US top court questions global warming lawsuit

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether a global warming lawsuit against five big power companies can proceed, with several justices saying the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, not federal judges, should deal with the issue.
The high court justices sounded a skeptical note during arguments when they asked whether complicated environmental issues, such as how much greenhouse gas pollution is allowable and how it should be curbed, should be left to federal judges.

The big environmental case stemmed from a 2004 lawsuit claiming that five coal-burning utilities have created a public nuisance by contributing to climate change. Its consequences, such as rising seas, reduced crop yields and destruction of some hardwood trees, would harm the states' citizens.

The lawsuit, now involving six states, seeks to have a federal judge in New York order the utilities to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

Both liberal and conservative justices questioned whether the lawsuit can go forward.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the court's liberals, took aim at the states' case, saying what they want is what the Environmental Protection Agency is trying to do with its proposed regulations of carbon emissions.

"How does a district judge decide what's reasonable and effective?" conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked rhetorically.

Another conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts, also asked whether a district court judge could conduct the cost-benefit analysis to determine what was reasonable to reduce global warming: "I think that's a pretty big burden to impose on a district court judge."

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the facts at issue in the lawsuit usually were determined by an agency such as the EPA, rather than the courts. "There is an administrative agency. There is a Clean Air Act," she said.


EPA'S ROLE

Lawyers for the power companies, including an Obama administration attorney representing the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority, said the scope of the lawsuit was unprecedented in U.S. history, involving national and international issues outside the power of the courts.

"In the 222 years that the court has been sitting, there has never been a case with so many potential perpetrators and so many potential victims," said Neal Katyal, the administration's top courtroom lawyer.

The power companies -- American Electric Power Co Inc, Southern Co, Xcel Energy Inc and Cinergy Corp, which Duke Energy Corp acquired in 2006, along with TVA -- want the lawsuit dismissed.

The states -- California, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont -- said their citizens have been harmed by global warming and urged the top court to allow their lawsuit to go forward.

It is the most sweeping climate change case to come before the high court since its landmark 2007 ruling that authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions if they endanger human health.

In their comments on Tuesday, the justices said Congress has given the federal environmental agency the authority to do just that.

But even though the EPA has found officially that greenhouse pollution poses a health hazard, it has not yet gone forward to impose regulations on emissions, and Republicans in Congress have sought to limit the agency's ability to do so.

Coal-fired power plants emit about twice as much carbon dioxide -- which warms the Earth by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere -- as natural gas-fired plants. Nuclear power plants emit virtually no greenhouse gases.

The five power utilities account for 10 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, said Barbara Underwood, who argued the case for the states.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

(Editing by Bill Trott)

News Published by http://in.reuters.com on 20,april 2011

Read more...

