Arjun Singhe asked:


While there are certainly natural causes of global warming that certainly is not where the situation stops. Many people will venture to say that the main cause of global warming is actually humans and their actions against the environment. There are a lot of things to consider though as there may still be a lot of issues and causes out there that we do not yet know about which could be working along with the natural causes of global warming. Only time and research will tell though and that is why the science community is actively working on finding out everything they can.

The thing about global warming is that not enough people really understand everything there is to currently know about the situation. Not only are our children in the dark but a lot of adults are too. This is simply unacceptable as there is no reason that we do not all know about the natural causes of global warming along with the un-natural causes and what it is doing to our environment. In order to make sure that this does not become a pattern that continues on for many years, it is important that we take action to make sure that everyone, young and old alike, learn more about this dangerous issue.

Schools Need To Step Up
While some schools out there touch a little bit on the subject of natural causes of global warming and the un-natural causes, they could certainly stand to do a little more. There is nothing wrong with extensive education on this subject as there are only good things to gain from it. Our children are our future and it will be up to them to help make sure that things with our planet remain safe and in tact. Since this is a fact that cannot be disputed, it is a shame that more and more schools are not stepping up and doing more to educate our future leaders.

If your locals schools are not doing enough to educate the children on the natural causes of global warming then you could certainly step up and teach your children what you feel would be beneficial for them to know. Even if your school is doing their part, as the parent it is up to you to reinforce the education that they are receiving on the natural causes of global warming. Take everything that you can find on the subject and make sure that you are passing it on to your children so that they too can benefit from it.

James Nash asked:


President George W. Bush once famously declared: “I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.” But when it comes to environmental issues, especially global warming, Bush often sounds more like the dissembler than the decider.

Throughout his presidency, Bush’s so-called leadership on global climate change has lurched from outright stonewalling in the early years, when he refused to discuss or even acknowledge the issue, to misdirection and political sleight-of-hand.

Speaking recently from the White House Rose Garden to consider new climate change strategies, the president set what he called a “realistic” national goal to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

Unfortunately, the president offers no actual plan for achieving the new goal, instead calling on Congress to find some way to make it happen. More to the point, the goal itself falls far short of what many scientists believe must be done to prevent the most catastrophic effects of global warming, which is to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions at least 15-20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, not simply to stop emissions from increasing.

Bush believes that it is possible to protect the environment without hurting the economy, and said any new policies or legislation must strike that balance. Bush thinks advanced technology is the key to solving global warming and recommended incentives that would make it more cost-effective for businesses to adopt new clean-energy technology instead of sticking with old systems that emit more greenhouse gases. Again, he never offered a plan for how to get the job done.

Bush praises his administration for increasing the use of wind and solar power and called for continuing investments in renewable energy and carbon sequestration, but he points to nuclear energy and coal – including so-called “clean coal” – as the keys to America’s “energy and economic security.”

The president says his administration has provided “billions of dollars for next generation nuclear energy technologies” and “in 2009 alone, the government and the private sector plan to dedicate nearly a billion dollars to clean coal research and development.”

Bush criticizes U.S. courts for applying what he considers narrow and outdated laws to a broad issue such as global warming. Specifically, he says “the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate.” He took a slap at the U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

The president believes stretching environment laws “beyond their original intent” could force the federal government to act like a local planning and zoning board and to regulate a wide range of small energy users and producers – from schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings – which he says would have “crippling effects on our entire economy.”

In discussing various vague strategies that might help fight global warming, the president rejects tax increases, tariffs, trade barriers, and regulations that might lead to higher costs for businesses. Instead, Bush recommends creation of an international clean technology fund “that will help finance low-emissions energy projects in the developing world” and called on all nations “to help spark a global clean energy revolution by agreeing immediately to eliminate trade barriers on clean energy goods and services.”

Many concerned observers are unimpressed with the president’s new strategy to address the problems of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

“Unfortunately, President Bush retains the mantle of the most anti-environmental president in history,” stated Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, in a telephone interview with The Guardian. Karpinski pointed out that Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign promise to cap global warming pollution from power plants was never honored. “Since that time, all we’ve had is empty words but no serious action.”

“This basically sounds like the same quarterback calling the same play,” said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, in an interview with the Washington Post. “It’s just another way of Bush saying no.”

President Bush believes that the strategy he has laid out shows faith in the ingenuity and enterprise of the American people – and that’s a resource that will never run out. He is confident that with sensible and balanced policies from Washington, American innovators and entrepreneurs will pioneer a new generation of technology that improves our environment, strengthens our economy, and continues to amaze the world.

Let’s hope so, because the only amazing thing about the president’s strategy for greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is its lack of any real effort to address such serious problems.

James Finch asked:


Bad weather may be heading our way. Many very smart voices have raised their volume over the number of alarming red flags pointing to a worldwide environmental catastrophe coming in a few years or decades hence. One voice, coming from the sharp mind of James Lovelock is resounding across the world’s media nearly every day. His solution: get more nuclear reactors online and sequester the carbon dioxide emissions as fast as possible.

