natureoftheclimate

best explanation of the Fukushima meltdown

2011-07-07T09:59:00.000-07:00

Excerpt from the article:

Meltdown: What Really Happened at Fukushima?

JAKE ADELSTEIN AND DAVID MCNEILLJUL 02, 2011

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/meltdown-what-really-happened-fukushima/39541/

Throughout the months of lies and misinformation, one story has stuck: “The earthquake knocked out the plant’s electric power, halting cooling to its reactors,” as the government spokesman Yukio Edano said at a March 15 press conference in Tokyo. The story, which has been repeated again and again, boils down to this: “after the earthquake, the tsunami – a unique, unforeseeable [the Japanese word is soteigai] event - then washed out the plant’s back-up generators, shutting down all cooling and starting the chain of events that would cause the world’s first triple meltdown to occur.”

But what if recirculation pipes and cooling pipes, burst, snapped, leaked, and broke completely after the earthquake -- long before the tidal wave reached the facilities, long before the electricity went out? This would surprise few people familiar with the 40-year-old Unit 1, the grandfather of the nuclear reactors still operating in Japan.

...

According to The Chunichi Shinbun and other sources, a few hours after the earthquake extremely high levels of radiation were being measured within the reactor one building. The levels were so high that if you spent a full day exposed to them it would be fatal. The water levels of the reactor were already sinking.After the Japanese government forced TEPCO to release hundreds of pages of documents relating to the accident in May, Bloomberg reported on May 19 that a radiation alarm went off 1.5 kilometers from the number one reactor on March 11 at 3:29 p.m., minutes before the tsunami reached the plant. TEPCO would not deny the possibility that there was significant radiation leakage before the power went out. They did assert that the alarm might have simply malfunctioned.

On March 11, at 9:51 p.m., under the CEO's orders, the inside of the reactor building was declared a no-entry zone. Around 11 p.m., radiation levels for the inside of the turbine building, which was next door to the reactor, reached hourly levels of 0.5 to 1.2 mSv. The meltdown was already underway.

Oddly enough, while TEPCO later insisted that the cause of the meltdown was the tsunami knocking out emergency power systems, at the 7:47 p.m. TEPCO press conference the same day, the spokesman in response to questions from the press about the cooling systems stated that the emergency water circulation equipment and reactor core isolation time cooling systems would work even without electricity.

Sometime between 4 and 6 a.m. on March 12, Masao Yoshida, the plant manager decided it was time to pump seawater into the reactor core and notified TEPCO. Seawater was not pumped in until hours after a hydrogen explosion occurred, roughly 8:00 p.m. that day. By then, it was probably already too late.

On May 15, TEPCO went some way toward admitting at least some of these claims in a report called “Reactor Core Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit One.” The report said there might have been pre-tsunami damage to key facilities including pipes. “This means that assurances from the industry in Japan and overseas that the reactors were robust is now blown apart,” said Shaun Burnie, an independent nuclear waste consultant. “It raises fundamental questions on all reactors in high seismic risk areas.”

Why Americans don't take action

2007-11-14T10:31:00.000-08:00

November 13, 2007, 10:18 am
NYTimes Opinion

Avoiding Climate Change: Why Americans Prevaricate and Delay on Taking Action

By Kurt Campbell

Kurt Campbell is an expert on Asia and security issues who is now chief executive of the Center for a New American Security. He served in the Pentagon in the Clinton administration, in charge of Asia/Pacific issues, and earlier taught at Harvard. Kurt has written widely, for popular and academic audiences, about everything from Japan to nuclear policy. His last post was entitled: “The Inheritance on Climate.”

For all the talk of Americans being an optimistic people, anxieties and fears have long animated our national passions and perspectives. There were longstanding concerns for 50 years over various aspects of Soviet power, either in the form of an alleged missile gap or unfounded worries over communist infiltration into the United States government during the height of the Cold War. Currently, there are dire concerns over a number of new global developments, ranging from reliance on unstable regions for supplies of petrol, the increasing radicalization of Islam, the implications for China’s march on the 21st Century, to the spread of nuclear weapons.

Given this tendency to occasionally stress out over — and even hype global trends — it is all the more surprising that the US government during the Bush years has been relatively lackadaisical about the prospective threats to global security that are inherent with unchecked climate change. These include the possibility of major flooding of low lying coastal areas, the prospect of massive migrations of people across the globe, new disease vectors, species extinctions, agricultural disruptions and the collapse of global fisheries.

While there is a growing consciousness about climate change and how a sharp increase in global warming might sharply shift the natural order of the planet, there has been an inadequate appreciation in our overall political discourse about the necessity to act urgently.

Most public polls on the subject underscore two contradictory findings: one, that Americans now accept that climate change is real and must be dealt with and two, that Americans as yet do not feel that they must make personal sacrifices or alter their carbon splurging lifestyles in order to address the problem.

