quote:
Op zondag 1 januari 2017 02:41 schreef Freak188 het volgende:[..]
Geweldig. Net zoals urgenda hier in NL een zaak omtrent milieubeleid gewonnen heeft. Ik had het al eerder voorspeld: omdat de olie sector geen greintje inspanning doet om het probleem te verhelpen, moet de mensheid het maar op de gezondheid gaan gooien. Benieuwd hoever ze komen. Big oil is big money, dus het zal lastig worden.
Straks klagen we hier Schulz aan voor de 130 km/u snelwegen.
quote:
“I was shocked when students at Columbia Journalism School uncovered ExxonMobil’s deep knowledge of climate change as early as the 1970s. What’s even more disturbing is that the Federal Government firmly knew about climate change in the 1950s. I look forward to working on our research team in the months ahead to establish the depth and breadth of the government and industry’s knowledge of climate danger before trial.”
Oh noes, ExxonMobil's wetenschappers wisten iets van fysica, hadden zelfs natuurkundeboeken gelezen (de studenten journalisme blijkbaar niet...)
quote:
We believe the evidence shows both ExxonMobil and the fossil fuel industry knew about the threat to our country posed by climate change and worked to encourage the federal government to enable emissions of more greenhouse gas,” declared Philip Gregory, counsel for the plaintiffs and a partner with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame, CA. “Mr. Tillerson’s testimony is crucial to understanding what the fossil fuel industry did to prevent the government from fully addressing this problem. The youth of America need to know the truth on how companies such as ExxonMobil continue to use the government to cause horrific harm to our nation’s most vulnerable people.
"continue to use the government to cause horrific harm to our nation’s most vulnerable people", ik mag hopen dat dit een verwijzing is naar loodhoudende benzine of eventueel NOx en roet uitstoot, en "horrific harm" is een hysterische overdrijving in de context van CO2 uitstoot en de effecten voor de VS.
quote:
1.There is a fundamental constitutional right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life.
2.The federal government has fiduciary public trust responsibilities to preserve natural resources upon which life depends.
3. The youths’ requested remedy (ordering the development and implementation of a national climate recovery plan based on a scientific prescription) is an appropriate remedy if the court finds a violation of the youths’ constitutional rights.
Als je "climate capable of sustaining human life (in the U.S.)" als norm neemt is er niets aan de hand, de VS zal niet onleefbaar worden bij +2°C
"Preserve natural resources"? Welke resources bedoelen ze, olie?
"if the court finds a violation of the youths’ constitutional rights", "a national climate recovery plan based on a scientific prescription": Global warming is "global", Kyoto en andere verdragen zijn gebaseerd op de verwachte gevolgen wereldwijd. Rechters in de VS hebben consistent geoordeeld dat de "constitution" boven internationale verdragen staat. Dan moeten ze bewijzen dat het "nationale klimaat" bedreigd wordt door global warming, en daarover bestaat minder wetenschappelijke concensus.
In Canada of Rusland zou je onder het Amerikaanse rechtssysteem waarschijnlijk het tegendeel kunnen afdwingen: een verbod op toepassing van Kyoto, beperking van CO2 uitstoot etc... Buiten schade aan infrastructuur door smeltende permafrost en een kever die naaldbomen beschadigd zijn de gevolgen van opwarming positief voor die landen. (ja ik weet dat er nog meer nadelen zijn)
quote:
Our Children's Trust is a nonprofit organization advocating for urgent emissions reductions on behalf of youth and future generations, who have the most to lose if emissions are not reduced. OCT is spearheading the international human rights and environmental TRUST Campaign to compel governments to safeguard the atmosphere as a "public trust" resource. We use law, film, and media to elevate their compelling voices. Our ultimate goal is for governments to adopt and implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans with annual emissions reductions to return to an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 350 ppm.
http://www.commondreams.o(...)onal-climate-lawsuitTeenagers die blijkbaar niets van wetenschap begrijpen...
quote:
1896: Arrhenius calculated that cutting CO2 in half would suffice to produce an ice age. He further calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would give a total warming of 5-6 degrees Celsius.
In 1938 a British engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar, attempted to revive Arrhenius's greenhouse-effect theory. Callendar presented evidence that both temperature and the CO2 level in the atmosphere had been rising over the past half-century, and he argued that newer spectroscopic measurements showed that the gas was effective in absorbing infrared in the atmosphere.
Better spectrography in the 1950s showed that CO2 and water vapor absorption lines did not overlap completely. Climatologists also realized that little water vapor was present in the upper atmosphere. Both developments showed that the CO2 greenhouse effect would not be overwhelmed by water vapor.
Scientists meanwhile began using computers to develop more sophisticated versions of Arrhenius's calculations. In 1967, taking advantage of the ability of digital computers to integrate absorption curves numerically, Syukuro Manabe and Richard Wetherald made the first detailed calculation of the greenhouse effect incorporating convection (the "Manabe-Wetherald one-dimensional radiative-convective model").[27][28] They found that, in the absence of unknown feedbacks such as changes in clouds, a doubling of carbon dioxide from the current level would result in approximately 2 °C increase in global temperature.
By the 1960s, aerosol pollution ("smog") had become a serious local problem in many cities, and some scientists began to consider whether the cooling effect of particulate pollution could affect global temperatures. Scientists were unsure whether the cooling effect of particulate pollution or warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions would predominate, but regardless, began to suspect that human emissions could be disruptive to climate in the 21st century if not sooner. In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote, "the greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."
The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries. - John Sawyer, 1972
In the first two “Reports for the Club of Rome” in 1972[41] and 1974,[42] the anthropogenic climate changes by CO2 increase as well as by Waste heat were mentioned. About the latter John Holdren wrote in a study[43] cited in the 1st report, “… that global thermal pollution is hardly our most immediate environmental threat. It could prove to be the most inexorable, however, if we are fortunate enough to evade all the rest.” Simple global-scale estimates[44] that recently have been actualized[45] and confirmed by more refined model calculations[46][47] show noticeable contributions from waste heat to global warming after the year 2100, if its growth rates are not strongly reduced (below the averaged 2% p.a. which occurred since 1973).
Evidence for warming accumulated. By 1975, Manabe and Wetherald had developed a three-dimensional Global climate model that gave a roughly accurate representation of the current climate. Doubling CO2 in the model's atmosphere gave a roughly 2 °C rise in global temperature.[48] Several other kinds of computer models gave similar results: it was impossible to make a model that gave something resembling the actual climate and not have the temperature rise when the CO2 concentration was increased.
En dan zou de conclusie van een Exxon wetenschapper in 1977 "dat CO2 van fosiele brandstof de waarschijnlijkste manier is waarop de mens het klimaat beïnvloedt", bewijs zijn dat ze toen reeds op de hoogte waren? Maw: Exxon heeft wetenschappers die iets over wetenschap weten...
No shit, Sherlock!