The 21st century is known as the Green century. We all have become used to seeing the giant windmills and the solar panels almost everywhere we go these days. The news is filled with the promise of exciting new energy sources that will save the environment and make our world clean. Someday, George Jetson might just have the ability to fly his mum to the chiropractor. For now, though, we are still on our way and we cannot just sit around and wait can we? Shouldn’t you be doing something? Shouldn’t you be turning the heating or the air conditioning down? What is the harm in wearing a sweater or stripping off a layer or two? Well one of the things that we all understand is that going backwards to the 19th century is not going to work.

Modern Focus
This is a new world and with all of the focus on words like “Sustainability” and “Renewable Energy” you can sometimes feel that you are powerless to do anything that really matters. That is a false impression. There is much that is now possible that wasn’t just a few years ago. While you may not be able to afford to put a windmill on your roof yet, technology has advanced to the point that everyday appliances can become a weapon in the battle against global warming.

Ways to Save
For example, let us consider everyday activities and look at targets of opportunity. You might be familiar with the ritual of tea drinking. Perhaps a dozen or so times a day? This is something that constitutes a fundamental social activity, like eating or keeping warm. As such it should be the first place you look for ways to save. The logic being that if everybody does it the collective impact will be significant. The trick here is that you and most all your mates drink tea. So if you where to take steps to save energy by drinking tea, say, with an Eco Kettle, they would ask and they would do it too, right?

How Much Savings
How much would you save? Well, according to a recent study if you and all your mates would use an Eco Kettle there would be an impact. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) estimate that if every kettle user in the UK switched to an Eco Kettle, over 1,270,000,000 kWh of electricity could be saved every year. That is a potential saving of over £1 million a week to the average UK householder.

Just in case your mates are skeptical, you should actually buy an Efergy Elite. It is an energy use monitor that will record every watt you use. This way, when you mates ask you to prove your point, you just show them the numbers and “Bang!” you’ve started a revolution. You see, most people tend to ignore what they do not see. With an Efergy Elite you will see the results. This way you, your family and your mates will be able to track the results and feel more involved. They will go out and buy their own and you can have a contest. You’ll have intelligence in the war on global warming.

Accelerated global warming could lead to a runaway methane global warming effect due to the release of methane currently trapped in unstable methane hydrate deposits in the arctic that could be destabilised by accelerated global warming effects.

Core samples taken from old ocean sediment layers have been used to trace back in time the climate changes that have occurred over the past tens of millions of years. By analysing the incidence of different fossil shell remains of sea creatures occurring in these sediments it is possible to track the changes in the sea water temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 occurring at the time the shells were formed and deposited. These shells contain carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere which was dissolved in the sea water in which the creatures lived just as takes place today.

From these records it appears that there have been short periods of only a few hundred years in the geological past when rapid increases of the Earth’s temperature have occurred superimposed on top of the rise and fall of average temperatures over the longer term. For these short periods temperature rises of up to 8 degrees centigrade appear to have occurred on top of existing long term rises of 5 to 7 degrees to give temperatures up to 15 degrees centigrade warmer than today. Temperatures then fell back to the long term trend, the whole rise and fall only lasting a few hundred years.

The most likely cause of this rapid global warming over such a short period is the release of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is 60 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but only remains in the atmosphere for about ten years and so looses it’s greenhouse effect quickly compared to CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for 100 years. CO2 would not be available in sufficient quantities to achieve the rapid warming and if CO2 was the cause then the raised temperatures would last a lot longer.

Methane hydrates occur extensively today all over the world. They consist of methane stored within unstable water bound deposits that if disturbed release the methane. They occur in major river deltas such as the Amazon delta and in old delta areas such as the Gulf of Mexico. Major rivers carry millions of tons of silt containing vegetable matter that continues to decay after the silt is deposited in the river delta. This anaerobic decay produces methane which gets trapped in the silt as methane hydrates until the conditions of water temperature and pressure change which can release the methane in vast quantities very quickly.

Another form is a frozen slush/ice methane hydrate where the methane is trapped in an ice/water mixture which releases the methane when it warms up or the pressure on the ice is reduced. Frozen methane hydrates can contain 170 times their own volume of methane. These frozen hydrates occur in the seabed deposits of the Arctic Ocean.

Methane can also be trapped by permafrost layers which over-lay lower unfrozen layers of vegetable material that is decaying and producing methane which remains trapped by the frozen permafrost on top. If the permafrost layer were to melt then the methane in the layers below would escape into the atmosphere. Given the vast areas of permafrost in northern latitudes there is a significant potential for methane to be trapped that would be released if the permafrost melted as a result of global warming.

The theory for these rapid rises and falls of temperature, based on the geological records from 55 million years ago, is that gradual global warming due to some natural cause had resulted in temperatures 5 to 7 degrees centigrade higher than average (i.e. higher than today’s temperatures). At this point methane trapped in methane hydrate deposits started to be released into the atmosphere and accelerated the rate of warming. This would result in further warming releasing more methane.

As the atmosphere warmed different types of methane deposits would start to be released and so a cycle of methane release leading to increased warming leading to more methane release from other areas of methane deposits elsewhere in the world would become established as global warming effected different areas of the world.

There is an intriguing photograph of what appears to be a methane plume coming up out of the Arctic ice sheet which indicates that the phenomenon described above can occur. There have also been incidences of oil drilling inadvertently triggering large releases of methane from hydrate deposits. One theory to explain the loss of ships in the so called Bermuda triangle is that they have been engulfed in a sudden methane release which reduces the buoyancy of the sea water so that the ship sinks.

So, does methane pose a threat today? Let us review the situation. We know there are extensive methane hydrate and permafrost deposits all around the world. We have evidence that we are at the beginning of a period of global warming that is probably being made worse by the continuing build up of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning. Recent computer modelling incorporating the feed back effects of global warming that has already occurred suggests that by about 2050 we may start to loose the beneficial effects of the Amazon rain forest as a carbon sink.

This could lead to temperature rises of 5 to 8 degrees centigrade by 2100. This would be uncharted territory and no one really knows at present how the world’s environmental systems would change but we now have the evidence from the geological past. On the basis of this evidence global warming can lead to methane releases which once started would escalate. This would be the worst possible thing to happen because once started there would be no way of stopping a runaway methane global warming event.

We CAN reduce our CO2 emissions from fossil fuels but we COULD NOT reduce methane emissions once they started, huge natural forces would take over and change our world. This would probably result in the melting of the Antarctic icecap which would raise sea levels by 50 metres and would completely change the climates of the world.

So what should we do? We should be careful and not risk starting the sequence events described above. To do this we must reduce total CO2 emissions from now onwards and take measures to protect carbon sinks such as the Amazon rainforest.

If we all carry on burning so much fossil fuel as we do now we will be running the risk of starting an unstoppable runaway methane global warming event within the foreseeable future. Only major absolute reductions in CO2 emissions NOW will avoid this risk.

Local Firm Cleaning the Air for Beijing Olympics

Posted: 03/10/2004 at 12:00:00 AM PST
by Larry M. Edwards

SAN DIEGO — Four years from now, when athletes from around the world descend on Beijing, China, for the 2008 Olympics, the air quality will be noticeably better due to reduced emissions from the city’s buses and other vehicles. The same will be true in Shanghai for soccer’s World Cup in 2010.
The cleaner air will be due in large part to a local manufacturer of a fuel additive that reduces exhaust emissions 30 to 40 percent or more.