What accounts for this general lack of urgency on a issue that the Nobel Committee, among others, considers a profound threat to the peace and stability of the planet? The reasons are many and complex and in combination provide a daunting set of obstacles to any political effort to truly address the magnitude of the challenge ahead of us.

Probably the most important reason for this absence of urgency is the profound lack of public knowledge on issues related to climate matters, that is, beyond the simple conflation of weather with climate in the public mind. The serious national media have done a miserable job in educating the public about just what the stakes involved are when it comes to climate change — its science, causes, the politics of, and remediation efforts.

The absence of visionary political leadership at the national level is also undeniable. While it is easy to scapegoat President Bush and his team for a profound lack of initiative on all matters of climate, it must be said that on this issue he merely mirrors the dominant attitudes of obliviousness and denial among many of the American people. On climate, alas, we have gotten the president we deserve.

Many also believe that it will be possible to defer taking action into the future and that late remedial steps can be both cost effective and sufficient. However, most experts counter that urgent and current steps are infinitely preferable to waiting and hoping that late action can still work to address the magnitude of the problem. In truth, waiting will probably turn out to be a very bad option.

There is, in addition, a general if unstated belief that a “cool” new technology (sorry for the pun) will soon emerge - a veritable technical silver bullet - that will magically remove vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the skies and allow Americans to avoid the really hard choices of conservation and changes in lifestyle.

There are also powerful forces in the political arena that continue to have serious doubts about either the existence of climate change or misgiving about the implications of taking action to address the problem (or both). For instance, the lion’s share of recent funding provided to the small but busy band of climate change skeptics have come from folks associated with the oil and coal industries.

Another related issue is the potential economic impacts of introducing new energy related technologies or conservation provisions. There is a strong and growing presumption that alternative approaches should be cost effective and not put undue burdens on the already energy - stressed industrial and commercial sectors of the American business community. This is a high bar, particularly if the implications of global climate change are as dire as many experts predict.

And lastly, there is probably an unhealthy propensity on the part of many Americans to think that the enormity of the challenge is simply insurmountable, and it’s probably better to pretend that the ice caps are not melting, that worrisome climate trends are not accelerating, or to simply deny that local weather conditions are changing in ways that the old timers cannot remember ever happening before.

Taken together this is a daunting list of roadblocks, detours and demons that will provide enormous disincentives for political leadership on the matter of addressing climate change in an early and earnest way. And yet, early action is precisely what is urgently required if climate change is to be a major political preoccupation of the next president — as it must be.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/avoiding-climate-change-why-americans-prevaricate-and-delay-on-taking-action/

So much for Kyoto

2007-11-05T13:27:00.000-08:00

The U.S. declined to join the Kyoto treaty on the ground that it would hurt or destroy the American economy. So what has happened?

The Kyoto signatories all have strong economies now, while the U.S. dollar is at historic lows against their currencies.

Here's one of many examples:

Supermodel Bundchen Joins Hedge Funds Dumping Dollars (Update2)

By Bo Nielsen and Adriana Brasileiro

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Gisele Bundchen wants to remain the world's richest model and is insisting that she be paid in almost any currency but the U.S. dollar.

Like billionaire investors Warren Buffett and Bill Gross, the Brazilian supermodel, who Forbes magazine says earns more than anyone in her industry, is at the top of a growing list of rich people who have concluded that the currency can only depreciate because Americans led by President George W. Bush are living beyond their means.

Even after the dollar lost 34 percent since 2001, the biggest investors and most accurate forecasters say it will weaken further as home sales fall and the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates. The dollar plummeted to its lowest ever last week against the euro, Canadian dollar, Chinese yuan and the cheapest in 26 years against the British pound.

``We've told all of our clients that if you only had one idea, one investment, it would be to buy an investment in a non- dollar currency,'' said Gross, the chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California, and manager of the world's biggest bond fund. ``That should be on top of the list,'' said Gross, whose firm is a unit of Munich- based insurer Allianz SE.

Bundchen's Demands

The dollar fell 0.8 percent last week and touched $1.4528 per euro, the weakest since the euro's debut in 1999. It traded at $1.4484 at 9:37 a.m. in New York. The dollar lost 2.8 percent last week to 93.47 Canadian cents and 1.8 percent to $2.09 per British pound. The Fed's U.S. Trade Weighted Major Currency Index measuring the dollar's performance versus seven currencies, such as Japan's, slid to a record low of 72.22.

BNP Paribas chief currency strategist Hans-Guenter Redeker, the most accurate foreign-exchange forecaster last quarter in a Bloomberg survey, said the dollar may drop to $1.50 per euro by year-end. The median estimate of 42 strategists surveyed by Bloomberg is for the currency to end the year at $1.43. Among those surveyed last week, the forecast ranges from $1.42 to $1.50.

