Amazon: 1% of tree species store 50% of region's carbon

By Mark KinverEnvironment reporter, BBC News

About 1% of all the tree species in the Amazon account for half of the carbon locked in the vast South American rainforest, a study has estimated.

Although the region is home to an estimated 16,000 tree species, researchers found that just 182 species dominated the carbon storage process.

Amazonia is vital to the Earth's carbon cycle, storing more of the element than any other terrestrial ecosystem.

The findings appear in the journal Nature Communications.

"Considering that the Amazon is massively important for the global carbon cycle and stores so much of the planet's biomass, finding out just how that carbon is stored and produced is very important if we want to understand what might happen in the future in different environmental conditions," explained co-author Sophie Fauset from the University of Leeds, UK.

The tropical forest covers an estimated 5.3 million sq km and holds 17% of the global terrestrial vegetation carbon stock.

As trees grow larger, they develop more biomass, which contains carbon. So the larger the tree, the greater quantity of carbon locked within its wood. As trees are long-lived organisms, this means the carbon is removed from the atmosphere for decades, if not centuries.

However, Dr Fauset cautioned against the idea of focusing attention on the 182 species and embarking on a vast planting programme to lock more carbon away from the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming.

"While we have shown that there are a small number of species having a disproportionate influence on the carbon cycle, that is only what we have been able to measure right now," she told BBC News.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32497537

Climate change warriors: It's time to go nuclear

Thom Patterson, CNN

(CNN)Four top environmental scientists raised the stakes Sunday in their fight to reverse climate change and save the planet.

Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley have released an open letter calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.

Wait -- pro-nuclear environmentalists? Isn't that an oxymoron? Apparently, not so much anymore.

Embracing nuclear is the only way, the scientists believe, to reverse the looming threat of climate change which they blame on fossil fuels. Depending who you ask, they're either abandoning -- or leading -- traditional environmentalists who for a half-century have rejected clean-burning nuclear power as too expensive or too dangerous. Opponents cite disasters at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile island.

The fear is that time is running out. Without nuclear, the scientists believe global energy consumption will overtake the planet's ability to reverse the buildup of carbon dioxide pollution from burning oil, coal and other fossil fuels. At risk, said Hansen, are disintegrating polar ice sheets and rising sea levels which will threaten coastal regions.

The letter is among the scientists' strongest public statements backing nuclear power. It also comes as CNN plans to air "Pandora's Promise," a documentary about environmentalists and longtime nuclear opponents who've done complete 180s on nukes.

By releasing the letter, the scientists are "putting their reputations on the line to do something that the ultra-greens regard as treason," said Stanford University Nobel-winning physicist Burton Richter.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html

Obama turns up heat on climate change debate in Florida

By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer
Everglades National Park, Florida (CNN)President Barack Obama ventured into the South Florida Everglades on Wednesday to lend urgency to his environmental agenda, declaring the dangers of climate change an imminent threat to the state's economy.

"We do not have time to deny the effects of climate change," Obama said, standing in front of a sawgrass prairie on the eastern edge of the 1.5 million acre wetland.

"This is not some impossible problem that we cannot solve," he said. "We can solve it if we have some political will."

Even before Obama arrived to the wide expanse of mangroves and slash pines, Republicans were dismissing his Everglades visit as a stunt meant to promote policies they claim are job killers. But during his remarks, Obama cast the issue of combating climate change as a bipartisan calling.

The trip comes after a flurry of unilateral actions on climate change, which Obama began taking when legislative action on the issue appeared impossible. The White House hopes by issuing new rules on carbon pollution and greenhouse gases they can reinforce the President's environmental legacy.

Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott issued a statement ahead of Obama's arrival Wednesday hitting the President for, as he wrote, failing to "live up to his commitment on the Everglades and find a way to fund the $58 million in backlog funding Everglades National Park hasn't received from the federal government."

The White House countered that Republicans in Congress were responsible for the funding shortfall, and that efforts to reinstate the funding would have the "enthusiastic support of the Democratic administration."

Administration officials also noted that, according to reports in Florida newspapers, Scott put a ban in place among state employees on using the term "climate change."

His office denies such a rule was enacted, but that didn't stop Obama from dinging the governor Wednesday.

"Refusing to say the words climate change doesn't mean climate change isn't here," he said.

