<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
  xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
  xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
  <title>Green Options &#187; smog</title>
  <link>http://greenoptions.com/tag/smog</link>
  <description>Posts tagged 'smog'</description>
  <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
  <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
  <language>en</language>
  <item>
    <title>Environmental Defense Fund: Health Dangers From a Warming Planet &#8212; Are You at Risk?</title>
    <link>http://sustainablog.org/2008/04/09/environmental-defense-fund-health-dangers-from-a-warming-planet-are-you-at-risk/</link>
    <comments>http://sustainablog.org/2008/04/09/environmental-defense-fund-health-dangers-from-a-warming-planet-are-you-at-risk/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Leslie Valentine</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[events]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainablog.org/2008/04/09/environmental-defense-fund-health-dangers-from-a-warming-planet-are-you-at-risk/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p> <a href="http://sustainablog.org/files/2008/04/family_cawildfire_evacuees.jpg" title="family_cawildfire_evacuees.jpg"><img src="http://sustainablog.org/files/2008/04/family_cawildfire_evacuees.jpg" alt="family_cawildfire_evacuees.jpg" align="left" /></a>This is <a href="http://www.nphw.org/nphw08/default.htm">National Public Health Week</a>, and the focus is on the impact of climate change on our nation&#8217;s health. Knowing about the risks you face will help you better prepare for the dangers.</p>
<p><em>PHOTO CAPTION: An evacuated family driven from their San Diego home by the 2007 wildfires. Photo: Michael Raphael/FEMA </em></p>
<h3>Do you have children?</h3>
<p>Because they are still developing physically, breathe faster than adults and rely on adults for care, children are more vulnerable. Watch out for:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Heat waves</strong>. Infants and children up to four years old are particularly sensitive to heat and also rely on a care-giver to keep them adequately hydrated.</li>
<li><strong>Smog and soot pollution</strong>. Because their lungs are still developing, children can suffer irreversible lung damage as adults from breathing unhealthy air when young.</li>
<li><strong>Food- and waterborne diseases</strong>. Small children and children living in poverty are at higher risk for falling ill from diseases that climate change will likely exacerbate.</li>
<li><strong>Stress, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder</strong> after disastrous extreme weather events.<!--more--></li>
</ul>
<h3>Are you over 65 years old?</h3>
<p>The U.S. population is aging; by 2030 one fifth is projected to be older than 65. Older adults often have frail health and limited mobility, making them more vulnerable to:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Heat waves</strong>. Older adults with limited incomes may not have air conditioning and may have difficulty getting to air conditioned centers, if available. That can be deadly. The elderly are less resilient to temperature extremes in general.</li>
<li><strong>Floods and other natural disasters</strong>. Hurricane Katrina showed all too clearly how a disproportionate number of senior citizens often suffer or die during a disaster.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Do you have a chronic medical condition?</h3>
<p>People with heart problems, respiratory illnesses, diabetes or compromised immune systems are more prone to exacerbated health problems from:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Extreme weather-related disasters</strong>. Disruption of ongoing medical care and medicines is dangerous for the chronically ill.</li>
<li><strong>Heat waves</strong>. People with diabetes are at greater risk of death from heat waves.</li>
<li><strong>Bad air quality</strong>. Stagnant hot air masses and higher ozone and soot concentrations worsen heart and lung conditions. People with diabetes are also more susceptible to harm from air pollution.</li>
<li><strong>Transmitted disease and illness</strong>. People with weakened immune systems, such as those with AIDS or those taking certain drugs to treat cancer, have less ability to fight off diarrhea from waterborne microbes or fevers from spreading viruses or mosquito-borne illnesses.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Are you pregnant?</h3>
<p>Pregnant women and their unborn children are particularly susceptible to:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Food-borne illnesses</strong> and other climate-sensitive diseases. Certain medications to treat infections may not be recommended for pregnant women.</li>