What’s the alternative? Move to the Arctic Circle, where you may someday bask year around with temperatures pleasantly at 74 degrees Fahrenheit. According to findings recently published in the journal Nature. About 55 million years ago, there was something called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). In this PETM phenomenon, the entire Earth was heated up by a gigantic release of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Lovelock has insisted we may see that kind of hot later this century.

Now, another brainy man, with whom we have many chats this year, has issued a special 56-page report, entitled “Investment Implications of an Abrupt Climate Change.” Co-authored by Market Strategist Kevin Bambrough and Eric Sprott, Chief Executive and Portfolio Manager of the world-famous money management firm which bears his name, they present a compelling argument as to why and how global warming and climate change is going to dramatically impact our financial world. You are well advised to read it.

Take Your Pick: Nuclear Energy or Cheap Arctic Land

Aside from optioning to buy vast tracts of land near the Arctic Circle, as Dr. Lovelock’s conclusions force us to briefly consider, what can we do to protect our finances? Global warming, climate change and an apocalypse soon to dawn on the horizon are probably too much reality for the here and now. But, what will you do ten to thirty years from now? This past week, we interviewed Julian Steyn, author of A Brighter Tomorrow, which he co-wrote with U.S. Senator Pete Domenici. A conservative and rational man, even he admitted in an email, “I am afraid I do agree with his (Lovelock’s) concerns.”

If one finds logic within the statistical analysis presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a rational mind would want to start protecting his finances today in order to ensure future survival for his family and lineage. Esteemed scientists have picked their way through mountains of statistics, charts and projections about what is happening with melting glaciers, rising temperatures, higher sea levels and so forth. They do not like what they see, they are not alone, and the better minds are not endorsing wind farms or solar panels as “the solution.” They see nuclear fission reactors as mandatory, and the faster these go online, the less we will later have to sweat (literally).

Eric Sprott and Kevin Bambrough have laid out a possible solution, a cogent thesis as to why we must stop fooling around now. They didn’t write the report to alarm and cajole you to lynch the next environmentalist or anti-nuke whom you come across. Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough provided a blueprint of what must be done by governments and decision-makers. More importantly, they have given us extremely provocative advice on HOW to protect our finances during the brewing crisis.

Remember, it won’t just be some meteor hitting the earth (although that might happen, too). Global warming is tantamount to boiling water on your stove. First, it gets warm, then warmer and warmer. Eventually, it gets hot. Then, the water boils. In other words, the catastrophe will brew for a while, causing political and economic instability, and a host of other ills, probably better described in biblical terms. Most of us, unfortunately, will wait until the next Hurricane Katrina is a few miles down the road before waking up.

Through the first half of the report, the authors cover global warming and climate change, in just about every way imaginable. Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough found nooks and crannies which may alarm you. Did you know the world’s largest aquifer, the Ogallala aquifer in the United States, is drying up because the glaciers, which created this aquifer, are receding? Fresh water is already in short supply for one-third of the world’s population. We may be surrounded by water, but could lack a glass of fresh water to drink. Ask the Saudis why they are building desalination plants as fast they can. Imagine if those arid conditions prevailed across more than 90 percent of the landmass of earth.

What happens as the earth’s temperature goes up? Increased urbanization, growing GDPs and demand for all the niceties that come with “civilization” have a price: more CO2 emissions. Deadly CO2 emissions, which raise the earth’s temperature, poison our air and kill our plants (and us), are very likely going to turn this earth into a potboiler before the century ends.

Nuclear Expansion Needs More Uranium

“This IS the perfect storm,” Kevin Bambrough warned, not as the abused cliché the term has become, but as an angry voice demanding decision-makers take to heart the gravity of CO2 emissions. “We need more nuclear reactors now,” he told us. He directed us to environmentalist Patrick Moore’s contention that the U.S. should reverse its energy source mix from an 80-percent dependence upon fossil fuels, relying instead upon nuclear energy for 60-percent of our electrical power supply.

Under the former Greenpeace co-founder’s scenario, Bambrough extrapolated the World Nuclear Association (WNA) projections for 2030. Nuclear power demand is then expected to soar from the current 368 Gw, produced by the world’s 441 nuclear reactors. He computed, using Moore’s premise of a 60-percent nuclear-reliance, that nuclear reactors would produce 18,900 Twh of the total power demand in 2030, which the WNA estimates might reach 31,500 Twh. To produce that much electricity, Bambrough calculated that by 2030, nearly 2700 nuclear reactors will be required across the planet. Envisioning the “potential” of a 600-percent increase in nuclear reactors online, about 25 years from now, Bambrough also calculated how much uranium would be required to fuel those reactors.

According to Bambrough, current global uranium mining production rests at about the 100 million-pound level. By 2030, if nuclear energy expands as Moore insists it should, then the world’s utilities will require on the order of about 1.3 billion pounds every year. With regards to a planetary build-up of nuclear energy, Bambrough wrote, “The supply of uranium may well be the most limiting factor.”

This may become the new case for a sustained rally in the spot uranium price. Bambrough wrote, “Much higher uranium prices will be required to attract enough investment capital to meet the growth in demand.” This has already begun, as uranium prices have skyrocketed for the past six years. Long-term uranium recently traded as high as $46/pound, exponentially higher than the spot price of $6.40/pound in late 2000. Bambrough is correct in his conclusion. Building an underground uranium mine costs far more than it did in the glory days of uranium in the 1950s. Environmental regulations force miners to spend more and take longer in constructing any uranium-producing facility, including an ISL operation.