The additive is an ester-based product dubbed Ethos Fuel Re-formulator and is produced by Ethos Environmental Inc. in South San Diego.

“The air quality regulations there are comparative to the 1950s here, so we are a solution for them,” said Ethos President Enrique De Vilmorin. “If you take 15 percent off the emission rolls in any city, you’re going to make a difference.”

And with the price of gas at record levels in this country, Americans can also benefit from using the product, its proponents say.

In some cars, the addition of Ethos FR has improved gas mileage 50 percent or more, but the company’s official line calls for a 7 to 19 percent improvement, depending on a number of factors, De Vilmorin said.

He stresses that a person’s driving habits have a huge effect on gas mileage, so someone who drives with a lead foot on the accelerator is not going to see the improvement that someone driving more conservatively will.

But it’s the reduced emissions he really wants to talk about, not improved mileage.

“That’s really the only fair way to do a test, because there are a lot of variables that affect gas mileage,” he said. However, because reduced emissions means that more of the fuel is converted into energy rather than going out the exhaust pipe, that also translates to reduced fuel consumption and improved gas mileage.

It pays for itself not only in lower fuel costs, he said, but because it will extend the life of the engine, and it will increase the likelihood of a vehicle passing the state-mandated smog test.

The product works because it is a super lubricator, explains Jerry Schnitzius, the general manager of Pacific Waste Services, the San Diego division of Allied Waste Industries, the second-largest trash collection company in the nation.

For three years, Allied has been adding Ethos FR to its truck fuel, reducing exhaust emissions, fuel consumption and maintenance costs. The product is also added to the power steering and transmission fluids.

“We’re absolutely sold on it,” Schnitzius said. “It reduced emissions from our trucks by 65 percent.

“It saves us money,” he added. “It’s also the right thing to do.”

Two years ago, Allied received the Earth Day Corporate Award for making a difference to the environment and saving valuable resources, including money, crediting Ethos FR.

The company’s cars have benefited from about a 10 percent improvement in gas mileage, Schnitzius said.

The ester-based Ethos FR removes carbon deposits and cleans and lubricates an engine’s internal parts without using petroleum-derived solvents.

An ester is a tiny molecule that is smaller than a hydrocarbon, so it penetrates hydrocarbon residue and breaks it up, sending it out the exhaust pipe.

“It’s a cleaning process; it gets between the carbon and the metal and the carbon falls away,” De Vilmorin, adding that it’s good for environment because 99.999 percent of the product is consumed during engine combustion.

Esters occur in nature, and the primary one used by Ethos Environmental originated in palm oil, although the company develops its esters synthetically.

“Otherwise, we’d have to cut down all the palm production in Central and South America,” he chuckled.

However, even being in an environmentally conscious country and state that have mandated clear-air policies, most of Ethos Environmental’s business is with foreign customers.

“Our sales are 10 times greater outside the United States,” De Vilmorin said. “We have huge sales in China, Taiwan, South America and Europe.”

The company has strategic partnerships with Thai and Chinese governments, as well as deals with the national oil companies in Peru, Ecuador and Mexico. It has production plants in Malaga, Spain, and Bangkok, Thailand.

That’s not to say Ethos is not gaining recognition in the United States. The U.S. Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton is using the additive in the jet fuel that powers the huge LCAC air-cushion landing craft that transport equipment from ship to shore.

The Air Force is also initiating a product evaluation later this year.

De Vilmorin would not disclose the company’s annual sales, citing the “quiet period” preceding the company’s initial public offering, slated for sometime in the next few months.

However, the company is “fine financially,” he said. “We’re not in search for monies. We just need to take care of the private investors. It’s time they see some of the rewards.”

Ethos is also developing new engine technology, power sources that will significantly change the century-old internal combustion engine. “It’s very futuristic, and we probably won’t be around to make them, but the basis for the technology is already here,” he said.

The company, which has 40 employees, settled in San Diego in 1997 and began commercial production of the fuel re-formulator after being snubbed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The product was patented in 1992, and De Vilmorin approached the EPA with the notion that the fuel re-formulator could be used as an oxygenate added to fuels to reduce emissions. It would have replaced MTBE, which is now being phased out and replaced by ethanol.

But he got the cold shoulder in the nation’s capital. “We spent time chasing politicians down, but we found out they don’t spend much money. All they want is your money,” he said, pointing out that Archer Daniels Midland Co. spent more than million getting bio-diesel approved for use.

AMD also just happens to be the largest producer of ethanol, a product whose value as a fuel additive is being scrutinized and has been described by some researchers as a “hoax.”

In July, Senator Dianne Feinstein asked the state and federal EPAs to investigate the use of ethanol-blended gasoline after smog levels in Los Angeles increased following the switch from MTBE-blended gasoline.

“Ethos does the same thing, and it’s better for the environment,” De Vilmorin said. “Technologies from 1980s were included in Clear Air Act of 1990, but today we’re 20 years down the road, and there other ways of making things more efficient.”

So why hasn’t this miracle product taken California by storm, especially in light of the record gas prices?

Ethos FR is offered sale to the public on the Ethos website for .95 a pint, but the company is not actively promoting it. The ratio is 1 to 1280, or one ounce per 10 gallons of fuel.

“It is packaged for consumer use, but marketing is too expensive. Sometime in the future I would suspect it’s going to be readily available to everybody, especially with the price of gas going up,” he said.

“We’re a quiet company,” he added. “We have a slogan, we’re an ethical company that has ethical customers, and we sell ethical products.”

How many trees are cut down every year to create single use disposable coffee cups?

According to Sustainability Is Sexy more than 6.5 million trees were cut down in 2006 to create the 16 billion paper cups thrown away. Coffee shop paper cups are not made from recycled paper because of FDA regulation and the fact that recycled paper is not strong enough to hold the liquid and prevent hot coffee leaks and spills. Therefore most paper cups are made from 100% virgin paperwood.

Deforestation is the process by which trees in a forest are cut down. The reasons for deforestation are numerous, including logging (to make paper products), increasing farmland, mining and population expansion. This deforestion creates wastelands and deserts, but in our opinion there is a far more environmentally important result.

Trees are like Carbon Dioxide sponges. They remove carbon from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis and release small amounts of Oxygen back into the atmosphere. Only an actively growing tree can perform this function. The Carbon absorbed by the trees is also compacted into the soil where after millions of years it creates the fossil fuels we use abundantly today. Cutting down trees, exposes this soil and allows this carbon stored in the soil to be realeased back into the atmosphere.

Therefore by chopping down trees we remove the planets natural Carbon Dioxide filter and also release more carbon into the atmosphere from the soil. And as we all know increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a major cause of our global warming environmental problem.

To add to this increased carbon dioxide from deforestation, the creation and then disposable of all these coffee cups, creates even more carbon dioxide. Creating the paper requires large machines that belch out carbon dioxide and burning of non -recycleable used coffee cups also increases carbon emmissions.

Of course planting trees is an excellent way to reduce some of the damage caused by deforestation, but we must also commit to reducing our waste and to reusing our own personal coffee mugs. At http://www.gogreenmug.com a user can personalize a travel mug with uploaded photos, texts and quotes and use this mug at coffee shops to help reduce the waste.

As we look back to the start of the industrial age and assess how we have developed as a society since then, we can certainly point to some amazing developments and technological strides forward, in what is a relatively short space of time.

