Dear everyone,

Good evening.
As we studied today, Australia has been suffering from the long-lasting severe drought.
Actually, I stayed in Brisbene for one month in 2003. I remember that there was the issue of water, but I did not think that the drought continues such a long time!.
So, I was very much concerned about the issue.As my first post, I would like to add some information regarding drought and introduce global concerns to you.

In fact, Australia was one of the few countries which did not ratify “Kyoto protocol” which is an international treaty for a measure against global warming, because the Liberal party of Australia, the ruling party at that time, was skeptical regarding the issue of global warming.
However, the relationship between global warming and drought came to light gradually and people started to place an emphasis on the measure and criticized the administration’s stance to global warming. In Nov 2007, Liberal Party was defeated by Australian Labor Party in the general election. Then, Kevin Rudd of Labor Party became prime minister and immediately ratified the protocol in Dec 2007. Also, he announced that we make best efforts to accomplish the Kyoto Protocol with the objective that reduces the discharge of greenhouse effect gas by 60% by 2050 (The level of the discharge is equivalent to the level in 2000).
I think that this is one of evidences that the discussion of sustainable development became one of the biggest political issues in a country.
In this regard, I think that we need to know about the Kyoto protocol.
I invite you to the website UNFCCC(http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php). Also, you can find the description in Wikipedia.
This is closely connected with sustainability issue and one of the main topics in the discussion at coming G8 Summit.
You can find information on the topics of the G8 Summit on the following website (http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/index.html).

I will be happy, if some of you access to the above website and pay attention to the global concerns among developed countries.
We no longer disregard the issue….

Hiroshi

Ecologists often oppose nuclear as a viable source of energy to ensure our future or to reduce GHG emissions, arguing the nuclear waste and proliferation threats are too dangerous.
I feel the nuclear industry, combined with renewable sources of energy, is the only heavily energy productive system virtually CO² emission free that can provide energy for the increasing demand and help countries reduce and/or maintain their GHG emissions.
As some of you may know, the nuclear industry represents the biggest energy supply source for France. Without this source of energy our country could simply not reach the Kyoto Protocol’s goal it signed. It allows France to remain independent as far as energy consumption is concerned. We even export nuclear energy in Europe and we can ensure autonomy on the long run.
Regarding the choice of new sources of energy to implement to supplant CO² producing industries, renewables and nuclear are too often opposed whereas the two sources can be – and should be – seen and settled as complementary: renewables alone cannot provide enough energy to meet the growing demand but they can surely play a more important part in the energy mix, especially solar for water warming for households and biomass, as other alternatives.
I would also like to make a comment about antinuclear activists’ frequent observations about safety and threat of accidents (like Tchernobyl disaster) or of terrorist attacks, and go beyond the technical figures in favour of nuclear facilities’ safety and say that I don’t think any hypothesis is being neglected to protect France’s strategic, economic, environmental long-run plans.
My final words of these lines will bring to mind those of Mitterand back in 1981, and often mentioned during 2007 presidency campaign in saying: Greenpeace does not have a monopoly over environmental matters!

Given Australia actually gets to enjoy an increase in CO2 emmissions to 108%, thought i should find out some more facts to share – as if we are not party to the Kyoto treaty, why have any target?
To confirm, Australia did actually sign the Kyoto treaty, agreeing to the 108% target, however did not ratify as the Govt of the day (still in power), believed a clear path on developing countries, namely China and India needed to be included.
Another interesting fact is the reasons supporting our increase in emissions, which are strong migration, strong economic growth, reliance on coal and also our mining of cleaner (but still non-renewable) energy for developing countries;
“many of the greenhouse emissions arising in Australia help others to lower their emissions. For example, Australia’s recent success in concluding an LNG deal with China will mean that although Australia will emit around 1.5 million extra tonnes of carbon dioxide annually to produce the LNG, China will emit 7 million tonnes less than if it had used coal. The global atmosphere benefits, even though Australia’s emissions increase.”
See, we’re not such bad guys afterall.
In terms of the Al Gore movie – I still think far too much time wasted on Al Gore and not dealing or addressing the issues. The reality is that we are heating the planet – has Europe plans in place for the abscence of the gulf stream? where will food production need to go, and what type of crops should we be growing for the future? The last ice age was 11,000 years ago, we are clearly headed towards another. While the Canadians will be alright, they’re use to the cold , the planet and mother nature is about to shake up the rest of us…..
On another thought, Jeremy made mention of the girl in the last class choosing not to have kids…..while I have a friend that has a similar bleak and pessimistic view on life, I raise (in my defence for having children) that it could be one of our children that invents cold fusion and solves all the problems!!!!! certainly, children that are raised with environmentally aware parents will be best placed and educated to make a difference, (either before or after the ice age).
PS I will respond to many of the postings, but an struggling with the sign in for the moment.
Cheers
Barry

This article illustrates how in the U.S. individual states do not have to wait for the federal government to instate sanctions to preserve the environment. Florida Governer Charlie Crist has signed an agreement with Britain and Germany to make a greater emphasis on pollution reduction in hopes of complying with the Kyoto Protocal. California has already made great strides in becoming environmentally friendly as well. Though we hope that the federal government will eventually “wake up” and create better controls, we as citizens to not have to wait. We can call upon our local government and household by household, city by city, state by state, we can make a difference.

