Pagan Volcano Erupts

Pagan Volcano on Pagan, Northern Mariana Islands, Erupts

Pagan Volcano on Pagan, Northern Mariana Islands, about 500 km north of Guam, erupted on Friday sending smoke and steam into the atmosphere.

The US national weather service issued a haze alert for the Mariana Islands after Pagan  erupted on Friday. NWS said residents in Guam have nothing to worry about [for now] as winds are driving the smoke away from Guam.

If the wind direction changes, however, ash and haze may be redirected toward populated islands of Saipan and Guam SSW of the Marianas.

The Pagan volcano is believed to have erupted seven times since 1985. [See: Pagan Eruptive History]

Pagan

Country: United States
Region: Mariana Islands, Pacific Ocean (East of Philippine Sea)
Volcano Type: Stratovolcanoes
Last Known Eruption: 2006
Summit Elevation: 570 m (1,870 feet)
Latitude: 18.13°N (18°8’0″N)
Longitude: 145.80°E (145°48’0″E)

Pagan Island, the largest and one of the most active of the Mariana Islands volcanoes, consists of two stratovolcanoes connected by a narrow isthmus. Both North and South Pagan stratovolcanoes were constructed within calderas, 7 and 4 km in diameter, respectively. The 570-m-high Mount Pagan at the NE end of the island rises above the flat floor of the northern caldera, which probably formed during the early Holocene. South Pagan is a 548-m-high stratovolcano with an elongated summit containing four distinct craters. Almost all of the historical eruptions of Pagan, which date back to the 17th century, have originated from North Pagan volcano. The largest eruption of Pagan during historical time took place in 1981 and prompted the evacuation of the sparsely populated island. Photo by Norm Banks, 1983 (U.S. Geological Survey). Caption: GVP.

Northern Mariana Islands

Made up of fifteen islands, the Northern Mariana Islands are located east of the  Philippine Sea about 500 km north of Guam, with a population of about 82,000 (most recent estimate).  Only three of the islands, Rota, Saipan (the largest island and capital of Northern Mariana islands with a population of about 65,000) and Tinian have a significant population, compared with the islands of Agrihan and Alamagan, which have just a few residents. The  remaining ten islands are unpopulated.

Map of the Northern Mariana Islands by the US Department of Interior.

Pagan Erupted in 2006 – GVP Archives (6-12 December 2006)

During 4-5 December, residents 3 km SW of Pagan reported ashfall that accumulated in their camp at a rate of about 6.4 mm per day. They also described a plume from the summit that rose to an altitude of 640 m (2,100 ft) a.s.l. and a sulfur smell that occasionally wafted through their camp. Based on satellite imagery, the Washington VAAC reported a gas-and-ash plume that drifted mainly W on 5, 6, and 8 December. Satellite imagery showed no further activity through 11 December.

Pagan Erupted in 1981

A fissure that formed during an eruption of Pagan volcano in the Mariana Islands in 1981 cuts across the summit of the volcano. Three principal vents were active along the fissure. A cinder cone (foreground) was constructed on the north flank, and vents on the north and south rims of the summit crater fed lava flows that traveled down the flanks of North Pagan volcano. This June 16, 1981 photo shows South Pagan volcano at the upper right. Photo by U.S. Navy, 1981. Caption: GVP.

Regulating GHG: Too Little, Too Late!

It’s too bad the planet couldn’t wait

Cap and Trade All You Want, Nature Isn’t Interested!

We’ve had our chances and have blown every single one of them. Our masters won’t allow us to change  our lifestyles. Dealing with greenhouse gasses as if we’re doing Earth a favor won’t change a thing.

Every step of the way, we are reinforcing a discourse which is destroying the planet’s ability to protect us. Nature isn’t “market based,” and doesn’t recognize “market-based solutions.” It  has finite limits. You don’t “combat climate change;” you remove the causes for the climate change catastrophe.

The main stream human culture have proven unequivocally that it does not have what it takes to enter the next phase—it lacks the intelligence and is void of the will to live.

