Skip to main content


The MIT Climate Colab has officially announced the results of its 2011 contest "How should the 21st century economy evolve bearing in mind the risks of climate change?" And it looks like beach-babe-in-fl

Global Category

1st Place, Popular Choice: 2010 Winners Combined by Dennis Peterson, a software engineer based in Charlotte, North Carolina

2nd Place, Popular Choice and Judges’ Special Commendation: The Planet or Your Plate: Mitigate Climate Change by Going Meatless by beach-babe-in-fl, an environmental activist and founder of the Daily Kos Meatless Advocates, Nancy A. Heitzeg, of St. Catherine University, and Gerard Wedderburn Bisshop, advisor and senior scientist at the World Preservation Foundation.

Winning proposals are presented by the CoLab to the UN and before the US Senate.

The committee also extends "sincere congratulations"  to the in the National Category: gmoke for How to Change U.S. Energy in One Growing Season by George Mokray.

Continue Reading

Two Daily Kos eco writers, beachbabe in fl and gmoke are finalists in the final voting phase of the MIT Climate Colab Contest.

Judges in the contest, which entered its final round October 31, have selected three global proposals and five national proposals for the final popular voting phase.

In the Global Contest,"How should the global economy evolve through 2100, given the risks of climate change?", beachbabe in fl is currently in first place in the popular vote with her proposal The Planet Or Your Plate: mitigate climate change by going meatless.

In the National Contest, "How should national economies evolve through 2100, given the risks of climate change?" gmoke is one of five finalists with his proposal
How to Change US Energy in One Growing Season.

Members of the Climate CoLab community have until Nov 15 to vote for the Popular Choice Winner in both categories.  The judges will then select the Judges' Choice Winner. Both winning proposals are featured in briefings before both the United Nations and the US Congress.

Join the Climate CoLab community today and support the fabulous work of our two outstanding environmental writers.

Continue Reading

Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 07:35 AM PDT

A very (planet) moving experience

by jamesgreyson

Reposted from jamesgreyson by jamesgreyson

Getting the planet moving is an attractive plan. People will take part if it's fun and easy and they can do something, anything, with other people locally. After all, fossil fuels aren't phasing themselves out so if enough people do something then politicians might notice and suddenly develop signs of 'political will'. New policies might blossom like petals on a global green renaissance and the planet will have moved beyond fossil fuels and the risk of runaway climate chaos. Phew!

It would be nice wouldn't it?

My moving planet experience was different. It wasn't a rally, unless 5 people can be called a rally. It was held locally but we weren't thinking locally. We were thinking what can a handful of people do that really makes the planet move? What can be done now that hasn't been done before during four decades of sustainability initiatives that haven't initiated sustainability? Not much?

Continue Reading

Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 01:17 PM PDT

Hey, Climate CoLab Team @ Kos!

by boatsie

photo

It's NOT TOO LATE to submit a proposal or join a team @ the MIT Climate CoLab Contest!

The 2011 Contest Question: How should the 21st century economy evolve bearing in mind the risks of climate change?

James Greyson, who participated in our #48forEastAfrica blogathon, is a moderator @ the MIT Climate CoLab and is administering  our small group here @ Kos.

So far, gmoke has submitted a proposal Ongoing Global Brainstorm and another Kos eco writer is also considering entering the contest. Blindspotter's entry is  Fix the system not just the symptom.

This year's question was chosen because the building a green economy is the theme at Rio+20, Earth Summit 2012.

While we have passed the window of opportunity for experts to provide advice on our proposal ideas, the contest is still open for team members and submissions.

Stop by the CoLab and read some of the phenemonal proposals! Log in and you can join discussions and support proposals with ideas. Even join a team!

Contact James (Blindspotter) colab@blindspot.org.uk with questions.

Continue Reading
Reposted from East Africa Food Crisis: 48 Hours of Action by jamesgreyson

CLICK THE BELOW LINK TO MAKE A DONATION

Please read this if you live outside the United States - to make a donation, click this link and scroll down a bit to find your country.  If not listed, please Google Oxfam in your country.

Daisy is the author of the diary, and I merely am posting for her as she is a new kos-friend.  I provided the link to her site at the end of her text.  I will also ask her to post an early comment so you can tip her.  
Continue Reading
Reposted from beach babe in fl by boatsie

This is an update of a post I wrote in July Climate Change...Fast Solutions Are All We Have Left.  The update concerns how the Obama Administration Smog decision influences our ability to have fast solutions to mitigate climate change.

