Booty & Plunder after they let it all melt away.
Now Playing: Oil Suckers and Big Business Fools for profit at all costs
Topic: Energy & Environment

 

Published on Sunday, March 9, 2008 by Reuters

Could Arctic Ice Melt Spawn New Kind of Cold War?

by Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON - With oil above $100 a barrel and Arctic ice melting faster than ever, some of the world’s most powerful countries — including the United States and Russia — are looking north to a possible energy bonanza.

This prospective scramble for buried Arctic mineral wealth made more accessible by freshly melted seas could bring on a completely different kind of cold war, a scholar and former Coast Guard officer says.

While a U.S. government official questioned the risk of polar conflict, Washington still would like to join a 25-year-old international treaty meant to figure out who owns the rights to the oceans, including the Arctic Ocean. So far, the Senate has not approved it.

Unlike the first Cold War, dominated by tensions between the two late-20th century superpowers, this century’s model could pit countries that border the Arctic Ocean against each other to claim mineral rights. The Arctic powers include the United States, Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway.

The irony is that the burning of fossil fuels is at least in part responsible for the Arctic melt — due to climate change — and the Arctic melt could pave the way for a 21st century rush to exploit even more fossil fuels.

The stakes are enormous, according to Scott Borgerson of the Council on Foreign Relations, a former U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant commander.

The Arctic could hold as much as one-quarter of the world’s remaining undiscovered oil and gas deposits, Borgerson wrote in the current issue of the journal Foreign Affairs.

Spartina troubles in China and Willapa Bay on TV Sunday
Now Playing: OPB To Air program on Invasice Species
Topic: Energy & Environment
From The Daily Astorian 

 

OPB to show program

on invasive species

A number of invasive species in Oregon come from China. Oregon Field Guide accompanied Dr. Sam Chan, an Oregon State University professor and expert on invasive species, and a team of environmental experts, on a trip to China.

The spread of non-native species throughout the world is a consequence of trade. Fishermen in the Northwest suffer declining harvests of native Dungeness crabs and clams because of invading green and mitten crabs competing for food.

Chinese fishermen suffer as spartina grass, imported from the U.S. as a cheap feed for cattle, spreads out of control and is taking over the China coastlands, replacing mangrove forests and destroying habitat. Spartina grass is also threatening the survival of both wildlife and the aquaculture industry in Willapa Bay in Washington.

Oregon Field Guide can be seen at 8:30 tonight on Oregon Public Broadcasting stations, and will repeat at 6:30 p.m. Sunday.

Storm Waves Mounting At Coast; Sign Of Climate Change?
Now Playing: OPB News // Tom Banse
Topic: Energy & Environment

Oregon Public Broadcasting News 

Storm Waves Mounting At Coast; Sign Of Climate Change?

[Excerpt] 

By Tom Banse

Neskowin, OR  January 28, 2008 4:40 p.m.

Today’s snowy weather caused disruptions for schools around the Northwest and hazards for drivers. But for those who live or play on the Oregon and Washington coast, the whole winter has seemed like one big headache.

Pounding storms are eroding and flooding beachfront property. Weather buoy records going back more than two decades show winter storm waves washing up steadily higher on the Northwest Coast.

Correspondent Tom Banse visited coastal residents who want to know why this is happening.

 

Contractors race to buttress beachfront homes in Neskowin, Oregon before the next storm. 

Clearcuts & post-flood scrutiny
Now Playing: The Olympian and The Chronicle (Lewis County)
Topic: Energy & Environment

 

Clearcuts partially to blame in flooding, experts say

BY JOHN DODGE
THE OLYMPIAN

Clearcut logging is partially to blame for the landslides in the upper Chehalis Valley that caused so much downstream damage to farms, bridges and roads during last month's wind and rain storms, scientists and environmental groups testified today at a state legislative hearing.

"Without changes to the forest practices rules, clearcut-caused landslides will occur again and again," Karl Forsgaard of the Washington Forest Law Center told members of the state Senate's Natural Resources, Ocean and Recreation Committee.