“Marginal mines will become price setters,” wrote Bambrough. This helps explain why the Sprott Asset Management funds have invested heavily in companies such as Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF), Energy Metals (TSX: EMC) and others. When we first interviewed Strathmore Minerals Chief Executive, Dev Randhawa, in June 2004, he told us his strategy was to capitalize upon a sustained rally in the uranium price by acquiring properties which were uneconomic at the sub-$20/level. His strategy has rewarded shareholders and continued to do so with each uptick in the spot uranium price. If Bambrough’s conclusion is accurate, the junior uranium developers could very well become the Internet high-fliers. That conclusion was reached by newsletter writer James Dines, this past November, and repeated numerous times in multiple reports by others.

“Large low-cost producers may be able to reap Middle East-like oil profits for decades,” wrote Bambrough. If the spread between production costs and spot uranium keeps widening, the smaller uranium companies are going to hit it big. Those companies, which postponed uranium mining, will be selling their uranium production at the kind of profits-to-production spread ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco now enjoy.

Rising uranium prices are probably more of an irritation for fuel traders than the utilities, who worry about construction costs. The actual fuel cost to operate a nuclear power plant borders on the absurd. Bambrough wrote in his report, “Fuel costs (for nuclear) are merely 4.5 percent of total costs, even with uranium at $40 per lb. If uranium rises to $100 per lb (a further 150 percent increase), the cost of nuclear power would only rise by approximately 6.75 percent.” Fuel costs for coal and gas are 35 and 73 percent, respectively. And they release massive doses of CO2 into the air.

What else can be done aside from a worldwide, unanimous endorsement of nuclear energy? There may still be difficulties ahead. Lovelock told us the CO2 emissions problem should have been addressed 50 years ago. It takes between 50 and 100 years for the atmosphere to cycle through those emissions.

The Sprott report co-authors concluded there will be supply problems for food, water and energy. They envision problems with national security, soaring grain prices, and greater investments needed to provide water and energy to those who aren’t buried ten feet deep in their indebtedness. They foresee a currency collapse as central banks flood the money system to provide liquidity. And, of course, gold will resume the role it has always held during times of overpowering economic calamity.

Is this too much reality for you? Should we just wait a while and see what transpires? We might not be so lucky. Some experts, such as the Chief Claims Strategist for Swiss Re, wrote in a March 2006 CERES report, “Global warming has accelerated from a problem that might affect our grandchildren, to one that could significantly disturb the social and economic conditions of our lifetime.”

In other words, Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough are correct in their assumptions and conclusions. The time to get moving is today, not thirty years from now.

For a second opinion, before completing this column, we forwarded the Sprott report to David Miller. He wears many hats, including a consultancy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, third-term Wyoming legislator, president of Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM) and a walking encyclopedia on uranium, geology, nuclear power and politics. He responded quite bluntly, “The fuel of the 19th century was coal. The fuel of the 20th century was oil. Both have run their economic course. Uranium is on its way to becoming the energy fuel of the 21st century. The crescendo of countries clamoring for nuclear energy has been growing louder in each year of this new millennium.” Perhaps, we may yet see Moore’s energy mix come to pass, or at least dramatic growth in the nuclear sector to more closely approach his targeted percentage level.

One key question remains unanswered, during our two-year investigation into uranium and nuclear energy. Sure, we’ve gotten a lot of answers, but we remain unconvinced. No one has satisfactorily answered this question: “Will there be sufficient supplies of ‘already mined uranium’ and current mining production available to the world’s nuclear reactors to meet the anticipated global demand for electricity?” The make-break word in the above question is “available.” Uranium is nearly everywhere. There are about 1.7 billion pounds of ‘already mined uranium’ in the world’s inventories. But will there be enough uranium made available to the utilities when the time comes?

If there is not, today’s spot uranium price could look comparable to gasoline prices, circa 1965, at some future point.

James Nash asked:

This business about global warming is actually starting to look like a nightmare for humanity. It’s becoming more a ghastly proposal, not an “inconvenient truth.”

Global warming is occurring at even a more accelerated pace than what was originally predicted, many who are expert sources on this issue posit. Most are still a bit skeptical of the Global Warming issue. It’s commonplace for the press- listening and reading public to be cynical and even critical today. It’s not only that opposing views of any issue are part of the mainstream “Op-Ed” consciousness; it’s just good business and idea salesmanship to keep everything murky, dusty and convoluted.

The news – especially science news – is so hazy and muddled with political and religious sources traditionally centered in spin, connotation, even stigma that trying to believe in anything today is very hard. In a society that cannot decide if a little white wine each day can cure cancer or lead to alcoholism, finding a Gregorian “middle ground” is tough.

And because science is always based in theory, it’s even more confusing to sort out good theory from bad; and just the way scientific theory is designed and argued, nothing is really set in stone and is not fact, per se, rather, scientific theory is just what its name implies — it is theory. Considering much of the fingerprint and harbinger evidences surrounding global warming, however; this theory becomes more denotatively arguable and convincing with each new day.

