Prophesies

[cowboyangel]

Warriors of the Rainbow
There was an old lady, from the "Cree" tribe, named "Eyes of Fire", who prophesied that one day, because of the white mans' or Yo-ne-gis' greed, there would come a time, when the fish would die in the streams, the birds would fall from the air, the waters would be blackened, and the trees would no longer be, mankind as we would know it would all but cease to exist.

There would come a time when the "keepers of the legend, stories, culture rituals, and myths, and all the Ancient Tribal Customs" would be needed to restore us to health. They would be mankinds’ key to survival, they were the "Warriors of the Rainbow". There would come a day of awakening when all the peoples of all the tribes would form a New World of Justice, Peace, Freedom and recognition of the Great Spirit.

The "Warriors of the Rainbow" would spread these messages and teach all peoples of the Earth or "Elohi". They would teach them how to live the "Way of the Great Spirit". They would tell them of how the world today has turned away from the Great Spirit and that is why our Earth is "Sick".

The "Warriors of the Rainbow" would show the peoples that this "Ancient Being" (the Great Spirit), is full of love and understanding, and teach them how to make the "Earth or Elohi" beautiful again. These Warriors would give the people principles or rules to follow to make their path right with the world. These principles would be those of the Ancient Tribes. The Warriors of the Rainbow would teach the people of the ancient practices of Unity, Love and Understanding. They would teach of Harmony among people in all four comers of the Earth.

Like the Ancient Tribes, they would teach the peoples how to pray to the Great Spirit with love that flows like the beautiful mountain stream, and flows along the path to the ocean of life. Once again, they would be able to feel joy in solitude and in councils. They would be free of petty jealousies and love all mankind as their brothers, regardless of color, race or religion. They would feel happiness enter their hearts, and become as one with the entire human race. Their hearts would be pure and radiate warmth, understanding and respect for all mankind, Nature, and the Great Spirit. They would once again fill their minds, hearts, souls, and deeds with the purest of thoughts. They would seek the beauty of the Master of Life - the Great Spirit! They would find strength and beauty in prayer and the solitudes of life.

Their children would once again be able to run free and enjoy the treasures of Nature and Mother Earth. Free from the fears of toxins and destruction, wrought by the Yo-ne-gi and his practices of greed. The rivers would again run clear, the forests be abundant and beautiful, the animals and birds would be replenished. The powers of the plants and animals would again be respected and conservation of all that is beautiful would become a way of life.

The poor, sick and needy would be cared for by their brothers and sisters of the Earth. These practices would again become a part of their daily lives.

The leaders of the people would be chosen in the old way - not by their political party, or who could speak the loudest, boast the most, or by name calling or mud slinging, but by those whose actions spoke the loudest. Those who demonstrated their love, wisdom, and courage and those who showed that they could and did work for the good of all, would be chosen as the leaders or Chiefs. They would be chosen by their "quality" and not the amount of money they had obtained. Like the thoughtful and devoted "Ancient Chiefs", they would understand the people with love, and see that their young were educated with the love and wisdom of their surroundings. They would show them that miracles can be accomplished to heal this world of its ills, and restore it to health and beauty.

The tasks of these "Warriors of the Rainbow" are many and great. There will be terrifying mountains of ignorance to conquer and they shall find prejudice and hatred. They must be dedicated, unwavering in their strength, and strong of heart. They will find willing hearts and minds that will follow them on this road of returning "Mother Earth" to beauty and plenty - once more.

The day will come, it is not far away. The day that we shall see how we owe our very existence to the people of all tribes that have maintained their culture and heritage. Those that have kept the rituals, stories, legends, and myths alive. It will be with this knowledge, the knowledge that they have preserved, that we shall once again return to "harmony" with Nature, Mother Earth, and mankind. It will be with this knowledge that we shall find our "Key to our Survival".

This is the story of the "Warriors of the Rainbow" and this is my reason for protecting the culture, heritage, and knowledge of my ancestors. I know that the day "Eyes of Fire" spoke of - will come! I want my children and grandchildren to be prepared to accept this task.The task of being one of the........"Warriors of the Rainbow".

[geekster]

Lets see ...

These days many species are on the rebound in the US, the water is cleaner, wetlands and grasslands are being restored. The general state of the environment is much better these days than when I was a kid in the late 60's.

In 1969 you could smell Pittsburgh about 60 miles before you got there if the wind was right. The air in Los Angeles at that time would be considered poisonous by today's standards. Chesapeake Bay was covered with a brownish foam with dead fish floating in it and pelicans and eagles were dying because the shells of their eggs were so thin they would break before the young could hatch.

The environment in North America is has improved drastically over the past 40 years. Where attention needs to be focused, I think, are the places where current world enviornmental policy explicitly exempts. China and India in particular. Both are exempt from Keyoto, for example. Within ten years it is possible that China will have more automobies than the rest of the world combined.

Brazil is building huge steel mills, building roads and opening new mines in the wilderness to support Chinese economic growth. There isn't a single thing any Rainbow Warrior is going to do about it either. You can sit here in the US and protest your ass off and China or Brazil won't change their plans one iota.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, it is all about blaiming the US for all the ills of the planet.

