Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Reality.
Global coal demand to reach 9 billion tonnes per year by 2019
MT_Coal_MR_2014_cover_web
IEA report says despite decarbonisation push, China will not see 'peak coal' during outlook period
15 December 2014 Paris
Global demand for coal over the next five years will continue marching higher, breaking the 9-billion-tonne level by 2019, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its annual Medium-Term Coal Market Report released today. The report notes that despite China's efforts to moderate its coal consumption, it will still account for three-fifths of demand growth during the outlook period. Moreover, China will be joined by India, ASEAN countries and other countries in Asia as the main engines of growth in coal consumption, offsetting declines in Europe and the United States.
“We have heard many pledges and policies aimed at mitigating climate change, but over the next five years they will mostly fail to arrest the growth in coal demand,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said at the launch of the book. “Although the contribution that coal makes to energy security and access to energy is undeniable, I must emphasise once again that coal use in its current form is simply unsustainable. For this to change, we need to radically accelerate deployment of carbon capture and sequestration.”
The Executive Director also called for more investment in high-efficiency coal-fired power plants, especially in emerging economies. "New plants are being built, in an arc running from South Africa to Southeast Asia, but too many of these are based on decades-old technology," she said. "Regrettably, they will be burning coal inefficiently for many years to come."
Global coal demand growth has been slowing in recent years, and the report sees that trend continuing. Coal demand will grow at an average rate of 2.1% per year through 2019, the report said. This compares to the 2013 report's forecast of 2.3% for the five years through 2018 and the actual growth rate of 3.3% per year between 2010 and 2013.
As has been the case for more than a decade, the fate of the global coal market will be determined by China. The world's biggest coal user, producer and importer has embarked on a campaign to diversify its energy supply and reduce its energy intensity, and the resulting increase in gas, nuclear and renewables will be staggering. However, the IEA report shows that despite these efforts, and under normal macroeconomic circumstances, Chinese coal consumption will not peak during the five-year outlook period.
The report's forecasts come with considerable uncertainties, especially regarding the prospect of new policies affecting coal. Authorities in China as well as in key markets like Indonesia, Korea, Germany and India, have announced policy changes that could sharply affect coal market fundamentals. The possibility of these policy changes becoming reality is compounding uncertainty resulting from the current economic climate.
The issue of low prices remains a hot topic among coal market participants. Last year's report emphasised that many coal producers were running at losses, largely driven by take-or-pay infrastructure contracts or financial liabilities. Coal prices have declined even more since last year, but several factors have helped producers withstand further economic pain.
"Our analysis shows that the price floor provided by production costs has decreased significantly, not only because producers reduced costs by gaining economies of scale, better management and budget discipline, but also due to external factors," said Keisuke Sadamori, Director for Energy Markets and Security. "Depreciation of local currencies in the main exporting countries has been significant and low oil prices also help, as oil represents a significant share of coal costs, especially in open-pit operations."
Coal use in OECD member countries is projected to decline in the outlook period, as growth in Turkey, Korea and Japan fails to offset declines in Europe and America. In the United States, retirement of coal capacity and competition from shale gas will lead to a 1.7% decline per year on average during the forecast period. Australia is set to account for the largest growth in exports as Indonesia, driven by higher domestic demand and government policies, slows shipments abroad.
Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2014 is part of an annual series whose other outlooks address oil, gas and renewables. The series also features a report on the market for energy efficiency.
Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2014 can be purchased at the IEA bookshop. Journalists who would like more information or a complimentary copy should contact ieapressoffice@iea.org.
Download the following resources:
The report's Executive Summary
A factsheet
IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven's speech at the launch
Director of Energy Markets and Security Keisuke Sadamori's presentation at the launch
About the IEA
The International Energy Agency is an autonomous organisation that works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 29 member countries and beyond. Founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis, the IEA's initial role was to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply. While this remains a key aspect of its work, the IEA has evolved and expanded. It is at the heart of global dialogue on energy, providing authoritative research, statistics, analysis and recommendations.
Global coal demand to reach 9 billion tonnes per year by 2019
MT_Coal_MR_2014_cover_web
IEA report says despite decarbonisation push, China will not see 'peak coal' during outlook period
15 December 2014 Paris
Global demand for coal over the next five years will continue marching higher, breaking the 9-billion-tonne level by 2019, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its annual Medium-Term Coal Market Report released today. The report notes that despite China's efforts to moderate its coal consumption, it will still account for three-fifths of demand growth during the outlook period. Moreover, China will be joined by India, ASEAN countries and other countries in Asia as the main engines of growth in coal consumption, offsetting declines in Europe and the United States.
“We have heard many pledges and policies aimed at mitigating climate change, but over the next five years they will mostly fail to arrest the growth in coal demand,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said at the launch of the book. “Although the contribution that coal makes to energy security and access to energy is undeniable, I must emphasise once again that coal use in its current form is simply unsustainable. For this to change, we need to radically accelerate deployment of carbon capture and sequestration.”
The Executive Director also called for more investment in high-efficiency coal-fired power plants, especially in emerging economies. "New plants are being built, in an arc running from South Africa to Southeast Asia, but too many of these are based on decades-old technology," she said. "Regrettably, they will be burning coal inefficiently for many years to come."
Global coal demand growth has been slowing in recent years, and the report sees that trend continuing. Coal demand will grow at an average rate of 2.1% per year through 2019, the report said. This compares to the 2013 report's forecast of 2.3% for the five years through 2018 and the actual growth rate of 3.3% per year between 2010 and 2013.
As has been the case for more than a decade, the fate of the global coal market will be determined by China. The world's biggest coal user, producer and importer has embarked on a campaign to diversify its energy supply and reduce its energy intensity, and the resulting increase in gas, nuclear and renewables will be staggering. However, the IEA report shows that despite these efforts, and under normal macroeconomic circumstances, Chinese coal consumption will not peak during the five-year outlook period.
The report's forecasts come with considerable uncertainties, especially regarding the prospect of new policies affecting coal. Authorities in China as well as in key markets like Indonesia, Korea, Germany and India, have announced policy changes that could sharply affect coal market fundamentals. The possibility of these policy changes becoming reality is compounding uncertainty resulting from the current economic climate.
The issue of low prices remains a hot topic among coal market participants. Last year's report emphasised that many coal producers were running at losses, largely driven by take-or-pay infrastructure contracts or financial liabilities. Coal prices have declined even more since last year, but several factors have helped producers withstand further economic pain.
"Our analysis shows that the price floor provided by production costs has decreased significantly, not only because producers reduced costs by gaining economies of scale, better management and budget discipline, but also due to external factors," said Keisuke Sadamori, Director for Energy Markets and Security. "Depreciation of local currencies in the main exporting countries has been significant and low oil prices also help, as oil represents a significant share of coal costs, especially in open-pit operations."
Coal use in OECD member countries is projected to decline in the outlook period, as growth in Turkey, Korea and Japan fails to offset declines in Europe and America. In the United States, retirement of coal capacity and competition from shale gas will lead to a 1.7% decline per year on average during the forecast period. Australia is set to account for the largest growth in exports as Indonesia, driven by higher domestic demand and government policies, slows shipments abroad.
Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2014 is part of an annual series whose other outlooks address oil, gas and renewables. The series also features a report on the market for energy efficiency.
Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2014 can be purchased at the IEA bookshop. Journalists who would like more information or a complimentary copy should contact ieapressoffice@iea.org.
Download the following resources:
The report's Executive Summary
A factsheet
IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven's speech at the launch
Director of Energy Markets and Security Keisuke Sadamori's presentation at the launch
About the IEA
The International Energy Agency is an autonomous organisation that works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 29 member countries and beyond. Founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis, the IEA's initial role was to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply. While this remains a key aspect of its work, the IEA has evolved and expanded. It is at the heart of global dialogue on energy, providing authoritative research, statistics, analysis and recommendations.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
MEDIUM-TERM COAL MARKET REPORT 2014 FACTSHEET
In 2013, coal demand continued to grow and was once again the fastest-growing fossil fuel. But though demand growth in 2013 (+2.4% or +188 Mt) was slightly higher than in 2012, it was still substantially lower than the average over the last ten years (+4.6%).
China remains the centre of the coal world. In energy units, China consumed more than 50% of global coal demand in 2013. Moreover, China is by far the largest producer and importer of coal. China imported 341 Mt of coal in 2013, the largest amount of coal ever imported in a single year.
Asian countries, in particular China, remain the driving force of coal demand growth. Incremental demand in China (+196 Mt) alone exceeded all global growth in 2013. That is because coal demand in non-Asian countries decreased, though developments varied significantly from country to country. Higher natural gas prices in the US, for instance, helped coal demand recover part of its 2012 decrease.
Thermal and met coal prices continued to decline in 2014. International coal prices have been under pressure from oversupply as well as price cuts by Chinese domestic producers who were seeking to secure market share. Imported European steam coal prices went down to USD 70-80/tonne in 2014 and Australian met coal has been between USD 112/tonne and USD 116/tonne since April. In this low price market environment, coal producers continued their efforts to reduce supply costs; however, many are still operating at a loss.
Global coal demand is forecast to grow over the outlook period. Coal consumption worldwide is forecast to increase by 2.1% per year until 2019 (+772 Mtce). Most of the incremental growth comes from China (+471 Mtce) even though the country is expected to take strong action to diversify primary energy sources and increase energy efficiency. India (+177 Mtce) and ASEAN countries (+79 Mtce) also play important roles in strengthening Asia’s status as the coal continent.
US coal demand is forecast to decrease. Coal demand in the US decreases over the outlook period by 1.7% per year, reaching 561 Mtce in 2019, its lowest level since 1983. Increasing shale gas production, climate plans as well as environmental regulation on emissions will give rise to the closure of coal capacity. However, there is still much low-cost coal in the US, and more than 250 GW of coal capacity will remain at the end of the outlook period.
European coal consumption also will decline over the outlook period. Increasing renewable generation and energy efficiency as well as only moderate economic growth projections will lead to a decrease in European thermal coal and lignite demand (-16 Mtce), totalling 314 Mtce in 2019.
The shift in international seaborne coal trade to the Pacific Basin will continue. India is the growth engine, with coal imports projected to grow by 9.7% per year – equivalent to a total increase of 103 Mtce. India thereby accounts for almost half of the growth in international seaborne trade. Chinese imports are projected to peak in 2017. Incremental seaborne exports predominantly come from Australia (+76 Mtce) and Indonesia (+42 Mtce).
Significant export capacity additions are in the pipeline. Between roughly 100 Mtpa (probable) and 400 Mtpa (potential) of export mine expansion capacity will serve growing coal demand. Nonetheless, low coal prices and the current perception of an oversupplied market make investors more cautious than in the past, with projects worldwide being delayed, postponed or cancelled.
In 2013, coal demand continued to grow and was once again the fastest-growing fossil fuel. But though demand growth in 2013 (+2.4% or +188 Mt) was slightly higher than in 2012, it was still substantially lower than the average over the last ten years (+4.6%).
China remains the centre of the coal world. In energy units, China consumed more than 50% of global coal demand in 2013. Moreover, China is by far the largest producer and importer of coal. China imported 341 Mt of coal in 2013, the largest amount of coal ever imported in a single year.