When Bundchen, 27, signed a contract in August to represent Pantene hair products for Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble Co., she demanded payment in euros, according to Veja, Brazil's biggest weekly magazine. She'll also get euros for the deal she reached last October with Dolce & Gabbana SpA in Milan to promote the Italian designer's new fragrance, The One, Veja reported. Bundchen earned $33 million in the year through June, Forbes reported in July.

`More Attractive'

``Contracts starting now are more attractive in euros because we don't know what will happen to the dollar,'' Patricia Bundchen, the model's twin sister and manager in Brazil, said in a telephone interview in September from Sao Paulo. She declined to discuss details of the arrangements last week, as did Anne Nelson, Bundchen's agent in New York at IMG Models.

Procter & Gamble's Sao Paulo-based external relations director for Brazil, Andre Quadra, said he couldn't give details of the Pantene contract because of a confidentiality agreement.

Analysts in a Bloomberg survey expect the dollar to strengthen in coming months as stronger-than-forecast reports suggest U.S. consumers will keep the economy out of recession. Payrolls grew by 166,000 in October, double the median forecast of economists in a Bloomberg survey.

The dollar will rise to $1.43 per euro this year and $1.35 by the end of 2008, according to the median estimate in the survey.

`Moving to Asia'

``So far the data has shown the U.S. economy may not be slowing to the extent the majority of the market had expected,'' said Omer Esiner, an analyst at currency-trading company Ruesch International Inc. in Washington who expects the U.S. currency to strengthen to as much as $1.38 per euro. ``That could temper policy easing down the road and lend support for the dollar.''

Buffett, whom Forbes in April ranked as the world's third- richest person behind Bill Gates and Carlos Slim, told reporters in South Korea last month that he is bearish on the U.S. currency.

``We still are negative on the dollar relative to most major currencies, so we bought stocks in companies that earn their money in other currencies,'' Buffett said Oct. 25. Buffett, 77, is chairman of Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

Jim Rogers, a former partner of investor George Soros, said last month he's selling his house and all his possessions in the U.S. currency to buy China's yuan.

``The dollar is collapsing,'' Rogers said last week in an interview. ``I'm moving to Asia because moving to Asia now is like moving to New York in 1907 or London in 1807. It's the wave of the future.''

Better Returns

The dollar is falling as investors seek better returns outside the U.S. Developing Asian nations including China and India will grow 9.8 percent this year, compared with 1.9 percent for the U.S., the International Monetary Fund said last month.

China, India and Russia accounted for half the global expansion over the past year, and the euro region will expand 2.5 percent in 2007, outpacing the U.S. for the first time since 2001, the Washington-based IMF estimates.

``The world has learned to live with a weak dollar,'' said Jay Bryson, a former Fed analyst who is now a global economist in Charlotte, North Carolina, at Wachovia Corp., the fourth-largest U.S. bank. ``It's not worried. It doesn't rely on the U.S. as much as it once did.''

Bryson forecasts the dollar will weaken to $1.50 per euro by the end of June.

Housing Recession

The U.S. currency dropped in the past two months as the Fed cut its target rate for overnight loans between banks twice to keep a decline in home sales from starting a recession. The central bank reduced the rate by three-quarters of a percentage point to 4.5 percent, including a quarter-point last week. The National Association of Realtors trade group in Washington said on Oct. 10 existing home sales may fall 11 percent this year.

Lower rates have made yields on U.S. debt less attractive. U.S. two-year Treasuries yield 0.30 percentage point less than German government bonds of similar maturity. The last time Treasuries yielded less than bunds was 2004.

The weaker currency has cushioned the U.S. economy during the worst housing recession in 16 years. Gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 3.9 percent in the third quarter, the most in more than a year, the Commerce Department said Oct. 31 in Washington.

The five-year, 67 percent drop against the Canadian dollar has made it cheaper for fans from Toronto to drive the 110 miles (177 kilometers) to Orchard Park, New York, to watch the Buffalo Bills play football.

Canada Day

Canadians account for 11 percent of the team's season tickets this year, up from 6.5 percent in 2005, according to Scott Berchtold, the Bills' vice president of communications. At yesterday's annual Canada Day game, where the Bills beat the Cincinnati Bengals, a record 23 percent of the 70,745 fans were from Canada, he estimated.

``When the Canadian dollar was down around 65 cents, we didn't get anybody,'' Ralph Wilson Jr., the team's owner, said in an interview. ``When the dollar fell, we starting getting some people.'' The Canadian dollar bought 61.76 U.S. cents in 2002.

The dollar's drop also makes American goods cheaper abroad. U.S. exports were a record $138.2 billion in August, government data show. Net exports added 0.93 percentage point to U.S. gross domestic product last quarter, offsetting a 1.05 percentage point drag from housing, government data show.

