The UN climate negotiations going on in Copenhagen, Denmark were suspended this morning due to many countries accusing the Danish hosts of having sideline talks with other nations about doing more then they should. The G77 China Bloc is a representative of 130 countries ranging from some of the richest countries to some of the poorest countries in the world. They are trying to fight that there needs to be some sort of balance. It is very hard for developing countries to do many of the things that are being required and many of them want to just keep the Kyoto Protocol. Which was signed in 1997.

BBC News has been covering the meeting from the beginning and was told negotiations would resume this afternoon.

It is very important that an agreement is reached at this meeting because time is running out.

In an article posted by BBC News, the talks in Copenhagen regarding the world’s climate are close to being finalized, with a draft still in the works. Once the draft is completed it will enact policies the chairpeople of the talks are anticipating. In the effort to reduce greenhouse emissions, the documents could entail requiring “rich” nations to increase their pledges of reduced emission rates, as well as lower overall temperatures. Developing nations will receive aid from the European Union and a few developed nations. The United States remains the odd man out, the pledge increase not applying for the nation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8407824.stm

In a recent article printed in the New York Times, it was reported that a number of developing nations have begun suggesting that the United States should be charged to pay reparations for its part in damaging the enviroment.  Of course the envoy representing the United States, in no uncertain terms, rejected any sort of fine levied against the it, however, should the United States face some sort of fine for its role climate change?  As a nation, we consume the vast majority of the Earth’s resources, as well as maintain lifestyles that have little regard for our fellow Earthlings.  In that light, it would only seem fitting that we pay for what we’ve helped cause.  That being said, however, I don’t believe monetary aide to other countries would necessarily yield the best results either.

If I were in Copenhagen, I would propose that instead of paying in money or goods, we pay in manpower.  One of President Obama’s campaign initiatives was increase the size of the Peace Corps.  By sending more citizens aboard, not only would Americans gain a better worldview, but we could ensure that any aid money given to that country would be going to the appropriate ventures and not into the pockets of corrupt officials.  Granted this idea, just like any sort of reparations idea, would not go over well in the United States, but it is something to consider.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/science/earth/10climate.html?ref=earth

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210111156.htm

Sea Level Is Rising Along US Atlantic Coast ………

ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2009) — An international team of environmental scientists led by the University of Pennsylvania has shown that sea-level rise along the Atlantic Coast of the United States was 2 millimeters faster in the 20th century than at any time in the past 4,000 years.

Sea-level rise prior to the 20th century is attributed to coastal subsidence. Put simply, land is being lost to subsidence as the earth continues to rise in response to the removal of the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period. Using sediment cores from the U.S. Atlantic coast, researchers found significant spatial variations in land movement, with the mid-Atlantic coastlines of New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland subsiding twice as much as areas to the north and south. Coastal subsidence enhances sea-level rise, which leads to shoreline erosion and loss of wetlands and threatens coastal populations.

Researchers corrected relative sea-level data from tide gauges using the coastal-subsidence values. Results clearly show that the 20th-century rate of sea-level rise is 2 millimeters higher than the background rate of the past 4,000 years. Furthermore, the magnitude of the sea-level rise increases in a southerly direction from Maine to South Carolina. This is the first demonstrated evidence of this phenomenon from observational data alone. Researchers believe this may be related to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and ocean thermal expansion.

“There is universal agreement that sea level will rise as a result of global warming but by how much, when and where it will have the most effect is unclear,” said Benjamin P. Horton, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at Penn. “Such information is vital to governments, commerce and the general public. An essential prerequisite for accurate prediction is understanding how sea level has responded to past climate changes and how these were influenced by geological events such as land movements.”

The study provides the first accurate dataset for sea-level rise for the U.S. Atlantic coast, identifying regional differences that arise from variations in subsidence and demonstrate the possible effects of ice-sheet melting and thermal expansion for sea level rise.

The results appear in the Dec. 1 issue of the journal Geology. The study was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Thouron Family and the University of Pennsylvania.

The study was performed by Simon E. Engelhart and Horton of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at Penn, Bruce C. Douglas of the International Hurricane Research Center at Florida International University, W. Richard Peltier of the Department of Physics at the University of Toronto and Torbjörn E. Törnqvist of the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and the Tulane/Xavier Center for Bioenvironmental Research at Tulane University.

When one thinks of a dairy farm, the stereotypical vision involves sprawling pastures and quaint red barns. But in New Mexico, where the dairy industry contributes some $1.2 billion annually to the economy, this vision is far from reality. On a typical dairy farm, large herds – sometimes consisting of as many as 2,000 milk cows – will live grouped on small feedlots between their thrice daily trips to the milking barn. Each cow produces six to seven gallons of milk daily, along with as much as 18 gallons of manure. Considering the 300,000 dairy cows in the state, that’s 5.4 million gallons of manure each day. And the dairies’ so called manure-management has come under recent scrutiny from locals, who say that the manure has contaminated the water.
Typically, dairies will deal with their manure in one of two ways. Workers will hose muck off of concrete milking barn floors, allowing the contaminated run-off to collect in a plastic or clay lined lagoon, where it eventually will evaporate. Other manure from the feedlots is collected and used as fertilizer for grains. On the surface, this seems like an environmentally responsible, sustainable business plan. But according to the New Mexico Environmental Department, at least two thirds of the state’s dairy farms are contaminating groundwater with excess nitrates from the cattle excrement. So it would seem that either some of the lagoons are leaking, or too much fertilizer is being applied to other fields.
The Federal EPA lacks any sort of broad power to crack down on these dairies, though they have been able to issue some of the dairies citations for violating the Clean Water Act, as some of the manure laden runoff has washed into tributaries of the Rio Grande. The powerful dairy lobby at the state level has managed to block tough regulations to this point, though the tide may be changing. Recently, residents of the town of Caballo were able to shoot down a proposed dairy farm, claiming the runoff would pollute the Rio Grande Watershed. It seems that after decades of acceptance of business as usual, the dairy industry’s free ride in New Mexico has come to an end.