Asian countries, in particular China, remain the driving force of coal demand growth. Incremental demand in China (+196 Mt) alone exceeded all global growth in 2013. That is because coal demand in non-Asian countries decreased, though developments varied significantly from country to country. Higher natural gas prices in the US, for instance, helped coal demand recover part of its 2012 decrease.
Thermal and met coal prices continued to decline in 2014. International coal prices have been under pressure from oversupply as well as price cuts by Chinese domestic producers who were seeking to secure market share. Imported European steam coal prices went down to USD 70-80/tonne in 2014 and Australian met coal has been between USD 112/tonne and USD 116/tonne since April. In this low price market environment, coal producers continued their efforts to reduce supply costs; however, many are still operating at a loss.
Global coal demand is forecast to grow over the outlook period. Coal consumption worldwide is forecast to increase by 2.1% per year until 2019 (+772 Mtce). Most of the incremental growth comes from China (+471 Mtce) even though the country is expected to take strong action to diversify primary energy sources and increase energy efficiency. India (+177 Mtce) and ASEAN countries (+79 Mtce) also play important roles in strengthening Asia’s status as the coal continent.
US coal demand is forecast to decrease. Coal demand in the US decreases over the outlook period by 1.7% per year, reaching 561 Mtce in 2019, its lowest level since 1983. Increasing shale gas production, climate plans as well as environmental regulation on emissions will give rise to the closure of coal capacity. However, there is still much low-cost coal in the US, and more than 250 GW of coal capacity will remain at the end of the outlook period.
European coal consumption also will decline over the outlook period. Increasing renewable generation and energy efficiency as well as only moderate economic growth projections will lead to a decrease in European thermal coal and lignite demand (-16 Mtce), totalling 314 Mtce in 2019.
The shift in international seaborne coal trade to the Pacific Basin will continue. India is the growth engine, with coal imports projected to grow by 9.7% per year – equivalent to a total increase of 103 Mtce. India thereby accounts for almost half of the growth in international seaborne trade. Chinese imports are projected to peak in 2017. Incremental seaborne exports predominantly come from Australia (+76 Mtce) and Indonesia (+42 Mtce).
Significant export capacity additions are in the pipeline. Between roughly 100 Mtpa (probable) and 400 Mtpa (potential) of export mine expansion capacity will serve growing coal demand. Nonetheless, low coal prices and the current perception of an oversupplied market make investors more cautious than in the past, with projects worldwide being delayed, postponed or cancelled.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Coal is king or is it the court jester....
Published on Dec 14, 2014
The new agreement between the United States and China on greenhouse gas emissions is a significant breakthrough in the worldwide war on climate change.
[vp8zG6aVclI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8zG6aVclI
Published on Dec 14, 2014
The new agreement between the United States and China on greenhouse gas emissions is a significant breakthrough in the worldwide war on climate change.
[vp8zG6aVclI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8zG6aVclI
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Canada’s Encana Corp said it would boost capital spending in 2015 to focus on its more-profitable shale oil fields, bucking an industry-wide move to cut spending as oil prices tumble.
The company said it would spend between $2.7 billion and $2.9 billion in 2015, up from the $2.5 billion and $2.6 billion it had estimated for this year.
Encana, which is boosting oil and natural gas liquids production under Chief Executive Doug Suttles, said it would spend 80 per cent of its budget on four shale fields – Montney in British Columbia, Duvernay in Alberta and Eagle Ford and Permian in Texas.
The company, which has exited 11 fields since 2013, is shifting focus to these fields due to lower costs of production.
Related
Canadian heavy oil drops below US$40 as new oilsands projects rev up
Oil falls below US$59 a barrel for the first time since May 2009
Encana said it expects oil and liquids production to generate 75 per cent of it cash flow in 2015.
The price of international benchmark Brent crude has nearly halved since touching a year-high of $115 in June due to slow global economic growth and large supplies of crude coming to the market from U.S. shale fields.
Up to Monday’s close, Encana’s shares had fallen about 30 per cent to $13.53 on the Toronto Stock Exchange this year. The company’s U.S.-listed shares have fallen nearly 36 per cent on the New York Stock Exchange in the same period.
© Thomson Reuters 2014
The company said it would spend between $2.7 billion and $2.9 billion in 2015, up from the $2.5 billion and $2.6 billion it had estimated for this year.
Encana, which is boosting oil and natural gas liquids production under Chief Executive Doug Suttles, said it would spend 80 per cent of its budget on four shale fields – Montney in British Columbia, Duvernay in Alberta and Eagle Ford and Permian in Texas.
The company, which has exited 11 fields since 2013, is shifting focus to these fields due to lower costs of production.
Related
Canadian heavy oil drops below US$40 as new oilsands projects rev up
Oil falls below US$59 a barrel for the first time since May 2009
Encana said it expects oil and liquids production to generate 75 per cent of it cash flow in 2015.
The price of international benchmark Brent crude has nearly halved since touching a year-high of $115 in June due to slow global economic growth and large supplies of crude coming to the market from U.S. shale fields.
Up to Monday’s close, Encana’s shares had fallen about 30 per cent to $13.53 on the Toronto Stock Exchange this year. The company’s U.S.-listed shares have fallen nearly 36 per cent on the New York Stock Exchange in the same period.
© Thomson Reuters 2014
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Date: 16/12/14 Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester
Peter Lee’s essay on the ethics of climate change policy is to be warmly welcomed as a substantial contribution to a debate that proponents of the IPCC scientific consensus appear to wish to close down.
My own interest in the scientific and ethical issues surrounding climate change (whatever one means by that deceptively simple phrase) arose from a surprise that climate scientists were so confidently predicting climate conditions several decades hence. My background is as a chemist, and in my subsequent theological and ecclesiastical career I have devoted considerable attention to the history of science as a cultural force, as well as trying to keep abreast of major developments in science itself. The work of Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi had demonstrated the ways in which a theoretical consensus can develop and reinforce itself, precisely in the face of criticism that later proves to be valid. This is a phenomenon that is not confined to the natural sciences, but arises in every area of learning, for example economics, where evidential proof will eventually prove decisive.
While scientific theories are often developed on intuitive and expert speculative grounds, they have ultimately to answer at the bar of experimental evidence. A year or so ago I was fortunate to be present in the physics department of one of our leading universities, when the professors were discussing their current work. A professor of theoretical physics outlined the latest ideas about aspects of fundamental physics, string theory and so on, backed up by complex models embedded in a huge array of computers, which filled a room. The professor of experimental physics wryly commented that if an experiment could be devised to test such theories, he would gladly do so.
That is how scientific certainty, such as it ever is certain, is established. In 2015 we will celebrate the centenary of Einstein’s 1915 paper on general relativity, but it was only when Sir Arthur Eddington’s 1919 expeditions to the Gulf of Guinea and Brazil to observe a total eclipse of the sun led to experimental confirmation of the bending of light by a heavy object that the theory became widely accepted. Many additional empirical confirmations have followed.
This point reverberates through Dr Lee’s essay. Evidence and proof undergird intrinsically moral questions, if hundreds of billions or even trillions of public expenditure are at stake, and many millions of lives would be adversely affected and much avoidable poverty generated by the wrong global policy decisions. What experimental support, beyond sophisticated computer projections, exists of the theories behind the current IPCC consensus? What proof can exist? It should be acknowledged, of course, that the case for increasing carbon dioxide concentrations having a forcing effect upon global temperatures is very strong, but the quantitative link between carbon dioxide levels and average temperature is very much less certain, as is the effect of other influences on the long-term climate.
In order to predict the future climate a theoretical model is needed, one which encompasses all events on the surface of the planet, events in the ocean depths and in the atmosphere (clouds etc.), levels of carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, water and methane, and also events on the surface of the sun that are determined by its interior. The outputs are then projected forward for many decades.
The level of certainty, admittedly within various envelopes of uncertainty, that has been expressed in the IPCC consensus is surprising, not least in the face of the current, and entirely unpredicted, 18-year global standstill in average surface temperatures. The IPCC coolly refers to this as a hiatus, as if such hiatuses are a rationally understood, normal part of science. They are not. The overconfidence of the IPCC has blended rather easily with, and been reinforced by, the guilt-driven quasi-religious Western fervour to save the planet. It is a short step to label those who question the IPCC certainties as climate change deniers, with unpleasant echoes of holocaust denial.
It is agreed that even if catastrophic global warming does not result from current trends in increases in carbon dioxide concentrations, the possibility that it might do so demands that all necessary measures must be taken to limit carbon dioxide emissions. This is called the precautionary principle. In a central section of this essay Dr Lee demonstrates that invoking such a principle easily becomes a lazy substitute for rigorous argument and empirical evidence.
We are entering a crucial phase of national and international debate, as the clock ticks and successive political initiatives end in failure. The temptation to raise the alarmist hyperbole is reminiscent of preachers and orators who note alongside a weak section of their script: ‘Speak louder’.
The UK government has recently strengthened the legal framework to enable the maximum exploitation of its national hydrocarbon reserves, while signed up to an IPCC consensus which, on its own terms, requires most of the currently proven global reserves of oil and gas to remain in the ground. As Martin Wolf concluded in the Financial Times on 18 June 2014: ‘The world has got itself into an extremely contradictory place’.
Dr Lee’s essay explores these matters from the moral and ethical perspectives that might arise. The issues can doubtless be argued in different ways, but that they do need to be opened up for mature debate is vital for the future of our society, given the huge expenditures of public money that are potentially involved. Democratic consent to whatever is decided will not be forthcoming if the debate is not engaged in the depth which Dr Lee demonstrates is necessary.
Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester
Peter Lee’s essay on the ethics of climate change policy is to be warmly welcomed as a substantial contribution to a debate that proponents of the IPCC scientific consensus appear to wish to close down.
My own interest in the scientific and ethical issues surrounding climate change (whatever one means by that deceptively simple phrase) arose from a surprise that climate scientists were so confidently predicting climate conditions several decades hence. My background is as a chemist, and in my subsequent theological and ecclesiastical career I have devoted considerable attention to the history of science as a cultural force, as well as trying to keep abreast of major developments in science itself. The work of Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi had demonstrated the ways in which a theoretical consensus can develop and reinforce itself, precisely in the face of criticism that later proves to be valid. This is a phenomenon that is not confined to the natural sciences, but arises in every area of learning, for example economics, where evidential proof will eventually prove decisive.
While scientific theories are often developed on intuitive and expert speculative grounds, they have ultimately to answer at the bar of experimental evidence. A year or so ago I was fortunate to be present in the physics department of one of our leading universities, when the professors were discussing their current work. A professor of theoretical physics outlined the latest ideas about aspects of fundamental physics, string theory and so on, backed up by complex models embedded in a huge array of computers, which filled a room. The professor of experimental physics wryly commented that if an experiment could be devised to test such theories, he would gladly do so.
That is how scientific certainty, such as it ever is certain, is established. In 2015 we will celebrate the centenary of Einstein’s 1915 paper on general relativity, but it was only when Sir Arthur Eddington’s 1919 expeditions to the Gulf of Guinea and Brazil to observe a total eclipse of the sun led to experimental confirmation of the bending of light by a heavy object that the theory became widely accepted. Many additional empirical confirmations have followed.