<li><strong>Ill effects from extreme weather disasters</strong>. Disruption of health care access, exposure to toxins, unsafe conditions, and psychological stress following disasters can endanger pregnant women and the health of the fetus.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Is your family income on the low end?</h3>
<p>An income of $21,200 for four people living in the contiguous 48 states (or $26,500 if you live in Alaska and $24,380 in Hawaii) is considered below the poverty level. Lower-income populations are disproportionately affected by:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Heat waves</strong>. Concentrations of lower-income populations in inner-city neighborhoods often mean a disproportionate number suffer from the heat island effect: tall building and concrete intensify scorching days and stifling nights. People living in dwellings lacking air conditioning or windows that open face a higher risk of death.</li>
<li><strong>Extreme weather disasters</strong>. People with lower incomes may not have the means to evacuate quickly out of harm&#8217;s way. Access to medical care is more easily disrupted for lower income individuals. Katrina showed us the devastation that a natural disaster can bring to people living in poverty.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Do you live in an area with unhealthy air quality?</h3>
<p>More hot days likely mean more smoggy unhealthy-air days. That&#8217;s because sunlight and heat spark a chemical reaction between ground-level ozone and other pollutants to form smog. If you live in an area already plagued by smog and soot, be prepared. Exposure to unhealthy air is not good for anybody but is particularly bad if you:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Exercise outdoors regularly</strong>. On red-alert days, even the healthiest people should not exercise outdoors. Breathing in ozone singes your lungs much like a sunburn and repeated exposure can reduce lung function.</li>
<li><strong>Work outside</strong>. More exposure to polluted air puts you at greater risk of health problems. Working outside in a rural or suburban area is an added risk factor for getting infectious diseases carried by insects and ticks, like Lyme disease, that may proliferate in a warmer climate.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Do you live in a region that is especially prone to harmful climate change?</h3>
<p>Some regions of the U.S. may be more affected by particular dangers than others. What can you expect if you live in the following regions?</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Southeast Atlantic and Gulf Coast</strong>. Residents of low-lying coastal areas will likely experience the one-two-three punch of more violent storms, strong storm surges and flooding, and coastal erosion. That will mean more damage to buildings and roads and possible contamination of drinking water.</li>
<li><strong>Southwest</strong>: Higher temperatures and less rainfall in an already hot, arid climate will likely strain already taxed water resources. The chances for wildfires and dangerously bad air quality will go up.</li>
<li><strong>Northwest</strong>: Heavy rainfall may lead to flooding and sewage overflow, causing illness and spread of disease.</li>
<li><strong>The Great Plains</strong>: Milder winters and scorching summers could take a toll on the country&#8217;s&#8221; bread basket&#8221; and hinder food production. Residents of cities would particularly suffer from intense heat waves.</li>
<li><strong>Northeast</strong>: Rising temperatures could mean more allergies and spread of diseases carried by insects or animals, such as West Nile virus or Lyme disease.</li>
<li><strong>Alaska</strong>: Melting permafrost and retreating sea ice are already disrupting residents&#8217; lives and subsistence hunting and fishing. Milder temperatures are allowing more pests such as spruce bark beetles to proliferate.</li>
</ul>
<h3>How you can help</h3>
<ul>
<li>Share <a href="http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=20927" title="Tips for a Healthy, Low-Carbon Life">Tips for a Healthy, Low-Carbon Life</a> with friends and family.</li>
<li><a href="http://action.environmentaldefense.org/campaign/climatevote08_house" title="Tell Congress to cap">Tell Congress to cap</a> America&#8217;s global warming pollution.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=65" title="Find other ways to help">Find other ways to help</a> slow global warming.</li>
</ul>
]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[  [1]This is National Public Health Week [2], and the focus is on the impact of climate change on our nation's health. Knowing about the risks you face will help you better prepare for the dangers.