My post in July was about reducing short-lived warming gases in order to buy the time necessary to reduce CO2 emissions. The article explains why we have to do both in order to stop the worse effects of anthropologic climate change.

The decision by the Obama administration to not limit the smog and ozone emissions into the atmosphere in the near future puts us at a great disadvantage because it eliminates one of our remedies to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the short term.

From the July article:

We are seeing and hearing of the worse possible scenario for the effects of anthropologic climate change.  Already, it is likely that we can not avoid some of the most damaging effects such as complete melting of the Artic icecaps which when it happens will release their stored carbon to accelerate the process even faster.  The scientific community has stated that in order to keep mass destruction on the planet from occurring we must keep the temperature increase to below 2%C  That would be the tipping point where we would enter a phase where the the planetary catastrophes would be difficult if not impossible to control.  At 3%C increase the damage would be irreversible and in studies done of a possible 4% increase in planetary temperature there would be mass destruction and extinction with the possibility of only about 1/2 billion human inhabitants left on the Earth.

There are solutions being followed and most of them are relying on reducing C02 emissions such as increasing mpg for cars or the use of electric vehicles.  Making buildings and homes more energy efficient and in some cases energy neutral.  We have to do all these things but they will not solve the immediate problems of Climate Change.  C02 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years so even if we went completely C02 neutral today, there would still be the damaging remains of the past use of C02 lingering in the atmosphere preventing us from stopping the most damaging effects of Climate Change.

We need fast solutions and we need them NOW!  There are some working on these fast solutions and World Preservation Foundation had them meet and focus on fast solutions to our climate change catastrophe.  As the scientific basis for these fast solutions has become stronger they have compiled and released this information video to distribute  the information.

I will highlight some of their findings for you but I strongly encourage you to view the entire video.  From the video:

even by meeting our most ambitious emissions reduction targets by 2020, greenhouse gas emissions will be 30% higher then that needed to keep temperature rise to 2%C
We now know that reducing C02 alone will not produce cooling fast enough. Even with a zero carbon global economy tomorrow existing C02 will continue to heat the planet for hundreds of years to come.  Meaning C02 reductions on their own will not prevent runaway climate change.

We need to cool the planet fast and that will require rethinking and changing our consumption patterns.  From the video scientists are recommending a rapid reduction in short lived warming gases.   Those include Black Carbon, Methane and Ground Level Ozone

BLACK CARBON
NASA scientists say that more than 50% of the accelerated global warming in the Artic is due to Black Carbon.  Black Carbon only stays in the atmosphere a few weeks

METHANE
Methane is at least 72 times more potent than C02 over a 20 year period but takes only 12 years to cycle out of atmosphere.

GROUND LEVEL OZONE
which is smog and soot cycles out of the atmosphere in a few days. Methane and N02 help to create ground level ozone

Per the video livestock production is a significant contribution to all of the short term climate forces.   The great advantage and opportunity is that these forces all cycle out of the atmosphere fast and can stop global warming fast to buy us the time necessary to reduce C02

We need a short term and a long term solution.  The long term is cutting back on C02 emissions.   The short term is rapid reduction of Black Carbon, Methane and Ground Level Ozone.

In this video presentation, Gerard Wedderburn-Bisshop, World Preservation Foundation Senior Scientist, puts forward the case for how, with the devastating effects of climate change being felt ever-more quickly and with increasing intensity, the importance of embracing fast-acting solutions to mitigate climate change has increased dramatically.

There was a missed opportunity in strengthening the Clean Air Act now which is devastating.  We are left with the knowledge that fast solutions are left to us.  They can be done but they do require rethinking and changing our consumption patterns

While our fellow concerned citizens are at this moment in Washington DC being arrested to protest the XL Tar Sands Pipeline we can support them by reducing our addiction to the poisoning crude.  Reducing demand will let the oil pushers know that they can no longer have a stranglehold over our environment, economy and our lives

There is a simple solution to reducing these short term warming agents.  It tastes good and is healthy for all of us.  Changing our eating patterns is something we can all do together with optimism.

Eliminating, replacing or substituding meat and diary with a healthy plant based diet is the fastest way to stop climate change and temperature rising.

