Archive | Animal Life and Plants RSS for this section

End Of Monarch Butterfly Migration Could Be In Sight

2531438211_09bc20882f_o

The number of Monarch butterflies wintering in Mexico this year reached a record low, according to a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report released on Wednesday, prompting widespread concern.

The WWF’s, Mexico Environment Department and the Natural Areas Commission concluded that the seasonal migration of Monarchs from North America to Mexico is in existential trouble. Since recording began more than two decades ago, the number of butterflies has fallen from a high of about 45 acres of butterflies in 1995 to just 1.65 acres today.

Entomologist Lincoln Brower said the decreasing numbers is an ominous development.

“Migration this fall is nothing short of a total disaster,” he said.

He said that the prospect of losing the migration is “unthinkable … given the fact that the migration may have been around since the last Ice Age.”

Brower said the suspected cause of the decreasing population is the spread of industrial farming.

“Industrial agriculture is just wiping out the whole food web,” he said. “From the Monarch’s point of view, what is lost is milkweed.”

Monarchs eat exclusively milkweed, which is also where they lay their eggs, he said.

Many industrial farms use crops that are genetically modified to be pesticide resistant. Pesticides are sprayed over large swaths of farmland and kill native plants, like milkweed. The practice is common in the Midwest and Great Lakes region, where Monarchs largely spend the summer.

The butterflies have also struggled on the other side of the border.

“In the early years, there was a lot of deforestation (in Mexico),” he said. “But the Mexican government has pretty much put a stop to that.”

To stem the decline in Monarch migration, Bower suggests working with the federal highway system and compromising with the agriculture community. He said he would like to see milkweed grown along U.S. highways, as well as the preservation from pesticide use of 100 feet alongside all fields.

Bower calls the loss of Monarch migration “the canary in the cornfield” in terms of the environment.

He said while he sees the loss as a “tragedy,” it is “a much bigger picture” and that it “is a symbol that we are messing up our environment.”

Source: WPR ORG
Galen Druke
January 30, 2014

27. Media, Government and Religious Organizations Derelict in Duties to Inform Public of Necessary Actions to Take to Avoid Global Warming Catastrophe

!farmers_market

Some may have wondered why our mass media sources, including CBS, ABC, NBC, ESPN, FOX News, CNN, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio, the National Weather Service, as well as the many major national and local newspapers and local TV and radio weather forecasters, have refused to sound the alarm bells on global warming the past several years  when it started to become fairly obvious that humans were causing the world to warm as evidenced by the faster melting of the polar ice and land glaciers, the rate that sea level was rising, and the poleward movement of the growing seasons, insect populations, and animal in America and elwhere were happening at the same time as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were rising., among other physical and biological changes,were all occurring

But all credible scientists are now admitting that catastrophic warming of the earth is underway and the resulting profound impacts on most of the world’s life systems has already been begun. They also say the warming will continue every day that people and businesses conduct “business as usual”, which is what the world’s fossil fuel companies and related corporations want everybody to do.

Despite President Obama’s speech to the graduating students at Georgetown University on June 25th this year, where unveiled his new policies to confront global warming  – a transcript of the speech can be read at blog entry #18 –  the. United States Congress and Wisconsin’s Legislature and Wisconsin’s state governor Scott Walker have been done virtually nothing to confront climate change in Wisconsin.

Every day we continue to live our lives as we did in the past, by engaging in activities that burn fossil fuels – in driving motor vehicles, in flying by jet airliner, in heating and cooling our homes, and in visiting places of business and/or recreation that cause the release of more and more volumes of greenhouse gases  to the atmosphere, we add more “fuel to the fire”, so to speak, Earth and her ocean’s will become hotter and hotter, setting in motion an almost unthinkable cascade unintended consequences upon all of us and the generations that follows. It is shameful that our Wisconsin Legislature, our governor, and our governmental representatives in the House of Representatives, and the U. S. Senate have all failed to take meaningful major actions on this growing catastrophe and have continued acting as though things should be done “business as usual”

In 2000, I proposed a strategy to my elected governmental officials at the state and national level that would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Wisconsin. I believe it would have resulted in significant annual reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in Wisconsin’s transportation and energy use sectors.  In doing so, it would likely have  benefited all sectors and income levels. Individuals and families who drive less (or not at all), fly less (or not at all) and use less fossil fuel derived energy in their home on an annual basis see blog #7: “A  Socially and Environmentally Just Program that Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions to the Atmosphere by Offering Financial Incentives that Reward Less (or no) Driving, Flying and Home Energy Use”, or click on the links below:

Conserve NOW!1.doc; Final

Conserve Now ex sum

http://www.bicyclefixation.com/altdrive.htm

26. A Reflection on the National Governor’s Association Meeting in Milwaukee this Month

177554230-4cd0296f0b02d10bb90a633cf5f94355a0465041-s40-c85

Yosemite National Park – August 24, 2013. “”No temple made with hands can compare with Yosemite… The grandest of all special temples of Nature . (John Muir)

I was disappointed reading the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel’s report on the National Governors Association’s meeting held earlier this month in Milwaukee, particularly that their agenda did not even include the growing threat of climate change and what steps the governors might take to reduce their state’s contributions to the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as well as how they might better help their state populations cope with increasingly more severe weather conditions  already being witnessed worldwide. The wildfire that has spread into Yosemite National Park is now being called “one of the largest wildfires in recent California history”. It is said to have already burned more than 125,000 acres.

