Tuesday, February 21, 2012

...Another proof that those that govern us and World governments do not know what they do ...!

...when to do nothing is not an option...!

...When Canada's CONservative Government goes crazy over the Tar Sands:
They ignore that all gains from these "dirty" sources of non-renewable energy, will be lost with the lack of them for "ROAD pavements", and the disasters of World rising Oceans and much much more !

Roads will be like Moon craters patch work, with concrete !

...anyway do not ask Stephen Harper or any government if they know what they are really doing !

...The studies here in Vancouver Canada, are clear of the inevitable of Global Warming, rising of Ocean Levels...! The mess is going to be beyond any gain of all the crude oil companies summed together !

...New Orleans cost 14Billion dollars to redo the dikes only !


...MANY MIGHT THINK AND SAY: what a waste of your time, to mention all this in this blog !!!
WELL SO HAVE MY PARENTS SAID THE SAME OF MY "BOOK OF PURE LOGIC", as they are ultra orthodox evangelicals !



MEANWHILE: mediocre logic Governs the World, Academia, and Schools !





Canada’s oil sands: Not so dirty after all
nathan vanderklippe
CALGARY— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Feb. 20, 2012 2:50PM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 8:45AM EST

Canada’s government, which has threatened a trade war over a proposed European rule to penalize oil-sands crude in a bid to clean up transportation fuels, has a powerful new argument in its favour, as new research shows other energy sources are far more dangerous to the climate.

On Thursday, a committee of the European Union will vote on a proposed fuel-quality directive intended to reduce the carbon footprint of gasoline and diesel on that continent. The directive directly penalizes oil-sands crude for its high-emissions content, using language that oil-sands supporters and others have called “flawed,” “discriminatory” and worse.

If passed, such a directive could set a precedent for other international fuel rules that challenge oil-sands products, a prospect that has deeply alarmed Canada’s political and corporate leadership. Officials have waged a years-long lobbying campaign to have it changed, enlisting the help of European nations with oil-sands interests such as Britain and the Netherlands.

But the EU vote comes against a landscape newly shifted by research showing that on a global scale, oil-sands emissions are not the dark-shirted villain some have made them out to be. That research, published in the journal Nature and co-authored by one of Canada’s most respected climate scientists, throws a wrench into the debate over an energy source whose reputed “dirtiness” has sparked fiery debate around the world. In North America, climate concerns have been at the heart of the concerted environmental movement against Keystone XL and Northern Gateway, a pair of proposed oil-sands pipelines that have struggled against a tide of public opposition.

The research, by University of Victoria scientists Andrew Weaver and Neil Swart, calculates the climate impact of producing the oil sands. Dr. Weaver is an internationally respected scientist who has contributed to United Nations climate-change documents. He and Dr. Swart completed several analyses.

The most important examined the impact of producing the roughly 170 billion barrels of oil-sands crude that the industry currently considers economic to produce. If it’s all hauled out of the ground – a process that will take more than a century, even at the forecast 2020 rate of three million barrels a day – the cumulative global-warming impact is 0.02 to 0.05 degrees Celsius, according to the research.

If every barrel of the oil-sands resource is produced – a near-certain impossibility that would see some 1.8 trillion barrels, seven times the size of Saudi Arabia’s current reserves, brought out – it would raise global temperatures by one-third of a degree.

By comparison, burning all of the world’s enormous coal resources would raise temperatures 15 degrees, while consuming the new global bounty of shale gas would produce a lift of just under 3 degrees. (Using up economically accessible reserves of natural gas and coal will raise temperatures 0.16 and 0.9 degrees, respectively.)

Dr. Weaver set out to crunch the numbers after witnessing the angry rhetoric over the Keystone XL debate in the United States, where environmental groups warned the pipeline was the fuse to a “carbon bomb.” NASA scientist James Hansen has famously said that if the oil sands are fully exploited, it will be “game over” for the climate.

“We’re not giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to the tar-sands industry. This is not the purpose of our study,” Dr. Weaver said. Indeed, he is “absolutely opposed” to the Northern Gateway pipeline on social and ecological grounds, and says policies like the EU fuel directive are “probably the way of the future,” arguing that governments must look for ways to “shift consumer demand away” from hydrocarbons.

The sole act of producing the oil sands for use in Canada and the United States, he notes, will take up three-quarters of North Americans’ per-capita carbon allowance if global warming is to be held at 2 degrees Celsius.

But it’s clear Dr. Weaver’s overall analysis will provide additional lobbying force for Canadians seeking to overturn or change the EU fuel-quality directive, which assigns oil-sands-derived fuel an emissions value 23 per cent higher than fuels from more “conventional” sources. The Canadian government, arguing that the legislation fails to penalize similarly carbon-intensive crudes from Venezuela and California, has threatened legal warfare to overturn the directive.

Last December, Canada’s newly installed ambassador to the EU wrote a letter making clear “that Canada will explore every avenue at its disposal to defend its interests, including at the World Trade Organization.”

The threat, made to EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard in documents released Monday by the environmental group Friends of the Earth Europe, warned that action will be taken if the directive singles “out oil-sands crude in a discriminatory, arbitrary or unscientific way.”

Travis Davies, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said it is “important” that analyses like Dr. Weaver’s are being done, since it might help calm “the inflamed rhetoric from the other side.”

Yet what’s also clear is that Dr. Weaver’s work does little to absolve an industry that continues to be Canada’s fastest-growing source of emissions. Oil-sands emissions alone are expected to claw back all of the emissions gains made by moving the country’s electrical supply off coal. Mr. Davies acknowledged that “it doesn’t take any onus off industry to do good work in reducing upstream emissions.”

