The United States is calling for greater cooperation in the Arctic, even as it warns that it will defend its sovereignty in the face of strengthening international interest in newly opening shipping lanes and natural resource extraction opportunities as the region’s ice disappears.

For the first time, the United States has come out with an overarching strategy aimed at guiding its military response in the Arctic. Openly prompted by concerns over climate change, officials say the US vision aims at balancing “human and environmental security” in the region.

“This new strategy is hugely important in that it recognizes the growing influence of the Arctic both to the United States and as an area of potential military operations,” Seth Myers, a research associate with the Arctic Institute, a Washington think tank, told IPS. “But the biggest question it raises is how any new capability will be paid for” in an era of intense budget-cutting in Washington.

The strategy depicts the Arctic as an “inflection point”, both in terms of the reduction in ice cover and increase in human activity. Last year, as scientists recorded the lowest levels of Arctic ice on record, nearly 500 ships were able to ply the waters between Alaska and Russia.

That constituted a 50 percent rise since the mid-2000s. US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel says experts now expect a tenfold increase over those numbers along what is known as the Northern Sea Route.

“With Arctic sea routes starting to see more activities like tourism and commercial shipping, the risk of accidents increases. Migrating fish stocks will draw fishermen to new areas, challenging existing management plans,” Hagel told a security conference in Canada on Friday, where he announced the new strategy.

“And while there will be more potential for tapping what may be as much as a quarter of the planet’s undiscovered oil and gas, a flood of interest in energy exploration has the potential to heighten tensions over other issues.”

Scientists are currently suggesting that Arctic waters could be almost completely ice-free for a month at a time by the middle of the coming decade, with longer periods forecasted by 2030. Some now worry that such conditions could result in a global free-for-all – what Hagel called “unprecedented challenges”.

“Throughout human history, mankind has raced to discover the next frontier. And time after time, discovery was swiftly followed by conflict,” Hagel said.

“We must wisely manage these 21st century possibilities. In order to realize the full potential of the Arctic, nations must collaborate and build trust and confidence through transparency, cooperation and engagement.”

New leadership?

The new strategy is being unveiled as the United States begins preparations to take over the rotating chairmanship of a key regional governance forum known as the Arctic Council.

This position, slated to begin in 2015, will offer Washington a unique new leadership role on Arctic issues. Indeed, many are pointing to the new military strategy as an important step in crystallizing nascent US policy on the issue more generally, though for the moment that vision remains relatively – perhaps strategically – vague.

The Pentagon says it will seek to expand both its understanding of the Arctic environment and its presence in the region while promoting collaboration on a range of issues. Currently, the United States stations around 27,000 military personnel in Alaska, and Hagel says the US Navy will offer a new plan for its operations by the end of the year.
Despite this number, in some ways Washington is starting from a relatively weak position. Other Arctic countries have already moved far more aggressively in staking out a position in the region.

Meanwhile, due to across-the-board federal budget cuts known as sequestration, the US military is currently struggling under its first significant funding contraction in decades. Those cuts are slated to continue on an annual basis for the next decade.

“It’s far from certain that the United States is leading [on Arctic issues] at this point. According to quantifiable indicators, Russia has far and away the most interests and capabilities,” the Arctic Institute’s Myers says.

“For instance, the United States has just two icebreakers in the region, both owned by the Coast Guard. Right now, the extent to which the US is going to be actively present in the near to medium term remains unclear, largely because sequestration is still happening. That’s why the strategy places so much emphasis on partnerships.”

Northern military race

Others are worried about the form such partnerships could take, and the ultimate mix of their goals.

The new military strategy builds upon a shorter vision document released earlier this year by the White House, which was criticized for focusing too much on the potential for fossil fuel extraction. Similar criticisms have been made about the policy orientation of the Arctic Council itself.

“We are glad that the Defence Department’s Arctic Strategy acknowledges the diminishing of the ice caps in the Arctic. But the approach shouldn’t be seen as an opportunity for business, nor to create better conditions to exploiting its resources,” Gustavo Ampugnani, Arctic team leader for Greenpeace, an advocacy group that has been critical of oil speculation in the Arctic, told IPS.

“Melting sea ice in the Arctic is a symbol of the destruction of the planet, not an incentive to get there and take everything that until very recently wasn’t possible to take.”
According to US estimates, the Arctic seabed holds a significant proportion of the Earth’s remaining untapped petroleum reserves, including around 15 percent of remaining oil and up to 30 percent of gas deposits. Already the Russian state-backed oil company Gazprom has begun drilling for oil (where several dozen Greenpeace activists were recently arrested), while Shell has made repeated attempts to start doing so in US waters.

“If countries grant leases to open more space for the oil corporations, this will speed up not just the industrialization of the Arctic but also investments in military presence, [leading to] a military race in the Far North,” Ampugnani says.

“From our perspective, the best way to keep the region peaceful, stable and free of conflict … is to priorities the scientific work, in a cooperative spirit, to understand more how the Arctic ecosystem is key to regulating the global climate.”

US officials have downplayed the potential for natural resource-related tension in the immediate future, pointing out that most oil and gas reserves are relatively near shore and hence within clearly defined territorial waters.

According to the Global Carbon Project, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production reached 9.7 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in 2012, with a ±5 percent uncertainty range, and may reach 9.9 GtC in 2013. The 2012 value is 58 percent higher than emissions in 1990, the year often used as a benchmark for emissions trends. Coal (43 percent) and oil (33 percent) accounted for the majority of these emissions, with natural gas (18 percent), cement production (5 percent), and flaring (1 percent) making up the remainder.

Recent U.S. government and World Bank moves to limit international financing for new coal projects signal a desire to shift away from this particularly carbon-intensive resource. For now, however, coal remains a major driver of CO2 emissions, accounting for 54 percent of the emissions increase in 2012. Coal use is rising in countries currently undergoing energy sector transitions. Coal-related emissions increased in Germany (4.2 percent) and Japan (5.6 percent)-both of which are phasing out nuclear power plants. Oil, gas, and cement accounted for 18 percent, 21 percent, and 6 percent of the global increase in 2012 respectively.

Although CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities, it is not the only one with significant warming effects. Other major long-lived greenhouse gases include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Each gas's contribution to climate change depends on such factors as the length of time it remains in the atmosphere, how strongly it absorbs energy, and its atmospheric concentration.

Fossil fuel combustion, together with deforestation and land use change, has pushed the mean atmospheric concentration of CO2 to approximately 393.9 parts per million (ppm) in 2012, an increase of more than 40 percent since 1750 and of 24 percent since the Scripps Institution of Oceanography began keeping detailed records in 1959. Scientists have suggested that the CO2 concentration will need to be reduced to at least 350 ppm if we hope to maintain a climate similar to that which has supported human civilization to date. Atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by 2.2 ppm in 2012 alone, exceeding the average annual increase over the past 10 years. And the Scripps Institution's measurements indicate an average of 396.2 ppm for the period of January to September 2013, implying an even greater increase this year.

Although the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed in 2010 that the increase in average global temperature since the pre-industrial period must be kept below 2 degrees Celsius, many projections now put the climate on track for warming that is significantly above that. The Global Carbon Project foresees a "likely" increase in temperature of 3.2-5.4 degrees Celsius. A World Bank report projects an approximate 20 percent likelihood of exceeding a 4 degrees Celsius increase by 2100 if current mitigation commitments and pledges are not fully implemented.

Emissions data also highlight the shifting geographical and historical complexity that makes international negotiations so contentious. The global distribution of emissions in 2012 looked very different than it did in 1990, when the Kyoto Protocol was established. At that time, industrial countries accounted for 62 percent of emissions; by 2012, that figure had dropped to 37 percent, reflecting rapid industrialization and development in emerging economies and shifting patterns in production and consumption.