It is becoming increasingly clear that, despite what a small number of global warming deniers have been saying to the contrary, that humans burning fossil fuels – coal, natural gas, oil and other petroleum products (such as gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel) –  for heating, transportation, electricity production, recreational activities, and for use in military operations and other human pursuits – is causing more rapid global warming to continue.
The emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from fossil fuels burning, over time, continues to cause more global warming, which is not only changing everyone’s climate, but is also resulting in rising sea levels, ocean water acidification (by 30%!,), increased melting of the polar ice caps, changes in bird migration (poleward), more extreme weather events, worldwide, such as more horrific storms and accompanying heavy rain and flooding, and longer and worse drought and fires  and more brutal heat waves elsewhere. The frequency and extent of extreme weather events and rising coastlines  are predicted to increase with more global warming, across the U.S. and elsewhere.
The burning fossil fuels, especially over the last century and a half, has led to measurable increases in the concentrations of carbon dioxide and other potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and these gases. accordingly, trap (absorb) more of the Sun’s energy near the surface of the earth, resulting in rising global average temperatures. The earth’s gradual warming is now manifesting itself in serious and growing-more-serious and more destructive  natural and human consequences to  the U.S. , North America, and the remaining continents and island communities around the world. It is of paramount importance that we all stop ignoring this problem, today, and that our political representatives and leaders, in particular, take immediate and meaningful action to confront this growing threat to humanity.
So why didn’t the governors who met earlier this month in Milwaukee have global warming and climate change on their agenda for this month’s meeting? It appears they were too busy parading around Milwaukee on their Harley Davidson motorcycles, burning fossil fuels,ith our Governor Scott Walker leading the way?
One has to wonder how future generations of Americans and others who will be affected by a warming and more dangerous and hostile environment will judge these so-called leaders of our day. Rather harshly I would guess.
See www.allthingsenvironmental.wordpress.com for more information.
The U.S. Forest Service says the Yosemite Fire is threatening about 5,500 homes and had already destroyed four homes and 12 outbuildings in several different areas.

22. The Evidence of Global Warming is Overwhelming Yet the U. S. House of Representatives Denies It

en_0629_Evans_620x350

The evidence is now overwhelming that our continuing to burn fossil fuels – for heating, electricity production and in transportation – has led to a significant warming of the atmosphere, namely global warming. Yet our U. S. House of Representatives of the U. S. Congress has foolishly – and dangerously – refused to acknowledge global warming is a problem much less acknowledge any awareness that greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning by humans is causing the warming.

One month after President Obama laid out a bold plan to tackle climate change, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill to say that carbon pollution is not  a problem.  They are wrong, big time.

The burning of fossil fuels and other fuels that  emit carbon dioxide when burned has undeniably led to the following:  a profound melting of the polar ice caps; the receding  of numerous mountain glaciers, worldwide; a significant and accelerating rise in sea level; ocean acidification (by 30%!) and resulting in harm to the lobster and other species living in the oceans; the loss of billions of dollars as a consequences of global warming caused drought  and flooding; and the loss of human life from increasingly more extreme weather events such as hurricanes, more severe storms, heat waves, and fires, plus the increased threat of deadly mosquito and tick transmitted diseases in the U. S., including dengue fever and West Nile virus infection, to name just two.

Scientists the world over predicted all these things could happen, that catastrophic consequences would be inevitable if humankind took no action, and that the number and intensity of such tragedies would worsen over time. Regrettably, especially for the young people of today and future generations – who will have to face the wrath of global warming and its awful consequences their entire life – those predictions are now becoming reality.

Yet today a committee of the U. S. House of Representatives voted to prevent the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency from limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and then the House voted to cut the EPA’s budget by 34 percent!

And now it’s not just the national academy of scientists of the world who are warning others of the global warming threat. Last week, four former EPA administrators under Republican presidents wrote in The New York Times: “The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes ‘locked in.'”

But still there are so many politicians in Congress who are still choosing to ignore the problems that global warming is already causing our U. S. citizens and other populations of the world, by their continued silence about the issue, or even worse, their ridicule of others who have concluded the threat is great enough to speak out about, including the president of the United States himself.;

They should be singled out and openly chastised, as they are undoubtedly doing so because of financial contributions they receive from the fossil fuel industries. And then we should thank those who are standing up for our environment by fight against global warming with their votes. This is a call for action to contact your representatives in the U. S. Congress and tell them to vote for actions that reduce U. S. greenhouse gas emissions, that reward individuals and families in the U. S. who use less fuel burning derived energy in their home, business and in transportation, and that will help us all to better adapt to the changing climate that global warming is now already bringing.

We’ve already heard from our president about the need for swift and major governmental action now to confront global warming enemy.   Below is how he concluded his June 25, 2013 speech at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.:

“THE QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER WE WILL HAVE TIME TO ACT BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE. AS A PRESIDENT AND AS A FATHER AND AS AN AMERICAN, I’M HERE TO SAY:  “WE NEED TO ACT!”‘

arctic-sea-ice

 See post #7 “Positive Financial Incentives: An Environmentally Just Approach for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions” for a proposal to reward using less greenhouse gas emitting energy on an annual basis .

21. Recent Heat-related Deaths in Wisconsin

Heat-related deaths and sicknesses are likely to become much more commonplace in the U.S. and the rest of world as a consequence of increased global warming, primarily caused by human activities. Following are six deaths that have been reported by the news media in Wisconsin:

Milwaukee authorities are reporting a fourth and fifth suspected heat-related death. The Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office says the latest victims are a 64-year-old woman, who died early Saturday, and a 69-year-old man who died Friday.

They said the woman developed breathing problems in her Milwaukee home, where the air temperature was 93 degrees. Her body temperature was 110 degrees. She had an air conditioner, but was unable to install it on her own. All the windows in her home were closed, and the family never opened them because they feared shots being fired in the neighborhood. They said the man was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital from a home in Milwaukee on Thursday with a body temperature of 102 degrees and died Friday night.

The bodies of two of the other dead men, ages 71 and 79, were found in separate houses Friday. In both cases, the medical examiner said the houses were sealed with no fans on and no air conditioning on in the house. The fifth victim is a 44-year-old man who was found unresponsive in an alley Wednesday evening in Milwaukee and pronounced dead in an intensive-care unit Thursday.

