too hot to handle
I am pretty sure that by the time the world has made its change that the Pika will not be the only animal that is extinct. We are on our way to some really bad times if the government doesn't crack down on our gas emissions. There are places that you visit, you have to wear masks to breath, and the way that the construction workers are putting up new housing, the animals that are in these areas will not have anywhere to go. I feel sorry for our wildlife. I have seen a buck on Portage Avenue and the poor thing had nowhere to go. I think were are in trouble.
❯ SCIENCE
Global warming will kill off species worldwide: study
TOO HOT to handle
By Seth Borenstein
WASHINGTON — Global warming will eventually push one out of every 13 species on Earth (7.7 per cent) into extinction, a new study projects.
It won’t quite be as bad in North America, where one in 20 species (five per cent) will be killed off because of climate change, or Europe, where the extinction rate is nearly as small. But in South America, the forecasted heat-caused extinction rate soars to 23 per cent, the worst for any continent, a new study published Thursday in the journal Science states.
University of Connecticut ecologist Mark Urban compiled and analyzed 131 peer-reviewed studies on species that used various types of computer simulations and found a general average extinction rate for the globe: 7.9 per cent. That’s an average for all species, all regions, taking into consideration various assumptions about future emission trends of man-made greenhouse gases. The extinction rate calculation doesn’t mean all of those species will be gone; some will just be on an irreversible decline, dwindling toward oblivion, Urban said.
“It’s a sobering result,” he said.
Urban’s figures are probably slightly underestimating the real rate of species loss, scientists not affiliated with the research said. That’s because Urban only looks at temperature, not other factors such as fire or interaction with other animals, and more studies have been done in North America and Europe, where rates are lower, said outside biologists Stuart Pimm of Duke University and Terry Root of Stanford University.
The projected extinction rate changes with time and how much warming there is from the burning of coal, oil and gas. At the moment, the extinction rate is relatively low, 2.8 per cent, but it rises with more carbon dioxide pollution and warmer temperatures, Urban wrote.
By the end of the century, in a worst-case scenario if world carbon emission trends continue to rise, one in six species will be gone or on the road to extinction, Urban said. That’s higher than the overall rate, because that 7.9 per cent rate takes into account some projections the world will reduce or at least slow carbon dioxide emissions.
What happens is species tend to move closer to the poles and up in elevation as it gets warmer, Urban said.
But some species, especially those on mountains such as the American pika, run out of room to move and may die off because there’s no place to escape the heat, Urban said. It’s like being on an evershrinking island. Still, Pimm and Urban said the extinction from warming climates is dwarfed by a much higher extinction rate also caused by man: habitat loss. A large extinction is going on, and for every species disappearing for natural causes, 1,000 are vanishing because of man-made causes, Pimm said.
“I don’t know we’re at the point where we can call it a mass extinction event, but we’re certainly heading that way unless we change direction,” Urban said.
A separate study in the same journal looked at 23 million years of marine fossils to determine which water animals have the biggest extinction risk and where. Marine mammals such as whales, dolphins and seals, have the highest risk. The Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, western Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean between Australia and Japan are hot spots for potential extinction, especially those caused by human factors, the study said.
— The Associated Press
Powered by TECNAVIA
Copyright (c)2015 Winnipeg Free Press, Edition 03/05/2015
Global warming will kill off species worldwide: study
TOO HOT to handle
By Seth Borenstein
WASHINGTON — Global warming will eventually push one out of every 13 species on Earth (7.7 per cent) into extinction, a new study projects.
It won’t quite be as bad in North America, where one in 20 species (five per cent) will be killed off because of climate change, or Europe, where the extinction rate is nearly as small. But in South America, the forecasted heat-caused extinction rate soars to 23 per cent, the worst for any continent, a new study published Thursday in the journal Science states.
University of Connecticut ecologist Mark Urban compiled and analyzed 131 peer-reviewed studies on species that used various types of computer simulations and found a general average extinction rate for the globe: 7.9 per cent. That’s an average for all species, all regions, taking into consideration various assumptions about future emission trends of man-made greenhouse gases. The extinction rate calculation doesn’t mean all of those species will be gone; some will just be on an irreversible decline, dwindling toward oblivion, Urban said.
“It’s a sobering result,” he said.