Most people stay convicted to their beliefs even long after their beliefs have been denigrated or sometimes even proven totally false. In the case of global warming, ever increasing scientific theory is an ongoing constant, though, and this leads to a very unsettling future forecast for Mother Earth, the human race and really, most types of species that reside here. Validation surrounding the global warming theory is so stacked it’s alarming.

One such truth: The rapid buildup of killer carbon dioxide in large lakes like Nyos in Africa (which saw an explosion kill about 1,700 people) creates stern consternation by those who are even slightly to the side of “green.” If it happened to Lake Nyos, what’s in store for Lake Superior, Erie, Huron or the “thousand lakes of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri or Finland? What’s in it for Loch Ness in Scotland? How’s about the Mississippi and Nile rivers? Can we include about every body of water here if our waters continue heating? Carbon dioxide buildup in large lakes is not the stuff impossible fictions are made of – this is a stark reality – and global warming is the root of the problem, scientists argue.

Just to reiterate and try to ring the alarm a bit louder: It’s an enigma why people aren’t up in arms about this – and if the implications behind global warming are true, it might indeed be the biggest crisis humankind has ever faced.

Scientists say the dinosaurs went extinct due to climate changes brought on by a comet hitting the earth 65 million years ago. The estimated 6-mile-wide comet slammed into the Mexican Yucatan Peninsula region “leaving a hole 112 miles wide. It wiped out the dinosaurs and more than 75 percent of the species on the planet, throwing up a cloud of dust that blocked the sun for months, killing off plants at the base of the food chain and causing ecosystems to collapse worldwide; it was a global environmental catastrophe”.

Are we going to go extinct because of our factories’ creation of plastic ornaments on lawns? Is the Earth heading for a quick demise because SUVs and trucks are two of the planets biggest polluters? Tables, chairs and houses are taking the place of rain forests; and through the rapid buildup of developing nations’ industrial revolutions, our world has been kidnapped – and there’s little that can be done to stop global warming – many who are very familiar with this issue contend.

Even the most drastic actions – which entail a global greening in very strict, drastic and complete uniformity – may not be enough to fend off the inevitable greenhouse effect that is predicted.

As things continue to unfold concerning global warming, however, a lot of us are seeing that all this fretting over the world’s environment isn’t a political trick or a smoke and mirrors routine. No. Our atmosphere is becoming more like a microwave and we’re rotating around on the big dish inside.

I’d really like to see proof to the contrary but everything coming out lately points to making valid the global warming theory. To be honest, I’m getting quite upset over the spicy forecasting that’s being done these days. With the threat of the equatorial waters getting about as hot as a chili pepper over time, what’s there to even plan in the mid-century we’re living within?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that this warming is due to anthropogenic factors (mankind is cooking things up here). The Intergovernmental Panel’s Fourth Assessment Report, completed in 2007, found that even if temperatures stabilize, the world is expected to heat up during most of this millennium. The sea level has risen 4 to 10 inches (10-25 cm) on a global scale over the past 100 years. “With additional warming, sea level is projected to rise from half a foot to 3 feet (15-92 cm) more during the next 100 years.

On average, 50 to 100 feet (15-30 meters) of beach are lost for every foot (0.3 meters) of sea-level rise. Local land subsidence (sinking) and/or uplift due to geologic forces and coastal development will also affect the rate of coastal land loss. There seems to be a lack of real, viable solutions for keeping Mother Earth blue and green and not gray and black.

Dilip Dahanukar asked:

The Earth is being heated by the Sun every day. Almost 174,000 Terawatts of energy hits the Earth. One Terawatt is equal to one million megawatts! So the Sun is heating the Earth with 174 billion megawatts of energy! Of this, about 30% is reflected back due to the white reflectivity of the Earth which is known in science as the albedo effect. So the net energy absorbed by the Earth is 122 Terawatts.

If so much energy is being absorbed by the Earth, it should continue to heat up and its temperature must continue to rise constantly. Within days the temp should surpass the maximum that any life could bear. All life would die and the trees whither and char.

But this does not happen. The Earth has its own temperature stability. Why? Because, at night the Earth radiates the heat absorbed during the day into deep space. Of the 122 TW that the Earth absorbs from the Sun, it radiates 121TW back into deep space and the difference is converted into work for moving the air, the clouds and the sea currents and tides. Radiation always takes place between two bodies, the heat going out from the hotter to the cooler body. We can actually feel this cooling effect at night, but the truth is that it is happening all 24 hours. The Earth is constantly cooling by radiating out its energy into deep space. We don’t feel it during day because the effect of the Sun’s radiation is to annul the cooling and go on further to warm the Earth. Over the millions of years the Earth has achieved a balance of its temperature equating the heating by the Sun and the cooling at night.

The sea has a vast reserve of water which is capable of absorbing the heat of the Sun without change in its temperature. Sun’s radiation penetrates a long distance down in the water and the heat is absorbed into a very big mass of water. In places where there are algae or plankton as a mixed layer, its depth makes some difference. Observations of sea surface temperature (SST) where there was ocean mixed layer (OML) at 5 feet below surface showed a day night temperature difference of 1.5 degrees centigrade. But when the OML was 50 feet deep, the  temperature difference was only just 0.1 degree!

