450 ppm. We've Already Passed It.

What can we do?

A key threshold crossed

An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to be released next month will show that the limit on greenhouse-gases scientists hoped to avert has already been surpassed.

By Gregory M. Lamb

from the October 11, 2007 edition

In Ray Bradbury's science fiction novel "Fahrenheit 451," that number represented the temperature at which books would burn, a symbol of a disturbing future under a totalitarian government.

For climate scientists, a similar number, 450 parts per million (ppm), holds its own ominous meaning. It represents a dangerous concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; a total that they were not expecting to be passed for at least another decade.

But a new UN-sponsored report, to be released next month, will show that as of 2005 the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had already reached 455 ppm, according to Tim Flannery, a prominent Australian climate scientist who says he's seen the raw data that go into the document.

In an interview on Australian television this week, Dr. Flannery said that an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report will show that carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and other greenhouse gasses are at much higher concentrations than previously thought. Reuters quotes him:

"We thought we'd be at that threshold within about a decade.... We thought we had that much time. But the new data indicates that in about mid-2005 we crossed that threshold.... What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that could potentially cause dangerous climate change."

About 75 percent of the total ppm represents carbon dioxide, associated with burning fossil fuels. The rest is a combination of the other gasses, he said.

On the Sierra Club website, blogger Pat Joseph explains the meaning of 450 ppm:

"450 ppm has long been held up as the threshold we dare not cross if we hope [to] avert the worst consequences of warming. Well, if Flannery is right, (and there's no reason to think otherwise) we crossed that line without even breaking stride."How did it happen? For one thing, countries such as China and India are actually "recarbonizing," Mr. Joseph says, meaning that their economies are becoming more energy-intensive "as they turn increasingly to [greenhouse-gas emitting] coal to feed their growth."

In May, the IPCC estimated current concentration of greenhouse gases at only 425 ppm, said a BBC report at the time. It noted that many scientists equated 450 ppm with a 2 degree C (3.6 degrees F.) rise in temperatures. Allowing temperatures to rise more than 2 C could lead to major impacts on the environment, scientists said. In the article, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, explained the strategy this way:

"If you want to stabilise around 450 ppm, that means in a decade or two you have to start reducing emissions far below the current level.... So in other words, we have a very short window for turning around the trend we have in rising greenhouse gas emissions. We don't have the luxury of time."

But, says Flannery, named Australian of the Year for 2007, that window is closed. According to the Australian Associated Press he says that higher figure is due to miscalculating the potency of other greenhouse gasses, which are included in the 450 ppm figure and measured in terms equivalent to that of CO2. But he adds:

"[A]lso we have really seen an unexpected acceleration in the rate of accumulation of CO 2 itself, and that's been beyond the limits of projection ... beyond the worst-case scenario. We are already at great risk of dangerous climate change – that's what the new figures say.... It's not next year, or next decade; it's now."

A major UN climate change meeting in Bali, Indonesia, in December aims to set a course toward a new global agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The current Kyoto Protocol, signed by the majority of the world's nations but not the United States, expires in 2012. Flannery told Reuters that the 450 ppm figure adds to the urgency and importance of that meeting.

Meanwhile, Erwin Jackson, policy director of the Climate Institute, an Australian environmental group, told the Australian Associated Press that reducing greenhouse gas levels would be the only path to avoiding a catastrophe:

"The longer we stay above the kind of levels we're at at the moment, the more likely it is that we would start to see the loss of the Great Barrier Reef; you would actually start see the collapse of the great ice sheets and places like the Amazon starting to burn down."This weekly feature appears with links at csmonitor.com

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Banks and Coal and the Environment

Published on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 by Inter Press Service

Citigroup, Bank of America Raked Over Coal

by Abid Aslam

WASHINGTON - U.S. environmentalists seeking to turn up the heat on the coal industry, which they blame for a litany of problems, are targeting two banks they say have taken the lead in financing mines.

Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. are the targets of a new campaign launched Tuesday by the Rainforest Action Network (RAN).

The effort also is aimed at shoring up U.S. credibility on climate change in future talks with China and India, which lead the world in burning coal, a principal source of the heat-trapping gas carbon dioxide.

“From cradle to grave, coal is dirty,” said Rebecca Tarbotton, the group’s global finance campaign director.

The banks can expect “a ruckus in the streets” and questions from shareholders but plans do not call for consumer boycotts, Tarbotton said.

To press its cause, RAN has teamed up with the Interfaith Council on Corporate Responsibility, an investment network of 275-plus religious institutions, and organisers of Step It Up, a series of nationwide anti-global warming demonstrations, the next of which is planned for Nov. 3.

The banks had no direct comment on the campaign but told IPS they embraced environmental concerns.

“Citi, together with its clients, environmental organisations and other stakeholders, is taking a responsible and strong leadership position on climate change and is on record as supporting comprehensive efforts to move forward on the complicated issue of climate change,” said Citi spokeswoman Valerie Hendy. “Moreover, we have committed 50 billion dollars, more than any other institution, over the next 10 years for climate-friendly efforts.”

The world’s largest bank received top marks from the Carbon Disclosure Project, an independent organisation that works with shareholders and corporations, for its efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Hendy added. Citi has promised a 10-percent cut in carbon emissions from its operations by 2011 “and we are investing in climate-friendly enterprises and engaging with our clients on their carbon reduction efforts,” she said.

A Bank of America spokesman said coal remained vital to the U.S. power supply.

“The reality is that, as a country, over 50 percent of the electricity we all consume comes from coal,” said the spokesman, Ernesto Anguilla. “Bank of America is aggressively investing in and financing the development and use of cleaner renewable energies.”

Campaigners said the banks were not doing enough.

Citi’s 50-billion-dollar pledge, made in May, “may seem like a significant commitment [but] it amounts to less than 0.2 percent of the company’s 2.2 trillion dollars in assets,” RAN said.

Last year alone, Citi provided 200 times more financing for “dirty energy” than it did for alternative technologies such as wind, solar, or geothermal power, Tarbotton said.

Likewise, RAN decried as insufficient a recent Bank of America pledge to support eco-friendly businesses and to address climate change. Last year, it added, the firm spent nearly 100 times more money on high-polluting projects than it did on cleaner alternatives.

Electricity generated from coal is the leading cause of global warming in the United States, according to RAN. It also is the largest source of toxic mercury and a top contributor to air pollution, asthma, and ecological destruction.

Coal is abundant: The United States is estimated to have around 200 years’ worth of reserves, mostly under the Appalachian Mountains and in the Southwest. Interest in coal is rising amid increasing demand for energy and pressure to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Already, plans call for the construction of 150 new coal-fired power plants across the country. Citi and Bank of America rank among the top lenders to companies involved in the expansion, according to RAN.

“This new coal rush would add between 600 million and 1.1 billion tonnes of additional carbon dioxide emissions annually and negate nearly every other effort currently on the table to combat climate change,” the group said, adding that each new power plant would have a lifespan of about 50 years.

If the plans are realised, “in the next five years the U.S. coal power sector will exceed India’s and rival China’s,” said Tarbotton.

In consequence, “the United States will have no credibility in trying to get them to clean up their acts,” added Step It Up founder Bill McKibben.

Coal mining is responsible for thousands of deaths each year and the ruin of entire ecosystems and communities, RAN said in a report released to coincide with the launch of the campaign.

Coal companies say they are working to reduce carbon emissions by developing cleaner, more efficient fuel. Their opponents insist that future energy demand should be met by tapping renewable sources that are clean and in infinite supply. Among these are the wind, sun, tides, and heat trapped under the earth.

“We basically have better options,” said Tarbotton.

© 2007 Inter Press Service

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.