Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Can we fight terrorism by reducing CO2 emissions?
David Adam, Guardian
…Today the Met office will announce a new programme of research funded by the Ministry of Defence. The scientists will trawl their computer models of future climate for likely trouble spots where fights over increasingly scarce food and water could break out. The British officials are not the first to tie the effects of global warming to a worsening security situation: a succession of reports and high profile figures have warned over the last eighteen months that a warmer world could overheat.
Among those was Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of the defence staff. In an unreported speech at Chatam House this June, Sir Jock made an extraordinary claim: that climate change could increase the terrorist threat.
Here is what he said:
9/11, while by no means the start of international terrorism, illustrated as perhaps nothing else had done, the threat that it could pose to our societies and it’s already clear that political, social and economic factors play a large part in rendering people more susceptible to those movements that rely so much on terrorism as a tool.
Now add in the effects of climate change. Poverty and despair multiply; resentment surges and people look for someone to blame. As long ago as 2002, Osama Bin Laden said about America ‘You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases, more than any other nation in its history. Despite this you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries’.
Now imagine that you are reading this as a young man living in a refugee camp because your home and livelihood have vanished after flooding, which was blamed on the rising sea level. I’m sure you get the point.
(11 September 2007)
Climate Change’s Great Divide
Lawmakers Favor Carbon Caps, Trading; Economists Prefer a Tax
Deborah Solomon, Wall Street Journal
The biggest political battle in Washington over climate change may not pit Democrats against Republicans. Instead, it could be economists versus politicians.
Many academics, even conservatives, favor a tax on carbon emissions. Many lawmakers, including some liberals, fear a political backlash against new fees. They lean toward a cap-and-trade system, which would set a limit on carbon-dioxide emissions and require companies to obtain permits to release carbon dioxide into the air.
There may not be much practical difference between the two approaches. Caps would likely function much like a tax, levying new costs on business that would ultimately be passed on to consumers.
Still, both sides say important principles are at stake. A cap-and-trade system, say its critics, could reward big polluters if it bases its allotment of permits on how much industries emit now. It also could spark a lobbying frenzy as industries fight to turn the system to their advantage. Defenders of cap and trade say it will provide a better incentive to cut emissions because companies can sell excess permits. They call a tax heavy-handed.
(12 September 2007)
A failure to equip: Federal officials get no guidance on climate change
Editorial, Register-Guard (Eugene, Oregon)
In recent years the Bush administration has been forced, ever so grudgingly, to acknowledge the reality of global warming. But it has failed to provide federal officials overseeing the nation’s forests, parks, marine sanctuaries and monuments with guidance on how to respond to the profound changes resulting from climate change.
A new report by the Government Accountability Office says federal agencies ranging from the U.S. Forest Service to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have received scant direction on how to respond to the effects of climate change.
Make no mistake – it’s climate change, not “land management techniques” or other factors, that appears to be the primary cause of earlier snow melts, extended droughts, intensifying wildfires, disappearing coral reefs and a host of other changes, investigators conclude.
The report says Interior Department officials, in particular, have failed to make climate change a high priority, despite a 2001 order from outgoing Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit to include climate change in land management planning. “Without such guidance, their ability to address climate change and effectively manage resources is constrained,” the report said.
(10 September 2007)
Economist Cline says developing nations to suffer most from warming’s effects (Video, transcript)
OnPoint, E&E TV
According to a new study released by the Center for Global Development and the Peterson Institute, world agriculture will face serious decline due to global warming if global emissions are not reduced soon.
During today’s OnPoint, William Cline, the author of the study, “Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country,” explains why he believes agriculture in developing nations will suffer the greatest effects due to global warming.
Cline makes international policy recommendations and also explains why he chose to make country-by-country projections in this analysis.
(12 September 2007)
CAP panel analyzes link between powerful storms, human-caused global warming (Video and transcript)
E&E TV
On the heels of the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, questions remain over how much of an effect global warming is having on hurricane intensity and what role human activity has had on the strength of storms.
During today’s E&ETV Event Coverage, a panel of climate experts discuss the effect of global warming on storm severity.
Panelists at this Center for American Progress event include, Mayor Richard Crotty (R) of Orange County, Fla.; Peter Webster, professor in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology; John Copenhaver, president and CEO of DRI International; and Jane Bullock, former chief of staff for Federal Emergency Management Agency Director James Lee Witt.
(11 September 2007)