The intersection of oil-sands development and government policy has also placed Canada in a difficult spot internationally. Even if the new numbers suggest the oil sands are not the most significant international climate scourge, Canada’s opposition to the EU policy threatens to further injure an already-damaged international reputation.

“For 99 per cent of people this looks like Canada opposing environmental policy to protect the oil sands,” said Andrew Leach, a business professor and energy researcher at the University of Alberta.



...when to do nothing is not an option...!
“No hay opción. ‘No hacer nada”, no es una opción”.

VANCOUVER, 21 febrero 2012 (AFP) – El aumento del nivel del mar en la costa oeste de América del Norte, estimado en cerca de un metro para finales de este siglo por el cambio climático y el deshielo de los glaciares polares, ha motivado a los científicos a planificar cómo encarar ese escenario sombrío.

Pocas personas que viven en territorios costeros y comunidades isleñas en el mundo quieren enfrentar las consecuencias de la eventual subida de los océanos: el fin de un estilo de vida a orillas del mar, la inudación de sus ciudades, y la pérdida de sus campos de cultivo.

Pero un puerto costero en Bristish Columbia, en el oeste de Canadá, ha comenzado a tomar previsiones con ayuda de científicos, que recrearon imágenes por computadora para mostrar exactamente cómo será su ciudad cuando esté inundada.
Los costos de reconstruir la vida moderna actual en las zonas costeras ciertamente serán enormes

“En nuestro trabajo tratamos de visualizar cuatro escenarios diferentes”, dice David Flanders, un arquitecto paisajista e investigador científico en la Universidad de British Columbia.
Entre ellos está el de construir mayores muros contenedores del mar y diques para mantener el agua alejada, edificando barreras de islas para absorber parte de la marea y renforzar las orillas, moviendo poblaciones enteras al interior o construyendo todo a mayor altura, elevando las casas en pilotes y haciendo carreteras más altas.

Flanders afirma que su equipo ha estado trabajando con un municipio llamado Delta, sede de uno de los puertos industriales más grandes de Vancouver con una creciente población de 100.000 personas, donde la perspectiva del aumento del nivel del mar genera tensiones.

La creación de imágenes digitales del eventual futuro (algunas disponibles en www.aaas.ubc.ca/media-resources/photos), ha dado a los residentes más elementos para evaluar qué medidas tomar, dijo Flanders.

“Ayudó a los miembros de la comunidad a decidir en qué mundo quieren vivir en el futuro”, dijo Flanders en una reunión de la Asociación Americana para el Avance de la Ciencia (AAAS) en Vancouver.

Según Franders, de su experiencia trabajando con Delta desde 2006 surge que el primer impulso de los residentes locales y las autoridades es querer erigir muros más altos para proteger las áreas que tienen muchas casas.

Pero finalmente coinciden en que “lo ideal” será combinar distintas soluciones, afirmó.

Los costos de reconstruir la vida moderna actual en las zonas costeras ciertamente serán enormes, con cientos de millones de personas y comunidades afectadas por el incremento del nivel del mar en todo el mundo.

“Dependiendo de lo que traten de proteger, la estrategia de protección puede ser realmente cara”, aseguró Denise Reed, profesor de la Universidad de Nueva Orleans, Luisiana (sur de Estados Unidos).

Reed contó a los reporteros que después de que el huracán Katrina devastase gran parte de la costa de Luisiana en 2005, reconstruir los diques que rodean Nueva Orleans costó más de 14.000 millones de dólares.

Ante semejante presupuesto, muchas personas entran en un estado de negación, cuestionando si el mar realmente llegará a subir tanto.

Pero aunque los progresivos incrementos pueden parecer pequeños -los científicos estiman que el nivel del mar crecerá anualmente 3,3 milímetros, cifra sujeta a variaciones regionales-, la evidencia ya está ahí, afirman los expertos.

“Es una pequeña cantidad… sin embargo, la velocidad es mayor que en ningún otro momento en los últimos 5.000 años. Estamos en territorio desconocido”, dijo el profesor John Clague de la Universidad Simon Fraser, en British Columbia.
“No hay opción. ‘No hacer nada”, no es una opción”

Clague afirma que él y sus compañeros utilizan la última tecnología satelital combinada con registros globales de mareas para evaluar los cambios en décadas, y están convencidos de que el fenómeno es “definitivamante real”.

El incremento del nivel del mar es también peligroso porque puede hacer que la marea alta, las marejadas, las inundaciones y la erosión sean mucho peores, dijo Margaret Davidson, directora del Centro de Servicio de Costas de la Administración Nacional Atmosférica y Oceánica (NOAA) estadounidense.

“La realidad es que ya estamos experimentando estas cosas debido al cambio dramático en la mayor severidad de eventos extremos”, afirmó.

“La tendencia es muy clara. No se necesita realmente ser un científico para darte cuenta de eso”, dijo.

Pero aún muchas partes del mundo enfrentan los mismos problemas, Davidson asegura que las soluciones son completamente locales.

“Todo sobre cómo gestionamos o no gestionamos estos desafíos es realmente una acción local, una estrategia local”, señaló.

Interrogado acerca de cuánto tiempo tiene la gente para prepararse para el aumento del nivel del mar, Flanders contestó: “Las comunidades en todas partes se preguntan exactamente lo mismo”.

“No hay opción. ‘No hacer nada”, no es una opción”.


i am telling you that after the devastating results, i am sure Stephen Harper's family, and that of all politicians won't find anywhere to hide...! but even if we have to wait for over 50years, be assured it is already happening !


No comments:

Post a Comment