[cowboyangel]

blame the US for all the planet's ills? well, who's saying that? Can you explain why the world's greatest consumer of resources is the only nation to fail to sign the Kyoto Accords? Argue with the Cree Lady "Fire Eyes" if you got a bone to pick. It's her prophesy.

[geekster]

Oh, I wanted to mention that the real point to all that above is that the US is going to become an increasingly insignificant player in world development over the next century. We are going to go from a period of being the dominant economy to a peer of 4 or possibly 5. The EU, India, China, the US/Canada/Mexico, and possibly a Brazil-Argentina-Venezuela sphere of influence.

What we do or don't do is going to matter much less in the big picture going forward than it did in the past.

[Simply Joel]

Oh, yeah, I forgot, it "CowboyAngel's endless rants on the environment" is all about blaming the US for all the ills of the planet.

I believe you have broken the code my dear fellow.


Did someone say witch?

[cowboyangel]

yeah sure, tell that to the folks who monitor DU weapons residue in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and where we wonder next.

[geekster]

blame the US for all the planet's ills? well, who's saying that? Can you explain why the world's greatest consumer of resources is the only nation to fail to sign the Kyoto Accords? Argue with the Cree Lady "Fire Eyes" if you got a bone to pick. It's her prophesy.

Because the Clinton Administration saw them for what they are, stupid. They would effectively put a huge tax on the US in the form of drag on its economic growth while completely exempting China and India. Sure, everyone ELSE in the world wants us to sign it ... because it is basically the US Penalty Accord.

By the way, we DO operate within the Kyoto PROCESS though we have not signed the accord.

[cowboyangel]

Oh, yeah, I forgot, it "CowboyAngel's endless rants on the environment" is all about blaming the US for all the ills of the planet.

I believe you have broken the code my dear fellow.


Did someone say witch?

where did that come from.? This is about science in the final analysis. What can be measured. The US is the only hold-out nation when it comes to acknowledging the truth about global warming. Come on, take the conservative blinders off.

[cowboyangel]

why don't both of you take on "Eyes of Fire"...I'd love to she what she'd have to say to the both of you.

[geekster]

We can not sign that accord without a huge nuclear electrification program like Japan, the EU, and the former Soviet states have. Germany buys their power their power from France and Eastern Europe.

Oh, and while you will see data showing greenhouse gas reductions in China in the mid/late 1990's, you will also have to note that the reduction corresponds to a severe Asian economic downturn.

China may right now be the world's largest producer of greenhouse gasses and is COMPLETELY exempt. Here is a report from 2003 citing 2002 greenhouse emissions from China published by the United Nations:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions On Steep Increase In China

Thursday, October 23, 2003


China's rapid economic growth has led to a steep boost in the production and consumption of coal and increased the demand for cars, causing a surge in emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, the New York Times reported yesterday.

According to the report, Chinese government agencies have confirmed that coal consumption jumped 7.6 percent last year, making China the world's largest coal consumer. Officials predict that a similar increase in consumption is likely to happen this year as well.

China is the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, after the United States. Coal burning releases more gases than using oil or natural gas to produce the same amount of energy, the Times says, adding that the International Energy Agency estimates that the increase of gas emissions in China from 2000 to 2030 will almost equal the increase from all industrialized countries.

Demand for new cars has also increased drastically in China. The country is expected to account for 18 percent of world growth in car sales from 2002 to 2012.

As a developing country, China does not have to meet any targets set by the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for industrialized countries to reduce their emissions by 2012. However, the Times says, some climate experts have been saying that gas emissions from developing countries should be addressed during a new round of talks on the protocol, to start in 2005. But developing countries are likely to oppose any proposals to cut their gas emissions to the same levels of industrialized countries.

New economic policies, including those on energy, are being drawn up by the Chinese government and are expected to be released shortly, the Times says (Keith Bradsher, New York Times/International Herald Tribune, Oct. 22).

[Simply Joel]

blame the US for all the planet's ills? well, who's saying that?

having read the majority of the drivel you have posted CA, you in fact tend to shed light on the USA's policies, more specifically, the current administration's policies... and evidenced by your next rhetorical question.

Can you explain why the world's greatest consumer of resources is the only nation to fail to sign the Kyoto Accords?

having been through this exercise with you, CA, any number of time, I believe I know you wouldn't agree with any explanantion of the non-signing of the Kyoto Accords, so I simply won't bother.

Argue with the Cree Lady "Fire Eyes" if you got a bone to pick. It's her prophesy.

CA, if you had made who the author of your post was... "give credit where credit is due" you wouldn't have to make the above statement, a few posts too late.

and the above observations are why your arguments hold very little credibility with me.

it isn't what you are saying, it is the manner by which you say it that undercuts whatever you are saying.

grow the fuck up.

[geekster]

And another thing ..

China is attempting to export their greenhouse gas emissions by exporting many of their most polluting industry to other developing and also exempt countries. Chinese companies in the process of building a series of six steel mills on the coast of Brazil and paying for the building of roads into the wilderness mining areas to get the ore and coal to the mills. They are doing the same thing in Argentina ... financing the construction of road networks between mineral rich mountainous areas to the coastal ports.