Finally, the death of a two-year old boy found by a deputy in the trunk of a car on his parents’ property near Centuria, Wisconsin, has been confirmed to be heat-related. Preliminary autopsy results released Friday said the boy likely died of hyperthermia — a condition in which the body temperature spikes from high and prolonged heat.

The National Weather Service says Milwaukee has recorded four consecutive days of highs in the mid-90s this week, with the “heat index” (factors in humidity) registering more than 100 degrees Fehrenhei.heatindex

20. Obama’s Speech on Fighting Global Warming: “Too Little, Too Late”?

iF5PRY6hOFBw
The president’s speech was great in tone and in the way he showed we need immediate action to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and deal with other countries of the world in the collective reduction in worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases. But the plan lacked detail, especially in how we should all be CONSERVING more energy that is generated by fuel burning in everything we do, especially driving less, flying less (or not at all), and using less energy in our homes and in the places where we visit.

The U. S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that U.S. gasoline and diesel fuel consumption for transportation in 2012 resulted in the emission of about 1,089 million metric tons from gasoline and 422 million metric tons of CO2 from diesal fuel burning to the atmosphere, respectively, for a total of 1,511 million metric tons of atmospheric CO2 in 2012. This total was equivalent to 83% of total CO2 emissions by the U.S. transportation sector and 29% of total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions.

Regarding air travel, it is often said that transportation by plane usually results in by far the largest quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG’s) emitted by a person in a year. GHG’s emitted (CO2 and nitrous oxide). This is due to the tremendous quantities of fossil fuels burned in takeoff, climbing and cruising at high elevation in a heavy jet airliner.

In 2011, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,280 kWh. Louisiana had the highest annual consumption at 16,176 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh.

To meaningfully reduce our emissions from transportation and household/business use our Congressional representatives and senators needs to ENACT MAJOR PROGRAMS THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION. The U. S. Congress should enact programs that offer voluntarily “positive financial incentives” ($) to Americans who limit their carbon dioxide emissions to minimal levels, as measured by their annual mileage driven in automobiles (all registered vehicles they own) over a year’s time. It is not enough to rely on vehicle energy efficiency improvements to reduce CO2 emissions by transportation since studies have shown than most people who buy more fuel efficient cars eventually drive even more miles per year than they did before, not less, which therefore negates the fuel efficiency caused greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.

These programs should be funded by taking away the many tax exemptions now given to fossil fuel development corporation, reductions in funding the military industrial complex, and by eliminating major expansions to highways and airports and by avoiding the construction of new power sources due to increased conservation of energy in homes and increased energy supplies from wind and solar sources. The money should then be directed into funding for offering positive financial incentives for people to drive less (miles) (or not drive at all); to avoid flying; and to use less fossil fuel derived energy in their homes or businesses. People who already chose to walk, ride buses, and not fly airplanes would benefit financially by this program, as would individuals, families and business who use less fossil fuel derived energy in heating and electrifying their homes and businesses.

More details on the financial incentives plan are contained in: “Positive Financial Incentives: An Environmentally Just Approach for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, published earlier on this blog site on May 9, 2013.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
— Martin Luther King Jr.

19. Enbridge’s Pipeline 67 Tar Sands-Crude Oil Expansion Project

b9944286z.1_20130705171213_000_gif1cqiv.1-1Photo by Darryl Dyck
In this photo from last year, a worker move logs on the Douglas Channel in British Columbia. The channel is the proposed termination point for an oil pipeline from Alberta as part of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

The tar sands industrial complex is located in northern Alberta, Canada in what was once a pristine natural area. It is now a terribly polluted industrial landscape. The crude oil that originates from this area is already widely criticized for its role in magnifying the climate change threats including extreme weather. According to an opinion piece in the Milwaukee Journal’s online interactive site by Eric Hansen, the Alberta tar sands-crude oil activities are now emerging as “a serious threat to Earth’s finest collection of freshwater: Lake Superior and the upper Great Lakes”.

Enbridge’s pipeline 67, the linchpin of the whole plan, runs from Alberta to Superior. At Superior, the pipeline splits. One pipeline bisects Wisconsin on its way to Delavan, Wisconsin before continuing south. Some of its crude oil would go to Chicago-area refineries; most is destined for ports and refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

Another pipeline runs eastward from Superior, before crossing under the Straits of Mackinac to connect to Detroit-area refineries — and others on the Atlantic Ocean.

A third conduit for the tar sans-crude oil is a firm called “Calumet Specialties”, a Superior refiner who wants to ship 13 million barrels per year of crude oil across Lake Superior and through the Great Lakes on barges.

“Proposals for a massive expansion of tar sands crude oil shipments on and around the Great Lakes do not make sense”, he said. Among the waters vulnerable to Canadian pipeline company’s ill-advised plans are Lakes Superior and Michigan as well as the Bois Brule, Namekagon, Chippewa, Wisconsin, Fox and Rock rivers.

Enbridge’s already partially built system expanded to the proposed size would lock in both Wisconsin and our region as a major transportation corridor to ship tar sands crude oil overseas to the world market for decades to come — and a reasonable citizen would be outraged”, according to Hansen.

“Profit and jobs would go to Canada. Crude oil would go overseas. Toxic risk would stay here, sprinkled throughout our region in the crude oil spills, air quality and public health impacts that would certainly come”, he added.

Global warming would also unquestionably be fueled by the massive amount of fossil fuel burning that would be required to continue with this expansion, much less the vast quantities of greenhouse gases that would obviously be emitted by the end combustion of the oil products.

Enbridge’s piecemeal method, linking and converting already existing pipelines with new connectors, has largely escaped the intense public scrutiny and uproar the Keystone XL pipeline proposal has met — so far, according to Hansen.

