Friday, 02 Feb 2007

Now We've Done It

Humans "very likely" changing the climate, says long-awaited IPCC report

A few weeks of leaks stole some thunder, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released the first installment of its long-awaited fourth report, and the news is -- well, not news, thanks to those meddling leakers. But let's pretend. The news is out! The world's scientists say there's a 90-plus percent chance that humans are causing global warming! They say by 2100, temperatures will likely rise 3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit, and sea levels will rise 7 to 23 inches, plus another 4 to 8 inches if polar ice sheets keep melting. This is the real deal -- and it's a conservative deal, since it required a 154-country consensus. "Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible," said Achim Steiner, who heads the U.N. Environment Program. Even the U.S. sorta admitted the report has legs, with a White House science and technology policy staffer saying it "will be valuable to policymakers." As kindling, or what?


Chances are you're not going to be able to turn around today without bumping into some reference to the new IPCC climate report. We're not just saying that because we're navel-gazing greens: try 1,624 news stories on Google, and counting. (OK, we're Google-gazing greens. But it's still a big deal.) Because we want to arm you with the most current scientific information -- and make sure you're not embarrassed at cocktail parties -- we've prepared a quick rundown on what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is and how this new report fits into the big picture. Also, if you're feeling helpless and alone, check out our list of 11 things you can do to help fight climate change. Sex, pubs, and compact fluorescents -- it's all in there!

You Wanna Peace of Him?

Al Gore nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Three cheers for Al Gore, whose incessant blabbering about climate change has gotten him nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. "Al Gore with his movie and his dedication and his active diplomacy among world leaders has really moved the issue forward," says Boerge Brende, one of two Norwegian lawmakers who snuck Gore's nomination in just before the deadline. (We nominated Al too, but as we're not a member of a national government, a past Nobel laureate, or a university professor, we were ignored. Plus we called him Dreamy Al on the nomination slip.) Brende called global warming "this century's most important and most threatening environmental issue"; he, along with political opponent Heidi Soerensen, also nominated Inuit climate-change activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier. We'll have to wait until mid-October to find out the big winner, but we can agree with Brende on one thing: "A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference."


Does it make sense to subsidize the hunting of cute baby harp seals? Doug Koplow finds it crazy -- and there's plenty of other giveaways he's not so fond of either. As founder of Earth Track, his aptly named subsidy-tracking organization, Koplow fights to keep private handouts in the public eye. In fielding reader questions as this week's InterActivist, Koplow shares his wisdom on where local activists can look for subsidies in their neighborhoods, why ethanol handouts may be doomed, and how it all started with the horse-drawn buggy.

Heart Trouble

High levels of pollution lead to increased heart disease in women, study finds

News flash: pollution is bad. And women living in highly polluted areas are 76 percent more likely to die of a heart attack or stroke, according to a rigorous study published in the New England Journal of Medicine yesterday. "The magnitude of the findings are substantially higher than what's been seen in prior research on long-term effects of air pollution," says report director Joel Kaufman. Researchers monitored the health of 65,893 post-menopausal women for up to nine years, as well as the soot levels near their homes in 36 cities. (Be aware, ladies in L.A., Atlanta, and NYC; stay where you are, honeys in Honolulu and Tucson.) "[A]ir pollution isn't just an environmentalist's issue, or a matter of decreased visibility," says Kaufman. "It's impacting our health right now." Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S. The study was financed in part by the U.S. EPA, which sets the (currently rather lenient) standard for allowable particulate pollution. Hint, hint.

But Wait, There's More

Wal-Mart CEO announces new energy-focused sustainability initiative

First Prince Charles jets across the Atlantic just to accept an eco-award, and now he's hanging out with the likes of Wal-Mart chief Lee Scott. Is there anything His Royal Highness won't do to piss off self-righteous greens? Has he considered biting the head off an endangered salamander? While we await his next move, we applaud the latest: inviting Scott to speak to some 400 execs at a London conference on greening business. It gave Scott the chance to unveil "Sustainability 360," a new initiative that will involve employees, customers, and communities in the chain's trumpeted efforts to prove that discount shopping and eco-consciousness mix. The plan will focus on cutting nonrenewable energy from the store's products and from its customers' lives. Yes, we'll insert the requisite comment here about the company's notoriously poor labor standards. But Scott says the new green focus has helped with employee recruitment and retention, so maybe he's doing something right. Bite of salamander, anyone?