Urban’s figures are probably slightly underestimating the real rate of species loss, scientists not affiliated with the research said. That’s because Urban only looks at temperature, not other factors such as fire or interaction with other animals, and more studies have been done in North America and Europe, where rates are lower, said outside biologists Stuart Pimm of Duke University and Terry Root of Stanford University.
The projected extinction rate changes with time and how much warming there is from the burning of coal, oil and gas. At the moment, the extinction rate is relatively low, 2.8 per cent, but it rises with more carbon dioxide pollution and warmer temperatures, Urban wrote.
By the end of the century, in a worst-case scenario if world carbon emission trends continue to rise, one in six species will be gone or on the road to extinction, Urban said. That’s higher than the overall rate, because that 7.9 per cent rate takes into account some projections the world will reduce or at least slow carbon dioxide emissions.
What happens is species tend to move closer to the poles and up in elevation as it gets warmer, Urban said.
But some species, especially those on mountains such as the American pika, run out of room to move and may die off because there’s no place to escape the heat, Urban said. It’s like being on an evershrinking island. Still, Pimm and Urban said the extinction from warming climates is dwarfed by a much higher extinction rate also caused by man: habitat loss. A large extinction is going on, and for every species disappearing for natural causes, 1,000 are vanishing because of man-made causes, Pimm said.
“I don’t know we’re at the point where we can call it a mass extinction event, but we’re certainly heading that way unless we change direction,” Urban said.
A separate study in the same journal looked at 23 million years of marine fossils to determine which water animals have the biggest extinction risk and where. Marine mammals such as whales, dolphins and seals, have the highest risk. The Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, western Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean between Australia and Japan are hot spots for potential extinction, especially those caused by human factors, the study said.
— The Associated Press
Powered by TECNAVIA
Copyright (c)2015 Winnipeg Free Press, Edition 03/05/2015
pipelines safest option for oil
Pipelines safest option for oil
By Kenneth P. Green and Taylor Jackson
SAFER rail transport still can’t compete with pipeline safety.
On May 1, an interesting thing happened. The United States and Canada came to agreement about transporting oil and other flammable liquids.
No, they did not agree to build more pipelines — rather, they agreed to implement just under 400 pages worth of new standards that are intended to reduce the risk of transporting oil by rail, a mode of hydrocarbon transport that has seen rapid growth in the last few years.
The new standards include new tank-car design standards; retrofit standards and timelines; new operational protocols that touch on routing, speed restrictions and government notifications; new testing and labelling requirements; and, perhaps most controversially, a requirement for installing electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems As always, government and industry are at odds over the cost and timeline for the adoption of the new rules, though industry seems to be accepting the costs, and is mostly wary of the new rules’ “aggressive” schedule for replacement/retrofitting of the rail car fleet. And undoubtedly, the new cars will be costly, and the timeline hard to achieve. But the interesting question is, will the new rules make us safer?
Research on rail accidents has found human error to be a leading cause. In a study of 237 rail accidents in the United Kingdom from 1945 to 2012, researchers found that: “(rail) accidents... primarily occur during the peak hours and at the end of a week, i.e. Friday. Train drivers are responsible for the majority of the accidents. This result is in agreement with previous studies... (a)pproximately 73 per cent of the accidents were attributed solely to train drivers, while the majority of the accidents were related to signal passed at danger (more than 70 per cent).”
The U.K. study conveys the fact that, whether we like it or not, human error is what most often leads to accidents, something evermore regulation will be hard-pressed to completely eliminate.
Indeed, in one of the recent oil-by-rail accidents in northern Ontario, the railway cars involved in the accident had upgraded safety features, which weren’t present on the cars in the tragic Lac-Mgantic disaster. In this situation, “safer” cars yielded similar results.
The problem may not be in the nature of the crude, or the nature of the cars, but rather in the ongoing war over pipelines.
Crude oil exports by rail from Canada to the U.S. have increased from 42,000 barrels a year in 2010 to almost 42 million barrels per year in 2014, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Much of this increase can be attributed to the absence of new pipeline infrastructure.
Yet pipelines continue to be the safest method for transporting oil. A review of oil transportation methods in the U.S. found oil transport by pipeline was associated with fewer incidents, fatalities and injuries per ton-mile transported, when compared with rail and truck.
Rail and roadway transport of oil have always (and will always) have some applicability for the transport of oil, but the choice of transport mode has consequences. While the new regulations may make some aspects of transporting oil by rail safer, it would be unfortunate indeed if the proposed new rules divert us from the more important question: what’s the best way to move oil safely and efficiently to market?
Kenneth P. Green is senior director and Taylor Jackson is a policy analyst in natural resource studies at the Fraser Institute.
--TroyMedia.com
Powered by TECNAVIA
Copyright (c)2015 Winnipeg Free Press, Edition 16/05/2015
By Kenneth P. Green and Taylor Jackson
SAFER rail transport still can’t compete with pipeline safety.
On May 1, an interesting thing happened. The United States and Canada came to agreement about transporting oil and other flammable liquids.
No, they did not agree to build more pipelines — rather, they agreed to implement just under 400 pages worth of new standards that are intended to reduce the risk of transporting oil by rail, a mode of hydrocarbon transport that has seen rapid growth in the last few years.
The new standards include new tank-car design standards; retrofit standards and timelines; new operational protocols that touch on routing, speed restrictions and government notifications; new testing and labelling requirements; and, perhaps most controversially, a requirement for installing electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems As always, government and industry are at odds over the cost and timeline for the adoption of the new rules, though industry seems to be accepting the costs, and is mostly wary of the new rules’ “aggressive” schedule for replacement/retrofitting of the rail car fleet. And undoubtedly, the new cars will be costly, and the timeline hard to achieve. But the interesting question is, will the new rules make us safer?
Research on rail accidents has found human error to be a leading cause. In a study of 237 rail accidents in the United Kingdom from 1945 to 2012, researchers found that: “(rail) accidents... primarily occur during the peak hours and at the end of a week, i.e. Friday. Train drivers are responsible for the majority of the accidents. This result is in agreement with previous studies... (a)pproximately 73 per cent of the accidents were attributed solely to train drivers, while the majority of the accidents were related to signal passed at danger (more than 70 per cent).”
The U.K. study conveys the fact that, whether we like it or not, human error is what most often leads to accidents, something evermore regulation will be hard-pressed to completely eliminate.
Indeed, in one of the recent oil-by-rail accidents in northern Ontario, the railway cars involved in the accident had upgraded safety features, which weren’t present on the cars in the tragic Lac-Mgantic disaster. In this situation, “safer” cars yielded similar results.
The problem may not be in the nature of the crude, or the nature of the cars, but rather in the ongoing war over pipelines.
Crude oil exports by rail from Canada to the U.S. have increased from 42,000 barrels a year in 2010 to almost 42 million barrels per year in 2014, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Much of this increase can be attributed to the absence of new pipeline infrastructure.
Yet pipelines continue to be the safest method for transporting oil. A review of oil transportation methods in the U.S. found oil transport by pipeline was associated with fewer incidents, fatalities and injuries per ton-mile transported, when compared with rail and truck.
Rail and roadway transport of oil have always (and will always) have some applicability for the transport of oil, but the choice of transport mode has consequences. While the new regulations may make some aspects of transporting oil by rail safer, it would be unfortunate indeed if the proposed new rules divert us from the more important question: what’s the best way to move oil safely and efficiently to market?
Kenneth P. Green is senior director and Taylor Jackson is a policy analyst in natural resource studies at the Fraser Institute.
--TroyMedia.com
Powered by TECNAVIA
Copyright (c)2015 Winnipeg Free Press, Edition 16/05/2015
New targets for carbon emissions
Aglukkaq makes vows without details on specific strategy
By Larry Kusch and Mia Rabson
CANADA is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years.
Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq made the promise in Winnipeg on Friday while offering few details on how the country would achieve the target except the government would take a “responsible and balanced sector-by-sector approach.”
“It is a serious target for Canada, and we’re quite proud of it,” Aglukkaq told a news conference at the Inn at The Forks.
Canada will continue to align its emissions targets in the various sectors with those of other industrialized countries, such as the United States, so Canadian companies and jobs are protected, Aglukkaq said.
The federal announcement comes as Ottawa prepares for an international conference on GHGemissions reductions in Paris in November.
Critics say the government’s goal of cutting emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 is the weakest among G7 countries. The target is slightly weaker than that of the United States, which has pledged to cut its greenhouse emissions by up to 28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2025.
“The European Union, already with per capita emissions well below Canada’s, has a 40 per cent reduction target for 2030 — more than five times greater than Canada’s,” the group Environmental Defence said in a statement.
“To keep our people, communities and economy safe requires that Canada join the global community in making deep cuts to carbon pollution by shifting away from burning coal, oil and gas,” read a statement from the Climate Action Network.