Life Sciences

A team of scientists has discovered that human-introduced, invasive species of plants can have positive ecological effects. Tomás Carlo, an assistant professor of biology at Penn State University, and Jason Gleditsch, a graduate student in the Department of Biology, have studied how invasive fruiting plants affect ecosystems and how those effects, contrary to prevailing ideas, sometimes can be beneficial to an ecological community. The team's research, which will be published in the journal Diversity and Distributions, is expected to affect the way environmental resource managers respond to ecosystem maintenance. "Among conservation biologists, ecologists, and managers, the default approach is to try to eliminate and root out non-native, invasive shrubs -- anything that seems to change an ecosystem," Carlo said. "The fundamental goal is to return a natural area to its original, pristine state, with the native species occupying the dominant position in the community. But the problem is that most native communities already have been changed beyond recognition by humans, and many native species are now rare." Carlo explained that his team wanted to test whether certain well-established, invasive fruiting species have negative or positive effects on bird and fruiting-plant communities. "We wondered: Are we sometimes doing more harm than good when we eradicate plants that, despite being introduced recently, have formed positive relationships with native animals?" To be considered invasive, a species of plant must have been introduced by humans, and it must be dominant numerically in the new environment. To test the impact of an invasive fruiting-plant species on native bird communities, Carlo and Gleditsch sectioned off an area of central Pennsylvania known as the Happy Valley region, where honeysuckle -- a non-native fruiting plant that is considered invasive -- grows in abundance. They then assessed the abundance of bird species and fruiting plants -- including honeysuckle -- within the area. After comparing their data with similar data from urban, agricultural, and forested areas, they determined that the abundance of honeysuckle predicted the numbers and diversity of birds within the region and even beyond the region. That is, the honeysuckle and bird communities had formed a relationship known as mutualism -- a term that describes how two or more species interact by benefiting mutually from each other's existence. "The abundance of fruit-eating birds in the Happy Valley region is linked to the abundance of honeysuckle," Carlo explained. "Honeysuckle comprises more than half of all the fruits available in the landscape, and it benefits birds by providing them with a source of food in the fall. Meanwhile, birds benefit honeysuckle by dispersing the plant's seeds across a wider geographical area, helping the species to occupy more and more territory in areas already affected by human activities." Carlo explained that returning this particular ecosystem to its honeysuckle-free state could harm many species of native birds that now seem to rely on honeysuckle as a major food source in the fall. The team also tested the honeysuckle's influence, not just on birds, but on other species of fruiting plants. First, they grew native fruiting plants known as American nightshades in pots in a greenhouse. When the fruits were ripe on each plant, they then placed them into both honeysuckle-dense areas and areas area without honeysuckle but dominated by other native and non-native fruiting species. "We chose the American nightshade because it is native and common in the Happy Valley region," Carlo said. "Also, it is easy to manipulate experimentally, and its fruits are eaten -- and thus dispersed -- by native birds." In the area in which honeysuckle grew in abundance, the rate of fruit-removal of Carlo's American nightshades was 30-percent higher than in the areas without honeysuckle. Carlo explained that in the honeysuckle-rich area, birds were present in abundance. These birds allowed the nightshades to receive more seed-dispersal services -- an ecological process known as facilitation. "The newly introduced plants piggybacked on the success of the honeysuckle, which is a common phenomenon because fruit-eating birds usually feed on a variety of fruit -- whatever happens to be available to them," Carlo explained. "The same birds that ate the honeysuckle also ate the American nightshade, dispersing the seeds of both plants. It's a win-win-win for all three: the birds, the honeysuckle, and the nightshades." Carlo also explained that in Pennsylvania there are now three to four times more fruit-eating birds such as robins and catbirds than there were just 30 years ago, especially in landscapes of high human presence. So scientists should conclude that, while some invasive, human-introduced plants are definitely problematic, others could serve to restore ecological balance by providing essential food resources to native migratory birds that populate areas affected by humans. "Invasive species could fill niches in degraded ecosystems and help restore native biodiversity in an inexpensive and self-organized way that requires little or no human intervention," Carlo said. In addition, Carlo explained, while eliminating an invasive species could result in harm to the newly formed balance of an ecosystem, large-scale attempts to remove species also could be a waste of time and tax dollars. He explained that when managers and agencies attempt to eradicate an invasive plant from a particular ecosystem, the species often ends up growing back anyway. "Nature is in a constant state of flux, always shifting and readjusting as new relationships form between species, and not all of these relationships are bad just because they are novel or created by humans," Carlo said. "We need to be more careful about shooting first and asking questions later -- assuming that introduced species are inherently harmful. We should be asking: Are we responding to real threats to nature or to our cultural perception and scientific bias?" Support for this research is provided by the Penn State Department of Biology and the Penn State Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences.- ready more at sciencedaily.com

Read more...

Global warming effects on Himalayan

Landscape shots of the Himalayan mountains of Nepal, where the effects of global warming are palpable. Nepal. 23/12/09. Local communities blame the gods for the changing weather whilst the developed countries in the world continue to expand and further contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The Nepalese government held a unique cabinet meeting at Kala Patthar near the base of Mount Everest following the Copenhagen climate summit.

Although Nepal's share in the global emission of greenhouse gases is almost nil, the consequences of global warming and climate change - receding snowlines, lake bursts and flash floods - threaten to wash away vast areas of this Himalayan country. The meltdown of glaciers due to global warming has sent a chill through the Himalayan region. Over the last couple of years, this mountainous country has recorded a hazy winter, hotter summer months, reduced rain fall and frequent landslides, which experts attribute to climatic change. Experts believe this could be a pointer to even more miserable weather to come. The average temperature in Nepal is rising by 0.75 degrees Celsius per decade says a senior official in the Ministry of Population and Environment. Global warming has increased the pace of snow melting, which, in turn, has made glacial lakes swell. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) had warned five years ago that 20 big glacial lakes in the country are at risk of floods from glacial lake bursts, which could trigger huge loss of life and property. More than five glacial lake bursts occurred in the past few decades, according to records and satellite imagery, says a climate change officer at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF-Nepal Program). WWF-Nepal acts as a member secretary organization of the Climate Change Network Nepal, which includes a number of domestic and international environmental bodies keeping a watch on global warming and its impact on Nepal. One of the most startling results of climate change can be seen in the spectacular Tsho Rolpa glacial lake situated in the Rolwaling valley, north of the capital Kathmandu. The lake had an area of 0.23 sq kilometers in 1950. It has since swollen to 1.7 sq kilometers, says the officials in the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology of Nepal government. After the UNEP warning, the Nepal government immediately started the Tsho Rolpa Risk Reduction Project, with the help of foreign aid. The project has siphoned a huge quantity of water and has brought down the water level by 3 metres. According to UNEP, the water level needs to be brought down by at least 20 meters to ensure safety. In August 2003, the Kawari glacier lake, situated in the foothills of the Annapurna II Mountain of the Himalayan region in Nepal burst, destroying property worth US $100,000. Five people were killed and dozens made homeless. Glacial lake bursts on a smaller scale have been frequently reported in the past few decades. On September 3, 1998, the Sabai Tsho lake-burst killed two persons and washed away fields and trekking trails of Solukhumbu district, which is home to Mount Everest. Likewise, in September 1997, the Dudh Koshi burst destroyed a mini hydro plant there. On July 1991, the Chilbung lake burst, damaging houses in Beding village in Rolwaling valley. These are just a few examples. Glacial lake bursts occurred in the past as well, but their frequency has increased of late because of the rising pace of snow melting. According to the studies carried out by ICIMOD (International Center for Integrated Mountain Development) and UNEP, there are 26 potential dangerous glacial lakes in Nepal that threaten millions of lives due to global warming. There are around 3,300 glaciers in the Nepali Himalayas and nearly 2,300 of them contain glacial lakes. Scientists have documented a similar trend in glaciers throughout the Himalaya, the mountain range that houses Mount Everest. The range, which spans several Asian nations, is known as the Water Tower of Asia, since billions of people depend on its life-bringing flows. Scientists fear that these water supplies could eventually dry up as the glaciers melt due to global warming. Experts claim that climate change due to global warming is responsible for erratic weather patterns such as the thick haze that shrouds Nepal's Terai (southern plains) area in winter. The haze destroys the cash crops of this region, which is the livelihood of the country. And due to the delay in regular snowfall, people living in the western Himalayan region are suffering from outbreaks of viral influenza, pneumonia, colds, diarrhoea and other diseases. It is very disappointing that while Nepal does not emit many greenhouse gases, it has to face the consequences of actions of other developed countries. Due to their actions, Nepal's white gold mountains that are also called the water tower of Asia, are under threat. Fear has risen that even the bio-diversity may have been affected by the change in climate. This could be particularly true in a country like Nepal where different species are found at different altitudes and climatic conditions. Nepal is already party to the international convention on climate change and is working to ratify the Kyoto protocol. But despite its deep concern, Nepal might not be able to cope with the challenge thrown open by global warming on its own, say government officials. According to