Additionally, although international climate negotiations have focused traditionally on the role and responsibility of nation states, new analyses point to the significant role of corporate entities in emitting greenhouse gases. According to painstaking work by Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute, investor-owned corporations have been responsible for 21.7 percent of CO2 and CH4 fossil fuel and cement emissions since 1750, with state-owned corporations responsible for an additional 19.8 percent, highlighting potential new ways to frame responsibility for climate mitigation.

As climate negotiators, experts, and activists leave Warsaw and gear up to work on forging a global deal in Paris in 2015, they will have to grapple with these changing complexities.

Further highlights from the report:

>> CH4 is the third most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, after CO2 and water vapor, on a per molecule basis. Although atmospheric CH4 levels declined during 1983-99 and remained relatively constant during 1999-2006, they have been increasing since 2007.

>> China's emissions rose by 5.9 percent in 2012, an increase that accounted for 71 percent of that year's global increase. The United States and Australia, although both still major emitters, experienced reductions of 0.05 percent and 11.6 percent respectively.

>> In 2012, the top four emitters of CO2 were China (2,626 million tons of carbon, or MtC), the United States (1,397 MtC), India (611 MtC), and the Russian Federation (492 MtC).

Notes to Editors:

For more information and to obtain a complimentary copy of "Record High for Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions," please contact Supriya Kumar at skumar@worldwatch.org

About the Worldwatch Institute:

Worldwatch is an independent research organization based in Washington, D.C. that works on energy, resource, and environmental issues. The Institute's State of the World report is published annually in more than a dozen languages. For more information, visit www.worldwatch.org

Some of the large and rapid changes in the physical climate system including the Earth’s atmosphere, land surfaces and oceans due to climate changes could occur within a few decades or even years, leaving little time for society and ecosystems to adapt. A new report from the National Research Council extends this idea of abrupt climate change.

The report calls for the development of an early warning system that could help society better anticipate sudden changes and emerging impacts.

The report states that even steady, gradual change in the physical climate system can have abrupt impact elsewhere -- in human infrastructure and ecosystems for example -- if critical thresholds are crossed.

"Research has helped us begin to distinguish more imminent threats from those that are less likely to happen this century," said James W.C. White, professor of geological sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "Evaluating climate changes and impacts in terms of their potential magnitude and the likelihood they will occur will help policymakers and communities make informed decisions about how to prepare for or adapt to them."

Abrupt climate changes and impacts already under way are of immediate concern, the report says. These include the disappearance of late-summer Arctic sea ice and increases in extinction rates of marine and terrestrial species.

Other scenarios, such as the destabilization of the west Antarctic ice sheet, have potentially major consequences, but the probability of these changes occurring within the next century is not well-understood, highlighting the need for more research.

In some cases, scientific understanding has progressed enough to determine whether certain high-impact climate changes are likely to happen within the next century.

The report notes that a shutdown in the Atlantic Ocean circulation patterns or a rapid release of methane from high-latitude permafrost or undersea ice are now known to be unlikely this century, although these potential abrupt changes are still worrisome over longer time horizons.

But even changes in the physical climate system that happen gradually over many decades or centuries can cause abrupt ecological or socio-economic change once a "tipping point" is reached, the report adds. For example, relatively slow global sea-level rise could directly affect local infrastructure such as roads, airports, pipelines, or subway systems if a sea wall or levee is breached. And slight increases in ocean acidity or surface temperatures could cross thresholds beyond which many species cannot survive, leading to rapid and irreversible changes in ecosystems that contribute to further extinction events.

Further scientific research and enhanced monitoring of the climate, ecosystems, and social systems may be able to provide information that a tipping point is imminent, allowing time for adaptation or possibly mitigation, or that a tipping point has recently occurred, the report says.

"Right now we don't know what many of these thresholds are," White said. "But with better information, we will be able to anticipate some major changes before they occur and help reduce the potential consequences."

The report identifies several research needs, such as identifying keystone species whose population decline due to an abrupt change would have cascading effects on ecosystems and ultimately on human provisions such as food supply.

If society hopes to anticipate tipping points in natural and human systems, an early warning system for abrupt changes needs to be developed, the report says.

An effective system would need to include careful and vigilant monitoring, taking advantage of existing land and satellite systems and modifying them if necessary, or designing and implementing new systems when feasible.

It would also need to be flexible and adaptive, regularly conducting and alternating between data collection, model testing and improvement, and model predictions that suggest future data needs.

Story Source:
The story is based on materials provided by National Academy of Sciences.
Source:
National Academy of Sciences (2013, December 3). Tipping points: Where may abrupt impacts from climate change occur?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2013/12/131203124739.htm

In the age of catastrophic climate change and two years following the horrifying meltdown of reactors at Fukushima’s nuclear power plant, we realize that both phenomena are profoundly impacting our species and the earth community. What we don’t know with certainty is the exact extent of the damage being done. In Alex Smith’s recent Radio Ecoshock interview with Robert Way of the University of Ottowa, Way explained that official figures greatly underestimate global heating. In his groundbreaking new paper, Way asserts that the EPA has low-balled methane emissions in the U.S. by half, and Way’s findings were also published by the Guardian in a November 13 article “Global Warming Since 1997 More Than Twice As Fast As Previously Estimated.”

More recently the Japanese government has sought to pass a state secrets law that would place severe penalties on leakers of government secrets and journalists who might attempt to dig deeper than official government reports regarding the status of Fukushima. As one who has been following updated reports on Fukushima for months, I can attest to what appears to be a dramatic decrease of coverage. Only two weeks ago Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) informed the world that it would be attempting to remove some 1500 damaged fuel rods from Reactor 4—a highly delicate and daunting task which some observers speculated could result in the breakage of rods and result in massive doses of radiation escaping. We have heard little about how the procedure is unfolding, and overall, coverage of the state of the Fukushima plant for nearly three years has been sparse, with little attention being paid to it by mainstream media.

As with the more specific aspects of catastrophic climate change, the most significant details of the consequences of the Fukushima disaster are not available to us unless we dig deeply for them, and even then, it seems obvious that many pieces of the puzzle are just simply missing. Thus we are confronted with two issues that are probably the most life-threatening to our planet, but we sit with more unknowns than knowns. Indeed the most torturous aspect of any life-threatening situation is not knowing.

Recently, my friend Mike Ruppert lost his dog Rags. During that time Mike was frantic to find his beloved companion, and all of us who love both of them were deeply pained by their separation. Where was Rags? Who knew? Mike had scoured the region where he lives but to absolutely no avail. Had Rags been devoured by coyotes, mountain lions, bears—had he been hit by a car or perhaps stolen? For me, it’s one thing to be separated from my forever canine friend, and quite another not to know where or how he is. If he becomes ill and has to be put down, at least I know. But oh the heartache of losing a pet and not knowing where or how they are! Fortunately, Mike found his dog in a few days.

No more not knowing, but the torture of not knowing is inexplicable.

With catastrophic climate change we do know two things: We know that it is progressing with unimaginable speed, and we know that if it continues to do so, there will be few habitable places on earth by mid-century. Yet what else are we not being told? Does the silence matter? Will it make a difference ultimately?

With Fukushima, however, we know so much less. How much radiation has already been released? How much is being released every day? How much radiated water is actually being dumped into the Pacific Ocean every day? What is the actual size of the radiation plumes that are moving eastward in the Pacific toward the West Coast of North America? Specifically how are these affecting sea life and human life? What is the relationship between environmental illnesses or the incidence of cancer and Fukushima?

And the questions exacerbate and spin and swirl in our minds.

The absolute bottom line with both catastrophic climate change and the consequences of Fukushima: We simply don’t know most of the information we should know about these two horrific realities.

