Climate News 9-6-01

Published on Thursday, September 6, 2001 in the Guardian of London
Global Warming
Coral Reefs 'Face Total Destruction Within 50 Years'
by Tim Radford, science editor

Most of the coral reefs of the world's oceans will disappear within 30 to 50
years, a marine biologist warned yesterday.
Rupert Ormond, director of the university marine biological station at
Millport in Scotland, told the British Association science festival in
Glasgow that global warming would raise ocean temperatures to levels that
would bleach the great reefs of the Pacific and Indian oceans, the Caribbean
and the Red Sea.

Corals are animals that live in symbiosis with light-fixing algae. They
colonize shallow coasts and their bones form the limestone platforms that
form atolls, enclose lagoons and protect shorelines. They also become
habitats for some of the richest collections of creatures on the planet.

Ten years ago, the greatest threat to reefs were pollution from rivers and
eruptions of coral-eating starfish. There are now 1,300 marine parks managing
the impacts of tourism and overfishing, Dr Ormond said.

But corals are sensitive to changes in sea temperature. In 1998, at the
height of a sudden natural surge in temperature, an El Nino, as much as 90%
of the coral in the tropical Indian ocean was killed by bleaching.

"This whitening and then death of corals began to be known in a few areas in
the 1980s. I became involved in 1997-98 when there was extremely widespread
coral bleaching around all the oceans in the tropics," he said.

More than 60 countries experienced coral bleaching. The latest evidence
showed overwhelmingly that the bleaching was due to a steady, almost
inevitable rise in ocean temperatures, now climbing at the rate of 1-2C every
100 years.

"It explains why to begin with we only saw these events in El Nino years,
when the ocean temperatures tend to be warmest... Within 10 to 20 years we
will get massive bleaching on a wide scale almost every year. One can
predict, looking at those figures, that maybe within 50 years there will be
very little left of corals in coral reef countries.

"Frankly, I find the whole prognosis extremely gloomy. I cannot see what can
be done, given that there is something like a 50 year time lag between us
trying to control carbon dioxide emissions and the temperature of the oceans
beginning to drop," he said.

"Reefs are not just attractive places to visit and fun to dive on, they are
seen as critical service providers in four main areas: fisheries, tourism,
biodiversity and coastal protection, and just as an example it is reckoned
that some $100m a year is spent by people in the wider Caribbean. In Egypt
where I do a lot of my work there are 2m tourists a year visiting the marine
national parks that have reefs."

• NASA researchers said yesterday the growing season in Europe and Asia was
now 18 days longer than two decades ago. Evidence from satellites showed
trees were going into leaf a week earlier in spring, and autumn was arriving
10 days later.

###
Published on Thursday, September 6, 2001 in the New York Times
Global Warming May Bring New Variety of Class Action
by Katharine Q. Seelye

WASHINGTON — Taking a cue from broad-based class-action lawsuits like those
filed on behalf of Holocaust survivors or against tobacco companies, a group
of environmental lawyers is exploring novel legal strategies to adopt against
global warming.
What makes the approach of this environmental fight extraordinary is that the
plaintiffs would be not just people who live near a source of pollution but
those who are thousands, even many thousands, of miles away.

Last month two dozen lawyers from around the country met in Washington to
explore the avenues they might pursue to force the United States or
corporations to reduce emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, which
scientists say are already warming the planet and posing serious risks to
human health, property and even entire nations.

The lawyers, representing groups like Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and
the Natural Resources Defense Council, envision winning damages for people or
whole countries that have suffered adverse effects of global warming. They
say they were inspired by the Bush administration's refusal to go along with
the Kyoto Protocol, the internationally negotiated framework for reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions.

The United Nations estimates the costs of global warming at more than $300
billion a year.

"Those who are directly injured in a very concrete way by the impacts of
climate change are concluding that they won't get the remedy they need
through the political process, whether it's the international or domestic
political process," said one organizer of the strategy session, Brian Dunkiel
of Burlington, Vt., former counsel to Friends of the Earth.

