Last week, Ecojustice launched stopsoot.ca - a video campaign that calls on the Canadian government to stop the number two cause of global warming, black carbon emissions otherwise known as soot.

That call to action is also being echoed by the man who one a Nobel prize for sounding the alarm about the ozone layer - Dr Mario Molina. Dr. Molina and other leaders at the National Academy of Sciences have stated that reducing soot (black carbon) could slow global warming by as much as two decades and help give the world time to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and stabilize our warming climate.

Researchers consider black carbon (soot) an ideal target for achieving quick mitigation because it only remains in the atmosphere a few days to a few weeks and can be reduced by expanding the use of diesel particulate filters for
vehicles and clean-burning or solar cookstoves to replace those burning
dung and wood. With indoor air pollution killing 1.6 million people a year, global action to cut soot emissions would reap major benefits for both public health and climate.

"If we reduce black carbon emissions worldwide by 50 percent by fully deploying all available emissions-control technologies, we could delay the warming effects of CO2 by one to two decades and at the same time greatly improve the health of those living in heavily polluted regions," said Dr. Ramanathan.

The report wants efforts to reduce C02 to be complimented by strategies that can have an immediate impact in the atmosphere like stopping soot and reducing other non-CO2 climate change agents. I agree.

Visit stopsoot.ca to see the video and send a letter to Stephen Harper calling for swift action on soot.


cross posted at Ecojustice



Courtesy of the @tcktcktck, this is the most socially responsible, fair and intelligent answer to international emissions targets there is. India's Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Jairam Rames, has laid out India's expectations for at the latest round of climate discussion in Bonn, Germany. Specifically, he:

.....reiterated India’s position on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities – a principle that the entire global community has enshrined in UNFCCC concluded in 1992 at the historic Rio Summit. He said that India was for fixing per capita emission limits of countries. He said that India’s per capita emission level was low at 1.2 tonne of carbon dioxide as compared to 20.6 tonne in US, 20 tonne in Canada, 9.8 tonne in UK and Germany, 9.9 tonne in Japan. He said that under circumstances (sic) India was not committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and have already assured that its per capita emission would never exceed that of the developed countries. The developing countries have the right to take up development projects to fight poverty , he said.

And this is the entire point. The United States has been prominent through the years attempting to unload it's responsibilities on developing nations like China and India, but let's be clear. The US has a third the population of China or India and it produces more than double the per capita emissions of other developed nations like the UK and Japan. To date, they have fallen short on every side of the equation, and this points to the heart of the matter.

The entire issue of 'who needs to cut emissions and how much' is a red herring that has disabled legitimate action for years. We know the atmospheric level of carbon that needs to be maintained. Divide that by population and you have your per capita figure. Those countries falling under it (the developing world) have room to grow. Those of us above it are looking more and more like the morbidly obese heading for a tenth helping at the buffet table.

The math couldn't be more clear, from every perspective.



Anyone who appreciated my earlier post on Global Warming's Magic Number may be interested in debate it spurred over at reddit. Lots of energy going on there.



Nobody's certain yet, but some scientists are speculating that increases in atmospheric CO2 is causing a hauntingly beautiful phenomenon called "night shining" clouds.

Mysterious, glowing clouds previously seen almost exclusively in Earth’s polar regions have appeared in the skies over the United States and Europe over the past several days.

Photographers and other sky watchers in Omaha, Paris, Seattle, and other locations have run outside to capture images of what scientists call noctilucent (”night shining”) clouds. Formed by ice literally at the boundary where the earth’s atmosphere meets space 50 miles up, they shine because they are so high that they remain lit by the sun even after our star is below the horizon.


Like anything else, our atmosphere expands when heated up. One current theory is that climate change is causing noctilucent clouds to become more frequent because the upper regions of the atmosphere are being pushed further into cold regions of space - leading to more high altitude ice and more shining clouds.

If so, perhaps "disturbingly beautiful" is a better description for these haunting forms.



I have no way of verifying the truth value of this, but some things are too endearing to question.