He said a coalition of environmental groups will introduce a bill in the 2008 Legislature to create more stringent logging rules in flood-prone watersheds with steep slopes slated for timber harvest.

Timber industry officials insisted the state's Forest and Fish rules adopted in 1999 forestry rules are adequate, but can be amended, if field studies this year in the upper Chehalis Valley bear out the claim that logging contributed to the severity of the storm damage and flooding in December 2007 in Lewis County.

"We may be able to tweak it to make it more effective," Weyerhaeuser Co. scientist Robert Bilby said in reference to the geological review to identify landslide hazards before logging occurs.

Weyerhaeuser officials and others said the flooding, landslides and timber damage was so severe because it was such a dramatic storm event with record levels of rainfall in the Willapa Hills and hurricane-force winds.

"The hillsides turned to liquid - there's not much humans can do about it," said Mark Doumit, executive director of the Washington Forest Protection Association. "It truly was an act of God."

For more on the story, see The Olympian Friday.

 

---

Steve Ringman, The Seattle Times
This Dec. 7 photo of a steep, clear-cut slope and mudslide above Stillman Creek near Pe Ell has prompted Weyerhaeuser officials and state lawmakers to examine land use and logging rules.

Seeking the Cause
Major Studies Planned on Slide Areas After Flood

The Chronicle Online 

[Excerpt] 

Legislators and members of state environmental agencies toured washed-out areas of Lewis County on Wednesday, a day before the Senate Natural Resources, Ocean and Recreation Committee was scheduled to hear about how recent flooding affected local timberland.

Much of the tour focused on Weyerhaeuser property near Pe Ell, where company officials talked about plans to conduct impact studies on the extent of damage caused by mud and trees that careened down steep hills on the vast acreage.

A Seattle Times aerial photograph published last month showed a clear-cut Weyerhaeuser hillside that appeared to have dumped significant mud and debris into Stillman Creek, prompting some to ask whether timber practices contributed to widespread damage in the string of west Lewis County towns along state Route 6.

But Weyerhaeuser scientists said much more information needs to be gathered before they can determine whether clear-cutting played a role.

The timber giant’s current data did not account for the Dec. 3 storm that rain gauges in the Willapa hills recorded as having dropped 20 inches of rain in 48 hours. A watershed study was done in the mid 1990s for the Stillman watershed, but it did not account for such a powerful event, officials said.

...

On the Tour

Five of the nine members of the Senate Natural Resources, Ocean and Recreation Committee toured West Lewis County flood areas Wednesday. They were:

Sen. Ken Jacobsen, D-Seattle (chair)

Sen. Bob Morton, R-Kettle Falls (ranking minority member)

Sen. Karen Fraser, D-Olympia

Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester

Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond

 

More on Global Warming for us Coast Dwellers
Now Playing: From Environmental Graffiti
Topic: Energy & Environment

Environmental Graffiti via Digg

More good pictures there as well. 

 

5. Spread of diseaseAs northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them.

4. Warmer waters and more hurricanes
As the temperature of oceans rises, so will the probability of more frequent and stronger hurricanes. We saw in this in 2004 and 2005. 

 

3. Increased probability and intensity of droughts and heat waves
Although some areas of Earth will become wetter due to global warming, other areas will suffer serious droughts and heat waves. Africa will receive the worst of it, with more severe droughts also expected in Europe. Water is already a dangerously rare commodity in Africa, and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global warming will exacerbate the conditions and could lead to conflicts and war.

2. Economic consequences
Most of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these.

1. Polar ice caps melting
The ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.

First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of water in ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, that’s not going to happen all in one go! But sea levels will rise.

Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps are fresh water, and when they melt they will desalinate the ocean, or in plain English - make it less salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will “screw up” ocean currents, which regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects of global warming in that area!

Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger several species of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.

Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is relected back into space, further cooling Earth. If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.

---

increasingly severe storm damage will be the first warning signs
Now Playing: Sea-level changes will vary along the Pacific Coast, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the inland waters
Topic: Energy & Environment

 

Seattlepi.com 

Atlantis Effect?