Suits could be brought, for example, on behalf of Tuvalu, a tiny nine- island
nation in the South Pacific. Tuvalu is home to some 10,000 people, and
scientists say it could vanish within 50 years because of rising sea levels
caused by the earth's warming. Already, residents are exploring the
possibility of relocating to Australia or New Zealand as "environmental
refugees."

Plaintiffs could also include residents of other island nations like the
Maldives or Jamaica, or of the Netherlands, where the land is not much above
sea level. They might include the frail elderly, whose health is at
particular risk on very hot days.

Defendants could be federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency
or the Energy Department, for subsidizing the use of fossil fuels or accused
of failing to regulate emissions. Or they could be industries, like power
companies.

"Whenever you have a diverse population being injured and not getting the
remedy they need through the political process," Mr. Dunkiel said, "or when
you need to protect a minority from the majority, that's why the courts were
set up. Until the courts intervened in the civil rights movement, there was
stalemate."

Spokesmen for federal agencies declined to comment, saying the idea was for
now hypothetical. Privately, they suggested that a defense could include the
arguments that there were no binding laws regulating global warming per se
and that various plaintiffs had no legal standing.

One conservative analyst was more dismissive: Anne Hayes, an environmental
lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, called the approach "nuts."

"They will have a real hard time proving causation, that the United States
government has caused sea levels to rise," Ms. Hayes said. "You can't even
tell what the weather is going to be two days from now; do they honestly
think they can attribute some global weather event to some discrete action by
a government agency?"

Dan Esty, a professor of environmental law and policy at Yale Law School, was
skeptical that the courts would look with favor on the environmentalists'
initiative, although he added that "there is always the possibility that new
legal theories can be brought to bear."

Mr. Dunkiel, on the other hand, said, "The case we're preparing is grounded
in well-established traditional federal environmental laws where federal
agencies would be the defendants."

Still, the environmental lawyers have not decided whether their effort will
ultimately be pursued chiefly in the federal courts or in international
tribunals. They have been focusing in part on a 60-year-old landmark case
involving a Canadian smelting plant that was damaging crops, timber and
livestock in Washington State. An international arbiter found that one
country could not pollute another without being held liable.

The discussion at the lawyers' strategy session was based in part on work by
Andrew Strauss, professor of international law at Widener University Law
School in Delaware. Professor Strauss was recently asked by the New Economics
Foundation, an environmental research group in London, to examine the
possibility of poorer countries' seeking compensation from wealthier ones
that emit most of the world's pollution.

Such approaches, Professor Strauss said in an interview, are still evolving
as globalization links nations in important business relationships, with
disputes once settled by diplomacy coming to rely on the law. "This is part
of that whole broad movement toward the legalization of international
relations," he said.

There has been fierce resistance to that movement, especially in the United
States, where many see American participation in international courts as a
threat to sovereignty. That sentiment could create big problems for any
country trying to sue the United States over global warming: in all
likelihood, the United States would simply not agree to the jurisdiction of a
world court.

But as some see it, that would hardly end the matter.

"In some circumstances," Professor Esty said, "legal actions are evaluated or
pursued not with expectations of success in court, but recognizing that a
real victory would be in the court of public opinion."

###

Published on Wednesday, September 5, 2001 in the Christian Science Monitor
California's Energy Crisis Was a Missed Opportunity to Form a More
Responsible Energy Policy for the Future
by Paul Hawken

SAUSALITO, CALIF. - Making sense of the California energy situation is hardly
more fruitful than trying to understand California itself.
For many citizens, the energy drama was demeaning and confusing. To use the
word "tawdry" to describe the maneuverings and pronouncements of the larger
energy suppliers might be too kind. To use the word "inept" to describe the
California governor may be equally charitable. After securing long-term
contracts for electricity at the top of the market, California is now selling
its surplus electricity at a loss.

Having been gouged the first time, Gov. Gray Davis must have looked like a
"mark" to the professional dealers, who proceeded to fleece him a second time.