Industrial civilization has socialized us to know. All of our educational systems dictate that information, particularly accumulating as much as possible, is the brass ring. You either know or you don’t know, and if you don’t know, you are dis-empowered because, we are incessantly told, “knowledge is power.” So in this culture, if you don’t know and can’t find out, then your best course of action is to ignore, deny, or pretend there’s nothing to know. Hence the dearth of reporting on either of the two life-threatening issues I’m addressing here. Most human beings on this planet cannot bear to know that the game may be over by mid-century or that she or he will develop cancer as a result of Fukushima radiation.

The paradigm of the scientific revolution and ultimately industrial civilization left no room for uncertainty. Twentieth-century physicists such as Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Schrodinger, and Heisenberg then pulled the rug out from under “certainty” with concepts such as “uncertainty,” “relativity,” and “wave mechanics.” These physicists plumbed the depths of ambiguity in the atomic particle and revealed to us the un-certainty with which it behaves. Nevertheless, tenacious attachment to certainty remained the mainstay of modern education.

From my perspective the root of modern humanity’s fundamental inner turmoil is the tension of these opposites: certainty and uncertainty. And while the study of relativity may be fun and fascinating, the mind demands answers, especially when confronted with the possibility of its own demise. When experts on nuclear radiation articulate grave concerns about the amount of radiation to which we are being exposed, we either turn a deaf ear or demand “proof.” How then is it possible to live with the uncertainty of our fate?

Our ancient ancestors had much more experience with navigating uncertainty than we have. From their perspective, the greater wisdom is not to flee uncertainty or deny it, but rather immerse ourselves in it. Verbalizing a piece of this wisdom, in her book Comfortable With Uncertainty, Buddhist teacher, Pema Chodron writes that “Sticking with uncertainty is how we learn to relax in the midst of chaos, how we learn to be cool when the ground beneath us suddenly disappears.” In other words, willingly enter the uncertainty and abide there, allowing the tension, fear, sorrow, and extreme vulnerabililty. “We practice dropping whatever story we are telling ourselves,” Pema Chodron says, “and lean into the emotions and the fears…We make the choice, moment by moment, to be fully here.”

Why do we do this? Because the uncertainty, the fear, the vulnerability, the grief, and yes, the seeming unfairness of it all have something to teach us about being human—about being part of, not separate from, this extraordinary planet. And they have something to teach us about connecting with our own and other species. The ultimate lesson is one of compassion: for ourselves, for other species and other humans. Compassion means that I see your darkness, and you see mine, and as a result, we can be more present with each other. “Compassion becomes real,” according to Chodron, “when we recognize our shared humanity.”

Openness to uncertainty may also allow us to explore other ways of knowing that are neither rational nor linear, yet reveal what is so. My friend Mike is a tracker and has learned to honor myriad methods of knowing. At his wits end, he called a friend who called another friend living in India who has extraordinary psychic abilities, and that friend described the area in which Mike’s dog was wandering. Mike drove there, and voila! Dear old Rags.

Opening to uncertainty guarantees that sooner or later, the heart will open, and when it does, we get to love and be loved—in spite of our bewildering fallibility. The playing field is leveled, no one gets to be special or exempt from the suffering inherent in the human condition. We discover that we need each other despite our inordinate obsession with independence. So much of what mattered before in our prison of certainty matters so little now. Or as Pema Chodron summarizes: “Never underestimate the power of compassionately recognizing what’s going on.”

In times of extreme uncertainty such as we are currently experiencing—in times of wandering through the maze of conflicting facts and theories, one of our most trusted allies may be poetry—reading it, writing it, and reciting it to others by heart. Yes, “by heart” which is another way of saying “from the heart.” Prose is linear and more aligned with certainty whereas poetry values our uncertainty and the twists and turns of our frail human condition.

The poet Jane Hirshfield captures our predicament in “Against Certainty”:

There is something out in the dark that wants to correct us.
Each time I think “this,” it answers “that.”
Answers hard, in the heart-grammar’s strictness.

If I then say “that,” it too is taken away.

Between certainty and the real, an ancient enmity.
When the cat waits in the path-hedge,
no cell of her body is not waiting.
This is how she is able so completely to disappear.

I would like to enter the silence portion as she does.

To live amid the great vanishing as a cat must live,
one shadow fully at ease inside another.

Hirshfield gives us a priceless phrase, “the great vanishing,” which succinctly captures the fundamental essence of the time in which we live. Clean air, pure water, unadulterated food, and 200 species per day—all vanishing. And we along with them. Perhaps like the cat, we are all in the process of learning how to “completely disappear.” Like the cat we are waiting, but hopefully not simply to disappear. Our disappearance must serve a purpose, and in order for that to happen, we are waiting and working, waiting and loving, waiting and making amends, waiting and making the demise of other species less agonizing.

In the torture of not knowing, we are “challenged to stay in touch with the heart-throbbing quality of being alive,” says Pema Chodron because “things are as bad and as good as they seem.”

Carolyn Baker, Ph.D., was an adjunct professor of history and psychology for 11 years and a psychotherapist in private practice for 17 years. (She is not, and never has been, a licensed psychologist.) Her latest book Sacred Demise: Walking The Spiritual Path of Industrial Civilization’s Collapse, is unique in its offering of emotional and spiritual tools for preparing for living in a post-industrial world. Carolyn’s forthcoming book is Navigating The Coming Chaos: A Handbook For Inner Transition. Her other books include: Coming Out From Christian Fundamentalism: Affirming Sensuality, Social Justice, and The Sacred (2007) , U.S. History Uncensored: What Your High School Textbook Didn’t Tell You (2006) and The Journey of Forgiveness, (2000) All may be purchased at this site. She is available for speaking engagements and author events and can be contacted at carolyn@carolynbaker.net. Her blog is http://carolynbaker.net

Nelson Rohihlahla Mandela (1918-2013) and Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) were two of human history's greatest leaders in the struggle against governmental oppression. They are also remembered as great ethical teachers. Their lives had many similarities; but there were also differences.

Similarities:

Both Mandela and Gandhi were born into politically influential families. Gandhi's father, and also his grandfather, were Dewans (prime ministers) of the Indian state of Porbandar. Mandela's great-grandfather was the ruler of the Thembu peoples in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. When Mandela's father died, his mother brought the young boy to the palace of the Thembu people's Regent, Chief Jogintaba Dalindyebo, who became the boy's guardian. He treated Mandela as a son and gave him an outstanding education.

Both Mandela and Gandhi studied law. Both were astute political tacticians, and both struggled against governmental injustice in South Africa. Both were completely fearless. Both had iron wills and amazing stubbornness. Both spent long periods in prison as a consequence of their opposition to injustice.

Both Mandela and Gandhi are remembered for their strong belief in truth and fairness, and for their efforts to achieve unity and harmony among conflicting factions. Both treated their political opponents with kindness and politeness.

When Gandhi began to practice law South Africa, in his first case, he was able to solve a conflict by proposing a compromise that satisfied both parties. Of this result he said, ”My joy was boundless. I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men's hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder.”

Mandela is also remembered as a great champion of reconciliation. Wikipedia describes his period as President of South Africa in the following words:

“Presiding over the transition from apartheid minority rule to a multicultural democracy, Mandela saw national reconciliation as the primary task of his presidency. Having seen other post-colonial African economies damaged by the departure of white elites, Mandela worked to reassure South Africa's white population that they were protected and represented in “The Rainbow Nation”. Mandela attempted to create the broadest possible coalition in his cabinet, with de Klerk as first Deputy President while other National Party officials became ministers for Agriculture, Energy, Environment, and Minerals and Energy, and Buthelezi was named Minister for Home Affairs...” Mandela also introduced, and presided over, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Both Gandhi and Mandela believed strongly in the power of truth. Gandhi called this principle “Satyagraha”, and he called his autobiography “The Story of My Experiments With Truth”.