Rising sea level worries shoreline areas

By DAVID AMMONS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Washington's low-lying capital city is a bit nervous in planning a new $38 million City Hall near the shoreline of Puget Sound, fearing that global warming and rising waters could submerge much of the downtown in this century.

Climate change experts say one of the most profound and visible effects of global warming will be felt along the thousands of miles of shoreline along the Pacific Coast and the Sound, where even a rise of a few feet can submerge vast acres of prime farm, forest, businesses and residential land, sending folks heading for higher ground and new ways of coping.

Experts predict the global sea level rise could increase as much as 23 inches in the next hundred years.

Living on the southernmost shores of Puget Sound, Olympia leaders and townspeople are used to keeping watchful eye on the sea, since tidal surges can waterlog or threaten a downtown built on mud-flats and fill.

One of the state's epicenters of environmental activism, Olympia wrote its first sea-level assessment 14 years ago and created global warming panels even before that. The city holds community "call to action" forums, complete with scary map projections of how downtown would look like under various scenarios.

Planners already are thinking about ways to armor the town's most endangered shoreline, and hope never to abandon the peninsula jutting into Budd Inlet.

The issue was brought into stark relief by the council's recent debate over whether to build the new city hall on prime Port of Olympia land - or head for the hills. The city decided to build in harm's way, raising the project two feet above current flood level, but conceding that water may lap at the doorstep before the end of the century.

The vote to brave the tides was a considered a symbolic gesture, too. The unacceptable alternative, says Mayor Mark Foutch, is to essentially abandon the downtown core, which includes the community center, farmers' market, regional sewage treatment plant, child-care center, and an entire business and housing district.

The Capitol Campus is uphill, safely on a high plateau, but the city's drinking water supply at nearby McAllister Springs is in danger of being contaminated by salt water, so new wells are planned.

"We've got some real vulnerability here," says Rich Hoey, the city's director of water resources and an adviser to the governor's climate change panel.

But if Olympia is lit up over the whole issue, other coastal areas seem more blase. Recent news of a new sea-level report, and dramatic potential damage, caused a brief flurry of attention, and then nothing further, coastal leaders and scientists said.

"I think people are still in denial," says House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, who lives nervously on the Grays Harbor waterfront. "They haven't taken it to heart - or else they think they'll be dead and gone by the time it happens."

Recent scientific reports, including one from the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggest a global sea-level rise of between seven and 23 inches by the turn of the century.

The rise is tied to heating and expansion of the ocean, melting of the polar ice sheets and storm surges that can affect tides by at foot or more.

"Seven inches may not sound like much, like gentle lapping, but it can involve storm damage, erosion problems and other effects in the coastal areas," says Janice Adair of the state Department of Ecology.

Lara Whitely Binder of the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington says increasingly severe storm damage will be the first warning signs - and that some parts of the region already have gotten a taste.

Sea-level changes will vary along the Pacific Coast, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the inland waters, Adair says. Some regions, like the Seattle area, are mostly on higher elevations with rocky shorelines, and others, like Olympia, Dungeness Spit, and some of the state's islands, are low-lying and exposed.

A report compiled by scientists for the National Wildlife Federation this summer predicted beaches where sea and rivers meet will be inundated and eroded for a 65 percent loss, up to 44 percent of tidal flats will disappear, marshes and other critical habitat will be overrun and familiar sights like Dungeness Spit will be whittled away.

"Given the vast expanse of coastline along the Pacific Ocean and in Puget Sound and the critical role that vulnerable coastal habitats such as marshes, tidal flats and beaches play in the region's ecology and economy, sea-level rise is likely to have a profound impact on the Pacific Northwest," the wildlife group's scientists conclude.

Adair and Binder say rising seas would require communities to deal with a variety of challenges as the salt water encroached on drinking water wells, farmland, sewage plants, housing, roads, rails, homes and businesses.

In the tidal zone, fisheries, wildlife habitat, shellfish beds and recreational activities could be hurt.

Coastal planners are looking at potential impacts on ports, the Skagit Delta, Fidalgo Island and estuaries such as Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

For people still building or buying near shoreline, Binder says "It would be wise to ask what is your comfort level with risk over the next 50 or 60 years?"