We still have time and a choice to bring about the change, I hope we take it.

ACTION  I have been writing about this for three years but the need becomes more urgent.  We have power in numbers so for action I am suggesting that you all do what I am doing which is not only eliminating meat and most meat products from my diet but also being a messenger to my family and friends about the urgency.  Talking and writing about it on our networks such as our blogs and facebook etc. will get the word out.

Our future and the future of our children depend on it.

Discuss

Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 08:45 PM PDT

Every Rooftop Matters

by Michael Brune

Reposted from Michael Brune by boatsie

As I stood on the sunny Oakland roof of Sierra Club member Dan Rademacher, the view toward San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge was nice. But in my mind's eye, I was marveling at an even brighter vista -- a future when all the unadorned rooftops around us would feature the solar panels like the brand new ones that Dan was happily showing off.

I don't think that future's far off. There has never been a better time for homeowners to add solar panels to their roofs. The Sierra Club is so excited about rooftop solar solutions that we've begun a pilot program in California with two solar vendors to reach out to our members and supporters and spread the good news. And we really do think it's just a matter of "getting the word out," because once homeowners find out how easy, affordable, and beneficial adding solar power is, there'll be no stopping the rooftop revolution.

Here's why you owe it to yourself to find out more:

Continue Reading
Reposted from Daily Kos by boatsie

Don't think revolution. Think redirection.



An F-16 streaks over burning wells in Kuwait, 1991




The inability to develop a comprehensive energy policy despite more than four decades of grand declarations represents the greatest ongoing failure of American politics and the utmost threat to the stability of our nation. For decades the lack of an energy policy has defined America's military risk abroad, warped the economy at home and degraded both our environment and our health. It's not just the sword hanging over our head; it's the knife at our throat.

It's too simplistic to say that addressing our energy issues will make everything else easy. It's not too simplistic to say that failing to resolve our energy dilemma will make everything else impossible.  

Developing a new generation of energy sources, and the means to conserve and utilize energy effectively, stands to return the United States to the forefront of world technology. Every time we pull back from this challenge we increase the risk that we will find ourselves in the rearguard of nations still dependent on resources that are ever more expensive to secure. Every delay only entrenches us more deeply as members of the fossil fuel third world.

And we do pull back. All too readily, we declare this issue insolvable or too complex to understand. You can bet that more than a few readers turned away as soon as the word "energy" appeared in the title. We do exactly what the people who are profiting from the crisis want us to do: we leave it up to them.

Fossil fuel companies are the richest, most profitable organizations that have existed on the planet. Ever. They are spending billions to see that this problem does not get solved. That doesn't mean it can't be solved. That only demonstrates how worried they are that people will wake up and notice that solutions are possible.

So wake up. Here's the issue in a nutshell.

The United States faces two energy crises: one in transportation, the other in electrical production. Transportation is currently defined by oil. Electricity is described by coal, nuclear and natural gas. These two markets for energy are not interchangeable. They are not the same. They are not shaped by the same forces. They are two different issues. When politicians pull them together for rhetorical purposes, or companies pitch some new power plant as helping "American energy independence," it only obscures the situation.

Oil is the more immediate crisis. We cannot drill our way out of this problem. Despite huge price increases and every incentive to generate oil from every possible source, domestic production is falling. Domestic production has dropped 43% since 1970, while imports have gone up 1000%. Oil availability is limited. Oil demand is growing. The result is that prices will continue to rise. A lot. There is not one thing that this government or any government can do about it. Our need for oil makes us vulnerable. It's our greatest economic and national security threat and should be treated as such.

The crisis in electricity is of a completely different nature. It's composed of one part environmental damage and one part aging infrastructure. Climate change due to human activity is already an enormous destabilizing factor around the world, one that is exerting pressure on relationships and resources. This problem will continue to grow. How big it gets will largely be a factor of the solutions we find in the generation of electricity. Meanwhile, sixty-five percent of electricity in the United States comes from coal-burning plants or nuclear power, and the great majority of these plants are more than 40 years old. Some have been around 60 years or more. It's not a matter of a campaign to shut down existing plants. These plants are going to close anyway. They are already being closed. What matters is how they will be replaced.

