1 billion trees

First the website: [HYPERLINK@www.unep.org]

I came across this in an article in the Guardian Newspaper today ( guardian.co.uk/climatechange ) referencing Professor Wangari Maathai, Nobel Peace Prize 2004. She has started a campaign to plant 1 billion trees next year, as part of the effort against global warming.

It catches my imagination because I have a small ambition (and small is the operative word) to re-establish wild pear trees - Pyrus Pyraster (Pyrus Communis) - in our valley in East Sussex. (I can bore for Britain on this - so I'll save that until someone really wants to know). I am pledging my 4 pears that I have grown from seed - 3 and 4 year olds - along with 4 Quercus Robur (3 year olds) which are being planted out this month.

Any one else want to plant a tree? Doesn't have to be in your garden - how about at your church/temple, or an apple tree at a school? Convince your super market to let you replace some nondescript shrubs with a tree - be creative! Lets see what we can contribute. Like Professor Maathai says - 1 tree or a million, it all adds up. Look forward to your thoughts, Laurie

I'm with you 100% on that one, Laurie. I spent 25 years in the forestry sector, during which time I reckon I must have planted about 250,000 trees. It's nice to be able to drive around Gloucestershire and see the woods slowly developing and maturing. I've planted forests in about 15 different counties in England, including a section of the 'National Forest' north of Banbury. This planet needs MORE TREES!

Hey, I'm trying my best with selling as many trees as i can! I sold about 500 in the last couple of weeks!

Every person needs 2 3/4 trees to sustain them during there life.

Then of course there is the amount of co2 we pump out needs to be covered as well. So depends on the life style.

I'm pleased to see someone is talking about trees being the way forward.

Mike

Excellent guys - sounds like we are good company then. I think I'm going to be stretched to try and equal your track records - but I am on my way out right now to tend to my Pear trees. Keep planting.

I've just totalled up the trees I've planted in my garden in the last 10 years and am amazed that I've put in 37 mainly fruit and nut trees but quite a few ornamentals too. I don't think I've space for many more, but I'm always tempted when I see something I've not grown before.

It must be wonderful to think you've planted whole forests. They are felling large areas near us and don't seem to be replacing them yet. It looks quite strange with wide open spaces where we're used to seeing dense woodland. They do seem to be introducing more mixed woodland where they have re-planted so it should provide more varied habitat with more deciduous instead of just conifers.

Are some trees better at using up Co2 than others? I suppose ones with more leaves have a bigger take up, but then evergreens can photosynthesize all year round even though they have small leaves.

Patbarr, I think that is a very good question - perhaps Prophetfive could answer it? I'll ask.

Don't worry guys i'm still helping the cause this time next week i'll have my xmas trees delivered all 1,000 scottish/local grown.

I'm sure that will throw the cat among the pigeons! But look into the ethics........

Depends Mike - how many carbon miles for delivery, and what went in to replace those that came out?

Very true. I kind of said it to catch a few folks out.
Normally xmas trees get a bad press from people who don't get the whole picture.

Mike, I think it is about balance. If we keep thinking about things, where the trade off is, then I think things work. Even electric cars aren't completely carbon neutral. Someone had to do something to make the electricity.

And by the way - many thanks for the fabulous packet of seeds! My word, there is enough there to open a nursery of my own! thank you.

Hi Laurie, Not a problem about the seeds. Enjoy!

I agree about balance. There is a lot of green press recently forcing people (and businesses) hand.
I am still unsure if recycling is really a good thing!

Take cardboard. If we don't need as many trees for paper production then less will be planted, new/young trees take up more carbon dioxide than old trees. And what about petrol/fuel costs to collect waste paper. ????

I don't have the answers. I would like to know the truth from reliable sources though. Not from word of mouth or parties with other agendas!

I agree with Mike. The whole 'global warming' scenario is a very politically sensitive subject. There are many logistical issues to be resolved. Overpopulation is never addressed, nor is the need to reduce the numbers of vehicles planet wide. There are far to many BIG businesses, and billions of $/£ involved for there ever to be a workable strategy towards reduction of carbon emmisions. UK-wise I suspect we are heading for a mini ice age. The 30% reduction in flow of the gulf stream is a warning sign, linked to thawing of arctic ice. One thing is for sure. It's getting noticeably warmer.

On a local level, recycling is a complete joke. The junk packaging coming from China more than compensates for any pathetic attempts at recycling. Has the government complained to the Chinese?

Forestry/tree planting is, traditionally, closely linked to the agriculture sector. Go out into the countryside and see how much redundant agricultural land/setaside is being planted with trees! Answer = NOT A LOT! O.K 'nuff said. Soap box put away.

Is there really a 30% decrease in the gulf stream? Thats a real worry if thats happened.

The daft thing about recycling is that at my work we have a bailing machine for all waste. Then a company picks it up for recycling. I asked them where it was taken and the guy said it was sent to china in the empty containers! Whats going on???

Too many people are 2 faced about the enviroment. Everyone seems to think its the goverments problem to solve. If its solved by taxation who really pays?

I'm allways surprised people think goverments should do this or that then complain when council tax goes up! Does anyone realise who pays for the demands of a few?