One of the major requirements for sustaining development is an adequate source of energy. The current largest sources of energy are the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas. However, most of them, are running out or damaging the environment.
Some people might be surprised when hearing that nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment of any energy source (including air, land, water, and wildlife). The nuclear energy is very expensive, dangerous and its throughputs, in long term, can result in being very polluting. However is a “clean way” of producing electricity since they do not produce exhaust fumes that contribute to the greenhouse effect.

The constant increase in the oil price is giving wings to this alternative of energy. Most of the countries might choose the nuclear energy alternative to supply energy to its country and for others. The main cause of choosing it, is that this is the best solution to the reduction of exhaust fumes demanded by the Kyoto Protocol. One of the countries that is considering it is China. It is considering to build 50 new plants to export the energy to other countries.

Finally, if this countries choose this alternative, they would have to confront the principal problem of the nuclear power: the residues and its storage.
Nuclear energy and Kyoto Protocol

As we have seen in video today, the denomination ” global warming ” generally implies the human activity. It is necessary to point out that global warming and greenhouse effect are not synonymous, rather it is believed that the greenhouse effect would be the reason of the global observed warming.

The multigovernmental body and scientist in charge of the global analysis is the IPCC (initials of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change or Intergovernmental Panel on the Climatic Change). One of his more visible lines of action is Kyoto’s Protocol, which promotes a reduction of pollutant emission as we have seen in the class and also in the video (principally greenhouse gases) on the part of the industrialized countries.

If the Earth is becoming overheated, the glaciers of the mountains and the ices of the pole North and of the Antarctica would start melting. Nobody knows with accuracy at all how might raise the level of the sea, but if measurements are not taken in order to stop it, the level of the sea might raise more or less from 20 to 40 cm. by the beginning of next century, and it will continue rising.

Even the smallest raise of the level of the waters of the sea might have a few catastrophic consequences. For example, great part of Amsterdam could be gained by the sea, as big extensions of the country are below the level of the sea. If this one rises, all these areas might be flooded or forced to construct new and expensive dikes of containment.

Summarizing, the impact that has in the environment is spectacular and alarming simultaneously, due to the most serious consequences of the global warming are the decrease of the cap of snow, elevation of the levels of the seas and the meteorological changes, which can influence the human activities and the ecosystems. On having increased the temperatures, the glaciers take more ice of the land to the sea. When this ice it has been fused, the level of the sea ascends and according to scientific experts of the super famous organization not governmental Greenpeace in the next hundred years, the sea might cover islands of few altitude, as the Maldivas, in the ocean Indian Ocean, and many coastal cities.

A raise from 4 to 8 meters of the level of the waters along several hundreds of years could overwhelm entire cities. The current coasts of flowery would be permanently under the sea.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/
ERICKSON, JON(1993): UN MUNDO EN DESEQUILIBRIO, Madrid, McGraw Hill.
NOTE:: I have seen in youtube a quite funny, but encouraging interview to Al Gore and I decided to share with all of you. I hope you enjoy it!!!!!!!!!!!!

I find climate change to be among one of the topics that really scare me and has for a long time. There are of course arguments for and against this issue, whether it exists or not. Some people would say it doesn’t exist because there have been radical changes in weather for as long as there has been life on this planet. Just like what Susanne pointed out in class when I mentioned the exceptionally warm summer last year. There were massive forest fires all through last summer in Russia that also affected Finland very much due to the smoke. Helsinki is at least 1000km away from the fires, yet the smoke was horrible and lasted for weeks, since the Russian government did not want to accept any foreign help (firefighters and equipment) although their own infrastructure was very insufficient. As far back as I remember, there has never been a summer so dry. A lot of people relying on their own wells for water had severe problems. And currently the winter is so warm that none of the natural playing fields that could previously be used for ice skating, like in my childhood, haven’t frozen for years. Cross-country-skiing is not possible in my neighbourhood anymore either. Therefore, I can’t shake the feeling of how the world’s enormous emissions are adding to the effect of climate change.
This is why I wanted to see if the topic was currently on the news in Finland. I certainly didn’t have to search for long, as the first place I checked yesterday, the largest commercial news channel in Finland, MTV3, had two news articles related to the subject on the same day! One on car emissions tax, and one on an international meeting held in Finland about climate change. Then when I checked again today, the first article on the news was about incinerating waste for energy. In the past week, the President of Finland, Tarja Halonen, has criticised the Kyoto agreement because it deprives resources that could be used to develop renewable energy sources and increases the use of nuclear power.