Since, we learned that we could use the fossil fuels readily found around us as a means of generating power, which in itself leads to so many other applications, we have not looked back. However, it is true to say that we are now in a position to realize what this heady growth has meant to us in terms of potentially catastrophic climate change caused by our actions.

We never realized in the past decades that we were too reliant on fossil fuels until we felt the negative impacts of greenhouse gases at the present time which are largely caused by energy generation. We now realize that we must do something to severely curtail this problem and greenhouse laws are now being introduced to cut down on emissions of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse laws recognize that carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equivalent gases are very dangerous and can cause significant temperature changes and adverse effects on weather and all forms of life. The laws being put in place aim to force the biggest emitters of gases, the largest companies to cut back and to seek alternative measures of energy generation and production.

The UK is one of the very first countries to implement such mandatory laws, which require the biggest companies to curtail carbon footprint which takes effect by 2010 and 2011. By the year 2050, the British government must have already reached its goal in carbon emissions reduction by as much as 80%.

The greenhouse gas laws being introduced in the UK are basically part of a cap and trade scheme, where the government will set a limit on the total amount of greenhouse gases that are acceptable. As these larger companies will have revealed their previous consumption and emission levels, they will be forced to reduce them proactively, as the government will have put a financial value on each ton of carbon.

Relying on consumers, individuals, and big companies to reduce their carbon footprints out of goodwill is simply not enough. Probably the first step of the government’s initiative in addressing greenhouse gas problems, the Carbon Reduction Commitment will significantly help slow down the negative effects of climate change.

While many scientists and environmentalists have been preaching to politicians and society in general about the problem for some time, it has only been in very recent years that any real action has been taken. The Kyoto Protocol was groundbreaking in the late 90s when many countries agreed that action needed to be taken, but little tangible has been done since then. Mandatory compliance to laws which regulate greenhouse gas emissions will become very common.

The United States is being pressured to take a leading role in this initiave. Until today, debates are still going on in the Congress on some greenhouse gas laws, and doubts have risen as to the passing of these into laws like what has been done in the UK.

We have 50 days left to save the world

Prime Minister Gordon Brown from Great Britain puts fuel into the fire before the big meeting in Copenhagen in December.

Gordon Brown states a warning before the Climate Summit starting on December 7th 2009.

The world has only 50 days left to save the world from global warming he states the other day.

Mr. Brown launches a catastrophe scenario with heat waves, floods and periods of droughts unless the Climate Summit agrees on common goals during this meeting.

Brown counted down from 80 days as well, and stated the seriousness in making a green climate agreement in December.

He speaks to 17 top nations around the world, and concludes that if there is no agreement during the 12 days long Summit, much of the hope for a greener planet is over.

There is no Plan B for the earth. During a certain period of time there is only one to two times nations meet to make agreements that can change history, the Summit in Copenhagen is one of these events.

He points out that there will not be any future meetings that can straighten out the destruction already started around the world, and it has to happen fast.

Mr. Gordon Brown states that in the year of 2080 around 1.8 billion humans will suffer from lack of water, and its not only the poor countries that will be touched by the climate crisis coming up on us.

At this trend, Great Britain will have problems only in few decades, he warns us.

The purpose of the Copenhagen Summit in December is to continue and improve the existing Kyoto agreement from 1997, which ends in 2012.

The last time a similar meeting took place was under the coordination of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali in 2007. This meeting really did not accomplish the needed changes in the Kyoto agreement.

Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change, it has been a failure in the hard, expensive work of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Its restrictions have been so gerrymandered that only 36 countries are required to limit their pollution. Just over a third of those — members of the former Eastern bloc — can pollute at will because their limits were set so far above their actual emissions.

China and India, whose fast-rising emissions easily cancel out any cuts elsewhere, are allowed to keep polluting.

And the biggest polluter of all, the United States, has simply refused to join the treaty.

That leaves Western Europe, Canada, Japan and New Zealand to do the work of the world. Their emissions are rising despite their commitment, starting next year, to reduce them by an average of roughly 8% from 1990 levels.

Fixing the flaws of Kyoto has become an urgent crusade, to create the successor to the treaty, which expires at the end of 2012.

The scientists say there is no leeway for weak measures. The push has come from a series of landmark reports by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that concluded that greenhouse gas emissions must begin declining in the next decade to prevent a dangerous temperature rise. The panel laid out a framework for reducing emissions that could cost trillions of dollars over the next two decades.

The UN climate summit in New York on September 23rd did make one concrete step forward. But the step has nothing to do with reduction goals or greenhouse gases. Instead, it has much more to do with one simple political realization: Forget Copenhagen.

US President Barack Obama addressed nearly 100 global leaders gathered in New York for a one-day UN climate summit. The meeting was meant to give momentum to the major United Nations climate change conference to be held in Copenhagen from Dec. 7-18. There, world leaders hope to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, with a new, comprehensive accord on climate change.

The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is essential for the world’s climate and the Danish government and UNFCCC is putting hard effort in making the meeting in Copenhagen a success ending up with a Copenhagen Protocol to prevent global warming and climate changes.

The Climate Conference will take place in the Bella Center. The conference centre is placed not far from Copenhagen and near the Copenhagen Airport, Kastrup.

Governmental representatives from 170 countries are expected to be in Copenhagen in the days of the conference accompanied by other governmental representatives, NGO’s, journalists and others. In total 8000 people are expected to Copenhagen in the days of the climate meeting.

Gordon Brown has said the Copenhagen climate change summit in December is “a profound moment for our world” – but does it have a chance of success?

We can differ in opinion, whether it will be a success or not, however, we just have to hope the skeptics amongst us will be proven wrong, otherwise we are in for a rough ride the next decades to come, and we all will be suffering.

We all know if not USA, China and India together with Russia can make the commitments and follow up on any agreement, any text signed in Denmark this year will be a dead document.

China’s policy changes to combat climate change are a positive element but there are still many challenges to overcome.

According to a report compiled by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), it is estimated at least 20 million people have been displaced due to climate change.

For developing states such as China and India the main issue is how to cope with climate change without compromising economic development. Developed states have long enjoyed the benefits fossil fuel for decades and caused the offset of climate change. Developing nations feel they are at a disadvantageous position without the provision of alternative energy supplies, and find it unfair to emphasize on reducing carbon emissions.  Developing nations house 80% world population but produce only 40% of the world’s emissions, while 60% of global emissions originate from the rich nations that house 20% of the world’s population.  Developing states do not necessarily have the technology or resources to combat climate change, and feel developed states should offer more aid to compensate this gap.  Developing states and developed states remain at odds as to how to spread out greenhouse emission curbs, and how much rich nations should pay poor nations in coping with climate change.

While the European Commission recently proposed that the EU should provide -15 billion annually to poor nations to protect themselves from climate change, it falls short of UN estimates of 0 billion for poor nations to effectively adapt to climate change. Joris den Blanken, climate and energy policy director of Greenpeace-EU has criticized that the EU is just leaving “a tip” instead of “paying the bill for climate change”.

China plays a significant role in combating climate change, as it is one of the biggest carbon emitters and emerging state.  China and USA each account for 20% greenhouse emissions. The EU accounts for 14% emissions, followed by India and Russia 5% each.  China has taken a positive step forward during the G20 summit. China’s President Hu Jintao revealed plans of curbing carbon emission per unit of GDP (i.e. carbon intensity) to a “notable margin” by 2020. China plans to tackle climate change by developing renewable energy, and plant a forest the size of Norway. China also plans to acquire 15% of its energy from clean energy (hydro, wind, and solar energy) by 2020. In comparison EU has set its target at 20%.  However, China has been criticized for not providing specific target numbers in reducing carbon intensity.