I'm hoping this doesnt break the site rules as i'm not trying to say anything political only enviromental. If it does please feel free to edit/delete my reply!

Mike

Yes, the 'conveyor belt' system that is the Gulf Stream is being slowed by more and more fresh water from arctic ice melt. It's happened before, and, is a cyclical phenomenon. This time, however, it's being speeded up by global warming.

Have i read somewhere about the gulf stream and other connected streams that could stop or change course?
And of course if that happens the climate changes?

Or is this just the cyclical thing as before but quicker? So its no big deal it was going to happen anyway.

I want to back up a couple of postings - first to Mike's. I think that recycling has a two pronged effect: one is that we put re-usable stuff back into the system of use.

It is true that the chinese are taking up a lot of the re-cyclable material. And that does seem like a lot of carbon miles. what they are doing however is loading it onto the ships that are bringing in imports. Rather than sailing the ships back empty, they bring back recyclable material. The additional weight makes little difference to the loading of the ship, and in someways actually works as ballast.

I think we would need an expert on Chinese Industrial Developments to find out how much of this is going straight into recycled material - whether the plastics are making miles and miles of new synthetic yarns, the paper into telephone directories, and the tin into what ever they use tin for. What the chinese are doing is investing in new power plants, and probably quite a few of these are dual fuel - burning both gas/oil/coal and other compustibles - which means rubbish. Although these types of power stations get poor press in this country it is actually a renewable energy source, and a good, clean (because the plants are up to date) source of energy. But they have not yet caught the imagination of the populace here the way wind generator have (which are actually ugly, noisy, and wipe out whole tracts of pristine land).

The reason it took me a couple of days to get back on this is I was trying to find as unbiased a source as I could. Fortunately I am married to an expert in this area who is famous enough that he can afford to be agenda free (he is an energy expert, not a recycling expert). So he was my first port of call, and he put me on to several other sources. It is still word of mouth however, and there isn't much I can do about that other than direct you to some of the sites I visited.

The second point about recycling is how it effects us personally. I doubt seriously that one households rubbish makes a difference one way or the other. But what the effort of recycling does is makes us stop and think about what we are doing, buying, tossing, using, misusing, conserving. And I think that is the real effect. My guess, and this is a guess, I can't back it up with science, is that households that recycle also think about what they are buying. How often they use the drier. Lights. And miles. I know from personal experience, over the past 10 years we have reduced our rubbish output so much that our bin men have commented on it.

And (and I am deliberately bringing this back to the Billion Trees Project) I think that is what the Billion Trees project is really about. As Prof. Mathaii writes the world actually needs 140 Billion Trees planted - but that is such a large number that it becomes self-defeating. Aiming towards One Billion well it seems somehow manageable. And in the process of trying to achieve it, I think people start to think. They think about what trees mean, about what the next generation will enjoy from the effort we put in now, and somehow suddenly we are linked with the future in a very tangible way. So we do seemingly small things - plant a tree, cut down driving miles, think of another generation - and suddenly we are thinking about the world, as we would like it to be. And we begin to reverse things. We feel empowered. We make a difference.

If we all plant a tree, pick up a piece of litter, think of the future we make a real difference. That is what I think recycling is about. That is what I think the One Billion Tree project is about - thinking about ourselves in relation to others. Plant a tree. Make a difference.

Sorry to go on so long. Feel free to edit this.

Cheers Laurie,
There is a movement to 'green the games' to ensure enough money is set a side to ensure long term plantings are done within the olympic development. If anyone out there has any influence then hopefully lots of tree planting will take place there.

I am worried that as with most contracts money will be short towards the final stages and planting will be cut back (excuse the pun) .
Its not that i'm a huge fan of the games but this is a large chunk of mainly public money if only a few % where spent on trees then the 1 billion project would be a very real idea within a short period of time.

Lobying for planting trees in this way is a way for people without gardens or land. People can also donate tree's to parks and other areas.

Fingers crossed

Mike

Mike we could start a campaign to lobby the Olympic committee to take part. I'm game. Shouldn't take too much research to find out who to contact.

I'm game too. On a personal level.
My company does have a interest though and my boss has allready smoozed the local MP to get him on side.
I think the Horticultural trades association also has started trying to lobby the goverment.

I don't work on the side of my company that sells trees to that kind of contract though so i feel this is justified as a personal thing

Mike

Okay, Mike, I have done a little bit of research and come up with quite an interesting article, and a couple of key names. No address as yet, but that shouldn't be hard.

This is in Sept/Oct 06 copy of DEFRA's magazine 'Energy, resource, environmental and sustainable Management' (the publication is a free distribution, and anyone can request to be on the mailing list).

Page 25 Headline " 'Greenest Ever' Olympics Athletes Village Plans dropped"

I'm going to give you most of the text:

A year after London was awarded the 2012 Olympic Games, a key environmiental commitment on use of renewable energy has been dramatically cut back by the organisers, according to new information revealed by Darren Johnson, a Green Party member of the London Assembly.

The concept of the 'One Planet Olympics' formed a key element of the bid, and commitments were made for a 'low carbon Games' and an 'Atheletes' Village capable of being energy self sufficient'. However the plan to construct a new eco-village will now be incorporated into the Stratford City development, which is being built to a much lower environmental standard.

