Arctic Amplification refers to the fact the Arctic as a whole, over the last 40 years has warmed twice as much as the rest of the World, due to changes in sea ice extent and duration, as well as land-based snow cover because of warming caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels combustion.
If that weren't bad enough, it now turns out that there are two "positive" feedback mechanisms kicking into gear, as the Arctic continues to warm due to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Melting/thawing permafrost, which releases methane, CH4, a greenhouse gas at least 22x more potent than carbon dioxide, CO2, and now, a new one, the increasingly smaller and thinner Arctic sea ice cover:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093
"As if the melting methane-packed permafrost and shrinking Arctic ice sheets weren't enough, NASA scientists have gone and uncovered a brand new feedback loop that could hasten climate catastrophe. Climate feedback loops, to the uninitiated, are phenomena that worsen the warming effect when triggered—which further worsens said phenomena, and around we go.
The permafrost is probably the gnarliest: there's a truly stupendous amount of greenhouse gases trapped in the frozen tundras across Siberia, Alaska, Canada, etc. As the permafrost melts, it releases those gases into the atmosphere, which warms it up, and melts more permafrost. If warming keeps apace, permafrost could soon contribute 35% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. That's terrifying.
So is this: "Researchers have known for years that large amounts of methane are frozen in Arctic tundra soils and in marine sediments ... But now a multi-institutional study led by Eric Kort of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory [ science! eds... ] has uncovered a surprising and potentially important new source of methane: the Arctic Ocean itself."
That emphasis is mine, and a correct reading of the quote will include a dramatic and cartoony 'duhn-duhn-duhn' sound effect registered immediately after. And believe you me, it's justified. NASA scientists say that when they flew research flights over areas in the Arctic Sea where the ice was breaking up, they encountered higher than usual levels of methane. They then set out trying to determine where it came from:
By comparing the locations of the enhanced methane levels with airborne measurements of carbon monoxide, water vapor, and ozone, the researchers from six institutions pinpointed a source: the ocean surface, in places where there were cracks and openings in the sea ice cover. The cracks were allowing methane in the top layers of the sea to escape into the atmosphere. The team did not detect enhanced methane levels over areas of solid ice.In other words, cracks in sea ice are allowing methane trapped in surface ocean to escape into the atmosphere. More warming means more cracks, which means more methane (and remember methane is a much more potent heat-trapping gas than carbon), which means more cracks.
Kort noted that previous studies had detected high concentrations of methane in Arctic surface waters, but no one had predicted that this dissolved methane would find its way into the overlying atmosphere ... “It’s possible that as large areas of sea ice melt and expose more ocean water, methane production may increase, leading to larger methane emissions,” he said. “While the methane levels we detected weren’t particularly large, the potential source region, the Arctic Ocean, is vast."
Further investigation certainly must be done to uncover the true scope of this threat, but it certainly doesn't sound good..."
Researchers over the past several years have established that the last time global the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 390 ppm (250,000 years ago), sea levels were 5-7 metres (18-25 ft.) higher than they are currently. Just 50 years ago the CO2 concentration was 300 ppm.
And now, at several places across the Earth, measurements of 400 ppm are being recorded:
It is unknown, at this time, how long it will take the planetary global atmospheric/oceanic/climate system to respond, and sea levels to rise the inevitable 8 or more metres, from what they are now. It could take a few decades, or a few centuries. That will make a big difference, in how developed "civilisation" as we know it, will be able to respond, and continue, without massive disruptions.
Given all that, and the fact that globally, droughts, flooding, severe weather, and increasing climate chaos will continue to escalate as we continue to increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 4-5 ppm yearly with no concerted global effort to decrease them, what are we seeing in this country, any signs of concern or effort to address this increasingly dire situation?
Well, no, what we get is this:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/24-4Well, no, what we get is this:
How Obama Helped Authorize Shell's Drilling the Arctic
by Pratap Chatterjee
President Barack Obama personally helped Shell obtain authorization to drill for oil in Alaska, according to a 4,678 word front page article in the New York Times. This is a startling break from decades long U.S. policy which regarded the environment in the Arctic region too fragile to tamper with.
