- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48607
In the February 25 Issue:
Advertisement
Winter forecast: Sustained blizzard of climate news
Web edition
: Wednesday, October 21st, 2009
Text Size
At least in our area of the country, consumers are already being assaulted — well before Halloween — with Christmas music, decorations and holiday-themed goods. Reporters are smack in the throes of their own early seasonal blitz: News items carrying a climate or global-warming theme.
And I don’t expect the crush of climate news and seminars to diminish until around Christmas. That’s when the next United Nations COP — or Conference of the Parties — will end this year’s pivotal round of negotiations in Copenhagen aimed at producing a new climate treaty. One intended to succeed and surpass the Kyoto Protocol, which a dozen years ago set out a blueprint for globally reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions.
I probably receive about a dozen news pitches a day by email geared toward climate issues. For much of the past six weeks, I’ve been invited to at-least weekly climate-related news briefings; lately, the calendar postings have snowballed — now listing near-daily events.
Much of the information being flung at reporters is interesting and potentially useful. There’s just too much of it. Every organization seems to want to put its imprint on the Copenhagen talks by influencing policymakers and the public — via the media — about climate science, policy options, economic projections associated with those options, and why the clock is ticking on an impending climatic End of Days.
Yes, there’s hyperbole galore. But there’s also a lot of good science, thoughtful analyses and thought-provoking commentary. But the shear volume — and its unrelenting thumping urgency – risks making us all just cover our ears and say: Enough already!
Although most news pitches sound like variations on a theme, a few stand out for one reason or another.
Such as an announcement that I got yesterday from the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental think tank. It seemed to propose veganism as one answer to climate concerns. An article in the latest issue of this organization’s magazine focused on the greenhouse-gas emissions attributable to livestock. Authors of this piece, Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang (both with World Bank ties), have analyzed livestock data and concluded that direct and indirect emissions associated with farmed animals and their products account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually, or 51 percent of total yearly global emissions.
Replacing livestock products with soy-based and other alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change, Worldwatch argued, because it “would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse-gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations — and thus on the rate the climate is warming — than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.”
Just a day earlier, Stanford University pitched a story pointing in the opposite direction. It boasted the putative benefits in switching from fossil fuels and biomass energy to an all-electric economy by 2030 (which would include some electric-generated hydrogen fuels). Virtually all of the electricity would be powered by renewable sources. The news release cited a paper by Stanford’s civil and environmental engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson that projected renewables could satisfy global energy demand with just 11.5 million megawatts of power two decades from now. To do the same with a mix of fossil-fuel sources would require 16.9 MW — or 30 percent more, Jacobson calculated. Most of the technology to make the switch already exists, Jacobson and colleague Mark Delucchi of the University of California-Davis together argue in next month’s Scientific American.
Another provocative commentary was published recently in a prominent medical journal; it argued that birth control was a good strategy for reducing future energy demand. Reducing the number of people on planet Earth would reduce the calories needed to feed them, move them and keep them warm (or cool).
Of course, no one solution will head off climate catastrophe. After all, you won’t quickly or easily wean the world off of meat and dairy products. India and China — and even the United States — aren’t ready to give up on coal or pay the high costs of transitioning to less carbon-intensive fuels. And population control is not something that can be orchestrated well as a top-down social construct, not to mention that its advocates risk running afoul of certain religious beliefs.
Earth’s diverse cultures will likely need a rich tapestry of different technologies and strategies to lower humanity’s carbon and methane footprints. And trust me, you’ll be getting an earful — and eyeful — over the next two months about threads that might be selected to weave that tapestry.
Found in: Climate Change, Environment, Matter & Energy and Science & Society
And I don’t expect the crush of climate news and seminars to diminish until around Christmas. That’s when the next United Nations COP — or Conference of the Parties — will end this year’s pivotal round of negotiations in Copenhagen aimed at producing a new climate treaty. One intended to succeed and surpass the Kyoto Protocol, which a dozen years ago set out a blueprint for globally reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions.
I probably receive about a dozen news pitches a day by email geared toward climate issues. For much of the past six weeks, I’ve been invited to at-least weekly climate-related news briefings; lately, the calendar postings have snowballed — now listing near-daily events.
Much of the information being flung at reporters is interesting and potentially useful. There’s just too much of it. Every organization seems to want to put its imprint on the Copenhagen talks by influencing policymakers and the public — via the media — about climate science, policy options, economic projections associated with those options, and why the clock is ticking on an impending climatic End of Days.