That China, the fastest growing economy on the planet, is exempt makes the agreement obsolete before it got started.

[geekster]

I suggest you and your warriors stage an environmental protest in China if you are really interested in the global environment. I think there was a protest there once. US policy isn't going to amount to a pinch of owl shit in the destruction of Amazon rainforest to fuel China's economic growth.

[geekster]

And one LAST thing ...

We have pledged to try to abide by the greenhouse reduction targets in the Kyoto Protocol but have not agreed to the penalties for not meeting them by signing the agreement. So far we have been able to meet the targets. But still, we produce a far lesser amount of our energy from nuclear power than other industrialized nations do and that is the reason for out greater CO2 output. You can have drastically reduced greenhouse emissions if you have drastically increased nuclear power generation.

An electric furnace turning scrap into steel (like Japan and France use) powered by nuclear electricity produces very little greenhouse gas compared to a coal (coke) furnace.

[geekster]

from the December 23, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html

New coal plants bury 'Kyoto'
New greenhouse-gas emissions from China, India, and the US will swamp cuts from the Kyoto treaty.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

So much for Kyoto.

The official treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions hasn't gone into effect yet and already three countries are planning to build nearly 850 new coal-fired plants, which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.

The magnitude of that imbalance is staggering. Environmentalists have long called the treaty a symbolic rather than practical victory in the fight against global warming. But even many of them do not appear aware of the coming tidal wave of greenhouse-gas emissions by nations not under Kyoto restrictions.

By 2012, the plants in three key countries - China, India, and the United States - are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons.

The findings suggest that critics of the treaty, including the Bush administration, may be correct when they claim the treaty is hopelessly flawed because it doesn't limit emissions from the developing world. But they also suggest that the world is on the cusp of creating a huge new infrastructure that will pump out enormous amounts of CO2 for the next six decades.

Without strong US leadership, it's unlikely that technology to cut CO2 emissions will be ready in time for the power-plant construction boom, many say.

"If all those power plants are online by 2012, then obviously it completely cancels out any gains from Kyoto," says Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The reason for the dramatic imbalance is coal. Just a few years ago, economists and environmentalists still pictured a world shifting steadily from "dirty" coal-fired power plants to "cleaner" natural-gas turbines. But the fast-rising price of natural gas and other factors abruptly changed that picture. Now the world is facing a tidal wave of new power plants fired by coal, experts say. "China and India are building coal-fired capacity as fast as they can," says Christopher Bergesen, who tracks power plant construction for Platts, the energy publishing division of McGraw- Hill.

China is the dominant player. The country is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants - nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years. India could add 213such plants; the US, 72. (See chart below.)

Altogether, those three nations are set to add up to 327,000 megawatts by 2012 - three quarters of the new capacity in the global pipeline and roughly equal to the output of today's US coal-fired generating fleet.

The new coal plants from the three nations would burn about 900 million extra tons of coal each year. That, in turn, would emit in the neighborhood of 2.5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, Dr. Schmidt estimates.

"I'm not hugely optimistic we are going to slow the rate of carbon emission overall any time soon," says Schmidt of the Goddard institute. "If this sort of thing continues unchecked, we won't be arguing about climate change in 2100, because the changes will be all too obvious."

But several uncertainties remain. First, not all of the plants may be built. In the US, for example, local opposition may halt construction of some of the 100 coal-fired plants now in various stages of development. According to Mr. Bergesen's numbers, 72 plants could be added, the basis for the Monitor's estimates.

Another uncertainty: Slightly less than half of the new plants Platts forecasts for China and India have an official start date. If only those plants with start dates are built, then the expected emissions from the three nations would total only 1.2 billion tons of CO2, still more than double the required reduction from Kyoto. But that estimate is conservative, experts say, because Chinese and Indian leaders face few political barriers to power-plant construction and big demands for more power.

Efficiency a key
Although US coal-fired plants are far more efficient than those in China or India, all three countries, presumably, would install state-of-the-art technology. The Monitor's estimates are based on the assumption that the new plants in all three nations will be 10 percent more efficient than today's US average - a conservative estimate, experts say.

The third uncertainty involves new technology. Having rejected Kyoto, President Bush says the US will pursue its own policy of voluntary carbon reductions and conduct research into technologies like "carbon sequestration" - burying CO2 rather than emitting it. To do that, the US Department of Energy hopes to develop new technologies by 2012 that would economically capture the greenhouse gas before it leaves the power plant.

One approach - called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology - aims to siphon off CO2 before it's sent up the stack. The largest US power company, American Electric Power in Columbus, Ohio, plans to build at least one commercial IGCC plant by 2010. Another coal-burning power company, Cinergy, in Cincinnati, this month said it also would build an IGCC plant.

But funding for a key billion-dollar federal IGCC experimental program called FutureGen is lagging. And unless the US sets a limit on CO2 emissions that creates a market for carbon-reducing technology, there is little financial incentive to invest in such technology, experts say. As a result, the technology appears unlikely to be deployed in time to make much difference in the coming surge of power-plant construction.