Following questions from Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson, David Higgins (CEO of the Olympic Delkivery Authority) confirmed that the Athletes' village will now be built according to the existing Stratford City planning permission, this means that rather than 100% of the energy need being met through on-site renewable energy, the proportion would be as low as 2%. This is a fraction of the Mayor's proposed requirement of 20%.

End of story.

I think this gives us two names to write to - Johnson and Higgins. I think we can cite this as our concerns for the design schemes for greening the area - emphasing the need for variety both in types of trees and size of trees, as well as numbers for carbon neutrality to be achieved.

Any other ideas?

Interesting discussion, it's just made me tot up the amount of trees we cram into the 60x40ft garden here and at a guesstimate it's 18 trees, including a weed tree (Goat willow) which just gets chopped back as it's too tough to pull out.

I'm no expert on environmental issues, merely an interested party and I agree that while there may be only a small effect from personal recycling it does help us to think more about what we're doing and consider the wider issues. Our local councils here are keen on recycling and my previous borough council was super keen and introduced the recycled collection bins/bags well over a decade ago to the point where they wouldn't collect normal rubbish bags if they suspected there was recyclable products in there (sigh) it gets nuttier but that's another topic.

I totally agree that there is a desperate need for clarification in environmental (and organic) matters, we seem to all be caught between the Green Propaganda Machine and the Anti-Environmentalist Brigade. Somewhere in the middle of it all is the truth, we lay people often don't want the nitty gritty details just point us in the right direction and we'll happily toddle in that direction, if that sounds dangerously like trusting the system too far, but who has time to understand everything in the world?

Personal motorised transport is often a big target we're all expected to feel guilty about but I'm sure there are far more important fuel consumption issues to consider like food miles, 24 hour shopping, air travel, plastic bags etc and now I come to think of it theres a strong supermarket connection in what I say but no doubt there are many other industries just as fuel heavy.

Incidently is anyone aware of the BBCs Breathing Places project, not the same but connected to the topic here http://www.bbc.co.uk/breathingplaces/

Hi Baa, how nice to have you join in.

Like you, I don't think any of us feel expert on these issues - and I do think your point is right. We all need enough information to be informed, without the obligation to become expert. Like you, I feel that recycling has a very personal level - I have tried to find the point that is sustainable for me, and then work within that. However, I also think there are times when other points bump me out of my comfort zone and inspire me to do something more or different. (Interestingly I think this happens most often when my paid work gets very busy) Seeing the article about Mathaii's campaign did that for me. It made me think that maybe I could take my Pear Tree growing more seriously (this year I have sown 60 seeds instead of 12), and through the dialogue here with Mike and Prophet, I feel that I would like to at least try to address some of the faultering of the officials who are planning the Olympic area. Afterall we are footing the bill, we might as well at least get something out of it.

Just saw this article and thought of this thread (if only they could plant a billion trees in Siberia) ..... http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/uol-mmp_1091806.php


'One degree and we're done for': the vast sub-Arctic forests and bogs may be just 1[degrees]C away from a disastrous and unstoppable thaw.(This week: Boreal meltdown). Fred Pearce.
New Scientist 191.2571 (Sept 30, 2006): p8(2).


Subjects

Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2006 For more science news and comments see http://www.newscientist.com.

"FURTHER global warming of 1[degrees]C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."

So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been increasing by an average of 0.2[degrees]C every decade for the past 30 years. Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America. Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback.

Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1[degrees]C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288).

The analysis reinforces a series of recent findings on accelerating environmental disruption in Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska, underlining a growing scientific consensus that these regions are pivotal to climate change. Earlier this month, NASA scientists reported that climate change was speeding up the melting of Arctic sea ice. Permanent sea ice has contracted by 14 per cent in the past two years (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 33, L17501). However, warming and melting have been just as dramatic on land in the far north.

A meeting on Siberian climate change held in Leicester, UK, last week confirmed that Siberia has become a hotspot of global climate change. Geographer Heiko Balzter, of the University of Leicester, said central Siberia has warmed by almost 2[degrees]C since 1970--that's three times the global average.

Meanwhile, Stuart Chapin of the University of Alaska Fairbanks this week reported that air temperatures in the Alaskan interior have risen by 2[degrees]C since 1950, and permafrost temperatures have risen by 2.5[degrees]C (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606955103).

In Siberia the warming is especially pronounced in winter. "It has caused the onset of spring to advance by as much as one day a year since satellite observations began in 1982," says Balzter. Similarly, Alaskan springs now arrive two weeks earlier than in 1950, according to Chapin.

The Leicester meeting heard that the rising temperatures are causing ecological changes in the forests that ratchet up the warming still further. Vladimir Petko from the Russian Academy of Sciences Forest Research Institute in Krasnoyarsk says warm springs are triggering plagues of moths. "They can eat the needles of entire forest regions in one summer," he says. The trees die and then usually succumb to forest fires that in turn destroy soft vegetation and accelerate the melting of permafrost, Petko says.