Federal NDP environment critic Megan Leslie said she had zero confidence in the government’s ability, or even intention, to meet its new targets.
“If you look at how they’re actually going to calculate their emissions reductions, it’s what the provinces are doing, and it’s some shady accounting around forestry practices,” said Leslie. “They’re just — they’re clawing at anything to get those numbers, but they have no plan to reduce their emissions at all.”
She said the government isn’t even halfway to meeting its current targets.
Aglukkaq announced the new target just a month after a report by her department showed Canadian emissions increased 11 megatonnes in 2013 compared with the year before. Manitoba’s emissions were also up during the same period.
Asked how Canada could achieve the new target when it is already falling short on a previous reductions target, Aglukkaq said since the Harper government took power in 2006, emissions have dropped by 130 megatonnes. She acknowledged the government has more work to do.
Aglukkaq announced Ottawa will be developing new emissions regulations in the oil-and-gas sector as well as in the production of fertilizers and chemicals. It will also set new rules governing emissions from natural gas-fired electricity.
This follows recently announced regulations establishing more stringent standards for cars, light trucks and heavy-duty vehicles.
Conservation and Water Stewardship Minister Tom Nevakshonoff reserved judgment on the federal emissions target, saying he and his department will be reviewing it.
“We had really no notice of it,” he said, although he added he was pleased Ottawa had announced their commitment. Manitoba will unveil its own new GHG emission target in fall before the international meeting in Europe. The new Manitoba cabinet minister — he was appointed April 29 — said any targets that are set will be difficult to achieve.
“This is the challenge of the ages, I would say, addressing climate change,” he said.
Manitoba has done a “broad consultation” on the issue and department staff are analyzing the results, he said. The government has also enlisted the support of the International Institute for Sustainable Development in setting its target.
Meanwhile, Aglukkaq, in making her announcement Friday, took several shots at Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, while avoiding mention of the NDP official Opposition. She said Trudeau would introduce a mandatory carbon-pricing scheme that would “kill jobs and increase the cost of everything, including gas and electricity.”
— with files from The Canadian Press
[email protected] [email protected]
Powered by TECNAVIA
Copyright (c)2015 Winnipeg Free Press, Edition 16/05/2015
By Larry Kusch and Mia Rabson
CANADA is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years.
Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq made the promise in Winnipeg on Friday while offering few details on how the country would achieve the target except the government would take a “responsible and balanced sector-by-sector approach.”
“It is a serious target for Canada, and we’re quite proud of it,” Aglukkaq told a news conference at the Inn at The Forks.
Canada will continue to align its emissions targets in the various sectors with those of other industrialized countries, such as the United States, so Canadian companies and jobs are protected, Aglukkaq said.
The federal announcement comes as Ottawa prepares for an international conference on GHGemissions reductions in Paris in November.
Critics say the government’s goal of cutting emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 is the weakest among G7 countries. The target is slightly weaker than that of the United States, which has pledged to cut its greenhouse emissions by up to 28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2025.
“The European Union, already with per capita emissions well below Canada’s, has a 40 per cent reduction target for 2030 — more than five times greater than Canada’s,” the group Environmental Defence said in a statement.
“To keep our people, communities and economy safe requires that Canada join the global community in making deep cuts to carbon pollution by shifting away from burning coal, oil and gas,” read a statement from the Climate Action Network.
Federal NDP environment critic Megan Leslie said she had zero confidence in the government’s ability, or even intention, to meet its new targets.
“If you look at how they’re actually going to calculate their emissions reductions, it’s what the provinces are doing, and it’s some shady accounting around forestry practices,” said Leslie. “They’re just — they’re clawing at anything to get those numbers, but they have no plan to reduce their emissions at all.”
She said the government isn’t even halfway to meeting its current targets.
Aglukkaq announced the new target just a month after a report by her department showed Canadian emissions increased 11 megatonnes in 2013 compared with the year before. Manitoba’s emissions were also up during the same period.
Asked how Canada could achieve the new target when it is already falling short on a previous reductions target, Aglukkaq said since the Harper government took power in 2006, emissions have dropped by 130 megatonnes. She acknowledged the government has more work to do.
Aglukkaq announced Ottawa will be developing new emissions regulations in the oil-and-gas sector as well as in the production of fertilizers and chemicals. It will also set new rules governing emissions from natural gas-fired electricity.