In short, the crisis had none of the virtues or vices one could like. But, as
with all crises, there are cautionary points to bear in mind:

1. Energy has always been a boom-and-bust commodity, because of the lag
between demand, supply, and investment. When prices are low, economies are
stimulated to use more, which soaks up supply, eventually causing price
increases. As supply shrinks and prices rise, it brings on new investment in
supply. Before supplies come on line, high prices suppress demand. As demand
falls and new supply becomes available, prices plummet. The cycle repeats
itself time and again.

2. Energy is the nation's most politicized commodity; politics and markets
are dreadful bedmates. Never confuse price volatility and a free market. In
fact, it is this volatility that curbs free markets. OPEC's raison d'être is
to prevent an open market.

Even a cursory reading of the events surrounding California's blackouts and
surpluses reveals how energy supplies were manipulated, carteled, and
controlled by corporate interests with one end in mind: windfall profits.
What California endured, what the country experiences, is a coercive market
owing to the absence of energy policy.

3. American's expectation that energy be cheap and abundant greatly reduces
the opportunity for a long-term policy that would lead to less pollution and
more energy security. We are the world's spoiled children when it comes to
gas and electricity prices. We howl when we can't get our candy. It's
unbecoming, and prevents us from learning from countries such as Germany,
Switzerland, and Sweden, all of which have considerably higher energy prices,
greater energy productivity, and better standards of living.

Although encumbered and manipulated markets are present in every society,
what is uncommon about the US (and California) is the absence of an energy
blueprint. Developed countries such as Germany, France, and Japan have energy
plans extending far into the future. Sweden has announced policies that will
make the country essentially carbon neutral within 25 years.

The US strategy, crafted in secret at Vice President Cheney's office by
industry lobbyists, is no plan at all. It is simply a combination of
concessions and corporate welfare to the energy industries of the past.
Nothing that emerged from California resulted in a game plan that will make
the state more self-sufficient, less polluted, or more stable. Welcome to the
next crisis.

In the rush to reenergize California, there was no mention of carbon
emissions or global warming. While Democrats quickly denounced President
Bush's renunciation of the Kyoto Protocols, possible Democratic presidential
hopeful Gray Davis hasn't even discussed the issue.

In 1979, the Energy Department said, "carbon dioxide from unrestrained
combustion of fossil fuels potentially is the most important environmental
issue facing mankind." It still is. US antipathy to responsibility for global
warming has been greeted with incredulity by the rest of the world.
Australian Sen. Bob Brown put it succinctly: "The world's got a pretty simple
choice here. It's between President Bush and our grandchildren."

The greatest loss in California was not the billions of dollars flowing into
Texas-based energy companies. It was the loss of leadership. If ever there
was a moment to enjoin citizenry to engage in a real dialogue about
California's future, its needs, and its responsibilities, this was the time.

A crisis, whether personal or national, is an opening, a moment when the
scattered pieces from the past can be put together in new ways that can lead
to transformation. Since California is the economic equivalent of the
fifth-largest country in the world, it would have been appropriate for Bush
to participate collegially and thoughtfully.

Despite the need to solve the power crisis, Governor Davis had the
opportunity to remind us that energy is not only a matter of price and
availability, it is also a moral issue that will indeed affect our
grandchildren and their grandchildren to come.

Paul Hawken is a businessman and author of 'The Ecology of Commerce'
(HarperCollins, 1993) and six other books.

###

Web links for New England Governors Stuff on Climate

> The Plan sets a short-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to
> 1990 levels by 2010, and sets a mid-term goal of reducing the emissions
> to at least 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The plan's long-term
> goal, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level required to
> avoid any harmful impact on the climate, currently assessed to be 75 to
> 85 percent below current levels.
>
> For the copy of the plan, please go to: http://www.cmp.ca/CCAPe.pdf
>
> If you have problems accessing it this way, try going to the overall
> agreement (which is a bureaucratic masterpiece) and then following the
> link to the action plan, <http://www.cmp.ca/res-26-4-en.html>.
>
> Also, see the press release from New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen
> at:
> <http://webster.state.nh.us/governor/media/082701premiers.html>.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your
own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.

Return to News Home

Return to Climate Change Campaign Home