In 2003 Siberia saw a record number of forest fires, losing 40,000 square kilometres according to Balzter, who has analysed remote sensing images of the region. Similar changes are occurring in Alaska. According to Chapin, warming there has shortened the life cycle of the bark beetle from two years to one, causing huge infestations and subsequent fires, which destroyed huge areas of forest in 2004. "The current boreal forest zone could be so dried out by 2090 that the trees will die off and be replaced by steppe," says Nadezhda Tchebakova, also at the institute in Krasnoyarsk.

Melting permafrost in the boreal forests and further north in the Arctic tundra is also triggering the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from thick layers of thawing peat. First reports published exclusively in New Scientist last year (13 August 2005, p 12) were recently confirmed by US scientists (Nature, vol 443, p71).

"Large amounts of greenhouse gases are currently locked in the permafrost and if released could accelerate the greenhouse effect," says Balzter. Hansen's paper concludes that the effects of this positive feedback could be huge. "In past eras, the release of methane from melting permafrost and destabilised sediments on continental shelves has probably been responsible for some of the largest warmings in the Earth's history," he says.

We could be close to unleashing similar events in the 21st century, Hansen argues. Although the feedbacks should remain modest as long as global temperatures remain within the range of recent interglacial periods of the past million years, outside that range--beyond a further warming of about 1 [degrees]C--the feedbacks could accelerate. Such changes may become inevitable if the world does not begin to curb greenhouse gas emissions within the next decade, Hansen says.

Meanwhile, another new study underlines that the boreal peat bogs, permafrost and pine forests are not just vital to the planet as a whole, they are major economic assets for the countries that host them. A detailed study of the northern boreal forests by environmental consultant Mark Anielski of Edmonton, Canada, puts the value of their "ecosystem services" at $250 billion a year, or $160 per hectare.

These benefits include flood control, water purification and pest control provided by forest birds, plus income from wilderness tourism and meat from wildlife such as caribou. Anielski presented his findings to Canada's National Forest Congress in Gatineau-Ottawa earlier this week.

The value of these ecosystem services is more than twice that of conventional resources taken from the region each year, such as timber, minerals, oil and hydroelectricity, Anielski says. "If they were counted in Canadian inventories of assets, they would amount to roughly 9 per cent of our gross domestic product--similar in value to our health and social services."

You can add to that figure the value of having such a huge volmne of carbon locked away. "The boreal region is like a giant carbon bank account," he says. "At current prices in the European carbon emissions trading system, Canada's stored carbon alone would be worth $3.7 trillion."

And if Hansen is right that the carbon and methane stored in the boreal regions has the potential to transform the world into "another planet", then the boreal region may be worth a great deal more than that.

Source Citation: Pearce, Fred. "'One degree and we're done for': the vast sub-Arctic forests and bogs may be just 1[degrees]C away from a disastrous and unstoppable thaw.(This week: Boreal meltdown)." New Scientist 191.2571 (Sept 30, 2006): 8(2). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. SASKATCHEWAN PROVINCIAL LIBRARY. 26 Nov. 2006
.



Thomson Gale Document Number: A152327213


This message was edited Nov 26, 2006 5:53 PM

Anyone got any good news? Lol

Mike keep selling lots of trees for planting ...... here's another article re your ? about the Gulf Stream


How global warming could cause Northern Europe to freeze.(Special Issue on Climate Change). Peter Bunyard.
The Ecologist 29.2 (March-April 1999): p79(2).
About this publication | How to Cite | Source Citation | Translate

Subjects

Abstract:

Northern Europe is in a dangerous position to experience severe winters due to global warming. Compelling evidence shows that global warming is causing temperatures over Greenland and the Arctic region to rise precipitously, which could slow down and affect the climate-moderating influence of the Gulf Stream. Since the Gulf Stream generates heat that makes life tolerable in Northern Europe, its failure would cause temperatures in the region to fall by more than 10 degrees Celsius, giving rise to a climate that is comparable to that in the frozen wastelands of Siberia and Labrador.

Full Text :COPYRIGHT 1999 MIT Press Journals

Warmer temperatures over Greenland and the Arctic because of global warming could cause the Gulf Stream - on which northern Europeans depend for their mild climate - to slow down and even cease. Were that to occur, Northern Europe would be plunged into winters that resemble those of the frozen wastelands of Labrador and Siberia.

Every year 3,300 cubic kilometres of fresh water run off into the Arctic Ocean, adding some thirty centimetres of fresh water to the surface and reducing its salinity. That input of fresh water is a critical component of the process that drives the major ocean currents, first by making the sea less salty so that the freezing point rises and second, as a consequence of ice forming more easily, leaving saltier, denser, waters behind that tend to sink. In effect, the freshwater flow impinges on the rate and timing of the sinking of the surface waters of the upper north Atlantic. Once the waters have sunk, they flow back along the sea-floor all the way down to Antarctica where they join the circumpolar current before moving back to the Tropics and up north. The complete .journey - oceanographers call it the conveyor belt circulation may take up to one thousand years.

That 'thermohaline' sinking of the surface waters in the north Atlantic has a major consequence for the countries of northern Europe, in particular Ireland, Britain and Scandinavia as well as the countries such as the Netherlands. It draws the Gulf Stream along behind it, together with all the heat that the ocean has absorbed when down in the Tropics.

In its full glory the Gulf Stream carries warm water to a depth of up to 100 metres at rates of up to 8 kilometres an hour and penetrates right up into the Arctic Circle, to the north of Scandinavia, bearing with it a climate that makes life just about tolerable, even in the thick of the winter. The energy it carries in the form of heat is equivalent to 100 times the entire use of energy in human societies across the world or put another way, more than 27,000 times the UK's electricity-generating capacity. In terms of temperature the Gulf Stream heats the surface over a wide area by at least 5 [degrees] C. Were the Gulf Stream to fail, temperatures over northern Europe would plummet by more than 10 [degrees] C during the winter months. North Europe would have a climate comparable to Labrador or conceivably Siberia: just how it would support its current population is difficult to imagine. Both Labrador and Siberia are 'wastelands' with very small populations relative to their size.

If the Gulf Stream were like 'ole man river that just keeps on rolling' we would have little to worry about, at least on that score. But, as we have recently discovered from looking at fossilised life on the ocean floor and from geological evidence, the Gulf Stream has had a history of stalling or having its circulation greatly curtailed, leaving northern waters deprived of its vital heat and climate-moderating influence. Paradoxically that 'stalling' appears to have occurred following somewhat warmer periods during ice-ages when vast chunks of ice have slid from the interior of the North American continent through Hudson Bay and into the northern ocean. In essence, the injection of vast quantities of fresh water into the sea prevented the sinking of cold salty waters. Climatologists are now concerned that the flush of fresh water entering the north Atlantic because of global warming could once again curtail the sinking so that the great conveyor-belt circulation grinds to a halt.

Over the past year climatologists at the Met Office's Hadley Centre have modelled the flow of the Gulf Stream under different global warming scenarios to determine how much, if at all, the conveyor-belt circulation of warm tropical waters to the high northern latitudes would stall if carbon dioxide levels row at the rapid rate of two per cent per year, then stabilised at four times the present concentration. The model shows that the strength of the Gulf Stream circulation will decline sharply by one-quarter. With a growth in carbon dioxide levels as assumed in the IPCC's 'business-as-usual' scenario, the decline in the circulation sets in around the turn of the current century and in a matter of 30 years falls to one-third its current level. That decline represents a substantial loss in energy transfer. One-third down means we are therefore talking about a loss to the British Isles and northern Europe of some thirty times the energy used by all humanity. Although contentious, the Met Office climatologists claim that such a loss will be more than offset by the warmer temperatures that go with the direct effects of global warming: according to them, temperatures over north Europe will still rise. That basically tells us that the underlying trend towards global warming will be very strong indeed.

Ocean current flip

A salutary warning as to how abruptly a switch can take place comes from the recent discovery that from one year to the next the currents in the Mediterranean have undergone a complete about-turn. In the past, cooler waters from the Adriatic flowed along the bottom in an eastwards direction to the Aegean Sea and the Levantine coast. The Adriatic waters were replaced by the westwards flow of warm water from the Aegean. Now, that has abruptly changed: the warm waters of the Aegean. instead of their westwards flow, are now sinking to the bottom rather than remaining on the surface, and are flowing eastwards. The system has flipped.

Wolfgang Roether of the University of Bremen puts the blame for the flip on increased evaporation - because of a warmer climate - and a sharp decline in the amount of freshwater flowing in - because of increased urban use and the use of dams, such as of rivers like the Dnieper, the Nile and the Danube - which has led to the surface waters becoming much saltier and therefore more dense than the underlying waters. Those warm, salty waters are now sinking, stalling and even completely reversing the circulation that presumably has always prevailed until now. The current switch indicates the potential impact of global warming and the uncertainties we face in the future from abrupt climate change.[1]

Although climatologists at other institutes in the United States and Continental Europe all agree with the general principle that global warming will cause a critical change in the flow of the Gulf Stream, differences have emerged in the degree to which stalling occurs under a global warming regime. Paradoxically, the saltier waters flowing back into the Atlantic from the Mediterranean could keep the conveyor-belt going. According to Eelco Rohling of the Southampton Oceanography centre, the waters from the Mediterranean flow north, deep below the surface up to the Faroe Isles where they rise, mix and then sink rapidly, drawing down surrounding water, including those of the Gulf Stream. The more salty the waters from the Mediterranean the stronger the pull. That process would seem to counter the potential seizing-up of the Gulf Stream in its northern stretches. Yet again, another factor - the more rapid melting of Greenland's ice-sheets - could intervene and sweep away the saltier water. Again, we would be in line for a slowing down and even closure of the Gulf Stream.[2]

Fearful prospects

Climate models, matched to evidence derived from ocean sediment cores, indicate three different modes of north Atlantic circulation: one, a 'warm conveyer belt mode' such as has operated over the past 10,000 years. Two, a 'glacial conveyer-belt mode' which operated during the past ice-age - it was shallower and did not extend further north than the south of Iceland. Three, a 'weak conveyer-belt' resulting from large amounts of melt-water capping off any circulation through forming a surface 'lens' of fresh water. That last mode is one that climatologists fear could be repeated through global warming generating more dilute and warmer surface waters. Stefan Rahmstorf of the University of Kiel in Germany, has identified another mode, also the result of a large influx of fresh water into the north Atlantic, in which the conveyer belt remains vigorous, but with the sinking taking place much further south than is currently the case. The evidence is that whenever the Gulf Stream stalled, or was pushed south, North Europe was pitched into cold. According to Rahmstorf, by disrupting the conveyor-belt, we could be triggering a calamitous cooling throughout Europe. "The consequences for ecosystems, agriculture and society could be severe."[3, 4, 5, 6]

According to a personal communication,[7] Vittorio Canuto and others at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York claim that it would take no more than one-quarter of one per cent more fresh water flowing into the north Atlantic from melting glaciers in Greenland and northern Canada to bring the northwards flow of the Gulf Stream to a shuddering halt. And should equivalent carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise to four times their pre-industrial levels, then the Gulf Stream, again according to the model, will be permanently shut down, this time because of insufficient cooling of the surface waters.