Without such technology, the impact on climate by the new coal plants would be significant, though not entirely unanticipated. They would boost CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by about 14 percent by 2012, Schmidt estimates. That's within the 1 to 2 percent annual range for CO2 growth expected in "high-growth" scenarios put forward by climate scientists. But it does not fall into the "maximum" scenario they use to evaluate the worst-case impact of greenhouse gases.

The power of six
"The point is that a relatively small number of countries holds the fate of the planet in their hands in terms of climate change," says David Hawkins, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. "If the five or six countries building all these power plants were to come together to develop a strategy for carbon capture applied to coal, it would be a huge step toward cutting global warming."

Energy security is one factor driving the shift. With its 250-year supply of coal, the US is often called the "Saudi Arabia of coal." China, with similarly huge reserves, is even planning to convert coal into synthetic fuel for cars - even though such processes typically produce large amounts of greenhouse gases.

Coal's low price has been a powerful incentive, too. Chinese authorities are pushing for cleaner power. But gas pipelines in China aren't fully utilized because of that fuel's higher cost, experts say. And in the US, utility companies are shifting focus from natural gas to coal instead.

"There has been an abrupt about-face," says Robert McIlvaine, who heads his own Northfield, Ill., information company that tracks the construction of coal power plants globally. "Utilities that would not consider a coal-fired plant a year or two ago are now moving forward with coal-fired projects."

With natural gas prices expected to continue rising, 58 other nations have 340 new coal-fired plants in various stages of development. They are expected to go online in a decade or so. Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, and Turkey are all planning significant new coal-fired power additions. Germany also plans to build eight coal plants with 6,000 megawatts capacity.

But China is the key. "The Chinese will surpass the coal-fired generating capacity and the CO2 emissions of the US in the next couple of years," Mr. McIlvaine says.

Hit by blackouts and power restrictions for 18 months, China has been scrambling to relieve that pressure. Scores of unauthorized power projects about which little is known have sprouted nationwide - along with hundreds of official projects, McIlvaine says. Because of this, even careful estimates could be low, both he and Bergesen say.

"Environmental optimists were assuming the world was going to switch to gas, but when you're short of gas you use your own coal," says Philip Andrews-Speed, a China energy expert at the University of Dundee, in Scotland. "What you're seeing with China and the others is the cheapness and security of coal just overwhelming the desire to be clean."

[geekster]

Is Kyoto Kaput?
Even before it officially takes effect on Feb. 16, the Kyoto agreement to curb greenhouse gases is leaking air.
Fixing it won't be easy.

Last week, most of the world's nations met in Argentina to assess what the treaty might be able to achieve by its expiration in 2012. Many nations are faltering in their commitment to rein in industrial carbon-dioxide pollution since it's possible such steps will limit economic growth.

Some, such as Italy and Canada, are raising doubts about the sacrifices required. Britain admits it may not reach its target, while Japan flat-out says it can't reduce emissions by the expected amount, which is 6 percent below the 1990 levels.

If only the US, as the world's biggest CO2 polluter, had been in the treaty, the other developed nations might feel better about imposing restraints on their industries.

That's why the other purpose of last week's meeting was so important. European diplomats bent over backward to find a new consensus for a post-Kyoto effort that would include the US.

But not much happened. The meeting ended with a weak proposal for an international "seminar" in May for nations to "exchange information" on their ideas about the unusual weather many are experiencing.

With the reelection of President Bush, the US position will probably remain the same for the next four years: It will not make economic sacrifices to limit CO2 emissions, but it's making a big technological push to do so. Many experts doubt if new cleansing technologies will make a dent soon in climate shifts. But they also doubt whether even extending Kyoto would do much.

To keep the US engaged, Europe is likely to need to bend toward the Bush view if it wants to forge a post-Kyoto agreement. Its own experience with Kyoto may push it that way, too. In addition, with China, India, Brazil, and other lesser-developed nations clearly out of Kyoto, the only consensus may be a massive investment in new, clean-burning fuel technologies.

But holding a "seminar" hardly captures the urgency to do something quickly about climate change.

[geekster]

You have to decide, Cowboy ... nuclear or CO2. Renewables aren't going to amount to a drop in the bucket and it might turn out the nuclear is renewable at some point in the future if some new form of waste processing is discovered which is why France is not burying its waste but is "banking" it for future use.

Even at 100% efficiency, enough solar panels to power a steel mill would destroy a lot of habitat by depriving it of sunlight. Even if you placed solar panels on every roof of the country it isn't enough. No matter how efficient they get.

Wind, tide and geothermal won't do it either unless you could harness a hurricane ... and if you did, you would kill it instantly by sucking out the energy it needs to stay alive.

Nuclear is the only answer and the sooner you accept it and become an advocate of either nuclear power or mass euthanasia the better because the energy requirements of just the people alive today in China and India are about to skyrocket.

[cowboyangel]

what a nightmare world you envision my friend. How about geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, conservation??????

lobal Warming: Scientists Reveal Timetable
By Michael McCarthy
The Independent U.K.