So far the US has only provided nice words and rhetoric’s and not implemented any plans with commitment within the budget to reduce the negative effects of climate change.

Japan is the only developed state that has vowed to further reduce carbon emissions to 25% by 2020.

Whether the upcoming Copenhagen summit will be a success will depend on US and China’s political will to commit and follow up in practice with real actions in their own backyard..

In the frenzied search for solutions to the global warming crisis, climatologists, policy makers and other concerned environmentalists have overlooked one of the leading causes of rising temperatures around the globe—soot—the black residue that coats fireplaces and darkens vehicle exhaust.  Black carbon soot may in fact be the second largest contributor to global warming next to the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

According to Stanford environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, “Soot, or black carbon, may be responsible for 15 to 30 percent of global warming, yet it is not even considered in any of the discussions about controlling climate change.” (“Nature”, ScienceDaily, Feb. 9, 2001).  Jacobson also observed that human beings produce most of the soot particles that pollute the atmosphere.  He maintains that soot consists primarily of elemental carbon and that 90 percent of it comes from the consumption of fossil fuels (particularly coal, diesel fuel, jet fuel, natural gas, kerosene) and the burning of wood and other biomass.  Jacobson also claims that a worldwide reduction in soot emissions and controlling biomass burning could quell the alarming pace of global warming and also reduce our reliance on soot-producing fuels. ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010208075206.htm.)

Besides its impact on global warming, soot is bad for your health.  The World Health Organization reports that approximately 2.7 million people die each year from air pollution and that reduction of wood and other biomass burning would mitigate global warming and would also save lives and improve people’s health.  

Other studies have dispelled the myth that burning wood and other biomass is “green or carbon neutral” and that the fine particulates emitted during the combustion process actually hasten climate change. (www.burningissues.org under both “Science” and “Global Warming” headings).

The warming effect of black carbon soot is far greater than previously estimated

Atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and University of Iowa chemical engineer Greg Carmichael found that “black carbon soot, from burning wood and other biomass, cooking with solid fuels, and diesel exhaust has a warming effect in the atmosphere three to four times greater than prevailing estimates.” (Nature Geoscience 1, 221-227 (March 24, 2008).  They calculated that soot and other forms of black carbon particulates may represent as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide and their findings correlated with similar studies from Stanford, Caltech, and NASA.

A simplified explanation for the warming effect is that wood smoke’s fine particulates thin clouds. And as total airborne particulates increase, cloud cover decreases, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth.  According to Ramanathan, approximately 35 percent of black carbon in the global atmosphere comes from China and India.  Yet per capita emissions of black carbon soot from the United States and some European countries is still comparable to those from Asia.  Ramanathan’s research also found that the warming effects of black carbon smog appear to be accelerating the melt of Himalayan glaciers, leading to early drying of a major source of drinking water for billions of people throughout Asia.

The International Global Panel on Climate Change (IGPCC) agreed that black carbon soot is a major contributor to global warming

The 2007 Nobel-winning IGPCC panel of approximately two thousand scientists concluded that black carbon soot has a dire atmospheric warming effect.  This was significant because soot had previously been unaddressed as a major contributor to global warming.  Nor had the amplification of black carbon’s warming effect previously been taken into account when mixed with other aerosols, creating additional secondary fine particulates.

Studies of fine particulates from wood smoke in various communities

An EPA study cites that “In some neighborhoods, on some days, 90% of the particle pollution is from residential wood burning.” (Jane Koenig and Timothy Larson, A Summary of Emissions Characterization and Non-Cancer Respiratory Effects of Wood Smoke, USEPA DOC #453/R-93-036,1-919-541-0888).

A study in two San Jose, California locations showed that wood smoke pollution was 4.4 times that of gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles. (“A Comparison of Source Apportionments of Fine Particulate Matter at Two San Jose, CA Locations,” from San Jose Speciation Trends Network.)

The next step

Because the urgency of reducing black carbon emissions cannot be overstated, reducing soot from wood smoke would offer nearly instant benefits in improving atmospheric conditions in the United States.  It would also offer immediate societal and health benefits.  This would facilitate political and regulatory momentum towards mitigation of black carbon emissions.

It is urgent to advance public awareness of wood smoke’s crucial role in global warming with education and policy changes.

For those interested in more scientific and educational data about wood smoke, see www.burningissues.org. The Burning Issues site was founded in 1988 as a special particulate pollution project of the Bay Area Loma Prieta/Silicon Valley Chapter of the Sierra Club.

“Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.” – Michael Rivero

Frozen Moments at the Altar of Truth

It all started for me in 1959 when I was born, I mean the way I’ve been lied to through mainstream media. One of my earliest memories was sitting in front of the TV with my family after JFK was assassinated. My mother and grandmother weeping uncontrollably, my father and grandfather – avowing that this was a “good man” and it’s “always the best who get taken so young”. I had no idea what was going on, being just four and a half years old – but that moment solidified like crystal in my mind – my first big “frozen moment”.

A few short years later we were all sitting there again in front of the TV at 3am watching Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, uttering those prophetic words. I’ll never forget the neighbour beside us, this old Italian guy who was saying that the entire lunar mission had to be a hoax, we were a bunch of suckers for believing it, it couldn’t be true. Everybody I knew thought he was nuts, myself included. I was busy having my head filled with such grand thoughts about the nobility and goodness of mankind, and like my family and almost all my neighbours, I was once again willing to believe in my heart that whatever these icons of the public trust on TV told us was the absolute truth – after all, these were the same folks who gave us the news every night, every single evening around the dinner hour, so we could find out what’s happening in the world, what to think about, how to judge those people over there, over here, anywhere. I’ll never forget how proud I was watching man walk on the moon, my 10 year old heart bursting out of my chest, feeling so lucky to be alive at that time and watching it on TV. This was a huge “frozen moment”.

There are other mental snapshots which of course remain quite vivid in my mind. Robert Kennedy & Martin Luther King assassinations, the war in Vietnam that spanned my entire childhood, the Nixon Watergate hearings, Iran Contra. It could not enter our mind that anything we saw on television could be any less than the gospel truth, because we live in the Western hemisphere, the best, most noble hemisphere on this planet. Just ask Walter Cronkite, or Dan Rather, or Ronald McDonald, or Barney the Friggin’ Dinosaur – any talking head that props up in a medium shot while occupying the standard 4 by 3 aspect ratio, mind-inhibiting confines of this ribald human invention. They must be telling the truth – gotta be real, after all, “I saw it on TV”.

Jump to Sept. 11th 2001.

I’m sitting in my office when a news bulletin flashes on my computer screen and I’m alerted to the 9/11 attack in NYC. As if by some secret homing mechanism, my workmates also wander outside of their respective cells and converge in the communal coffee area – and so it starts, we immediately begin parroting the official myth fed to us by the news media about this event. Talk is about Osama and the crazed 19 Muslim hijackers. Ooh boy, those rag-heads are goona get theirs, those bastards are sure to pay – I hope Uncle Sam really nukes them back to the stone age for what they’ve done, and on and on we chattered for days and weeks, all the while being spun and manipulated as always. The biggest “frozen moment” of my life so far.