The oceans are thus clearly essential components of the climate system, transporting heat, drawing down greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and regulating weather patterns across the globe.[8] We are now disrupting every one of those processes and we are on the threshold of entering a new phase in the history of climate in which we can no longer guarantee a reasonable climate for a major proportion of the Earth's population. For once, it looks as if the dense populations in the highly industrialised countries of northern Europe will be those most at risk from global warming and the transformation of ocean currents - that is unless we take urgent action now to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

References:

1. Debora Mackenzie, Ocean flip puts modellers on Med alert New Scientist, 2 September 1995, Vol.147. No.1993 p.8.

2. Robin KcKie, Last Chance to turn the heating down, The Observer 30 November. 1997.

3. Fred Pearce, Will global warming plunge Europe into an ice-age? New Scientist, 19 November 1994, Vol, 144. No. 1952 p. 20.

4. Gabrielle Walker, Diluted ocean threatens Western Europe's weather, New Scientist. 11 November 1995, Vol.148, No.2003 p. 20.

5. Stefan Rahmstorf Grinding to a Halt? UNESCO SOURCES, No. 96, December, 1997.

6. Stefan Rahmstorf, Ice-cold in Paris, New Scientist. 8 February 1997.

7. Vittorio Canuto, personal communication at Agenda 21 meeting in Porto Alegre, May 1996.

8. Wallace S. Broecker, Thermohaline Circulation, the Achilles Heel of our Climate System. Science, Vol. 278, 28 November 1997.

Source Citation: Bunyard, Peter. "How global warming could cause Northern Europe to freeze.(Special Issue on Climate Change)." The Ecologist 29.2 (March-April 1999): 79(2). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. SASKATCHEWAN PROVINCIAL LIBRARY. 26 Nov. 2006
.

****************************
One more:


Current shifts in abrupt climate change: the stability of the North Atlantic conveyor and its influence on future climate.(Author Abstract). Greg O'Hare, Andy Johnson and Richard Pope.
Geography 90.3 (Autumn 2005): p250(17).
About this publication | How to Cite | Source Citation | Translate

Subjects

Abstract:

When climate shifts abruptly, changes occur so rapidly and unexpectedly that human and natural systems have difficulty adapting to, or coping with, them. By using palaeoclimatic indicators such as tree and coral growth rings, ice cores and deep sea sediments, climate scientists have uncovered many instances of abrupt and relatively short-lived climate changes in the past. These abrupt changes (some taking place within several-50 years) are especially evident over the last 100,000 years when the planet, under longer-term Milankovitch and other forcings, was slipping into and then out of an ice age. Relatively short-term thermohaline (temperature and salt) driven changes in the vigour and distribution of ocean currents are believed to lie at the heart of the abrupt climate shifts. In particular, thermohaline driven changes between three 'modes' of the North Atlantic Conveyor (incorporating the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift) are held to be the key factor explaining abrupt climate shifts over the North Atlantic and adjacent regions. By switching from an 'on' mode (maximum heat advection) to a 'half-on' mode (moderate heat advection) to an 'off' mode (little heat advection) and back again, the Northern Conveyor is thought to drive the main pattern in abrupt climate change in the North Atlantic region during the last ice age. This pattern involves multiple sequences of rapid switching from relatively warm periods (interstadials), to cold periods (Dansgaard-Oeschger events) to very cold episodes (Heinrich events) and then back to warm interstadial periods.

By currently releasing massive quantities of fresh water into the North Atlantic through ice melt, global warming today is seen as a powerful mechanism able to switch the present 'on' state of the Northern Conveyor to the 'half-on' and even the 'off' mode condition. Global warming paradoxically has the potential to plunge the northern Atlantic region into new glacial conditions. Because some scientists and others in the media believe in the return or near return of an ice age, this possibility is addressed in our article. Using modern high quality palaeoclimatic data (ice cores and deep sea sediments) a comparison of the last four interglacials, including MIS 11 (430,000 years ago), shows us that natural factors alone are unlikely to cause a quick return to ice age conditions. In addition, theoretical and empirical findings together with modelling studies of the Northern Conveyor reveal that although there is likely to be a significant weakening in the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Drift by the end of the present century, a total collapse of the system is not expected. In terms of our future climate, therefore, we should expect continued warming as a result of anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases rather than cooling over the next 50-80 years. One favourite climate scenario suggests that cooling by a shut-down of the Gulf Stream at the end of the present century is more than likely to be balanced by global warming. In the final analysis, however, there

are too many uncertainties in the science of climate change for us to be confident of what the climate will be like in the future. What we do know with a better level of authority is that abrupt climate change was a feature of the past, and it could well be one of the future.