Mandela's realization of the power of truth came during the Rivonia Trial (1963-1964), where he was accused of plotting to overthrow the government of South Africa by violence, and his life was at stake. Remembering this event, Mandela wrote: “In a way I had never quite comprehended before, I realized the role I could play in court and the possibilities before me as a defendant. I was the symbol of justice in the court of the oppressor, the representative of the great ideals of freedom, fairness and democracy in a society that dishonored those virtues. I realized then and there that I could carry on the fight even in the fortress of the enemy”

During his defense statement, Mandela said: “I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and see realized. But my Lord, if it needs to be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Although the prosecutor demanded the death penalty, Mandela was sentenced to lifelong imprisonment. His defense statement became widely known throughout the world, and he became the era's most famous prisoner of conscience. The South African apartheid regime was universally condemned by the international community, and while still in prison, Mandela was given numerous honors, including an honorary doctorate in Lesotho, the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding and Freedom of the City of Glasgow. “Free Mandela” concerts were held in England and the UN Security Council demanded his release.

Finally, as it became increasingly clear that the South African apartheid regime was untenable, Mandela was released in February 1990. He spoke to an enormous and wild cheering crowd of supporters, who had waited four hours to hear him. Four years later, he was elected President of South Africa. He was awarded 250 major honors, including the Nobel Peace Prize, which he shared with de Klerk.

Both Mandela and Gandhi are considered to be the fathers of their countries. Gandhi is called “Mahatma”, which means “Great Soul”, but he was also known by the affectionate name “Bapu”, which means “father”. Mandela was affectionately called “Tata”, which also means “father”.

Differences:

The greatest difference between Mandela and Gandhi concerns non-violence. While Mandela believed that violent protest could sometimes be necessary in the face of governmental violence, Gandhi firmly rejected this idea. He did so partly because of his experience as a lawyer. In carrying out non-violent protests against governmental injustice, Gandhi was making a case before the jury of international public opinion. He thought that he had a better chance of succeeding if he was very clearly in the right.

Furthermore, to the insidious argument that “the end justifies the means”, Gandhi answered firmly: ”They say that 'means are after all means'. I would say that 'means are after all everything'. As the means, so the end. Indeed, the Creator has given us limited power over means, none over end... The means may be likened to a seed, and the end to a tree; and there is the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree. Means and end are convertible terms in my philosophy of life."

What can we learn from Mandela and Gandhi?

Today, as never before, governmental injustice, crime and folly are threatening the future of humankind. If our children and grandchildren are to have a future, each of us must work with dedication for truly democratic government, for a just and effective system of international law, for abolition of the institution of war, for abolition of nuclear weapons, for the reform of our economic system, for stabilization of the global population, and for protection of the global environment against climate change and other dangers. This is not the responsibility of a few people. It is everyone's responsibility. The courage, wisdom and dedication of Mandela and Gandhi can give us inspiration as we approach the great tasks that history has given to out generation.

John Avery received a B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT and an M.Sc. from the University of Chicago. He later studied theoretical chemistry at the University of London, and was awarded a Ph.D. there in 1965. He is now Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Fellowships, memberships in societies: Since 1990 he has been the Contact Person in Denmark for Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. In 1995, this group received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. He was the Member of the Danish Peace Commission of 1998. Technical Advisor, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (1988- 1997). Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy, April 2004. http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/ordbog/aord/a220.htm

The climate change movement needs to be as radical as Nelson Mandela's fight against apartheid, said Naomi Klein, speaking to an audience in London on December 11, 2013 .

Gathering at the Royal Society for a conference on how global carbon emissions can be reduced drastically and immediately, speakers including Naomi Klein, Kevin Anderson and Corinne le Quéré argued for a new wave of radical environmental action.

?Transformative policies must be backed by transformative politics,? said Klein, a Canadian journalist and author on the green movement, via weblink. ?An agenda capable of delivering radical emissions reductions will only advance if accompanied by a radical movement.?

As with the battle against apartheid in South Africa , fighting climate change requires ?a clear moral vision of the alternative being fought for,? said Klein. Just as Mandela fought for a new ?rainbow egalitarian society? rather than simply against racism, environmentalists need to establish a new approach to society.

It is time for a new generation of environmental activism to emerge, she said?one that is not dominated by acceptance of the prevailing world view, but one that breaks free from the ?ideologically shackled environment in which we all operate?.

Failure to challenge an ideology based upon self-interest and an all-powerful market?reinforced this week by a deal struck by the World Trade Organization in Bali to simplify the process of trade across borders?has hindered the environmental movement since its beginnings in the late 1980s, she said.

?This has been the strategy so far, and it has failed spectacularly. It has actively reinforced the ideas that have been our greatest obstacles?especially the idea that there is no society, that we are defined by self interested, consumer desires.?

Radical reductions

This radical rethinking of the environmental movement will be necessary if Professor Kevin Anderson from the Tyndall Centre is to have his hopes realized.

He argues that if the fight against climate change is to be fair on developing countries, rich nations need to reduce their emissions by 10% year on year, meaning a 90% reduction by 2030.

This is based on the assumption that developing states will also peak their emissions by 2025, and reduce their emissions thereafter by 6-8% per year.

Anderson says it is only by adopting these tough targets that the world can stay within its carbon budget?the amount of CO2 that can be emitted if the world is to stay within safe limits of warming?at the same time as giving developing countries the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty.

This is a long way off the current political goals and the sluggish rate at which the international process moves towards them. The EU, for instance, is currently considering setting a 2030 target of around 35-45% reductions.

Acknowledging that his idea would face ridicule he said: ?That is a good thing ? it is trying to help the imagination and the clarity of thought to think about the world differently.?

But he added that it wasn't politically impossible, and that politicians ought not to be considered as an elite group operating in a completely different sphere. Many of them share similar aims, he said, and civil society ought to be there to support them in taking ambitious action.

Triggers

But bringing about these radical changes doesn't simply rely on activists managing to locate a sympathetic ear in Whitehall or the White House.

As the changes that occur in the climate become more dramatic, so attitudes within society will adopt a more radical approach, argued Corinne le Quéré, also from the Tyndall Centre.

Extreme weather events of the kind seen in recent years, such as Hurricane Sandy or the heat waves experiences in Europe in 2010 and 2003, will become more frequent and act as ?triggers? to a new way of thinking, she said.

?Things could change rapidly and the reason for this is that society is not a rational entity. There are triggers that make people change their minds about things.

?I think that one of these things is the reaction to extreme events. This triggers a lot of thinking in society, and there have been a lot of extreme events in recent years.?

Other speakers at the conference compared the fight against climate change as similar to the war effort in the 1940s, where the industrialized world completely restructured their economies to tackle the challenge they faced.

There are of course limits to the comparison, said Laurence Delina from the University of New South Wales : ?Climate change is more complex than fighting a war.? But the example shows that such a remodeling of society lies within the realms of possibility.

This is not simply an academic exercise, said Klein. ?Rest assured there is a movement that is bubbling up. It is one that is going to take your most radical ideas and run with them.?

© RTCC, Dec 11, 2013 ,

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” –Buckminister Fuller

We live in the age of ecocide. Defined as the extensive damage, destruction or loss of ecosystems of a given territory, ecocide is the result of the way people, corporations, and governments are running their affairs all around the globe. But ecocide doesn’t have to be the status quo. A new law being proposed in the European Union would protect ecosystems by giving them legal standing. Under such a law, the Earth would no longer exist purely as property or a set of resources to be exploited. Instead people and institutions would acknowledge the intrinsic value of ecosystems and accept the legal duty to protect them.

Ending ecocide requires nothing short of a paradigm shift. This shift, in turn, requires a cultural change — a movement away from exploitation and toward stewardship of nature. The cultural shift is unfolding as people, especially the younger generation, internalize the evidence of ecocide and its devastating consequences constantly being issued in reports about global warming, species extinctions, and natural resource depletion. But we need more than just a cultural shift. We need specific and revolutionary changes in two subsystems of society: the legal framework and the economy.

