UK Youth Climate Coalition

The UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC) is a youth organisation in the United Kingdom. The coalition consists of several other youth organisations, which includes the National Union of Students, the National Trust's You, Me & The Climate (YOMAC) and the UK Youth Parliament. The charity aims to encourage young people to take action on climate change. Internationally, the coalition is part of the Global Youth Climate Movement.

History

In June 2008, the United Kingdom ambassadors to the WWF's Voyage for the Future programme, Emma Biermann and Casper ter Kuile, returned from the Arctic to found the UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC).

Campaigns

In December 2008, the coalition participated in the National Climate March organised by the Campaign against Climate Change, with a campaign called "Our time is now" to raise awareness amongst young people.

In 2008, the Coalition organised a youth delegation to the 2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference to advocate on behalf of young people. At the event, the delegation coordinated the 'Call Gordon' project, a viral telephone campaign asking Prime Minister Gordon Brown to pursue a tougher agreement on climate change at the talks. Similarly in December 2009, the organisation will send a second youth delegation to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference along with other members of the Youth Climate Movement.

On the 9th-12th October 2009, the UK version of Power Shift will be held at the Institute of Education in London. The event is a summit that intends to develop the youth climate movement. The event is modelled on a similar event to one organised by the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and carries the same name as the Energy Action Coalition event in the USA.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

U.S. Climate Action Partnership

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), formed January 22, 2007 is a co-operative group of businesses and leading environmental organizations. The group's primary purpose is to call on the U.S. government to require significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

"A Call For Action"

USCAP's principles and goals are summarized in their brochure "A Call For Action":

We, the members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, pledge to work with the President, the Congress, and all other stakeholders to enact an environmentally effective, economically sustainable, and fair climate change program consistent with our principles at the earliest practicable date.

Targets

The USCAP Blueprint calls for the United States to act quickly to establish a mandatory, national economy-wide climate protection program that includes emission reduction targets for total U.S. emissions and for capped sectors that are::
— 97%-102% of 2005 levels by 2012;
— 80%-86% of 2005 levels by 2020;
— 58% of 2005 levels by 2030; and
— 20% of 2005 levels by 2050.

These targets do not comply with the IPCC proposed target reductions of 25 to 40% by 2020 and 80 to 95% by 2050 for Annex 1 (developed) countries under Scenario A to limit Greenhouse gases to 450ppm

USCAP Members

This list is complete as of July 3, 2007

The 14 founding members of USCAP are:

Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont,
Environmental Defense, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers
Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, and World Resources Institute.

In April, 2007 oil giant ConocoPhillips and insurer AIG joined USCAP.

The following groups and companies joined in June 2007:

American International Group (AIG), Alcan, Boston Scientific, ConocoPhillips
Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, General Motors Corp.,
Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, PepsiCo, Shell,
Siemens, The Nature Conservancy, The National Wildlife Federation

In July, 2007, two major U.S. automakers joined:

Chrysler, Ford Motor Company

Organizational structure

Journalist Timothy P. Carney, writing for the conservative think tank Capital Research Center, says that USCAP has no in-house staff. He says that, like other lobbying coalitions, it manages its affairs through outside organizations to function and coordinate the activities of its members. He further asserts that USCAP contracts with the Meridian Institute, Lighthouse Consulting, and government relations firm Powell Tate Weber Shandwick to carry out its day to day operations.

Controversy

Questions have been raised about the same companies sponsoring both the partnership and lobbying groups which oppose its goals.

Many of the members of USCAP were previously involved with the Global Climate Coalition, whose intention was to block or minimize the effectiveness of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's demands for GHG curbing legislation. After ceasing official operation in 1997 GCC was victorious in having pressured the US into refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocols to any meaningful extent.

Although many of these corporations have now become interested in halting climate change by 2050 through USCAP, both Yvo de Boer, UN Climate Chief and the EU have heavily criticized this long term plan for reductions as offering no short or mid-term solutions to the immediate problems of climate change.

According to Reuters, Robert Murray, chairman and chief executive of Murray Energy Corp., branded more than 20 major corporations that make up the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) "un-American" for allying with environmental groups he calls "enemies of coal."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Twisted, The Distorted Mathematics of Greenhouse Denial

Twisted, The Distorted Mathematics of Greenhouse Denial is a 2007 book by Ian G. Enting, who is the Professorial Research Fellow in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems (MASCOS) based at the University of Melbourne.

The book analyses the arguments of greenhouse sceptics and the use and presentation of statistics. Enting contends there are contradictions in the various arguments of the climate change sceptics.

The author also presents calculations of the actual emission levels that would be required to stabilise CO2 concentrations. This is an update of calculations that he contributed to the pre-Kyoto IPCC report on Radiative Forcing of Climate.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Tonne of oil equivalent

The tonne of oil equivalent (toe) is a unit of energy: the amount of energy released by burning one tonne of crude oil, approximately 42 GJ (as different crude oils have different calorific values, the exact value of the toe is defined by convention; unfortunately there are several slightly different definitions as discussed below).