There has also been an article questioning the fact that many environmental crimes go unpunished. It is just like our professor said: news on natural disasters and climate change are very much on the rise. As the Finnish Parliament elections are coming up later this spring, I am convinced that all these environmental issues publicized in the last 6 months will play a huge role in all campaigns.

The ministry of the environment states in today’s article that a work group has made new targets for the next ten years on waste treatment and the suggestions are radical, yet implementable. Their main aim is to first and foremost diminish waste creation and also taxation on natural resources is proposed.

It seems that Finland uses taxation for everything, but I think it has its benefits as well! For instance to help the problems of drinking or obesity taxation is also used. There is already high tax on alcohol and in the future unhealthy foods will be taxed more to subsidise healthier ones.

I sincerely hope climate change is something we can still reverse, even if it takes until 2050 to see the effects!

The energetic demand grows and the sources of energy continue becoming exhausted. 15% of the world population consumes 70% of the natural and energetic available resources in the planet. If all the countries were managing to reach the model of western life, it should be needed three Earth planets to supply ourselves of the energetic resources and necessary natives. The price of the oil continues rising and the climatic change hastens.
The current energetic model based on the burning of fossil fuels is unsustainable. SO, WHAT WE SHOULD DO???

We should search and take advantage of the new forms of energies that are been offered. There are a lot closed to us but we do not notice about it. The Sun, the wind and the water are our allies. They are inexhaustible sources that contaminate so little that the environmental impact that they cause is minimal.
Why we do not give them an opportunity?

In Spain, the consumption of energy grows more than 30 % every six years approximately. Spain occupies the first position in gas emission with more than 1,8 tons per person a year. The oil and the natural gas represent 70% of the expense of primary energy. During the last decade, the consumption of black gold has increased 3,5% each year, over the world average that 1,8% has supposed, and that of natural gas has done it around 15%. If this was small, the sector of the transport is 98% dependent on the oil and the forecasts aim at a growth of 35 % until 2030.

The transition of the traditional forms of obtaining energy towards to an others more sustainable is necessary. The nature imposes its limits. The clean energies like the solar, the wind one, the biomass and the biocombustibles are the solution.

The Sun supplies to the Earth of a quantity of energy 15.000 times superior to the annual consumption of atomic and fossil power. In a sunny country as Spain, this star contributes even six times more of energy that the world consumption a year.

The wind power does not contaminate, so it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect, and besides it is inexhaustible. On one hand, the biomass comes from residues (forest, agricultural, cattle and as the agro alimentary industry) it is used to create energy, already be thermal, electrical. These are of biological origin and between them the “biodiesel” and the “bioetanol” are. Both energies contribute also many advantages. Beside diminishing the emission of CO2 in the atmosphere, they revitalize the rural economies, and generate employment on having favored the putting in march of a new sector in the agricultural area.

The renewable energies have avoided in Spain the consumption of 68 million barrels of oil in 2005 and have provided 5,9% of the consumption of primary energy. Concretely, the wind power has contributed 7,2% of the production; the lot photovoltaic 0,03 %; the biomass, 0,8%; the biogas, 0,3% and the hydraulics, 7,9%.

Such alternatives would help to our country to expire with the obligations inside the Kioto’s Protocol, a subject in which Spain suspends. Our country promised not to overcome in 2012 in any more than 15% the gas emission of 1990, but it overcomes them already in more than 52%. Likewise, Spain will have to multiply by 16 its current number of consumption of biocarburants to fulfill the aim to reach in 2010 5,83% of the national market of fuels concentrated on the Plan of Renewable Energies (PER).

While we where doing our study case about «Droughts in Australia », I founded some information that said that Australia along with the United States refuses to sign Kyoto’s Protocol, and it fills me with a big curiosity of “why?”.
The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

The objective is the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal. Burning coal produces more carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas restricted under the protocol, than any other major fuel. Prime minister, John Howard argued: “Signing the protocol would cause a flight of jobs from this country and damage in our industry.”" due to countries with booming economies and massive populations such as China and India not having any reduction obligations. Also, the Government takes the view that Australia is already doing enough to cut emissions they recently compromised $300 million over the next three years to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States is the 2005 largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treatment for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China, the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Bush also opposes the treatment because he believes it would put the US economy in risk.

Knowing more information about this countries, made me understand their positions. And before today, my impression was that they were wrong.

Source: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn2369

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol