In September two stories signalled to all but the most blinkered that the consequences of climate change have begun to unfold.
Firstly, the announcement came that the ice sheet in the Arctic is the smallest it has been for at least the last one hundred years. Characteristic swathes of gleaming white are disappearing so fast that Mark Serreze of the USs National Snow and Ice Data Center said the Arctic is “becoming a profoundly different place than we grew up thinking about”. The remaining dark water holds heat far better than the reflective surfaces it replaces. This makes it more difficult for the ice to re-form and amplifies the Arctics pattern of increasing temperatures. An article from the American Geophysical Union concluded: it is difficult to identify a single feedback mechanism within the Arctic that has the potency or speed to alter the systems present course.
A world away from the frozen expanses of the North, the water in the Gulf of Mexico has also been warming. This at least is on the edge of the media radar, for it contributed to a headline-grabbing event Hurricane Katrina. Without the warmer sea-surface temperatures said Greg Holland of the USs National Center for Atmospheric Research, Katrina might only have been a category 2 or 3. This echoes research in the journal Science, which noted an increase in the strength of hurricanes over the last 35 years, alongside an increase in sea-surface temperatures. The Centers for Atmospheric Research and for Snow and Ice Data seem to be clear about what is going on. Mark Serreze of the latter says: “I think the evidence is growing very, very strong that part of what we’re seeing now is the increased greenhouse effect. If you asked me, I’d bet the mortgage that that’s just what’s happening.”
Faced with a clearly warming world, and the predicted presence of an unpredictably changing climate, what do our leaders do? Well, US Republicans have recognised that Katrina has implications for energy policy. But, as post-Katrina reconstruction may be used by the neo-conservatives as an opportunity to pursue their social agenda, so Katrina may be used to push for measures that didnt make it into energy policy first time around. After hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck, the Republicans proposed a reduction of environmental regulations on oil refineries, and re-iterated their call for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be opened for oil and gas development. According to Joe Barton, the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee: If there is a silver lining in this, it is that it may finally bring home to the American people how fragile our energy sector is 25% of our oil production is in the Gulf of Mexico. It doesnt have to be that way. We could be drilling in Alaska right now. With Alaska drilling still too controversial, the Republicans have reverted to their pre-Katrina strategy of pursuing it through the budgetary process. Still, its really quite mind-blowing that Katrina should be an excuse for measures that keep energy policy centred on the fuels whose emissions accelerate climate change.
Meanwhile, as the Arctic dwindled, Blair dawdled. What goes on in the Arctic is of great importance to the UK. The UK shares a latitude with Siberia and would be similarly chilly if it werent for the Gulf Stream current, which is driven by cold water sinking in the Arctic. A trend of rising Arctic temperatures does not, therefore, bode well. Yet rather than adopting greater determination to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate climate change, Blair has drawn closer to the Bush approach: at a September conference of the Clinton Global Initiative, Blair appeared to shift away from treaties for cutting emissions and toward technological solutions.
In the light of Hurricane Katrina, Chris Johnstone, editor of the newsletter The Great Turning Times wrote: In my work in the addictions field, I explore with clients how crisis can become a turning point. When something awful happens, it can become the hitting bottom that leads to positive change. For such a turning to occur, the client needs to recognise the link between the disaster and the behaviours that made it more likely. Whether this happens with Katrina or not depends on how we look. Our formal leaders look away from the findings of the likes of the Center for Atmospheric Research and the Center for Snow and Ice Data Center. Will we?
In September two stories signalled to all but the most blinkered that the consequences of climate change have begun to unfold.
Firstly, the announcement came that the ice sheet in the Arctic is the smallest it has been for at least the last one hundred years. Characteristic swathes of gleaming white are disappearing so fast that Mark Serreze of the USs National Snow and Ice Data Center said the Arctic is “becoming a profoundly different place than we grew up thinking about”. The remaining dark water holds heat far better than the reflective surfaces it replaces. This makes it more difficult for the ice to re-form and amplifies the Arctics pattern of increasing temperatures. An article from the American Geophysical Union concluded: it is difficult to identify a single feedback mechanism within the Arctic that has the potency or speed to alter the systems present course.
A world away from the frozen expanses of the North, the water in the Gulf of Mexico has also been warming. This at least is on the edge of the media radar, for it contributed to a headline-grabbing event Hurricane Katrina. Without the warmer sea-surface temperatures said Greg Holland of the USs National Center for Atmospheric Research, Katrina might only have been a category 2 or 3. This echoes research in the journal Science, which noted an increase in the strength of hurricanes over the last 35 years, alongside an increase in sea-surface temperatures. The Centers for Atmospheric Research and for Snow and Ice Data seem to be clear about what is going on. Mark Serreze of the latter says: “I think the evidence is growing very, very strong that part of what we’re seeing now is the increased greenhouse effect. If you asked me, I’d bet the mortgage that that’s just what’s happening.”
Faced with a clearly warming world, and the predicted presence of an unpredictably changing climate, what do our leaders do? Well, US Republicans have recognised that Katrina has implications for energy policy. But, as post-Katrina reconstruction may be used by the neo-conservatives as an opportunity to pursue their social agenda, so Katrina may be used to push for measures that didnt make it into energy policy first time around. After hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck, the Republicans proposed a reduction of environmental regulations on oil refineries, and re-iterated their call for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be opened for oil and gas development. According to Joe Barton, the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee: If there is a silver lining in this, it is that it may finally bring home to the American people how fragile our energy sector is 25% of our oil production is in the Gulf of Mexico. It doesnt have to be that way. We could be drilling in Alaska right now. With Alaska drilling still too controversial, the Republicans have reverted to their pre-Katrina strategy of pursuing it through the budgetary process. Still, its really quite mind-blowing that Katrina should be an excuse for measures that keep energy policy centred on the fuels whose emissions accelerate climate change.
Meanwhile, as the Arctic dwindled, Blair dawdled. What goes on in the Arctic is of great importance to the UK. The UK shares a latitude with Siberia and would be similarly chilly if it werent for the Gulf Stream current, which is driven by cold water sinking in the Arctic. A trend of rising Arctic temperatures does not, therefore, bode well. Yet rather than adopting greater determination to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate climate change, Blair has drawn closer to the Bush approach: at a September conference of the Clinton Global Initiative, Blair appeared to shift away from treaties for cutting emissions and toward technological solutions.
In the light of Hurricane Katrina, Chris Johnstone, editor of the newsletter The Great Turning Times wrote: In my work in the addictions field, I explore with clients how crisis can become a turning point. When something awful happens, it can become the hitting bottom that leads to positive change. For such a turning to occur, the client needs to recognise the link between the disaster and the behaviours that made it more likely. Whether this happens with Katrina or not depends on how we look. Our formal leaders look away from the findings of the likes of the Center for Atmospheric Research and the Center for Snow and Ice Data Center. Will we?
meljarman@redpepper.org.uk
References available on request