This point reverberates through Dr Lee’s essay. Evidence and proof undergird intrinsically moral questions, if hundreds of billions or even trillions of public expenditure are at stake, and many millions of lives would be adversely affected and much avoidable poverty generated by the wrong global policy decisions. What experimental support, beyond sophisticated computer projections, exists of the theories behind the current IPCC consensus? What proof can exist? It should be acknowledged, of course, that the case for increasing carbon dioxide concentrations having a forcing effect upon global temperatures is very strong, but the quantitative link between carbon dioxide levels and average temperature is very much less certain, as is the effect of other influences on the long-term climate.
In order to predict the future climate a theoretical model is needed, one which encompasses all events on the surface of the planet, events in the ocean depths and in the atmosphere (clouds etc.), levels of carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, water and methane, and also events on the surface of the sun that are determined by its interior. The outputs are then projected forward for many decades.
The level of certainty, admittedly within various envelopes of uncertainty, that has been expressed in the IPCC consensus is surprising, not least in the face of the current, and entirely unpredicted, 18-year global standstill in average surface temperatures. The IPCC coolly refers to this as a hiatus, as if such hiatuses are a rationally understood, normal part of science. They are not. The overconfidence of the IPCC has blended rather easily with, and been reinforced by, the guilt-driven quasi-religious Western fervour to save the planet. It is a short step to label those who question the IPCC certainties as climate change deniers, with unpleasant echoes of holocaust denial.
It is agreed that even if catastrophic global warming does not result from current trends in increases in carbon dioxide concentrations, the possibility that it might do so demands that all necessary measures must be taken to limit carbon dioxide emissions. This is called the precautionary principle. In a central section of this essay Dr Lee demonstrates that invoking such a principle easily becomes a lazy substitute for rigorous argument and empirical evidence.
We are entering a crucial phase of national and international debate, as the clock ticks and successive political initiatives end in failure. The temptation to raise the alarmist hyperbole is reminiscent of preachers and orators who note alongside a weak section of their script: ‘Speak louder’.
The UK government has recently strengthened the legal framework to enable the maximum exploitation of its national hydrocarbon reserves, while signed up to an IPCC consensus which, on its own terms, requires most of the currently proven global reserves of oil and gas to remain in the ground. As Martin Wolf concluded in the Financial Times on 18 June 2014: ‘The world has got itself into an extremely contradictory place’.
Dr Lee’s essay explores these matters from the moral and ethical perspectives that might arise. The issues can doubtless be argued in different ways, but that they do need to be opened up for mature debate is vital for the future of our society, given the huge expenditures of public money that are potentially involved. Democratic consent to whatever is decided will not be forthcoming if the debate is not engaged in the depth which Dr Lee demonstrates is necessary.
Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester
Oil price drop means lost billions for Canada, CIBC says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-drop-means-lost-billions-for-canada-cibc-says-1.2874641
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-drop-means-lost-billions-for-canada-cibc-says-1.2874641
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Geothermal Heat And Arctic Ocean Sea Ice
mid-arctic rift
The floor of the Arctic Ocean is comprised of several significant geological features, most notably the giant Mid-Arctic Rift and associated Rift System. The system is 1100 miles long / 120 miles wide and topographically expressed as high mountains and Grand Canyon scale trenches.
In geological terms this is a major rift system, forming the boundary between two tectonic plates. Given its magnitude one would expect that it has been completely researched and is thoroughly understood. Quite the contrary scientists know very little about its geology due to its remote location, thick ice cover, and perceived geological inactivity. It is understandable that to date only limited amounts of data have been gathered concerning its heat flow and fluid expulsion.
However relatively new research has indicated that this giant rift system may not be so inactive after all. Given that overwhelming amounts of data now virtually prove selective melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is caused by geologically induced geothermal heat flow from the West Antarctic Rift System, it only seems reasonable to reevaluate the limited amount of data available on the Mid-Arctic Rift System.
The Mid-Arctic Rift System has long been considered geologically “inactive”, and presumed to be of little consequence relative to geothermal heat and fluid expulsion into the overlying Arctic Ocean. This assumption was primarily based on the Rift’s very slow “spreading rate”, 0.05 centimeters per year and its low seismicity.
Documentation and reinterpretation of this relatively recent research is as follows. In 1999 researchers in a nuclear submarine documented the presence of active volcanoes along the rift system spreading center ridge. In 2001 researchers utilized icebreaker vessels to collect deep ocean rock samples along the Gakkel Ridge portion of the rift system. They observed numerous active hydrothermal vents.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute’s 2007 AGAVE expedition discovered unconsolidated pyroclastic volcanic deposits. These deposits indicate that a very recent and strong sub-ocean volcanic eruption occurred along a significant portion of the Gakkel Ridge.
Additionally the chemical make-up of these deposits indicates high volatility, upwards of ten times more volatile than volcanic beds researched to date along other major deep ocean rift systems. The Woods Hole expedition also found evidence of chemosynthetic microbial mats. This type of chemosynthetic life is known to be associated with hydrothermal vents.
The implications of this new information are powerful. First and most obvious, what if any effect has this hydrothermal vent heat flow had on the overlying ice sheet. Is this geothermal heat flow the cause of Arctic Ice sheet melting? Has the heat and associated fluid release altered deep Arctic Ocean currents? Both cases are certainly worth considering.
Secondly and more importantly, a reinterpretation of this relatively new information shows that spreading rates and seismic activity do NOT not necessarily correlate to heat flow frequency or intensity. The Mid-Arctic Rift System has some seismicity associated with it and low amounts of plate spreading, however the amount of hydrothermic vent activity and volcanic activity appear to be much greater than would be projected based solely on seismicity or rift spreading rate.
This has significant implications concerning all other large deep ocean rift systems. Previously assumed inactive portions of other major worldwide rift systems that are not seismically active can no longer presumed to be emitting small amounts of heat and chemically charged fluids. They may in fact be emitting significant amounts of heat and fluid. Low amounts of seismic activity and rift spread rate can no longer be confidently used as direct measures of geologically induced heat flow and fluid release.
Other information shows that the crest / spreading center of the Mid-Arctic Rift System has in past actively emitted heat into the overlying Arctic Ocean.
The map below is from a study by H. Dowsett et al of the USGS 2-2009, “Getting Warmer? Prehistoric Climate Can Help Forecast Future Changes”. The authors used fossils of plants, animals, and pollen to reconstruct a map of elevated sea surface temperatures during the Mid-Pliocene geological time period. This time period was 3 million years ago.
The trace of the Mid-Arctic Ocean Rift System has been marked in orange on the map. Darker shaded areas on the map show where the surface ocean temperatures were much warmer during this ancient time period. The exact match of the Rift with warm ocean temperatures strongly implies a cause and effect relationship.
A fascinating new development is the discovery of Phytoplankton blooms under the ice in the Chukchi Sea area of the Arctic Ocean by Stanford University scientists. Their research showed that these blooms have likely existed in this area for decades.
The discovery of well-developed and aerially extensive blooms beneath large ice areas that have not been melted in known human times has forced a dramatic change in considering how and where Arctic blooms occur. This fascinating new discovery has not yet led to proof that there is a direct relationship of these types of blooms with geologically induced deep ocean heat flow, however, this should be considered as a factor.
In summary, the Mid-Arctic Rift has emitted significant amounts of heat in ancient times, currently has active deep ocean geothermal vents, and has very recently emplaced volcanic rocks at its crest. All of this evidence shows that at the very least climate scientists should consider geologically induced heat and associated fluid flow from the Mid-Arctic rift as a possible explanation for Arctic Ocean Sea ice melting and possibly the explanation for newly discovered sub ice plankton blooms.
mid-arctic rift
The floor of the Arctic Ocean is comprised of several significant geological features, most notably the giant Mid-Arctic Rift and associated Rift System. The system is 1100 miles long / 120 miles wide and topographically expressed as high mountains and Grand Canyon scale trenches.
In geological terms this is a major rift system, forming the boundary between two tectonic plates. Given its magnitude one would expect that it has been completely researched and is thoroughly understood. Quite the contrary scientists know very little about its geology due to its remote location, thick ice cover, and perceived geological inactivity. It is understandable that to date only limited amounts of data have been gathered concerning its heat flow and fluid expulsion.
However relatively new research has indicated that this giant rift system may not be so inactive after all. Given that overwhelming amounts of data now virtually prove selective melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is caused by geologically induced geothermal heat flow from the West Antarctic Rift System, it only seems reasonable to reevaluate the limited amount of data available on the Mid-Arctic Rift System.
The Mid-Arctic Rift System has long been considered geologically “inactive”, and presumed to be of little consequence relative to geothermal heat and fluid expulsion into the overlying Arctic Ocean. This assumption was primarily based on the Rift’s very slow “spreading rate”, 0.05 centimeters per year and its low seismicity.
Documentation and reinterpretation of this relatively recent research is as follows. In 1999 researchers in a nuclear submarine documented the presence of active volcanoes along the rift system spreading center ridge. In 2001 researchers utilized icebreaker vessels to collect deep ocean rock samples along the Gakkel Ridge portion of the rift system. They observed numerous active hydrothermal vents.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute’s 2007 AGAVE expedition discovered unconsolidated pyroclastic volcanic deposits. These deposits indicate that a very recent and strong sub-ocean volcanic eruption occurred along a significant portion of the Gakkel Ridge.
Additionally the chemical make-up of these deposits indicates high volatility, upwards of ten times more volatile than volcanic beds researched to date along other major deep ocean rift systems. The Woods Hole expedition also found evidence of chemosynthetic microbial mats. This type of chemosynthetic life is known to be associated with hydrothermal vents.
The implications of this new information are powerful. First and most obvious, what if any effect has this hydrothermal vent heat flow had on the overlying ice sheet. Is this geothermal heat flow the cause of Arctic Ice sheet melting? Has the heat and associated fluid release altered deep Arctic Ocean currents? Both cases are certainly worth considering.
Secondly and more importantly, a reinterpretation of this relatively new information shows that spreading rates and seismic activity do NOT not necessarily correlate to heat flow frequency or intensity. The Mid-Arctic Rift System has some seismicity associated with it and low amounts of plate spreading, however the amount of hydrothermic vent activity and volcanic activity appear to be much greater than would be projected based solely on seismicity or rift spreading rate.
This has significant implications concerning all other large deep ocean rift systems. Previously assumed inactive portions of other major worldwide rift systems that are not seismically active can no longer presumed to be emitting small amounts of heat and chemically charged fluids. They may in fact be emitting significant amounts of heat and fluid. Low amounts of seismic activity and rift spread rate can no longer be confidently used as direct measures of geologically induced heat flow and fluid release.
Other information shows that the crest / spreading center of the Mid-Arctic Rift System has in past actively emitted heat into the overlying Arctic Ocean.
The map below is from a study by H. Dowsett et al of the USGS 2-2009, “Getting Warmer? Prehistoric Climate Can Help Forecast Future Changes”. The authors used fossils of plants, animals, and pollen to reconstruct a map of elevated sea surface temperatures during the Mid-Pliocene geological time period. This time period was 3 million years ago.
