95 per cent chance that Man is to blame for global warming, say scientists

Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Times Online

The evidence that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, according to a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.

The “fingerprints” of human influence on the climate can be detected not only in rising temperatures but also in the saltiness of the oceans, rising humidity, changes in rainfall and the shrinking of Arctic Sea ice at the rate of 600,000 sq km a decade.

The study, by senior scientists from the Met Office Hadley Centre, Edinburgh University, Melbourne University and Victoria University in Canada, concluded that there was an “increasingly remote possibility” that the sceptics were right that human activities were having no discernible impact. There was a less than 5 per cent likelihood that natural variations in climate were responsible for the changes.

The study said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had understated mankind’s overall contribution to climate change. The IPCC had said in 2007 that there was no evidence of warming in the Antarctic. However, the panel said that the latest observations showed that man-made emissions were having an impact on even the remotest continent.

The panel assessed more than 100 recent peer-reviewed scientific papers and found that the overwhelming majority had detected clear evidence of human influence on the climate.

Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office, who led the study, said: “This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors.”

However, a section of the study that said changes in hurricane activity were poorly understood is likely to be seized on by sceptics, who argue that disasters such as Hurricane Katrina have been falsely blamed on man-made global warming. Publication of the research in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change comes as two inquiries are being held into accusations, based on leaked e-mails, that scientists at the University of East Anglia manipulated and suppressed climate data.

The study found that since 1980, the average global temperature had increased by about 0.5C and that the Earth was continuing to warm at the rate of about 0.16C a decade. This trend is reflected in measurements from the oceans. Warmer temperatures had led to more evaporation from the surface, most noticeably in the sub-tropical Atlantic, said Dr Stott. As a result, the sea was getting saltier. Evaporation in turn affected humidity and rainfall. The atmosphere was getting more humid, as climate models had predicted, and amplifying the water cycle. This meant that more rain was falling in high and low latitudes and less in tropical and sub-tropical regions.

Income gap widens between Canada's rich and poor, OECD study says

TORONTO — The gap between the rich and poor in Canada widened significantly in a recent 10-year period partly because Ottawa spent less on cash benefits than many other developed countries, the OECD says.

It was a reversal of the trend in the two previous decades when the gap was narrowing, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development said in a report.

The report said both Canada's poverty and income inequality rates spiked between 1995 and 2005 until they both exceeded the 30-member organization's average.

The organization said Canada experienced an especially rapid increase in both numbers; only Germany's gap widened at a comparable rate.

The study, released Tuesday, found Canada's well-to-do enjoyed a more substantial income than their counterparts in other developed countries. The report said Canadians in the top 10 per cent income bracket were earning an average of $71,000, more than 30 per cent higher than the OECD average of $54,000.

While the average incomes for Canada's middle and lower classes also exceeded the OECD average, the margin was less pronounced at 18 per cent.

The OECD attributed the widening gap in part to the Canadian government's spending policies.

"Canada spends less on cash benefits such as unemployment benefits and family benefits than most OECD countries," the report said. "Partly as a result, taxes and transfers do not reduce inequality by as much as in many other countries. Furthermore, their effect on inequality has been declining over time."

The OECD said the rate of people living in poverty, or earning less than half the organization's average income, rose to 12 per cent during the study period, an increase of up to three percentage points. While the report found only six per cent of seniors were impoverished, it said 15 per cent of Canada's children were living below the poverty line.

But the study praised opportunities for social mobility in Canada, saying children of poor families stood a better chance of improving their circumstances over time.

OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria urged all governments to address the "divisive" issue of growing inequality, adding that efforts to educate the country's entire workforce rather than the elite were necessary to level the playing field for future generations.

"Greater income inequality stifles upward mobility between generations, making it harder for talented and hard-working people to get the rewards they deserve," he said in a statement.

"It polarizes societies, it divides regions within countries, and it carves up the world between rich and poor."

The Paris-based OECD is a group of 30 mostly developed countries that aims to promote economic growth and help governments fight poverty.

Cosmo 1996 - 2007

"Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in"
- Mark Twain

Rest in peace, buddy. You deserved it.

We miss you terribly.

Former U.S. ambassador pushes new look at water exports

Mike De Souza, CanWest News Service

Published: Monday, September 18, 2006

OTTAWA - A former American ambassador is pushing for a fresh debate on bulk water exports from Canada to quench the growing thirst of the U.S. south and midwest.

Paul Cellucci, who was replaced by David Wilkins after stepping down as U.S. ambassador to Canada in March 2005, is suggesting water should be included in the same category as other natural resources exported as Canadian commodities on the open market.

''It wasn't an issue when I was ambassador, but it was one that I always found puzzling that it was completely off the table,'' said Cellucci, reached by phone in Hudson, Mass.

He argued water is a renewable resource, as opposed to such non-renewable Canadian exports as oil, natural gas, uranium and coal, adding that the two countries will eventually be forced to confront the issue.

But a citizens organization that has fought for more protectionist measures for Canada in free trade agreements warns American officials are quietly laying the groundwork for bulk exports that could deprive Canadians of their own resources.

''We live next to a super power,'' said Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians. ''The super power is getting mighty thirsty.''

At present, Canadian provinces allow water to be exported in bottles, while there is a ban on bulk exports on boundary waters that are shared with the United States. However, Barlow said Canada would lose control over the resource under the North American Free Trade Agreement, if any province or territory opens to the door to sales of bulk water exports to regions that are starting to face record droughts in the U.S.

