Monthly Archives: July 2009

ExxonMobil still funding climate change sceptics

Posted on by
4

Exxon_desert_tanker

Not that this should come as a huge surprise to anyone really (including the Heartland Institute, Jennifer Marohasy, the Institute for Public Affairs or anyone else branding themselves as a ‘liberal think-tank’ or ‘policy institute’) – Exxon is still funding climate change doublespeak. I was listening to an interview on local radio the other morning about research conducted by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.  Apparently their director, Bob Ward, approached  Exxon in 2006, concerned about the companies ongoing and considerable financial support of climate skeptic groups (such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who ran a series of campaigns under the slogan ‘Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution, we call it life’). Despite reports that Exxon have cut funding for the majority of groups, Ward argues that Exxon have reneged on their main promise:

MMA ALBERICI: How many groups and what are the kinds of figures we are talking about as far as sums of money?

BOB WARD: Several hundred thousand dollars a year. Two of the main organisations are the Heritage Foundation and something called the Atlas Economic Foundation. Now the reason I single out them is that they have been sponsors of a recent conference of so-called sceptics took place in Washington and that is mostly a gathering of lobbyists and other people who reject the evidence on climate change.

The interview makes for compelling listening – Ward makes a reasoned argument on how Exxon’s obfuscation can actually influence policy makers in Washington.

[audio:https://climateshifts.org/media/SAM.mp3]

These organisations are not informing public debate on climate change, they are trying to mislead people and frankly we have seen these sorts of tactics before, for instance in the case of the tobacco industry who for many, many years funded campaigns and misinformation about the adverse affects of their products.

This seems to me to be a similar situation in which a commercial company is funding misinformation campaigns because there is abundant evidence that their products are having an adverse effect.

The ongoing decline of those ‘not so sexy’ seagrass meadows

Posted on by
Reply

Picture 540

A new study has determined that the global coverage of seagrass meadows is now declining at an unprecedented rate of 7% per year. The findings of this the study conducted by researchers in the US, Australia and Europe show that seagrasses are now disappearing at rates similar to coral reefs and tropical rainforests. The research estimates that seagrasses have been disappearing at the rate of 110 square-kilometers (42.4 square-miles) per year since 1980 (see Seagrass Watch for more details).

Although seagrasses, and particularly their fauna, are under increasing pressure from changing climate, declining water quality and coastal development are the major reasons that seagrass is being lost. For example the large scale loss’ of seagrass in Chesapeake Bay (U.S) in the 1970’s and Florida Bay in the 1990s were the result of poor water quality.

But why should anyone really care about these ecosystems that are considered to be ‘not as sexy as coral reefs‘. Are seagrasses really as important as rainforests?

Another high profile recent research paper published in Frontiers in Ecology and Environment by the same group of scientists highlights that seagrass meadows provide a vital role in supporting numerous faunal species. Many of these are either threatened with extinction or subjected to overexploitation.

Seagrasses have a vital role in supporting fisheries, particularly as nursery grounds, they are also important in global cycling of CO2. As seagrass grows, develops, and then dies, much of the carbon that is incorporated in to leaf tissue can be locked away in sediments, and sometimes become sequested for thousands of years. Seagrasses in some locations have also been found to be as productive as many of the most productive forest communities.

These recent research articles highlight the continuing need for governments, community groups, conservation organisations, fishermen, and all stakeholders that have a vested interest in conserving seagrass meadows to be more aware of the importance of seagrass meadows. Despite not being as sexy as coral reefs, their economic and ecological value demands that they are not left to their current plight.

“National targets give virtually no chance of protecting coral reefs”

Posted on by
Reply

A study published in Nature Reports Climate Change on 11 June 2009 reports on the consequences of the emission targets being set by countries, including the US and Australia, in the lead-up to the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December.

Joeri Rogelj and colleagues conclude, “National targets give virtually no chance of constraining warming to 2 °C and no chance of protecting coral reefs.”

image002

Citing recent publications of Jacob Silverman and colleagues, they note in relation to ocean acidification and coral reefs:

Acid test
While we have focused on global mean temperature increase here, it is increasingly clear that independent of its effect on temperature, growing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will also threaten the world’s oceans owing to acidification. The latest research indicates substantial risk to calcifying organisms at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 450 ppm, with all coral reefs halting their growth and beginning to dissolve at concentrations of 550 ppm. The best Halfway to Copenhagen emissions pathway would result in CO2 concentrations above this level shortly after 2050.

Unless there is a major improvement in national commitments to reducing greenhouse gases, we see virtually no chance of staying below 2 or 1.5 °C. Coral reefs, in addition, seem to have certainly no chance if the work of Jacob Silverman and colleagues is correct.