PHOTO CAPTION: An evacuated family driven from their San Diego home by the 2007 wildfires. Photo: Michael Raphael/FEMA 
Do you have children?
Because they are still developing physically, breathe faster than adults and rely on adults for care, children are more vulnerable. Watch out for:

	Heat waves. Infants and children up to four years old are particularly sensitive to heat and also rely on a care-giver to keep them adequately hydrated.
	Smog and soot pollution. Because their lungs are still developing, children can suffer irreversible lung damage as adults from breathing unhealthy air when young.
	Food- and waterborne diseases. Small children and children living in poverty are at higher risk for falling ill from diseases that climate change will likely exacerbate.
	Stress, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder after disastrous extreme weather events.

Are you over 65 years old?
The U.S. population is aging; by 2030 one fifth is projected to be older than 65. Older adults often have frail health and limited mobility, making them more vulnerable to:

	Heat waves. Older adults with limited incomes may not have air conditioning and may have difficulty getting to air conditioned centers, if available. That can be deadly. The elderly are less resilient to temperature extremes in general.
	Floods and other natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina showed all too clearly how a disproportionate number of senior citizens often suffer or die during a disaster.

Do you have a chronic medical condition?
People with heart problems, respiratory illnesses, diabetes or compromised immune systems are more prone to exacerbated health problems from:

	Extreme weather-related disasters. Disruption of ongoing medical care and medicines is dangerous for the chronically ill.
	Heat waves. People with diabetes are at greater risk of death from heat waves.
	Bad air quality. Stagnant hot air masses and higher ozone and soot concentrations worsen heart and lung conditions. People with diabetes are also more susceptible to harm from air pollution.
	Transmitted disease and illness. People with weakened immune systems, such as those with AIDS or those taking certain drugs to treat cancer, have less ability to fight off diarrhea from waterborne microbes or fevers from spreading viruses or mosquito-borne illnesses.

Are you pregnant?
Pregnant women and their unborn children are particularly susceptible to:

	Food-borne illnesses and other climate-sensitive diseases. Certain medications to treat infections may not be recommended for pregnant women.
	Ill effects from extreme weather disasters. Disruption of health care access, exposure to toxins, unsafe conditions, and psychological stress following disasters can endanger pregnant women and the health of the fetus.

Is your family income on the low end?
An income of $21,200 for four people living in the contiguous 48 states (or $26,500 if you live in Alaska and $24,380 in Hawaii) is considered below the poverty level. Lower-income populations are disproportionately affected by:

	Heat waves. Concentrations of lower-income populations in inner-city neighborhoods often mean a disproportionate number suffer from the heat island effect: tall building and concrete intensify scorching days and stifling nights. People living in dwellings lacking air conditioning or windows that open face a higher risk of death.
	Extreme weather disasters. People with lower incomes may not have the means to evacuate quickly out of harm's way. Access to medical care is more easily disrupted for lower income individuals. Katrina showed us the devastation that a natural disaster can bring to people living in poverty.

Do you live in an area with unhealthy air quality?
More hot days likely mean more smoggy unhealthy-air days. That's because sunlight and heat spark a chemical reaction between ground-level ozone and other pollutants to form smog. If you live in an area already plagued by smog and soot, be prepared. Exposure to unhealthy air is not good for anybody but is particularly bad if you:

	Exercise outdoors regularly. On red-alert days, even the healthiest people should not exercise outdoors. Breathing in ozone singes your lungs much like a sunburn and repeated exposure can reduce lung function.
	Work outside. More exposure to polluted air puts you at greater risk of health problems. Working outside in a rural or suburban area is an added risk factor for getting infectious diseases carried by insects and ticks, like Lyme disease, that may proliferate in a warmer climate.

Do you live in a region that is especially prone to harmful climate change?
Some regions of the U.S. may be more affected by particular dangers than others. What can you expect if you live in the following regions?

	Southeast Atlantic and Gulf Coast. Residents of low-lying coastal areas will likely experience the one-two-three punch of more violent storms, strong storm surges and flooding, and coastal erosion. That will mean more damage to buildings and roads and possible contamination of drinking water.
	Southwest: Higher temperatures and less rainfall in an already hot, arid climate will likely strain already taxed water resources. The chances for wildfires and dangerously bad air quality will go up.
	Northwest: Heavy rainfall may lead to flooding and sewage overflow, causing illness and spread of disease.
	The Great Plains: Milder winters and scorching summers could take a toll on the country's" bread basket" and hinder food production. Residents of cities would particularly suffer from intense heat waves.
	Northeast: Rising temperatures could mean more allergies and spread of diseases carried by insects or animals, such as West Nile virus or Lyme disease.
	Alaska: Melting permafrost and retreating sea ice are already disrupting residents' lives and subsistence hunting and fishing. Milder temperatures are allowing more pests such as spruce bark beetles to proliferate.

