September 16, 2000
Members of Congress often send around a "Dear Colleague" letter.
This one deals with energy prices and the disparity between the White
House and the energy experts.
The Week That Was September 16, 2000 brought to you by SEPP
CARBON DIOXIDE CHANGES CAUSED BY SEA ICE
The striking correlation seen in ice cores between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature in the past 400,000 years is often interpreted as a consequence of the greenhouse effect. During glacial periods, temperatures drop by 10 C or more while CO2 decreases by some 30%.
But two facts contradict this simple picture. The glaciation cycles appear to be controlled by regular variations of the eccentricity and inclination of the Earth, according to the astronomical theory of Milankovich. And as was discovered only recently by Fischer et al. (Science 283, 1712, 1999), the temperature rises of deglaciation, marking the end of the last three ice ages, preceded the rise in CO2 by about 600 years in all three cases.
Now Britton Stephens (U. of Colo) and Ralph Keeling (Scripps Inst. Oceanography) present a new hypothesis to explain why CO2 and temperatures correlate. They explain that sea ice controls the exchange of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere.
Their model proposes that CO2 is released to the atmosphere mostly from CO2-rich deep ocean water rising to the surface around Antarctica. This process is slowed, however, during glacial periods when the surface is covered with ice. [Ref: Nature 9 March 2000]
Comment: This is an interesting new idea, but probably not the last word. The air-sea exchange of CO2 is immensely complicated and quite difficult to measure. So far, no good ideas why the rates of increase of CO2 and methane have slowed. But for sure, future CO2 levels will depend more on global economic growth and technological developments than on air-sea exchange.
LISTENING IN: PLANNING AN INTERNATIONAL DAY OF OUTRAGE
> From: Oak[SMTP:savetheplanet@prodigy.net]
> Reply To: climatecrisisaction@egroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 8:23 PM
> To: climatecrisisaction@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Climate Crisis!] Help: How do we label Detroit
2001
>
> I like the very first name. Climatic destabilization (or Disruption)
gives
> us the space to broaden our message.
> BTW, i've cc-ed here to the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association.
> These are the folks who do the annual Tour De Sol and are heavy into
> alternative transportation. They probably have facts & figures
we need to
> make a good case for retooling Detroit. Checkout their site at:
> http:/www.nesea.org
>
> Oak
> ------Original Message------
> From: Hayduke Rocks! <hayduke@efmedia.org>
> To: Climate Crisis Action <climatecrisisaction@egroups.com>
> Sent: August 27, 2000 11:00:46 PM GMT
> Subject: [Climate Crisis!] Help: How do we label Detroit 2001
>
>
> I've had two titles running through my head since April:
>
> International Day of Outrage Against Climate Destabilization [this
> draws upon the Day of Outrage tradition started by Earth First!
> against roads, the Forest Service, World bank, etc. and it would
be
> an umbrella term, year after year]
>
> International Day of Outrage Against the Automobile [this would be
> the title for this year's protest; who knows what the focus will
be
> in 2002...]
>
> But since there is a real possibility of us developing some kind
of
> positive relationship, I've become much more hesitant about the
> second of these two. It could be tweaked, of course. Something like
> International Day of Outrage Against the Automobile Multinationals
> (or corporations) OR
>
> International Day of Outrage Against the Internal Combustion Engine,
etc.
>
> So, any ideas? I hate coming up with these slogans and project names.
> maybe some of you are better at this.
>
> Also, I'm thinking that one clear message would be powerful.
> Something that emphasizes Start Retooling Now. An immediate ban on
> the production of all automobiles that get less than 70 MPG, with
> generous govt support of workers through this transition. Does anyone
> have the figures of how much cars are subsidized in the US or
> elsewhere? Things like increased law enforcement, automobile homicide
> (the idea that these should be called "accidents" is Bull!)
suffering
> and expenses, road subsidies, tax write-offs, etc.). We should demand
> that All of that money be redirected to the retooling and redesigning
> of transit systems.
>
> So let's try to hash this out in the next week. I would really like
> to start approaching groups and activists with a clear proposal of
> what we are doing. I think that retooling to use the best available
> technology is a movement that would be hard for a Pres. Gore to
> rebuke. It's practical, future focused, encourages the myths of
> "American enterprise in a time of crisis," would give him
bookoo
> enviro points, and... it would have a significant impact in the
> reduction of CO2/Greenhouse Gas emissions. Plus, most Americans could
> get behind it, probably with enthusiasm.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy Caffrey
> --
> Andy Caffrey
> Director, Climate Action NOW!
> P.O. Box 324
> Redway, CA 95560
>
> can@redwoodtree.net OR climate@redwoodtree.net
>
> http://www.efmedia.org/climate/
> http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/can/can.html
>
>
> Climate Action NOW! has taken upon itself the task of spurring the
> growth of a grassroots movement to fight climate destabilization
from
> greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> Donations go a long way. Especially NOW! We could do so much more
> with your involvement. Why not show this material to your friends?
> Just print it out and make some photocopies to help get the word
> out...
SEPP Comment Oh sure… With Ozone Action sponsoring the Ruckus Society, who needs CAN? BTW, who pays for all the damage and extra expense caused by the demonstrations put on by these characters?
