Does Zenawi Belong in Copenhagen?

There has been much criticism of the appointment of Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi as the representative of some 52 African nations. The reason for this criticism is because of two main things - human rights abuse and a terrible environmental record.

First and foremost is Zenawi's involvement in the atrocities comitted in Gambela against the Anuaks in 2003 and 2005. These atrocities, according to Dr. Gregory Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, "fit the definitions of genocide and crimes against humanity"^[1]. New York Times reporter Douglas McGill says that Zenawi is "on par with Kim Jong Il of North Korea," and asks, "would [Jong Il] be recognized and even welcomed into the councils at Copenhagen? I don't think so."^[2]

Next comes Zenawi's environmental record, and let me tell you, it isn't pretty. From 1990 to 2005 under Zenawi's administration, Ethiopia lost 14% of its forest cover. That's approximately 2,114,000 hectares of deforested land. In addition to this, Zenawi has plans in place to lease additional land to multinational farmers at about 50 cents a year^[3]. But that's not all. In addition to massive deforestation, Ethiopia is forced into incredibly unsustainable farming practices. Because the land is owned by the state, and then is divided amongst families, the "plots become so tiny and the soil so exhausted that it cannot feed the families who work it - even in times of normal rainfall."^[4]

I ask you, should this genocidal, anti-environmental "prime minister" be given too much consideration at COP15? I would say no. The African nations need to find a new representative, and fast, if they want to show the world that they're serious about climate change prevention. At this point though, they may be stuck with what they've got.

Sources
1 - Genocide Watch calls UN to initiate action against Meles
2 - MinnPost - Africa nation representation at COP15 criticized (Video)
3 - Zenawi's Devious Ploy for the Copenhagen Climate Conference - Selam Beyene, Ph.D.
4 - Herald Scotland Oct 26, 2009


Note:
This post is also on Gather

Climate Change - Who Cares?

I think it's about time I wrote something of my own. Here goes.

Let us, for the moment, put aside any prejudices or arguments related to climate change and look at a different benefit of reducing global GHG emissions. Plain and simple - Neither I, nor many of my peers, want to grow up in a world that is being destroyed by pollution itself. Worldwide there are approximately 2.4 million deaths from causes that are directly attributable to air pollution. Of these, 1.5 million are due to indoor air pollution. That leaves 900,000 people a year actually dying of air pollution in the environment¹.

In addition to these deaths, there are of course non-lethal effects of pollution. One of the major diseases related to this sort of thing is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Following the Great Smog of 1952 in London, during which huge amounts of built up pollutants hung over London, a study compared 293 London residents with 477 residents of Gloucester, Peterborough, and Norwich. The study showed that Londoners had much more severe respiratory symptoms of COPD and reduced lung function. It concluded that the most likely reason for this was the increased amount of pollution in London².

If these health related reasons aren't enough to convince you, there are economic reasons as well. A 2005 scientific study for the British Columbia Lung Association showed that a 1% improvement in ambient PM2.5 and ozone concentrations will produce a $29 million in annual savings in the region in 2010^{3, 4}.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are no bad consequences to developing green technologies. Some of them will likely even pay for themselves over time, and continue to provide profits afterwards. Please, don't make an argument over global warming a reason for not cleaning up our atmosphere. CO₂ is a pollutant, and it is up to us to reduce its presence in the atmosphere to more sustainable levels. If you support nothing else, at least support these efforts in Copenhagen.


Sources:
1. Estimated deaths & DALYs attributable to selected environmental risk factors, by WHO Member State, 2002
2. Holland WW, Reid DD. The urban factor in chronic bronchitis. Lancet. 1965;I:445-448.
3. Quoted from Wikipedia
4. 2005 BC Lung Association report on the valuation of health impacts from air quality in the Lower Fraser Valley airshed

CNN - Obama shifts schedule, will attend end of climate change summit

It seems Obama has changed his mind about appearing late in the conference and has decided to attend it near the end, around the same time as most of the other world leaders. This may not seem like a huge deal, but it's important because the timing of his appearance may have some effect upon negotiations. By appearing later he will possibly be able to add more weight to any decisions currently being debated, whereas if he appeared near the beginning these things may not have even come up yet. All in all I'd say this is a rather positive step and shows that Obama is at least somewhat serious about working toward significant legislation.