The Oceans hold 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water. Physics has given us a way to calculate the rise of temperature of water knowing its mass, specific heat and the amount of heat input. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming is 1.6 watts per sq. meter which works out to a heat input of 800TW on the surface area of 500 Tera sq. meters for the whole planet. This heat input for the whole year without considering the night-time radiation from the sea surface, can only raise the temperature of the sea by ½ degree over a period of 111 years! It is therefore impossible for the global warming arising out of the greenhouse gases to warm the sea enough to melt the polar ice caps from underneath.

eMaya the expert on Climate Change, suspects that it is more likely caused by undersea volcanic activity. You can read how she plans to stop global warming in the book ‘eMaya’ at  www.trafford.com/08-0434

Enviro Saver asked:

What is global warming? Global warming is when the temperature of the planet starts to rise causing the icecaps to melt, resulting in the ocean levels rising. You might be wondering how this can affect the average person. Global warming might be seen by many as something that does not need to be overly concerned about. In truth, it really is something that people should be concerned about. With the temperature of earth rising, the icecaps melt and the stores of fresh water mix with the salt water. If there is one thing the human population does not want to be short of, it is fresh water.

Global warming is what contributes to the growth of deserts as more moisture evaporates into the air from the heat. In many places drought is becoming a major problem and this can lead to poor crop yield and an increase in the chance of having fires. Extreme flooding is also believed to be contributed to by global warming as the weather patterns change. As the temperature becomes warmer, it disrupts regular storm patterns and can lead to worse storms that lead to more tornados, hurricanes and floods.

What ways can you stop global warming? Whether you are a business or an individual, you can become someone who does not contribute to the problem. Here are some tips:

•Replace all incandescent light bulbs with florescent lights that use less electricity.

•Try to minimize the number of times the furnace turns on, maybe even turn it down a bit.

•Use appliances that are energy efficient; they don’t use as much electricity as the common ones.

•Don’t leave things on standby. When finished with a machine turn it off.

•Turn off lights when the room is not in use.

•Replace single pane windows with double pane.

While many of these suggestions are often associated with homes, they can also be used by businesses who wish to help stop global warming. These are only a few of the many things a person or business can do. To find out more ways you can be more environmentally friendly, you can go onto the internet, find books in libraries or stores, or you can even bring in a professional who can help you find ways to be a part of the solution. At first, it might seem like it is very expensive, and it is at first, but you help stop global warming and over time it can actually help to save yourself, or your business money.

Diana Trimble asked:

It’s not just the planet that’s hotting up, it’s the whole debate about global warming. Especially now that we can see and feel its effects every day. Yet you’ve probably noticed that when it comes to taking action, the focus always seems to be on what each of us can do personally. We the people must use energy-saving light bulbs, fly less, recycle, use green energy, take our appliances off standby, and so on. But perhaps, like me, these entreaties leave you feeling a bit ripped off. Perhaps you, too, are wondering what part business, industry and governments have to play? It’s certainly true that there are things individual citizens can and must do, but surely really significant reductions ultimately depend on tough, international legislative action. After all, if personal responsibility were all that has ever been necessary to solve problems, why were political systems and governments invented in the first place? Once we’ve taken individual action, is that it? Or is there more to be done? What really seems to be needed is a way of acting collectively to ensure that governments around the world start co-operating to solve global warming instead of talking more hot air while the planet burns.

In his film, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore rightly points out that collective action depends on political will, but this, he says, is in short supply. Right again! The reasons for its scarcity, he suggests, are that it’s simply not in the short-term interests of the main polluting nations and their industries to take substantive action. So far so good, but the cartoon image he uses to hammer his point home is an unfortunate one: a pair of scales with gold bars on one side and the entire planet on the other. Gore uses this to demonstrate the absurdity of those who see economic prosperity and a healthy planet as an either/or choice: after all, what value could gold bars have if there’s no habitable planet in which to enjoy them? It’s plainly ridiculous, and so too, suggests Gore, is the reluctance of some to give up the gold bars.

But rather than ridicule those who fear for their short-term interests, shouldn’t we be trying to look at what may be their perfectly legitimate point, and trying to understand the forces that keep it relevant? Gore may have faced the inconvenient truth of global warming, but he is yet to face a second inconvenient truth: that stiff action on the part of the rich countries WILL have adverse economic effects, at least in the short term. And if global warming is dealt with in isolation, those costs WILL fall heaviest on the USA and on other big polluters. To deny the barrier to action that these short-term costs and disincentives represent, as Gore seems to, is to fall into the same trap as those who deny global warming itself.

I laughed along with everyone else when I saw the gold vs earth cartoon, but making fun of those who are wary of economic backlash is hardly likely to elicit the consensus Gore seeks. It also seems like a cheap shot when you keep in mind that had Gore actually become President in 2000, he would inescapably have joined the ranks of those he’s poking fun at. The president of the U.S. has only four years before facing another election, so Gore’s popularity and tenure in office would have been directly influenced by his corporate funders and their support for short-term gains to the US economy.