Tar sands crude oil spills are notoriously difficult to clean up well — and there are serious questions whether the tar sands corrosive qualities make pipeline ruptures inevitable. Tar sands’ raw product is bitumen, similar to asphalt. To move it through a pipeline requires diluting, with benzene (a known carcinogen) for example, high temperatures and increased pumping pressure. Hansen notes that Tar sands developers want to triple their production of crude oil from the tar sands.

Yet, unquestionably, Enbridge’s record so far merits alarm, says Hansen: “Just 150 miles east of Milwaukee, our nation’s largest inland crude oil spill began on July 25, 2010, devastating the Kalamazoo River near Marshall, Mich. Cleanup is still incomplete; costs are passing the billion-dollar mark.

“For 17 hours, through three shift changes and multiple alarms going off, Enbridge employees in their Calgary, Alberta, control room did not shut down the pipeline. That only happened when a Michigan utility worker called. Meanwhile, 840,000 gallons of crude oil spilled. The Key information was only shared a week later: The spill was tar sands, not conventional crude oil.

Wisconsinites should not allow this project to continue. Federal and state permits for the Enbridge pipeline 67 expansionshould not be grated, and the oil barges and other hazardous crude oil proposals be denied.

The crude bitumen contained in the Canadian oil sands is described as petroleum that exists in the semi-solid or solid phase in natural deposits. Bitumen is a thick, sticky form of hydrocarbon, so heavy and viscous (thick) that it will not flow unless heated or diluted with lighter hydrocarbons. At room temperature, it is much like cold molasses. Making liquid fuels from oil sands requires energy (fossil fuel burning) for steam injection and refining. This process generates 12 percent more greenhouse gases per barrel of crude oil than extraction of conventional oil.

So not only are our Great Lakes Region’s waters likely to be impacted negatively by this massive project proposed by Enbridge company, but our Great Lakes’ climate is also at risk as will the overall climate. The Pipeline 67 Expansion may end up as the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Enbridge’s proposed “Pipeline 67” Expansion DOUBLES the flow of heated, tar sands-crude oil,which would be pumped 990 miles from northern Alberta, Canada, to Superior, Wisconsin, from the current 440,000 BARRELS of crude oil PER DAY, to 880,000 BARRELS of crude oil PER DAY. For each gallon of gasoline burned, almost 20 pounds of carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere. For each person mile traveled by jet aircrafraft, the carbon dioxide emitted ranges from 40 – 65 pounds per mile, with the shorter trips resulting in higher pounds per mile due to the inefficiencies of starting and climbing.

In summary, there are large quantities of fossil fuels burned in processing of the tar sands into crude oil at the Alberta mine site, resulting in the release of millions of ton of greenhouses gases to the atmosphere every year. Additional energy is used to pump the crude oil to the refinery sites, causing the release of more greenhouse gases; additional energy is used in refining the crude oil into it’s final end products: gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel and heating oil.

Transporting these end products to their final destinations requires yet more fossil fuel combustion in making the transport, which results in even more greenhouse gases being emitted to the atmosphere. Finally, the end product fuels (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel) from this process which are purchased by fossil fuel consumers – owners/users of airplanes, trucks, automobiles, trains, ships, buses, factories, heating plants, motorized recreational vehicles, etc. – and then burned for their energy value end up releasing vastly more millions of tons of greenhouse gases to the earth’s atmosphere, where those gases can remain for upwards of a century, or more, compounding with former releases from the past, with the result that we are heating the atmosphere at at increasingly faster rate each decade that progresses, causing the oceans, polar ice caps, glaciers and large body lakes to warm at unprecedented rates, resulting in the acidification of ocean sea water and the rising of ocean sea levels. in this country and abroad.

The Milwaukee Journal online news reports that: “Enbridge’s piecemeal method, linking and converting already existing pipelines with new connectors, has largely escaped the intense public scrutiny and uproar the Keystone XL pipeline proposal has met — so far.” At Superior, the pipeline splits. One pipeline bisects Wisconsin before continuing south, with some of its crude destined for the Chicago-area, with the majority of the to ports and refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. Enbridge’s initial tar sands-crude oil pipeline expansion proposal was supposedly approved by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in 2007.

18. President Obama’s Speech on Global Warming – A “Must Read” for Every American

iF5PRY6hOFBw

Transcript of President Barack Obama’s June 25, 2013 speech at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, unveiling his new policies to confront global warming:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you, Georgetown! Thank you so much. Everybody, please be seated. And my first announcement today is that you should all take off your jackets. (Laughter.) I’m going to do the same. (Applause.) It’s not that sexy, now. (Laughter.)

It is good to be back on campus, and it is a great privilege to speak from the steps of this historic hall that welcomed Presidents going back to George Washington.

I want to thank your president, President DeGioia, who’s here today. (Applause.) I want to thank him for hosting us. I want to thank the many members of my Cabinet and my administration. I want to thank Leader Pelosi and the members of Congress who are here. We are very grateful for their support.

And I want to say thank you to the Hoyas in the house for having me back. (Applause.) It was important for me to speak directly to your generation, because the decisions that we make now and in the years ahead will have a profound impact on the world that all of you inherit.

On Christmas Eve, 1968, the astronauts of Apollo 8 did a live broadcast from lunar orbit. So Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, William Anders — the first humans to orbit the moon — described what they saw, and they read Scripture from the Book of Genesis to the rest of us back here. And later that night, they took a photo that would change the way we see and think about our world.

It was an image of Earth — beautiful; breathtaking; a glowing marble of blue oceans, and green forests, and brown mountains brushed with white clouds, rising over the surface of the moon.