Washington (CNN) -- In a change of plans, President Obama will attend the end of an upcoming climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, the White House said Friday.

"Based on his conversations with other leaders and the progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations, the president believes that continued U.S. leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference on December 18 rather than on December 9," said a statement from Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs.

» Read More...

Possible Articles

Articles to be read:

• In "Climategate's" wake, key Northwest climate scientist keeps looking skyward
• Al Gore meets with President Obama on climate change
• Political battle over climate change heats up as Obama calls for regulating greenhouse gases
• Climate change report calls for passenger tax on flights to reduce CO2
• Hot air in climate change debate: 2000s warmest decade ever
• COP15 Climate Summit Begins in Copenhagen
• NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and Senior NOAA Climate Scientists Contribute to COP-15 Conference
• Pope Benedict XVI's Message for COP15

Wall Street Journal - The Science and Politics of Climate Change

Mike Hulme, one of those scientists with emails involved in "climategate", has written this article about the meaning of science and its involvement in political battlefields. No side is specifically taken but there definitely seems to be bias toward realism. I will not try to paraphrase this article, I strongly suggest that anyone and everyone read it.

I am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence.

» Read More...

Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.
-Mike Hulme

Chron - Climate-change industry shaken by e-mail scandal

Well, I decided it was about time for a post from the other side of the climate change "debate". Jonah Goldberg has written this article that seems to be an attempt at tearing apart the climate "industry" as he calls it. Several of his claims are ridiculous such as the idea that climate scientists are working on research for the sole purpose of getting grant money. What, then, is every other scientist involved in research working for? Oh, right, those are the people who would be perfectly willing to starve whilst working for free... One other example that sticks out in my mind is the comparison of the scientific climate consensus to the agreement that there must have been WMDs in Iraq. Thank you Jonah for that wonderful argument, also known as a non sequitar. Oh and finally, his dismissal of journalists who "aren't qualified to work through the climate data" and so "opt for the consensus". And so, I will leave you with this question: isn't he another of these unqualified journalists, who decides to disagree rather than agree with the professionals in the field?

By now you might have heard something about the scandal rocking the climate-change industry, though you can be forgiven if you haven't, since it hasn't gotten nearly the coverage it should. Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and other documents. The CRU is one of the world's leading global- warming data hubs, providing much of the number-crunching to global policymakers on climate change. And boy, can they crunch numbers.

» Read More...

Los Angeles Times - Google offers a glimpse of how climate change might affect California

Google seems to be working together with California to give a picture of global warming that anyone can see. So far it sounds cool, but unfortunately I've been unable to see any of the content due to internet problems. Can't wait 'til I get those sorted out. Anyway, you can view a bit more information (and a video tour guided by none other than the governator himself!) at California's CalADAPT page. The video runs through a tour of much of the climate change data added to google Earth for the California area, including projected ice pack size, wildfire risks and rising sea levels. Definitely worth the watching.

Researchers and policymakers have long rued that it’s hard to illustrate the perils of global warming when its most serious impacts won’t be visible for decades.

But thanks to the state Natural Resources Agency and Google, a graphic view of climate change’s potential effect on California -- based on scientific modeling -- is now just a mouse-click away.
Do you want to know if global warming will wipe out the Sierra snowpack before your great-great-grandchildren hit college?

Whether rising sea levels will obliterate landmarks in Baghdad by the Increasingly Deep Bay?
Whether your neighborhood will be safe from wildfires whipped by rising temperatures 76 years from now?

If Google Earth already lives in your computer, see for yourself in living color. Dodger fans take note: Much of the field at AT&T Park, where San Francisco Giants play, could someday be under five feet of water.

» Read More...

December 4^th - 11:19 PM:
Another article was released today by SFist. Nothing new, but I saw it and thought I may as well post it.

December 5^th - 5:17 PM:
A third article, this one from the Examiner in Minneapolis.