Thursday 03 February 2005

A detailed timetable of the destruction and distress that global warming is likely to cause the world was unveiled yesterday.

It pulls together for the first time the projected impacts on ecosystems and wildlife, food production, water resources and economies across the earth, for given rises in global temperature expected during the next hundred years.

The resultant picture gives the most wide-ranging impression yet of the bewildering array of destructive effects that climate change is expected to exert on different regions, from the mountains of Europe and the rainforests of the Amazon to the coral reefs of the tropics.

Produced through a synthesis of a wide range of recent academic studies, it was presented as a paper yesterday to the international conference on climate change being held at the UK Met Office headquarters in Exeter by the author Bill Hare, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany's leading global warming research institute.

The conference has been called personally by Tony Blair as part of Britain's attempts to move the climate change issue up the agenda during the current UK presidency of the G8 group of rich nations, and the European Union. It has already heard disturbing warnings from the latest climate research, including the revelation on Tuesday from the British Antarctic Survey that the massive West Antarctic ice sheet might be disintegrating - an event which, if it happened completely, would raise sea levels around the world by 16ft (4.9 metres).

Dr Hare's timetable shows the impacts of climate change multiplying rapidly as average global temperature goes up, towards 1C above levels before the industrial revolution, then to 2C, and then 3C.

As present world temperatures are already 0.7C above the pre-industrial level, the process is well under way. In the near future - the next 25 years - as the temperature climbs to the 1C mark, some specialised ecosystems will start to feel stress, such as the tropical highland forests of Queensland, which contain a large number of Australia's endemic plant species, and the succulent karoo plant region of South Africa. In some developing countries, food production will start to decline, water shortage problems will worsen and there will be net losses in GDP.

It is when the temperature moves up to 2C above the pre-industrial level, expected in the middle of this century - within the lifetime of many people alive today - that serious effects start to come thick and fast, studies suggest.

Substantial losses of Arctic sea ice will threaten species such as polar bears and walruses, while in tropical regions "bleaching" of coral reefs will become more frequent - when the animals that live in the coral are forced out by high temperatures and the reef may die. Mediterranean regions will be hit by more forest fires and insect pests, while in regions of the US such as the Rockies, rivers may become too warm for trout and salmon.

In South Africa, the Fynbos, the world's most remarkable floral kingdom which has more than 8,000 endemic wild flowers, will start to lose its species, as will alpine areas from Europe to Australia; the broad-leaved forests of China will start to die. The numbers at risk from hunger will increase and another billion and a half people will face water shortages, and GDP losses in some developing countries will become significant.

But when the temperature moves up to the 3C level, expected in the early part of the second half of the century, these effects will become critical. There is likely to be irreversible damage to the Amazon rainforest, leading to its collapse, and the complete destruction of coral reefs is likely to be widespread.

The alpine flora of Europe, Australia and New Zealand will probably disappear completely, with increasing numbers of extinctions of other plant species. There will be severe losses of China's broadleaved forests, and in South Africa the flora of the Succulent Karoo will be destroyed, and the flora of the Fynbos will be hugely damaged.

There will be a rapid increase in populations exposed to hunger, with up to 5.5 billion people living in regions with large losses in crop production, while another 3 billion people will have increased risk of water shortages.

Above the 3C raised level, which may be after 2070, the effects will be catastrophic: the Arctic sea ice will disappear, and species such as polar bears and walruses may disappear with it, while the main prey species of Arctic carnivores, such as wolves, Arctic foxes and the collared lemming, will have gone from 80 per cent of their range, critically endangering predators.

In human terms there is likely to be catastrophe too, with water stress becoming even worse, and whole regions becoming unsuitable for producing food, while there will be substantial impacts on global GDP.

[cowboyangel]

Nine New Environmental 'Hot Spots' Listed
Reuters

Wednesday 02 February 2005

Global list of regions to protect grows to 34.



Maroonfronted parrots like these are considered a "vulnerable" species and are native to the Madrean Pine-Oak Woodlands in the United States and Mexico - one of the new hotspots identified by scientists. This flock was photographed in the El Taray Sanctuary in Mexico's Sierra Madre mountains.
(Photo: Patricio Robles Gil / Sierra Madre)

A global study has identified nine new environmental "hot spots," areas of great ecological diversity that are under threat and together shelter most of the planet's endangered plant and animal species.

"Nine new hot spots have been identified, including one that traverses the U.S.-Mexico border, one in southern Africa, and one that encompasses the entire nation of Japan," said Conservation International, which helped organize the analysis in a book "Hotspots Revisited" that was released Monday.

The findings bring to 34 the number of hot spots identified by leading scientists.

They are home to 75 percent of the world's most threatened mammals, birds, and amphibians, which survive in fragile habitats covering just 2.3 percent of the Earth's surface.

These areas once covered almost 16 percent of the planet, an area the size of Russia and Australia combined, underscoring the threats posed by human encroachment and habitat destruction.

Nearly 400 scientists and other experts contributed to the four-year study.

Two key factors are used to designate a hot spot: a high concentration of endemic species - which means they are found nowhere else - and a serious degree of threat.