Source Citation: O'Hare, Greg, Andy Johnson, and Richard Pope. "Current shifts in abrupt climate change: the stability of the North Atlantic conveyor and its influence on future climate.(Author Abstract)." Geography 90.3 (Autumn 2005): 250(17). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. SASKATCHEWAN PROVINCIAL LIBRARY. 26 Nov. 2006
.



This message was edited Nov 26, 2006 6:30 PM

Mike, I don't know about good news, but there is some intersting thinking. The following is from the UNEP Billion Tree Website. It is written by Professor Maathai and talks about making a difference.


Climate Change a Pressing Issue for Africa
By Wangari Maathai
Unaffiliated
November 13, 2006

The following article was submitted to the Guardian in the UK.

Africa will be hit hardest by climate change. Our campaign to plant a billion trees can inspire individuals to make a difference.

In many developing countries environmental problems are constantly relegated to the periphery because they do not appear to be as urgent and important as other pressing issues. However, a clearer understanding of environmental issues shows that they are a matter of life and death and should be a priority. People cannot survive without clean drinking water which comes from the mountains. We cannot live without food that is grown in the fields and is often rain-fed. Even the air we breathe needs green trees to rid of carbon. Environmental issues are not a luxury in Africa.

Scientists are telling us that whether Africa contributes a lot to the rise in temperature or not, matters little: it will still be more negatively impacted by the climate change than other regions. This is partly because Africa sits at the equator, half in the north and half in the south. The expansive Sahara desert in the north, and the Kalahari desert in the south. Desertification processes are contributing to the expansion of these deserts.

Africans still rely on their primary resources especially land to grow food crops, water from rivers for domestic use and forests for fuel and fodder. When rivers dry up, soil erosion takes place and the land loses its fertility Africans, more than any other people, will be hit very hard by the impact of climate change.

The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and now the steps that are being taken to implement it are commendable. However, Emissions Trading Scheme has not yet had adequate agreement on the best way to move forward. We feel very strongly that many developing countries, certainly in Africa, can benefit from this scheme, primarily because it can support initiatives Africans can do e.g. planting of trees. Such an initiative does not require too much money or technology; it requires mobilization of citizens and many hands, to do the work of planting trees and nurturing them to ensure that they survive and stay alive.

The experience we have had in the Green Belt Movement for the last thirty years shows that it is possible to mobilize literally millions of individual citizens in every country to plant trees, prevent soil loss, harvest rain water and practice less destructive forms of agriculture.

Deforestation is on the increase in countries of Africa. In Kenya the forest cover is less than 2%, while the UN recommends at least 10%. Re-forestation programmes, as well as protecting standing forests such as the Congo forest ecosystem, are some of the many ways in which Africa can help face the huge challenge of climate change.

To do so successfully, it is important to educating citizens on the need to protect especially indigenous forests on the mountains which are sources of water and are sites of rich diverse biological resources. Through the Green Belt Movement we have learnt that when local communities, who live near the forest are educated to understand the linkage between trees, forests and their own livelihoods, they are more likely to take care of and protect these resources.

Many people have asked me if I believe that the Climate Change conference in Nairobi like many of these international gatherings is just a talking shop. Well, I believe that none of such meetings are just purely talking shops. There is always some positive steps taken, albeit small ones at times. It is important to realize that such meetings are only a part of a long negotiated process. One of the most important aspects of such global meetings is that they help to raise awareness across the world on issues of global importance. Climate change is one of the critical issues of our times and we need to spread the word to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. The discussions, the information shared the commitments and the inspirations work to create momentum for the next part of the process. The next steps will be easier because governments met at this point.

For sure some commitments will be made at the end of this, and other global, meetings and although not every government will follow through, indeed some will. And for those, this meeting will have made the difference. There will also be commitments made on other levels: individual citizens, corporations, cities, towns and municipalities will either make commitments or even initiate actions. Many of these will get inspired to take more local action. The efforts that the individual citizens initiate and carry out when they return home will cumulatively make a difference.

Political leadership is always important and that is why we call on all governments to come on board. However, it is also very important to get citizens involved and move to action. In the end, it will be the citizens, who move their governments to more tangible commitments.

For the many reasons that have been articulated in documents and publications, there is a real need to develop a funding mechanism that will not only help industrialized and developed countries, but also developing ones. Both need to address their carbon emissions and take mitigating actions to deal with the negative impact. This is a case of environmental justice and should be addressed more responsibly by all concerned.

Organizations like the Green Belt Movement can assist by up-scaling their tree planting campaigns. To argue that we are making an excuse for the developed countries to continue their emissions is to miss the opportunity for responsible and mitigating initiatives. Carbon offsetting is a mechanism that is needed to support work in developing countries and assist the developed countries to reduce their carbon emissions. Certainly it is better for us to be assisted in forestry activities, including efforts to protect the standing trees, rather than sit back and do nothing because regulations do not allow such initiatives to be assisted. Forests such as the Amazon, the Congo and the huge forests in South East Asia are playing a major role as carbon sinks. Shall we not assist people and governments in these regions to not only rehabilitate but also protect the standing trees and vegetation? For people to halt encroachment on forests there has to be alternative incentives including farm forestry and re-afforestation, and rehabilitation of deforested areas.