And while the sight of our planet from space might seem routine today, imagine what it looked like to those of us seeing our home, our planet, for the first time. Imagine what it looked like to children like me. Even the astronauts were amazed. “It makes you realize,” Lovell would say, “just what you have back there on Earth.”

And around the same time we began exploring space, scientists were studying changes taking place in the Earth’s atmosphere. Now, scientists had known since the 1800s that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat, and that burning fossil fuels release those gases into the air. That wasn’t news. But in the late 1950s, the National Weather Service began measuring the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, with the worry that rising levels might someday disrupt the fragile balance that makes our planet so hospitable. And what they’ve found, year after year, is that the levels of carbon pollution in our atmosphere have increased dramatically.

That science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind.

The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years. Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record highs, and ice in the Arctic shrank to its smallest size on record — faster than most models had predicted it would. These are facts.

Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change. Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times. But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet. The fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago — that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater.

The potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels. Here at home, 2012 was the warmest year in our history. Midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl, and then drenched by the wettest spring on record. Western wildfires scorched an area larger than the state of Maryland. Just last week, a heat wave in Alaska shot temperatures into the 90s.

And we know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses, hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency services and disaster relief. In fact, those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don’t have time to deny it — they’re busy dealing with it. Firefighters are braving longer wildfire seasons, and states and federal governments have to figure out how to budget for that. I had to sit on a meeting with the Department of Interior and Agriculture and some of the rest of my team just to figure out how we’re going to pay for more and more expensive fire seasons.

Farmers see crops wilted one year, washed away the next; and the higher food prices get passed on to you, the American consumer. Mountain communities worry about what smaller snowpacks will mean for tourism — and then, families at the bottom of the mountains wonder what it will mean for their drinking water. Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief.

So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.

So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late. And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren.

As a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.

I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing. And that’s why, today, I’m announcing a new national climate action plan, and I’m here to enlist your generation’s help in keeping the United States of America a leader — a global leader — in the fight against climate change.

This plan builds on progress that we’ve already made. Last year, I took office — the year that I took office, my administration pledged to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from their 2005 levels by the end of this decade. And we rolled up our sleeves and we got to work. We doubled the electricity we generated from wind and the sun. We doubled the mileage our cars will get on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade.

Here at Georgetown, I unveiled my strategy for a secure energy future. And thanks to the ingenuity of our businesses, we’re starting to produce much more of our own energy. We’re building the first nuclear power plants in more than three decades — in Georgia and South Carolina. For the first time in 18 years, America is poised to produce more of our own oil than we buy from other nations. And today, we produce more natural gas than anybody else. So we’re producing energy. And these advances have grown our economy, they’ve created new jobs, they can’t be shipped overseas — and, by the way, they’ve also helped drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years. Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America.

So it’s a good start. But the reason we’re all here in the heat today is because we know we’ve got more to do.

In my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to come up with a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one that Republican and Democratic senators worked on together a few years ago. And I still want to see that happen. I’m willing to work with anyone to make that happen.

But this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock. It demands our attention now. And this is my plan to meet it — a plan to cut carbon pollution; a plan to protect our country from the impacts of climate change; and a plan to lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate.

This plan begins with cutting carbon pollution by changing the way we use energy — using less dirty energy, using more clean energy, wasting less energy throughout our economy.

Forty-three years ago, Congress passed a law called the Clean Air Act of 1970. It was a good law. The reasoning behind it was simple: New technology can protect our health by protecting the air we breathe from harmful pollution. And that law passed the Senate unanimously. Think about that — it passed the Senate unanimously. It passed the House of Representatives 375 to 1. I don’t know who the one guy was — I haven’t looked that up. You can barely get that many votes to name a post office these days.

It was signed into law by a Republican President. It was later strengthened by another Republican President. This used to be a bipartisan issue.

Six years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants covered by that same Clean Air Act. And they required the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, to determine whether they’re a threat to our health and welfare. In 2009, the EPA determined that they are a threat to both our health and our welfare in many different ways — from dirtier air to more common heat waves — and, therefore, subject to regulation.

Today, about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution comes from our power plants. But here’s the thing: Right now, there are no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution that those plants can pump into our air. None. Zero. We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free. That’s not right, that’s not safe, and it needs to stop.

So today, for the sake of our children, and the health and safety of all Americans, I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.

I’m also directing the EPA to develop these standards in an open and transparent way, to provide flexibility to different states with different needs, and build on the leadership that many states, and cities, and companies have already shown. In fact, many power companies have already begun modernizing their plants, and creating new jobs in the process. Others have shifted to burning cleaner natural gas instead of dirtier fuel sources.

Nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing their own market-based programs to reduce carbon pollution. More than 25 have set energy efficiency targets. More than 35 have set renewable energy targets. Over 1,000 mayors have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution. So the idea of setting higher pollution standards for our power plants is not new. It’s just time for Washington to catch up with the rest of the country. And that’s what we intend to do.

Now, what you’ll hear from the special interests and their allies in Congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the economy, and basically end American free enterprise as we know it. And the reason I know you’ll hear those things is because that’s what they said every time America sets clear rules and better standards for our air and our water and our children’s health. And every time, they’ve been wrong.

For example, in 1970, when we decided through the Clean Air Act to do something about the smog that was choking our cities — and, by the way, most young people here aren’t old enough to remember what it was like, but when I was going to school in 1979-1980 in Los Angeles, there were days where folks couldn’t go outside. And the sunsets were spectacular because of all the pollution in the air.

But at the time when we passed the Clean Air Act to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doomsayers were saying new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry.

Guess what — it didn’t happen. Our air got cleaner.

In 1990, when we decided to do something about acid rain, they said our electricity bills would go up, the lights would go off, businesses around the country would suffer — I quote — “a quiet death.” None of it happened, except we cut acid rain dramatically.