How you can help

	Share Tips for a Healthy, Low-Carbon Life [3] with friends and family.
	Tell Congress to cap [4] America's global warming pollution.
	Find other ways to help [5] slow global warming.


[1] http://sustainablog.org/files/2008/04/family_cawildfire_evacuees.jpg
[2] http://www.nphw.org/nphw08/default.htm
[3] http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=20927
[4] http://action.environmentaldefense.org/campaign/climatevote08_house
[5] http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=65]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://sustainablog.org/2008/04/09/environmental-defense-fund-health-dangers-from-a-warming-planet-are-you-at-risk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Thank You Bush for Weakening Smog Limits</title>
    <link>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/19/thank-you-bush-for-weakening-smog-limits/</link>
    <comments>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/19/thank-you-bush-for-weakening-smog-limits/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Jennifer Lance</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[administration and bureaucracy]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/19/thank-you-bush-for-weakening-smog-limits/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/03/bush_via_the_daily_mirror.jpg" title="bush_via_the_daily_mirror.jpg"><img src="http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/03/bush_via_the_daily_mirror.jpg" alt="bush_via_the_daily_mirror.jpg" align="left" height="256" width="239" /></a>Will we survive George W. Bush&#8217;s presidency?  Not if you think clean air is necessary for your life and the life of the planet.  Last week, Bush overruled the EPA&#8217;s efforts to set lower smog-forming ozone limits.  <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031304175.html">Bush actually ordered the agency to increase the limit!</a></p>
<p>According to the <a href="http://lists.grist.org/dm?id=F533C1BBC204F3E08DD099507147AEE9">Grist</a>, &#8220;the EPA set both the &#8216;public health&#8217; standard (how much ozone is permitted in one place at one time) and the &#8216;public welfare&#8217; standard (consideration of the long-term effect of ozone) at the same level.&#8221; Before Bush&#8217;s command, the EPA had planned to make the &#8220;public welfare&#8221; standard more stringent, though not as low as their scientists were recommending.  Bush&#8217;s orders sent the agency scrambling to avoid conflict with past EPA statements on the harmful effects of ozone. <!--more-->As quoted in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031304175.html">Washington Post</a>, John Walke, clean-air director for the <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>, explained:</p>
<blockquote><p>It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA&#8217;s expert scientific judgment.</p></blockquote>
<p>So the next time you take a deep breath of smog filled air, responsible for heart and respiratory illnesses, thank the president for once again protecting the &#8220;public welfare&#8221; of big business.</p>
<p>Image source:  <a href="http://noezbuckets.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/bush_via_the_daily_mirror.jpg">noezbuckets</a></p>
]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[ [1]Will we survive George W. Bush's presidency?  Not if you think clean air is necessary for your life and the life of the planet.  Last week, Bush overruled the EPA's efforts to set lower smog-forming ozone limits.  Bush actually ordered the agency to increase the limit! [2]

According to the Grist [3], "the EPA set both the 'public health' standard (how much ozone is permitted in one place at one time) and the 'public welfare' standard (consideration of the long-term effect of ozone) at the same level." Before Bush's command, the EPA had planned to make the "public welfare" standard more stringent, though not as low as their scientists were recommending.  Bush's orders sent the agency scrambling to avoid conflict with past EPA statements on the harmful effects of ozone. As quoted in the Washington Post [4], John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council [5], explained:
It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA's expert scientific judgment.
So the next time you take a deep breath of smog filled air, responsible for heart and respiratory illnesses, thank the president for once again protecting the "public welfare" of big business.

Image source:  noezbuckets [6]

[1] http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/03/bush_via_the_daily_mirror.jpg
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031304175.html
[3] http://lists.grist.org/dm?id=F533C1BBC204F3E08DD099507147AEE9
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031304175.html
[5] http://www.nrdc.org/
[6] http://noezbuckets.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/bush_via_the_daily_mirror.jpg]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/03/19/thank-you-bush-for-weakening-smog-limits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Environmental Defense: Global Warming Science &#8212; Ten Top Stories of 2007</title>
    <link>http://sustainablog.org/2007/12/27/environmental-defense-global-warming-science-ten-top-stories-of-2007/</link>
    <comments>http://sustainablog.org/2007/12/27/environmental-defense-global-warming-science-ten-top-stories-of-2007/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:14:01 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Leslie Valentine</dc:creator>
    
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainablog.org/2007/12/27/environmental-defense-global-warming-science-ten-top-stories-of-2007/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://sustainablog.org/files/2007/12/polarbear_adcouncil.jpg" title="polarbear_adcouncil.jpg"><img src="http://sustainablog.org/files/2007/12/polarbear_adcouncil.jpg" alt="polarbear_adcouncil.jpg" align="left" /></a><em>This post</em><em> is b</em><em>y <a href="http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=404">Lisa Moore, Ph.D.</a>, a scientist in the Climate and Air program at  <a href="http://www.environmentaldefense.org/home.cfm">Environmental Defense</a>. </em></p>
<p>All year long we&#8217;ve been monitoring developments in climate science, and posting about the important new developments. I thought now would be a good time to look back over 2007 and summarize what we&#8217;ve learned.</p>
<p>Here are ten noteworthy science stories we covered in 2007:</p>
<p><strong>1. <a href="http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/07/06/news_6-jul-07/">The Sun is (really, really) not responsible for global warming</a>.</strong> This paper wasn&#8217;t breaking news, just an extremely thorough review of the science showing why the sun can&#8217;t be blamed for global warming. The folks over at <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/friday-roundup/">RealClimate</a> said it best: &#8220;That&#8217;s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>2. <a href="http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/10/22/drinking_water-2">American Southwest climate is becoming drier</a>.</strong> Global warming has caused a long-term shift in rain patterns. An author of the study said, &#8220;You can&#8217;t call it a drought anymore, because it&#8217;s going over to a drier climate. No one says the Sahara is in drought.&#8221;<!--more--></p>
<p><strong>3. <a href="http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/10/02/sea_level_rise/">Sea level could rise 4.5 feet this century</a>. </strong>This estimate, which is twice the highest business-as-usual value in the IPCC report, was based on the observation that sea level rise has changed roughly in proportion with global temperature.</p>
<p><strong>4. <a href="http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/11/06/carbon_rising_faster/">CO2 is rising at an accelerating rate</a>. </strong>The cause is mostly accelerating emissions from fossil fuel use, but there&#8217;s also evidence that oceans are taking up an increasingly smaller fraction of humans&#8217; CO2 emissions.</p>
<p><strong>5. <a href="http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/09/07/news_07-sep-07/">Greenhouse effect now stronger than El Niño</a>. </strong>Researchers studying America&#8217;s record-breaking temperatures and deadly heat waves of 2006 concluded that global warming, not El Niño, was the cause. The greenhouse effect, they say, is now stronger than natural temperature variations such as El Niño.</p>
<p><strong>6. <a href="http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/08/07/plants_and_smog/">Smog could accelerate global warming</a>. </strong>Ground-level ozone, or smog, impairs plants&#8217; ability to take up CO2, the main greenhouse gas. If (as expected) smog levels are higher in the future, atmospheric CO2 will accumulate faster than it would otherwise.</p>
<p><strong>7. <a href="http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/06/11/news_11-june-07/">Geo-engineering could be extremely dangerous</a>.</strong> One idea for cooling the climate is to artificially reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth&#8217;s surface. But this approach entails a huge risk. If the technology fails or is stopped, climate could experience a large rebound, with warming rates 20 times faster than today&#8217;s.</p>
<p><strong>8. <a href="http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/05/10/melting_arctic/">Arctic sea ice is melting faster than predicted</a>.</strong> This year it hit a 29-year low, significantly below the previous record set in 2005. Melting ice can set off a cycle that causes additional warming, since dark water beneath the sea ice absorbs rather than reflects solar energy.</p>
<p><strong>9. <a href="http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/09/14/grim-outlook-for-polar-bears/">Two-thirds of polar bears could disappear by 2050</a>.</strong> According to a federal report, &#8220;because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.&#8221;</p>
<p><strong>10. <a href="http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/11/19/ipccs-final-words-reduce-emissio">Global warming is &#8220;unequivocal.&#8221;</a></strong> The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that human activities have caused most of the warming over the past 50 years.</p>
<p>Please share this list. It&#8217;s a great way to help people catch up if they haven&#8217;t been paying close attention.</p>
]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[ [1]This post is by Lisa Moore, Ph.D. [2], a scientist in the Climate and Air program at  Environmental Defense [3]. 