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government developing a new national water strategy, Barlow stressed she wasn't suggesting that Canada close the door to sharing its resources with countries in need.

''That's different from making another country a permanent client, especially a country like the U.S., where the water would go to Las Vegas, it wouldn't be going to the poor in downtown Detroit,'' she said. ''The whole nature of commercial water is that it's like running shoes. You're putting it on the open market and you're selling it to the highest bidder. This would be a terrible thing for us to do in a world that's running out of clean water.''

But Cellucci said it is also an important economic issue since the Canadian and U.S. markets are ''inextricably connected.'' For example, he said a severe drought in southern American states would have a significant impact on the Canadian economy.

But some experts say it's unlikely that the U.S. would bully Canada into exporting its water, since that could also affect the ecosystems and resources of northern states.

''There are going to be environmental impacts on both sides of the border if we start mega scale diversions,'' said Dr. Joseph Rasmussen, the Canada research chair in aquatic ecosystems at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta. ''They don't want those impacts any more than we do.''

Rasmussen added there were greater threats to Canada's water supply than bulk exports.

'Right now, I'd say by far and away, the biggest water export is through food,'' he said. ''For every pound of grain, you're using about 25 pounds of water. And so whenever we export food across the border, we're exporting water in a major way.''

Gretchen Hamel, a spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said the issue of bulk water exports is brought up every few years, but there are currently no negotiations or proposals on the table.

According to federal government estimates, Canada has the third largest supply of fresh water on its territory behind Brazil and Russia.

Oil Development = Frightening

Thought this was interesting reading. I knew about the environmental fallout from the oilsands, but if the following is accurate, it is much, much worse that I thought.

Alberta's oilsands pose global environmental threat

Paul Hanley, Special to The StarPhoenix
Published: Tuesday, August 08, 2006

"There should be an immediate moratorium on new oilsands developments in Alberta." This is the opinion, not only of environmentalists, but also of Peter Lougheed, the former premier of Alberta who was instrumental in starting Alberta's oilsands development back in the 1970s.

Basically, Lougheed sees development proceeding out of control, without a full debate on the implications by Albertans. He points out that oilsands development depletes a relatively clean energy source, natural gas, to produce relatively dirty synthetic oil. The natural gas would be better used in an Alberta-based petro-chemicals industry.

Lougheed further notes the royalties to Albertans from oilsands are minimal.

Alberta's oilsands are an environmental catastrophe in the making, with frightening implications for Alberta, Saskatchewan and the world. One concern for Saskatchewan is the acid rain produced in northeast Alberta, which is mainly deposited in this province due to prevailing winds. Although efforts are being made to reduce acid emissions, massive growth in the industry will eclipse these improvements.

The scope of potential developments in Alberta is breathtaking. The area of oilsands mines developed so far -- 300 square kilometres -- can already be seen from space, but this is just 10 per cent of the total area currently leased.

Toxic tailings ponds in the mining areas are already 50 sq. km in size.

Even more of a concern is the total area available for deep oilsands extraction, an area the size of Florida (138,000 sq. km). To give you a sense of the potential scope of the development, if all oilsands deposits are leased, the area would constitute about 21 per cent of the province. The area of deep oilsands already leased is 35,680 sq. km, an area the size of Vancouver Island.

Deep oilsands are not developed as open pit mines. They are drilled and the drilling requires a web of roads and clearings for oil wells that would essentially destroy the integrity of Alberta's boreal forest ecosystem. The amount of boreal forest cleared if all deep oilsands are developed would be 11,454 sq. km, but the remainder of the forest would be cut into small blocks by 441,600 km of roads, pipelines and power lines.

Oil production from the area is now about 1.1 million barrels a day and the region is expected to produce fi ve million or more barrels per day by 2030.

The increasing activity is having a wide range of environmental impact.

In addition to direct ecological damage, the extraction process uses enormous energy and water inputs and produces equally enormous amounts of greenhouse gases, acid rain and water pollution. It takes 3.6 tonnes of oilsands, enough natural gas to heat a home for four days, and two to four barrels of water to produce each barrel of oil.

The frantic pace of development is overheating Alberta's economy, causing material, labour and housing costs to skyrocket, with substantial spillover effect on Saskatchewan. It is amazing that Alberta gains very little to compensate for the negative impacts, with just one per cent royalties charged on oilsands production until development costs are paid off. In contrast to other oil-producing jurisdictions such as Alaska and Norway, very little of the revenue from this non-renewable resource is being set aside as a permanent trust for the future.

With even venerable Conservatives like Peter Lougheed questioning the wisdom of development, you might think the Alberta government would be thinking twice. They aren't; the addiction to oil and automobiles is too strong.

Lougheed's call for a slower, saner development pace and alternative, value-added development of fossil fuel resources will not be considered so long as the demand for transportation fuel remains so strong. The solution involves a wholesale change to our transportation system, including redesigning cities to reduce transportation needs, improving the effi ciency of the vehicle fl eet, supporting public transit, and the development of alternative and renewable fuels.

Without this change, look for the oil lust to drain every remaining source of oil in every possible location on the planet, without regard for the environmental and social consequences.

For more information on this topic visit www.oilsandswatch.org.