According to a multi forwarded email that landed in my inbox, thirst stricken koala bears were so tapped out by soaring temperatures this year (120F, 49C) that they were approaching people for water.

Believe what you will....but either way, enjoy the pics.





From The Guardian: Race against time:

But two years ago, almost to the week, scientists noticed that the Arctic was losing ice at an almost unbelievable pace, outstripping the climate models by decades. Clearly we’d passed a threshold, and global warming had gone from future threat to present crisis. It wasn’t just Arctic ice; at about the same time methane levels in the atmosphere began to spike, apparently as a result of thawing permafrost. Surveys of high altitude glaciers showed they were uniformly melting, and much faster than expected. Oceanographers reported – incredulously – that we’d managed to make the oceans 30% more acidic.

Those observations changed everything – and they produced what is almost certainly the most important number in the world. A Nasa team headed by James Hansen reported that the maximum amount of carbon the atmosphere can safely hold is 350ppm, at least if we want a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” Since we’re already at 390ppm, the message was clear: we don’t need to buy an insurance policy to reduce the threat of future warming. We need a fire extinguisher, and we need it now.

Scientists have heard that message – in March they gathered by the thousands at an emergency conference to declare that the five-year-old findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were dangerously out of date.

But politicians haven’t caught up. As we head toward the crucial Copenhagen talks slated for December, Obama and the rest of the world’s political class are still using the dated science and its now stale conclusions.
Read the complete article.



...pishawww!



(I'd really like to see that question posed to these guys instead.)



Today from No Impact Man, is a damning indictment against the "Global Climate Coalition" - a group of businesses tied to the use of fossil fuels. Documents filed during a recent lawsuit show that the coalition knowingly lied about global warming through "an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming."

The document shows that their own scientists informed them that the science behind global warming was irrefutable as early as 1995.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The post references an April 23rd New York Times article by Andrew Revkin.

The Global Climate Coalition disbanded in 2002, but some of its like the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute continue to actively lobby against action on climate change. For the record, here's the complete list of coalition members. The bailout ridden auto sector is particularly well represented. If only they had been using those resources to build real products:

  • Air Transport Association
  • Allegheny Power
  • Aluminum Association, Inc.
  • American Automobile Manufacturers Association
  • American Commercial Barge Line Co.
  • American Farm Bureau Federation
  • American Forest & Paper Association
  • American Highway Users Alliance
  • American Iron and Steel Institute
  • American Petroleum Institute
  • American Portland Cement Alliance
  • Amoco
  • Association of American Railroads
  • Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
  • Atlantic Richfield Coal Company
  • Baker Refineries
  • Bethlehem Steel
  • BHP Minerals
  • Chamber of Shipping of America
  • Chemical Manufacturers Association
  • Chevron
  • Chrysler Corporation
  • Cinergy
  • CONRAIL
  • Consumers Energy
  • Council of Industrial Boiler Owners
  • CSX Transportation, Inc.
  • Cyprus-Amax
  • Dow Chemical Company
  • Drummond Company
  • Duke Power Company
  • DuPont
  • Eastman Chemical
  • Edison Electric Institute
  • ELCON
  • ExxonMobil
  • Fertilizer Institute
  • Ford Motor Company
  • General Motors
  • Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  • Greencool
  • Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group
  • Illinois Power Company
  • Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp.
  • McDonnell-Douglas
  • Mobil Corporation
  • National Association of Manufacturers
  • National Lime Association
  • National Mining Association
  • National Ocean Industries Association
  • National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
  • Natural Rural Electric Cooperative Association
  • Norfolk Southern
  • Northern Indiana Public Serv. Co.
  • Ohio Edison
  • Parker Drilling Company
  • Process Gas Consumers
  • Shell
  • Society of the Plastic Industry
  • Southern Company
  • Steel Manufacturers Association
  • TECO Energy Inc.
  • Texaco
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce
  • USX Corporation
  • Union Carbide
  • Union Pacific
  • Virginia Power
  • Western Fuels Association

Pass it on.....



