Ice Declining Faster Than Expected In Both Arctic And Antarctic Glaciers

ScienceDaily (2009-02-26) -- New evidence of the widespread effects of global warming in the polar regions is emerging. Snow and ice are declining in both polar regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal life in the Arctic, as well as global ocean and atmospheric circulation and sea level. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass contributing to sea level rise. Warming in the Antarctic is much more widespread than previously thought, and it now appears that the rate of ice loss from Greenland is increasing.

Confused about C.L.A.R.O. !

My expectation that the letter written by Desmond Baxter would appear in the Round Town News was not disappointed.

Today in the CoastRider we see the continuation of the theme of the questioning of the attitudes of the C.L.A.R.O. party of Orihuela Costa with the publication of the following letter by J Longman.

Dear Editor,

I have been following the budget dispute between the CLARO party, through it's President Mr. Houliston, and the opposition parties within the Orihuela Town Council, in your paper with some confusion.

My first point of confusion is as to why CLARO are attacking the other opposition parties. All be it that CLARO did not receive enough votes at the election to get any Councillors elected, if the party truly wants to fight against the current PP government shouldn't it be working with the opposition parties that do have a representation on the Council and not attacking them as Mr. Houliston is? Isn't it part of the role of the opposition as a whole to take the government to task and accountable to ensure that it does the best for the borough. CLARO seem to have missed this point and want to attack and blame the other opposition parties for not being able to stop the PP, who have an outright majority of 3, I believe.

My second point of confusion is that CLARO have not given any indication as far as I can read, in your paper, or on their website, that it submitted any proposals to the Council in the preparation of the budget. Although Mr. Houliston's letter was predominantly aimed at the Socialist Party, the Green Party have taken umbrage at his comments and replied that they had put forward some ideas for the budget, which included some for Orihuela Costa area and had got some of them accepted. The Socialist Party seem to be keeping very quiet on this matter, so perhaps they didn't put anything in for the coast.

In his letter the President of CLARO said "C.L.A.R.O. has described the 2009 budget as an INSULT and DISGRACE from Orihuela Costa's point of view." .

Well if as it seems that CLARO did not submit any amendments to the budget (I am assuming they didn't otherwise they would have shouted about the fact on the 10th February when you printed a reply by CLARO to the Green Party), then as the party that sells itself as the only one that represents the people of Orihuela Costa then it would seem that it is " an INSULT and DISGRACE" on the part of CLARO to it's members and the electorate of Orihuela Costa in that it did not truly try to represent the needs of the coast. It would seem that they are working on the basis of don't do as I do but do as I say ( I would if I got elected)! I'm confused.

In the article of the 10th February the following quote appears, 'change', CLARO says has been postponed to 2011, but it insists that change will indeed come."

What will change? It is obvious, because of the current 2 major party structure in Spain and the method of proportional representation used, that in the local elections in 2011 in the Orihuela Town Council the largest party will either be the PP or PSOE, but perhaps hopefully without a direct one party majority. If this is the case the smaller elected parties will have an important role to play in forming a coalition or cooperative government with PSOE, hopefully without the PP. Let's assume for a moment that CLARO manage to get a presence on the Council; will the party change it's attitude to the current larger opposition parties (Socialists and Greens) which it so readily currently attacks and criticizes, to form a government to keep out the PP? Or, will CLARO suddenly have a change of attitude and work with the PP, in order to keep them in power, in the hope of getting it's (CLARO) share of power and some money for Orihuela Costa in return? The way that CLARO may work in the future seems to lead to confusion!

If some of the registered voters are to choose CLARO in 2011 (assuming it is still in existence) instead of either the Socialists or the Greens, and hopefully not the PP, then the voters will need to know what will actually change in CLARO's attitude between now and then.

Yours sincerely,
J Longman,
Orihuela Costa

Is C.L.A.R.O. determined to keep the PP in power?

As at today's date the following letter has appeared on the letters to the Editor page in both the Le@der and the CoastRider newspapers, and I would expect that it will be published in the Round Town News on Friday the 20th February.

It needs no additional comment from me.

I publish it here in case anyone has missed reading the letter because of not been able to acquire a copy of the paper.

"Dear Sir,

Claro the expatriate led party without a seat in Orihuela town hall achieves nothing but is often in the news as a result of the efforts of its spokesperson, a chap with a name I can never get my tongue round. He is a dab hand with words, quick to hold a press conference, send out a press release etc for appearances sake.