The Legal Shift to End Ecocide

The concept of ecocide has been discussed since the 1950s, and it has even been codified as a war crime. According to Article 8.2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it is illegal to cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment” in acts of war. But the same damage caused in peacetime is legal. In 2010, building on a history of attempts to criminalize ecocide, Polly Higgins submitted a proposal to the United Nations to include ecocide as the Fifth Crime Against Peace.

At the core of the law of ecocide prevention is the idea that decision-makers in business and politics should be held personally and criminally liable for damages caused to the environment. Contrary to the existing system in which fines often fail to cover the cost of cleanup, companies and decision-makers under the law of ecocide prevention would be held criminally accountable and would have to pay the costs of restoring ecosystems to the extent possible.

Today many laws and regulations are in place to protect certain parts of the natural environment, such as soil, water, and endangered species. However, existing legislation treats each of these elements separately, fragmenting the overall body of environmental law. In contrast, the law of ecocide prevention takes a holistic approach by establishing a broad framework for conserving ecosystems and the services they provide.

The main aim of this legislation is not the imprisonment of decision-makers but the creation of incentives and a legal framework for achieving environmentally sound behavior, especially within corporations. Imagine all investments flowing into non-ecocidal activities and the resultant innovations driven by resource efficiency and waste minimization. With strict enforcement, businesses would make the necessary adjustments to comply with the new legal framework. If accompanied by subsidies to facilitate the transition to a new business model, the law of ecocide prevention has the potential to trigger a transition to a different sort of economy — one that operates in harmony with the ecosystem.

The Economic Shift to End Ecocide

The economic goal of continuous growth sets the stage for ecocide. With their primary focus on more and more growth, businesses contribute to the global environmental catastrophe by externalizing the environmental costs of their profit-maximizing actions. As moral philosopher Michael Sandel puts it, we have moved from a market economy that is valuable for organizing productive activity to a market society where everything is up for sale. The problem with a market society is that it corrodes or crowds out important, non-market-based values and de-emphasizes public goods at a time when inequality is dramatically rising.

Instead of a growth-obsessed economy focused on maximizing profits and producing more and more goods and services, we need a steady state economy focused on maximizing well-being and producing sufficient goods and services within ecological boundaries. As described by Herman Daly, a steady state economy uses the “lowest feasible flows of matter and energy from the first stage of production to the last stage of consumption.” The idea is to maintain a non-growing throughput of low-entropy resources and energy through the economy. In short, instead of getting bigger, the focus shifts to getting better.

We may have already arrived at a major economic inflection point. The rate of global economic growth is decreasing, and some economists are discussing whether we have reached the end of economic growth and the limits of global capitalism. 2008 marked the beginning of the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. With the old system failing, there is potential for the North and eventually the South to make the turn toward a steady state economy that is based on the principles of sustainable development.

Even though the old system of continuous growth is failing, we need to create the conditions for a steady state economy to emerge. Unfortunately, the principles of sustainable development are mostly missing from today’s environmental law and policy. That’s why the steady state economy goes hand in hand with the law of ecocide prevention. It’s exactly the kind of economy that will materialize when businesses are legally bound to protect ecosystems.

The law of ecocide prevention and the steady state economy constitute two paradigm shifts, a legal and an economic one. These two shifts reinforce one another and move society in the same direction — placing people and planet ahead of profit. But how can people who recognize the necessity of this two-pronged shift help make it happen?

A group of volunteers has proposed a law to the European Union to make ecocide a crime if it is committed in EU territory, or by companies registered in the EU, or by EU citizens. The proposed legislation would also apply to the import of any goods or services resulting from activities causing ecocide in the EU and the financing of ecocide by EU banks or financial institutions. If one million EU citizens support this proposal by January 21st, 2014, the European Commission will be legally bound to propose an action. We would like to invite EU citizens to vote today for a law to protect our future. Ecocidal tendencies have no place in either our legal or our economic institutions.

Amelia Womack, Villo Lelkes and Prisca Merz are volunteers for End Ecocide, a European citizens initiative aiming to criminalize ecocide. They need to collect 1 million signatures for a law to be considered by the EU. Amelia is a Green Party candidate for the European Parliament and has completed a MSc in environmental technology — her thesis addressed the impact of the law of ecocide prevention on business. Villo is an environmental lawyer who previously worked for the European Commission as a policy officer on sustainability. Prisca has a background in public policy and human development and heads the End Ecocide team as a volunteer.

Last Monday, 65 years ago, the United Nations adopted a convention prohibiting genocide. http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cppcg/cppcg.html It therefore seems appropriate to recall some examples of genocide, many of which have occurred since 1948

Article II of the 1948 convention defines genocide as ?any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Instances of genocide stain much of human history. Readers of Charles Darwin's book describing ?The Voyage of the Beagle? will remember his horrifying account of General Rosas' genocidal war against the Amerind population of Argentina. Similar genocidal violence has been experienced by indigenous peoples throughout South and Central America, and indeed throughout the world.

In general, the cultures of indigenous peoples require much land, and greed for this land is the motive for violence against them. However, the genetic and cultural heritage of indigenous peoples can potentially be of enormous value to humanity, and great efforts should be made to protect them.

In North America, we can recall that military commanders, such as Lord Jeffrey Amherst, deliberately innoculated the Indians with smallpox by giving them blankets from smallpox hospitals. Amherst wrote to his associate, Colonel Henry Bouquet ?You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians, by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.? This is clearlly an instance of genocide, as well as being an example of the use of biological weapons.

The website of the Holocaust Museum Houston ( http://www.hmh.org/la_Genocide_Guatemala.shtml )states that ?Civil war existed in Guatemala since the early 1960s due to inequalities existing in the economic and political life. In the 1970s, the Maya began participating in protests against the repressive government, demanding greater equality and inclusion of the Mayan language and culture. In 1980, the Guatemalan army instituted ?Operation Sophia,? which aimed at ending insurgent guerrilla warfare by destroying the civilian base in which they hid. This program specifically targeted the Mayan population, who were believed to be supporting the guerilla movement. Over the next three years, the army destroyed 626 villages, killed or ?disappeared? more than 200,000 people and displaced an additional 1.5 million, while more than 150,000 were driven to seek refuge in Mexico. Forced disappearance policies included secretly arresting or abducting people, who were often killed and buried in unmarked graves.?

The Holocost Museum Huston has resources that cover not only genocide committed by the Nazis in Europe during World War II, but also genocides in Congo, Armenia, Boznia-Herzegovinia, Cambodia, Darfur and Rwanda, besides Argentina and Guatamala.

Regarding Palestine, Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, states thet ?What we are seeing in Gaza now, is pretty much slow motion genocide against the 1.5 million people who live in Gaza... If you read the 1948 Genocide convention, it clearly says that one instance of genocide is the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of people in whole or in part..., and that is exactly what has been done since the imposition of the blocade by Israel.

I would like to end by pointing out that nuclear warfare is an example of genocide, since it kills entire populations, including babies, young children, adults in their prime and old people, without any regard for guilt or innocence. The retention of nuclear weapons, with the intent to use them under some circumstances, must be seen as the intent to commit genocide. Is it not morally degrading to see our leaders announce their intention to commit the ultimate crime against humanity?

But the use of nuclear weaposn involves not only genociide, but also omnicide, since a large-scale thermonuclear war would destroy human civiliization and much of the biosphere.

If humanity is to survive in an era of all-destroying weapons, we must develop an advanced ethic to match our advanced technology. We must regard all humans as our brothers and sisters, More than that, we must actively feel our kinship with all living things, as well as our duty to protect inanimate nature.