A building boom is under way in parts of coastal Washington, including Ocean Shores, with little apparent fear of the sea level in 40 or 50 years. As with people building in flood plains, there's a big issue looming for insurance companies, political leaders and homeowners.

"With sea levels changing, one has to ask if we can guarantee people they will be safe and secure if they build in these areas," said Gov. Chris Gregoire.

Over the coming years, average people will have to get use to adapting, Adair says.

"We need to talk about climate change and adaptation," she says. Climate change, including sea change, is "poised to be part of everyday government decisions. The train is leaving the station. You can stay on and help steer it, or let it run over you."

---

On the Net:

Climate change: http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/

National Wildlife Federation sea level study: http://www.nwf.org/sealevelrise/

City of Olympia: http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us

---

What might global warming mean for Washington

By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

GEORGE, Wash. -- From this spot in the geographic center of Washington, you can see many of the major potential effects of global warming.

Down below, the Columbia River collects most of the water from Eastern Washington and carries it toward the Pacific Ocean, blocked periodically by giant dams that generate much of the electricity that powers cities and suburbs from Spokane to Puget Sound. The surrounding countryside is arid and sun-baked, devoid of color except where fields are irrigated to produce the region's renowned fruits and wines.

In the distance, the snowcapped peaks of the Cascade Range are a reminder that much of the fresh water in the Evergreen State falls as snow in the winter and then is captured as it melts off during the dry summers. That snow also fuels the region's robust tourist economy, carrying skiers and snowboarders in winter, and feeding the state's rushing rivers in spring and summer as they draw rafters, kayakers and fishermen.

How would global warming affect this complex system?

Experts predict average temperatures in Washington could rise by 5 degrees over the next seven decades. That will likely mean bigger wildfires, more coastal flooding and more extreme weather.

Already, 53 glaciers have disappeared from the North Cascades since 1959. The average winter snowpack at six stations in the North Cascades on April 1 has declined 26 percent over the last 60 years.

But hey, it's not the end of the state.

"We don't need to be panicking," said Lara Whitely Binder, of the University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group. "But we do need to be smart about what we do with information and prepare the region for it."

Lots of people in Washington are studying and preparing for global warming. The consensus emerging so far is that, while the impacts will be significant, they are not of disaster movie proportions.

The most significant change is likely to be less winter snowpack in the mountains, which leads to less spring runoff, which leads to less water in hot summer months. This will produce a butterfly effect of consequences for humans, animals and plants: Drier forests, bigger wildfires, fewer fish, different crops and different industries.

Along coastlines, higher sea levels could swamp some low-lying areas in places like Olympia, the state capital, although most of the state's population centers are on higher ground.

Washington's diverse climate - from rainforest to desert - is a plus, Whitely Binder said. So is the state's diverse economy, which is not dependent on one sector that could be wiped out, she added.

"It's safe to say that virtually every aspect of the state's economy will be affected by climate change," said Bob Doppelt, director of the Climate Leadership Initiative at the University of Oregon.

Here's an overview of predicted effects of climate change in Washington:

-Dry land around Willapa Bay and the mouth of the Columbia River could be lost, along with extensive areas of tidal flats and beaches.

- Up to 75 percent of the glaciers in the northern Cascade Range could disappear by the end of the century.

-Rising temperatures could aggravate respiratory problems in people, and create different molds and diseases.

-There could be harsher weather, including wind storms, heat waves, droughts, heavy rain and dust storms. That would lead to more floods and landslides.

-Agriculture could shift, with some areas losing and others winning. For example: Wine grapes in Eastern Washington could be hurt by rising temperatures, but parts of Western Washington could become suitable for vineyards.

-The state's $13 billion tourism and recreation industry would likely take a hit. Hiking trails could be damaged by weather, ski areas could see less snow, and whitewater rivers would run lower and slower.

-Salmon and trout populations, which depend on clean, cold water, would be hurt by lower and warmer rivers, leaving fewer fish for sport and commercial fishermen.

-Diminished snowpack would severely cut the production of hydropower, source of about half the region's electricity. In a warmer Washington, winter snow would fall as rain and rush down-river instead of piling up to provide power in spring and summer. Higher power rates could hurt industries that depend on cheap juice.