Independent groups have a poor achievement record but they have their uses. The PP, the governing group in Orihuela must be delighted with the collaboration of Claro. If Claro had not existed the PP would never have been able to have invented such a subservient partner.

The record reveals that in the last the municipal elections Claro split the opposition, kept the PP in power, yet failed to win a single seat. Was that the plan? Without even trying they have given rise to an attitude of them and us. They claim to represent the interests of Orihuela Costa in spite of the fact that in Spain political responsibility is not worked out the British way. In the UK we would work via the existing system so why adopt a different attitude here? Not surprisingly, the PP sits back and benefits from Claro’s mischief. The other opposition parties view Claro with hostility and suspicion.

The governing group, the PP with its overall majority bears the responsibility for the ills which afflict Orihuela. Nevertheless, these days Claro spends its energies attacking the other opposition parties.

Such is its determination to keep the PP in power.

Desmond Baxter"

Cheap Roses Cost The Earth

ScienceDaily (Feb. 14, 2009) — Ecology and conservation biologist at the University of Leicester, Dr David Harper, who has conducted research for over 25 years at Lake Naivasha in Kenya, has warned that cut-price Valentine roses exported for sale in the UK were ‘bleeding that country dry’.

Read more........

Budget 2009 - Everyone is to blame except C.L.A.R.O.

On the 27th January the CoastRider paper published a letter from Mr Bob Houliston the President of the C.L.A.R.O. political party in which he criticised the opposition parties in the Orihuela Town Council for not speaking out on behalf of the Orihuela Costa area in relation to the municipal budget for 2009.

In the following week's edition, on the 3rd February, the CoastRider published a reply by Los Verdes of Orihuela to the letter from Bob Houliston. On the same day I posted an article on the Los Verdes in Orihuela Costa blog which included both the original letter and a copy the article in the CoastRider and additional replies to the original letter.

A Press Release was published by C.L.A.R.O. on the 6th February, on the party's web site, in reply to the response of Los Verdes, and reference to it was included in an article in the CoastRider on the 10th February.

Once again the C.L.A.R.O. spokesperson continues to mislead both it's supporters and the general electorate of Orihuela Costa with generalised and unsubstantiated accusations against Los Verdes and the Elected Opposition parties.

Facts

The public should be informed of the facts and not the C.L.A.R.O. fiction!

At the election on the 27th May 2007.

• Orihuela Municipality

  Total Votes 31546; Los Verdes 2847 (3rd with 9.02%), C.L.A.R.O. 916 (8th with 2.90%)

• Coastal Area ( Orihuela Costa & Torremendo)

  Total Votes 2652; Los Verdes 334 (4th with 12.59%), C.L.A.R.O. 895 (1st with 33.75%)

• Orihuela Costa only

  Total Votes 2113; Los Verdes 155 (5th with 7.33%), C.L.A.R.O. 835 (1st with 39.52%)

C.L.A.R.O. did receive the highest number of votes in the coastal area but only received 2.90% of the total votes cast within the whole Municipality, well below the 5% necessary to be included within the parties eligible for the appointment of Councillors in accordance with the D'Hondt method of proportional representation, effective in the Spanish electoral system.

Los Verdes, as the party that received the 3rd largest percentage of total votes, was appointed 3 Councillors out of the 25 total allowed, to represent all parts of the Municipality including Orihuela Costa. The party is the second largest member of the Elected |Opposition. Of the 25 Councillors allowed the allocation to the parties is PP with 14, PSOE with 7, Los Verdes with 3, and CLR with 1. The PP have an outright majority of 3 and therefore are the governing party and do not need to work with any other party.

Proposals put forward for 2009 Budget

• Los Verdes

  Total of 74 of which 17 were for Orihuela Costa.

• C.L.A.R.O.

  Total of 0 of which 0 were for Orihuela Costa.

Proposals accepted by PP ruled Council within 2009 Budget

• Los Verdes

  Total of 14 of which 5 are for Orihuela Costa.

• C.L.A.R.O.

  Total of 0 of which 0 are for Orihuela Costa.

Los Verdes worked in conjunction with, and on behalf of, the public of Orihuela Costa and the remainder of the municipality and put forward meaningful proposals for inclusion within the 2009 Budget.