``As long as the dollar's decline doesn't trigger inflation, it's a good thing, helping the U.S. economy to stay out of recession,'' said Robert Mundell, a professor at Columbia University in New York who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1999.

Wealthy Clients

The Commerce Department's price index for personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy rose 1.8 percent in September from a year earlier, the same as in August. The Fed forecasts the index will increase 1.75 percent to 2 percent next year.

Wealthy clients at San Francisco-based Union Bank of California have doubled their deposits in foreign currencies to $60 million the past two months as a hedge against a decline, said Bradley Shairson, head of currency and derivatives at the bank.

U.S. investors bought $198 billion in foreign securities this year through August, 72 percent more than in the same period last year, Treasury Department data show.

That's the same strategy as sovereign wealth funds run by the largest exporters and oil producers, including China, Singapore and Qatar, said Stephen Jen, head of currency research at New York-based Morgan Stanley.

The funds may grow to $17.5 trillion by 2017 from $2.5 trillion now and shift more than $500 billion out of the dollar in the next three years in search of better returns, he said.

``We're all thinking about diversifying out of the dollar,'' said Jen, who is based in London. ``It's a very logical thing.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Bo Nielsen in New York at Bnielsen4@bloomberg.net ; Adriana Brasileiro in Rio de Janeiro at abrasileiro@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: November 5, 2007 10:08 EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCs.keWwNdiY&refer=home

Reasons to be optimistic

2007-11-02T09:43:00.000-07:00

With all the alarming environmental news in the world, many of my students and other friends and family express pessimism to me, but there's a lot to be optimistic about. Here's an example that is not directly environmental, but shows the type of thing that is being done:

he Revolution of Chairman Li

China's Richest Man
Leads Others to Give,
Bucking Nation's Taboos

By KATE LINEBAUGH and JANE SPENCER
November 2, 2007; Page W1

SHANTOU, China -- Li Ka-shing, Asia's richest man, is shaking up philanthropy in China.

While multibillion-dollar donations by Western entrepreneurs such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Mexico's Carlos Slim are turning private wealth into a force for tackling social problems, philanthropy remains a radical concept in China. The Communist Party has long stymied privately funded institutions, from churches to schools, viewing them as a threat to its grip on power. And traditional Confucian beliefs hold that charitable donations should be done quietly, so as not to extract personal benefit from altruism.

Li Ka-shing with graduates of Shantou University, one of his many Chinese charities.

Now, Mr. Li, the chairman of Hong Kong conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., is leading a growing group of wealthy Chinese who are challenging tradition and embracing a more open approach to giving. Last year, Mr. Li announced plans to give a third of his fortune -- a pledge estimated at more than $10 billion -- to his foundations that fund philanthropic projects around the world. The move will give the Li Ka-shing Foundation an endowment that rivals the $11 billion Ford Foundation, the second largest U.S. philanthropy after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

"In the U.S., philanthropic support from entrepreneurs is tightly integrated into the fabric of society, whether it's health care, medical research or education," the 79-year-old Mr. Li said during a rare interview about his philanthropic work. "Now, slowly, China will know this."

Dozens of high-profile Chinese entrepreneurs are following Mr. Li's lead. Yang Lan, a prominent talk-show host who is often dubbed the Chinese Oprah Winfrey, has donated an estimated $72 million to set up a foundation aimed at cultural exchanges, environmental protection and education, according to the Hurun Report, a publication that tracks philanthropy in China. Yu Pengnian, the 85-year-old head of the Chinese luxury-hotel empire Shenzhen Pengnian Hotels, has donated close to $270 million, roughly 80% of his net worth, to health-care causes, including funding cataract operations for thousands in rural China, Hurun Report says. And Niu Gensheng, chief executive of Mengniu Dairy Group, has donated all his shares in one of China's largest milk companies -- valued at nearly $600 million -- to a foundation devoted to agriculture, education and medical endeavors, according to the company.

The Chinese government is gradually becoming more open to philanthropic giving as capitalism generates new concerns about wealth disparity. While the average wage in China is less than $200 a month, some 500,000 Chinese have a net worth over $1 million, and China is home to about 106 billionaires, according to Hurun Report.

"As the wealth gap grows, the government is concerned about growing social discord because the poor are being left out," says John Peralta, managing director of the consulting firm Global Philanthropic in Hong Kong. China will eventually "embrace philanthropy as a way to maintain social harmony," he predicts.

But today, many factors work against private giving in China. One is the region's long tradition of family money remaining within a family. "In Asia, our traditional values encourage and even demand that wealth and means pass through lineage as an imperative duty," Mr. Li said last September, shortly after he announced the donation. He called on Asia to "transcend this traditional belief."

