Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (95648)	1/16/2007 1:14:48 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 361359

Chris Hedges: War of Shadows truthdig.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (95648)	1/16/2007 1:58:45 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361359

Al Gore Says U.S. States May Force Change in Climate Policy By Kiyori Ueno Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said many businesses and state governments ``embrace'' the aims of the Kyoto Protocol, which may force President George W. Bush to alter his opposition to the effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions. ``Even though the national policy in the U.S. has not yet changed, many state governments have now embraced the goals of the Kyoto Protocol,'' Gore said at a speech to Japanese business leaders in Tokyo today. ``One remaining step to change U.S. policy, and in the process, change the posture of the world, is solidifying this change in the U.S. business community.'' Gore is visiting Japan to promote his film ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' a documentary on global warming that calls for action to reduce carbon dioxide output. The film had the third-highest gross sales on record for a documentary in the U.S. More than 200 cities in the U.S., including New York City and Los Angeles, ``adopt'' the Kyoto Protocol in their own efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to his book, which has the same title as the film. ``Many U.S. business leaders remember all too well what happened to the Japanese miracle when you embraced the efficiency revolution before they did,'' he said, adding that revolution in efficiency is needed to solve the climate crisis. Gore, who was the vice president of the U.S. from 1993 to 2001, helped negotiate the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 that aims to restrict carbon emissions from cars, power plants and other sources. Political Change In 2005, the European Union started a compulsory carbon- dioxide emissions trading system, the world's largest, to meet targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Bush said in 2001 he wouldn't adhere to a campaign pledge to regulate greenhouse gases and withdrew the U.S. from the treaty, citing its cost to the economy. Gore said U.S. elections in November that put Democrats back in control of Congress and the Senate is a sign voters want widespread change. ``The elections in November, although attributable to many different causes, nevertheless represent a sign of change in approach endorsed by American people.'' ``And the same kind of change is now beginning to be expressed where climate crisis is concerned.'' U.S. Senators Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent, and John McCain, an Arizona Republican and potential presidential candidate, yesterday introduced climate legislation that calls for a national cap on the pollution that many scientists say is leading to higher temperatures and extreme weather events worldwide. Running? Environmentalists and scientists including James Hansen, the government's top climate researcher, say action must be taken before climate change causes irreversible damage to ecosystems and economies around the globe. The success of Gore's film has put him back in the public spotlight and raised speculation he may run in the next presidential election in 2008. Gore has said he hasn't ruled out making another run for president, but he doesn't ``expect'' to launch a campaign. He made the comments during a visit to Australia in September, where he was promoting his film. Gore and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York are statistically tied with Republicans Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, and McCain in a new poll by CNN last month on the 2008 presidential race. To contact the reporter on this story: Kiyori Ueno in Tokyo at kueno2@bloomberg.net ; Last Updated: January 15, 2007 02:53 EST

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (95648)	1/16/2007 10:17:11 AM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361359

That's very gymnastic of your bodies of water.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (95648)	1/16/2007 2:10:10 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361359

When Being Green Raises the Heat by Ken Caldeira Carbon dioxide is heating up the Earth. Ice caps are melting, ocean levels are rising, hurricanes are intensifying, tropical diseases are spreading and the threat of droughts, floods and famines looms large. Can planting a tree help stop all this from happening? To some, it’s a no-brainer: We add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every time we use energy from coal, oil or gas; but each tree can remove more than a ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over its lifetime. Based on this logic, it might seem a good idea to go out and plant a tree to slow global heating. And if you don’t have the time, projects have sprung up throughout the world claiming to help cool the earth, ready to accept your money and plant a tree in your name. The computer company Dell will now donate $2 from every laptop sale to planting trees in an effort to offset the carbon dioxide emissions that result from powering their computers. For a 2 percent to 4 percent surcharge on bills, Pacific Gas and Electric will offer to offset its customers’ carbon emissions by helping to preserve California’s carbon-storing forests. While preserving and restoring forests is unquestionably good for the natural environment, new scientific studies are concluding that preservation and restoration of forests outside the tropics will do little or nothing to help slow climate change. And some projects intended to slow the heating of the planet may be accelerating it instead. Trees don’t just absorb carbon dioxide — they soak up the sun’s heating rays, too. Forests tend to be darker than farms and pastures and therefore tend to absorb more sunlight. This has a warming influence that appears to cancel, on average, the cooling influence of the forest’s carbon storage. This effect is most pronounced in snowy areas — snow on bare ground reflects far more sunlight back to space than does a snowed-in forest — so forests in areas with seasonal snow cover can be strongly warming. In contrast, tropical forests appear to be doubly valuable to the earth’s climate system. Not only do they store copious amounts of carbon, the roots of tropical trees reach down deep, drawing up water that they evaporate through their leaves. In the atmosphere, this water may form clouds that reflect sunlight back to space, helping to cool the earth. These findings have important policy implications. It has been suggested that agreements to limit climate change should consider carbon stored in forests. If so, they would need to consider the direct climate effects of forests so as to avoid perverse incentives to plant warming forests in places like the United States, Canada, Europe and the former Soviet Union. However, tropical forests, which are generally found in developing countries, may be due a double climate credit — one for their carbon storage and another for their cooling clouds. What does this mean for local reforestation efforts? Consider Pacific Gas and Electric’s surcharge plan. While the carbon soaked up by California’s forests reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations everywhere, cooling Crete, Cancún and Calcutta, the sunlight they absorb warms the state and the surrounding region. So, it might even cool us if we were to cut down those dark forests. Lumber interests might look gleefully upon the prospect. Clear-cutting mountains to slow climate change is, of course, nuts. The broadest goal is neither to slow the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere nor to slow climate change, but rather to preserve the irreplaceable natural balance that sustains life as we know it on this planet. We want to avoid climate change so that we might pass these diverse natural riches on to future generations. In this light, preserving and restoring forests is a valuable activity, regardless of its impact on climate — we need more trees, not fewer. But the notion that we can save the planet just by planting trees is a dangerous illusion. To preserve our environment, we must drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and this will require a major transformation of our energy system. A primary goal for the next half-century should be to transform our energy system to one based on clean, safe and environmentally acceptable energy sources like wind, solar and perhaps nuclear. This means solving the real problems involved with storing and distributing power, providing energy for transportation, and using nuclear plants. We cannot afford to indulge ourselves with well-intentioned activities that do little to solve the underlying problem. Instead, we must demand that our political leaders do more to revolutionize our energy system and preserve our environmental inheritance for future generations. And then we can plant a tree. Published on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 by the New York Times