John Avery received a B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT and an M.Sc. from the University of Chicago. He later studied theoretical chemistry at the University of London, and was awarded a Ph.D. there in 1965. He is now Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Fellowships, memberships in societies: Since 1990 he has been the Contact Person in Denmark for Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. In 1995, this group received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. He was the Member of the Danish Peace Commission of 1998. Technical Advisor, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (1988- 1997). Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy, April 2004. http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/ordbog/aord/a220.htm. He can be reached at avery.john.s@gmail.com

“The purpose of this analysis is to understand those historic emissions as a factual matter, to invite consideration of their possible relevance to public policy, and to lay the possible groundwork for apportioning responsibility for climate change to the entities that provided the hydrocarbon products to the global economy,” he wrote.

Good luck with that last part. 

While delegates from all over the world are gathered now in Poland arguing over which countries are most responsible for climate impacts, Heede’s work takes a different approach — it’s not countries so much as companies we should be examining.

The scope of the work is massive. Of the 90 companies, 56 are oil and gas producers, 37 are coal companies, and seven are cement producers. While they are based in 43 countries, “these entities extract resources from every oil, natural gas, and coal province in the world, and process the fuels into marketable products that are sold to consumers in every nation on Earth,” Heede writes. So, in a way, we all have a hand in this, too.

By his calculations these 90 companies are responsible for 914 billion tons of greenhouse gas pollution, for a whopping total of 63 percent of C02 and methane (CH4) emissions since 1751. But it’s only recently that things have really started to heat up. “Of total industrial CO2 and CH4 emissions from 1751 to 2010, one-half has been emitted since 1984.” 

So, who are the worst offenders? Here’s the top 10 from his study:

The information is important, not just from an historical perspective but to help us figure out what to do now that the graph of global emissions looks like a steep climb up a never-ending hill.

“Many of the same companies are also sitting on substantial reserves of fossil fuel which—if they are burned—puts the world at even greater risk of dangerous climate change,” writes Suzanne Goldenberg for the Guardian. “Climate change experts said the data set was the most ambitious effort so far to hold individual carbon producers, rather than governments, to account.”

So far little has been done to hold anyone accountable and the battle over how much wealthier nations with high rates of emissions should compensate poorer countries, which have been bearing the brunt of climate change impacts, is a source of great contention. It may also be a global impasse. This week numerous groups walked out of talks partly because of a lack of progress on the issue of accountability. The biggest speed bump continues to be the fossil fuel industry and its collusion with numerous governments.

Tara Lohan, a senior editor at AlterNet, has just launched the new project Hitting Home, chronicling extreme energy extraction. She is the editor of two books on the global water crisis, including most recently, Water Matters: Why We Need to Act Now to Save Our Most Critical Resource. Follow her on Twitter @TaraLohan.

As tributes pour in following the death of anti-apartheid icon, Nelson Mandela, it is important that we remember that as part of his ongoing crusade for global justice, Mandela was a passionate activist and longtime critic of many U.S policies and ideology.

More importantly, unlike others, he was willing to stand up and speak out against their implementation and even support their opposition in the face of controversy.

As we commemorate his death, let’s pay tribute to some of Madiba’s more memorable quotes and for telling it like it is.  Such words impacted on American activism and hopefully will serve as a reminder that the struggle must go on.

1. Speaking out against the war in Iraq

In 2003, two months before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Mandela said that any military action against the Saddam Hussein regime without U.N. Security Council approval would be illegal. He also condemned Bush for undermining the United Nations, Huff Post reported.

"It is a tragedy, what is happening, what Bush is doing. But Bush is now undermining the United Nations.If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings. Who are they now to pretend that they are the policemen of the world, the ones that should decided for the people of Iraq what should be done with their government and their leadership,” he said.

2. Calling Bush a small little man

Speaking out against the war in Iraq in 2003, Mandela denounced Bush.

“What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust. Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly? All that he wants is Iraqi oil.”

3. Denouncing the United States as a serious threat to world peace

While he initially supported the war in Afghanistan, Mandela then criticized the United States for its actions:

“The United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after the decisions were taken…If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace,” he said.

4. Exposing the hypocrisy in Israel-U.S. relations

Mandela also called out the U.S. for its hypocritical stance on Israel in an interview with Newsweek in 2002:

"Neither Bush nor Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist [in Iraq]. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white."

Mandela also condemned Israel and its supporters for the treatment of the Palestinian people:

“Israel should withdraw from all the areas which it won from the Arabs in 1967, and in particular Israel should withdraw completely from the Golan Heights, from south Lebanon and from the West Bank,” he said.

5. Refusing to tow the U.S.'s line on Cuba 

In 1991, Mandela praised Castro and forged a long-lasting friendship with the leader, despite the United States' antagonistic relationship with Cuba. Mandela defended the Cuban Revolution:

“From its earliest days, the Cuban Revolution has also been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of the vicious imperialist-orquestrated campaign to destroy the impressive gain made in the Cuban Revolution….Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro,” he said.

President Nelson Mandela was truly a transformative force in the history of  South Africa and the world. My heart weighs heavy about his transition, but we are reassured because his life was full, and we know the  imprint he left on our world is everlasting.

If ever the teaching that "Suffering breeds character. Character breeds faith. In the end faith will not disappoint" rang true, it did in the life of Mandela.

Despite imprisonment in Robben Island for 25 years and 8 months, Mandela never lost faith in winning freedom for the South African people. Suffering breeds character.

Mandela was a transformational figure; to say he was a "historical figure" would not give him his full due. Some people move through history as being the "first this or that" – just another figure in a lineage of persons. To be a transformer is to plan, to have the vision to chart the course, the skills to execute. To be transformational is to have the courage of one's convictions, to sacrifice, to risk life and limb, to lay it all on the line. "Historical figures" will reference  Nelson Mandela.

I recall marching against apartheid with  Oliver Tambo and the enormous rally at Trafalgar Square in November 1985. I later met with the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher to decry Britain's economic, political and military support of the apartheid regime. Let us not forget that Britain, the US, all of the western powers, labelled Mandela a terrorist and steadfastly propped up the apartheid regime – they were on the wrong side of history. I appealed to her to support the release of Mandela, and departed for South Africa.

My heart burst with excitement on that day of Mandela's release from Victor Verster prison, 11 February 1990. When word got out about his impending release, maids started doing the toya toya in the hallways, beating pots and pans, weeping and demonstrating. "In the end, faith will not disappoint."

I met Mandela and Winnie at City Hall, and when we spoke later at our hotel, he thanked me and recalled hearing about my 1984 convention speech. Even from his jail cell, he was keenly aware of the outside world, and the ebbs and flows of the world. Three years later, as part of the official US delegation, I was honoured to celebrate Nelson Mandela's inauguration as president of the new, free South Africa.

We forged an everlasting relationship. We've welcomed him to our home and  headquarters in Chicago. We've met numerous times in South Africa – the last time in 2010 where we spoke about boxing, sports, politics and traded baseball caps.

Mandela was a giant of immense and unwavering intellect courage and moral authority. He chose reconciliation over retaliation. He changed the course of history.

Now, both South Africa and the US have unfinished business to complete.

Nelson Mandela is not gone, he remains with us always. He'll always be a chin bar to pull up on. He has indeed forged South Africa as a new "beauty from ashes". He has left this earth, but he soars high among the heavens, and his eloquent call for freedom and equality is still heard amongst the winds and the rains, and in the hearts of the people the world over.

A major new study blows up the whole notion of natural gas as a short-term bridge fuel to a carbon-free economy.

Natural gas is mostly methane (CH4), a potent heat-trapping gas. If, as now seems likely, natural gas production systems leak 2.7% (or more), then gas-fired power loses its near-term advantage over coal and becomes more of a gangplank than a bridge. Worse, without a carbon price, some gas displaces renewable energy, further undercutting any benefit it might have had.

Fifteen scientists from some of the leading institutions in the world — including Harvard, NOAA and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab — have published a seminal study, “Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States.” Crucially, it is based on “comprehensive atmospheric methane observations, extensive spatial datasets, and a high-resolution atmospheric transport model,” rather than the industry-provided numbers EPA uses.

Indeed, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study by Scot Miller et al takes the unusual step of explicitly criticizing the EPA:

The US EPA recently decreased its CH4 emission factors for fossil fuel extraction and processing by 25–30% (for 1990–2011), but we find that CH4 data from across North America instead indicate the need for a larger adjustment of the opposite sign.

D’oh!

How much larger? The study found greenhouse gas emissions from “fossil fuel extraction and processing (i.e., oil and/or natural gas) are likely a factor of two or greater than cited in existing studies.” In particular, they concluded, “regional methane emissions due to fossil fuel extraction and processing could be 4.9 ± 2.6 times larger than in EDGAR, the most comprehensive global methane inventory.”

This suggests the methane leakage rate from natural gas production, which EPA recently decreased to about 1.5%, is in fact 3% or higher.

This broad-based look at methane emissions confirms the findings of 3 recent leakage studies covering very different regions of the country:

• NOAA researchers found in 2012 that natural-gas producers in the Denver area “are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system.”
• A 2013 study by NOAA found leaks from oil and gas exploration and extraction in the L.A. basin representing “about 17% of the natural gas produced in the region, similar to the leak rate estimated by the California Air Resources Board using other methods.” Almost all the gas produced in the basin is “associated” with oil production (rather than, say, fracked). Associated gas is still about a fifth of total U.S. gas production.
• Another 2013 study from 19 researchers led by NOAA concluded “measurements show that on one February day in the Uinta Basin, the natural gas field leaked 6 to 12 percent of the methane produced, on average, on February days.” The Uinta Basin is of special interest because it “produces about 1 percent of total U.S. natural gas” and fracking has increased there over the past decade.

  Indeed, all of these findings taken together vindicate the concerns of high leakage rates raised by Cornell professors Howarth, Santoro and Ingraffea, which I reported on back in 2011. I asked Ingraffea to comment on the new study. He wrote:

  The results presented by Miller and his team are another serious challenge to an “all of the above” energy policy that relies on negotiated estimates of methane emissions, rather than actual and representative emission measurements, while at the same time claiming serious concern about climate change. A growing series of regional, top-down measurements by this team and others, now on a national scale, is proving to be a more rational approach to accounting for the highly skewed distribution of methane emission sources.

  He added, “That methane bridge is starting to crack.”

  We have seen a number of cracks this year in the methane bridge — bringing it to the point of collapse. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported recently that methane is a far more potent a greenhouse gas than we had previously realized, some 34 times stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale — and 86 times more potent over a 20-year time frame.

  With methane having both a higher leakage rate and higher global warming potential than previously thought, the notion of methane as a bridge fuel is falling apart.

  Yes, it’s true a recent study finds the best-fracked wells have low methane leak rates — but that study ignored the super-emitters that are responsible for the bulk of the fugitive emissions.

  And remember, for natural gas to be a bridge fuel to a carbon-free future (rather than a detour around it), gas must replace coal only, rather than replacing some combination of coal, renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficiency — which is obviously what will happen in the real world absent a price on carbon pollution. The most comprehensive modeling to date, by fourteen teams from different organizations, found that abundant and cheap natural gas has little net impact on U.S. CO2 growth (especially post-2020) compared to the case of low shale gas penetration precisely because it displaces carbon-free energy. Globally, the International Energy Agency finds a dash to gas would destroy a livable climate.

  Finally, natural gas makes little sense as a short-term sustainability play, since we knowthat each fracked well consumes staggering amounts of water, much of which is rendered permanently unfit for human use and reinjected into the ground where it can taint even more ground water in the coming decades. That’s particularly worrisome considering that fossil fuels destroy the climate and accelerate drought and water shortages.

  With this most recent study, our understanding of the limitations of natural gas is now fairly complete. Natural gas is not a bridge to a carbon-free or climate-safe future. In fact, absent both a serious price for carbon and very strong, enforceable national regulations on leakage, natural gas is a gangplank.

  The comprehensive nature of this new study strongly suggests these earlier findings were not anomalies, as some have suggested.

London, 3 December - Governments have set the wrong target to limit climate change. The goal at present - to limit global warming to a maximum of 2°C higher than the average for most of human history  - “would have consequences that can be described as disastrous”, say 18 scientists in a review paper in the journal PLOS One.

With a 2°C increase, “sea level rise of several meters could be expected,” they say. “Increased climate extremes, already apparent at 0.8°C warming, would be more severe. Coral reefs and associated species, already stressed with current conditions, would be decimated by increased acidification, temperature and sea level rise.

The paper’s lead author is James Hansen, now at Columbia University, New York, and the former NASA scientist who in 1988 put global warming on the world’s front pages by telling a US government committee that “It's time to stop waffling so much and say the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.”

Hansen’s fellow authors include the economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University and the biologist Camille Parmesan, of the University of Plymouth in the UK and the University of Texas at Austin, USA.

Their argument is that humanity and nature - “the modern world as we know it” - is adapted to what scientists call the Holocene climate that has existed for more than 10,000 years - since the end of the Ice Age, the beginnings of agriculture and the first settlement of the cities.

Warming of 1°C relative to 1880–1920 keeps global temperature close to the Holocene range, but warming of 2°C, could cause “major dislocations for civilization.”

The scientists study, uncompromisingly entitled “Assessing ‘dangerous climate change’: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature” differs from many such climate analyses because it sets out its argument with remarkable directness and clarity, and serves as a useful briefing document for anyone – politicians, journalists and lay audiences - anxious to better understand the machinery of climate, and the forces that seem to be about to dictate climate change.

Its critics will point out that it is also remarkably short on the usual circumlocutions, caveats, disclaimers and equivocations that tend to characterise most scientific papers. Hansen and his co-authors are however quite open about the major areas of uncertainty: their implicit argument is that if the worst outcomes turn out to be true, the consequences for humankind could be catastrophic.

The scientists case is that most political debate addresses the questions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but does not and perhaps cannot factor in the all potentially dangerous unknowns – the slow feedbacks that will follow the thawing of the Arctic, the release of frozen reserves of methane and carbon dioxide in the permafrost, and the melting of polar ice into the oceans. They point out that 170 nations have agreed on the need to limit fossil fuel emissions to avoid dangerous human-made climate change.

“However the stark reality is that global emissions have accelerated, and new efforts are underway to massively expand fossil fuel extractions by drilling to increasing ocean depths and into the Arctic, squeezing oil from tar sands and tar shale, hydro-fracking to expand extraction of natural gas, developing exploitation of methane hydrates and mining of coal via mountain-top removal and mechanised long wall-mining.”

The scientists argue that swift and drastic action to limit global greenhouse gas emissions and contain warming to around 1°C would have two useful consequences. One is that it would not be far from the climate variations experienced as normal during the last 10,000 years, and secondly that it would make it more likely that the biosphere, and the soil, would be able to sequester a substantial proportion of the carbon dioxide released by human industrial civilisation.

Trees are, in essence, captive carbon dioxide. But the warmer the world becomes, the more likely it is that existing forests – the Amazon, for example – will start to release more CO2 than they absorb, making the planet progressively even warmer.

Therefore the scientists make a case for limiting overall global carbon emissions to 500 gigatonnes rather than the 1,000 billion tonnes in the 2°C rise scenario.

“Although there is merit in simply chronicling what is happening, there is still opportunity for humanity to exercise free will,” says Hansen. 