See, the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity. These critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can’t or they won’t do it. They’ll just kind of give up and quit. But in America, we know that’s not true. Look at our history.

When we restricted cancer-causing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in our cars, it didn’t end the plastics industry or the oil industry. American chemists came up with better substitutes. When we phased out CFCs — the gases that were depleting the ozone layer — it didn’t kill off refrigerators or air-conditioners or deodorant. American workers and businesses figured out how to do it better without harming the environment as much.

The fuel standards that we put in place just a few years ago didn’t cripple automakers. The American auto industry retooled, and today, our automakers are selling the best cars in the world at a faster rate than they have in five years — with more hybrid, more plug-in, more fuel-efficient cars for everybody to choose from.

So the point is, if you look at our history, don’t bet against American industry. Don’t bet against American workers. Don’t tell folks that we have to choose between the health of our children or the health of our economy.

The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in America, we’ve always used new technologies — we’ve used science; we’ve used research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete.

Today, we use more clean energy — more renewables and natural gas — which is supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs. We waste less energy, which saves you money at the pump and in your pocketbooks. And guess what — our economy is 60 percent bigger than it was 20 years ago, while our carbon emissions are roughly back to where they were 20 years ago.

So, obviously, we can figure this out. It’s not an either/or; it’s a both/and. We’ve got to look after our children; we have to look after our future; and we have to grow the economy and create jobs. We can do all of that as long as we don’t fear the future; instead we seize it.

And, by the way, don’t take my word for it — recently, more than 500 businesses, including giants like GM and Nike, issued a Climate Declaration, calling action on climate change “one of the great economic opportunities of the 21st century.” Walmart is working to cut its carbon pollution by 20 percent and transition completely to renewable energy. Walmart deserves a cheer for that. But think about it. Would the biggest company, the biggest retailer in America — would they really do that if it weren’t good for business, if it weren’t good for their shareholders?

A low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come. And I want America to build that engine. I want America to build that future — right here in the United States of America. That’s our task.

Now, one thing I want to make sure everybody understands — this does not mean that we’re going to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels. Our economy wouldn’t run very well if it did. And transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time. But when the doomsayers trot out the old warnings that these ambitions will somehow hurt our energy supply, just remind them that America produced more oil than we have in 15 years. What is true is that we can’t just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge that we face. That’s not possible.

I put forward in the past an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but our energy strategy must be about more than just producing more oil. And, by the way, it’s certainly got to be about more than just building one pipeline.

Now, I know there’s been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf. And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. That’s how it’s always been done. But I do want to be clear: Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It’s relevant.

Now, even as we’re producing more domestic oil, we’re also producing more cleaner-burning natural gas than any other country on Earth. And, again, sometimes there are disputes about natural gas, but let me say this: We should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions.

Federally supported technology has helped our businesses drill more effectively and extract more gas. And now, we’ll keep working with the industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure that we’re not seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work modernizing our natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and businesses with cleaner energy.

The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs. It’s lowering many families’ heat and power bills. And it’s the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of the future.

And that brings me to the second way that we’re going to reduce carbon pollution — by using more clean energy. Over the past four years, we’ve doubled the electricity that we generate from zero-carbon wind and solar power. And that means jobs — jobs manufacturing the wind turbines that now generate enough electricity to power nearly 15 million homes; jobs installing the solar panels that now generate more than four times the power at less cost than just a few years ago.

I know some Republicans in Washington dismiss these jobs, but those who do need to call home — because 75 percent of all wind energy in this country is generated in Republican districts. And that may explain why last year, Republican governors in Kansas and Oklahoma and Iowa — Iowa, by the way, a state that harnesses almost 25 percent of its electricity from the wind — helped us in the fight to extend tax credits for wind energy manufacturers and producers. Tens of thousands good jobs were on the line, and those jobs were worth the fight.

And countries like China and Germany are going all in in the race for clean energy. I believe Americans build things better than anybody else. I want America to win that race, but we can’t win it if we’re not in it.

So the plan I’m announcing today will help us double again our energy from wind and sun. Today, I’m directing the Interior Department to green light enough private, renewable energy capacity on public lands to power more than 6 million homes by 2020.

The Department of Defense — the biggest energy consumer in America — will install 3 gigawatts of renewable power on its bases, generating about the same amount of electricity each year as you’d get from burning 3 million tons of coal.

And because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget once again calls for Congress to end the tax breaks for big oil companies, and invest in the clean-energy companies that will fuel our future.

Now, the third way to reduce carbon pollution is to waste less energy — in our cars, our homes, our businesses. The fuel standards we set over the past few years mean that by the middle of the next decade, the cars and trucks we buy will go twice as far on a gallon of gas. That means you’ll have to fill up half as often; we’ll all reduce carbon pollution. And we built on that success by setting the first-ever standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses and vans. And in the coming months, we’ll partner with truck makers to do it again for the next generation of vehicles.

Meanwhile, the energy we use in our homes and our businesses and our factories, our schools, our hospitals — that’s responsible for about one-third of our greenhouse gases. The good news is simple upgrades don’t just cut that pollution; they put people to work — manufacturing and installing smarter lights and windows and sensors and appliances. And the savings show up in our electricity bills every month — forever. That’s why we’ve set new energy standards for appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers. And today, our businesses are building better ones that will also cut carbon pollution and cut consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars.

That means, by the way, that our federal government also has to lead by example. I’m proud that federal agencies have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent since I took office. But we can do even better than that. So today, I’m setting a new goal: Your federal government will consume 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources within the next seven years. We are going to set that goal.

We’ll also encourage private capital to get off the sidelines and get into these energy-saving investments. And by the end of the next decade, these combined efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings will reduce carbon pollution by at least three billion tons. That’s an amount equal to what our entire energy sector emits in nearly half a year.