The trace of the Mid-Arctic Ocean Rift System has been marked in orange on the map. Darker shaded areas on the map show where the surface ocean temperatures were much warmer during this ancient time period. The exact match of the Rift with warm ocean temperatures strongly implies a cause and effect relationship.
A fascinating new development is the discovery of Phytoplankton blooms under the ice in the Chukchi Sea area of the Arctic Ocean by Stanford University scientists. Their research showed that these blooms have likely existed in this area for decades.
The discovery of well-developed and aerially extensive blooms beneath large ice areas that have not been melted in known human times has forced a dramatic change in considering how and where Arctic blooms occur. This fascinating new discovery has not yet led to proof that there is a direct relationship of these types of blooms with geologically induced deep ocean heat flow, however, this should be considered as a factor.
In summary, the Mid-Arctic Rift has emitted significant amounts of heat in ancient times, currently has active deep ocean geothermal vents, and has very recently emplaced volcanic rocks at its crest. All of this evidence shows that at the very least climate scientists should consider geologically induced heat and associated fluid flow from the Mid-Arctic rift as a possible explanation for Arctic Ocean Sea ice melting and possibly the explanation for newly discovered sub ice plankton blooms.
Attachments
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/12/1...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=161214
Latest UN Climate Action Plan 'Very Weak Indeed'
Delegates face a long, hard road to crucial Paris talks next winter.
By Nick Fillmore, Today, TheTyee.ca
COVER.bankimoon-600.jpg
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Lima. Photo: UNclimatechange Flickr page.
With yet another United Nations high level conference making very little, if any, real progress on slowing climate change, a near miracle will be required if countries are to reach a meaningful and binding global agreement on carbon emissions in Paris next December.
The "Lima Call for Climate Action" document, agreed to on Sunday by 194 countries, is not a new "deal" for the climate, as conference observer Green Party Leader Elizabeth May pointed out. It is a 12-month work plan leading to the final meeting in Paris.
For the first time, an agreement calls on countries with rising economies, such as China, India and South Africa, to pledge action on climate change along with rich countries.
Removed from the final document was a 20-year-old agreement-in-principle that had called on wealthy countries to carry the burden of cutting carbon emissions in the South.
One of the few positive advances was a promise that countries already seriously threatened by climate change, such as small islands being swallowed up by rising seas, will receive special compensation for their losses.
Following the meetings, a spokesman for the European Union said "we are on track to agree to a global deal" at the Paris summit. But a frustrated Sam Smith of the World Wildlife Fund said "the text went from weak to weaker to weakest, and it's very weak indeed."
2C in danger under this plan
Non-governmental organizations warned the plan was not nearly strong enough to limit climate warming to the internationally agreed limit of two degrees Celsius. Even at current levels, more than seven million people, mostly in developing countries, are already dying yearly from air pollution.
Canada, represented by a delegation that included Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, once again failed to speak out in favour of steps that would reduce carbon emissions. Because it plans to make use of its huge coal reserves, Australia was the other outcast at the conference.
PHOTO1.girlatcop20-600.jpg
A young girl attends the COP20 talks in Lima. Photo: UNclimatechange Flickr page.
Meanwhile, an Environics survey of 2,020 Canadians last week revealed that the public is concerned about climate change, apparently more than the federal government. Fifty per cent of respondents were "extremely" or "definitely" concerned about a changing climate, and 78 per cent of those fear the kind of legacy it will leave for future generations.
It is clear that if the world is to have a meaningful climate change agreement 12 months from now, countries need to overcome enormous challenges.
The new Peru document says that wealthy nations will help developing countries fight climate change by investing in energy technology or offering climate aid. It's impossible to see how southern countries can deal with their massive environmental issues with such a vague commitment. Earlier, the North was expected to provide $10 billion a year.
In addition, northern countries reiterated they expect the more industrialized developing countries to cut back on carbon emissions. But this is unlikely to happen any time soon. China and India, the two biggest developing country polluters, say they need to burn millions of tonnes of coal so they can develop their economies.
Corporate lobby dictating to northern countries
The public interest group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) says that lobbying by powerful multinational corporations is preventing developed countries from making a stronger commitment to the climate change fight. They say that companies and their lobbying organizations claim that stronger emission controls would result in the loss of many thousands of jobs.
The corporate sector was out in full force in Lima. Shell Oil was permitted to speak at the main session about its preferred way of fighting carbon emissions -- carbon capture and storage (CCS), a still unproven technology. Another oil giant, Chevron, was permitted to sponsor side events inside the negotiations.
Meanwhile, 82 NGOs and one international NGO were unable to participate in any meaningful way because they had only observer status. The various drafts of the agreement were negotiated in secret, and anyone making a statement was kept to three minutes. No Canadian NGO participated at the conference.
PHOTO2.KerryandGore-600.jpg
Al Gore and John Kerry attended the Lima talks. UNclimatechange Flickr page.
NGOs had so little status in Lima that they needed approval from the UN concerning what slogans could be placed on their protest banners. Neither countries nor corporations were allowed to be named on the banners. A march by 10,000 protesters had no impact on the proceedings.
NGOs plan to be more powerful
NGOs are upset over the limited role they are permitted to play in UN climate talks, as well as the lack of impact they are having around the globe. As a result, the International Institute of Climate Action and Theory released a 118-page document outlining plans to strengthen and radicalize the movement leading up to and during the Paris conference.
Looking ahead to next year, the Peru agreement calls on countries to show by March how they will cut carbon emissions, but there's no penalty if they fail to do so. The UN will then see if the pledges will be enough to limit climate warming to two degrees Celsius.
Given the track record of most countries of holding back on climate change commitments, it's likely the UN and all 194 countries will be operating in crisis mode again next year.
For now, delegates are returning home to get some well-deserved rest. But they can be expected to be back working hard right after the New Year, working toward pulling off a miracle in Paris.https://sashimi.thetyee.ca/workflow/profile/story/77635# [Tyee]
Read more: Environment,
Nick Fillmore is a Toronto freelance journalist and blogger who specializes in climate change and financial issues. He worked in several capacities at the CBC for close to 30 years, and is a founder of the Canadian Association of Journalists. He can be reached at fillmore0274@rogers.com.
Latest UN Climate Action Plan 'Very Weak Indeed'
Delegates face a long, hard road to crucial Paris talks next winter.
By Nick Fillmore, Today, TheTyee.ca
COVER.bankimoon-600.jpg
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Lima. Photo: UNclimatechange Flickr page.
With yet another United Nations high level conference making very little, if any, real progress on slowing climate change, a near miracle will be required if countries are to reach a meaningful and binding global agreement on carbon emissions in Paris next December.
The "Lima Call for Climate Action" document, agreed to on Sunday by 194 countries, is not a new "deal" for the climate, as conference observer Green Party Leader Elizabeth May pointed out. It is a 12-month work plan leading to the final meeting in Paris.
For the first time, an agreement calls on countries with rising economies, such as China, India and South Africa, to pledge action on climate change along with rich countries.
Removed from the final document was a 20-year-old agreement-in-principle that had called on wealthy countries to carry the burden of cutting carbon emissions in the South.
One of the few positive advances was a promise that countries already seriously threatened by climate change, such as small islands being swallowed up by rising seas, will receive special compensation for their losses.
Following the meetings, a spokesman for the European Union said "we are on track to agree to a global deal" at the Paris summit. But a frustrated Sam Smith of the World Wildlife Fund said "the text went from weak to weaker to weakest, and it's very weak indeed."
2C in danger under this plan
Non-governmental organizations warned the plan was not nearly strong enough to limit climate warming to the internationally agreed limit of two degrees Celsius. Even at current levels, more than seven million people, mostly in developing countries, are already dying yearly from air pollution.
Canada, represented by a delegation that included Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, once again failed to speak out in favour of steps that would reduce carbon emissions. Because it plans to make use of its huge coal reserves, Australia was the other outcast at the conference.
PHOTO1.girlatcop20-600.jpg
A young girl attends the COP20 talks in Lima. Photo: UNclimatechange Flickr page.
Meanwhile, an Environics survey of 2,020 Canadians last week revealed that the public is concerned about climate change, apparently more than the federal government. Fifty per cent of respondents were "extremely" or "definitely" concerned about a changing climate, and 78 per cent of those fear the kind of legacy it will leave for future generations.
It is clear that if the world is to have a meaningful climate change agreement 12 months from now, countries need to overcome enormous challenges.
The new Peru document says that wealthy nations will help developing countries fight climate change by investing in energy technology or offering climate aid. It's impossible to see how southern countries can deal with their massive environmental issues with such a vague commitment. Earlier, the North was expected to provide $10 billion a year.
In addition, northern countries reiterated they expect the more industrialized developing countries to cut back on carbon emissions. But this is unlikely to happen any time soon. China and India, the two biggest developing country polluters, say they need to burn millions of tonnes of coal so they can develop their economies.
Corporate lobby dictating to northern countries
The public interest group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) says that lobbying by powerful multinational corporations is preventing developed countries from making a stronger commitment to the climate change fight. They say that companies and their lobbying organizations claim that stronger emission controls would result in the loss of many thousands of jobs.
The corporate sector was out in full force in Lima. Shell Oil was permitted to speak at the main session about its preferred way of fighting carbon emissions -- carbon capture and storage (CCS), a still unproven technology. Another oil giant, Chevron, was permitted to sponsor side events inside the negotiations.
Meanwhile, 82 NGOs and one international NGO were unable to participate in any meaningful way because they had only observer status. The various drafts of the agreement were negotiated in secret, and anyone making a statement was kept to three minutes. No Canadian NGO participated at the conference.
PHOTO2.KerryandGore-600.jpg
Al Gore and John Kerry attended the Lima talks. UNclimatechange Flickr page.
NGOs had so little status in Lima that they needed approval from the UN concerning what slogans could be placed on their protest banners. Neither countries nor corporations were allowed to be named on the banners. A march by 10,000 protesters had no impact on the proceedings.
NGOs plan to be more powerful
NGOs are upset over the limited role they are permitted to play in UN climate talks, as well as the lack of impact they are having around the globe. As a result, the International Institute of Climate Action and Theory released a 118-page document outlining plans to strengthen and radicalize the movement leading up to and during the Paris conference.
Looking ahead to next year, the Peru agreement calls on countries to show by March how they will cut carbon emissions, but there's no penalty if they fail to do so. The UN will then see if the pledges will be enough to limit climate warming to two degrees Celsius.
Given the track record of most countries of holding back on climate change commitments, it's likely the UN and all 194 countries will be operating in crisis mode again next year.
For now, delegates are returning home to get some well-deserved rest. But they can be expected to be back working hard right after the New Year, working toward pulling off a miracle in Paris.https://sashimi.thetyee.ca/workflow/profile/story/77635# [Tyee]
Read more: Environment,
Nick Fillmore is a Toronto freelance journalist and blogger who specializes in climate change and financial issues. He worked in several capacities at the CBC for close to 30 years, and is a founder of the Canadian Association of Journalists. He can be reached at fillmore0274@rogers.com.
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2014/1...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=161214
Time for 'Adult Discussion' on Canada's Oil Future, Says Tyee's Nikiforuk on CBC
Election preview? Plunging oil prices, Norway's petro-smarts drive debate on The National.
By David Beers, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca
Andrew Nikiforuk on CBC's The National
Tyee contributing editor Andrew Nikiforuk appeared on the "Politics of Oil" segment of The National on Sunday, Dec. 14. Click here to watch it (starts at 26.00). http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2638178639/
On Sunday evening CBC viewers were treated to a fascinating preview of the election conversation Canada needs to have, as Tyee contributing editor Andrew Nikiforuk, drawing on Tyee reporting, played a key role.
Nikiforuk appeared on CBC's The National politics panel discussing the plummet in oil prices and whether the Conservatives have bet Canada's future too heavily on petro-development. The much decorated journalist repeated points he's made in recent years on the Tyee -- that oil, and especially bitumen, is a highly risky commodity to base a national economy upon, given its price volatility, detriments to currency value and other sectors of the economy, and power to distort democracy.
He called for a long overdue national "adult discussion" on the pace and scale of petro-development and how to spend, or save, the revenues.
Watch the panel discussion here. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2638178639/
And find all of Andrew Nikiforuk's stellar coverage of energy and the economy for The Tyee here. http://thetyee.ca/Bios/Andrew_Nikiforuk/
Rich and responsible: Norway's lessons
The CBC pegged the segment to the starkly contrasting success of oil-rich Norway -- another story the Tyee has covered in depth ahead of other media.
In summer 2012, Tyee contributing editor Mitch Anderson visited Norway to learn how the country parlayed its North Sea reserves into a now trillion-dollar reserve, securing financial sustainability for this and future generations of Norwegians. What has Norway done that might serve as a lesson for debt-ridden Alberta, and Canada under Harper?
You can read (and share) Anderson's nine-part series here. http://thetyee.ca/Series/2012/08/01/Norway-Petro-Wealth-Series/
A more recent article by Anderson noted that "Canada is one of the cheapest places in the world for Big Oil to do business," earning one-fifth the revenues on each barrel of oil equivalent that Norway does.
During Sunday night's discussion, Tim MacMillan, head of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, waved away the Norwegian example. He said "comparing any one reserve to another is not always going to be accurate." But what if two nations pulled from the same reserve with starkly contrasting results? Norway doesn't mine oilsands, but it does provide a perfect case study because it and the United Kingdom began extracting the same North Sea oil reserves at the same time.
Under Margaret Thatcher, the U.K. took a much more Canadian approach than did Norway.
As Anderson noted in March of this year, Norway struck a far tougher deal with foreign oil firms while establishing its own state-owned oil corporation, while Thatcher sold off the U.K.'s oil industry, negotiated far lower royalties, and left investment decisions solely to the global marketplace. Result?
Norway has that $1 trillion in the bank and "enjoys fully funded social programs that most of us can only dream of. Meanwhile the U.K. is enduring another round of wrenching austerity and owes over £1.3 trillion -- about US$2.2 trillion. That massive debt grows by about $3.8 billion each week, while every seven days Norway adds another $1 billion to its bank account."
As Sunday's CBC panel segment drew to a close, Andrew Nikiforuk summed up:
"I think the low oil prices might encourage, let's hope, a national debate. We need a national debate about the pace and scale of this resource and what we are doing with the money and how we are going to address the liabilities such as climate change. You know, the Norwegians had this conversation and they came up with a very credible, very responsible and highly conservative solution, which was go slow and save the money."
Part of that conversation, too, should be whether Canada is being left behind in the global clean energy economy, and whether we should be investing more of our petro-wealth into developing that sector. That's just the subject Tyee and Tyee Solutions Society reporter Geoff Dembicki has been covering now for several years. Find his work here.
Most of our major media rely on big advertising dollars from oil companies.
Will Canada have the national conversation that Andrew Nikiforuk so eloquently called for Sunday evening?
Thanks to many of you, our reader supporters we call Tyee Builders, we are able to continue to provide the reporting and analysis needed to fully inform that discussion.
You can find out more about the Builders program by clicking here.
And you can follow all Tyee reporting about energy by clicking here. [Tyee]
Read more: Energy, Politics, Federal Politics
David Beers is executive editor of The Tyee.
Time for 'Adult Discussion' on Canada's Oil Future, Says Tyee's Nikiforuk on CBC
Election preview? Plunging oil prices, Norway's petro-smarts drive debate on The National.
By David Beers, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca
Andrew Nikiforuk on CBC's The National
Tyee contributing editor Andrew Nikiforuk appeared on the "Politics of Oil" segment of The National on Sunday, Dec. 14. Click here to watch it (starts at 26.00). http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2638178639/
On Sunday evening CBC viewers were treated to a fascinating preview of the election conversation Canada needs to have, as Tyee contributing editor Andrew Nikiforuk, drawing on Tyee reporting, played a key role.
Nikiforuk appeared on CBC's The National politics panel discussing the plummet in oil prices and whether the Conservatives have bet Canada's future too heavily on petro-development. The much decorated journalist repeated points he's made in recent years on the Tyee -- that oil, and especially bitumen, is a highly risky commodity to base a national economy upon, given its price volatility, detriments to currency value and other sectors of the economy, and power to distort democracy.
He called for a long overdue national "adult discussion" on the pace and scale of petro-development and how to spend, or save, the revenues.
Watch the panel discussion here. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2638178639/
And find all of Andrew Nikiforuk's stellar coverage of energy and the economy for The Tyee here. http://thetyee.ca/Bios/Andrew_Nikiforuk/
Rich and responsible: Norway's lessons
The CBC pegged the segment to the starkly contrasting success of oil-rich Norway -- another story the Tyee has covered in depth ahead of other media.
In summer 2012, Tyee contributing editor Mitch Anderson visited Norway to learn how the country parlayed its North Sea reserves into a now trillion-dollar reserve, securing financial sustainability for this and future generations of Norwegians. What has Norway done that might serve as a lesson for debt-ridden Alberta, and Canada under Harper?
You can read (and share) Anderson's nine-part series here. http://thetyee.ca/Series/2012/08/01/Norway-Petro-Wealth-Series/
A more recent article by Anderson noted that "Canada is one of the cheapest places in the world for Big Oil to do business," earning one-fifth the revenues on each barrel of oil equivalent that Norway does.
During Sunday night's discussion, Tim MacMillan, head of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, waved away the Norwegian example. He said "comparing any one reserve to another is not always going to be accurate." But what if two nations pulled from the same reserve with starkly contrasting results? Norway doesn't mine oilsands, but it does provide a perfect case study because it and the United Kingdom began extracting the same North Sea oil reserves at the same time.
Under Margaret Thatcher, the U.K. took a much more Canadian approach than did Norway.
As Anderson noted in March of this year, Norway struck a far tougher deal with foreign oil firms while establishing its own state-owned oil corporation, while Thatcher sold off the U.K.'s oil industry, negotiated far lower royalties, and left investment decisions solely to the global marketplace. Result?
Norway has that $1 trillion in the bank and "enjoys fully funded social programs that most of us can only dream of. Meanwhile the U.K. is enduring another round of wrenching austerity and owes over £1.3 trillion -- about US$2.2 trillion. That massive debt grows by about $3.8 billion each week, while every seven days Norway adds another $1 billion to its bank account."
As Sunday's CBC panel segment drew to a close, Andrew Nikiforuk summed up:
"I think the low oil prices might encourage, let's hope, a national debate. We need a national debate about the pace and scale of this resource and what we are doing with the money and how we are going to address the liabilities such as climate change. You know, the Norwegians had this conversation and they came up with a very credible, very responsible and highly conservative solution, which was go slow and save the money."
Part of that conversation, too, should be whether Canada is being left behind in the global clean energy economy, and whether we should be investing more of our petro-wealth into developing that sector. That's just the subject Tyee and Tyee Solutions Society reporter Geoff Dembicki has been covering now for several years. Find his work here.
Most of our major media rely on big advertising dollars from oil companies.
Will Canada have the national conversation that Andrew Nikiforuk so eloquently called for Sunday evening?
Thanks to many of you, our reader supporters we call Tyee Builders, we are able to continue to provide the reporting and analysis needed to fully inform that discussion.
You can find out more about the Builders program by clicking here.
And you can follow all Tyee reporting about energy by clicking here. [Tyee]
Read more: Energy, Politics, Federal Politics
David Beers is executive editor of The Tyee.
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
Same old same old from your side..... Yea the moral obligation seems to be missing from your side obd.... Perhaps this from the leader of the Catholic religion might give us some guidance on this matter. After all I'm sure the Pope is better informed then some guy from the "institute of Denial in climate science" that this comes from..... OBD your side should be ashamed to be going down this road. But then again Typical...
Pope: Climate Change a serious ethical and moral responsibility
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/201...e_an_ethical_and_moral_responsibility/1114382
(Vatican Radio) The 20th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, is currently underway in Lima, Peru. The conference aims to look at the progress being made in the application of this legal guideline.
In his message to Mr. Manuel Pulgar*Vidal, Minister of the Environment of Peru and President Designate of the Conference or COP 20, Pope Francis expressed his closeness and encouragement, that the work being done at the meeting would be undertaken with an open and generous mind. He add that what they are discussing affects all humanity, especially the poor and future generations. Even more so, the Pope stressed, it is a serious ethical and moral responsibility. Listen to this report by Lydia O'Kane The Holy Father noted that the conference was taking place on the coastline adjacent to the maritime current of Humboldt, which unites , as he put it, the peoples of America, Oceania and Asia, in a symbolic embrace and which plays a key role in the climate of the entire planet. The consequences of environmental change, said Pope Francis remind us of the severity of neglect and inaction on this issue and he warned that “the time to find global solutions is running out.” but, he also underlined that, “we can find solutions only if we act together and agree.” There is therefore, a clear, definitive and urgent ethical imperative to act, he said. Pope Francis concluded his message by saying that the effective fight against global warming will only be possible through a collective response and develops free from political and economic pressures. A collective response, he added, is also one that is able to overcome mistrust and to promote a culture of solidarity, encounter and dialogue.
The UN conference runs from the 1st *12th of December
How about the leaders from the Church of England
Church investors file shareholder resolutions at BP and Shell
The Church Commissioners and Church of England Pensions Board have announced this week that they are in the process of co-filing shareholder resolutions on climate change at the AGMs of two of world’s biggest oil and gas companies – BP and Shell. This is one of the ways in which the Church of England’s national investing bodies are deepening and strengthening their engagement with the businesses in which they invest on the ethical issues that are of the greatest importance to the Church.
It is clear from the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released this year, that the world is on a path towards dangerous climate change. It is imperative that over the decades ahead we make the transition to a low carbon economy.
http://cofecomms.tumblr.com/post/104335628212/church-investors-file-shareholder-resolutions-at
GLG
Well-Known Member
That's a new one "the rift ate my ice" ...lame... Sounds like an excuse coming from a 10 year old to his teacher when ask why his homework was not done. Perhaps the author would consider backing up his "Idea bubble" with some science. I see he say's new research without linking to this new research... Wonder why? Because there is none but the denial echo chamber just sucks it up like a fan boy of the Krock Brothers at big oil...... Typical from your side OBD. You got nothing so your side just makes it up.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Invest if you think they have a future.... go hard.... we will see. Strange thing about the markets is when they wake up, they punish. So go hard.....