Scott did not greet Obama on the tarmac in Miami when he landed in Florida Wednesday afternoon.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/politics/obama-everglades-florida-climate-change/index.html

How historic California drought affects rest of nation, often for the worse

By Michael Martinez and Alexandra Meeks, CNN

Los Angeles (CNN)It's more than just one state's internal problem. The historic California drought hurts the rest of the union, too.

That's because California is a breadbasket to the nation, growing more than a third of its vegetables and nearly two-thirds of its fruits and nuts.

Here's why we should heed the ongoing drought in the most populous state, a slowly expanding natural disaster now in its fourth year that this week prompted Gov. Jerry Brown to announce a mandatory 25% cutback in water consumption in all cities.

It's already hit your pocketbook

In 2014, one expert predicted consumers would pay more for some groceries because of the California drought.

He was often right, according to statistics gathered by Timothy Richards, agribusiness professor at Arizona State University.

Prices rose last year for these items on your kitchen table.

Uncertainty ahead

Though fruits and vegetable prices fell in February, overall prices are expected to rise this year, because of inflation, U.S. Department of Agriculture economist Annemarie Kuhns said.

Whether the California drought will affect food prices again this year is unknown, thanks to a strong dollar.

What economists don't know yet is whether farmers will plant fewer crops because of the drought. Those decisions are now being made in the field and could boost supermarket prices, she said.

Part of a bigger disaster

The reality is there's a major drought throughout the West and Southwest.

While not as bad as California, Texas and Oklahoma are also seeing extreme and exceptional drought -- the two worst categories -- in several parts of their states, the U.S. Drought Monitor said this week.

More than just one state's internal problem. The historic California drought hurts the rest of the union, too.Part of a bigger disaster

The reality is there's a major drought throughout the West and Southwest.

While not as bad as California, Texas and Oklahoma are also seeing extreme and exceptional drought -- the two worst categories -- in several parts of their states, the U.S. Drought Monitor said this week.

'Waiter! Water, please!'

It's called the Golden State for the gold rush of yore, but let's face it: the rest of the nation flocks to California for vacation because of another golden reason.

Its year-round sunshine.

So the next time you take a holiday in California, you'll find a few changes around here, thanks to the drought.

Like asking for a glass of water at a restaurant.

You won't find water waiting for you on the table.

A silver lining

But what about those yummy California wines, you ask?

Guess what.

They're only getting better -- because of the drought.

Yes, you read that right.

The 2014 wine grape harvest was "third in a string of great vintages this decade," the Wine Institute says.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/03/us/california-drought/index.html

'Modest hope' to slow warming, but no 'free lunch,' U.N. warns

By Matt Smith, CNN

 Keeping global warming down to a level people can live with means cutting carbon emissions to "near zero" by the end of the century, even in an increasingly industrialized world, the top U.N. experts on the issue reported Sunday.

That may be doable, but it will take "substantial investments" in everything from planting more trees to replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon power sources like solar, wind and nuclear energy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced in its latest report.

"What this report clearly shows is that the challenges to resolve the global common problem are huge," said Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and one of the lead authors of Sunday's document. "But also this report shows that there are some steps to resolve this issue. I would say in that sense the report also outlines the challenges, but it provides hope -- modest hope."

Jennifer Morgan, the director of the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute, agreed.

In the United States, the second-biggest producer of greenhouse gases, a boom in natural gas along with conservation efforts, more renewable energy and a steep recession combined to reduce carbon emissions by about 10% in the last decade. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who in February called the issue "the greatest challenge of our generation," said Sunday's report is an economic opportunity.

Despite more than two decades of efforts to restrain carbon emissions, not only are emissions still going up, they're going up faster than ever, Edenhofer said. Though there's been an increased emphasis on generating power from renewable sources, the use of coal has gone up in the past 10 years, he said.

The reports are aimed at guiding world leaders as the United Nations attempts to work out a new treaty to limit emissions in 2015. Previous rounds of talks have been strained by disputes among the biggest emitters -- China, the United States and European countries -- and poorer countries whose populations could see the worst impacts first.

One of the most controversial is carbon capture and sequestration technology, which would reduce smokestack emissions and put the carbon dioxide in storage. But the technology is expensive.

Morgan said individuals can also do that by seeking greener power sources and ways to save energy, and by keeping a close eye on where they invest their 401(k) plans and other savings vehicles.