I’ll never forget that day and the horror of watching those planes hit the towers, or the people falling to their tragic deaths, and like the other “shock and awe” moments, I can literally close my eyes and transport myself to that situation, just like I was there at that very moment. And when I remember, the images and ideas as portrayed to me by my lifelong companion the television are there in my mind, with the pictures, movies, sounds – Nay, it isn’t really there with me – it IS me. I’m nothing more, at those times in my life, than a biological download mechanism that will barf up all the crud it’s been fed by the societal teat from which I’d been trained to suckle on for all my ideas and opinions since birth.

And so another 5 years will elapse, almost every single day – let’s catch some news and see what’s happening, let’s tune in before bed and follow that story, let’s wrap our life around this version of reality, which is hardly any reality at all. But I still didn’t know that, not until 5 full years after 9/11.

“Doubt is the vestibule which we all must pass through before we can enter the temple of truth” – osho

Awakening

Thank you 9/11.

Once I saw the truth about this event my life changed forever, and ultimately for the better. It didn’t happen all at once, nor was it easy or very pleasant at all, this process demands so much of you, and unless you are the kind of person capable of a paradigm shift you won’t get there. Doesn’t matter how smart, how much money, how high you can jump – not everyone is able to look objectively at their social conditioning, step outside of themselves and honestly analyze their programming, fiddle with the knobs and make an adjustment. I remember this “moment” as the biggest, most life changing of all – that exact instant when I “got it”, and it wasn’t just the getting of 9/11 that was realized at that pivotal moment. It was so much more, for I knew in that nanosecond that I had apprehended a truth – I could now define a mechanism of which media was only but an important part. This gigantic contrivance that could so easily promulgate these lies was now revealed to me, and deserved my faith in their impartiality and honesty for the last time. I had depended on them for more than 40 years of my life, and it turns out they are quite willing to not only lie to everyone, but even more important – I realized that there are so many things they are willing to not tell us at all.

“We won’t get fooled again” – the Who

That moment of illumination occurred while I was listening to a lecture by Dr. David Ray Griffin, he was explaining why the official account of 9/11 could not be true – the logic irrefutable, the proofs incontrovertible, the evidence overwhelming, but what struck me most was the grace and dignity of this man, able to manifest such a positive aspect in the revealing of truth, all the while dealing face to face with such an ugly, disgusting reality. Probably the last “frozen moment” I will ever experience.

“You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself.” Galileo Galilei

And so I sat atop this long slope looking straight back down at my life which ascended upward like one side of a pyramid, the slant provided to me by my once trusted patriarchal friend the media, it was time to say goodbye. My existence was different from that moment on, and so was my relationship with the world, like when you find out that your best friend has been sleeping with your girlfriend for the last 2 years and everybody’s been lying about it to your face. I vowed to myself at that very moment that I would refuse to accept any more lies in my life, and I would take responsibility for my own opinions. I made a promise to no longer listen to BS without calling to account those responsible for the lies and hypocrisy. At the very least we should stand for something worthwhile in our lives, like truth.

It was too convenient to settle on the official explanations for 9-11 at the time, and I forgive myself, and you too if you still believe them. It would simply be unreasonable for me to be at odds with anyone just because they occupied a temporal reality where I once stood.

I have yet to meet an ignorant man whose roots are not embedded in my soul. – Kahlil Gibran

If somebody came to me a year before I was open to the truth, I would have probably got angry and turned them aside. The best we can hope for is to present people with anomalies regarding the official narrative, and let each person face the myriad incongruities and come to their own conclusions. You see, some people figured it out right away, but finding out the truth is not any indication of how intelligent you are – that judgement comes later. It took me 5 years, not because I couldn’t understand it, but rather because I was unaware of it, and didn’t even consider that what I was told was false.

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” Galileo Galilei

It’s the classic difference between ignorance and stupidity – I was ignorant, I became aware of the facts, no more ignorance. A stupid person, however, continues to believe something even after receiving lots of information to the contrary. If you don’t know the truth about 9/11 you must educate yourself, if you do know the truth then you are compelled to educate others. Looking back is not easy, neither is facing the real truth about the situation now. I disagree with those who say, never mind 9-11, let’s deal with the war, or the environment – there are all these other problems now – that was 6 years ago. WRONG – BIG X on that one. It is my firm belief that if we are unable to approach the biggest examples of deceit and injustice so prevalent at this very moment, it behooves us to examine that which is really important in our lives, not to mention any concerns of social conscience or morality. I’m so sick of hearing about the “war on terror”, about “al Qaeda”, etc. So much suffering and injustice has resulted from the continued insistence on this mythology – predicated on the lie of 9/11.

“You cannot win a War on Terrorism. It’s like having a war on jealousy” – David Cross

“The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything.” – Albert Einstein

This issue calls everyone to account, you have to make a decision, and its not a happy conclusion to arrive at, so many prefer to remain comfortable within the lie – the problem being, there are many fellow human beings on this planet who are getting killed every day, right now as a matter of fact. Each day this continues we must ask ourselves how and if our actions, or non actions, are contributing to this injustice. It sickens me, I hate this situation – I didn’t create it yet I must face this moral dilemma – if I don’t speak out against it and do everything within my power to change it, then I must admit I’m part of the problem that allows it to continue. I don’t want my great great grandchildren to look back and say, “Why did the people of WWII Germany and 21st century America allow Hitler and Bush to gain so much power and commit such atrocities?” “Gee, I don’t know, Fleeble-Bop Four of Seven, I guess those people were just spineless sheep”.

“He who allows oppression, shares the crime.” – Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin

“Noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good.” – Gandhi

When I was young I used to enjoy watching those old WWII movies, and I’m sure that like most people, along with pretending I was one of the valiant heroes being portrayed, I wondered how folks in Germany could allow Hitler and his Nazis to gain such power in that country. Now I understand, many of the German people were as much victims as all of us at this moment, unable to voice their opinions without being ridiculed and attacked, rights and freedoms taken away by a fascist state, having to bear the ignominy of witnessing your government commit acts of genocide, terror and torture, all the while pretending to be noble and good. And let’s not forget our old friend the television – gone are the days of my youth when we could witness some actual journalistic integrity on the news, along with some innocently entertaining shows like “Gilligan’s Island”. Now we must listen to the corporate propaganda machine spew forth so much sewage they call news, all the while trying to amuse and divert us with salacious filth and mindless stupidity dressed as entertainment.

“Men are more easily governed through their vices than through their virtues.” Napoleon Bonaparte

I used to think that knowledge of humanity was cumulative, that we could learn from the examples throughout history and say, no, Nazi Germany could never happen now, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just a one-off, we’ll never make those mistakes again. True freedom must be defended continually, and against all enemies. People have asked me, aren’t you afraid of speaking out about 9-11, aren’t you worried? Now whom should I be worried about, the awful Muslim radical type Al Qaeda terrorists that have been so well defined by the US government, or the US government itself?

