A call to shrink the global economy. This was written by a lecturer affiliated with the London School of Economics. The content is too much to summarize, but I would like to add a full endorsement to his views, which echo those of Kevin Anderson. If we are going to actually save the planet there is no way to avoid a steep decline in the consumption of resources. There is quite a bit of resistance to overcome for that to happen.
Diabetes especially is considered a major cause for cardiac arrest? Smoking causes artery stiffness by acute deposition of carbon into them, thus elevating the CLD levels in the body which is the sole reason for a person to be facing best viagra price amerikabulteni.com erectile dysfunction. It is great difficulty with a man, which amerikabulteni.com generic cialis greatly affects his intimate life along with his partner’s too. Diseases like diabetes or levitra professional online atherosclerosis blocks blood flow to the male organ. A large number of people these days have become extremely common sexual problem among amerikabulteni.com pharmacy cialis young as well as in older individuals.
—–
A new study of the “human footprint” has been released. For this purpose “human footprint” appears to be limited to the amount of land surface taken over by various human activities, yielding results that are treated as mildly favorable in a relative way. Beneath the headlines we learn that three quarters of the planet has been “significantly altered” by humans and 97% of the most species-rich places on Earth have been “seriously altered.” The carbon footprint was not covered in this study. Between 1993 and 2009 it rose by 31ppm, from 356 to 387. That compares with a rise of 76ppm (from 280) during all of the Industrial era before 1993. That is a mere 41% in 16 years. Think about it.
—–
Comments from an Australian Professor of Ocean and Climate Change who has taken a hard look at how climates changed in the deep past. In his ultra-long term view climate sensitivity will add up to 3-5 degrees C for each doubling of CO2, or about one degree more than others are saying. That translates into 2-3C warming with CO2 where it is now, at just over 400ppm. The consequences he describes are quite stiff. The remedy, which he says will have to include carbon removal from the atmosphere, is also quite stiff.
—–
Russia has its eye on Arctic oil and gas resources, which are seen as bountiful. Russia is currently the world’s largest crude oil producer, with a government greatly dependent on it for revenues, but current fields are ageing and depleting. It now has four production wells in the Arctic and is eager to expand. There is potential for territorial conflict in addition to inevitable environmental damage. It is hard to imagine how this will be resolved in anything that is not unfavorable to the future of a secure global order. A sharp reduction in the market for oil would of course be helpful.
A response from the UK:
—–
Climate science: A way to explain CO2 cycles during the ice ages. During the ice ages CO2 in the atmosphere regularly moved up and down between about 180 and 280ppm, boosting trends of both warming and cooling as it did so. Humans had nothing to do with it, so what caused these moves? Here is a study that shows a link to permafrost. When permafrost is forming, as when a continental ice sheet expands, it adds large stores of organic carbon deep in the soil that remain in place, creating a positive feedback to the cooling process. When the ice sheet eventually shrinks back the permafrost melts and the excess carbon is broken down and released, for a reversed positive feedback. An example of this last stage and its importance is reported in this new study. The current renewal of permafrost melting can be expected to have the same kind of result, for an unwanted feedback that has yet to be properly accounted for.
Carl