-Acreage burned by wildfires could double by 2040, significantly raising firefighting costs.

But warming could also open up new business opportunities. There could be new crops because of longer growing seasons, new industries such as production of biofuels, and new jobs in solar, wind power and emission reduction.

---

WHAT PEOPLE CAN DO

The state of Washington has put out several reports regarding climate change and how residents can deal with it. Among the recommendations:

-People stuck in traffic for more than 10 minutes should shut off their engines to save gas and reduce emissions.

-Air conditioners should be set for higher temperatures in summer months.

-Everyone should buy those fancy compact fluorescent light bulbs.

-Drive less, plant trees, insulate your home, reduce use of power and water and increase recycling.

---

On the Net:

Climate change: http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/

On the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.
Now Playing: Our war machine doesn't run on corn oil ya know ....
Topic: Energy & Environment

Ever encountered the proposition of fuel rationing and citizen sacrifice in order to support the war effort? Well get a load of the following excerpt - then click on the link to read the entire article. 

From Mother Jones/Tom Dispatch

[Excerpt] 

The Pentagon v. Peak Oil

Commentary: The wars of the future may be fought just to run the machines that fight them.

Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis -- either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.

Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia. That's greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million -- and yet it's a gross underestimate of the Pentagon's wartime consumption.

Such numbers cannot do full justice to the extraordinary gas-guzzling expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, for every soldier stationed "in theater," there are two more in transit, in training, or otherwise in line for eventual deployment to the war zone -- soldiers who also consume enormous amounts of oil, even if less than their compatriots overseas. Moreover, to sustain an "expeditionary" army located halfway around the world, the Department of Defense must move millions of tons of arms, ammunition, food, fuel, and equipment every year by plane or ship, consuming additional tanker-loads of petroleum. Add this to the tally and the Pentagon's war-related oil budget jumps appreciably, though exactly how much we have no real way of knowing.

And foreign wars, sad to say, account for but a small fraction of the Pentagon's total petroleum consumption. Possessing the world's largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support systems -- virtually all powered by oil -- the Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world's leading consumer of petroleum. It can be difficult to obtain precise details on the DoD's daily oil hit, but an April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.

Not "Guns v. Butter," but "Guns v. Oil"

Tend the Garden, Feed the Poor and deny global warming
Now Playing: God's Politicians behaving badly
Topic: Energy & Environment

From Faithful Progressive Blog 

"Southern Baptists don't want action on global warming. These right-leaning Christians seem to get their "theology" straight from extreme elements of the Republican Party--rather than from the Biblical call to care for God's creation.

... Never mind the facts, the truth is the SBC just wants to repeat far-right talking points and keep the focus of "moral Christians" on putting down gays and making sure that women do not have access to emergency contraception or abortion services.

Fortunately, efforts like the Evangelical Climate Initiative have gathered wide support even among conservative Christians and have left the odd-ducks like James Dobson and the Southern Baptists very isolated on their angry little islands where both science and the Bible are banned... and where only the phony political talking points which give them power can be heard."

 

---

Southern Baptists set policy on warming, identity:

Associated Press

SAN ANTONIO - Southern Baptists approved a resolution on global warming Wednesday that questions the prevailing scientific belief that humans are largely to blame for the phenomenon and also warns that increased regulation of greenhouse gases will hurt the poor.

The two-day annual meeting of the nation's largest Protestant denomination, which boasts 16.3 million members, ended Wednesday night. The gathering was highlighted by new steps to prevent child sexual abuse, calls for unity to reverse stagnant membership and a struggle over defining Baptist identity. About 8,500 "messengers," or delegates, registered to attend.

The global warming debate has split evangelicals, with some not only pressing the issue but arguing that humans bear most of the responsibility for the problem because of greenhouse gas emissions. Other evangelicals say talking about the issue at all diminishes their influence over more traditional culture war issues such as abortion, gay marriage and judicial appointments.