Having a comprehensive energy policy does not mean throwing out meaningless numbers like "we must get X% of our power from Y technology by Z date!" It does require that we look at the problems we've been handed–a dependence on a transportation fuel whose availability is outside our control and a crumbling out-of-date electrical infrastructure that presents us with unavoidable change–and find solutions that meet our needs. What we build now is going to be with us for a long time to come.

Here's the story you're not hearing. In the last two decades, the U.S. has added less than 8,000 MW of capacity to its fleet of aging coal-burning power plants. Over that same time production is by 400,000 MW. How is that possible? It's possible because aging power plants that used to be down 40% of the time for repairs are suddenly running 65% of the time. Seventy percent. Seventy-five.  

If it doesn't make sense that plants averaging over five decades old are abruptly running better than ever, don't worry. They're not. They're simply being run at the ragged edge by an industry that has no idea what to do next. U.S. policy and markets have been so undirected, so changeable, so transient that utilities don't know which way to jump. Rather than creating new capacity, or addressing issues of distribution, they just keep demanding more, and more, and more from plants that were long ago meant to close. When politicians and "experts" tell you that making a change in our energy infrastructure is going to be fabulously expensive, they're leaving out one thing: we're going to spend that money in any case, because we have to.

We don't have to mount an assault on the infrastructure to make a radical change in our energy production. We just have to give consistent guidance.

And here's how we make that happen...

Continue Reading
Reposted from Daily Kos by boatsie Editor's Note: proposal for green energy ... -- boatsie

“This is the 21st century, but our transportation systems are stuck in the 20th. One of four bridges in the U.S. is structurally deficient or obsolete, more than half the miles we drive on federal highways are on roads in less than good condition and our transit systems are stretched beyond capacity. This is a recipe for falling behind, not competing in the global economy. We can put men and women back to work building America, get our economy on track and leave behind real assets for taxpayers and future generations.”
—Terry O’Sullivan, General President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America.


 

America’s infrastructure suffers from decades of reckless neglect, what bureaucrats and policymakers conceal behind the euphemism of “deferred maintenance.” Decrepit describes the consequences. Myopic describes the attitude. This affects many realms—our public schools, our public health system, our electrical transmission grid and, despite how deeply we Americans treasure personal mobility, our transportation system.

Interstate 35 bridge over the Mississippi River
in Minneapolis collapsed in August 2007.
 (Photo by Kevin Rofidal, United States Coast Guard)
This crumbling of infrastructure has been met over the years with a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. Even though all the infrastructure in the aforementioned areas is crucial to a thriving existence in the modern age, it has been treated as if it doesn’t really matter, insubstantially patched up or simply left to rot. That's been as much the case with transportation as elsewhere.

Occasionally, as happened in 2007 just a few miles from where Netroots Nation is just finishing its sixth annual convention, a bridge will fall down, a few people will die or be maimed, and everyone will ask what could have gone wrong. In this particular case, it was the inevitable result of having 75,000 U.S. bridges in the “structurally deficient” category. The problem is everywhere. In California cars are a sacred birthright, yet the state contains seven of the 20 U.S. cities with the worst major roads and highways.

But our transportation infrastructure is not merely plagued with antique equipment and battered pavement. Shaky old ideas predominate as well. In spite of the obvious purpose of transportation—connecting human beings, goods and services—we have allowed inefficiency, gridlock, lethal pollution and fiscal insustainability to rule the day.

According to one study, the average commuter was delayed a total of 34 hours in traffic in 2009, one full week of work. Inflation-adjusted congestion costs rose from $24 billion in 1982 to $115 billion in 2009. Wasted fuel from congestion hit 3.9 billion gallons—equal to 130 days of flow in the Alaska Pipeline. About half of Americans have no alternative to travel by automobile and no reasonable access to public transit. Like our roads and bridges, that public transit has been subjected to decades of deferred maintenance that would take $77 billion just bring into good working order.

Fixes matter. Decaying bridges can't be ignored. But too much of our attention in transportation is devoted to repairing and not enough to rethinking. Important improvements are being made. For example, light rail, a system prevalent in many cities in the days before the internal combustion engine reshaped our lives, is making a comeback a few urban miles at a time. But this is a small effort, piecemeal and underfunded. Vehicle drive-trains are being revamped, but ever so slowly.

 
Meanwhile, our major modes of transportation poison us, burn two-thirds of the oil we drill at home and import from abroad, make us less secure because of the geopolitics involved in maintaining access to much of that oil, gobble up a scarce resource essential for making other products, extract large hunks of household income and contribute a third of the CO2 we’re loading into the atmosphere.