“(T)he president concluded that the reward was worth the risk, and created an unusual interagency group, overseen by a midlevel White House aide, to clear Shell’s path through the often fractious federal regulatory bureaucracy,” write John Broder and Clifford Krauss.
In November 2010, almost two years after he was elected, Obama told William K. Reilly and Carol M. Browner, two former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, what he wanted them to do. “Where are you coming out on the offshore Arctic?” he asked. “What that told me,” Reilly told the New York Times, “was that the president had already gotten deeply into this issue and was prepared to go forward.”
The article describes the clash between two powerful men, Edward Itta, the former mayor of Inupiat North Slope Borough, and Pete Slaiby, Shell Alaska vice president. The story is already the basis of a new book, “The Eskimo and the Oil Man: The Battle at the Top of the World for America’s Future,” by Bob Reiss.
Shell spent over $35 million lobbying for the permission during the Obama adminstration. Marvin Odum, president of Shell North America, and Sara B. Glenn, a lobbyist, visited the White House 19 times to meet with Obama’s staff.“We never would have expected a Democratic president — let alone one seeking to be ‘transformative’ — to open up the Arctic Ocean for drilling.” --Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club
Some environmental groups are astonished at Obama’s role. “We never would have expected a Democratic president — let alone one seeking to be ‘transformative’ — to open up the Arctic Ocean for drilling,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club told the New York Times.
Protests against Shell’s plan have been ongoing for years. On Wednesday, activists launched two reports at the company’s annual meeting in the Hague. “Risking Ruin : Shell’s dangerous developments in the Tar Sands, Arctic, and Nigeria report” by the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) and “Out in the Cold – Investor Risk in Shell’s Arctic Exploration” from Platform, Greenpeace and FairPensions.
“Our village has been there 4000 years. Our biggest concern is spilled oil getting into the ocean and affecting the marine mammals that we depend upon. Your clean-up ability is not adequate,” Robert Thompson, a village of Kaktovik on the edge of the Arctic Ocean in Alaska, told shareholders.
Others indigenous activists spoke out also about Shell’s impact in other countries. “Shell has failed to address our concerns in Canada’s tar sands, by not meeting environmental standards and past agreements, and refusing to address their impacts on our constitutionally-protected treaty rights, leaving us with no option but to sue them,” said Eriel Deranger from Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN). “Our Chief has said ‘Enough is enough!’ We fully intend to challenge all Shell’s future projects until they can demonstrate a true willingness to implement our rights.”
According to a report from the UK Tar Sand Network, five protestors wearing masks that combined Shell’s logo with a skull stood silently throughout the meeting reminding the shareholders of the grave human rights and environmental injustices Shell has brought to communities in Nigeria, Rossport (Ireland), the Arctic and Canada.
Pratap Chatterjee is the author of two books about
the war on terror: Halliburton's Army: How a Well-Connected Texas Oil Company
Revolutionized the Way America Makes War and Iraq, Inc. (Seven Stories Press, 2004).
Another good description of how the Arctic drilling scenario is coming to pass, is here:
http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/4-billion-lobbying-blitz-bought-shell-arctic.html
So let's say that you're, oh, some giant oil conglomerate called 'Shell.' Here's all you'll have to do to get drilling access to one of the most sensitive, pristine, and traditionally protected areas in the US:
First, in D.C., where you've got to convince a surprisingly eager moderate Democratic president that there's a bounty of oil up there, and that it can be extracted "safely."
Your crack team of three dozen lobbyists will do full court press, sidling up to environmentalist coalitions and wheeling and dealing with Democrat insiders. Pretend that you want to fight climate change, join "anti-global warming groups," and get inside access to how the opposition works. Hold your tongue when necessary, sated by the knowledge you will soon make fools of them all.
Second, you'll have to go to the front lines, in Alaska, where there's a long legacy of conservationism in the local Eskimo communities. The Eskimo leader, in fact, is a fierce opponent of oil drilling—and rightfully so, because that stuff is almost certain to wash up on his homeland's shores at some point. But no matter.