So I know these standards don’t sound all that sexy, but think of it this way: That’s the equivalent of planting 7.6 billion trees and letting them grow for 10 years — all while doing the dishes. It is a great deal and we need to be doing it.

So using less dirty energy, transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, wasting less energy through our economy is where we need to go. And this plan will get us there faster. But I want to be honest — this will not get us there overnight. The hard truth is carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now. And even if we Americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some time to come. The seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science. It’s like tapping the brakes of a car before you come to a complete stop and then can shift into reverse. It’s going to take time for carbon emissions to stabilize.

So in the meantime, we’re going to need to get prepared. And that’s why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid. States and cities across the country are already taking it upon themselves to get ready. Miami Beach is hardening its water supply against seeping saltwater. We’re partnering with the state of Florida to restore Florida’s natural clean water delivery system — the Everglades.

The overwhelmingly Republican legislature in Texas voted to spend money on a new water development bank as a long-running drought cost jobs and forced a town to truck in water from the outside.

New York City is fortifying its 520 miles of coastline as an insurance policy against more frequent and costly storms. And what we’ve learned from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters is that we’ve got to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure that can protect our homes and businesses, and withstand more powerful storms. That means stronger seawalls, natural barriers, hardened power grids, hardened water systems, hardened fuel supplies.

So the budget I sent Congress includes funding to support communities that build these projects, and this plan directs federal agencies to make sure that any new project funded with taxpayer dollars is built to withstand increased flood risks.

And we’ll partner with communities seeking help to prepare for droughts and floods, reduce the risk of wildfires, protect the dunes and wetlands that pull double duty as green space and as natural storm barriers. And we’ll also open our climate data and NASA climate imagery to the public, to make sure that cities and states assess risk under different climate scenarios, so that we don’t waste money building structures that don’t withstand the next storm.

So that’s what my administration will do to support the work already underway across America, not only to cut carbon pollution, but also to protect ourselves from climate change. But as I think everybody here understands, no nation can solve this challenge alone — not even one as powerful as ours. And that’s why the final part of our plan calls on America to lead — lead international efforts to combat a changing climate.

And make no mistake — the world still looks to America to lead. When I spoke to young people in Turkey a few years ago, the first question I got wasn’t about the challenges that part of the world faces. It was about the climate challenge that we all face, and America’s role in addressing it. And it was a fair question, because as the world’s largest economy and second-largest carbon emitter, as a country with unsurpassed ability to drive innovation and scientific breakthroughs, as the country that people around the world continue to look to in times of crisis, we’ve got a vital role to play. We can’t stand on the sidelines. We’ve got a unique responsibility. And the steps that I’ve outlined today prove that we’re willing to meet that responsibility.

Though all America’s carbon pollution fell last year, global carbon pollution rose to a record high. That’s a problem. Developing countries are using more and more energy, and tens of millions of people entering a global middle class naturally want to buy cars and air-conditioners of their own, just like us. Can’t blame them for that. And when you have conversations with poor countries, they’ll say, well, you went through these stages of development — why can’t we?

But what we also have to recognize is these same countries are also more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are. They don’t just have as much to lose, they probably have more to lose.

Developing nations with some of the fastest-rising levels of carbon pollution are going to have to take action to meet this challenge alongside us. They’re watching what we do, but we’ve got to make sure that they’re stepping up to the plate as well. We compete for business with them, but we also share a planet. And we have to all shoulder the responsibility for keeping the planet habitable, or we’re going to suffer the consequences — together.

So to help more countries transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and to help them do it faster, we’re going to partner with our private sector to apply private sector technological know-how in countries that transition to natural gas. We’ve mobilized billions of dollars in private capital for clean energy projects around the world.

Today, I’m calling for an end of public financing for new coal plants overseas — unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies, or there’s no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity. And I urge other countries to join this effort.

And I’m directing my administration to launch negotiations toward global free trade in environmental goods and services, including clean energy technology, to help more countries skip past the dirty phase of development and join a global low-carbon economy. They don’t have to repeat all the same mistakes that we made.

We’ve also intensified our climate cooperation with major emerging economies like India and Brazil, and China — the world’s largest emitter. So, for example, earlier this month, President Xi of China and I reached an important agreement to jointly phase down our production and consumption of dangerous hydrofluorocarbons, and we intend to take more steps together in the months to come. It will make a difference. It’s a significant step in the reduction of carbon emissions.

And finally, my administration will redouble our efforts to engage our international partners in reaching a new global agreement to reduce carbon pollution through concrete action.

Four years ago, in Copenhagen, every major country agreed, for the first time, to limit carbon pollution by 2020. Two years ago, we decided to forge a new agreement beyond 2020 that would apply to all countries, not just developed countries.

What we need is an agreement that’s ambitious — because that’s what the scale of the challenge demands. We need an inclusive agreement — because every country has to play its part. And we need an agreement that’s flexible — because different nations have different needs. And if we can come together and get this right, we can define a sustainable future for your generation.

So that’s my plan. The actions I’ve announced today should send a strong signal to the world that America intends to take bold action to reduce carbon pollution. We will continue to lead by the power of our example, because that’s what the United States of America has always done.

I am convinced this is the fight America can, and will, lead in the 21st century. And I’m convinced this is a fight that America must lead. But it will require all of us to do our part.

We’ll need scientists to design new fuels, and we’ll need farmers to grow new fuels. We’ll need engineers to devise new technologies, and we’ll need businesses to make and sell those technologies. We’ll need workers to operate assembly lines that hum with high-tech, zero-carbon components, but we’ll also need builders to hammer into place the foundations for a new clean energy era.

We’re going to need to give special care to people and communities that are unsettled by this transition — not just here in the United States but around the world. And those of us in positions of responsibility, we’ll need to be less concerned with the judgment of special interests and well-connected donors, and more concerned with the judgment of posterity. Because you and your children, and your children’s children, will have to live with the consequences of our decisions.