Earth's 'Emergency Rooms'

The Madagascar and the Indian Ocean Islands hot spot has 24 plant and vertebrate families found nowhere else on Earth.



One new hotspot is the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany region in Africa. Mining activities, specifically titanium extraction from coastal sand dunes, has led to loss of natural vegatation along beaches like this one.
(Photo: Patricio Robles Gil / Sierra Madre)

Some of the hot spots have less than 10 percent of their original habitat left - which means they probably once contained many unidentified species that have been lost forever.

"The biodiversity hot spots are the environmental emergency rooms of our planet ... We must now act decisively to avoid losing these irreplaceable storehouses of Earth's life forms," said Russell Mittermeier, president of Conservation International.

"We now know that by concentrating on the hot spots, we are not only protecting species, but deep lineages of evolutionary history. These areas capture the uniqueness of life on Earth," Mittermeier said.

Tropical Trend

Most of the hot spots are in tropical or sub-tropical areas, highlighting the diversity of life found near the equator, where yearround warmth and good rainfalls enable many plants and animals to thrive.

But many are also found in very poor countries or regions, which magnifies the threat as impoverished and swelling rural populations encroach on remaining habitat.

The new hot spots that have been added are:

* The East Melanesian islands, which have been degraded dramatically over the last five years;
* The Madrean Pine-Oak Woodlands on the U.S.-Mexico border;
* Japan;
* The Horn of Africa;
* The Irano-Anatolian region in Iran and Turkey;
* The mountains of central Asia;
* Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany in southern Africa, which includes parts of Mozambique, South Africa and Swaziland;
* The Himalaya region;
* Eastern Afromontane, which stretches along the eastern edge of Africa from Saudi Arabia to Zimbabwe.

[cowboyangel]

UK Climate Meeting Calls for Action
By Nicola Jones
Nature.com

Researchers discuss 'dangerous' change as global-warming fears grow.


Power cut: the technology to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is already in place, say climate scientists.
"Major investment" is needed to help people mitigate and adapt to global warming. So say the 200 top climate scientists, and a handful of economists and politicians, assembled this week at Britain's Met Office.

It is clear that the risks of climate change are more serious than was thought a few years ago, the scientists say.

Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, a meeting organized by the UK government and the Exeter-based Met Office, attempted to assess the current and future state of climate change, and how to avert it.

Many concluded that it is impossible to define "dangerous" climate change, as impacts vary wildly from place to place. Regardless, others hoped that one message would be clear.

"We don't really need more detail now," says Michael Mastrandrea from Stanford University, California. "We already have enough information to make an educated guess on how we need to reduce emissions."

Researchers agreed that the predictions about climate change made a decade ago are coming true. "Thermal expansion of the oceans, acidification of water, increased air temperature leading to more storms; there is evidence for all this now," says Larry Hughes, an environmental researcher from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada.

And it is apparent that things aren't getting better, says Robert Socolow, co-director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton University in New Jersey. "What we can tell politicians is that the list of worries is going to grow."

Southern Discomfort

The Antarctic is one key area of concern, says Chris Rapley, director of the Cambridge-based British Antarctic Survey. Five years ago, he (and most scientists) were not concerned about Antarctica melting, he says. But recent evidence shows that the Pine Island Glacier is eroding, and might unleash a mass of ice from the western half of the continent.

If western Antarctica melts, it will raise sea levels by about 6 metres, Rapley says. "We don't know what will happen. But we know we should be studying it," he says.

Others presented worries that were more familiar, but just as real: Greenland may melt; Africa may experience more drought; acidic oceans will imperil coral reefs; and ocean circulation in the Atlantic may shut down, freezing northern Europe.

Several noted that we have the technology to prevent serious temperature rises, at the relatively moderate expense of 4% or less of the world's GDP (gross domestic product). The options include better energy efficiency, or capturing carbon dioxide as it is produced from power plants and burying it underground.

David King, the UK government's chief scientist, told the meeting that he had spoken to oil companies about the possibility of pumping carbon dioxide into old oil wells in the North Sea.

Making the Cut

Socolow summarized what could be done. For carbon emissions to remain stable over the next 50 years, he said, we would need to reduce projected emissions in 2054 by 7 billion tonnes of carbon.

One billion tonnes of cuts could be achieved by doubling the fuel efficiency of 2 billion cars, or by building 2 million one-megawatt electric windmills, or even by doubling the electricity produced in nuclear power plants.

All of these numbers carry a large amount of error. And scientists said that it was hard to work out what the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would have to be to lead to a 2 °C warming on pre-industrial times. This is the figure that the UK prime minister, Tony Blair, had asked them to provide.

"Science cannot come up with a single threshold. That's what politicians are for," says Malte Meinshausen of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.

We could, for example, start reductions slowly now, or we could continue to increase emissions for a decade, starting cuts later; we could still end up at the same temperature in 50 years.

However, if one delays cuts for ten years, Meinshausen warns, we will need to double the rate at which we reduce emissions later, and that is a very expensive proposition.

[cowboyangel]

answer to nuke question= http://www.apolloalliance.org/

[geekster]

No ... this is:

http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/

[geekster]

And I also advocate elimination of most hydroelectric dams and allowing rivers to return to their natural state.

The Westinghouse approach to nuclear power, i.e. using natural forces where they can to greatly reduce mechanical complexity and requirements for mechanical safety systems is the way to go. The AP series plants can operate for two weeks at full power with a complete failure of the primary mechanical cooling system. It does this through convection, gravity and evaporation.

There is a large reservior of cooling water inside the containment building. In case of a primary system failure, water around the core heats up and evaporates. It rises to the top of the dome where it condenses and trickles back to the reservior where it is returned to the pool around the core. At 100% power it would take two weeks for the water in the reactor pool to reach boiling. This can be extended by external cooling of the containment dome. Not a single watt of external electricity, not a single computer, valve, electrical connection, switch, wire, or high pressure pipe is required for this system to operate. It will begin operation naturally when the reactor pool heats.

THOSE are the kinds of systems that make Three Mile Island type accidents where an operator shut the main cooling system flow impossible with this system. The operator could completely shut off the flow and the system will remain safe.

I advocate elimination of fossil fuel power plants, elimination of hydro dams that destroy natural river habitats, and the building of modern, simpler nuclear power plants along with a national electrification project for all freight and passenger rail systems and conversion of a great portion of the urban automotive fleet to electric vehicles.

[cowboyangel]

I'll pray for your soul geekster, don't worry...

[Isotopia]

answer to nuke question= http://www.apolloalliance.org/

Simplistic and vague.

I hope you don't subscribe to what they're actaually blurting CA.

This is the kind of shit we chew apart at lunch. Not to suggest that such groups are are inherently bad of devious. Just...

NAIVE.

Sounds awfully purty in text but this boy ain't putting money on 'em.

[Isotopia]

This is the kind of shit we chew apart at lunch.

Like cheetahs on a bok bok.

[cowboyangel]

ahh Iso darling...Germany is doing it. They are eliminating all their nuke plants too. One of the key ways to advance solar is simple...start believing in it.

[geekster]

I'll pray for your soul geekster, don't worry...

And I yours as well. If I honestly thought there would be a way to use clean energy sources that could provide REAL amounts of energy, say enough to power a steel or aluminum mill, I would be all over it. Hydro destroys rivers. Solar is very polluting to produce and dispose of, wind power is killing birds in California to the extent that they have had to shut down windmills in some area due to pressure on raptor populations. What kind of renewable energy were you planning to support?

Center for Biological Diversity


BECAUSE LIFE IS GOOD


Protecting endangered species and wild places through science, policy, education, and environmental law.

LAWSUIT SEEKS REDRESS FOR MASSIVE ILLEGAL BIRD KILLS AT ALTAMONT PASS, CA, WIND FARMS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 12, 2004


Livermore, CA – The Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) filed a lawsuit today against Florida energy producer FPL Group, Inc. (NYSE symbol: FPL) and Danish wind power company NEG Micon A/S for their part in the illegal ongoing killing of tens of thousands of protected birds by wind turbines at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (“APWRA”) in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Through their subsidiaries and associated entities, FPL Group and NEG Micon own or operate roughly half of the approximately 5,400 wind turbines at the APWRA. Each year, wind turbines at the APWRA kill up to 60 or more golden eagles and hundreds of other hawks, owls, and other protected raptors. These bird kills have continued for 20 years in flagrant violation of the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and several California Fish and Game Code provisions. The lawsuit alleges that these violations and bird kills are unlawful and unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code.

“Altamont Pass wind turbines are causing extremely high levels of bird mortality along a major raptor migration route and are likely depleting eagle, hawk, and owl populations not only locally but throughout the western U. S.,” said Jeff Miller, spokesperson for CBD. “We absolutely support wind power, but it is past time for the primary turbine owners, FPL Energy and NEG Micon, to address this problem.”

“Altamont Pass has become a death zone for eagles and other magnificent and imperiled birds of prey. Recent studies have proposed numerous recommendations for mitigating the devastating effect of Altamont Pass wind turbines on birds, yet the industry is blindly charging ahead replacing existing turbines with new and much larger turbines without any requirement of effective preventative measures or remediation for ongoing bird kills,” said Richard Wiebe, attorney for the plaintiffs.

The APWRA was established in 1982 on 160 square kilometers of private cattle ranches in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Due in part to the local abundance of raptor populations in the region, wind turbines at APWRA cause more bird deaths than any wind facility in the world, a result of poor planning that allowed wind turbines to be built along a major raptor migration corridor and in the heart of the highest concentration of golden eagles in North America. Wind turbines at Altamont Pass kill over a thousand birds each year, including up to 60 or more golden eagles, 300 red-tailed hawks, 270 burrowing owls, and additional hundreds of other raptors including kestrels, falcons, vultures, and other owl species. In 20 years of operation, the wind power industry has yet to implement any effective measures to reduce the killing of protected raptors or come up with meaningful mitigations to protect bird populations affected by the wind farms. In recent months, the County of Alameda approved repowering and renewed permits for the majority of the wind turbines at APWRA without conducting any public environmental review or requiring any meaningful mitigation measures to reduce or compensate for bird deaths. CBD and CAlifornians for Renewable Energy filed a formal appeal of the permit renewals with Alameda County in November 2003.