She also said it would be a a challenge for her organization to make sure that people see there is still hope.

"There is a chance that their children won't have to deal with this problem," she said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/13/world/un-climate/index.html

Your chance of being struck by lightning is climbing, climate scientist says

By Ben Brumfield, CNN
Thanks to climate change, you'll be more likely to get struck by lightning as the years pass, scientists say. Make that 50% more likely for those who are around at the end of the century.
The logic is simple. More warmth equals more water vapor in the air, which is the fuel for thunderstorms. That equals more lightning and more of it zapping the ground. And people standing on it.
The current odds of becoming a human lightning rod in one's lifetime come in at around 1 in 12,000, the National Weather Service roughly estimates. If Romps and his colleague are right, those odds would slim to 1 in 8,000 by the year 2100.

They found they could determine fluctuations in that frequency if they knew the amount of precipitation falling and the speed and occurrence of "convective clouds" rising high into the atmosphere.

Then they studied the 11 models on projected global temperature increases to predict how much these two factors should surge in the distant future, resulting in more lightning strikes if carbon dioxide emissions continue on their current path.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/tech/innovation/climate-change-lightning/index.html

5 things you can do about climate change

1. Become informed

The most powerful way that the average person can combat climate change is to become informed about it, says J. Marshall Shepherd, former president of the American Meteorological Society and professor at the University of Georgia.

2. Make changes at home

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists steps to limiting your greenhouse gas emissions, which would also save you money. These include:

-- Changing your five most-used light fixtures or bulbs to products that have the EPA's Energy Star label;

-- Heat and cool more efficiently, such as by using a programmable thermostat, changing air filters and replacing old equipment with Energy Star products;

-- Seal and insulate your home;

-- Make use of recycling programs, and compost food and yard waste;

--Reduce water waste;

--Use green power, such as solar panels;

--Estimate how much greenhouse gas you emit with the EPA's calculator.

3. Be greener at the office

If you have a desk job, there are plenty of things you can do to reduce your emissions while at work. The EPA advises:

-- Set computers and other office equipment to power down during periods when you're not using them;

-- Use Energy Star equipment;

-- Recycle and reuse whenever possible;

4. Reduce emissions in transit

Whether it's taking a vacation or doing your daily commute, you can reduce your carbon footprint in simple ways that also save money. The EPA's recommendations include:

-- Rely on public transportation, biking, walking, carpooling or telecommuting instead of driving;

-- Use the EPA's Green Vehicle Guide to help you make an informed choice about buying a car;

-- While driving, try not to do hard accelerations, don't spend more than 30 seconds idling, and go easy on the gas pedal and brakes;

-- Make sure to regularly check your tire pressure.

When you have to take an airplane, the David Suzuki Foundation recommends:

-- When flying, consider packing lighter because less fuel is consumed with less weight on the plane;

-- Fly during the day because night flights have a bigger impact on climate;

-- Buy carbon offsets -- or credits -- to compensate for the emissions on your flight .

5. Get involved and educate others about the big picture

Your green strategies in your daily life can have a small impact, but the whole planet has to be on board for dealing with climate change in order to instigate global effects. Even if everyone in the United States reduced their emissions, other countries that continue to dump carbon dioxide into the air would still contribute to warming temperatures and rising sea levels.

Spread the word about climate change and educating people. The EPA recommends that students give presentations on climate change and encourage their institutions to increase energy efficiency.

Find out if your community has a climate action plan. There may be ways you can contribute to local efforts to be greener and adapt to potential changes that a warming world would bring.

Bottom line: Most of the public will never read the full National Climate Assessment, Shepherd said. But if you arm yourself with correct information, you can make informed choices that could affect your community and the planet at large.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/us/climate-change-strategies/index.html

11 ways climate change affects the world

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/world/gallery/climate-change-impact/index.html

2 degrees: The most important number you've never heard of

By John D. Sutter, CNN

Starting today, Earth Day, I'm planning to spend the rest of the year writing about one tiny little number -- 2 degrees. It may be the most important number you've never heard of.

Maybe that plan sounds excessive.

(Eight months reporting on one number!?)

But here's why it matters: If we humans warm the world more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), we greatly up the odds of climate catastrophes.