Yes, there’s hyperbole galore. But there’s also a lot of good science, thoughtful analyses and thought-provoking commentary. But the shear volume — and its unrelenting thumping urgency – risks making us all just cover our ears and say: Enough already!
Although most news pitches sound like variations on a theme, a few stand out for one reason or another.
Such as an announcement that I got yesterday from the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental think tank. It seemed to propose veganism as one answer to climate concerns. An article in the latest issue of this organization’s magazine focused on the greenhouse-gas emissions attributable to livestock. Authors of this piece, Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang (both with World Bank ties), have analyzed livestock data and concluded that direct and indirect emissions associated with farmed animals and their products account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually, or 51 percent of total yearly global emissions.
Replacing livestock products with soy-based and other alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change, Worldwatch argued, because it “would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse-gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations — and thus on the rate the climate is warming — than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.”
Just a day earlier, Stanford University pitched a story pointing in the opposite direction. It boasted the putative benefits in switching from fossil fuels and biomass energy to an all-electric economy by 2030 (which would include some electric-generated hydrogen fuels). Virtually all of the electricity would be powered by renewable sources. The news release cited a paper by Stanford’s civil and environmental engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson that projected renewables could satisfy global energy demand with just 11.5 million megawatts of power two decades from now. To do the same with a mix of fossil-fuel sources would require 16.9 MW — or 30 percent more, Jacobson calculated. Most of the technology to make the switch already exists, Jacobson and colleague Mark Delucchi of the University of California-Davis together argue in next month’s Scientific American.
Another provocative commentary was published recently in a prominent medical journal; it argued that birth control was a good strategy for reducing future energy demand. Reducing the number of people on planet Earth would reduce the calories needed to feed them, move them and keep them warm (or cool).
Of course, no one solution will head off climate catastrophe. After all, you won’t quickly or easily wean the world off of meat and dairy products. India and China — and even the United States — aren’t ready to give up on coal or pay the high costs of transitioning to less carbon-intensive fuels. And population control is not something that can be orchestrated well as a top-down social construct, not to mention that its advocates risk running afoul of certain religious beliefs.
Earth’s diverse cultures will likely need a rich tapestry of different technologies and strategies to lower humanity’s carbon and methane footprints. And trust me, you’ll be getting an earful — and eyeful — over the next two months about threads that might be selected to weave that tapestry.
Found in: Climate Change, Environment, Matter & Energy and Science & Society
Advertisement
Reader Favorites:
- Science & the Public : GNP’s glaciers: Going, going . . .
- Science & the Public : Insurance payouts point to climate change
- Science & the Public : Bush meat can be a viral feast
- On the Scene : Vying for the title of World's Fastest Cell
- Deleted Scenes : Moony shot
SN on the Web:
Site originally developed by Confluent Forms LLC, some elements ©
2001 - 2012
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/sustainable-living-now-includes-edible-pets-to-curb-global-warming/ for more.
Why is it that we see no articles in Science News about increases in Antarctic ice, or any scientific article that contradicts Global Warming/Climate Change theory? Why no articles on the fact the the US surface station data is inaccurate and does not match satellite data?
This lack of balance is glaring. My subscription expires in February. Science News has four months to convince me that I am receiving uncensored articles.
Because advocates of climate change insist that we must act now, but cannot explain the cooling of the last few years, why should be believe them that we must act before we know the effects of our actions? This is just "Jump now and then ask How high on the way up."
I agree completely with NHChemist. The coverage is entirely one-sided, especially in SN. I have not seen even a single article in SN that so much as questions the standard AGW "science by press release" fare. Disgusting.
This, in addition to the awful new format, are the two reasons I canceled my SN subscription.
Cash advance loans come in handy when a person has sudden expenses that are a bit beyond the scope of a few gallons of gas. Like any financial tool, cash advance loans are tools to be used responsibly and with care. If you break a pair of glasses, that's reasonable. If you need the new phone which does most of what your current one does – that's irresponsible, and maybe you should be questioning just how healthy this obsession is, and if enriching some suit so you can use GPS at the gas station is intelligent. (It isn't.) However, for those in dire need, you can get cash advance loans with no credit checks from a [url= [Link was removed] fax cash advance[/url] lender.
Thanks
[Link was removed]
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.