Today, there may only be few people who still cling to denying global warming. But knowledge and acceptance can’t effect change by themselves. What is urgently needed is a means to unlock the short-term barriers and disincentives that prevent decisive collective action – nationally and internationally. Make no mistake: in today’s globalised and largely borderless world, capital and jobs generally move to wherever in the world environmental and social costs are lowest and profits therefore highest. Any government moving first to significantly increase environmental costs or regulations in a bid to reduce emissions would definitely see investment and jobs moving elsewhere, thus making the nation uncompetitive. That’s why nothing changes except the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just keeps on rising. Prime Minister Tony Blair at least seemed to recognise these realities when he pointed out that “The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge”.[i]

Unlike Gore, Blair clearly recognises this second inconvenient truth and he should not be blamed for stating it. But his statement only holds true IF nations fail to act together. This is the barrier that keeps the gold bars firmly on one side of the scales. However, if all nations co-operated, the necessary regulations could be implemented without any nation fearing capital or employment flight because there would be no low-cost haven for them to run to. Corporations, too, would have nothing to fear because all corporations would be subject to the same additional costs, so maintaining their relative competitiveness and their relative profitability. Think about that for a minute.

But there is a further problem: the biggest polluter, the USA, would have the biggest adjustment cost, so it has the least incentive to sign up to any cooperative agreement. This is why the Kyoto Protocol is not supported by the USA and Australia, another big polluter. It is also why the provisions of the Kyoto agreement are so mild and relatively ineffectual. Because if the nations supporting Kyoto agreed to tougher, more significant curbs, the costs involved would make them uncompetitive with nations, such as the USA and Australia, who refuse to participate.

The net result is a recipe for missed targets and an intergovernmental dead-lock of a kind which raises the third, final and most important inconvenient truth; this time one that concerns not so much governments or businesses but each of us as individual citizens. It’s a truth which all citizens around the world must urgently take on board: that we can no longer abdicate responsibility for taking collective action to politicians and governments alone. If free-riding governments are to be compelled to co-operate, then it must be citizens who force them to do so. We have no choice but to take the initiative, and stop assuming that politicians are in the driving seat of the global economy. It’s time to grab hold of the steering wheel and find a way of driving our politicians and governments toward co-operation. What’s needed is a method of achieving cooperation which removes the barriers and objections, takes away the fears of being uncompetitive, and replaces those fears with an enthusiasm for shared problem-solving.

When Al Gore became fully aware of the dangers of global warming, he travelled far and wide to gain a deeper understanding of the science and its real-world effects, and justifiably so (although I do hope he planted plenty of trees to personally offset his carbon emissions). But Gore and the rest of us have so far failed to embark on another, far more urgent line of enquiry. If we genuinely wish to solve global warming and other global problems, we need to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers to collective government action under globalisation. For the deeper truth is that global warming and many other global “problems” are not the real problems at all. They are merely symptoms, albeit terrifying ones, of our failure as a global human society to co-operate. Until we understand the dynamics of co-operation and how to achieve it, and what we as citizens can do to unblock the barriers to it, international inaction, missed targets and deepening chaos will continue and global warming may well destroy human civilisation.

The Simultaneous Policy, a global citizen’s initiative, claims to have begun this vital journey and to offer a plausible and effective way that citizens can use their right to vote in a new way that drives the politicians of all parties and nations to collectively implement the measures we so desperately need. It seems that political representatives would find it a welcome relief to be freed from the restrictions that keep them beholden to big business interests and confined to wholly inadequate policies dictated by the need to keep their nations “internationally competitive”. This is reflected in the fact that already politicians from opposing sides of the spectrum – nationally and internationally – are pledging their support for the Simultaneous Policy as a result of voter pressure and/or enlightened social responsibility. Check it out for yourself at www.simpol.org – as Noam Chomsky commented, “Can it work? It’s certainly worth a serious try!”

Arthur Levine asked:


Please feel free to use this article as long as credit is given to the resource box.

© Arthur Levine 2007

Words 900

Keywords: Global Warming, New Index Fund, Guru, Crisis, Solution

Johnny Oops was pacing up and down on the raised bandstand floor at a new sports arena in the Meadowlands, New Jersey waiting for the crowd to settle down so that he could start his speech, or should we call it a con?

My friends, converts, and members of my flock, we are facing a man made crisis of unequaled proportions. If this keeps up we will be farming rice paddies and cranberry bogs in the swamplands of New Jersey, which will shortly cover more than half the current landmass of the state. New York will be growing oranges instead of apples and sporting palm trees on the less than one quarter of the land mass not covered by the raging ocean, which will completely inundate New York City in a Sodom and Gomorrah style wrath of God type event.

But do not worry my friends. I have the solution to the Global Warming problem, which is fast melting the Alaska Ice Caps, and will shortly cause a permanent heat wave to cover most of the known world we live in with especially dangerous consequences in North America and Europe.

Most of the problem of Global Warming occurs because of businesses polluting the environment in order to make profits. This is true of both America and China as well as an assortment of other countries all of which profess that they are doing their best to control pollution.

Don’t buy it for a minute folks, there is a giant hole forming in the ozone layer of the atmosphere, and only God with our help will have the power to close it.

I suggest that we immediately set up a multi-trillion dollar stock exchange traded index fund that will invest exclusively in anti-pollution certificate credits, and which will be financed initially by hedge fund operators, and investment banks operating on a tax free basis with a government guarantee against loss. These anti-pollution credits in addition to being backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, Russia and China respectively, will have the backing of all fortune 1000 Companies and in the case of China and Russia, major state run Companies. The oil rich states for their part will be able to participate at a twenty percent discount to the face value of the certificates by agreeing to pay for them in pollution free filtered oil. This certificate is going to be a super anti-pollution credit unlike its puny underused and undistinguished predecessor that is backed by practically nothing at all. No wonder it hasn’t solved the problem. The Oops anti-pollution credit will do the trick. It has teeth.

Companies that are big polluters will have to buy these anti-pollution credits in order to avoid huge fines and special taxes that would otherwise force them into bankruptcy. Companies that have cleaned up their act would be allowed to purchase these credits exclusively for resale to polluting Companies at a fifty percent discount. This will make it extremely profitable to be a clean air Company, thus changing the whole ballgame and eliminating one-way or the other the big polluters.

I know this high finance might be a little confusing, but think of the ramifications. I am telling you that greed pays. Now our profit hungry greedy corporations are going to have the inducement they need to clean up their act, and the very air we breath. This is definitely going to be a miracle. My friends we are about to be saved. We can stop Global Warming. Are you with me? Let’s save the universe before the bubble forming over us really bursts.

I need all the money you can contribute to fund the set up of this Save The Nation Index Fund. Volunteers of our newly formed Save The Nation non-profit organization will be passing amongst you with Save the Nation baskets appropriately wrapped in red, white, and blue. Help us give the breath of life to our fellow Americans. Think of your children and grandchildren. Give them a clean air future. Give them the breath of life. Give now, and give all you can. Our Countries future is at stake. The human race, as we know it is in jeopardy of becoming extinct if we don’t do something about global warming right now. We need your help. Take a deep breath, grab someone next to you in their essential parts, and give all you can.

Jane, Johnny’s new girlfriend and undercover agent for the IRS was clapping wildly and hugging Johnny. She seemed in a state of true bliss. Secretly she was thinking that this time Johnny had really gone too far; now they had him. She was really going to enjoy taking this phony charlatan down. All Johnny could think about was that he was going to be rich, rich, rich. Not so fast Johnny, not if Jane and the IRS have their way.

MLMF (More later my friends)

Steve Evans asked:


th high moisture content or which receive artificial irrigation, rainwater, surface or groundwater infiltration produce leachate and methane gas at a high rate. It has been shown, from one study that once a dump is saturated, annual precipitation of 36 inches per year which exists in certain parts of the world can percolate 1 million gallons of contaminated water per acre annually.

This is a lot of contaminated water – also known as leachate or garbage juice! This contaminated water is ten to 1,000 times more contaminated and damaging to the local surface and groundwater than sewage, although it contains few human disease organisms (pathogens) and much fewer than sewage.

All nations also produce huge quantities of scrap tires. Waste scrap tires present landfill problems. They are hard to compact, may rise to the surface over time in poorly compacted waste and provide dangerous breeding grounds for mosquitoes and rats, in the water which collects in them. They also unfortunately do not disintegrate to reduce their volume in stockpiling.

Also if industrial hazardous wastes are landfilled the waste materials that will often be found in the site will be such that the sites will later be classed as contaminated land and do not meet the contaminated soil criteria. This is to be expected where regulatory control is poor but the cost to the community is hugely greater than paying for good regulation in the first place.

It is not realized by many in the community at large that waste prevention and recycling are critical to reducing or stopping climate change. Waste-to-energy (WTE) plants create heat and electricity from burning mixed solid waste. Because of high corrosion in the boilers, the steam temperature in WTE plants may end up being less than 400 degrees Celsius. This has to be avoided because at these temperatures of combustion many hazardous by-products of incomplete combustion will be present which are very harmful to the local environment and the health of future occupants, if not cleaned up.

But, the adoption of large scale waste prevention and recycling will help address global climate change by decreasing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and saving energy (US Environmental Protection Agency).

The fact is that global warming, also known as the greenhouse gas effect, remains controversial in many quarters. Many still question the basis of the prediction of climate change. However, Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the United States agreed in principle to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases to somewhat below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012.

In 1997 global cooling was a big environmental worry and an issue back then, but few paid attention to that either, and the concerns were soon found to be unfounded. The perspective in global cooling is similar to the way people view global warming now.

Landfill methane is an excellent and frequently untapped resource. Most times gases are simply flared or burned in the atmosphere, which is much less contributory to the greenhouse gas build-up which worries us all, than just letting the methane (landfill gas) escape without flaring. Landfill methane is typically flared in the developed nations, and almost never flared in the developing world\’s nations.

Opinions about landfill gas as an emissions problem, and even the producer of significant greenhouse gas emissions vary across the US. We have been made aware that state regulators consider methane to be a minor problem in New Mexico, due to the dry climate. However, Albuquerque is treating at least one serious methane problem with a high priority. State-by-state analyses nevertheless, do show a large and untapped potential for biomass-fired electricity generation. A very separate question, of course, is how much of this potential makes financial, environmental, or political sense.