Deploy your best company stooge, and have him go on a "charm offensive," getting to know the locals and dumping money into the community. Meanwhile, slowly undermine that feisty leader by "funding local colleges, village parties and whaling equipment." By the time that silly ol' Eskimo figures out that you've bought off the town's opposition, he'll have little choice but to negotiate a deal.
Third, you wait. There are PR problems with some other oil spill down south, and the president will probably want to cite your project as proof that he's pro-drilling when he's campaigning. But it's just a matter of time, and you'll know it. Nothing can stand up to the kind of cash you're throwing around. Not piddly green groups or whiny progressives. No, they'll all be forced to cower from the sheer might of your capital.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism puts it this way: "Recognising the blunt force power of Shell’s lobbying blitz, environmental groups have backed off, ... choosing to focus on projects where victory is more feasible."
Congratulations, 'Shell'! You've just earned yourself the first rights to drill in the Arctic, one of the last remaining refuges from human resource extraction out there. It will be incredibly tough to clean up oil from the inevitable spills, and ecosystems are sure to be devastated, but who cares? The government will foot most of the bill for that, anyways. The important thing is that you've won. That you've kicked off perhaps the last great oily gold rush of our times. To the Arctic!
To get the rest of the facts on Shell's lobbying blitz, see the New York Times and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism—but that's pretty much exactly how it went down.
http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20120527/germany-sets-solar-power-record-50-electricity-demand
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/3000-tower-will-generate-clean-power-hot-air-and-cool-water.html
Another good description of how the Arctic drilling scenario is coming to pass, is here:
http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/4-billion-lobbying-blitz-bought-shell-arctic.html
Do you happen to head up a massive multinational oil concern? Curious just how much it'd cost you to snag the long-desired right to drill in the Arctic? Well, have I got a number for you: $4 billion. That's about how much you'll have to fork over to wage a successful all-out lobbying campaign on multiple fronts. Thankfully, if you're a respectable Big Oil outfit, $4 billion is probably what you dig up between the couch cushions when you're doing laundry.
So let's say that you're, oh, some giant oil conglomerate called 'Shell.' Here's all you'll have to do to get drilling access to one of the most sensitive, pristine, and traditionally protected areas in the US:
First, in D.C., where you've got to convince a surprisingly eager moderate Democratic president that there's a bounty of oil up there, and that it can be extracted "safely."
Your crack team of three dozen lobbyists will do full court press, sidling up to environmentalist coalitions and wheeling and dealing with Democrat insiders. Pretend that you want to fight climate change, join "anti-global warming groups," and get inside access to how the opposition works. Hold your tongue when necessary, sated by the knowledge you will soon make fools of them all.
Second, you'll have to go to the front lines, in Alaska, where there's a long legacy of conservationism in the local Eskimo communities. The Eskimo leader, in fact, is a fierce opponent of oil drilling—and rightfully so, because that stuff is almost certain to wash up on his homeland's shores at some point. But no matter.
Deploy your best company stooge, and have him go on a "charm offensive," getting to know the locals and dumping money into the community. Meanwhile, slowly undermine that feisty leader by "funding local colleges, village parties and whaling equipment." By the time that silly ol' Eskimo figures out that you've bought off the town's opposition, he'll have little choice but to negotiate a deal.
Third, you wait. There are PR problems with some other oil spill down south, and the president will probably want to cite your project as proof that he's pro-drilling when he's campaigning. But it's just a matter of time, and you'll know it. Nothing can stand up to the kind of cash you're throwing around. Not piddly green groups or whiny progressives. No, they'll all be forced to cower from the sheer might of your capital.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism puts it this way: "Recognising the blunt force power of Shell’s lobbying blitz, environmental groups have backed off, ... choosing to focus on projects where victory is more feasible."