US President Obama met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper late last week in Ottawa. Following their brief meeting the two North American leaders outlined three main priorities for their bilateral relationship — working together to restore economic growth, a commitment to stabilize Afghanistan, and yes, a new initiative on environmental protection.

Indeed, in the lead up to yesterday's face-to-face Harper's statements about the environment were almost urgent. The Globe and Mail reported that,


"Mr. Harper said Mr. Obama's presidency is ushering in a new era of North American co-operation against climate change after George W. Bush's inaction held back Canada's ability to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions."

Perhaps like yourself, the statement above did not quite line up with my memories of Harper's foot dragging and general denial of climate change. But I am open minded, and to that end I took a quick survey of past Conscious Earth posts related to Harper and the environment. Maybe I remembered his track record wrong....


Nope, guess not.

Apologies for the lack of of '08 postings. I felt the need to spend some time out of country following the Conservative's overwhelming "progress". Still, there was some promise to the initial dialogue between Obama and Harper including plans for greater collaboration on carbon sequestration and employing smart grid technology to the electricity infrastructure. However, the ultimate success of these initial talks will depend on how rapidly and aggressively the new president implements a cap and trade system on carbon, and how those regulations would apply to imported energy from Canada's tar patch.

Time will tell. In the mean time, here's a photo compilation from the Conscious Earth posts listed above.



In one of the best PR stunts I have seen in some time, Greenpeace joined with actress Emma Thompson, comedian Alistair McGowan and conservative political hopeful Zac Goldsmith to buy a plot of land directly in the middle of the proposed site for Heathrow airport's third runway expansion.

And while the current Labour government won a narrow and divisive vote on the issue, Greenpeace's hijinks did not end there. They invited as many supporters as legally allowable to co-own the property with them in the hope that any action taken by the UK government to obtain the land would require them to legally serve each owner in person - whether they live in London proper or the west coast of Bora Bora.

I have offered my opinions on air travel previously, but here is a reiteration. Environmental responsibility is a global value requiring each person to not only act responsibly towards all other human beings, but also to extend that awareness beyond people to the broader world that we all rely on. That requires looking past narrow interests into ever expanding circles of value, and one of the most powerful ways to engender that awareness is to enable others to witness, first hand, the full scope of the world and the diversity of its people.

Airlines should be accountable for their emissions and efficiency like every other sector of society, but moving to restrict or reduce air travel per se is not part of the answer. For without witnessing the world beyond their own shore, why would a person on a beach in Bora Bora care enough about a mile of tarmac in London to play an active role in stopping it?



Has a new era truly begun? The clarity of direction and concrete details being issued by President-Elect Obama would certainly indicate it.

In a video address, Obama committed to putting the US back at the climate change negotiating table and to begin playing the role as leader that they always should have. He's promising a federal cap and trade system with targets to bring US emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 and to reduce them a further 80% after that.

"Few challenges facing America, and the world, are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security."
In the lead up to the announcement, 350.org created a global petition to urge Obama to join other countries and bring atmospheric CO2 down to 350 ppm - the level generally agreed to be sustainable and safe by world experts. Powered by Biro Creative - a talented shop here in Vancouver who also helped in our recent landslide win for new mayor Gregor Robertson - the petition drive uses an interactive "Get on the Globe" world map that asks supporters to sign on, send the new President a letter, and upload their own supporter videos and pictures to promote action on climate change. The effort led to nearly 50,000 sign ups.

Add your name to the Globe, and see Obama's announcement below.





I’m home now in Vancouver, with the daunting task of summing up and integrating a journey that covered four continents and more than eight months of my life. It can leave a person wondering how to bring that much home, or what home even means.

That said, there are a few common themes that became clear over the course of the journey. A major one concerns the views and assumptions that tend to guide the actions of our culture with the rest of the world, the damage of which becomes obvious when viewing there effects on some of the most impoverished nations on Earth.

In the case of Rwanda, we have been told that there horrific genocide was the culmination of tribal conflicts that stretched back centuries. After a mere days in that country, the truth became quickly and overwhelmingly obvious – that the division between Hutus and Tutsis was a colonial weapon established by the Belgians, and exploited by the French, in order to gain greater control over the population and later to profit by selling the weapons of genocide.

In rapidly developing India, they are celebrating their initiation into the world's nuclear fraternity, while domestically, the moral stance of the Dalai Lama has been criticized and questioned on the grounds that it may threaten Sino-Indian relations. One of the world's greatest ironies may explain India's true motivation. In 1999 , Major William Corson, intelligence aide to US President Dwight David Eisenhower, alledged that India agreed to grant the the Dalai Lama asylum in exchange for US help in developing nuclear weapons.

The case is similar in the issue of global warming, where western governments, in particular the US, points the finger of blame at developing countries while it is responsible for maintaining the worst mileage standards, consumes the most beef (one of the largest greenhouse gas contributors), and uses the most crude oil while they continue to propogate a war over oil to maintain the status quo.

That word, responsibility, is the key. Western morality is anchored on a bastardization of Adam Smith that assumes ultimate good will magically prevail for all by pursuing our own individual interests. However, unless balanced by an equal sense of our personal responsibility, what we perceive as our rights quickly turns into indulgence, and there begins most of the world’s problems.

An embrace of responsibility, alongside of our personal rights, makes it obvious that while we have a right to trade and deal diplomatically with African nations like Rwanda, we equally have a responsibility for the outcome of that trade when we market in weapons of destruction to an oppressive regime. It makes it obvious that the moral rights of an entire people are not appropriate negotiating items in diplomacy and trade. It also becomes obvious that the country responsible for the most environmental damage needs to take the lead in forming environmental solutions.

If we strike another person, that blow is not the fault of the person receiving it. A gun owner is responsible for their weapon falling into the hands of young children. Unintentional murder is deemed involuntary manslaughter and is not the responsibility of the murdered. Likewise, the direct harm caused by our consumer, policy, and business decisions is not the fault of our trade partners, but the responsibility of those perpetrating the actions - exploitative businesses, the government’s that those businesses lobby for profitable trade policies, and we, the citizens, who value what we call prosperity over the human rights of other nations affected. The solutions, then, rest with us.

Responsibility can begin at home. The United States, Canada and my own city of Vancouver have a lot of work to do this fall. It’s time to get to it.



In news that will send the spirits of skeptics, deniers and global warming critics soaring, their long maintained condemnation of climate change computer models has been justified.

For years, skeptics have maintained that computer driven models of global warming fail to accurately project changes to the Earth's climate. Recent research now supports their view. Unfortunately for them, the problem is that models have been too conservative in their projections.


"It turns out that global warming critics were right when they said that global climate models did not do a good job at predicting climate change," Robock commented. "But what has been wrong recently is that the climate is changing even faster than the models said. In fact, Arctic sea ice is melting much faster than any models predicted, and sea level is rising much faster than IPCC previously predicted."

The study also shows that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere faster than expected, with emissions now 35 per cent higher in 2006 than in 1990.

Equally unfortunate is that due to a general failure to read and inability to generate coherent arguments in their own defense, skeptics likely won't read far enough into this post to get the punchline.




In recognition of "their efforts to build up and disseminate knowledge about man-made climate change", Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been announced as co-winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

In awarding the honour, the Nobel committee singled out Al Gore as "probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted". President Bill Clinton expressed similar feelings,

"Gore's ex-boss, former President Clinton, also said he's 'thrilled by this well-deserved recognition,' and credited Gore with 'warning and educating us about the dangers of climate change for decades. He saw this coming before others in public life.'"

Gore stated that he will donate his half of the $1.5 million dollar prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, an organization he founded to persuade people to reduce global warming by cutting greenhouse gas pollution.

You can see the announcement via YouTube.



Ever wonder why the media ceaselessly singles out the airline industry as a global warming pariah when it accounts for just 2% of worldwide emissions? In what might be the most irrelevant alarm call of the year, Britons have been singled out as the "world's biggest emitters of CO2 from air travel" while Great Britain itself leads the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

So why the focus on air travel? As usual, follow the money and you'll find the answer.