Rethinking transportation means rethinking zoning and other aspects of how we build our cities and develop the land in between. It demands a hard look at subsidies that promote particular modes of transportation to the exclusion of others and broadening the definition of what a subsidy is. Rethinking transportation requires rethinking the currently inadequate public revenue streams that pay for most of its infrastructure. And, obviously, it means extricating ourselves from dependence on fossil fuel, not just the imported stuff but what we take out of the ground within our own borders and from beneath the continental shelves.

The good news is that rethinking and subsequently enacting policies for remaking our transportation system can spur us to build more bike- and pedestrian-friendly cities, make our vehicles efficient, cut pollution, lower CO2 emissions, reduce the size of our military budget, boost the use of alternative fuels (including renewably generated electricity), decrease congestion and help restore America’s manufacturing base, which, in turn, will supply millions of badly needed, high-quality jobs. The bad news is that there is stubborn opposition, local and national, to all of this.

Continue Reading
Reposted from Kosowatt by HoundDog

Elizabeth McGowan at SolveClimate writes in Reuters that Senator Bernie Sanders has found a
GOP Ally for Senator Sanders's 10 Million Solar Roofs Bill.
McGowan suggests the independent Sanders has trumped everyone by achieving "tripartisanship, finding both a Democratic, and Republican Senator to sponsor his independent bill.

The adept Vermont independent has lured New Mexico Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman into co-sponsoring his reinvented measure aimed at sparking installation of solar power systems atop 10 million homes and businesses within the next decade.

Sanders expects his "10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2011" (S. 1108) to have its first public airing this month at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, a panel Bingaman chairs. In a nutshell, Sanders's bill would recognize and reward communities intent on streamlining cumbersome solar energy permitting processes into economical and efficient models.

"As we lower the cost of solar energy and increase our use of solar, we can create hundreds of thousands of good-paying manufacturing and installation jobs in this country," Sanders said about his effort to make access to solar more affordable. "This bill also sets strong targets for American solar energy production, to ensure we compete vigorously with China and Europe for solar energy jobs."


Poll

Do you support Senator Bernie Sanders' 10 Million Solar Roofs Bill?

27%109 votes
66%261 votes
1%5 votes
2%8 votes
0%3 votes
0%0 votes
0%1 votes
1%6 votes
0%0 votes

| 393 votes | Vote | Results

Continue Reading
Reposted from DK GreenRoots by HoundDog Editor's Note: This excellent article might provide the impetus to get us all brainstorming and talking about what we might do for the MIT CoLab RFP which has a first deadline in July I believe. Warren S has some creative thoughts on collective intelligence as it relates to climate change. - HoundDog -- HoundDog

One of my recurring dilemmas: trying to imagine myself in the head of a climate change denialist.  

Why?  Why reject all the evidence?  Why be scared of saving our species, of keeping things from getting worse, of working to make it so the world and all its wonders can long endure through eons to come?  

I can't keep it up for very long, and I find it very depressing.  But it's part of my discipline, along with writing a letter every day.

Recently I have been thinking deeply about group minds and collective intelligence, with influences ranging from Thomas Malone (of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence) to E.O. Wilson's detailed examination of insect colonies and the nature of the "superorganism."  As I tried to extend the "group mind" concept across larger timespans, I found myself both depressed and elated.  Elated because I was understanding more about why the "powers that be" didn't seem to give a shit — and depressed for the same reason.

Follow me below the flip?

Continue Reading
Reposted from Daily Kos by boatsie

Photobucket

We've come to the end of a week when it became known for certain that, yes, the Fukushima nukes did, in fact, melt down and are continuing to spew radioactive material into the environment. This despite the sometimes sneering claims of people who wanted us to believe the soothing words of the Tokyo Electric Power Co., whose chief has now resigned. The clean-up of the Fukushima nukes won't be completed for decades.

Which makes now a good time to look at plans another decades-long project, the one that a small Scandinavian country that was ridiculed when it set energy goals for itself 25 years ago has set now established for the next 40 years in a world in which fossil fuels are dwindling and nukes are still presented as the only workable solution to both that and global warming.