This follows recently announced regulations establishing more stringent standards for cars, light trucks and heavy-duty vehicles.
Conservation and Water Stewardship Minister Tom Nevakshonoff reserved judgment on the federal emissions target, saying he and his department will be reviewing it.
“We had really no notice of it,” he said, although he added he was pleased Ottawa had announced their commitment. Manitoba will unveil its own new GHG emission target in fall before the international meeting in Europe. The new Manitoba cabinet minister — he was appointed April 29 — said any targets that are set will be difficult to achieve.
“This is the challenge of the ages, I would say, addressing climate change,” he said.
Manitoba has done a “broad consultation” on the issue and department staff are analyzing the results, he said. The government has also enlisted the support of the International Institute for Sustainable Development in setting its target.
Meanwhile, Aglukkaq, in making her announcement Friday, took several shots at Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, while avoiding mention of the NDP official Opposition. She said Trudeau would introduce a mandatory carbon-pricing scheme that would “kill jobs and increase the cost of everything, including gas and electricity.”
— with files from The Canadian Press
[email protected] [email protected]
Powered by TECNAVIA
Copyright (c)2015 Winnipeg Free Press, Edition 16/05/2015
Most Manitobans say climate change real
When you think about how the world is changing, weather wise, you would have to think about the many times weird things have happened. Like when Mexico got snow, and Texas received golf ball size hail, as well we are getting more and more tornado warnings. I would have to agree that we are causing our own armageddon. Then the world will end as we know it and it won't matter anymore because the damage will be irreversible.
Poll finds Tory voters less likely to believe
By Mia Rabson
OTTAWA — A poll shows a large majority of Manitobans believe climate change is real and humans are to blame.
The Forum Research poll found three-quarters of those polled in Manitoba view climate change as genuine, and two-thirds blame people.
The findings come two days after southern Manitoba was hit by an unwelcome blast of winter, a storm one local climate expert says was most certainly related to climate change.
The Forum Research poll was conducted May 12 and 13 of 1,286 Canadians using an interactive phone survey. The results are considered accurate within three percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Seventy-eight per cent of Canadians, and 73 per cent of Manitobans, said yes when asked: “As far as you know, is the Earth’s climate changing?” Only 15 per cent said no, and another seven per cent said they don’t know.
“The majority of Canadians still believes that, ‘yes, it’s a real thing,” Forum president Lorne Bozinoff told the Free Press.
“The only substantial group of naysayers are Conservative voters. They definitely march to a different set of drummers.”
However, the naysayers are the minority. Almost two-thirds of Conservative voters said they believe in climate change, compared with about one in four who doesn’t. The remainder said they don’t know.
More Conservative voters denied climate change than did voters who support other parties. Only about one in 10 Liberal and NDP supporters said climate isn’t changing.
Nationally, 72 per cent of people who believe climate change is real blame it on people, while 20 per cent say it is a natural phenomenon.
In Manitoba, 66 per cent of those who believe the climate is changing think humans are to blame, while 25 per cent think it’s a natural phenomenon.
Bozinoff said it means 56 per cent of Canadians in total believe humans are causing climate change.
The poll showed two in three Canadians don’t think the federal government is doing enough to combat climate change.
However, fewer than one in three people who plan to vote Conservative think too little is being done on the file, compared with 85 per cent of NDP voters and 81 per cent of Liberal voters.
Last week, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq released Canada’s latest emission-reductions targets, aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent over 2005 levels in the next 15 years.
Critics blasted the plan, saying the Tories have no policies to meet the target and accused the government of setting a target that is far less ambitious than its global partners, including in Europe and the United States.
Bozinoff said he doubts climate change will make much of a difference when people decide how to vote in the October election.
The economy and jobs are going to rule that decision for most people, he said.
“I can’t see (climate change) being a determining issue unless something happens during the campaign,” said Bozinoff.
“I think that’s what the Conservatives are banking on.”
Danny Blair, a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, said “with a qualified yes” last Sunday’s snow storm was the result of climate change.
Blair said during the last three decades, May temperatures have been getting colder and that’s largely due to changes in the jet stream and effects of climate change in Canada’s North.
“In our part of the world the Arctic is climate change central,” said Blair.
He said as the jet stream shifts, it moves cold Arctic air farther south, which is what happened in southern Manitoba last weekend.
[email protected]
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS