By Steven I. Apfelbaum and John Kimble
    The Christian Science Monitor

    Thursday 29 November 2007

A promising strategy: Store carbon in the soil.

    Brodhead, Wisconsin and Lincoln, Nebraska - Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs and plant a tree - these are the most popular strategies for mitigating climate change today.

    Yet world leaders gathering for the climate-change summit in Bali, Indonesia, next week should consider an alternative. It's one of the most overlooked yet most effective and inexpensive strategies available: Store carbon in the soil.

    This is one way the earth has managed carbon since it began. The earth's soil contains the second-largest quantity of carbon, where it has been the most stable and least vulnerable to fires and climate changes. (The largest amount is dissolved in oceans.)

    Planting trees sounds like a flawless solution: Trees absorb carbon, after all. But it can actually be quite harmful, even dangerous. Soil needs "riches" such as carbon, organic matter, and mineral nutrients, and they come in part from the "litter" left by plants that grow and die annually on the land. By planting trees in soils that were created by other, more productive plants (e.g., prairie and wetland plants that used to occupy some of today's farmland), less litter is produced. That means less carbon and organic matter are contributed to the soil, causing it to deteriorate.

    In some areas, planted trees can dewater the soil. They can also release nitrogen and phosphorous in runoff that enters rivers, lakes, and estuaries and hurts water quality. More worrisome, some forested areas are becoming more vulnerable to wildfires, because changing precipitation patterns and the associated drying effects are creating a tinderbox. These changes appear to be resulting in bigger and more frequent fires (e.g., very recently in California).

    Ecological lesson No. 1 is that we should plant trees only where the soils will benefit from it.

    
    By Stephen Leahy
    Inter Press Service

    Monday 03 December 2007

    Brooklin, Canada - Expanding European forests absorbed 126 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from 1990 to 2005 - equivalent to 11 percent of European Union emissions from human activities - while a U.N. target to plant one billion trees mainly in Africa has been surpassed.

    "Forests reduced carbon dioxide more than twice the amount of Europe's renewable energy programmes," said Pekka Kauppi, who led the University of Helsinki study, published in the British journal Energy Policy on Nov. 29.

    Better conservation, migration to cities, and conversion of surplus farmland are the reasons behind the growing and expanding forests, which are mainly in Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Finland Kauppi, told IPS. The study is based on forestry statistics provided by governments and that were not independently verified.

    The resulting "surprisingly high carbon dioxide removal" may be the major factor in Europe achieving its ambitious target of 20 percent reductions in greenhouse targets by 2020, Kauppi said.

    "On a global scale, there is hope for the future if we stop deforestation and expand forests," he added.

    For that reason, carbon credits should be given to standing forests, which would offer countries and forest owners additional financial incentives for conservation, he said.

    
    By Carey Gillam
    Reuters

    Thursday 29 November 2007

    Overland Park, Kansas - If there is one lesson Kansas officials have learned by rejecting a proposed expansion of a coal-fired power plant last month, it is this: Hell hath no fury like business interests scorned.

    Six weeks ago Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment Rod Bremby made Kansas the first U.S. state to reject a coal-fired power plant solely because of health risks associated with carbon dioxide emissions. Since then, the state has become ground zero for a nationwide battle pitting environmental concerns against powerful economic and political interests.

    Kansas is now facing lawsuits from Sunflower Electric Power Corp and industry groups while angry state lawmakers are determined to overturn the denial of the $3.6 billion power plant project, with some even threatening to dismantle the state department of health and environment.

    The energy industry also is pouring money into the state to try to overturn the October 18 ruling, which killed Sunflower's plan to add two 700-megawatt units to its operations in western Kansas, a cash-strapped rural area.

    "Everybody agrees that motherhood, apple pie and caring about the environment are fantastic," said Bob Kreutzer, head of the newly formed Kansans for Affordable Energy. "But we've got to make sure we always have electricity and that is why we need big power plants."

    
    By Nicholas Stern
    The Guardian UK

    Friday 30 November 2007

A fair and global effort to tackle climate change needs wealthy states to take the lead in CO2 cuts.

    The Bali summit on climate change, which starts next week, will seek to lay the foundations for a new global agreement on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause rising temperatures and climate change. Ambitious targets for emission reduction must be at the heart of that agreement, together with effective market mechanisms that encourage emission trading between countries, rich and poor. The problem of climate change involves a fundamental failure of markets: those who damage others by emitting greenhouse gases generally do not pay. Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen.

    The evidence on the seriousness of the risks from inaction is now overwhelming. We risk damage on a scale larger than the two world wars of the past century. The problem is global and the response must be collaboration on a global scale. The rich countries must lead the way in taking action. And in thinking about global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must invoke three basic criteria.

    The first is effectiveness: the scale of the response must be commensurate with the challenge. This means setting a target for emission reduction that can keep the risks at acceptable levels.

    The overall targets of 50% reductions in emissions by 2050 (relative to 1990) agreed at the G8 summit in Heiligendamm last June are essential if we are to have a reasonable chance of keeping temperature increases below 2C or 3C. While these targets involve strong action, they are not overambitious relative to the risk of failing to achieve them.

   
    By Justin Hyde
    Detroit Free Press

    Thursday 29 November 2007

    Greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks rose slightly in 2006, even as the United States cut its overall emissions by 1.5%, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said Wednesday.

    The administration said the decline in man-made emissions to 7.08 billion metric tons was the first since 2001, and only the third since 1990.

    Higher energy costs, a warmer winter that cut heating demand and a greater use of natural gas instead of coal by electric utilities drove the decline.

    But carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks burning gasoline rose 0.3% to 1.19 billion tons, or about 17% of the U.S. total.

    Greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. vehicles have risen steadily since 1990, as a growing number of drivers traveling farther every year overwhelmed any reductions from more efficient vehicles.

    Total emissions from transportation - including everything from diesel trucks to airplanes - rose slightly to 2.01 billion metric tons.

   
    By Haider Rizvi
    Inter Press Service

    Tuesday 27 November 2007

    United Nations - Calls for profound change in the environmental behaviour of the United States are on the rise as world leaders prepare to attend a major summit on climate change in Bali, Indonesia next month.

    "The U.S. has a unique responsibility to 'climate proof' its growth, not only to protect Americans, but also to prevent reversals in health and education for the world's poor," said the authors of a major U.N. report released Tuesday.

    The 2007 Human Development Report, entitled "Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World", urged the United States to "take the lead" in balancing the global carbon budget by cutting emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

    Despite the fact that it is responsible for about 25 percent of carbon emissions, which play a significant role in global warming, the United States is the only nation in the industrialised world that continues to reject global calls for mandatory cuts in carbon emissions.

    Until last week, Australia was the only other industrialised country that sided with Washington on the issue of climate change. Canberra has now taken a different position, with the new government declaring that it would set targets for cuts in carbon emissions.