GLG
Well-Known Member
Horse **** OBD and you know it. Or you should know it if you even read the study. That's the problem with your critical thinking... You can't see horse **** when you read it. You tried this before on this thread and I linked to the study. Did you read it?.... I didn't think so.... Your fan boy Tol had is pee pee whacked when he tried to dispute this in science. He tried to publish it a science journal and they rejected his letter saying it was more a kin to a blog post on some denial website then a serious science debate letter. Typical of your side isn't it...
Just in case you missed the serious implication on the 97% consensuses here is the links again......
http://theconsensusproject.com/
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Here is a video from the one of the authors of the paper
[ez7F30lazUw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez7F30lazUw
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2014/12..._campaign=Feed:+aprn-news+(APRN:+Alaska+News)
Study: Climate Change Hurting Salmon Habitat
By Ed Schoenfeld, CoastAlaska - Juneau | December 12, 2014
Nature Conservancy scientist Colin Shanley talks about research on climate change impacts to Southeast salmon habitat. (Photo by Ed Schoenfeld/CoastAlaska News)
Scientists know climate change is altering rain and snowfall patterns in Southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. A new study details how that could affect salmon and suggests what can be done.
“Global climate change may become one of the most pressing challenges to Pacific Salmon conservation and management for Southeast Alaska in the 21st Century.”
That’s the opening statement in a report http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104799 released earlier this year by The Nature Conservancy scientists Colin Shanley and David Albert.
Standing next to a fast-running Juneau creek, Shanley says the research began by examining about a half-century of Southeast stream-gauge measurements.
“By doing that we can figure out how historical patterns of temperature and precipitation affected our current stream discharges and things important to salmon,” he says.
The researchers looked at how warming temperatures and changing rain and snow patterns have, and will, affect the sources of streams.
A new report says salmon, including sockeye, shown here, could have habitat disrupted by new rainfall and snow patterns caused by climate change. (Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
“Those watersheds that are generally fed by deep snowpack in the mountains might see fluctuations in their snowpack. And that in turn affects how much water is in the river throughout the rest of the next summer,” Shanley says.
One threat is flooding during the spawning and incubation period. The study projects that will happen more often during key times.
“When the salmon run up the river in the fall, they’re laying their eggs in the gravel and leaving them there, hoping that they’ll hatch. And some of these high-water events, where you get rain on snow, are going to cause more flooding events, or that’s what we predict. So certain streams are more susceptible to scour and loss of salmon eggs,” Shanley says.
In other places, streams may have less water and flow slower.
That’s already happened in parts of central and southern Southeast, killing fish.
“For the salmon streams that are really reliant on a more consistent rain to maintain adequate flows, you’re seeing water temperatures exceed what salmon can really tolerate,” he says.
Shanley says some of those scenarios can be addressed.
The study recommends restoring or improving damaged streams and rivers. That includes more of the restoration work already being done, including adding trees and stumps.
“The wood in the water slows down the water, so that can help with higher water. … That’ll get cooler and then they (salmon) can hide from predators and direct sunlight,” he says.
Shanley says fixing culverts and reconnecting diverted streams to wetlands would also help. That’s also been done, but he says more is needed.
He adds other change will come without human assistance.
“What we imagine happening is kind of a shifting in productivity of streams in Southeast Alaska. Because there is a great variety of streams in terms of mountainous headwaters and glaciated headwaters and low-elevation floodplains that were really set up to be pretty resilient,” he says.
Changes in watersheds could affect other plants and animals, as well as community drinking water supplies. That’s been predicted for a while.
But Shanley says it’s not all bad.
“This is not a doom-and-gloom outlook. This is really just us just getting smarter about how climate change may play out and how it might affect resources that are valuable to us,” he says.
The two-year study was published in the Public Library of Science-One, an international, peer-reviewed, online publication. It cost about $90,000, with grants from the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
The Nature Conservancy is an international conservation organization. Other regional projects include Tongass National Forest restoration projects and small business development.
Study: Climate Change Hurting Salmon Habitat
By Ed Schoenfeld, CoastAlaska - Juneau | December 12, 2014
Nature Conservancy scientist Colin Shanley talks about research on climate change impacts to Southeast salmon habitat. (Photo by Ed Schoenfeld/CoastAlaska News)
Scientists know climate change is altering rain and snowfall patterns in Southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. A new study details how that could affect salmon and suggests what can be done.
“Global climate change may become one of the most pressing challenges to Pacific Salmon conservation and management for Southeast Alaska in the 21st Century.”
That’s the opening statement in a report http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104799 released earlier this year by The Nature Conservancy scientists Colin Shanley and David Albert.
Standing next to a fast-running Juneau creek, Shanley says the research began by examining about a half-century of Southeast stream-gauge measurements.
“By doing that we can figure out how historical patterns of temperature and precipitation affected our current stream discharges and things important to salmon,” he says.
The researchers looked at how warming temperatures and changing rain and snow patterns have, and will, affect the sources of streams.
A new report says salmon, including sockeye, shown here, could have habitat disrupted by new rainfall and snow patterns caused by climate change. (Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
“Those watersheds that are generally fed by deep snowpack in the mountains might see fluctuations in their snowpack. And that in turn affects how much water is in the river throughout the rest of the next summer,” Shanley says.
One threat is flooding during the spawning and incubation period. The study projects that will happen more often during key times.
“When the salmon run up the river in the fall, they’re laying their eggs in the gravel and leaving them there, hoping that they’ll hatch. And some of these high-water events, where you get rain on snow, are going to cause more flooding events, or that’s what we predict. So certain streams are more susceptible to scour and loss of salmon eggs,” Shanley says.
In other places, streams may have less water and flow slower.
That’s already happened in parts of central and southern Southeast, killing fish.
“For the salmon streams that are really reliant on a more consistent rain to maintain adequate flows, you’re seeing water temperatures exceed what salmon can really tolerate,” he says.
Shanley says some of those scenarios can be addressed.
The study recommends restoring or improving damaged streams and rivers. That includes more of the restoration work already being done, including adding trees and stumps.
“The wood in the water slows down the water, so that can help with higher water. … That’ll get cooler and then they (salmon) can hide from predators and direct sunlight,” he says.
Shanley says fixing culverts and reconnecting diverted streams to wetlands would also help. That’s also been done, but he says more is needed.
He adds other change will come without human assistance.
“What we imagine happening is kind of a shifting in productivity of streams in Southeast Alaska. Because there is a great variety of streams in terms of mountainous headwaters and glaciated headwaters and low-elevation floodplains that were really set up to be pretty resilient,” he says.
Changes in watersheds could affect other plants and animals, as well as community drinking water supplies. That’s been predicted for a while.
But Shanley says it’s not all bad.
“This is not a doom-and-gloom outlook. This is really just us just getting smarter about how climate change may play out and how it might affect resources that are valuable to us,” he says.
The two-year study was published in the Public Library of Science-One, an international, peer-reviewed, online publication. It cost about $90,000, with grants from the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
The Nature Conservancy is an international conservation organization. Other regional projects include Tongass National Forest restoration projects and small business development.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.ktoo.org/2013/12/04/climate-change-research/
Climate change could affect Southeast salmon habitat
By Matt Miller
Posted on December 4, 2013 at 5:42 pm
Category: Economy, Featured News, Fisheries, Science & Tech, Southeast News, Tourism
Climate change map
Map based on the latest climate change research shows a projected average annual temperature increase of 6.1 degrees Fahrenheit by 2080 which could mean more rain and less snowfall for Southeast Alaska and western British Columbia (Click to enlarge). Data map courtesy of Colin Shanley of The Nature Conservancy.
Researchers expect that salmon productivity could shift in Southeast Alaska streams over the next seventy years as temperatures rise and rainfall increases because of climate change.
Projections suggest that the average annual temperature for Southeast Alaska and western British Columbia coast would increase 6.1 degrees to just under 44 degrees Fahrenheit in the year 2080. Precipitation in the form of rain could increase over twenty inches to a total of 145 inches, while snowfall could drop about 30% to about 30 inches a year.
“There could be some serious differences,” said Michael Goldstein, a wildlife ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service in Juneau.
Goldstein was among a group of researchers who briefed attendees on the unpublished research at the recent Southeast Alaska Watershed Symposium in Juneau. A similar presentation on the impacts of climate change was made during the recent Al-Can Summit organized by the Juneau World Affairs Council.
Goldstein said the changes in temperature and precipitation would not be uniform throughout the entire Southeast Alaska and western British Columbia area.
So, temperature and precipitation had the greatest change in the northern mainland and the least change in the southern island provinces. Precipitation as snow had the greatest change in the southern mainland and the least change in the outer coast.”
It could mean warmer and drier extended summers, and warmer and wetter winters.
By 2080, Juneau could be like Prince Rupert. Projected average of 45 degrees Fahrenheit or thereabouts is similar to the average temperature of May 2013. I was looking around the internet and Alabama has an average winter temperature of 45 degrees as well.”
Returning spawning salmon near Salmon Creek in 2013. Photo by Greg Culley
The projections were presented in conjunction with separate research and modeling done by Colin Shanley, a planner and analyst with The Nature Conservancy in Juneau, in his effort to identify salmon habitat ranging from the most vulnerable to the most resilient.
This is watershed-based analysis. Not a cell-based analysis or estuary-based analysis. Basically, watershed area, monthly precipitation both present and predicted from the present climate model, same thing for monthly temperature, watershed elevation, percent lakes, and percent glaciers as well.”
Dr. Sanjay Pyare, associate professor of geography and environmental science at University of Alaska Southeast, said that climate change could play a crucial role in altering stream temperatures and episodic discharges from nearby glaciers and the ice field.
If you look at the overall discharge coming out of an area like Southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia annually compared to a place like the Mississippi River Basin, it’s actually something like two times the overall freshwater discharge. Obviously, it has a lower land mass overall. So, there’s a lot of water coming down the pipes in a place like Southeast Alaska.”
Watersheds that are predominately glacial-fed may, for example, have their peak discharge in mid-summer with colder water. Snow- or rain-fed watersheds may have two discharge peaks in the spring and early fall.
Discharge comparison small
Diagram showing differences in discharge timing and temperature over a calendar year among three main types of watersheds in Southeast Alaska. Latest climate change modeling and research suggests that rising temperatures and increasing rainfall in Southeast Alaska could eventually alter the discharge flows and temperatures of some salmon streams. Excerpt of data chart from North Pacific Temperate Rainforests: Ecology and Conservation, University of Washington Press, 2013, used with permission from co-author Rick T. Edwards.
So what does all this mean for Southeast Alaska?
Nugget Falls as it empties into Mendenhall Lake. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News
The research suggests that an increase in temperature and rainfall levels brought on by climate change could alter the discharge timing and raise the summer water temperature of formerly glacial-fed watersheds.
The Forest Service’s Michael Goldstein expects that alpine temperatures will eventually exceed current sub-alpine temperatures. Along with a decrease by a third of accumulated snowfall, he said that elevation of the tree line could rise by as much 600 feet, and – referring to research by others – raise the lower sub-alpine boundary by 1200 feet.
Goldstein suggests that there would not be a significant increase in the fire danger. But there may be an increase in number and severity of insects and disease.
Projected increases in temperatures could expand lowland forest habitats in the winter. Ungulates, for example, could have reduce energetic costs if there is no deep, deep snow to go through. So, there’s a lot of different implications out there. A longer growing season may increase food availability for wildlife in the spring. So, that’s on one hand. But on the other hand, we clearly understand that could be some timing issues. Right? Rusty blackbirds eating dragonflies, dragonflies coming out later, rusty blackbirds not having higher nest success because there’s no food source when the chicks are being reared.”
Goldstein points to other research demonstrating that Auke Creek salmon runs have already occurred two weeks earlier than runs of thirty years ago. UAS’s Dr. Sanjay Pyare said a few degree change in water temperature could alter the growth and development of salmon at various points of its life cycle.
It’s critically important, in particular, to younger stages, juvenile stages. So, we know that incubation times are well known to be inversely related to stream temperature, and stream temperature through its affects on development, accelerating or slowing down basically the size of juveniles, can impact out-migration times.
So, warmer temperatures influences out-migration or can accelerate out-migration. We have some initial thinking that at a regional level the stream temperature could be pretty important in terms of adult migration. So, we started to look at watersheds that are exhibiting some evidence of run timing shifts in adults.”
Mendenhall Lake icebergs
Icebergs on pre-freeze Mendenhall Lake in October 2013. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News
The Nature Conservancy’s Colin Shanley said another big worry among fisheries biologists includes changes in discharge flows.
With this transition from snow-fed watersheds to rain-fed watersheds, we’re going to see more rain on snow events, higher flows, (and) more scouring of salmon roe. So, salmon roe getting kicked up out of the gravel before they have time to incubate.”
While some streams would ‘blink off’ as productive salmon habitat because of climate change, others could very well ‘blink on’. Steams that currently do not have any salmon runs could someday become productive with subtle changes in temperature or discharge flow.
Besides the possible implications on salmon productivity and management, the researchers acknowledge that they are only now touching the surface of potential climate change impacts in Southeast Alaska and western British Columbia. There are a variety of other implications to explore that range from municipal planning of streamside setbacks to managing hydroelectric facilities and tourism operations.
Climate change could affect Southeast salmon habitat
By Matt Miller
Posted on December 4, 2013 at 5:42 pm
Category: Economy, Featured News, Fisheries, Science & Tech, Southeast News, Tourism
Climate change map
Map based on the latest climate change research shows a projected average annual temperature increase of 6.1 degrees Fahrenheit by 2080 which could mean more rain and less snowfall for Southeast Alaska and western British Columbia (Click to enlarge). Data map courtesy of Colin Shanley of The Nature Conservancy.
Researchers expect that salmon productivity could shift in Southeast Alaska streams over the next seventy years as temperatures rise and rainfall increases because of climate change.
Projections suggest that the average annual temperature for Southeast Alaska and western British Columbia coast would increase 6.1 degrees to just under 44 degrees Fahrenheit in the year 2080. Precipitation in the form of rain could increase over twenty inches to a total of 145 inches, while snowfall could drop about 30% to about 30 inches a year.
“There could be some serious differences,” said Michael Goldstein, a wildlife ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service in Juneau.
Goldstein was among a group of researchers who briefed attendees on the unpublished research at the recent Southeast Alaska Watershed Symposium in Juneau. A similar presentation on the impacts of climate change was made during the recent Al-Can Summit organized by the Juneau World Affairs Council.
Goldstein said the changes in temperature and precipitation would not be uniform throughout the entire Southeast Alaska and western British Columbia area.
So, temperature and precipitation had the greatest change in the northern mainland and the least change in the southern island provinces. Precipitation as snow had the greatest change in the southern mainland and the least change in the outer coast.”
It could mean warmer and drier extended summers, and warmer and wetter winters.
By 2080, Juneau could be like Prince Rupert. Projected average of 45 degrees Fahrenheit or thereabouts is similar to the average temperature of May 2013. I was looking around the internet and Alabama has an average winter temperature of 45 degrees as well.”
Returning spawning salmon near Salmon Creek in 2013. Photo by Greg Culley
The projections were presented in conjunction with separate research and modeling done by Colin Shanley, a planner and analyst with The Nature Conservancy in Juneau, in his effort to identify salmon habitat ranging from the most vulnerable to the most resilient.
This is watershed-based analysis. Not a cell-based analysis or estuary-based analysis. Basically, watershed area, monthly precipitation both present and predicted from the present climate model, same thing for monthly temperature, watershed elevation, percent lakes, and percent glaciers as well.”
Dr. Sanjay Pyare, associate professor of geography and environmental science at University of Alaska Southeast, said that climate change could play a crucial role in altering stream temperatures and episodic discharges from nearby glaciers and the ice field.
If you look at the overall discharge coming out of an area like Southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia annually compared to a place like the Mississippi River Basin, it’s actually something like two times the overall freshwater discharge. Obviously, it has a lower land mass overall. So, there’s a lot of water coming down the pipes in a place like Southeast Alaska.”
Watersheds that are predominately glacial-fed may, for example, have their peak discharge in mid-summer with colder water. Snow- or rain-fed watersheds may have two discharge peaks in the spring and early fall.
Discharge comparison small
Diagram showing differences in discharge timing and temperature over a calendar year among three main types of watersheds in Southeast Alaska. Latest climate change modeling and research suggests that rising temperatures and increasing rainfall in Southeast Alaska could eventually alter the discharge flows and temperatures of some salmon streams. Excerpt of data chart from North Pacific Temperate Rainforests: Ecology and Conservation, University of Washington Press, 2013, used with permission from co-author Rick T. Edwards.
So what does all this mean for Southeast Alaska?
Nugget Falls as it empties into Mendenhall Lake. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News
The research suggests that an increase in temperature and rainfall levels brought on by climate change could alter the discharge timing and raise the summer water temperature of formerly glacial-fed watersheds.
The Forest Service’s Michael Goldstein expects that alpine temperatures will eventually exceed current sub-alpine temperatures. Along with a decrease by a third of accumulated snowfall, he said that elevation of the tree line could rise by as much 600 feet, and – referring to research by others – raise the lower sub-alpine boundary by 1200 feet.
Goldstein suggests that there would not be a significant increase in the fire danger. But there may be an increase in number and severity of insects and disease.
Projected increases in temperatures could expand lowland forest habitats in the winter. Ungulates, for example, could have reduce energetic costs if there is no deep, deep snow to go through. So, there’s a lot of different implications out there. A longer growing season may increase food availability for wildlife in the spring. So, that’s on one hand. But on the other hand, we clearly understand that could be some timing issues. Right? Rusty blackbirds eating dragonflies, dragonflies coming out later, rusty blackbirds not having higher nest success because there’s no food source when the chicks are being reared.”
Goldstein points to other research demonstrating that Auke Creek salmon runs have already occurred two weeks earlier than runs of thirty years ago. UAS’s Dr. Sanjay Pyare said a few degree change in water temperature could alter the growth and development of salmon at various points of its life cycle.
It’s critically important, in particular, to younger stages, juvenile stages. So, we know that incubation times are well known to be inversely related to stream temperature, and stream temperature through its affects on development, accelerating or slowing down basically the size of juveniles, can impact out-migration times.
So, warmer temperatures influences out-migration or can accelerate out-migration. We have some initial thinking that at a regional level the stream temperature could be pretty important in terms of adult migration. So, we started to look at watersheds that are exhibiting some evidence of run timing shifts in adults.”
Mendenhall Lake icebergs
Icebergs on pre-freeze Mendenhall Lake in October 2013. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News
The Nature Conservancy’s Colin Shanley said another big worry among fisheries biologists includes changes in discharge flows.
With this transition from snow-fed watersheds to rain-fed watersheds, we’re going to see more rain on snow events, higher flows, (and) more scouring of salmon roe. So, salmon roe getting kicked up out of the gravel before they have time to incubate.”
While some streams would ‘blink off’ as productive salmon habitat because of climate change, others could very well ‘blink on’. Steams that currently do not have any salmon runs could someday become productive with subtle changes in temperature or discharge flow.
Besides the possible implications on salmon productivity and management, the researchers acknowledge that they are only now touching the surface of potential climate change impacts in Southeast Alaska and western British Columbia. There are a variety of other implications to explore that range from municipal planning of streamside setbacks to managing hydroelectric facilities and tourism operations.
Attachments
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
http://westcoastnativenews.com/stoc...s=595019067297468&fb_action_types=og.comments
Stockwell Day pitches ‘Canada’s greenest refinery’
DERRICK ON DECEMBER 16TH, 2014 7:15 PM - NO COMMENT YET
Pacific Future Energy refinery proposed for Prince Rupert would be half the cost of David Black’s $22 billion Kitimat Clean
By Nelson Bennett | biv.com
“Canada’s greenest refinery” would cost $10 billion to build but would generate $1 billion a year in profits, says former Conservative cabinet minister Stockwell Day, chairman of the advisory committee for Pacific Future Energy.
That’s half of what David Black’s Kitimat Clean oil refinery would cost to build, according to the findings of a Hatch Ltd. engineering and feasibility study released by Black last week.
The two refinery proposals have a lot in common.
Their main selling points are that they would avoid the environmental damage that a bitumen spill would cause on B.C.’s coast because refined fuels such as diesel and gasoline evaporate.
Both project proponents believe that will go a long way to securing the kind of social licence with First Nations and the general public that pipelines alone have had a hard time getting in B.C.
To help sell the project to First Nations in B.C., Pacific Future Energy has recruited two high-profile former First Nations political leaders as directors – Shawn Atleo and Ovide Mercredi, both of whom are former Assembly of First Nations chiefs.
Unlike the pipelines proposed by Enbridge Inc. (TSX:ENB) and Kinder Morgan Inc. (NYSE:KMI), which are intended to feed refineries overseas, both B.C. refinery proposals would provide more jobs for British Columbians – about 3,000 direct permanent jobs in Kitimat Clean’s case, its backers say.
At a presentation to the Vancouver Board of Trade last week, Day said the refinery proposed for Prince Rupert would use cutting-edge technology to reduce carbon emissions.
“We’re talking about near-zero emissions,” Day said.
The refinery would cost $10 billion and would need a new pipeline, which would add another $6 billion to $8 billion to the project’s cost.
That’s close to the $13 billion that Black’s refinery was originally projected to cost when first proposed in 2012.
But last week, Black said the Hatch study raises that estimate to $22 billion. The project would also require another $11 billion to build a new pipeline and tanker fleet.
The Kitimat Clean refinery would be more expensive than a conventional refinery because the technology it would use would reduce by half the amount of greenhouse gases produced in a traditional refinery.
Asked how Pacific Future Energy could build a near-zero-emission refinery for half the cost of Kitimat Clean, Day said the production capacity would be 250,000 barrels per day – slightly more than half of Kitimat Clean’s daily production of 460,000 barrels.
“The engineering groups worldwide that have done projects like this … have drilled down into the numbers,” Day said. “They say that our economic model stands up.”
Day said declining oil prices would work to the project’s advantage.
“For us it means that the raw product that we’re going to be getting per barrel is going to cost less,” Day said.