The toe is sometimes used for large amounts of energy, as it can be more intuitive to visualise, say, the energy released by burning 1000 tonnes of oil than 42,000 billion joules (the SI unit of energy).

Multiples of the toe are used, in particular the megatoe (Mtoe, one million toe) and the gigatoe (Gtoe, one billion toe).

Definitions

The IEA/OECD define one toe to be equal to 41.868 GJ or 11.63 MWh. Some organisations use other definitions of toe, for example:

* 1 toe = 42 GJ
* 1 toe = 41.85 GJ
* 1 toe = 7.11, 7.33, or 7.4 barrel of oil equivalent (boe)
* 1 tonne petroleum equivalent (TPE), as used in renewable energy, 45.217 GJ.

Conversion factors

* 1 barrel of oil equivalent (boe) contains approximately 0.146 toe (i.e. there are approximately 6.841 boe in a toe).
* 1 t diesel = 1.01 toe
* 1 m3 diesel = 0.98 toe
* 1 t petrol = 1.05 toe
* 1 m3 petrol = 0.86 toe
* 1 t biodiesel = 0.86 toe
* 1 m3 biodiesel = 0.78 toe
* 1 t bioethanol = 0.64 toe
* 1m3 bioethanol = 0.51 toe
* 1 MWh = 0.22 toe (assumes 39% thermal to electrical conversion efficiency)
* 1 MWh = 0.086 toe
It is important to note that toe should be used carefully when converting electrical units - for instance, BP's 2007 report used a factor of 38% efficiency (the average efficiency of OECD thermal generating units in 2006), or roughly 16 GJ per toe, when converting kilowatt-hours to toe.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Tipping point (climatology)

A climate tipping point is a point when global climate changes from one stable state to another stable state, in a similar manner to a wine glass tipping over. After the tipping point has been passed, a transition to a new state occurs. The tipping event may be irreversible, comparable to wine spilling from the glass - standing up the glass will not put the wine back. As regards climate, Geoengineering may be proposed or used to prevent or reverse a tipping point event.

Global warming proceeds by changing the composition of gases in the Earth's atmosphere by the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Remedial action to restrain the rate of change may be proposed by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to slow down and stop and eventually reduce their build up.

As warming proceeds it brings about changes to the natural environment which may result in other changes. For example, warming may begin to melt the Greenland ice sheet. At some level of temperature rise, the melt of the entire ice sheet will become inevitable, even though complete melting may not occur for millennia. Thus a "tipping point" may be passed without any immediately obvious consequences. Nor does the use of tipping point imply any acceleration of the warming process.

Some eminent scientists, notably James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist believe this point has already been reached with carbon dioxide levels currently at 385 ppm.

"Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know." Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Other scientists maintain the term is too vague for a non-linear system such as the Earth's climate where they may be a number of states where conditions may flip and go rapidly into another state and other conditions which may return it to equilibrium. It has been suggested the phrase is more a political slogan to rally support for action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Examples

Lenton et al. highlights a number of tipping points including

* Boreal forest dieback
* Amazon rainforest dieback
* ENSO
* Loss of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
* Ozone hole
* Disruption to Indian and West African monsoon
* Formation of Atlantic deep water near the Arctic ocean, which is a component process of the thermohaline circulation.
* Loss of permafrost, leading to potential Arctic methane release and Clathrate gun effect

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

The Carbon Principles

The Carbon Principles are a series of guidelines established by three leading Wall Street banks — Citigroup Inc., JP Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley — to assess the risks in financing electric power projects in terms of climate change.

The Principles call for "enhanced diligence" in evaluating electric power industry borrowers in terms of their use of energy efficiency; renewable and low-carbon distributed energy technologies; and conventional and advanced generating technologies.

The Climate Principles are a similar framework for climate change best practice for the financial sector. This is a comprehensive industry framework for a response to climate change and has been adopted by Crédit Agricole, Munich Re, Standard Chartered, Swiss Re and HSBC.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)

The ability of stratospheric sulfur aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in geoengineering projects to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Delivery of precursor gases such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) by artillery, aircraft and balloons has been proposed.

Tom Wigley calculated the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one to four years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, but did not address the many technical and political challenges involved in potential geoengineering efforts. If found to be economically, environmentally and technologically viable, such injections could provide a "grace period" of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required, he concludes.

Direct delivery of precursors is proposed by Paul Crutzen. This would typically be achieved using H2S or sulfur, delivered using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F15-C) or balloons, which would be oxidized to produce SO2.

According to estimates by the Council on Foreign Relations, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."