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln

Come on folks, is anybody really falling for the oldest trick in the book? First, you must make the people afraid that they will be attacked, so we attack ourselves and frighten the bejeezes out of everybody, then we smear and vilify anybody who doesn’t defend our position as being unpatriotic, and sympathetic to the terrorists. It’s the old “bait and switch” routine, and if you buy it so readily then go downtown and play a few games of 3 Card Monty – I hear there’s pretty good odds there too. My being gets filled with revulsion when I watch that “commander in filth” stand there and utter ridiculous statements like, “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists”. Now what kind of specious, dumb-ass logic is that? Especially when you consider that he himself is the terrorist in question. Reminds me of that original Star Trek episode “The Changeling” when they slap the anti-gravs onto Nomad the robot. “If you are the creator then you are perfect, but if you made a mistake then you cannot be the creator”. Now let’s try it today, “If I am not with you, then I am with the terrorists, but, if you are the terrorist, then how can I be with you and not with the terrorists…. Kaboom!” Me and Nomad both have smoke billowing out our ass – where’s the miniskirt blond from Rigel 6 when you need her?

“It takes a whole village to raise an idiot, and a controlled media to make him president” – Peter Zaza

Realize that everything you experience from the limited lamestream media perspective is a form of low-level reality – riddled with half-truths, partial-truths, and a lot of no-truths at all. Designed to confuse and program you, the enemy – yes, that’s right – it isn’t some Iraqi, or Iranian, or Korean, or Chinese – they are all targets as well, nobody is exempt from this vast scourge creeping over the earth – and lest you think this is mere paranoia, the proof is now being publicly exposed everywhere, all you have to do is open your eyes, or more directly – open your mind. The proof is in the utter secrecy surrounding plans for unification, the proof is in the writings of the United Nations and Agenda 21, the CFR, the Bilderberg Group. The proof is in the way they have been systematically spraying the skies of this planet for 4 decades now, and denying it. Just go outside and look up, or if you don’t get out much – look up “Chemtrails” on your Google. Lots of theories about this one; are they dumping chemicals that cause or inhibit global warming? Are they forcing some mind altering drug on everyone? Is it connected to the HAARP technology? Is it killing off the bees? Weather creation? Population control? Let’s get some answers, after all – we’re being sprayed like cockroaches, and our tax dollars and health are paying for it.

More proof

The proof is in the way I have yet to hear one cogent, logical explanation from the US government about key issues concerning the 9/11 tragedy, like WTC 7 and its mystery collapse, like molten metal found under all 3 sites, like stand-down of the military, like put options, like war-games, like gag orders, like evidence destruction, like the first time the NTSB doesn’t do an investigation on a plane crash, like many warnings not to fly, like melting of steel by jet fuel, like no black box recordings released, like wire transfers of money to supposed terrorists, etc. One of my biggest proofs is the fact that the upholders of the official story continue to shout smears and ad hominem attack on anyone who questions any of these anomalies – but absolutely refuses to address the issues raised and offer resolution of the incongruities put forth. The proof is in the way I’ve sent many letters to politicians, newspapers and magazines concerning 9/11 truth – and not one single person has ever had the decency to write me back, or even acknowledge receipt of my communication – yet, every time I have written to people like Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Bob Bowman, Barry Zwicker, Kevin Barrett, Paul Craig Roberts, and many others, I get a reply – usually within a few days.

One important proof worth considering is the fact that those planes had not even brought down those towers yet and we had news reports about the al Qaeda terrorists and Osama being fed to us. Did anybody think to ask within those first few hours what evidence there was, and how did they get this evidence? Those forensics boys work pretty quick, but that’s ridiculous. I’d like to know how anybody can piece together a case like that and have it announced while we’re still watching a gaping, smoking hole in the WTC towers.

I suppose it was important to begin inculcating everyone with the myth at this critical time – the wound is wide open, time to implant the insidious virus which will begin it’s work – you always remember the first story you hear as being the most logical, especially when your reasoning faculties are suppressed and more easily manipulated. Subjects are in a state of shock – training over decades has bred complacent, child like collective mentality that looks toward authority figure of government for help and direction. People will easily be imprinted with the first story that fits their world and offers any explanation or possible resolution. The psychological warfare and it’s manipulations of the public consciousness is capped off with the date itself, 911, my goodness, when there is a huge emergency what do you do? Better call 911. There’s fear, panic, dogs refuse to bark all over the neighborhood, help me daddy, I’m calling, can’t you hear me, 911, 911…

The proof is in the way I haven’t seen one piece of evidence that those 19 Arab guys were even on any of those airplanes, no passenger manifests, no pictures or video tapes from the airport showing them boarding planes, no record of ticket purchases. Don’t you see how obviously ridiculous it is? Come on – you’ve got the airport videos showing passengers, so just show us the video of the hijackers with the other passengers, we will all believe you in 2 seconds if you show the proof, what? you don’t want to release the information to back up your case? Why the hell should I believe your story when you have evidence but won’t show it to me, that just tells me what you say is a lie. No video of the “plane” hitting the Pentagon either, or the seized tapes from a gas station and hotel nearby. Why on earth would you want to withhold such vital evidence unless you were guilty? There is simply no logical explanation for them hiding and destroying the evidence, unless the evidence points directly at them.

Perhaps the best theory I’ve heard about this event is the one put forth by Webster Griffin Tarpley. He explains how there were around 20 or more war game exercises taking place the day of 9/11, with more than a few of them enacting scenarios wherein hijacked planes would be flown into buildings. At the last couple of seconds, the drill is “flipped live” and the attack being simulated is committed for real. Tarpley explains how the secret network responsible have moles infiltrating the highest levels of government in order to pull off this complex operation, using CIA groomed Muslim patsies to take the fall. He also explains how the shadow government threatens Bush, and gets him to capitulate to their demands or else “angel is next”. In effect, there was a coup that took place that day – code words fly about the globe, secret agencies from other countries have parts to play, the military is running around all confused playing war games, other nations are on high alert – it’s like a well-crafted espionage novel except we are still living it – the way I figure, right now in the story is about the time you and I jump in and do something. Would you be surprised to discover that the London 7/7 bombings also had drills involving terrorist bombers being played out at the exact same time the actual events occurred? Incredible coincidence, eh Watson?

Meet the Press

“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. “I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. “The business of the Journalist is to destroy truth; To lie outright; To pervert; To vilify; ….. We are intellectual prostitutes” – John Swinton, the former chief of staff of the New York Times 1880

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” – William Colby, former CIA director

“We know in the not too distant future, a half dozen corporations are going to control the media.

We took this step (merger) to ensure we were one of them”–Time Warner spokesperson.

That’s the nub of it for ya – currently there are 5 corporations that own all of the mainstream media, and those same people have vested interests in the military industrial complex. They make all kinds of wonderful products that enrich our lives, as well as bombs that kill and mutilate – pass the sugar. We have been trained our entire life to believe that what we see on that TV is somehow representative of reality. And now? Now I believe that you can take whatever message they give you – search for the diametrical opposite in your mind, and be sure that the negative value of what they say is instead the truth. Show me the United Nations with their slogans about peace and harmony, I’ll tell you about misery and bloodshed. Sing me the lyrical song about Harmonization and Prosperity – I will tell you about corporate fascism, segregation and cultural divisiveness. Talk about bringing Freedom and Democracy to Iraq – just look at the tyranny and genocide. Watch the fecal matter fly out of their mouths about the “War on Drugs” – I’ll show you a CIA complicit in the Central American and Afghanistan drug trade. Then we can look at the big business of the prison industrial complex, a commercialized system of slave labour. Corrections facilities are filled with many people who have never aggressed upon another individual, or another person’s property – locked up for years of their life, in some cases working for 20 cents an hour for big American Companies who don’t have to worry about employee benefits – and they get to use labels that say “made in the USA”.