All year long we've been monitoring developments in climate science, and posting about the important new developments. I thought now would be a good time to look back over 2007 and summarize what we've learned.

Here are ten noteworthy science stories we covered in 2007:

1. The Sun is (really, really) not responsible for global warming [4]. This paper wasn't breaking news, just an extremely thorough review of the science showing why the sun can't be blamed for global warming. The folks over at RealClimate [5] said it best: "That's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one."

2. American Southwest climate is becoming drier [6]. Global warming has caused a long-term shift in rain patterns. An author of the study said, "You can't call it a drought anymore, because it's going over to a drier climate. No one says the Sahara is in drought."

3. Sea level could rise 4.5 feet this century [7]. This estimate, which is twice the highest business-as-usual value in the IPCC report, was based on the observation that sea level rise has changed roughly in proportion with global temperature.

4. CO2 is rising at an accelerating rate [8]. The cause is mostly accelerating emissions from fossil fuel use, but there's also evidence that oceans are taking up an increasingly smaller fraction of humans' CO2 emissions.

5. Greenhouse effect now stronger than El Niño [9]. Researchers studying America's record-breaking temperatures and deadly heat waves of 2006 concluded that global warming, not El Niño, was the cause. The greenhouse effect, they say, is now stronger than natural temperature variations such as El Niño.

6. Smog could accelerate global warming [10]. Ground-level ozone, or smog, impairs plants' ability to take up CO2, the main greenhouse gas. If (as expected) smog levels are higher in the future, atmospheric CO2 will accumulate faster than it would otherwise.

7. Geo-engineering could be extremely dangerous [11]. One idea for cooling the climate is to artificially reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface. But this approach entails a huge risk. If the technology fails or is stopped, climate could experience a large rebound, with warming rates 20 times faster than today's.

8. Arctic sea ice is melting faster than predicted [12]. This year it hit a 29-year low, significantly below the previous record set in 2005. Melting ice can set off a cycle that causes additional warming, since dark water beneath the sea ice absorbs rather than reflects solar energy.

9. Two-thirds of polar bears could disappear by 2050 [13]. According to a federal report, "because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative."

10. Global warming is "unequivocal." [14] The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that human activities have caused most of the warming over the past 50 years.

Please share this list. It's a great way to help people catch up if they haven't been paying close attention.