Aerosol formation

Primary aerosol formation, also known as homogeneous aerosol formation results when gaseous SO2 combines with water to form aqueous sulfuric acid (H2SO4). This acidic liquid solution is in the form of a vapor and condenses onto particles of solid matter, either meteoritic in origin or from dust carried from the surface to the stratosphere. Secondary or heterogeneous aerosol formation occurs when H2SO4 vapor condenses onto existing aerosol particles. Existing aerosol particles or droplets also run into each other, creating larger particles or droplets in a process known as coagulation. The larger the particles or droplets, the shorter their residence time in the stratosphere and the less effective they are at scattering visible sunlight.

Arguments for the technique

The arguments in favour of this approach are:

* Natural process - Stratospheric sulfur aerosols are created by existing atmospheric processes (especially volcanoes), the behaviour of which has been studied observationally. Other, more speculative geoengineering schemes do not have natural analogs (e.g. space sunshade).
* Speed of action - Solar radiation management works quickly, in contrast to carbon sequestration projects such as carbon dioxide air capture which would take longer to have an effect, as the latter relies on removing large amounts of carbon dioxide before they become effective; however, gaps in understanding of these processes exist (e.g. the effect on stratospheric climate and on rainfall patterns, and further research is needed.
* Technological feasibility - In contrast to other geoengineering schemes, such as space sunshade, the technology required is pre-existing: chemical manufacturing, artillery shells, fighter aircraft, weather balloons, etc.
* Cost - The low-tech nature of this approach has led commentators to suggest it will cost less than many other interventions. Costs cannot be derived in a wholly objective fashion, as pricing can only be roughly estimated at an early stage. However, an assessment reported in Newscientist suggests a relatively low cost.
* Efficacy - Most geoengineering schemes can only provide a limited intervention in the climate - one cannot reduce the temperature by more than a certain amount with each technique. New research by Lenton and Vaughan suggests that this technique may have a high radiative 'forcing potential'.

Efficacy problems

All geoengineering schemes have potential efficacy problems, due to the difficulty of modelling their impact and the inherently complex nature of the global climate system. Nevertheless, certain efficacy issues are specific to the use of this particular technique.

* Lifespan of aerosols - Tropospheric sulfur aerosols are short lived. Delivery of particles into the lower stratosphere will typically ensure that they remain aloft only for a few weeks or months. To ensure endurance, high-level delivery is needed, ensuring a typical endurance of several years. Further, sizing of particles is crucial to their endurance.

* Aerosol delivery - Even discounting the challenges of lifting, there are still significant challenges in designing a delivery system that is capable of delivering the precursor gases in the right manner to encourage effective aerosol formation. For example, it is unclear whether aerial shells should be designed to leak slowly or burst suddenly. The size of aerosol particles is also crucial, and efforts must be made to ensure optimal delivery.

* Distribution - It is logistically difficult to deliver aerosols evenly around the globe. Challenges therefore exist in creating a network of delivery points sufficient to allow viable geoengineering from a limited number of launching sites.

Side effects

Geoengineering in general is a controversial technique, and carries problems and risks, such as weaponisation. However, certain problems are specific to, or more pronounced with this particular technique.

* Drought, particularly monsoon failure in Asia and Africa is a major risk.
* Ozone depletion is a potential side effect of sulfur aerosols; however, the effect has been well studied by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen.

* Whitening of the sky: Aerosols will noticeably affect the appearance of the sky, resulting a potential whitening effect, and altered sunsets.
* Tropopause warming and the humidification of the stratosphere.
* Effect on clouds: Cloud formation may be affected, notably cirrus clouds and polar stratospheric clouds.
* Effect on ecosystems: The diffusion of sunlight may affect plant growth.
* Effect on solar energy: Incident sunlight will be lower, which may affect solar power systems both directly and disproportionately, especially in the case that such systems rely on direct radiation.
* Deposition effects: Although predicted to be insignificant, there is nevertheless a risk of direct environmental damage from falling particles.
* Uneven effects: Aerosols are reflective, making them more effective during the day. Greenhouse gases block outbound radiation 24hrs a day.

Further, the delivery methods may cause significant problems, notably climate change and possible ozone depletion in the case of aircraft, and litter in the case of untethered balloons.

Delivery methods

Various techniques have been proposed for delivering the aerosol precursor gases (H2S and SO2). The required altitude to enter the stratosphere is the height of the tropopause, which varies from 11 km (6.8 miles/36,080 feet) at the poles to 17 km (11 miles/58,080 feet) at the equator.

* Aircraft such as the F15-C variant of the F-15 Eagle have the necessary ceiling, but limited payload. Existing transport aircraft and bombers are not able to reach the necessary altitude.
* Modified Artillery might have the necessary capability, but unfortunately requires a polluting and expensive cordite charge to loft the payload.
* High-altitude balloons can be used to lift precursor gases, in tanks, bladders or in the balloons' envelope. Balloons can also be used to lift pipes and hoses, but no moored balloon has ever been deployed to the necessary altitude.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/