Think super droughts, rising seas, mass extinctions and acidifying oceans.

We don't want to cross that mark.

Humans never have lived in post-2-degree world, said Carlo Jaeger, chair of the Global Climate Forum, based in Germany, and author of a paper on this history of 2 degrees.

"If we start warming the planet way beyond what humans have ever experienced, God knows what will wait for us," he told me.

Good news, though. If we drastically cut carbon emissions, we can stay below the 2-degree threshold. As part of this series, I'll be exploring exactly what it would take to do so.

This matters a great deal this year, since the United Nations will gather leaders and policy experts in Paris in December to try to hammer out a new international agreement on climate change. Two degrees will be one useful benchmark to see if the world is on track.

"It's almost kind of like a truth keeping mechanism," said Jennifer Morgan, global director of the climate change program at the World Resources Institute. "It would be hard if it didn't exist to have a sense of whether countries are on track or not."

It's not a perfect yardstick. But it's a reasonable one. Think of it like a speed limit, said Jaeger, the economist in Germany. Would a 51 mph limit be better than 50? Or maybe it should be 49? The point isn't the exact number, it's the ballpark: 200 mph would certainly be too fast, as he put it, but 20 mph is too slow.

For climate change, the point is we don't know the world will fall into crisis at exactly 2 degrees and not 2.1 or 1.8. But that range is certainly dangerous.

"The way I think of it is like smoking," said Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech. "How many cigarettes are too many? I don't know. I have no idea. Nobody has any idea. But we do know the more cigarettes you smoke, the greater the risk."

Two degrees, then, is our most educated estimate. A way to focus attention.

It's incredibly valuable in that respect.

Since the number emerged from a relatively obscure academic paper in the 1970s, it's become widely agreed upon in the international community. In 2009, for example, 114 countries initially signed onto the "Copenhagen Accord," a nonbinding agreement that recognizes the "scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius."

That level of consensus is rare on this topic.

"If there's one thing the world has agreed upon about climate change it's 2 degrees should be the benchmark," said Jamie Henn, co-founder of 350.org, an advocacy group.

I'll be writing more about the origins of 2 degrees soon -- where this number came from (one guy, turns out, and I chatted with him), how soon we may cross that mark if we don't take action (short answer: 2050), and how much we've warmed the planet since the start of the industrial revolution, in the late 1800s, which is how these temperature increases are usually measured (0.85 degrees).

Right now, though, I'd like to ask you to do something that's scary and exciting.

I want you to vote on the first project I'll report for this series.

All of the options center on one theme: What does a post-2-degree world look like?

I love that question because it -- like all six choices you'll see below -- came from you.

CNN hosted a Facebook chat on Friday, asking our audience to come up with questions for me about climate change or about 2 degrees of warming. Many of you said you wanted to know what a 2-degree world would have in store, in general. Other folks asked about specific impacts to people and ecosystems if the climate continues to inch toward that dangerous 2-degree mark.

Clay Miller, from Alaska, for example, asked about the Arctic.

Cindy Johnson wanted to know which animals would go extinct first.

Jon Locke was among those curious about farms.

And many of you, including Kayla Helton, from Florida, asked about rising seas. Kelly, a 48-year-old from California, wanted to know what would happen to "climate refugees" as the coast vanishes.

Now it's your turn. Pick the idea you like best.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/21/opinions/sutter-climate-two-degrees/index.html

Humans vs. the environment - A thought experiment

(NaturalNews) Protecting the environment isn't a "liberal" idea; it's everybody's business. Liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, the environment provides life support for us all, and if we fail to recognize that, we are truly doomed as a civilization.

To help explain this, I've put together a simple thought experiment. It begins with three undeniable truths about humans and the environment:

Truth #1 - The Earth's resources are limited.
Truth #2 - Each person living in modern civilization consumes some amount of the Earth's limited resources.
Truth #3 - Humans are altering the environment
Truth #4 - Humans really like to have babies

Human beings do not consider their impact on the global population when they procreate. The decision to have children is made privately, selfishly, without regard to the impact on the planet. One more child seems like no big deal from the point of view of a couple that wishes for another son or daughter, but multiplied by billions, these decisions to procreate en masse lead to overpopulation, which leads to over-consumption of the planet's limited resources.




Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029056_environmental_protection_population_control.html#ixzz3YXaB8eK8