Far and away the single largest source of greenhouse gases is the combustion of fossil fuels, a stat being driven largely by automobile use. By no coincidence the automobile industry is also the single largest spender in media advertising, while the airline industry doesn't even make it onto the pie chart (page 7 for those checking).

By keeping attention on airline emissions, mass media has framed a convenient scapegoat that distracts public attention from the real problem and avoided a significant threat to their bottom line. The greatest irony, is that worldwide travel may be one of the most significant social forces capable of driving action on global warming.

A true solution to global warming will start with a genuine world centric awareness that encompasses the needs of all people and the limits of our biosphere. And there is little that can drive this awareness faster and more effectively than the individual decision to get on an airplane and discover something about the rest of the world.

So go ahead and book your next flight, just bike to work when you get home.



The UN is calling 2007 a global climate change "mega disaster". So far this year 12 out of a total of 13 emergency 'flash' appeals issued by the agency are being blamed on climate change. Even though the year is far from over the 13 emergency appeals are already a record, surpassing the previous high set in 2005 when only half of the total emergencies were climate change related.


"We are seeing the effects of climate change. Any year can be a freak but the pattern looks pretty clear to be honest. That's why we're trying ... to say, of course you've got to deal with mitigation of emissions, but this is here and now, this is with us already," said Sir John Holmes, a British diplomat who is also known as the UN's under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs. He has conveyed that the dire predictions about the impact of global warming on humanity were already coming true.

In the coming weeks, more emergencies are expected as West Africa is facing widespread threats of flooding. The Guardian has a slide show of the disasters to date. You can also see the pics recompiled below.




The Federal Government is facing a lawsuit for its failure to take action on global warming and address Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

The lawsuit is a direct follow up to the Conservative government's failure to meet the demands of a private members bill passed by opposition parties this past February. That bill demanded that the minority Conservatives honour Canada's international climate change commitments and draft a plan outlining how they would do so.

But when the Conservatives unveiled their "Turning the Corner" plan for climate change, not only did they fail to meet the demands of that bill, they also demonstrated it in plain math - a move which may have swung the door wide open for this lawsuit to occur.

Conservatives, global warming deniers, and even some environmentally sympathetic Canadians, will be howling that there is no way we can meet those targets by 2012, the deadline of the Kyoto Protocol. They are probably even right. But getting Canada to meet Kyoto isn't necessarily the point of the lawsuit anymore than the point of the Conservatives' climate change plan was to actually address global warming.

The lawsuit is a pointed action directed at the federal government, regardless of what party comes into power next, to push them towards taking the most aggressive action possible against global warming. Kyoto may not be reachable, but this is no barrier to Canada developing a genuine plan to curb greenhouse gases. If the Conservatives present such a plan, you can be certain this lawsuit would disappear - even if that plan doesn't meet the strict Kyoto letter of the law.

The lawsuit was brought to Federal Court by Friends of the Earth Canada, Ecojustice Canada and private attorney Chris Paliare.




At the APEC conference leaders of the Pacific Rim nations are huddled up in a well fortified section of Sydney where they have announced a sweeping new plan to address global warming in the form of "aspirational goals".

Recognizing the public's impatience and mistrust of voluntary measures to control greenhouse gases, world leaders like George Bush, Stephen Harper and conference host John Howard have given up on them. Aspirational goals, they assure us, will provide the effective solutions we need to tackle climate change.

So what is an aspirational goal? Clearly its a huge step forward for all nations. Now instead merely having industry set their own targets for reductions and ignore them, they will now have to "aspire" to reach them. For greater clarity here's YourDictionary's definition for aspire:

1. To have a great ambition or ultimate goal; desire strongly: aspired to stardom.
2. To strive toward an end: aspiring to great knowledge.
3. To soar.

Spirits are soaring now that leaders have endorsed an inspired plan to inspire industry to aspire towards the ultimate goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The move will clearly succeed in helping business take a leadership role in implementing real solutions by giving them the freedom and flexibility to leverage their past success ignoring voluntary targets and misrepresenting global warming science.

I'm feeling aspired...Aren't you?