[1] http://sustainablog.org/files/2007/12/polarbear_adcouncil.jpg
[2] http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=404
[3] http://www.environmentaldefense.org/home.cfm
[4] http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/07/06/news_6-jul-07/
[5] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/friday-roundup/
[6] http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/10/22/drinking_water-2
[7] http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/10/02/sea_level_rise/
[8] http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/11/06/carbon_rising_faster/
[9] http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/09/07/news_07-sep-07/
[10] http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/08/07/plants_and_smog/
[11] http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/06/11/news_11-june-07/
[12] http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/05/10/melting_arctic/
[13] http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/09/14/grim-outlook-for-polar-bears/
[14] http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/11/19/ipccs-final-words-reduce-emissio]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://sustainablog.org/2007/12/27/environmental-defense-global-warming-science-ten-top-stories-of-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Ethanol Could Face Hazy Future</title>
    <link>http://claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com/2007/02/07/ethanol-could-face-hazy-future/</link>
    <comments>http://claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com/2007/02/07/ethanol-could-face-hazy-future/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:25:04 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Clayton B. Cornell</dc:creator>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com/2007/02/07/ethanol-could-face-hazy-future/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p><img src="/files/images/ethanol%20sign.jpg" border="0" width="267" height="175" />The new national focus on biofuels seems to have glossed-over a fundamental principle of the universe:  when something burns,  smoke happens.  This goes for any combustible fuel, be it gasoline, diesel, propane, wood, coal, biomass, <a href="/wiki/biodiesel" title="GreenOptions Wiki">biodiesel</a>, <a href="/wiki/ethanol" title="GreenOptions Wiki">ethanol</a> or anything else, and just so happens to be one of the greatest drawbacks of the internal combustion engine;  a great idea, but not so great when millions of people start using it in a small area. Most alternative fuel emissions fair better than regular gasoline or diesel, but concerns have been raised that ethanol, the most heavily subsidized and nationally celebrated biofuel (at least officially), may not be as clean as we would like:</p>]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[The new national focus on biofuels seems to have glossed-over a fundamental principle of the universe:  when something burns,  smoke happens.  This goes for any combustible fuel, be it gasoline, diesel, propane, wood, coal, biomass, biodiesel [1], ethanol [2] or anything else, and just so happens to be one of the greatest drawbacks of the internal combustion engine;  a great idea, but not so great when millions of people start using it in a small area. Most alternative fuel emissions fair better than regular gasoline or diesel, but concerns have been raised that ethanol, the most heavily subsidized and nationally celebrated biofuel (at least officially), may not be as clean as we would like:  WASHINGTON -- Federal scientists want to tighten smog standards, a step that would allow tens of millions of Americans to breathe easier. The plan also would run head-on into President Bush&#39;s hopes of weaning Americans from gasoline by using more smog-producing ethanol. Environmental Protection Agency scientists on Wednesday will say that tougher standards &#34;would provide greater health protection for sensitive groups, including asthmatic children and other people with lung disease, healthy children and older adults -- especially those active outdoors, and outdoor workers.&#34;The emissions profiles of both ethanol and biodiesel have previously been questioned due to their potential to increase smog-forming nitrogen oxides (combustion products that can react with oxygen to form smog), although B20 biodiesel blends have recently been vindicated [3]. President Bush in his State of the Union speech advocated reducing gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 years, a transition that would heavily rely on ethanol fuel blends. Ethanol, a focus of Bush&#39;s gasoline-reduction plan, helps cut carbon monoxide in winter but can raise smog levels in summer, air pollution experts say. Ethanol releases more nitrogen oxides, a key element of smog, and evaporates more easily than gasoline, adding other air pollutants.EPA documents show that more ethanol use could raise smog levels about 1 percent, mainly in parts of the Midwest that don&#39;t use cleaner-burning reformulated gasoline.This could be cause for concern, since ethanol is such a major player in the biofuel arena. But would a massive shift to using ethanol fuel blends significantly increase air pollution? The EPA officially does not think so, noting &#34;a possibility of a very small increase&#34; in smog formation. Industry advocates claim additional refinement will solve part of the problem, although others aren&#39;t so sure: As long as refiners spend enough to offset the volatility in ethanol that leads to smog, there&#39;s no problem, said ethanol lobbyist Bob Dinneen of the Renewable Fuels Association.&#34;A lot of concerns that have been out there are unfounded,&#34; he said. &#34;It&#39;s not an air quality issue, it&#39;s an economic issue for refiners.&#34;Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson said that would add 200 deaths a year to the 4,700 now blamed on smog. &#34;It&#39;s a significant concern,&#34; said Jacobson, who believes the worst effects would be around Los Angeles and along the Boston-New York-Washington corridor. According to the same news release, 160 million people in the U.S. already live in areas with illegal levels of smog.That&#39;s more than 1/2 our total population.Any increase of smog-forming emissions in highly populated areas is clearly undesirable (for a visual, just look at Salt Lake City in the wintertime [4]).  There may also be more to the equation than just what comes out of the tailpipe. An oft-quoted study from the University of Minnesota stated that when the total life cycle emissions of growing and processing corn are taken into account, corn-based ethanol incurs &#34;greater environmental and human health impacts because of increased release of five air pollutants and nitrate, nitrite, and pesticides&#34; when compared to regular gasoline.    Whether or not tighter smog standards will actually conflict with increased ethanol use remains to be seen. In the mean time, we may be better off supporting public transportation and just plain driving less. A fuel is still a fuel, even by another name...  &#160; Stay tuned for more information on the emissions profiles of various alternative fuels.  Check out the Green Life Guide [5] for more information on biodiesel and ethanol.ENN: EPA Plan to Tighten Smog Standards Collides with Bush Goal to Cut Gas Use [6]University of Minnesota Study: [7]  Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels.&#160;