To be assisted to plant trees in developing countries is not making an excuse for developed countries’ emissions, the commitment to the Kyoto Protocol remains and there remains a need to address climate change globally. However we can assist each other to contribute towards the reduction of carbon. Each of us should do what they can to address climate change. In Kenya this is planting trees on hills and other degraded landscapes. Governments can change policies within their borders that encourage citizens to live more responsibly, while in some countries companies are investing in research to find and improve alternative and renewable sources of energy.

Many actions can be taken all over the world. Individuals can choose to reduce, reuse and recycle whenever they can (in Japan this is known as mottainai). Many people are opting for hybrid cars, public transportation and alternative sources of energy. Others like the Green Belt Movement in Kenya are encouraging people to plant trees, which serve both as carbon sinks and biodiversity reservoirs. This is the reason I believe the Billion Tree Campaign is so wonderful, everyone can get involved—individuals, institutions, corporations and governments. Everyone can make a difference. So, wherever you are and whoever you are take some action and support initiatives that can make a difference.
Related Articles:
Green Belt Movement and the World Bank Sign Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement (ERPA), November 15, 2006
Kenyan Nobel Laureate Sets Sights on New Eco Challenge., October 12, 2006
Mt. Kenya is Losing Crucial Ice Mass, Says NGO Official, October 12, 2006

The papers that Lilypond has posted are absolutely essential research - we do need to know what is happening. But sometimes they are such big statements that they are hard to stand up to. It is very hard to picture being able to save a Siberian Forest (although the women in the Kenyan project have now grown and planted enough trees that they are beginning to reclaim areas of land that had suffered desertification!). I think what Professor Maathai is trying to get all of us to do through this project is to actually think about what we CAN do, to personalize the problem of Global warming and deforestation. To make it something that we can imagine ourselves as partly responsible for, and partly the cure for. I find her project breaks an insurmountable into something possible. It is what BAA was talking about, making recycling and environmentalism something that you can incorporate into your life. We probably can't save the Siberian Forest this week, but we think about planting a tree. And perhaps that is how we begin to save the Siberian Forests. We do make a difference, but it is hard to think about.

Plant a tree.

Have we done anything with the Garden Gate money yet? Perhaps we should put it to planting trees in Africa as I think someone has already suggested.

Patbarr, I don't know about the garden gate money, but I think putting money into planting trees is always a good idea. I'm really glad you have raised this idea. (I have added an edited note below)

What would you think about supporting a UK tree planting project?

It isn't that I want to deprive Africa, but sometimes I wonder if it is more valuable investing in a project in ones own environment as a reminder that we also have to think globally. We have a lot of deforrestation here in the UK and in Europe that needs addressing - and maybe we need to take that up too. By replanting our own landscapes, we can begin to think about not allowing more of it to be cut down, built on, paved over - we literally reclaim it and make it valuable to us - just as Maathaii's women's co-ops are doing. It causes us to think about how we value our own environment, and I think this has a real knock-on effect. http://www.unep.org/billiontreecampaign/CampaignNews/index.asp

I think this goes back to what Mike was talking about - about insuring that the Olympic Site does actually incorporate a good solid planting for the future, and in that way show that we can think about the future. If we become aware of our own misuse of land, trees, public and private spaces, then we can begin to think about how our lifestyles also make demands on other parts of the world. We begin to think about living responsibly. Re-establishing a forested area in the UK, like the Caledonian project, works not only at an environmental level, but at a personal level, too.

I don't know. This is just my thinking, and I could be wrong on this - I think it is a very tough call where to put the support, but I would be very happy to contribute.

(Patbarr - I just read through the Garden Gate thread (I don't know why I never noticed this space before, I think it is like looking for your glasses. I look everywhere except on top of my head!) My feeling is that the thread is so established that I would be really embarassed for it to be redirected. I like the donation ideas that have come up there, and they really would make great, life sustaining, christmas gifts! Perhaps the planting of forestry trees could be the target of another RR next year. What do you think?




This message was edited Nov 27, 2006 9:48 PM

This message was edited Nov 27, 2006 10:01 PM

I admit I haven't yet had time to read through all the recent post but just caught Patbarrs and Laurie1s re Garden Gate

No the money hasn't yet been spent. I do need to make a post there soon but it's still open to ideas and it's by no means fixed in stone. I do think though that since the donations have come from sources all over Europe that it would be unfair to use it for a UK project and it did originate to help make poverty history. There are, however, options for trees, mainly orchards but every little helps. The main thing is though that whatever is bought is not necessarily what we've physically bought, while we may opt to buy a donkey, the actual physical money we've donated may well go to providing trees, clean water etc, it does in essence means we've bought a donkey as the money we send frees up money elsewhere for the animal where it is needed. I hope I haven''t just confused the matter further there *G*

There is no reason why the Gardeners Gate should begin and end with this one project, it's unfortunate that I've been unable to devote more time (volunteers most welcome) but I certainly hope that this isn't the one and only thing we do with it.