At the global climate change summit in Copenhagen, Brazilian leaders staunchly defended the nation’s ethanol program, and pushed bio fuels as the most logical alternative energy source for a world trying to wean itself off of greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels. Since the introduction of its ethanol program some 30 years ago, Brazil has managed to avoid what is estimated to be 800 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Delegates also stressed the potential economic benefits of ethanol production, pointing to the country’s scheme to promote micro-distilleries as a source of secondary income for families.
Critics of ethanol production, however, say that the distilleries eat into farmlands intended for food production, and blame them for the 2008 rise in food prices. Some environmentalists also point to bio fuel production as one of the main reasons for the steady deforestation of the Amazon.
The delegates answered the critics, admitting that cattle raising and other agricultural practices can be done more efficiently in Brazil. However, they were adamant that ethanol production is not to blame. Brazilian minister Jose Migues also defended the industries effect on the deforestation of the Amazon, stating “We were told that bio fuels lead to deforestation in the Amazon, but the ethanol production areas are 3,000 km away from the Amazon.’’
And even though the European Union backed out of a commitment to introduce a 10% use of bio fuels in transportation by 2020 last year, Brazilian Authorities continue to stress that bio fuels are the most sensible answer, for the time being at least, for a world struggling to move forward without fossil fuels.

In an attempt to dispel myths about the ferocity of tiger sharks, an Australian man put his own life on the line as he sat on a whale carcass in the midst of a feeding frenzy. The 32 year old conservationist from Shark Bay of Western Australia said the stunt was done in the spur of the moment, and was completely unplanned.
Traveling by Catamaran with friends, Leon Deschamps herd about the carcass from a group of fishermen returning to shore. He and his friends travelled through the night, arriving at the feeding frenzy early the next morning. Beached in about a meter of water, Deschamps was able to balance on top of the carcass as tiger sharks ripped it to shreds around him. Unlike great whites or bull sharks, tiger sharks won’t jump for their prey, so he felt completely safe on top of the whale.
Afterwards, Deschamps said the stunt was done in order to bring the animals into the public arena. He wanted to show that tiger sharks are more than blood-thirsty killing machines, and by standing in the midst of a feeding frenzy, when sharks are supposed to be most ferocious, he was able to show the creatures are not nearly as aggressive as people may believe.
“It was the safest time I would ever get to touch these animals during feeding…It was an amazing experience, a once in a lifetime opportunity and wild horses would not have stopped me from doing it,” he later said.
An Australian Department of Environment and Conservation spokesman called the stunt reckless and irresponsible, and warned that touching whales is illegal.

Global warming, is it real or a myth? Does the Earth go through natural changes or are we to blame? Many scientists do believe that the impact on the climate is real and they have some stimulating pictures to show it.

Decline of glaciers in Alaska

This link also answers a lot of questions about global warming.

With many countries enacting laws to limit the amount of pollution, it is clear that they believe the globe is warming and is in need of protection. It is proven the Earth does go through cycles but it is unclear whether this is a man made cycle. One thing is for certain, we do not want to find out.

Mountain gorillas are considered one of the closest creatures to humans in behavioral patterns. These massive creatures are only found in remote locations of the Earth. They can be found in the Congo, the “Impenetrable Forest” in Uganda, and the Virunga Volcanoes on the border of Rwanda. These rare breeds provide a valuable link between the past of humanity and our present behavior.
The Mountain gorilla share many traits with their Homo sapiens cousins. They live in a tight-knot nomadic herd with multiple gorillas. These creatures roam the high altitude forests in search of food and have a variety of visual emotions such as laughing, hugging, playing, anger and rage. They have a dominant leader known as a “silverback”. Also similar to humans is the birthing style. Females only give birth about every four years, but unlike humans they have a relatively low birthrate.
Coupled with the low birth rate, the mountain gorillas face other threats. Humanity is the number one contributor to the Mountain Gorilla being critically endangered. Loss of habitat is a tremendous threat to these creatures. Only being able to survive in select environments adversely affects these creatures. The civil unrest in the area gets these creatures stuck in the crossfire. These creatures also are subject to human disease, which runs rampant in the area.
The population has dropped by over 50 percent in recent years. Without the interjection of other countries and organizations, these creatures will surely perish.

We’ve all read about how the Copenhagen Summit was convened to address the problems affecting  climate change.  In this article, The Economist explains what kind of political challenges any sort of agreement would face.  It begins by identifying the key components of the issue.

First, the article addresses the science behind the matter.  It speaks about the rise in sea levels,  the recession of glaciers, and the infestation of various pests and other nuances that may have been caused by man-made climate change.  The article discusses how all these effect not only the planet, but our economies.  For instance, the article describes the bark beetle, particularly the one found in British Columbia, Canada.  It describes how the beetle’s population fluctuations allow the rich timber industry in BC to maintain itself.  However, due to a unprecedented boom in population this year, the industry as a whole has been threatened.  Next, the article discusses where popular thought is in regards to climate change.  Identifying both sides of the argument, The Economist points out that regardless of where one stands on what is causing climate change, as a whole, humanity must alter its lifestyle, whether it be for the Earth’s sake or our own.

Finally, the article discusses what components are necessary, politically, to forge a successful plan.  It describes everything thing from the implementation time to how to develop a plan that states will stand behind.  All the way around, the article offers a comprehensive look at the climate change debate from an international perspective.

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14994872