China has no comprehensive law on charitable giving. There's no requirement, for instance, that charities disclose information on their activities or works, which can lead to suspicions among the public about their activities. Moreover, Beijing still requires that all donations be funneled through the government.

But the government is growing more accepting of philanthropy. A major report released at the 17th Party Congress in October said China's social-welfare programs should be "complemented with charity programs." "There are high expectations for a comprehensive law on philanthropy in China," says Liu Youping, chief editor of China Philanthropy Times, which is published by the Ministry of Civil Affairs. The ministry couldn't be reached for comment.

In the meantime, donors tend to stick to causes considered "safe," like health care, to avoid conflicts with officials. But not even all health-related donations pass muster. Earlier this year, the government shut several offices of the China Orchid AIDS Project, which provided funding to AIDS patients, and detained the organization's head. Many saw the move as a warning to charities about the risks of getting involved with causes considered controversial by the government.

Mr. Li visiting students at Shantou University, which he founded

In China, Mr. Li has stuck to relatively uncontroversial causes, such as education. At a leafy university campus near his childhood home in southern China, Mr. Li has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build Shantou University, and is helping shape the school's unusually global curriculum.

FIVE QUESTIONS FOR LI KA-SHING

Mr. Li spoke with the Wall Street Journal about his philanthropy work in China.

How did your childhood influence your philanthropic work?

Mr. Li: When I was a young boy, before I turned 10, I had already seen the war in my hometown. The air force bombed the city. Many people were poor.

After we moved to Hong Kong in 1940, many people from the mainland were in Hong Kong. It was very difficult to get an education. My father wasn't earning enough money to support me to go to school. I tried to find time to study by myself, but I went to full-time work when I was 12 years old.

Later on, my father got tuberculosis. I realized that when you are less fortunate how much support you need. So when I started my own business in 1950, I tried to spend money to help the poor.

What are differences between philanthropy in China and in the West?

Mr. Li: Assets are passed from one generation to one generation in Asia, not only in China. So the culture is [very] different compared with the West. ... In China, the culture for a thousand years is generation to generation. I hope today, what I am doing...can be some influence to our Chinese [culture] that is very meaningful.

On the responsibility entrepreneurs have to society: In the U.S., philanthropic support from entrepreneurs is tightly integrated into the fabric of society, whether it's health care, medical research or education. Now, slowly, China will know this.

What are your plans for when you retire?

Mr. Li: One day if I were to slowly step down -- but not completely retire from the business -- I would not spend my time playing golf or going fishing. One hundred percent will go to this foundation. The foundation, day by day, is stronger and stronger.

What is your stance on funding controversial projects such as stem-cell research?

Mr. Li: If it is something that is right for human beings, then I don't care if other people [criticize]. You cannot please everyone in the world.

How do you respond to critism for putting your name on the Hong Kong University medical school?

Mr. Li: At one stage I was attacked by some media that I am in Hong Kong making profit but [my] donations all [go] to China.

Solina Chau, director of the Li Ka-shing Foundation: In this case, we were requested by Hong Kong University. They want to create more funding opportunities. And they wanted to use Mr. Li's name to kick-start a fund-raising program.

--Kate Linebaugh and Peter Stein

Starbucks Coffee Co. founder Howard Schultz lectured students on business ethics last year. Former CNN correspondent Peter Arnett has been teaching journalism since February. Three U.S. congressmen came through in April to discuss the U.S. political system. And a crew of former NBA stars was recently hired to help Shantou's basketball squad with their bounce passes.

Born in China in 1928, Mr. Li fled to Hong Kong with his family in 1940 after Japanese troops began bombing his village. In his teens, he lost his father to tuberculosis and had to drop out of school, which he never formally finished. From then, Mr. Li saved his paychecks from a Hong Kong watch factory and, in his early 20s, bought a plastics factory that became the largest supplier of plastic flowers in Asia. The father of two says he had enough money at 30 to last his entire life.

Now, as chairman of Hutchison Whampoa and Cheung Kong, he sits on top of a business empire that operates in 55 countries and employs 220,000 people working in retail, telecommunications and ports. His personal stake is valued at over $30 billion.

The university's main entrance

In Hong Kong, his rags-to-riches story has bred as much resentment as admiration. Many locals refer to the 5-foot 6-inch Mr. Li as "Superman" for his ability to time markets. His detractors resent the control his businesses have over the economy of the capitalist enclave, and at times have attacked his philanthropy.

In 2005, Mr. Li's foundation gave one billion Hong Kong dollars (about US$128 million) to the medical school of Hong Kong University, which renamed the school the Li Ka-shing Faculty of Medicine. That prompted street protests by some university graduates who said it amounted to Mr. Li buying the name of a storied institution. Mr. Li dismisses the accusations as "jealousy," and says his donations don't have any correlation to his business interests.