C.L.A.R.O. failed to put forward any proposals on behalf of the electorate of Orihuela Costa, the people they say they are working for, and therefore have failed to honour their pledge made on the 9th May 2007 within their 2007 election manifesto; “C.L.A.R.O.’s mission is to be close to the people, to protect their rights and ensure they benefit from the services to which they are entitled and for which they pay their taxes.”.

I accept that this is more difficult for a party that is not a member of the 'Elected Opposition' on the Council, but I believe that the C.L.A.R.O. leadership made no attempt to work with any of the Opposition parties to ask for their (PSOE, Los Verdes, or CLR) assistance to put forward any proposals.

Conclusion

When entering the C.L.A.R.O. website it says “Welcome to C.L.A.R.O - A New Hope for Orihuela Costa” they say they are working for “A better future for Orihuela Costa” and they pose the question “What do we want?” and provide the answer as “To participate democratically in decision-making in the Orihuela Municipal Council to protect the legal and social rights and the interests of those living in Orihuela Costa”.

The undeniable failure by C.L.A.R.O. to participate, where possible, in the production and amendment of the 2009 Budget is a total failure on the part of the leadership of the party, to honour it's pledges and promises to the electorate of Orihuela Costa, the people it says it supports.

Bob Houliston ,the President of C.L.A.R.O., accuses Los Verdes of Orihuela of ignoring the needs of the public, not standing up for the needs of the people, of Orihuela Costa, in respect of the Budget; where as the facts show that it is the party that he leads that has failed by the lack of action in respect of the 2009 Budget. He is quick to criticise the Opposition parties for not being able to stop the PP majority ruled Council agreeing to an unacceptable budget, so as to mislead the C.L.A.R.O. members and the general public into believing that the party is not at fault but everyone else is.

In the Press Release dated 6th February 2009 C.L.A.R.O. says “Change has been postponed until 2011. But change will come.” in respect of the political map of the Orihuela Municipality.

Yes change will come in 2011, with the removal of the PP as the ruling party, because of the work of the current Elected Opposition parties to show the public what the future could be, with a democratically elected alternative government that cares for the interests of the public and not for the benefit of the PP and it's friends the developers, building constructors, and Council hanger-ons.

Because of the proportional representation electoral system it may well need a coalition of two or more of the current Opposition parties to ensure a majority government team in 2011 that does not include the PP. This would not be an insurmountable solution as the current Elected Opposition parties have a good working relationship, whilst maintaining their independence.

But what if C.L.A.R.O. were to obtain a Council presence in 2011, who would they work with? Would they work with the Opposition parties that they are currently criticising with such venom, or would they work with the PP, if this gave C.L.A.R.O. an element of power to obtain benefits for Orihuela Costa to the detriment of the Municipality as a whole?

Now is the time for change from C.L.A.R.O.

Bob Houliston and his fellow party leaders of C.L.A.R.O. should stop criticising the Opposition parties, to try to cover up the failings of their own party in respect of the 2009 Budget, begin to liaise with the Elected Opposition in a positive working relationship to try to improve the services provided to the public by the Council and to work towards eliminating the possibility of a PP ruled Orihuela Town Council in 2011.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE IN A TIME OF CRISIS: CUTTING DEMAND, IMPROVING SUPPLY, AND REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS

(Published in a cross party pamphlet by several MEPs from different parties, to be presented on February 4th in Strasbourg)


Introduction

To deal successfully with climate change and with the energy crunch at the same time we need some challenging economic, regulatory and fiscal changes. This, however, is the challenge of our times.

Without overcoming the present, all-encompassing and superficial "green" thinking meeting that challenge will be impossible. Business as usual with just a few technical adjustments, some eco-marketing and an occasional solar panel is merely a recipe for further trouble. But we must be clear that there is no pure technological fix: there is no magic wand nor single invention that will help us confront the twin headed energy-climate monster.

In order to make progress we need to be prepared for serious social conflict and political controversy.

We need a complex mix of government policies, regulations, research funding and tax incentives, creating a system for innovating, generating, and deploying clean energy, efficiency, and productivity. Further, we desperately need an ethic of conservation and a new culture of sufficiency that calls into question many of the basic premises of our contemporary societies. We must learn that conservation is not necessarily the opposite of consumption. In order to consume more, we must conserve more.

The Economic Downturn: Eco-friend or Eco-foe?