War on Drugs? War on Poverty? War on Terror? It’s always war on somebody with these people – marginalization and exclusion of a targeted group, aggression, deceit, injustice. Create that differential through disturbance, because when there’s a steady state there is no movement, fluctuation provides great opportunity for profit and control. If you have prescient knowledge of the variables, you can create the crisis, induce reaction, offer resolution, and clean up profit-wise on the differential inherent in the controlled dynamic. Slap on a few no-bid contracts for your buddies, adjust a few widgets here, shove these assets over there, kill those ones there, no wait, sorry, I meant kill those ones AND those ones over there. Set up the false left-right struggle and watch the boneheads duke it out – all the while we control both sides, so guess who always has to win. Look in the mirror everybody – what a putz!

How far should we go? Maybe we could explore the malfeasance inherent within the entire Federal Reserve System, a misnomer of course – they are not Federal, and they don’t have any reserves. What about the IRS, absolutely ruining peoples lives for how many decades now without the legal authority to actually do anything. The CIA? Tell me how its ok to use tax dollars to plan military takeovers of democratically elected governments, or carry out assassinations, import drugs, and contravene any pretense of international law. Oh, and as a complete non sequitur – I could never figure out why the big reconstruction contracts for Iraq were not handed to the Iraqis themselves, give them a wage, let them build their country back up while building up their bank accounts, the bootstrap thing, the American way – You know, all that horse-shit! Enough examples, there are literally hundreds of things we could talk about at great length – and it just makes you sick, assuming you have a pulse.

I’ve stopped paying attention whatsoever to mainstream media, like many others I utilize alternative news sources that provide me with more honest accounts of reality than the TV’s lead story and the never ending web of lies. I’ve lost so much anger and frustration with my life through this awakening, and it’s all because I’ve figured out how and why I’ve been manipulated for so long. I used to sit there and swear at the TV, feeling as if my intelligence was being insulted, but not understanding why. About 20 years ago I started putting on the mute button during all the commercials, so then I would just swear at the news. I used to play video games, now I don’t – perhaps such activities provide a release mechanism for all that pent up frustration. I stopped wondering why every single network would carry the same stories, the same way – stopped wondering why that cheese-dick kid in Asia was wearing the same stupid shorts half way down his ass with a ball-cap turned sideways, or backwards on purpose, as all those other cheese-dick kids in the States, Italy, you name it. I had to wonder what force could make the same styles and trends popular everywhere, at the same time. Don’t you ever wonder about such things? like when a movie or book comes out dealing with the wild west, or aliens, or whatever – a bunch of others come out at the same time, and not just copycats mimicking to cash in on a popular idea, I mean they all get released concurrently, it’s as if the popular culture is dictated to and operating via mandate, and indeed it is. Network television is thus relegated to the same level of truth and integrity as any late night infomercial we are beleaguered with when yon Morpheus denies us respite from the daily moil.

After somebody lies to me 10,000 times over my entire life, I’m a bit reticent to believe their stories “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event” like hearing some actual truth for once. They must be telling a lie – after all, “I saw it on TV”.

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers” – Thomas Jefferson

The conservation of the Amazônia becomes a more important topic each day on the discussions on the climatic change and global warming, due to its relevance as a vanquisher of carbon and as a repository of biodiversity and a natural regulator of vapors in the atmosphere and the climate. It is unquestionable that we need to conserve, being that the days of discordance between radical environmentalists and developers of short vision are a thing of the past. Both have changed: environmentalists, in their majority, have started to recognize and to take in to consideration the socio-economic imperative; governments and developers understand the necessity of cooperation in environmental subjects with implications that are as much global as local. Strengthening both views are the economic damages of 2005, a year of simultaneous dry rivers in Amazônia and terrible hurricanes (including Katrina) in the Caribbean and United States.

In this new understanding of economical-environmental damages, it is amazing how we all are not (and by all I refer to the 25 million Brazilian Amazônians) pledged in the preservation of Amazônia. However, the greater part of these 25 million, still adopt the older equation: the fallen forests carry more value than the uncut. Cattle herding, wood harvesting and agriculture are more lucrative activities than the sustainable extraction of chestnut, oils and essences.

      Traditionally, legal wood harvesting is something bureaucratically excessive for small proprietors and excessively risky for large companies, the land is cheap and abundant which promotes the continuous use of new areas, and the monitoring and application of laws are excessively weak to keep the formality valuable. In recent years, the main change to this equation comes from Brazilian institutions that have improved on monitoring and application of laws, what has thus increased the cost of informality,without, however, interfering with the attractiveness of formality. This change in the equation has had the beneficial effect of reducing deforestation. However, as a collateral effect, the productivity level has dropped in many poor areas and, traditionally, more informal, where small entrepreneurs and independent workers are not willing to or cannot adhere to the formal economy. Such is the case when we see the presence of the Federal Police being retaliated against during the Fire Arc operation.

The federal government has dealt with part of the problem by means of social programs as the Bolsa Família, but the most important action, to make the region economically viable, still crawls. The national vision that Amazônia is only an environmental issue in the same way that the northeast is only a social issue contributes with nothing. We are not only an environmental issue and therefore the discussion of our future cannot be only an environmental quarrel. It is also social, economic and political. The solution must be environmentally right, socially just, economically viable, and politically balanced, which has already been said by Prof. Samuel Benchimol.

      Some state governments have developed other innovative solutions in search of this viability. In Amazonas, the state policies have sought to supply incentives to change the economic equation by means of:

Setting minimum prices for products of sustainable forms, as oils, essences and latex, so that these can be front-runners in the battle against deforestation; Establishment of the Bolsa Floresta, a program of transference of income for families who inhabit the forest, that demands the compromise for non-deforestation, verified by satellite; Dramatical increase of the investment in science and technology, intended for the development of sustainable technologies that can eventually reveal the forest as more economically valuable in its natural state; Technical support for small proprietors and courses on forestry, forest handling and fisheries, so that we may make use of the best practical strategies of increasing productivity in a sustainable form; Licensing of Deeds of Property of the land so that those in possession may start to be proprietors and can begin to count on the benefits of having an asset of value in the market and financially recognize their obligations and duties; Licensing of Preferential Financing through the agency of state promotion for small scale projects in sustainable sectors such as fisheries, forest handling, production of honey, etc.

The monitoring and the application of the laws are also being improved, but in order to complement the mentioned initiatives.

All these efforts have a clear objective: to re-equalize the valuation of standing forests for those that live in it. From an economic point of view, our objective is to include the externalities in the equation.

It is important, however, to remember that, even though it provides local benefits, the most significant benefits may be observed in other places, by means of the prevention of the climatic changes around of the globe, the change of regional rain averages, and the loss of biodiversity in the world. For example, the energy that is supplied to the southeast of Brazil is, to a large extent, generated by a hydroelectric plant that uses rain waters generated and recycled in Amazônia. Deforestation reduces the rain recycling and can have a harmful impact on the generation of national energy. One arrives, in this way, at the topic of the valuation of the given environmental services to the world (including Brazil) by the Amazonian forest.

Currently, the State of Amazonas and the Brazilian government finance its policies of preservation by means of proper budgets. The budget of Amazonas of approximately R.000 per inhabitant per year is not enough to cover the costs of health, education and provision of other governmental services for our population; even less, to finance the rebalancing of the equation. This is a special state, in which a domestic flight can take up to two hours and cost more than R.000.