The extraordinary numbers of raptor deaths continue unabated, due in part to the complete regulatory failure by federal, state, and local officials to enforce wildlife protection laws. “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Attorney’s Office, California Department of Fish and Game, and Alameda and Contra Costa Counties bear equal responsibility for the ongoing bird atrocity at Altamont for their failure to impose any meaningful mitigation requirements or protective measures on the Altamont Pass wind power industry,” stated Miller.

To add insult to injury, the Altamont Pass wind power industry has been receiving massive tax credits as well as government cash grants funded by surcharges imposed on California’s electricity consumers as part of the state’s flawed deregulation plan, all of which serve to subsidize the killing of birds. “The wind power industry receives tens of millions of dollars in revenue from California’s consumers, as well as enormous tax credits and government subsidies, based on the perception that it provides ‘green’ energy, yet continues to kill thousands of protected birds annually,” said Miller. “The Altamont companies routinely kill rare birds that are the natural heritage of all Californians, and take taxpayer subsidies home to Florida and Denmark.” According to wind industry reports, the Altamont Pass fiasco has tainted public perception of wind energy and hampered wind power development, as concerns about bird impacts has delayed or discontinued other wind facilities.

The magnitude of bird kills at APWRA has been known since at least 1988, when the first of many studies of raptor mortality was published. To date, the industry has not implemented effective mitigation measures to reduce bird kills, protect and maintain existing bird populations, or to compensate for killing large numbers of birds from imperiled populations, despite numerous studies by the California Energy Commission, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and others. “The birds have literally been studied to death, yet the Altamont Pass turbine owners have failed to take action to reduce the risk to birds of prey,” said Miller. In fact some efforts at APWRA, such as a small mammal poisoning program, have actually increased the risk to raptors while also threatening other endangered species inhabiting Altamont Pass such as the San Joaquin kit fox and California red-legged frog. Recent research at APWRA determined that bird mortality has not lessened over time, that the industry’s minimal mitigation measures have been ineffective, and that the actual number of bird deaths is likely 8 to 16 times the industry-reported number of bird kills.

The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in San Francisco, is brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law (California Business and Professions Code section 17200), which prohibits businesses from violating other laws, in this case federal and state wildlife protection laws, in the course of their business activities. The lawsuit also alleges that FPL has violated California’s false advertising laws and the federal Lanham Act by making untrue or misleading statements in publicly asserting that it complies with all federal and state environmental laws.

The issue at Altamont is not wind power versus birds, but rather whether the wind power industry is willing to take simple steps to reduce bird kills. Raptor experts have suggested numerous measures to reduce bird deaths, including retiring particularly lethal turbines, relocating turbines out of canyons, moving isolated turbines into clusters, increasing the visibility of turbines to birds, retrofitting power poles to prevent bird electrocutions, discontinuing the rodent poisoning program, and managing grazing to encourage rodent prey away from turbines. Raptor experts have also suggested mitigation through raptor habitat preservation to maintain the stability of the bird populations that are being depleted.

Concerns about the potential for wind turbines at Altamont Pass to kill endangered condors recently scuttled plans by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reintroduce condors into the Diablo Range east of Morgan Hill and Gilroy. The turbines may also be severely impacting local populations of the western burrowing owl, a declining species for which the CBD and bird conservation groups are requesting protection under the California Endangered Species Act.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats. The Center works to protect and restore natural ecosystems and imperiled species through science, education, policy, and environmental law. For more information about the impacts of wind turbines on raptors and the Altamont Pass issue visit our web site.

You know what they say ... more people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than at Three Mile Island.

[geekster]

And yet another thing... I would propose a rule that research NOT EVER be allowed at "production" power reactors. That is what caused Chernobyl. Not only were they using a reactor design with a flamable moderator (graphite), they were doing research at a reactor designed to produce power for and located in a relavtively densely populated area. When the reactor itself caught fire, there was nothing they could do short of packing it full of boron and encasing it in concrete. Research work should be done well away from populated areas at specificially designated research sites with special design characteristics such as a stronger containment area.

And I would like to take a moment to thank those that gave their health and their lives to save so many people. The workers at the Chernobyl site were true heros. Many knowingly sacrificing their own lives for their neighbors. Let it never happen again.

[geekster]

Cowboy, it boils down to this ..

We NEED a way to make gigawatts of power RIGHT NOW that doesn't dump tons of CO2 into the air. We have that technology. We need to deploy it. We can't afford to sit around wringing hands and waiving arms complaining about CO2 levels while waiting 50 years for some other kind of technology to be developed. I am NOT saying we should abandon research on and deployment of alternatives. I am saying that we just don't have the time to wait for these technologies to be developed and scale up to the size needed.

We need to deploy the greenhouse-free technologies we have NOW and they can be replaced with even cleaner technologies later. We just don't have the time. We have technology available right this second sitting on the shelf that will allow us to scrap fossil fuel power plants and hydroelectric dams. We really do not have a choice. In 20 years time it will be too late.