To start with it would seem that the economic crisis has come to our rescue by sinking oil prices and reducing CO2 emissions. In 2008 world CO2 emissions will retreat by around 3%: the economic depression of the 30´s made emissions go down 35%. By cutting energy demand, the present recession may mean that many countries therefore have an easier time in meeting their Kyoto targets. But of course this ignores much of the South (and part of the North) that suffers energy poverty and totally overlooks the need for structural changes in our way of producing and consuming energy – and we need to address these things in order to be prepared for the next economic upswing. What the energy crunch does tell us is that our climate crisis is intimately entwined with our insatiable consumption patterns, the very force that until now has been the cornerstone of economic growth. We urgently need a way out of this destructive logic and into a "sustainable physical de-growth" that is compatible with a vibrant economy.

According to some voices the fight against climate change should be set aside until our economy improves. This is totally mistaken and utterly counterproductive. On the contrary, at the centre of our very response to the economic crisis should be a "green new deal" that regulates and channels public and private funding into clean development and industrial reconversion. Millions of new jobs can come from the green restoration of homes, from the building of public transport, from the massive extension of intelligent electricity grids and the retrofitting of our dirty and inefficient industrial base.

Tackling our energy-climate crisis is also about injecting our economy with real innovation, goods and services. By contrast, today’s economy has plunged into crisis thanks, in part, to financial speculation while simultaneously over-heating the climate. Junk loans have created literal junk by fuelling spending beyond real means, and toxic banks have funded toxic gases by promoting risky over-consumption that was not backed up by real spending power. Reorienting our economy to become carbon-conscious implies financial regulation that restricts irresponsible spending and fiscal policies that internalise hidden environmental costs.

A Carbon Tax: Funding the Affordable Alternative

In recent months many have been overjoyed at the news of oil prices plummeting in face of dwindling demand. Nevertheless, for renewable sources and energy efficiency measures to attract massive investment and really take off, we need a price floor on oil that will guarantee a degree of stability for investments in the alternatives. We cannot allow the price context for renewable energy to be constantly fluctuating on the unstable market price of oil. When oil goes under a certain price – say $100 a barrel - a special floating climate tax, on an EU level, should be levied. This would prevent the price of oil from falling further and provide badly needed public revenue for supporting economic recuperation for a post-carbon, and post-recession society in Europe.

This could also be a way of solving the EU´s lack of financial autonomy, providing no-strings-attached revenue and liberating it from the constant renegotiation of financial perspectives with member states. The proposal for a universal carbon tax has been supported by many of the world’s leading economists and the United Nations. It would be a way of helping the South make the jump to clean technologies and, additionally, it could provide financing for reaching agreed Millennium goals.

Beware of False “Friends”

We should also be cautious towards some possible false and bothersome "friends" of the climate-energy fix. Nuclear, agrofuels and carbon capture are three of them.

Nuclear: A massive switch to nuclear power would take all our investment and innovation power to build hundreds of new nuclear plants which would lead us to economic ruin and perpetuate a highly-centralised and dangerous source of energy that has simply too many problems and risks attached to merit our real consideration. The nuclear option is even less viable in the context of the economic recession due to their upfront costs and their capital-intensive, labour-poor nature when compared with other sources of energy.

Agrofuels for transport: This is the last resort to save the conventional internal combustion engine on the part of car manufacturers that are in deep trouble. Hybrid and electric cars hold out much more promise for reducing C02 emissions, taken alongside tax measures levied on high-carbon cars and the strong promotion of public transport. According to most studies many agrofuels make little or no dent in reducing climate change gases but, at the same time, can have very negative impacts on forests, farmlands and food prices.

Carbon capture and storage: Our present coal power plants must be modified to become much cleaner than they are at present. However, the promise of the still immature CCS technology is being used as a catch-all marketing spin to fool people into more and more coal power plants and irrational mining operations. Serious risks and technical problems remain. CCS might work - both environmentally and financially - but it will be ten years at least before we know for sure.

Demand and Supply: a Smart and Efficient Grid, Smart and Efficient Homes

One of our biggest challenges is distributing our electricity in an efficient and intelligent manner. Most of our present regulators and power utility operators follow a perverse and inefficient system. Currently, the more energy they sell the better. More power lines and power plants built means more clients signed up and more energy consumed. More investment is the result of greater consumption and there is little incentive for energy conservation. As the over-supply of energy mounts, so too do the profits.

For example, Spain produces around triple the amount of average energy consumed each year. They produce to serve peak demand of consumers instead of orienting demand to the times of peak production. It is generally a lineal, one way process on the grid. There is practically no feed back: there is very little energy contribution from consumers and practically no information on the energy consumption patterns of the consumer flowing back to the regulators. There are real advantages to saving, efficiency and renewable energy production, but maximising these is impossible when almost no economic dialogue exists between consumers and providers.

We desperately need a "decoupling" of consumption from the profits of energy suppliers. Energy auditors under EU or national guidance could establish compensation funds for achieving efficiency and savings for consumers. They should subsidise change in appliances, climatisers and light fixtures. It should be noted that the cost of generating each new kilowatt of electricity is more than five times that of saving one.

Especially important is the great void that exists in the integration of information technology and our daily energy system. Information technology and electricity convergence could reduce energy consumption radically in the building sector, which represents 40% of our current electricity consumption. IT could match electricity needs with the time when the energy is available. Why shouldn’t a washing machine or other appliances be programmed to work at off-peak hours when there is surplus production and supply of electricity? And why can’t we make alter the supply and demand pattern of electricity by using IT to create a modulated pricing system? Wouldn’t these ideas greatly reduce CO2 emissions and eliminate the need for hundreds of new power stations at a stroke?

Our homes can be the centre of our fight against climate change. The global production of cement produces around as much CO2 as all the passenger cars in the world. The standards for building homes (materials, energy efficiency, life-cycle analysis) should be as important as the CO2 emissions of cars. Too many of our buildings are enormous energy consumers when they could be net energy producers. This demands a clear tax structure to promote new bioclimatic designs, a new materials economy low in carbon, and an intelligent and informed exchange of electricity between homes and the grid.

The Firm Hand of the Law

Laws and regulations are primordial. For example, each Californian produces half the emissions as his or her fellow American, but this is not due to the triumph of personal choices. It is down to policies on CO2 emissions from cars, efficiency norms on appliances, and similar restrictions on machines. This has meant billions in savings and has had a positive effect on the economy.

Closer to home the difficulties of pushing a rational climate policy is becoming evident. The tremendous campaign against stricter car emission standards in the EU – waged by car manufacturers and some member states - has been successful in markedly weakening the EU Directive. This sad development is simply a reflection of the lack of political will on the part European politicians to take the energy-climate crisis seriously. At the time of writing the EU Council has just backtracked and watered-down key elements of the whole EU climate-energy package that must guide us toward the 2020 objective of a 20-30% reduction in CO2 emissions.

Conclusion: Looking Inward and Outward

Both within Europe and outside it, there exists a myth that the path to progress requires the right to pollute: we need to end that idea and create a sustainable future. That means action in our own backyard, but coupled with strengthened ties to the South of us, especially within the Mediterranean region, and embarking on clean energy integration and technology transfer projects that create common purpose and economic viability. It is possible to save the economy and the planet at the same time if we have the courage to propose a reorientation of our economy towards crucial environmental and social objectives. Determination, innovation, and legislation: we will need them all to make the progress that must be achieved.

Fewer Days Of Extreme Cold And More Days Of Extreme Heat In Europe

ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2009) — Scientists from the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM) have selected 262 European observatories which analysed the series of minimum and maximum daily temperatures from 1955 to 1998 to estimate trend variations in extreme temperature events. According to the study, in Europe days of extreme cold are decreasing and days of extreme heat increasing. From 0.5ºC to 1ºC in the average minimum temperature, and from 0.5ºC to 2ºC in the average maximum temperature.

The change and movement in the range of the higher temperatures can have a dramatic effect on the lives of the population of Europe. The article makes the reference that;

"Apart from their direct relationship with climate change, extreme temperatures (minimum and maximum) particularly affect human health." and further makes reference to "Experts warn that excessive heat can cause stress, worsening of diseases and even death, such as in the summer of 2003, when over 30,000 people died throughout Europe from the high temperatures." and "That summer record maximum temperatures were recorded in monthly, weekly and daily scales. For example, in Switzerland a temperature of 41.50ºC was recorded while in Portugal, 47.30ºC"

Whilst the temperatures experienced in the summer of 2008, in the Costa Blanca, did not reach the heights of 2003, I understand they were higher than those in the previous years since then.