The possibility of valuation of environmental services provided by the forest is the biggest economic opportunity of Amazônia today. In the past we had rubber, in the future we will probably have the technology to use the natural laboratory to our advantage, on the extent of which is unimaginable today; presently, for the region as a whole, environmental services can be the solution. Amazônia small rivers give the environmental services of maintenance of the climate and water cycle, prevention of global heating, and conservation of biodiversity, amongst others. With only one pertinent difference: without compensation.

Taking a step in this direction, Amazonas in conjunction with the Foundation for Sustainable Amazonas celebrated a partnership with the chain of hotels Marriott to preserve an area of 5 thousand km ², seeking the improvement of the living conditions for the local population (approximately one thousand inhabitants) and having as a counterpart the conservation of the area and subsequent provision of environmental services. This reserve, located on the River Juma, is situated in the arc of the deforestation, in such a way that, in a “normal” scenario, would be deforested in the next years.

This project is based on an initial donation on the part of the chain of hotels and, subsequently, the contributions of guests who opt on paying an additional small amount to contribute to the reserve. The project destines itself to implement improvements in monitoring and the Bolsa Floresta program, lead by the Foundation for Sustainable Amazonas, presided over by former-Minister Furlan and former-Secretary of the Environment of Amazonas Virgílio Viana. With respect to monitoring, the main actions include the use of satellite in conjunction with the presence of well equipped points of monitoring by land. The Bolsa Floresta program, aside from a payment of R monthly to the families who do not participate in deforestation, also disperses payments of approximately R0 per year for families of the small communities. This additional expense must be spent through a communitarian organization (R per family), sustainable economic activities (R0 per family) and social improvements (R0 per family, aiming at education, health, transport and communication).

Two factors of the project are in disagreement with the rolls of policies of development previously attempted in the country.

The financing does not come from the public budget and yes, in this case, from the donation and income obtained by the Foundation. The communities decide on how to better use the resources, and not bureaucrats separated by thousands of kilometers of distance.

The project is seeking to be compensated with VREs (voluntary reductions of carbon emissions) following CCB methodology (the main standard for forest carbon projects), due to the estimated reduction in deforestation. The CCB methodology is emerging as the standard means of evaluation of REDD projects (Reduction of Emissions based on Deforestation and Degradation), which is of extreme relevance for the Amazonian region.

Amongst the many positive factors in this example, it is of great importance the advent of the economic initiative swaying in favor of the standing forest. Thus begins the change in the economic equation “the standing forest vs. the fallen forest.” Only this re-balancing can permit the creation of a sustainable economy on Amazônia of which we will be proud of.

      With partners such as Marriott and Bradesco, the State of Amazonas will be able to reach a scenario in which the deforestation, already at a low level (of about 750 km ² or 0.05% of the state per year), will be reduced to zero. The necessity of the magnifying of these efforts is evident, leaving doubts only as to how to complete the task.

Although the hope and expectation exists that more responsible citizens and companies will voluntarily extend their contributions to similar projects (in case you are one of them, visit the site www.fas-amazonas.org), almost a thousand similar projects would be necessary to cover all of Amazônia. The accurate solution to protect all of the 4,3 million km ² of Brazilian Amazônia can occur by a new international regimen of valuation and payment for environmental services. Today, this regimen is contemplated to assume the gap following the conclusion of the Kyoto Protocol that will end in 2012; Amazonas proposes that we receive credits from carbon (for the storage of carbon) or credits for any other environmental processes (to a large extent covered in CCB methodology) in exchange for the conservation. Knowing that the benefits will be enjoyed by all, nothing more just than sharing the costs with all.

      Let us remember the rules of social justice, political balance, economic viability and environmental adequacy (Prof. Benchimol). The conservation of the forest ceases to be a sign of absence of men and economic inactivity to become a sign of humanity and regional strength.

The Copenhagen Climate Conference in December of last year emphasized once more that climate changes are occurring because of advancing industrialization and of compounding population growth. Continuing combustion of fossil fuels, grazing cattle, deforestation, thawing permafrost, and beetle infestations are some of the leading causes of new greenhouse gas emissions.

The media report regularly on the effects of accumulating greenhouse gases by referring to only one of its many effects; the effect of global warming. It is not incidental that they report on the most minor manifestation of atmospheric greenhouse gas accumulation. During the last two centuries, average global temperatures have increased by less than one degree Celsius or less than two degrees Fahrenheit. Such a small increase is not perceptible to most humans. In fact, inhabitants of northern latitudes consider moderate warming as a most welcome benefit.

Instead, the destructive effects of greenhouse gas accumulation show themselves in several other, more convincing incarnations. Glaciers on mountains and in the Polar Regions are melting at accelerating rates and lead to worldwide sea level rises. These sea level rises are not negligible and are not trifling. Sea levels are rising much faster than predicted by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations. Much of Florida, Manhattan, and many other large coastal areas of the world will be inundated by seawater before the end of the twenty-first century!

Climate changes are another major threat. Climatologists are not quite certain about the extent of changes that very small deviations of historic local and global temperatures will have in the future. Observations over the last several decades have established clearly that the number and the effects of violent weather in the form of heat waves, severe floods, violent windstorms, and long-lasting droughts are on the rise.

Other consequences relate to changes that are still partially hidden. It is becoming increasingly clear that modestly elevated temperatures cause local climate changes and have a pronounced and undeniable effect on the local biosphere. Animal and plant species are driven to extinction by local and regional climate changes. This effect is still moderate but seems to become more widespread.

In view of all these observations many climatologists even are concerned that other, major “tipping points” can be induced potentially by the additive effects of accumulating greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. The deflection of the Gulf Stream, originating from the Gulf of Mexico and flowing towards the Arctic Ocean on the northern shores of Russia, is considered a realistic possibility. The climatic repercussions would be devastating for most of Europe.

Despite all these telling observations and despite independent, scientific computations that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will interfere with energy flows from the Sun to our Earth and with energy losses from the Earth to Outer Space, many individuals still deny the interference of greenhouse gases on global and local climates.

What can and must be done to eliminate the growing dangers of irreparable harm to ecosystems and to climate systems of planet Earth?

Unfortunately, there is only one realistic option. The world community must stop all fossil fuel burning in the very near future. Only by such drastic measures can major damages to world economies be prevented.

Early in 2010, there is nobody who knows the level of greenhouse gases that must be maintained for preventing coastal inundation and serious climate deterioration. Most likely, that level will be in the range of 300 ppm to 350 ppm carbon of dioxide in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, a sudden stoppage of fossil fuel burning will have ruinous consequences on world economies if not implemented very carefully and with much preparation and planning. It is mandatory that world economies continue their uninterrupted growth in view of growing populations. This means that plentiful and affordable replacement energies must become available before the use of fossil fuels can be halted.

Conservation measures, carbon taxes, and cap and trade measures cannot stop carbon dioxide emissions. Only the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources can accomplish that non-negotiable result. When committing suicide in a closed garage, it does not matter if one keeps a Rolls Royce or a Beetle running. Cap and trade measures can only delay but not prevent the day of reckoning.

The window of opportunity for preventing the worst consequences of an overheating Earth is closing fast. At best, world economies have fifty years left for stopping all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Emissions of other greenhouse gases must be halted by stopping them at the source.

There is only one other measure that may relieve greenhouse gas accumulation eventually; we must learn to retrieve carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Inventors need to be challenged and supported to develop a process for cleaning carbon dioxide from the atmosphere without using large amounts of energy.