[1] http://claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com/wiki/biodiesel
[2] http://claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com/wiki/ethanol
[3] http://claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com/blog/2007/01/03/it_still_smells_good_b20_biodiesel_emissions_show_no_nox_increase
[4] http://claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com/blog/2007/01/31/utahs_mountains_valleys_disappear_under_pollution_haze
[5] http://claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com/wiki/alternative_fuels
[6] http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12133
[7] http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/30/11206]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com/2007/02/07/ethanol-could-face-hazy-future/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Utah&#8217;s Mountains, Valleys Disappear Under Pollution Haze</title>
    <link>http://michaeldestries.greenoptions.com/2007/02/01/utahs-mountains-valleys-disappear-under-pollution-haze/</link>
    <comments>http://michaeldestries.greenoptions.com/2007/02/01/utahs-mountains-valleys-disappear-under-pollution-haze/#comments</comments>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Michael dEstries</dc:creator>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaeldestries.greenoptions.com/2007/02/01/utahs-mountains-valleys-disappear-under-pollution-haze/</guid>
    <description><![CDATA[<p> <img src="/files/images/smog.jpg" border="0" width="384" height="256" /></p><p>Let&#39;s pretend for a moment that Global Warming is truly a natural act that we have no control over. If the consensus gelled with the science, would we still not act on the pollution choking our lungs? Would we ignore the damaging waste fed into our rivers, the mercury ingested by our children, or the garbage clogging our landfills? These very issues harbor just as much danger as global warming. Climate change is simply something we can all rally behind with the solutions to stopping it also playing a role in curing some of our other ailments. To dismiss it would be turning our backs on dangers we can truly see, feel, touch, and die from. </p>]]></description>
    <content:encoded><![CDATA[ Let&#39;s pretend for a moment that Global Warming is truly a natural act that we have no control over. If the consensus gelled with the science, would we still not act on the pollution choking our lungs? Would we ignore the damaging waste fed into our rivers, the mercury ingested by our children, or the garbage clogging our landfills? These very issues harbor just as much danger as global warming. Climate change is simply something we can all rally behind with the solutions to stopping it also playing a role in curing some of our other ailments. To dismiss it would be turning our backs on dangers we can truly see, feel, touch, and die from.  One perfect example of an issue we can all relate to is smog. Emissions from cars, factories, even fireplaces can all contribute to this toxic &#39;soup&#39; that reduces visibility, leads to lung damage, and can contribute to asthma or other respiratory diseases. In Salt Lake City, Utah, this year&#39;s smog has become a major issue. With the city and surrounding counties sitting in a &#34;bowl-like&#34; geographic feature stuck between mountains and valleys, smog rarely has anywhere to go. As a result, the pollution can stretch almost 120 miles from north to south! And it&#39;s getting worse.  During the winter of 2006, Salt Lake City has 3 red alerts: warnings where motorists are encouraged to get off the roads, children are taken inside, and fires are discouraged. This year, the city has had 25 red alerts, with one jogger commenting that he hasn&#39;t spent a day of January outside due to the pollution!  Similar to stars disappearing from light pollution, those that travel to Utah looking for beautiful scenery have been squinting to pick out anything through the yellow haze. The area is awaiting a storm to push the smog away and let others benefit from the &#34;soup&#34;.  And so, while climate change will slowly start to impact us over the next several decades, we&#39;ve already created a veritable nightmare scenario. Instead of checking for rain or snow, some parts of the country must daily check air-quality ratings. How can we call ourselves an advanced society when we&#39;re poisoning ourselves willingly? Global warming may or may not be the end of the world, but go for a run in Salt Lake City, and I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll agree that what we&#39;re doing now is a pretty good preview.  Source: Utah Mountains, Valleys Under a &#39;Soup&#39; [1]

[1] http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12130]]></content:encoded>
    <wfw:commentRss>http://michaeldestries.greenoptions.com/2007/02/01/utahs-mountains-valleys-disappear-under-pollution-haze/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  </item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- 116 queries in 0.553 seconds. -->