18 December 2015, Marlborough Express, The human side of the climate debate. OPINION: United Nations global-warming talks have taken place in Paris. The world’s most senior politicians have debated ways to combat accelerated climate change. But it’s voluntary and besides it’s a sticking plaster approach – treat symptoms but ignore the cause. There seemed one very important undebated factor – people. The population factor in global warming is sadly being ignored. Politicians and bureaucrats will use any scapegoat. In 2007 director general of the Department of Conservation Al Morrison, bizarrely tried to incriminate wild deer alleging they were guilty of farting and belching. Animals can’t argue back in defence, people do. Deer and cows don’t vote but people do. Therein lies the cause of the problem – people and politics. Furthermore people drive cars which belch emissions, coal-fired power stations belch and jet planes fart “gases and particles — which contribute to climate change.” Humans demand resources, flush toilets, use chemical insecticides and pesticides and throw away garbage. Deer and cows don’t. Humans or more particularly numbers of people, are the primary cause of environmental degradation and global warming. The more people, the more demand for resources. More people require more meat and milk – more cows. More people means more cars which means more emissions. Gimme more, more and more. Read More here
hmcadmin
18 December 2015, News Hour, More than 16 million babies born into conflict in 2015, says, UNICEF. More than 16 million babies were born in conflict zones in 2015 – 1 in 8 of all births worldwide this year – UNICEF said on 17th December 2015, a figure that underscores the vulnerability faced by increasing numbers of children. “Every two seconds, a newborn takes its first breath in the midst of conflict, often in terrifying circumstances and without access to medical care,” said UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake. “Too many children are now starting their lives in extreme circumstances – from conflict to natural disasters, poverty, disease or malnutrition. Can there be a worse start in life?” Read More here
17 December 2015, GRIST, No, lettuce is not worse for the climate than bacon. Is bacon back? The recent news that your favorite breakfast meat can cause cancer sent self-righteous vegans cackling, but they were shushed this week after the publication of a study alleging that meat actually has a lower carbon footprint than vegetables. At least, that’s what you might think if you’d read this article fromScientific American or this one from The Telegraph or this one from The Christian Science Monitor or a multitude of others proclaiming that bacon is better for the climate than salads. Carnegie Mellon University News reports: According to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie. Published in Environment Systems and Decisions, the study measured the changes in energy use, blue water footprint and GHG emissions associated with U.S. food consumption patterns. “Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.” So romaine is worse for the planet than pork belly? Really? Does this mean we can all take the lettuce out of our BLTs, add another layer of bacon, and feel just great about it? Actually, no. Researchers compared the foods calorie-for-calorie, which can be misleading. “It is absurd to compare the environmental impacts between bacon and lettuce when you’re using calories as the denominator,” Brent Kim of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future’s Food Production and Public Health Program told ThinkProgress. “A serving of lettuce has fewer calories than a stick of gum.” In other words, you’d have to eat a huge number of salads to equal the same number of calories you get from a few pieces of bacon. Just how many salads? We made this handy chart to illustrate. Read more here
17 December 2015, The Guardian, There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet. After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant. But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world. That would have troubling consequences for climate change if it were true, but it is not. Numerous high quality studies, including one recently published by Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, show that this isn’t so. We can transition to a decarbonized economy without expanded nuclear power, by focusing on wind, water and solar, coupled with grid integration, energy efficiency and demand management. In fact, our best studies show that we can do it faster, and more cheaply. Read more here