A mock grave stone declaring ‘Climate change-a matter of life or death’ outside the ruins of Coventry Cathedral on March 19, 2009 in Coventry, England. The symbolic head stone was the first stage of a climate change campaign action day. Organizers Christian Aid, CAFOD and others later took part in a New Orleans style funeral through the streets of Coventry. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images Europe). Image may be subject to copyright.

The following news is meant to be not only celebratory, but conciliatory:

U.S. clears way to regulate greenhouse gases

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1732459820090417

By Deborah Zabarenko and Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration opened the way to regulating U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on Friday by declaring climate-warming pollution a danger to human health and welfare, in a sharp policy shift from the Bush administration.

Environmental activists and their supporters in Congress were jubilant and industry groups were wary at the news of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s move. The White House said President Barack Obama would prefer legislation over administrative action to curb greenhouse emissions.

Congress is already considering a bill to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, which is emitted by cars, coal-fired power plants and oil refineries, among other sources.

EPA’s declaration was seen as a strong signal to the international community that the United States intends to seriously combat climate change.

In its announcement, the EPA said, “greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations” and human activities spur global warming.

“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,”

“The president has made clear his strong preference that Congress act to pass comprehensive legislation rather than address the climate challenge through administrative action,” a White House official said, noting that Obama has repeatedly called for “a bill to provide for market-based solutions to reduce carbon pollution.”

The EPA’s endangerment finding said high atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases “are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes.” The document is available online at http://www.epa.gov.

The EPA’s finding is essential for the U.S. government to regulate climate-warming emissions like carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. Regulation is not automatically triggered by the finding — there will be a 60-day comment period.

But as that period proceeds, legislation is moving through Congress aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions with a cap-and-trade system, which would let those companies that emit more than the limit buy credits from those that emit less.

MAJOR SHIFT FROM BUSH

EPA scientists last year offered evidence of the health hazards of greenhouse emissions, but the Bush administration took no action. It opposed across-the-board mandatory regulation of climate-warming pollution, saying this would hurt the U.S. economy.

Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who shepherded climate legislation to the Senate floor last year, called the EPA’s finding “long overdue.”

“We have lost eight years in this fight,” Boxer said in a statement. “… The best and most flexible way to deal with this serious problem is to enact a market-based cap-and-trade system which will help us make the transition to clean energy and will bring us innovation and strong economic growth.”

“At long last, EPA is officially recognizing that carbon pollution is leading to killer heat waves, stronger hurricanes, higher smog levels and many other threats to human health,” said David Doniger at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But the National Association of Manufacturers said trying to regulate greenhouse emissions with the Clean Air Act would “further burden an ailing economy while doing little or nothing to improve the environment.”

“This proposal will cost jobs. It is the worst possible time to be proposing rules that will drive up the cost of energy to no valid purpose,” NAM President John Engler said.

Steve Seidel of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change said the EPA announcement is an important message to the international community, which is set to meet in Copenhagen in December to craft a follow-up agreement to the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol.

“This decision sends a strong signal to the international community that the United States is moving forward to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” Seidel said by telephone.

However, he said this move alone is no guarantee of success in Copenhagen. Participants in that meeting will also look for progress in the U.S. Congress, and for movement from other developed and developing countries.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the EPA has the authority to make these regulations if human health is threatened by global warming pollution, but no regulations went forward during the Bush administration.

Carbon dioxide, one of several greenhouse gases that spur global warming, is emitted by natural and industrial sources, including fossil-fueled vehicles, coal-fired power plants and oil refineries.

(Additional reporting by Tim Gardner and Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Related Links:

• FEWW CO2e Links
• Can Humans Enter the Next Phase of the Future?
• A Most Powerful Mechanism of Collapse

• Energy Dinosaurs
• Failing Ecosystems
• First Wave of World’s Collapsing Cities
• Intelligent Communities: 286W

Who is afraid of melting ice sheets?

Based on its outdated “one-dimensional” model, the U.N. Climate Panel has reported that seas could rise by 18-59 cm  (7-24 inches) by 2100. The model also excludes the threat from highly probable scenarios in which ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland could melt at exponential rates.

Ian Allison, head of  the Australian Antarctic Division’s Ice, Ocean, Atmosphere and Climate program was asked by Reuters the following question: How great is the threat from melting ice sheets?