As I said before, climate change has become a partisan issue, but it hasn’t always been. It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans led the way on new and innovative policies to tackle these issues. Richard Nixon opened the EPA. George H.W. Bush declared — first U.S. President to declare — “human activities are changing the atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways.”

Someone who never shies away from a challenge, John McCain, introduced a market-based cap-and-trade bill to slow carbon pollution.

The woman that I’ve chosen to head up the EPA, Gina McCarthy, she’s worked — she’s terrific. Gina has worked for the EPA in my administration, but she’s also worked for five Republican governors. She’s got a long track record of working with industry and business leaders to forge common-sense solutions. Unfortunately, she’s being held up in the Senate. She’s been held up for months, forced to jump through hoops no Cabinet nominee should ever have to — not because she lacks qualifications, but because there are too many in the Republican Party right now who think that the Environmental Protection Agency has no business protecting our environment from carbon pollution. The Senate should confirm her without any further obstruction or delay.

But more broadly, we’ve got to move beyond partisan politics on this issue. I want to be clear — I am willing to work with anybody — Republicans, Democrats, independents, libertarians, greens — anybody — to combat this threat on behalf of our kids. I am open to all sorts of new ideas, maybe better ideas, to make sure that we deal with climate change in a way that promotes jobs and growth.

Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real. We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm. And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here.

Our founders believed that those of us in positions of power are elected not just to serve as custodians of the present, but as caretakers of the future. And they charged us to make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon than the arc of our own political careers. That’s what the American people expect. That’s what they deserve.

And someday, our children, and our children’s children, will look at us in the eye and they’ll ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer, more stable world? And I want to be able to say, yes, we did. Don’t you want that?

Americans are not a people who look backwards; we’re a people who look forward. We’re not a people who fear what the future holds; we shape it. What we need in this fight are citizens who will stand up, and speak up, and compel us to do what this moment demands.

Understand this is not just a job for politicians. So I’m going to need all of you to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your parents, your friends. Tell them what’s at stake. Speak up at town halls, church groups, PTA meetings. Push back on misinformation. Speak up for the facts. Broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand up for our future.

Convince those in power to reduce our carbon pollution. Push your own communities to adopt smarter practices. Invest. Divest. Remind folks there’s no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth. And remind everyone who represents you at every level of government that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote. Make yourself heard on this issue.

I understand the politics will be tough. The challenge we must accept will not reward us with a clear moment of victory. There’s no gathering army to defeat. There’s no peace treaty to sign. When President Kennedy said we’d go to the moon within the decade, we knew we’d build a spaceship and we’d meet the goal. Our progress here will be measured differently — in crises averted, in a planet preserved. But can we imagine a more worthy goal? For while we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did.

“It makes you realize,” that astronaut said all those years ago, “just what you have back there on Earth.” And that image in the photograph, that bright blue ball rising over the moon’s surface, containing everything we hold dear — the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity — that’s what’s at stake. That’s what we’re fighting for. And if we remember that, I’m absolutely sure we’ll succeed.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.

images

16. International Energy Agency Claims World Average Temperature to Rise 5.3 Degrees Celsius

A new study from the International Energy Agency says emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels rose to record levels last year. Global emissions increased by 1.4 percent, putting the world on pace for a temperature hike of up to 5.3 degrees Celsius, or 9 degrees Fahrenheit, which is more than double the 2-degree-Celsius target set by world leaders. The agency’s chief economist called that scenario a “disaster for all countries.”

“Global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 are projected to be nearly 4 billion tons higher than a level consistent with attaining the 2 degree target, highlighting the scale of the challenge still to be tackled just in this decade,” the agency said.

The IEA urged governments to quickly adopt four policies that would ensure climate goals could be reached without harming economic growth. They are: improving energy efficiency in buildings, industry and transport; limiting the construction and use of inefficient power plants; halving methane emissions; and partially phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.

These would reduce global energy-related emissions by 8 percent or 3.1 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in 2020, the IEA said.

“Delaying stronger climate action to 2020 would come at a cost: $1.5 trillion in low-carbon investments are avoided before 2020, but $5 trillion in additional investments would be required thereafter to get back on track,” the IEA said.

International negotiators are meeting in Bonn, Germany, until Friday for U.N. talks aimed at getting a new global climate treaty, which would cut emissions, signed by 2015.

However, the talks got off to a slow start last week due to attempts by three nations to amend one of the meeting’s many agendas to discuss how future decisions should be made.

Scientists say global average temperature rise needs to be limited to below 2 degrees Celsius this century to prevent devastating climate effects like crop failure and melting glaciers.

That would only be possible if emission levels are kept to around 44 billion tons of CO2 equivalent by 2020.

15. Wisconsin’s Proposed State Budget Needs Major Overhaul

downsize (14)

The Wisconsin State Journal asked its readers for “letters to the editor” on what needed to be fixed, if anything, in Wisconsin’s state budget bill, which will be taken up by the Wisconsin Legislature starting Tuesday, June 18 (tomorrow). Follow was the letter I submitted:

State money for vouchers and tax exemptions for families who already can afford to send their kids to private schools?

A large tax cut which sends much more money back to people in the state’s higher income brackets than to those unfortunate enough to be in the lower income bracket?

No health care that the poor can afford?

Wisconsin at the bottom of the list for renewable energy development, again (under the Gov. Scott Walker administration), yet nothing in the state budget to raise it up the list?

No mention of the words “global warming”, “climate change”, or “reduce greenhouse gases” in the budget bill, despite the reality of human-caused climate change being well evident now to nearly everyone in Wisconsin, and despite the preponderance of scientific studies backing that up?

Yes, I would say Wisconsin’s state budget needs fixing – A WHOLE LOT OF FIXING!