Congratulations, 'Shell'! You've just earned yourself the first rights to drill in the Arctic, one of the last remaining refuges from human resource extraction out there. It will be incredibly tough to clean up oil from the inevitable spills, and ecosystems are sure to be devastated, but who cares? The government will foot most of the bill for that, anyways. The important thing is that you've won. That you've kicked off perhaps the last great oily gold rush of our times. To the Arctic!
To get the rest of the facts on Shell's lobbying blitz, see the New York Times and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism—but that's pretty much exactly how it went down.
As a reminder, look at this map of Alaska, and note that the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, the northwestern and northern coastline, are above the Arctic Circle. Weather conditions for exploring, drilling, and producing oil/gas wells here are the most extreme that would ever be attempted. Sea ice forms up and becomes solid here beginning in late October, and fully open water doesn't return until June (though that will be changing more in the decades to come). During the open water season, low pressure systems can generate winds of 100-180 kph (60-110 mph), producing seas of 10 metres or more (33 ft.). Then, during the winter when the sea ice is locked in, with only a few hours of dim twilight during the daytimes, temperatures of -30 to -50C (-22F to -58F) are not uncommon. Any spill or blowout could then be occurring in those kind of conditions.
Also, it is worth noting that there is only one road (to Prudhoe Bay, from Fairbanks, a long 12 hours on a mostly unpaved, steep, curved route), and no significant port around these seas, so no infrastructure is available from which to mobilise any large kind of rapid emergency response. Without icebreaking ships, of which there are very few in the U.S., drilling platforms in trouble during the ice season couldn't be reached by sea. And foul weather plays havoc with aviation throughout the year in these areas. There can't and won't be any rapid response possible for emergencies in the nature of the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico, or the Total natural gas platform off Scotland last winter. And how could millions or more barrels of oil possibly be cleaned from on/under sea ice?
Remember, the U.S. government exists solely now to facilitate and enhance corporate profits. It does not matter whether there is a Democratic or Republican administration in place. After all, it was during the Clinton administration that most of the financial de-regulation occurred, which continues to plague the global economy with instability by allowing and even supporting greedy, short-sighted practices. The health/protection of the global environment and ability of people to sustain themselves and their families is only of any concern, when profits can be made.
http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20120527/germany-sets-solar-power-record-50-electricity-demand
Other countries are starting to move toward developing more renewable energy sources however, as the above article, describing what is happening in Germany attests. However, even if all other countries could move in this direction tomorrow, it still won't be fast enough for global CO2 concentrations to remain below 450-500 ppm, locking in major sea level rises and average global warming of 4-8C. What is needed is a massive, rapid, global development and implementation of renewable energy sources, combined with conservation programs for existing buildings/industries.
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/3000-tower-will-generate-clean-power-hot-air-and-cool-water.html
If we actually had a government in the U.S. that was concerned about the health/protection of the environment, one that realised that without that, there is no economy, then large-scale development/production of energy systems like this could occur, solar towers in desert areas. From which electricity, hydrogen gas, and fresh water, could all be generated.
There are thousands of worthy, valuable, and exciting projects under development in the renewable energy and transportation arenas. Things like airborne wind turbines, which tap into stronger, more reliable, consistent winds a few hundred or more metres above ground. Or solar-fueled algae farms, from which diesel-type fuel can be generated, to power jet engines, as well as cars and trains. Even methods of extracting excess CO2 from the atmosphere, which could actually help reduce global CO2 levels to safer levels, if implemented on a large scale.
If the incredibly wasteful, immoral U.S. military budget, which is more than the rest of the World's combined, were cut even just in half (but preferably by 3/4), combined with the elimination of corporate tax loopholes, and a small financial transactions tax (e.g., a 0.25% levy for all stock/bond trades), there would be more than enough funding for massive research, development, and implementation of renewable energy and conservation programmes. Which would help us to bequeathe a planet habitable to future generations, as well as to provide millions of well-paying jobs in the public and private sectors, giving meaningful employment to all in need. Which would you rather have, a habitable planet for you and your descendants, or higher short-term profits for multi-national corporations? We'll get the latter unless we can get away from the greed co-opted two-party duopoly we now have in the U.S. Cheers.