Allison who is a researcher within the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center, and who has been involved in Antarctic science for more than 4 decades, responded as follows.

HOW GREAT IS THE THREAT FROM ICE SHEETS MELTING?

I think it is now unequivocal that warming of the world is occurring and I think the last IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusively showed that a major cause of warming is greenhouse gas emissions from mankind.

We now know that the ice sheets are contributing to sea level rise and for the Arctic, at least, this is because the warming of this region is much greater than in other places on Earth.

We also know that glaciers in mountain areas are undergoing a very rapid retreat and they’re a major contributor of sea level rise, too.

WHICH IS OF MORE CONCERN? GREENLAND OR WEST ANTARCTICA?

Greenland is of more concern because of the warming of the Arctic. Greenland is at lower latitude than much of Antarctica and we’ve seen the direct effect of the melting.

We still don’t understand many things about the dynamic response of the ice sheets but we do see direct melt exceeding snowfall in Greenland.

This might not mean a runaway effect but it does mean Greenland is contributing to sea level rise and will continue to add to sea levels at the present temperatures for many hundreds of years.”

EXPLAIN THE THREAT FROM WEST ANTARCTICA

Ice shelves and floating ice tongues can buttress the flow of grounded ice from the interior of the ice sheets. We’ve seen examples in both Greenland and Antarctica of floating ice disappearing, and the ice that sits on the land then flowing more quickly into the ocean.

“In addition, the West Antarctic may be inherently unstable. The West Antarctic forms what is called the marine ice shelf. The ice is resting on bedrock but that bedrock is below sea level. It’s like if you load too many ice cubes in your gin and tonic, the bottom one touches the bottom of the glass even though it’s well below the water level.

Where the bedrock under a marine ice sheet slopes down toward the interior, such as under parts of West Antarctica, the ice sheet may be unstable. If it thins, it will start to float at the edges, becoming an ice shelf.

For a bedrock that slopes backwards and becomes deeper further in, continued retreat of the grounded ice sheet may proceed very rapidly. A small retreat could in theory destabilize the entire West Antarctica ice sheet, leading to rapid disintegration.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN GAPS IN OUR KNOWLEDGE?

There two areas. One, we need to improve our mathematical models of ice streams, ice sheets and ice shelves to be able to better project future changes. We also need more detailed measurements of how deep the bedrock is under the ice sheets to use in the models.

The other major gap in our understanding is what is happening at the bed of the ice sheets; how they react with liquid water at the base, what role water may have in sliding processes and the role of gravels and slurry at the base.

We now know there is a lot of liquid water under the ice sheets. But we don’t really know how changes in this may affect the ice flow. Knowing what’s under the ice sheets we really need to measure that with radar systems.

WHAT ARE YOUR MAIN MESSAGES TO POLICY MAKERS?

The main thing is monitoring what’s actually happening with sea level rise and the ice sheets. We’ve now got tools that can do that, we can improve those and make sure they keep going, particularly satellite-based systems.

We need better predictive tools to know just what is likely in the next 100 years. I don’t think we should be rushing into building up coastal defenses until we know what we could be defending against. So our biggest requirement is to be able to refine our projections for what may happen in the future. (Edited by David fox).

Related Links:

• World CO2 Emissions
• Climate Change Finals – CO2: 392 Human Chances: 0
• Carbon Footprint of Your Dollar
• CO2 Emissions Must Be Criminalized!
• UNEP Issues Some CO2 Reduction Snakeoil!

• UN Hypocrisy: Kick the CO2 Habit!
• Oceans, Where Life Started, Are Dying – Part IV
• Stern Report: “a great toxic dump of doublespeak in truly Orwellian fashion”
• The Shrinking Window of Opportunity
• The myth of keeping CO2 under 450ppm

• Oceans, Where Life Started, Are Dying – Part III
• Repeat After Me!

Ethanol Dries You Out

US: One drought away from food crisis

Alcohol Dries You Out and Eats Through Your Food Security

Disturbing facts about ethanol production in the US:

• In 2008, the United States was responsible for 52 percent of ethanol production in the world production, fermenting mostly corn to 9 billion gallons (~34.1 billion liters)  of fuel ethanol.