However, interest in the use of landfill gas to fuel electricity generation is growing. Landfill methane is collected at a growing number of landfill sites and burned for energy production which mitigates the global warming effect of the methane as well as producing electricity and/or heat.

James Nash asked:

Accelerated global warming could lead to a runaway methane global warming effect due to the release of methane currently trapped in unstable methane hydrate deposits in the arctic that could be destabilised by accelerated global warming effects.

Core samples taken from old ocean sediment layers have been used to trace back in time the climate changes that have occurred over the past tens of millions of years. By analysing the incidence of different fossil shell remains of sea creatures occurring in these sediments it is possible to track the changes in the sea water temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 occurring at the time the shells were formed and deposited. These shells contain carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere which was dissolved in the sea water in which the creatures lived just as takes place today.

From these records it appears that there have been short periods of only a few hundred years in the geological past when rapid increases of the Earth’s temperature have occurred superimposed on top of the rise and fall of average temperatures over the longer term. For these short periods temperature rises of up to 8 degrees centigrade appear to have occurred on top of existing long term rises of 5 to 7 degrees to give temperatures up to 15 degrees centigrade warmer than today. Temperatures then fell back to the long term trend, the whole rise and fall only lasting a few hundred years.

The most likely cause of this rapid global warming over such a short period is the release of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is 60 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but only remains in the atmosphere for about ten years and so looses it’s greenhouse effect quickly compared to CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for 100 years. CO2 would not be available in sufficient quantities to achieve the rapid warming and if CO2 was the cause then the raised temperatures would last a lot longer.

Methane hydrates occur extensively today all over the world. They consist of methane stored within unstable water bound deposits that if disturbed release the methane. They occur in major river deltas such as the Amazon delta and in old delta areas such as the Gulf of Mexico. Major rivers carry millions of tons of silt containing vegetable matter that continues to decay after the silt is deposited in the river delta. This anaerobic decay produces methane which gets trapped in the silt as methane hydrates until the conditions of water temperature and pressure change which can release the methane in vast quantities very quickly.

Another form is a frozen slush/ice methane hydrate where the methane is trapped in an ice/water mixture which releases the methane when it warms up or the pressure on the ice is reduced. Frozen methane hydrates can contain 170 times their own volume of methane. These frozen hydrates occur in the seabed deposits of the Arctic Ocean.

Methane can also be trapped by permafrost layers which over-lay lower unfrozen layers of vegetable material that is decaying and producing methane which remains trapped by the frozen permafrost on top. If the permafrost layer were to melt then the methane in the layers below would escape into the atmosphere. Given the vast areas of permafrost in northern latitudes there is a significant potential for methane to be trapped that would be released if the permafrost melted as a result of global warming.

The theory for these rapid rises and falls of temperature, based on the geological records from 55 million years ago, is that gradual global warming due to some natural cause had resulted in temperatures 5 to 7 degrees centigrade higher than average (i.e. higher than today’s temperatures). At this point methane trapped in methane hydrate deposits started to be released into the atmosphere and accelerated the rate of warming. This would result in further warming releasing more methane.

As the atmosphere warmed different types of methane deposits would start to be released and so a cycle of methane release leading to increased warming leading to more methane release from other areas of methane deposits elsewhere in the world would become established as global warming effected different areas of the world.

There is an intriguing photograph of what appears to be a methane plume coming up out of the Arctic ice sheet which indicates that the phenomenon described above can occur. There have also been incidences of oil drilling inadvertently triggering large releases of methane from hydrate deposits. One theory to explain the loss of ships in the so called Bermuda triangle is that they have been engulfed in a sudden methane release which reduces the buoyancy of the sea water so that the ship sinks.

So, does methane pose a threat today? Let us review the situation. We know there are extensive methane hydrate and permafrost deposits all around the world. We have evidence that we are at the beginning of a period of global warming that is probably being made worse by the continuing build up of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning. Recent computer modelling incorporating the feed back effects of global warming that has already occurred suggests that by about 2050 we may start to loose the beneficial effects of the Amazon rain forest as a carbon sink.

This could lead to temperature rises of 5 to 8 degrees centigrade by 2100. This would be uncharted territory and no one really knows at present how the world’s environmental systems would change but we now have the evidence from the geological past. On the basis of this evidence global warming can lead to methane releases which once started would escalate. This would be the worst possible thing to happen because once started there would be no way of stopping a runaway methane global warming event.

We CAN reduce our CO2 emissions from fossil fuels but we COULD NOT reduce methane emissions once they started, huge natural forces would take over and change our world. This would probably result in the melting of the Antarctic icecap which would raise sea levels by 50 metres and would completely change the climates of the world.

So what should we do? We should be careful and not risk starting the sequence events described above. To do this we must reduce total CO2 emissions from now onwards and take measures to protect carbon sinks such as the Amazon rainforest.

If we all carry on burning so much fossil fuel as we do now we will be running the risk of starting an unstoppable runaway methane global warming event within the foreseeable future. Only major absolute reductions in CO2 emissions NOW will avoid this risk.