ICIMOD, mountainous Nepal, home to eight of the world’s 14 tallest peaks, including Mount Everest, is vulnerable to climate change despite being responsible for only 0.027 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, among the world’s lowest. Average global temperatures are rising faster in the Himalayas than in most other parts of the world. The Khumbu Glacier on Mount Everest has retreated more than three miles (five kilometers) from the time when Edmund Hillary and Tensing Norgay famously set out to conquer the world's highest peak in 1953. WWF has released a report warning that Himalayan glaciers are currently receding at an average rate of 33 to 50 feet (10 to 15 meters) per year. In India the Gangotri Glacier, the source of the Ganges (or Ganga) River, is retreating at a rate of 75 feet (23 meters) annually. The report has also noted that air temperatures in the region have risen by 1.8°F (1°C) since the 1970s—twice as much as average warming in other northern hemisphere countries over the same time period. Meanwhile, Nepal's Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal has proposed five key-points for the success of Copenhagen Climate Conference with urge of Nepali people for keeping the earth green so that humankind can keep the majestic Himalayas, the Alps and Andes eternally white under the snow. Addressing the High Level Segment of the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Prime Minister Nepal stressed that "If we fail to act now and act decisively, not only will future generation be deprived of experiencing the beauty of the white mountains, but also the livelihoods of over 1.3 billion people residing in the great river basins of the Himalayas will be seriously affected." Briefing the High Level Segment about Nepal's Cabinet Meeting held at Kalapatthar, the Base Camp of the Mt. Everest, Prime Minister Nepal said he saw up close from the top of the world the alarming impacts of climate change in the Himalayan Region. He also urged the developed countries to abide by their existing commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as already agreed within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. He has also urged the Summit Conference to set ambitious global goals and targets for Annex I countries to further reduce greenhouse gas emission. According to PM Nepal, Nepal is prepared to play its part and have developed one of the most successful community forestry programs. Given the huge potential of hydropower, solar and wind energy in Nepal, it can aspire to become a carbon neutral country in the long run contributing to lessen carbon emission in the region through the development of clean hydro energy in Nepal. He also added that the temperature in Nepal is increasing at a rate much higher than the global average. This in the long term would also adversely impact the hydrological system of the entire region. Formation and outburst of glacial lakes are perhaps the most visible impacts of climate change. Global climate change is thus adversely affecting the fragile mountain ecosystem while endangering its great biodiversity. As a landlocked and least developed country with subsistence agriculture, Nepal has the challenge to the changing life support system and protecting the environment and natural resources from the negative impact of climate change. PM Nepal proposed 5 Key points to make the Copenhagen summit a success in bringing effective solutions to fight with the Global warming. He has stressed that an ambitious and legally binding deal in Copenhagen following the Convention and Kyoto tracks is a must. Developed countries should have ambitious goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Atmospheric temperature should be kept below 1.5 degrees. LDCs and most vulnerable countries must be uppermost, as they are least able to withstand the adverse impacts of climate change. The effect of global warming is not an abstract scientific theory any more in the Himalayan Mountains; it has become a fact of everyday life. Its effects are visible everywhere: in snow-capped mountains that are turning into stark, exposed rock, and swollen lakes that have made traditional yak-herding routes impassable. There is also less direct impact that is more difficult to measure: droughts and cloudbursts, delayed monsoons and huge forest fires are a few. What many in the Himalayan mountains of Nepal and neighboring countries still do not know is the cause of this warming, and what to do about it. Some blame the gods for erratic weather — not the emission of greenhouse gases by rich countries. They do not know how the futures of their children and grandchildren are tied up with this Global warming. In fact, the messy development and fake promises having come out of the Copenhagen Summit for the international climate-change conference has given a pointer that these ignorant people will continue suffering from the Global warming not caused by them (source : demotix.com/)