Day said that based on an estimated 250,000 barrels per day of refined petroleum at $25 per barrel, the refinery’s projected profits are $1 billion a year EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization).
nbennett@biv.com
Stockwell Day pitches ‘Canada’s greenest refinery’
DERRICK ON DECEMBER 16TH, 2014 7:15 PM - NO COMMENT YET
Pacific Future Energy refinery proposed for Prince Rupert would be half the cost of David Black’s $22 billion Kitimat Clean
By Nelson Bennett | biv.com
“Canada’s greenest refinery” would cost $10 billion to build but would generate $1 billion a year in profits, says former Conservative cabinet minister Stockwell Day, chairman of the advisory committee for Pacific Future Energy.
That’s half of what David Black’s Kitimat Clean oil refinery would cost to build, according to the findings of a Hatch Ltd. engineering and feasibility study released by Black last week.
The two refinery proposals have a lot in common.
Their main selling points are that they would avoid the environmental damage that a bitumen spill would cause on B.C.’s coast because refined fuels such as diesel and gasoline evaporate.
Both project proponents believe that will go a long way to securing the kind of social licence with First Nations and the general public that pipelines alone have had a hard time getting in B.C.
To help sell the project to First Nations in B.C., Pacific Future Energy has recruited two high-profile former First Nations political leaders as directors – Shawn Atleo and Ovide Mercredi, both of whom are former Assembly of First Nations chiefs.
Unlike the pipelines proposed by Enbridge Inc. (TSX:ENB) and Kinder Morgan Inc. (NYSE:KMI), which are intended to feed refineries overseas, both B.C. refinery proposals would provide more jobs for British Columbians – about 3,000 direct permanent jobs in Kitimat Clean’s case, its backers say.
At a presentation to the Vancouver Board of Trade last week, Day said the refinery proposed for Prince Rupert would use cutting-edge technology to reduce carbon emissions.
“We’re talking about near-zero emissions,” Day said.
The refinery would cost $10 billion and would need a new pipeline, which would add another $6 billion to $8 billion to the project’s cost.
That’s close to the $13 billion that Black’s refinery was originally projected to cost when first proposed in 2012.
But last week, Black said the Hatch study raises that estimate to $22 billion. The project would also require another $11 billion to build a new pipeline and tanker fleet.
The Kitimat Clean refinery would be more expensive than a conventional refinery because the technology it would use would reduce by half the amount of greenhouse gases produced in a traditional refinery.
Asked how Pacific Future Energy could build a near-zero-emission refinery for half the cost of Kitimat Clean, Day said the production capacity would be 250,000 barrels per day – slightly more than half of Kitimat Clean’s daily production of 460,000 barrels.
“The engineering groups worldwide that have done projects like this … have drilled down into the numbers,” Day said. “They say that our economic model stands up.”
Day said declining oil prices would work to the project’s advantage.
“For us it means that the raw product that we’re going to be getting per barrel is going to cost less,” Day said.
Day said that based on an estimated 250,000 barrels per day of refined petroleum at $25 per barrel, the refinery’s projected profits are $1 billion a year EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization).
nbennett@biv.com
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...ograms-unspent-while-overspending-oil-and-gas
Harper government leaves $321 million for green programs unspent, while overspending on oil and gas
Jenny Uechi Dec 16th, 2014
Oil sands photo by Andrew S. Wright
Photo of Suncor facilities near Fort McMurray by Andrew S. Wright
The federal government neglected to spend $300 million in Parliament-approved funding for “environmentally responsible” programs last year, while overspending on programs to support the oil and gas industry through research, market development and ads, according to The Hill Times.
A Natural Resources Canada spending report submitted to Parliament indicates that it failed to spend $298.6-million on programs for green programs such as renewable energy development and technology innovation.
The lapses in spending on green programs or technologies that would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions included a further $1 million the department left unspent from $10.9-million that had been allocated for a Climate Change Adaptation Program. It also left unspent almost the entirety of $22 million that had been dedicated to a satellite earth observation program, which was supposed to provide data on vegetation, land and water conditions in the "oil sands region" as well as other oil and gas-producing region.
The observation was supposed to help with developing an ecological baseline to measure environmental damage caused by oil and gas extraction.
Meanwhile, Natural Resources Canada spent $438.3 million on programs to support the oil and gas industry -- it spent $41.6 million more, or almost 10 per cent extra, than the amount it was allotted for the 2013-2014 fiscal year.
“It’s a perfect demonstration of the modus operandi of this government,” NDP environment critic Megan Leslie told The Hill Times. “They put all of their eggs into one basket, and it is the oil and gas sector basket...We’re going to pay the price for it, in lots of ways.”
Harper government leaves $321 million for green programs unspent, while overspending on oil and gas
Jenny Uechi Dec 16th, 2014
Oil sands photo by Andrew S. Wright
Photo of Suncor facilities near Fort McMurray by Andrew S. Wright
The federal government neglected to spend $300 million in Parliament-approved funding for “environmentally responsible” programs last year, while overspending on programs to support the oil and gas industry through research, market development and ads, according to The Hill Times.
A Natural Resources Canada spending report submitted to Parliament indicates that it failed to spend $298.6-million on programs for green programs such as renewable energy development and technology innovation.
The lapses in spending on green programs or technologies that would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions included a further $1 million the department left unspent from $10.9-million that had been allocated for a Climate Change Adaptation Program. It also left unspent almost the entirety of $22 million that had been dedicated to a satellite earth observation program, which was supposed to provide data on vegetation, land and water conditions in the "oil sands region" as well as other oil and gas-producing region.
The observation was supposed to help with developing an ecological baseline to measure environmental damage caused by oil and gas extraction.
Meanwhile, Natural Resources Canada spent $438.3 million on programs to support the oil and gas industry -- it spent $41.6 million more, or almost 10 per cent extra, than the amount it was allotted for the 2013-2014 fiscal year.
“It’s a perfect demonstration of the modus operandi of this government,” NDP environment critic Megan Leslie told The Hill Times. “They put all of their eggs into one basket, and it is the oil and gas sector basket...We’re going to pay the price for it, in lots of ways.”
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post...nments-vanishing-climate-change-press-release
DEC 15, 2014 by PressProgress
Who killed it? The case of the government's vanishing climate change press release
Maybe it was Minister X in the conservatory with the delete button.
Natural Resources Canada spent months editing a news release about a devastating climate change report, according to documents newly obtained by PressProgress through Access to Information.
Their work was all for naught. The release was never actually issued in what appears to be a textbook example of How to Bury Bad News 101.
Authored by climate experts at Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the June 24th report titled Canada in a Changing Climate spelled out how "changes in climate are increasingly affecting Canada’s natural environment, economic sectors and the health of Canadians" and issued concern over a "lack of proactive adaptation."
While the Harper government hasn't been eager to acknowledge the risks of climate change, the timing of the NRCan report may have been particularly awkward. The findings were at odds with another report put out by the Conservative dominated Natural Resource committee a week earlier. That sunnily titled missive, The Cross-Canada Benefits of the Oil and Gas Industry, concluded that the oil and gas industry "generates various environmental benefits, including improved air quality, water quality, and reforestation" and the "planet is today much greener because of fossil fuels."
Instead, NRCan's report was "released with little fanfare" and the "major report found its way onto the Natural Resources Canada website" without any news release, despite the fact that internal documents show several departments coordinated to respond to the release of the report, and a communications plan indicated a corresponding news release was scheduled to go out:
E-mails between public servants show a final draft of the news release was ready to be issued on June 23. The next day, NRCan opted instead to quietly post the report, Canada in a Changing Climate, on its website.
By all indications, civil servants had signed off on the news release. The Privy Council Office (that's the bureaucratic arm of the Prime Minister's Office) requested one edit and then it was scheduled to be sent to the Office of Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford ("MinO"):
So who killed the press release?
We do know that a senior analyst in strategic communications at the Privy Council Office had requested that a line "re adaptation" be inserted into the press release.
That line emphasizes how the Harper government's adaptation policy would "maximize resulting economic opportunities" from climate change and thereby increase the "resilience" and "competitiveness" of "Canada's industries and communities":
Interestingly, that line appeared nearly verbatim in an earlier draft of the news release from mid-April, but was removed by civil servants and later approved by the deputy minister in May.
At that time, the line appeared as a quote attributed to Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford:
Strange that they appear to have spent months in vain trying to get the quote just right.
Back in March, a civil servant assembled a 42-page list of "quotable quotes" that might have done an excellent job at describing what was actually in the government's own report. Here's a sampling:
Note: Last names of public servants removed as courtesy to privacy of individuals mentioned in documents.
Photo: Used under Creative Commons BY 2.0
DEC 15, 2014 by PressProgress
Who killed it? The case of the government's vanishing climate change press release
Maybe it was Minister X in the conservatory with the delete button.
Natural Resources Canada spent months editing a news release about a devastating climate change report, according to documents newly obtained by PressProgress through Access to Information.
Their work was all for naught. The release was never actually issued in what appears to be a textbook example of How to Bury Bad News 101.
Authored by climate experts at Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the June 24th report titled Canada in a Changing Climate spelled out how "changes in climate are increasingly affecting Canada’s natural environment, economic sectors and the health of Canadians" and issued concern over a "lack of proactive adaptation."
While the Harper government hasn't been eager to acknowledge the risks of climate change, the timing of the NRCan report may have been particularly awkward. The findings were at odds with another report put out by the Conservative dominated Natural Resource committee a week earlier. That sunnily titled missive, The Cross-Canada Benefits of the Oil and Gas Industry, concluded that the oil and gas industry "generates various environmental benefits, including improved air quality, water quality, and reforestation" and the "planet is today much greener because of fossil fuels."
Instead, NRCan's report was "released with little fanfare" and the "major report found its way onto the Natural Resources Canada website" without any news release, despite the fact that internal documents show several departments coordinated to respond to the release of the report, and a communications plan indicated a corresponding news release was scheduled to go out:
E-mails between public servants show a final draft of the news release was ready to be issued on June 23. The next day, NRCan opted instead to quietly post the report, Canada in a Changing Climate, on its website.
By all indications, civil servants had signed off on the news release. The Privy Council Office (that's the bureaucratic arm of the Prime Minister's Office) requested one edit and then it was scheduled to be sent to the Office of Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford ("MinO"):
So who killed the press release?
We do know that a senior analyst in strategic communications at the Privy Council Office had requested that a line "re adaptation" be inserted into the press release.
That line emphasizes how the Harper government's adaptation policy would "maximize resulting economic opportunities" from climate change and thereby increase the "resilience" and "competitiveness" of "Canada's industries and communities":
Interestingly, that line appeared nearly verbatim in an earlier draft of the news release from mid-April, but was removed by civil servants and later approved by the deputy minister in May.
At that time, the line appeared as a quote attributed to Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford:
Strange that they appear to have spent months in vain trying to get the quote just right.
Back in March, a civil servant assembled a 42-page list of "quotable quotes" that might have done an excellent job at describing what was actually in the government's own report. Here's a sampling:
Note: Last names of public servants removed as courtesy to privacy of individuals mentioned in documents.
Photo: Used under Creative Commons BY 2.0
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