• Ethanol production rose by 38.5 percent in 2008 compared to the previous year (from 6.5 billion gallons, or 24.6 billion liters in 2007).

• United States imported an addition 557 million gallons of ethanol in 2008, from Brazil, Jamaica,  El Salvador, Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica.

• Federal mandates encourage more ethanol production [not less overall consumption.]

• The U.S. target for  for 2015 is 15 billion gallons, though it’s difficult to see where the industry is planning to get the water from.  [Data from the Renewable Fuels Association.]

• As of January 2009, at least 170 ethanol biorefineries were operating in the United States with 24 additional ones (new location or expanding plants) being planned.

• Corn is a thirsty crop requiring about 109 gallons of water for each pound (910 liters of water for each kg) of corn (shelled maize).  [Other estimates include 20 inches of soil moisture per acre of maize planted, producing about 150 bushels of corn per acre). Most of the water usually comes from the rain.

• Research performed at Cornell University showed that 26.1 pounds of corn is needed to produce a gallon of ethanol (3.13kg of corn per liter).

• Based on various sources, fresh water consumption is increasing globally by at least 1.2 percent per year, and the rate is rising.

• Typical ethanol plants use about 4.2 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol, says the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. However, the ethanol  industry insists the water requirement is ‘only’ a ratio of 3 to 1.

• Annual harvest of corn in the US (2008) was 12,101 million bushels (307.37 MMT). [Source: USDA]

• Total amount of corn used to produce ethanol in 2008 was a staggering 3,600 million bushels (91.44MMT),  or 29.75 percent of the annual US corn harvest.[Source: USDA]

• Total amount of water needed to produce 15 billion gallons of ethanol, the US production target for 2015, is about 22 million-million gallons (83.5 trillion liters). That is about a fifth of the estimated volume of water in Lake Erie.

Notes:

1. A bushel of shelled maize (corn) weighs 56 pounds ( 25.40 kg).
2. MMT = Million Metric Tons.
3. FEWW calculations show that about 14.28 percent of the ethanol produced in the US in 2008 came from milo, other feedstocks, biomass, cheese whey and beverage waste.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions – 2009 Report

U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rose 1.4 percent in 2007, the EPA reported.

The bulk of the increase in 2007 was due to a rise in CO2 emissions from additional fuel and energy consumption, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said.

A cooler winter and warmer summer in 2007, compared to the previous year, resulted in higher demand for heating fuel and electricity, the report said.

Additionally, the demand for fossil fuels to generate electricity rose  significantly compensating for a  sharp drop of about 14.2  percent in hydropower generation due to low water levels.

In 2007 the US emitted the equivalent of  7,150 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in six main GHGs: carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide,  perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

The EPA report components are available at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

EU says its GHG fell because it was warmer

EU says its greenhouse gas emissions fell by 1.2 percent in 2007 compared to the previous year because the winter was warmer.

“For the EU, there was a significant decline in the use of oil and gas, particularly in households [in 2007,]” said a report prepared for the EU Commission by the European Environment Agency.

While the energy prices rose steeply in 2007, the report cited a warmer winter as the main reason for a fall in demand for fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal).

Emission in the manufacturing sector fell, especially in  Britain, Italy and Spain, while the emissions for the power generators consuming fossil fuels rose, namely in  Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and Spain.

The 27-nation block  generated 5.56 billion tons carbon dioxide equivalent gases (CO2e) in 2007, a fall of  about 59 million tons, or 1.2 percent, compared to 2006 to emissions.   Germany and Britain, the top two EU emitters, saw a fall of 2.4 and 1.7 percent respectively, the report said.

According to the report, Latvia’s emissions in 2007 fell 54.7 percent below the 1990 level, while Spain saw a rise of 53.5 percent above their 1990 emission level.

Related Links:

• World CO2 Emissions
• CO2e
• Carbon Footprint of Your Dollar
• The Billionaires’ contribution to CO2 pollution
• Protect Economy from Climate??!

• Blind scientists examining the economic elephant
• Index of Human Impact on Nature
• World Problems: The Root Cause Matrix
• First Wave of World’s Collapsing Cities
• Future Scenarios