Read more...

Is global warming drowning Bangladesh?

Md Saiful Haque Writes From Stockholm, Sweden

The impacts of global warming will be felt across the globe. Glaciers and ice caps will melt at faster rates. Occurrence of extreme floods and droughts will increase. Water stress will increase globally while water quality will deteriorate. In South Asia, seasonal variation of water will increase. Water resource scarcity with enhanced climate variability will intensify. More than a billion people will experience water stress in the region. There's high risk of rain, riverine and glacier-melt related floods. Flooding due to sea-level rise and deterioration of water quality will intensify. And what's more grim, there are uncertainties in the projections.



These are the basic findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s latest report by Bangladeshi scientist Dr Monirul Mirza, a lead author for IPCC, presented at the 2007 World Water Week high level panel discussion on climate change in Stockholm last August. The poorest countries have always been predicted to be worst hit by human-induced global warming and climate change. Bangladesh, as the lowest riparian country in the South Asian region that faces the sea -- and drains 92 percent of the snowmelt from the vast Himalayan mountain range -- is one of the most vulnerable places on earth to global warming and climate change. One of the poorest nations in the world, Bangladesh is projected to lose 17.5 percent of its land if sea level rises about 40 inches (1 m). And sea level is already rising in the Bay of Bengal even faster than expected, and pushing salty water inland, lowering the productivity of rice -- the country's key crop -- cultivation, especially in the south of the country. Coastal flooding will threaten animals, plants, and fresh water supplies. The current danger posed by storm surges when cyclones hit Bangladesh is likely to increase. Scientists believe global warming will make cyclones in the region bigger and more frequent. A UN report says: "Of the 12 hottest years on record 11 occurred between 1995 and 2006." What's more, the heat is only continuing to rise. Rising temperatures are creating havoc with the earth's weather, bringing too much rain to some, not enough to others. Climate change is likely to heavily hit Bangladesh by breaking down agricultural systems, which would seriously affect Bangladesh, leaving large sections of people facing malnutrition, worsening freshwater scarcity, increasing risks of fatal diseases, and triggering mass displacement due to recurring severe floods and storms like the recent Cyclone Sidr. Asia's largest rivers, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, join in the world's most extensive delta and flow into the Bay of Bengal. Here lies Bangladesh, a nation of 145 million people already beset with grinding poverty, severe frequent floods, and now also affected by rising sea levels. And the Kusiara and Surma rivers coming from the Himalayan-foot district Assam (in India) form the Meghna -- another mighty river. The Ganges and Brahmaputra meet the Meghna and then together course south in hundreds of distributaries to form the largest delta on the planet. Siltation of river-beds caused by sediments carried by rivers from upstream countries decelerates drainage and accentuates the intensity of floods. According to an estimate (Milliman, Meade 1983, taken from World Bank 1998), about 1.67 billion tons of suspended sediment discharged annually through the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers, while Bangladesh Water Development Board estimated a suspended sediment discharge of about 1.27 billion tons excluding bed load which may amount to about 50 percent of the total sediment load. Ninety percent of the land is floodplain, and the country has the world's highest density of rivers per unit of area. Yet, with increased population and expanded economic activity, Bangladesh faces serious shortages of water during the dry season -- flooding during the monsoon and too little in the dry season. Bangladesh's location and topography make it particularly susceptible to the effects of climate change and also hard to protect, where the rivers are constantly shifting, making it difficult to build up protective banks or large dikes to hold back the sea. The soil here is mud and, as such -- not steady. About one million people a year are displaced by loss of land along rivers due to constant river-bank erosion, and this is increasing. People are little aware of the effect on them of sea level rise and a warming climate. Because of its poverty -- 78 percent of its population lives on less than $2 a day -- Bangladesh cannot afford the kind of defences planned in Europe. World Bank reported, in 2001 that sea level was rising about 3 mm a year in the Bay of Bengal. It warned of loss of Bengal tigers in the Sundarbans, the world's largest mangrove forest -- and a world heritage site -- and threat to hundreds of bird species. 15 to 20 percent of Bangladesh is within one metre rise of sea level. The World Bank warned of a decline of rice crop up to 30 percent with predicted sea level rise. This is not a one-time event that sometime in the future will affect so many. It is a constant process of ever higher tides, which affects more and more people even in time of lower river flow and good weather. According to the latest UN Human Development Report (HDR) released in November, Bangladesh is among the countries to be worst-affected by climate change that may cause a large-scale reversal in human development. Describing the effects of climate change on the poorest countries as horrible, the HDR states: "Those who have largely caused the problem -- the rich countries -- are not going to be those who suffer the most in the short term. It is the poorest, who are not contributing significantly to green house gas emissions, who are the most vulnerable." The HDR report titled 'Fighting Climate Change' cautioned "Business-as-usual scenarios will trigger large scale reversals in human development, undermining livelihoods and causing mass displacement." UNDP administrator Kemal Dervis, in his introduction to the report, said: "It is the poor, a constituency with no responsibility for the ecological debt we are running up, who face the most immediate, and severe, human costs." With only 15 percent of world's population, rich countries account for nearly half of global carbon dioxide emissions, with the United States -- the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases -- leaving a carbon footprint that is nearly 70 times higher than in Bangladesh. Global carbon dioxide output in 2006 approached a staggering 32 billion tons, with about 25 percent of that coming from the US. There's not much Bangladesh can do. Unless developed countries cut their greenhouse emissions, our efforts will be undercut. The country is particularly vulnerable because it has a low institutional capacity and lacks resources to combat the changing climate. But the immediate consequences of climate change are in Bangladesh -- and also in Africa. As for Bangladesh, both adaptation and mitigation measures are essential to reduce high risks. Adaptation measures in poor countries like ours should be subsidised by rich countries. It is poor countries that are "suffering the brunt of climate change". But it is rich countries' greenhouse-gas emissions that have "caused this crisis in the first place". Without aid from richer countries to pay for more durable raised roads, hospitals and other infrastructures, Bangladesh will be unable to handle more disasters like deadly Sidr and frequent, ravaging deluges. With sea levels rising and rivers swelling in the coming decades, vast areas of the country would disappear, sparking an exodus of climate refugees. The terrible question is, where will they go? However, world leaders at the UN climate conference in mid-December, on the resort island of Bali, Indonesia, have agreed to reach a new deal on fighting global warming by 2009. The contentious, two-week conference ended with the United States, facing angry criticism from other delegations, relenting in its opposition to a request from developing nations for more technological help for fighting climate change.



















The new deal does not commit countries to specific actions against global warming. It simply sets an agenda and schedule for negotiators to find ways to reduce pollution and help poor countries adapt to environmental changes by speeding up the transfer of technology and financial assistance.Resource:www.thedailystar.net

Read more...