While Western philanthropists face increasing pressure to bring accountability and transparency to their work, Mr. Li's charitable deeds remain opaque. He won't provide any estimate of his net worth, or the exact amount he plans to give away. He says he is "70% of the way" toward donating a third of his fortune to the foundation, though he won't disclose how much that is.

Mr. Li is spry, sharp and very engaged in his work. He says he wakes around 5 a.m. and plays golf about four times a week. He wears an inexpensive Seiko wristwatch, which he sets 20 minutes fast.

His project at Shantou has grown from an empty field 20 years ago into a compact campus with a man-made lake, nine schools -- including one of China's best medical schools -- and a $20 million library that is under construction. For nearly two decades, Mr. Li passively funded the school, and left the curriculum in the hands of government bureaucrats. But several years ago, when the school's mission seemed adrift, Mr. Li assigned Solina Chau, his personal companion and the director of the Li Ka-shing Foundation, to take a more active role in the school's affairs.

Since then, Ms. Chau, who provides much of the strategic vision that drives Mr. Li's foundation, brought in a new cast of academics, administrators and scientists largely educated outside of China as part of an effort to turn a second-rate college in a depressed coastal town into one of China's top universities.

The changes haven't been easy. Even the smallest have involved negotiations with local officials, the local Communist Party and the university's state employees. The university, for example, was reluctant to keep the cafeteria open most of the day, as many Western universities do, to allow students more flexible schedules. At Chinese universities, cafeterias are open for only a brief window at lunch and dinner.

China's educational system has traditionally stressed rote memorization over critical thinking. But the educators at Shantou are trying to create a new educational paradigm for China that is more open to debate, discussion, creativity and freedom. "If you can't do it in a university, how can you do it in society?" says Gu Peihua, the university's vice president, who moved to Shantou from Calgary, Canada. "You're changing people's behavior."

CO2 emissions higher than projected

2007-10-24T13:10:00.000-07:00

CO2 emissions increasing faster than expected

Reference: 07/89

http://www.csiro.au/news/GlobalCarbonProject-PNAS.html

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels – the principal driver of climate change – have accelerated globally at a far greater rate than expected over recent years, according to a paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

22 May 2007

Background: Australia's CO₂ Emissions in the Global Context

The paper explains that the average growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions increased from 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s to a three per cent increase per year in the 2000s.

Lead author of the paper, Dr Mike Raupach from CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and the Global Carbon Project, says that nearly eight billion tonnes of carbon were emitted globally into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in 2005, compared with just six billion tonnes in 1995.

“A major driver of the accelerating growth rate in emissions is that, globally, we’re burning more carbon per dollar of wealth created,” Dr Raupach says. In the last few years, the global usage of fossil fuels has actually become less efficient. This adds to pressures from increasing population and wealth.”

“As countries undergo industrial development, they move through a period of intensive, and often inefficient, use of fossil fuel. Efficiencies improve along this development trajectory, but eventually tend to level off. Industrialised countries such as Australia and the US are at the levelling-off stage, while developing countries such as China are at the intensive-development stage. Both factors are decreasing the global efficiency of fossil fuel use.”

“Dr Raupach says that Australia, with 0.32 per cent of the global population, contributes 1.43 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.”

He says that China’s emissions per person are still below the global average. “On average, each person in Australia and the US now emits more than five tonnes of carbon per year, while in China the figure is only one tonne per year. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the US and Europe account for more than 50 per cent of the total, accumulated global emissions over two centuries, while China accounts for less than eight per cent. The 50 least developed countries have together contributed less than 0.5 per cent of global cumulative emissions over 200 years.”

Dr Raupach says that Australia, with 0.32 per cent of the global population, contributes 1.43 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.

He says recent efforts globally to reduce emissions have had little impact on emissions growth. “Recent emissions seem to be near the high end of the fossil fuel use scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Our results add to previous findings that carbon dioxide concentrations, global temperatures and sea level rise are all near the high end of IPCC projections.”

Dr Raupach led an international team of carbon-cycle experts, emissions experts and economists, brought together by the Global Carbon Project, to quantify global carbon emissions and their drivers.

“In addition to reinforcing the urgency of the need to reduce emissions, an important outcome of this work is to show that carbon emissions have history. We have to take both present and past emissions trajectories into account in negotiating global emissions reductions. To be effective, emissions reductions have to be both workable and equitable,” he says.

Read more media releases in our Media Centre.

Background: Australia's CO₂ emissions in the global context

Australia, with 0.32 per cent of the world population, contributes 1.43 per cent of CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels. In a global context, and particularly in comparison with other developed regions (the USA, European Union and Japan), these emissions rank as follows:

Australia's per capita emissions in 2004 were 4.5 times the global average, just below the value for the USA.
Australia's carbon intensity of energy (amount of carbon burned as fossil fuel per unit of energy) is 20 per cent higher than the world average, and 25 to 30 per cent higher than values for the USA, Europe and Japan. Therefore, the energy efficiency of fossil fuel use is significantly lower in Australia than in these other developed countries.
Australia's carbon intensity of GDP (amount of carbon burned as fossil fuel per dollar of wealth created) is 25 per cent higher than the world average. It is a little higher than the USA and nearly double that of Europe and Japan. Therefore, the overall carbon efficiency of the economy, per unit of fossil fuel used, is about half that for Europe and Japan.
Over the last 25 years, the average growth rate of Australian emissions was approximately twice the growth rate for world as a whole, twice the growth rate for the USA and Japan, and five times the growth rate for Europe.
The rate of improvement (decline) in the carbon intensity of GDP for Australia is lower than in the USA and Europe.

2007-10-21T06:35:00.000-07:00

Climate Change Blamed for Fading Foliage
Oct 21, 1:29 AM (ET)By DAVE GRAM

Tom Vogelmann, chairman of the plant biology department at the University of Vermont, stands in a maple tree in Burlington , Vt., Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2007. People around New England are asking what's up with the foliage. Hillsides usually riotous with red and orange in early October have shown those vibrant colors in spots, but less extensively than in the past. "It's nothing like it used to be" says Vogelmann. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot)
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071021/D8SDE8DO0.html

EAST MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - Every fall, Marilyn Krom tries to make a trip to Vermont to see its famously beautiful fall foliage. This year, she noticed something different about the autumn leaves.
"They're duller, not as sparkly, if you know what I mean," Krom, 62, a registered nurse from Eastford, Conn., said during a recent visit. "They're less vivid."
Other "leaf peepers" are noticing, too, and some believe climate change could be the reason.
Forested hillsides usually riotous with reds, oranges and yellows have shown their colors only grudgingly in recent years, with many trees going straight from the dull green of late summer to the rust-brown of late fall with barely a stop at a brighter hue.

"It's nothing like it used to be," said University of Vermont plant biologist Tom Vogelmann, a Vermont native.
He says autumn has become too warm to elicit New England's richest colors.
According to the National Weather Service, temperatures in Burlington have run above the 30-year averages in every September and October for the past four years, save for October 2004, when they were 0.2 degrees below average.
Warming climate affects trees in several ways.
Colors emerge on leaves in the fall, when the green chlorophyll that has dominated all spring and summer breaks down.

The process begins when shorter days signal leaves to form a layer at the base of their stems that cuts off the flow of water and nutrients. But in order to hasten the decline of chlorophyll, cold nights are needed.
In addition, warmer autumns and winters have been friendly to fungi that attack some trees, particularly the red and sugar maples that provide the most dazzling colors.
"The leaves fall off without ever becoming orange or yellow or red. They just go from green to brown," said Barry Rock, a forestry professor at the University of New Hampshire.
He says 2004 was "mediocre, 2005 was terrible, 2006 was pretty bad although it was spotty. This year, we're seeing that same spottiness."
"Leaf peeping" is big business in Vermont, with some 3.4 million visitors spending nearly $364 million in the fall of 2005, according to state estimates.

State tourism officials reject the notion that nature's palette is getting blander. Erica Housekeeper, spokeswoman for the state Department of Tourism and Marketing, said she had heard nothing but positive reports from foresters and visitors alike this year.
The problem is perception, Housekeeper says: Recollections of autumns past become tinged by nostalgia.
"Sometimes, we become our own worst critics," Housekeeper said.
People who rely on autumn tourism in New England are worried.
"I don't have a sense that the colors are off, but the timing is definitely off," said Scott Cowger, owner and innkeeper at the Maple Hill Farm Bed & Breakfast Inn at Hallowell, Maine.
"Some trees are just starting to change now," Cowger said Thursday. "It used to be, religiously, it was the second week of October when they were at their peak. I would tell my guests to come the second week if you want to see the peak colors. But it's definitely the third or fourth week at this point."
People in Northampton, Mass., are still waiting on fall color. If foliage-viewing is the goal, "I wouldn't send anybody down this way yet," Autumn Inn desk clerk Mary Pelis said this past week.
"The way things are going, the foliage season is the one sure thing for us," said Amie Emmons, innkeeper at the West Mountain Inn, in Arlington, Vt. "We book out two years in advance. It's very concerning if you think the business could start to be affected."

Severe drought in Georgia

2007-10-21T06:24:00.000-07:00

Georgia Seeks Water Disaster Declaration
Oct 20, 11:34 AM (ET)By GREG BLUESTEIN

(AP) Map shows drought conditions in U.S.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071020/D8SD21380.html

CUMMING, Ga. (AP) - With water supplies rapidly shrinking during a drought of historic proportions, Gov. Sonny Perdue declared a state of emergency Saturday for the northern third of Georgia and asked President Bush to declare it a major disaster area.
Georgia officials warn that Lake Lanier, a 38,000-acre reservoir that supplies more than 3 million residents with water, is less than three months from depletion. Smaller reservoirs are dropping even lower.
Perdue asked the president to exempt Georgia from complying with federal regulations that dictate the amount of water released from Georgia's reservoirs to protect federally protected mussel species downstream.
"We need to cut through the tangle of unnecessary bureaucracy to manage our resources prudently - so that in the long term, all species may have access to life-sustaining water," he said.
On Friday, Perdue's office asked a federal judge to force the Army Corps of Engineers to curb the amount of water it drains from Georgia reservoirs into streams in Alabama and Florida. Georgia's environmental protection director is drafting proposals for more water restrictions.
More than a quarter of the Southeast is covered by an "exceptional" drought - the National Weather Service's worst drought category. The Atlanta area, with a population of 5 million, is smack in the middle of the affected region, which encompasses most of Tennessee, Alabama and the northern half of Georgia, as well as parts of North and South Carolina, Kentucky and Virginia.
Georgia was placed under statewide water restrictions in April that limited outdoor watering to three days a week. By May Atlanta allowed watering only on weekends, and in September environmental officials banned virtually all outdoor watering through the northern half of the state.
The state of emergency Perdue declared Saturday affects 85 Georgia counties, roughly the northern third of the state.
Conditions were worsened by stifling summer heat and a drier-than-normal hurricane season. State climatologist David Stooksbury said it will take months of above average rainfall to replenish the system.

Acid Oceans

2007-10-20T22:51:00.000-07:00

Acid Oceans From Carbon Dioxide Will Endanger One Third Of Marine Life, Scientists Predict

Acidity from the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dissolving into the oceans. Scientists fear it could be lethal for animals with chalky skeletons -- like the ones that make up coral reefs, such as Australia's Great Barrier Reef. (Credit: iStockphoto)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017102133.htm

ScienceDaily (Oct. 19, 2007) — The world’s oceans are becoming more acid, with potentially devastating consequences for corals and the marine organisms that build reefs and provide much of the Earth’s breathable oxygen.
The acidity is caused by the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, dissolving into the oceans. Scientists fear it could be lethal for animals with chalky skeletons which make up more than a third of the planet’s marine life.
“Recent research into corals using boron isotopes indicates the ocean has become about one third of a pH unit more acid over the past fifty years. This is still early days for the research, and the trend is not uniform, but it certainly looks as if marine acidity is building up,” says Professor Malcolm McCulloch of CoECRS and the Australian National University.
“It appears this acidification is now taking place over decades, rather than centuries as originally predicted. It is happening even faster in the cooler waters of the Southern Ocean than in the tropics. It is starting to look like a very serious issue.”
Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify).
“Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification over the last 20 years,” says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of Queensland. “There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it dissolves into the oceans.
“When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.” (Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently 385 ppm, up from 305 in 1960.)
“It isn’t just the coral reefs which are affected – a large part of the plankton in the Southern Ocean, the coccolithophorids, are also affected. These drive ocean productivity and are the base of the food web which supports krill, whales, tuna and our fisheries. They also play a vital role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which could break down.”
Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said an experiment at Heron Island, in which CO2 levels were increased in the air of tanks containing corals, had showed it caused some corals to cease forming skeletons. More alarmingly, red calcareous algae – the ‘glue’ that holds the edges of coral reefs together in turbulent water – actually began to dissolve. “The risk is that this may begin to erode the Barrier of the Great Barrier Reef at a grand scale,” he says.
“As an issue it’s a bit of a sleeper. Global warming is incredibly serious, but ocean acidification could be even more so.”
Acid oceans will be among the issues explored by Australia’s leading coral scientists at a national public forum at the Shine Dome in Canberra, Australia, October 18. The Coral Reef Futures 07 Forum is on October 18-19, 2007 and is hosted by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS).
Australia’s coral reefs, particularly the Great Barrier Reef, Ningaloo Reef, and Lord Howe Island World Heritage Area, are national icons, of great economic, social, and aesthetic value. Tourism on the Great Barrier Reef alone contributes approximately $5 billion annually to the nation’s economy. Income from recreational and commercial fishing on Australia’s tropical reefs contributes a further $400 million annually. Consequently, science-based management of coral reefs is a national priority.
Globally, the welfare of 500 million people is closely linked to the goods and services provided by coral reef biodiversity. Uniquely among tropical and sub-tropical nations, Australia has extensive coral reefs, a small population of relatively wealthy and well-educated citizens, and well developed infrastructure. Coral reef research is one area where Australia has the capability, indeed the obligation, to claim world-leadership.
Adapted from materials provided by ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies.