of the universe, but they
could not detect the thing itself (only its gravitational effects) and
they had no idea what "it" was. They named this missing stuff "dark
matter" and they've spent the last 28 years trying to get their hands
on some of it. So far, no luck.
So here's what it boils down to: scientists in search of the missing
95% of the universe want us to trust them to conduct an experiment
that they and their friends say has only a very slight chance of
destroying the Earth.
Really, this is not an altogether new problem -- though it is a
thoroughly modern problem. In 1775, at the beginning of the industrial
revolution, the people who invented the steam engine had almost no
idea what thermodynamic forces they had harnessed. But they could see
the effects and soon they were using these mysterious forces to move
pistons and create all manner of useful machines from water pumps to
locomotives. One thing was different -- even when these early
machines exploded (which they often did) only a few people got killed.
They weren't tinkering with the fate of all Creation, or even all of
humankind.
Now things are different. Arguably, the difference began to unfold
when the petrochemical industry got started in the 1870s. Those early
chemists were experimenting with concoctions that would eventually
escape and contaminate the entire planet, including all humans, with
small amounts of dozens or hundreds of poorly-understood but potent
chemical products and by-products. Now the whole planet is
contaminated with biologically active industrial poisons and we've
built several government bureaucracies, not to mention hundreds of
university programs, plus a massive industrial research apparatus, to
try to figure out what all these chemicals are doing to the ducks and
the jelly fish and your sister. Really, we haven't a clue and it's
likely to stay that way for centuries to come. Every time we learn
something new, we discover that these biochemistry problems are far
more complicated than we ever imagined. Each time our horizon of
knowledge expands a tad, it opens up vast new vistas of ignorance.
After industrial chemistry, then came nuclear power, and suddenly
everyone could see that humans held the future of the planet in their
little trembling hands. When the first nuclear bomb exploded in the
desert of southern New Mexico early in the morning June 16, 1945,
Robert Oppenheimer -- the project director -- famously said, "I am
become death, the destroyer of worlds." That summed it up nicely.
Now anyone who's willing to look can see that humans have grown into a
force of geologic proportion -- a relentless, expanding presence that
all the other creatures on planet Earth must fear and accommodate.
Some geologists want to declare officially that the Cenozoic Era has
ended and a new geological era has begun -- which they want to name
the Anthropocene to signal that human behavior is now the dominant
force on planet Earth.
There's a point to all this history. It tells was that things are very
different now from what they were in 1775 or even 1875. As Joe Guth
explained it for us in Rachel's #846, during those early days of
industrial pride, judges and legislators devised laws based on the
following assumption:
Economic activity was presumed to be beneficial and if some people got
hurt along the way, they would be compensated by the general
improvement in well-being. People who ripped up the Earth, and caused
ecological devastation in a thousand different ways, were creating
wealth and well-being for all of humanity and so they got the benefit
of the doubt. To bring them into court was nearly impossible and if
you got them into court the burden was on you to show that they had
been grossly negligent before they could be held liable for any
damages. Our modern legal structure still operates on this basic
assumption.
In other words, the law was -- and still is -- set up to give the
benefit of the doubt to anyone who wanted to build giant steam engines
or chemical factories or uranium processing plants or Large Hadron
Colliders. To ask a judge to stop these activities goes against 100
years of law.
But that's exactly what needs to happen, which was Joe Guth's point in
Rachel's #846. Circumstances have changed, so the law needs to change.
Today, there is good reason to doubt whether expanded economic
activity (of the traditional kind) is bringing net benefits to
humanity. More coal plants? More nuclear power (with its inevitable
camp-follower, the restless A-bomb)? There's good reason to think that
more bulldozing and more waste dumping and more "development" are now
doing more harm than good. (Of course there are many parts of the
world that desperately need power plants, roads, and ports. But to
accommodate that genuine need the overdeveloped parts of the planet
need to cut back, in some cases pretty drastically -- like cutting
carbon dioxide emissions by 80 to 90% in 30 years or so, a daunting
challenge.)
It's pretty clear that during the Anthropocene Era many of Earth's
natural limits have been surpassed -- the planet is becoming
biologically impoverished as the oceans are fished out, the forests
aren't able to grow back as fast as they're cut, fresh water is
already in short supply and dwindling, humans are crowding out the
other creatures, which are therefore going extinct, and it's getting
hot in here. You can read about new signs of genuine planet-wide
ecological distress in most any good newspaper most any day.
So the old conditions have completely changed. The planet is now
being stressed beyond endurance by human activities. Much of our
economy is now, arguably, anti-economic -- producing more bads than
goods.
As Joe Guth told us in #846, "Containing the damage to the earth is
the most important task facing humanity.... The law must be
transformed so that the earth's limited assimilative capacity will
operate as a real constraint on our economy. This transformation in
the law can begin with common law judges, who are called on now, as
they have been for centuries, to adjust the law to changing
circumstances."
So, yes, perhaps the scientists in Europe should be asked to
acknowledge that there is no amount of human knowledge worth risking
the destruction of planet Earth. We humans have been playing God for
at least 100 years now, and it's time we acknowledged that we're not
very good at it.
And perhaps the same message should go out to the prideful
technologists who want to fix global warming by rocketing mountains
of sulfur dust or acres of aluminum needles into space to shade us
from the sun, or who want to dump huge quantities of iron filings into
the oceans to stimulate the growth of plankton that will eat carbon
dioxide, or who want to bury a few trillion tons of liquefied carbon
dioxide a mile below ground, hoping it will stay there forever. What
else will those parasols in space or those extra plankton do? What if
that liquid carbon dioxide starts leaking out in a hundred years? Do
we really want to find out the hard way, by trial and error? Maybe
it's time to face the fact that, in the Anthropocene Era, the most
important characteristic that we humans can develop and foster is
humility in the face of our vast and irremediable ignorance. We can't
find 95% of the universe. So be it. A hundred years ago it didn't
matter that we didn't know what we were doing. We were arrogant but
puny.
Now we are still arrogant but we are no longer puny. If we don't
change our ways, all of Creation will eventually be destroyed. It's
not too late to change -- our habits of mind as well as our laws.
Anyone willing to face facts knows we must.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Sierra Club, Mar. 29, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
LETTER FROM SIERRA CLUB PRESIDENT ROBERT COX
By Robert Cox, President, Sierra Club
This note is in response to reports about the Sierra Club Board of
Directors' vote to suspend the Florida Chapter volunteer Executive
Committee for four years. What has not been clear in some reports is
that the action is the result of requests from Sierra Club members in
Florida, themselves, for national volunteers to investigate internal
disputes. It comes after much dissatisfaction, anger and frustration
at the Chapter level and a multi-year process at the state and
national level to improve the situation before this action was taken.
While it is a serious step and was a very difficult decision, it was
made after much thought and extensive review. The impressive work of
Florida's 19 groups to protect the environment will continue
unaffected by this action. The Sierra Club looks forward to healing
this rift and is confident that the Sierra Club in Florida will come
out of this situation a stronger organization.
Over the past year and a half, the national Sierra Club has been asked
multiple times to intervene in Florida Chapter matters by members
concerned that factionalism compromised the Chapter's ability to
accomplish its conservation work. An internal audit and comment
period confirmed that the problems created by rifts in he Chapter
made it difficult for the Chapter to be governed effectively.
Some reports have either explicitly or implicitly connected the
suspension decision to opposition to the Sierra Club's recently
announced partnership with Clorox Greenworks products or other
disagreements over national policies adopted by the volunteer Board of
Directors. This is completely false and a spurious connection. In
fact, the difficult and exhaustive process to address the dysfunction
of the Florida Chapter began long before the partnership with Clorox
was announced--to be clear, Sierra Club and Clorox did not even begin
initial conversations until July of 2007, with internal review among
committees occurring last fall and the public announcement this past
January. The process to address conflict in the Florida Chapter that
ultimately resulted in suspension began in at least 2006.
As with many tough decisions inside a large and democratic
organization like the Sierra Club, there have been internal
disagreements. But the measures taken in Florida, which were made
after considerable review, deliberation and solicitation of input from
members throughout the chapter, were taken because the rifts in the
chapter made it difficult to effectively govern. Disagreements
between some leaders in the chapter and the national board over Clorox
played no role in the Board's decision.
On the issue of the Clorox partnership itself: The Green Works
products and The Clorox Company were investigated by a broad number of
volunteers and staff -- including the Toxics Committee, the Energy
Committee, and the Environmental Quality Committee. The Corporate
Relations Committee also vetted this and approved of the Green Works
products and of The Clorox Company, but did not approve the cause-
related marketing relationship that would generate revenue for the
Club. The Executive Committee of the Board of Directors approved that
program because the Board is the decision-making body on cause-related
marketing programs such as this one.
This partnership -- our first cause-related marketing venture
involving a widely-distributed consumer product -- was announced the
week of January 14 as part of the 2008 launch of the Green Works line
of five natural household cleaning products. The Green Works cleaning
products are made from coconut-based cleaning agent and essential
lemon oils; there is no phosphorus or bleach; they are biodegradable
and 99% petrochemical-free; there is no animal testing and they are
hypo-allergenic.
The Green Works line will make it easier and more affordable for
millions of Americans to buy eco-friendly products and this a huge
opportunity for the Sierra Club to influence the buying behavior of
millions of people and give a giant kick-start to the market for safe,
green, affordable household cleaning products. Up until now, a big
stumbling block for families who want to live a greener lifestyle has
been the high cost of "green" products and the fact that they are not
always easy to find. Green Works' natural, environmentally-preferable
cleaning products are priced at only 20-25 percent higher than
conventional cleaning products, which is much lower than other natural
cleaning brands, which can be priced 50-100 percent higher. Green
Works products will also be easy to find in 24,000 mainstream stores
in the United States and Canada.
To us, the fact that Green Works is the first new product that Clorox
has launched in 20 years is a sign that major companies see the green
market maturing and recognize it's possible to manufacture and sell
products that will be good for business and for the planet. Industry
has to be a part of the solution and the Sierra Club has the power to
influence corporations to move in the right direction. We believe and
hope that this will be a selling proposition that other companies will
be quick to adopt.
The bottom line is that these products are environmentally safe,
affordable, work well, will be available to millions of people, alter
consumer behavior overall and support the good work of the Sierra
Club. It is our chance to use the power of our brand to help people
who want to do the right thing, to do the right thing. And that is a
great opportunity for us. Individuals who want to learn more about
the products and the Sierra Club's process for deciding on the
partnership can read more at the Sierra Club website at:
http://www.sierraclub.org/greenworks/
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Independent (London, U.K.), Mar. 30, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
MOBILE PHONES 'MORE DANGEROUS THAN SMOKING'
Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a
study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says
people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments
and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce
exposure to their radiation.
The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet
published of the health risks.
It draws on growing evidence -- exclusively reported in the IoS in
October -- that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the
risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop,
invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which
included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.
Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of
mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people
to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has
called for exposures to be reduced.
Professor Khurana -- a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards
over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific
papers -- reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile
phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper
based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication
in a scientific journal.
He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes
that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a
link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He
believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade.
Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending
diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively
unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry
and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of
malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to
rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far
too late to intervene medically.
"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health
ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who
told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three
billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as
smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and
exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as
road accidents.
Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's
study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one
individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of
the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO
and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".
Copyright independent.co.uk
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Science (pg. 1753), Mar. 28, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
WEIGHING THE CLIMATE RISKS OF AN UNTAPPED FOSSIL FUEL
By John Bohannon
Vienna, Austria -- A recent workshop* on methane hydrates felt like a
powwow of 19th century California gold prospectors, looking ahead to
both riches and peril. Sizing up the prize, Arthur Johnson, a veteran
geologist of the oil industry who is now an energy consultant based in
Kenner, Louisiana, predicted that "within a decade or two, hydrates
will grow to 10% to 15% of natural gas production," becoming a more
than $200 billion industry. And the peril? "The worst-case scenario is
that global warming triggers a decade-long release of hundreds of
gigatons of methane, the equivalent of 10 times the current amount of
greenhouse gas in the atmosphere," said David Archer, a climate
modeler at the University of Chicago in Illinois. Although no current
model predicts such an event, said Archer, "we'd be talking about mass
extinction."
When methane molecules become locked in atomic cages of water called
clathrates, they form icy chunks that ignite when lit. These solids
form wherever methane encounters water at high pressure and low
temperature. The necessary conditions reign in permafrost and in some
sea-floor sediments, forming a "ring around the bathtub" on
continental slopes. This exotic fuel was discovered by the Soviet
petroleum industry more than 3 decades ago, but even a few years ago
many doubted its commercial potential (Science, 13 February 2004, p.
946). After several successful pilot drilling studies and heavy
research investment over the past 4 years, says Johnson, "the question
now is not whether industry will exploit hydrates but how soon."
Considering the skyrocketing price of oil, the answer seems to be
soon, says one of the workshop organizers, Nebojua Nakicenovic, an
energy economist here at the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA) outside Vienna. "And yet hydrates are absent
from most of the climate discussions," he says, "and virtually absent
from the IPCC fourth assessment report," last year's 1000-page tome by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Science, 11 May 2007,
p. 812). The goal of the IIASA workshop was to bring together
researchers from all the different fields that touch hydrates--from
chemistry and economics to climate impact--to get an
"interdisciplinary perspective" on the uncertainties.
"It's clear that one of our biggest knowledge gaps is figuring out the
distribution," says Michael Riedel, a marine geophysicist at McGill
University in Montreal, Canada. "We still don't know how much there is
in the world, not even within an order of magnitude."
Another crucial gap is the flux of methane, which drives hydrate
formation over time. The largest amounts of methane hydrates are
thought to reside in sub-sea-floor sediments. In a newly built sea-
floor-monitoring network called NEPTUNE off the western coast of
Canada, Riedel is part of a team studying methane-spewing vents to get
a handle on their flow rate and marine chemistry. Where the conditions
are just right, methane hydrates form caps over pockets of such gas.
These not only are sweet spots for those who want to tap hydrates for
energy but also represent a major worry for climate modelers.
"If the sea floor warms up by a few degrees Celsius, the most
vulnerable hydrates will melt, and then you're going to get a massive
release of methane," says Euan Nisbet, a marine geologist at Royal
Holloway, University of London. That warming and release is expected
to take centuries or even millennia even in the most extreme climate
scenarios. Riedel says the methane bubbles from seafloor vents are
sponged up by the ocean water. But if a methane release were large and
shallow enough, it would reach the atmosphere, says Archer. What is
unclear is whether the climate system has methane-driven positive
feedback mechanisms that could lead to abrupt climate change.
Johnson threw cold water on the scenario of a massive release of
submarine hydrate-trapped methane to the atmosphere. Most hydrate
deposits found so far "are as deep as a kilometer below the sea
floor," he says, "and they aren't going anywhere." Walter Oechel, an
ecologist and carbon-cycle expert at San Diego State University in
California, doesn't find the "doom-and-gloom scenarios" very likely
either. "The real story for me is hydrates as yet another chronic
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions," he says.
Others considered methane hydrates part of a greenhouse gas solution.
A plan proposed by Vladimir Yakushev, a geologist at Gazprom, the
world's largest natural gas corporation, based in Moscow, involves
simultaneously extracting methane and methane hydrates while pumping
liquefied carbon dioxide into the underground spaces left behind.
Researchers also discussed the idea of using hydrates for electricity
generation or even manufacturing on the spot. "We have to try to make
it carbon-neutral if we're serious about climate change," says Nisbet.
The overarching question of whether methane hydrates should play a
major role in climate change debate was up for grabs. Considering the
workshop discussions, "the methane hydrate issue is one risk that
shouldn't drive policy considerations at the moment," concludes Brian
O'Neill, an IPCC author and climate modeler at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. "There are bigger fish to
fry." But Neil Hamilton, director of the International Arctic
Programme for the World Wildlife Fund, based in Oslo, Norway, says,
"It's absolutely shocking that hydrates have gotten so little
attention." The risk of a massive methane release, however unlikely,
"is reason enough for very serious concern," he says. More meetings
like these are clearly needed.
* "Vulnerability and Opportunity of Methane Hydrates Workshop," IIASA,
13-14 March 2008.
Copyright 2008 American Association for the Advancement of Science
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: James Hansen, Mar. 27, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
JAMES HANSEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA
The Hon Kevin Rudd, MP
Prime Minister of Australia
Australian Parliament
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2600
Dear Prime Minister,
Your leadership is needed on a matter concerning coal-fired power
plants and carbon dioxide emission rates in your country, a matter
with ramifications for life on our planet, including all species.
Prospects for today's children, and especially the world's poor, hinge
upon our success in stabilizing climate.
For the sake of identification, I am a United States citizen, director
of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor
at the Columbia University Earth Institute. I am a member of our
National Academy of Sciences, have testified before our Senate and
House of Representatives on many occasions, have advised our Vice
President and Cabinet members on climate change and its relation to
energy requirements, and have received numerous awards including the
World Wildlife Fund's Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal from Prince
Philip.
I write, however, as a private citizen, a resident of Kintnersville,
Pennsylvania, USA. I was assisted in composing this letter by
colleagues, including Australians, Americans, and Europeans, who
commented upon a draft letter. Because of the urgency of the matter, I
have not collected signatures, but your advisors will verify the
authenticity of the science discussion.
I recognize that for years you have been a strong supporter of
aggressive forward-looking actions to mitigate dangerous climate
change. Also, since your election as Prime Minister of Australia, your
government has been active in pressing the international community to
take appropriate actions. We are now at a point that bold leadership
is needed, leadership that could change the course of human history.
I have read and commend the Interim Report of Professor Ross Garnaut,
submitted to your government. The conclusion that net carbon emissions
must be cut to a fraction of current emissions must be stunning and
sobering to policy-makers. Yet the science is unambiguous: if we burn
most of the fossil fuels, releasing the CO2 to the air, we will
assuredly destroy much of the fabric of life on the planet.
Achievement of required near-zero net emissions by mid-century implies
a track with substantial cuts of emissions by 2020. Aggressive near-
term fostering of energy efficiency and climate friendly technologies
is an imperative for mitigation of the looming climate crisis and
optimization of the economic pathway to the eventual clean-energy
world.
Global climate is near critical tipping points that could lead to loss
of all summer sea ice in the Arctic with detrimental effects on
wildlife, initiation of ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica
and Greenland with progressive, unstoppable global sea level rise,
shifting of climatic zones with extermination of many animal and plant
species, reduction of freshwater supplies for hundreds of millions of
people, and a more intense hydrologic cycle with stronger droughts and
forest fires, but also heavier rains and floods, and stronger storms
driven by latent heat, including tropical storms, tornados and
thunderstorms.
Feasible actions now could still point the world onto a course that
minimizes climate change. Coal clearly emerges as central to the
climate problem from the facts summarized in the attached Fossil Fuel
Facts. Coal caused fully half of the fossil fuel increase of carbon
dioxide (CO2) in the air today, and on the long run coal has the
potential to be an even greater source of CO2. Due to the dominant
role of coal, solution to global warming must include phase- out of
coal except for uses where the CO2 is captured and sequestered.
Failing that, we cannot avoid large climate change, because a
substantial fraction of the emitted CO2 will stay in the air more than
1000 years.
Yet there are plans for continuing mining of coal, export of coal, and
construction of new coal-fired power plants around the world,
including in Australia, plants that would have a lifetime of half a
century or more. Your leadership in halting these plans could seed a
transition that is needed to solve the global warming problem.
Choices among alternative energy sources -- renewable energies, energy
efficiency, nuclear power, fossil fuels with carbon capture -- these
are local matters. But decision to phase out coal use unless the CO2
is captured is a global imperative, if we are to preserve the wonders
of nature, our coastlines, and our social and economic well being.
Although coal is the dominant issue, there are many important
subsidiary ramifications, including the need for rapid transition from
oil-fired energy utilities, industrial facilities and transport
systems, to clean (solar, hydrogen, gas, wind, geothermal, hot rocks,
tide) energy sources, as well as removal of barriers to increased
energy efficiency.
If the West makes a firm commitment to this course, discussion with
developing countries can be prompt. Given the potential of technology
assistance, realization of adverse impacts of climate change, and
leverage and increasing interdependence from global trade, success in
cooperation of developed and developing worlds is feasible.
The western world has contributed most to fossil fuel CO2 in the air
today, on a per capita basis.
This is not an attempt to cast blame. It only recognizes the reality
of the early industrial development in these countries, and points to
a responsibility to lead in finding a solution to global warming.
A firm choice to halt building of coal-fired power plants that do not
capture CO2 would be a major step toward solution of the global
warming problem. Australia has strong interest in solving the climate
problem. Citizens in the United States are stepping up to block one
coal plant after another, and major changes can be anticipated after
the upcoming national election.
If Australia halted construction of coal-fired power plants that do
not capture and sequester the CO2, it could be a tipping point for the
world. There is still time to find that tipping point, but just
barely. I hope that you will give these considerations your attention
in setting your national policies. You have the potential to influence
the future of the planet.
Prime Minister Rudd, we cannot avert our eyes from the basic fossil
fuel facts, or the consequences for life on our planet of ignoring
these fossil fuel facts. If we continue to build coal-fired power
plants without carbon capture, we will lock in future climate
disasters associated with passing climate tipping points. We must
solve the coal problem now.
For your information, I plan to send a similar letter to the
Australian States Premiers.
I commend to you the following Australian climate, paleoclimate and
Earth scientists to provide further elaboration of the science
reported in my attached paper (Hansen et al., 2008):
Professor Barry Brook, Professor of climate change, University of
Adelaide
Dr Andrew Glikson, Australian National University
Professor Janette Lindesay, Australian National University
Dr Graeme Pearman, Monash University
Dr Barrie Pittock, CSIRO
Dr Michael Raupach, CSIRO
Professor Will Steffen, Australian National University
Sincerely,
James E. Hansen
Kintnersville, Pennsylvania
United States of America
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Guardian (Manchester, U.K.), Mar. 28, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
STUDY LINKS PARKINSON'S DISEASE TO LONG-TERM PESTICIDE EXPOSURE
By Alok Jha, science correspondent
Scientists have found further evidence of a link between Parkinson's
disease and long-term exposure to pesticides.
A study of more than 300 people with the neurological disease -- which
can affect movements such as walking, talking and writing -- found
that sufferers were more than twice as likely to report heavy exposure
to pesticides over their lifetime as family members without the
disease.
Previous studies have pointed to a possible link between pesticide
exposure and Parkinson's and public authorities are trying to work out
whether these risks should be classed as significant. A £906,000
project to study the links launched in 2006 by the Department of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for example, is due to report
this summer.
Variations in several genes have been identified that contribute to
the disease, but these defects are rare and only account for a small
proportion of the incidence of the disease, which afflicts around
120,000 people in the UK. The majority of cases are thought to be a
result of an interaction between genes and the environment.
Lifetime exposure
The new research, led by American scientists, looked at the lifetime
pesticide exposure of 319 Parkinson's patients and more than 200 of
their relatives without the disease. The results, published today in
the journal BMC Neurology, showed that people with Parkinson's were
1.6 times as likely to report an exposure to pesticides in their
lifetimes compared with the controls.
In addition, people with the Parkinson's were 2.4 times as likely as
people without the disease to report heavy exposure to pesticides,
classed as more than 215 days over a lifetime.
The strongest associations were between people with Parkinson's who
had been exposed to herbicide and insecticide chemicals such as
organochlorides and organophosphates. No links were found between
Parkinson's disease and drinking well-water or living or working on a
farm, two commonly used proxies for pesticide exposures.
"In this dataset, these tended to be people who used a lot of
pesticides in their homes and in their hobbies," said William Scott of
the University of Miami, who took part in the study. "There were not
many people who routinely used pesticides for their occupation."
Though the evidence is growing, the researchers said that there was
not enough biological evidence yet to conclude that Parkinson's was
definitely caused by pesticide exposure. The biological mechanism
linking the two is still unknown. The researchers added that future
genetic studies of Parkinson's could consider the influence of
pesticides, because exposure to these chemicals may trigger the
disease in genetically predisposed people.
Key role
Kieran Breen, director of research at the Parkinson's Disease Society
(PDS), said: "The association between pesticides and Parkinson's has
been recognised for some time, and this study supports this link and
strengthens the fact that pesticides play a key role."
The PDS has carried out a survey of more than 10,000 people with
Parkinson's and preliminary results show that 9% had long-term
pesticide or herbicide exposure, which is defined as exposure for more
than a year.
"Of the 3,000 carers surveyed, most of whom were family members, less
than 2% had had similar exposure," said Breen. "This demonstates |
|