On New Year's Eve 2009, a train with 104 tank cars of light crude oil traveled 1,123 miles from North Dakota's Bakken oil fields to a terminal in Stroud, Oklahoma, and opened a new front in the war over development of Canada's tar sands. 

It didn't seem that way at the time. EOG Resources, the company that owned the oil, simply needed a way to get its crude out of North Dakota, where production since the advent of oil fracking there nearly a decade earlier had far exceeded the capacity of available pipelines and trucks. The 2009 shipment is now considered a bellwether event, marking the first significant movement of U.S. crude oil by rail in many decades. Less than four years later, railroads have shipped as much as 600,000 barrels a day from the Bakken and are transporting crude not just from North Dakota but from oil-fracking sites in Montana, Texas, Utah, Ohio, Wyoming, Colorado, and southern Canada. Across North America, trains are now moving nearly a million barrels of crude a day, and that number will continue to grow rapidly. 

Of the million barrels now being shipped by rail in North America, only a small fraction — around 50,000 barrels — consists of the "heavy crude" that is produced in the tar sands; the rest is "light crude" from southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the U.S. Light crude is hydrogen-heavy and carbon-light; its high hydrogen content enables it to flow easily but also makes it alarmingly explosive. Bitumen, the chief constituent of heavy crude, is the opposite, carbon-heavy and hydrogen-light, as viscous as peanut butter, unable to flow through pipelines unless diluents are added to it, but also unable to be loaded into railcars unless it is heated or diluted. Heavy crude is therefore more expensive to transport by rail than light crude, which is one reason tar sands crude lags far behind light crude in rail shipments. Another is that few rail cars are equipped to carry heavy crude. Some oil industry analysts predict that both obstacles will eventually fall away, leading to massive heavy crude transport by rail, while others think that rail will never serve more than a niche market, serving newly developed oil fields only until pipelines to them are built. 

Sandy Fielden, an energy markets consultant at RBN Energy and blogger whose entries include "Crude Loves Rock'n'Rail," said in an interview, "If there is money to be made, people will figure out a way of getting oil to market. Pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to accomplish that, but if there aren't pipelines, people will figure out alternatives, and clearly the current emphasis on crude-by-rail is one such alternative." 

Yet the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, whose member companies produce about 90 percent of Canada's crude oil and natural gas, takes a less upbeat view of rail transport. Rail is "a complement to pipelines," said Greg Stringham, the group's vice president for markets and oil sands. "The rail companies can provide some service on a short-term, short-distance basis, maybe even longer-distance, until a pipeline is in place...They're seeing this as an opportunity to be much more complementary to the long-haul pipeline system that needs to be built." 

Whether rail replaces or only complements pipelines, the oil industry's budding romance with it is not necessarily a sign of the tar sands' rosy prospects, for it could also be an indication of developers' setbacks in building pipelines. Although American media provide relentless coverage of Keystone XL's prospects, their focus is myopic. Keystone XL is only one of seven proposed pipelines intended to transport tar sands crude — the projects extend from Alberta not just south to the Gulf of Mexico but east and west to both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and are aimed at reaching vast export markets from ports in Portland, Maine; St. John, New Brunswick; Kitimat, British Columbia; and Anacortes, Washington. 

The Canadian and Alberta governments avidly support all these proposals, yet opponents have entangled every one in so much protest and legal conflict that their fates are uncertain. Based on the assumption that at least some of the pipelines will be approved, tar sands developers are investing at a current rate of $19 billion a year in tar sands projects. Now they face the real possibility that delays in pipeline construction (never mind outright rejections) will leave them without transport outlets within a year or two. That's one reason that last month Alberta bitumen sold for as low as $29.40 a barrel, while benchmark West Texas light crude sold for $94.25. There's a hint of desperation in the developers' embrace of rail. 

Just like pipelines, railroads face significant obstacles as conveyors of tar sands crude — and for some of the same reasons. Just as pipelines leak, trains derail, sometimes with devastating consequences. On the night of July 6, 2013, a train with 72 tank cars carrying Bakken light crude was left on a hill overlooking the Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic, 130 miles east of Montreal. The train's sole engineer apparently failed to apply hand brakes to enough rail cars before he checked into a hotel for the evening, and at 12:56 a.m. the train began rolling. It reached a speed of 60 miles per hour — far exceeding a 10-mile-per-hour limit considered safe in the town — when, just after crossing Lac-Mégantic's main street, it derailed. Bakken crude is highly flammable, and explosions went on for hours, leveling half the town of 6,000 people, destroying 30 buildings and killing 47 people, including six whose bodies were so thoroughly vaporized in the prodigiously high temperatures that no trace of them was found. 

The accident was the biggest Canadian train disaster in more than a century. It received massive coverage in Canada, but it got far less attention in the U.S. That's unfortunate, since it revealed the lax state of regulation of the railroad industry in both Canada and the U.S — and the huge expansion of rail-by-crude increases the odds that such accidents will happen again. Employing only one engineer to operate a train that was nearly a mile long might have been imprudent, but it did not violate regulations. The light crude in the Lac-Mégantic train turned out to have been mislabeled as conventional crude, which is not explosive, but even with proper labeling, the dangerous cargo wouldn't have had to be handled any differently. 

As long ago as 1991, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board singled out the model of tank car used in the Lac-Mégantic train for its susceptibility to releasing its contents when derailed. Nevertheless, this model, known as the DOT-111, dominates North American tank fleets. Older versions are entirely unsuited to carrying light crude, but thanks to the crude-by-rail boom there's a backlog of at least two years on orders for an upgraded, somewhat safer version that has been in circulation since 2011. 

Frustrated by the halting pace of change to federal railroad regulations, the American Association of Railroads voluntarily tightened tank car rules in 2011. Last month, after a 90-car train carrying Bakken light crude derailed and ignited in western Alabama, the association called on federal regulators to require retrofits of 72,000 older DOT-111s and upgrades in 14,000 newer ones to lessen the likelihood of light crude explosions after derailment. If carried out quickly, this change would limit the supply of tank cars even more, and would place still another obstacle in the way of a rapid buildup in rail shipments of tar sands crude. 

Unlike Bakken crude, bitumen-laden heavy crude is not explosive, but rail shipments of it pose another sort of danger: If bitumen is spilled into a body of water, it sinks, making cleanups highly difficult, if not impossible. That was clearly demonstrated when an Enbridge Inc. pipeline leaked more than 31,000 barrels of tar sands crude into Michigan's Kalamazoo River in July 2010. Bitumen covered 36 miles of riverbed, triggering a complicated cleanup that has so far cost the company about a billion dollars and is far from complete. 

In addition, some refineries lack offloading facilities to handle crude arriving by rail. An October 8 Goldman Sachs report questioned whether refiners "have access to sufficient terminal off-loading capacity to handle the growing rail volumes of heavy crude oil." Shipping crude by rail is more expensive than using pipelines, and construction of new loading and offloading facilities will drive the cost higher. 

On top of this, some of these projects are certain to face local opposition. Communities with refineries may oppose proposed facilities to offload tar sands crude, since refining bitumen emits substantially more pollutants than conventional crude; communities with ports may fear that proposed crude-by-rail terminals will increase chances of oil spills in their waterways. And because tar sands oil extraction releases far more greenhouse gases than conventional crude does, some communities may also resist as a way of fighting climate change. Such concerns were reflected in recent decisions in Benicia, California, and Grays Harbor, Washington, to delay construction of crude-by-rail terminals while environmental evaluations are conducted. 

"The rail guys right now are in the same space the pipeline guys were five years ago," said Keith Stewart, Greenpeace Canada's climate and energy campaign coordinator. "They're assuming they can have massive growth rates and there won't be any hiccups along the way. I think the pipeline guys have now realized it's not that easy, and the unnatural exuberance about rail will soon come crashing down in the same way."