The SBC resolution, approved near the end of the denomination's annual meeting, acknowledges a rise in global temperatures. But it rejects government-mandated limits on carbon-dioxide and other emissions as "very dangerous" because they might not make much difference and could lead to "major economic hardships" worldwide.

Of course not all Southern Baptists are as cynical as their leaders. Sincere Southern Baptists would do well to consider the views of Dr. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor at Northland Church.

Some conservative Christians have been reluctant to get involved with creation care because they think it belies some sort of failure of belief that God is going to take care of us. Of course those same Christians don't expect God to change their baby's dirty diaper (pray all you want, it's still your job). Caring for the Earth is not a lack of faith; it is an act of faith.

Government wants to re-ignite the spotted owl wars
Now Playing: Tip from Lietta via KOMO TV News
Topic: Energy & Environment
[Excerpt]
See entire article at  KOMOTV.com
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) - The Bush administration proposes cutting 1.5 million acres from Northwest forests considered critical to the survival of the northern spotted owl.

The move could reopen the 1990s debate over timber production on public lands, in which logging companies argued that efforts to save the owl contributed to the Northwest timber industry's decline.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed Tuesday to reduce the critical habitat for the owl from 6.9 million acres of federal lands by 22 percent, to 5.4 million acres.

"One of the most upsetting things about this proposal is that the spotted owl wars of the '90s had simmered down quite a bit, and a kind of balance had been reached regarding logging and old growth forests," said Kieran Suckling, policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation group in Tucson, Ariz.

The new proposal "sets the stage for reopening those wounds," he said.

The owl was declared a threatened species in 1990 due primarily to heavy logging in the old growth forests where it nests and feeds. While old growth forests suitable for owl habitat have increased, owl numbers have continued to decline, recent research shows. The spotted owl faces a new threat from a cousin, the barred owl, that has been invading its territory.

The proposal was a result of a settlement in a lawsuit brought by the timber industry. A final decision is due by June 1, 2008.

Among places removed are the Fort Lewis military base in Washington state and national forest areas designated as wilderness since 1992. The service did not evaluate whether the proposal includes more or fewer areas known as late successional reserves, where most logging is prohibited to protect owl and salmon habitat.

Critical habitat does not by itself bar logging, but it does require federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to see whether a specific project, such as a timber sale, would jeopardize the recovery of an endangered species.

The Bush administration's efforts to boost Northwest timber production have been stymied by court rulings, including several that tossed out plans to log in critical owl habitat.

The proposal is based on a new draft recovery plan that designates areas critical to the owl's recovery and calls for killing some barred owls that have taken over spotted owl habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Service said. It depends on better technology to map forests favored by owls and better understanding of what land the owls favor.

"This is not an effort to get out the (timber) cut," said Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Joan Jewett. "This is an effort to identify where forest areas are most important to the conservation and recovery of the spotted owl."

But Dominick DellaSala, director of the National Center for Conservation and Policy and a member of the spotted owl recovery team, said the changes are designed to increase timber production.

He noted that some of the biggest pieces of critical habitat removed from the new proposal are on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land in Western Oregon, where the agency is working on a major new plan to boost production.

Chris West, vice president of the American Forest Resource Council, the timber group that sued the administration, said the groups' initial analysis was that the critical habitat areas should be even smaller.

see at KOMOTV.com

our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.
Now Playing: NewScientist.com
Topic: Energy & Environment

 

Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.

Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.

With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.

So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.

There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.

• Human CO₂ emissions are too tiny to matter

• We can't do anything about climate change

• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

• Chaotic systems are not predictable

• We can't trust computer models of climate

• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

• It's too cold where I live - warming will be great

• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

• It’s all down to cosmic rays

• CO₂ isn't the most important greenhouse gas

• The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

• Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

• The oceans are cooling

• The cooling after 1940 shows CO₂ does not cause warming

• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

• Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

• Ice cores show CO₂ increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

• Ice cores show CO₂ rising as temperatures fell

• Mars and Pluto are warming too

• Many leading scientists question climate change

• It's all a conspiracy

• Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

• Higher CO₂ levels will boost plant growth and food production

• Polar bear numbers are increasing

---

 For further reading, see the weblinks below.