Here is Anders Østervang, First Secretary, Economic Affairs, Danish Embassy, speaking on that future:

In Denmark, we have decided that we do not want to be in that energy race. We want to insulate ourselves from future peaks in energy prices and disruptions in supply, and to invest our money in green, long-term, sustainable sources of energy. Our government has announced its ambition that Denmark should become fully independent of fossil fuels by 2050, and instead meet its energy needs with renewable energy. A detailed, comprehensive strategy for how to get there, “Energy Strategy 2050”, was launched a few months ago—the first of its kind in the world.
Danish postage stamp
The journey toward a low-carbon and energy-efficient society actually started decades ago, during the oil crises of the 1970s. We took it up as a serious challenge to reform our energy model. At the peak, we stopped driving our cars on “car-free Sundays,” and after the crises we kept gas prices high.

We went into the 1973 oil crisis almost 95 percent dependent on foreign oil imports for meeting our energy needs. Since those days, we have broken this spell of dependence by focusing heavily on energy efficiency and energy savings (in industry as well as households); by exploring domestic oil and gas; by diversifying our energy mix; and, increasingly, by investing in renewable energy sources.

As a result, Denmark is now one of the most energy-efficient countries in Europe and a net exporter of energy. We have reduced our oil consumption substantially so that today oil accounts for less than 40 percent of the energy we use overall. Renewables now account for 23 percent of the energy we consume, and for 30 percent of the electricity. Our many wind farms deliver two-thirds of that energy.

Importantly—and with a bearing on the current debate in the United States—we did this while securing economic growth. Since 1980, the Danish economy has grown by almost 80 percent while our energy consumption has remained more or less flat and CO2 emissions have fallen. We have also seen the development of a strong and globally competitive energy efficiency and sustainable energy industry.

A recent report commissioned by WWF shows that Denmark earns the world’s largest share of its national revenue from the clean tech industry, at 3.4 percent of GDP. This is far ahead of China, in second place at 1.4 percent. The clean tech industry now also accounts for more than 13 percent of our exports. Denmark is now a world leader in wind turbine production, and Vestas alone holds a 12 percent share of the global market.

On the end-user side, we focused heavily on strict building and appliance efficiency standards, public awareness campaigns about savings in households, and taxes on energy consumption that result, in a way, in the price of energy including the environmental costs of production, use, and disposal.

On the production side, cogeneration of electricity and heat (combined heat and power [CHP]) and district heating have been critical. CHP uses approximately 30 percent less fuel than separate heat and power plants producing the same amount of heat and power. Almost 53 percent of Danish electricity is cogenerated with heat, concentrating emissions at CHP-plants that are equipped with efficient emission-reduction equipment.

As in Austria, individual communities have helped drive this development. One example is the  pioneering island of Samsoe, home to 61,000 inhabitants. In 1997, Samsoe entered a Danish government challenge along with four other islands to cut its carbon footprint and increase production of renewable energy—and won. Afterward, Samsoe decided to continue what it had started and is now entirely self-sufficient. It is even selling surplus energy generated by windmills. It has cut its carbon footprint by 140 percent (carbon emissions are now in effect negative, since Samsoe is selling clean power to other communities).

Samsoe owes much of its success to a model of strong public participation and local ownership. …

While taking into account unique characteristics that every country has, the United States could go down a similar path if the political will could be mustered. But that seems to be in short supply. And action is hampered at every turn by deniers and the self-interested. The only way we can free ourselves from fossil fuels is by freeing our politicians from the bankrolls of the fossil-fuel industry. And the only way to do that is to free the country from enough of those politicians to overwhelm the remainder.

• • • • •

Green Diary Rescue is a regular Saturday afternoon feature at Daily Kos. Inclusion of a particular diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement with it. Because of exmearden's memorial service, the GDR deadline was three hours earlier than its usual noon closing.

• • • • •

FishOutofWater  delved into the scary situation up north in eSci: 78% of Arctic Sea Ice Melted Since 1979: "No where on earth is global warming more rapid and more shocking than in the Arctic. The most rapid and the most shocking change has been the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Polar bears have been forced to swim over a hundred miles to land. Walruses have been beached by the thousands in late summer in northern Alaska because ice has retreated hundreds of miles poleward. Rapid shoreline wave erosion has hit Arctic shores previously protected by sea ice. Ongoing data reports show that September sea ice volume has declined 78% since 1979."

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.

RSS

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site