Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/29/2012 9:53:05 AM

Sea Level Rise Accelerating Faster than Initial Projections


Sea level is rising as the planet warms up, but how much it will rise, and how fast is still something climate scientists are working out. And according to study released late Tuesday in Environmental Research Letters the ocean is already rising faster than the most recent authoritative report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was projecting as recently as 2007.

“Results show that global temperature continues to increase in very good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC," the authors of the new study write. "The rate of sea level rise of the past decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea level projections for the future may also be biased low.”

Storm surge on a Louisiana highway shows the affects of rising sea levels.
Credit: NOAA.

The IPCC issues comprehensive reports every five to seven years, with the next one due out in 2013-2014. The reports summarize the state of scientific knowledge on climate change, and are used as the underpinning of interational climate talks aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The latest round of these negotiations is currently underway in Doha, Qatar.

The IPCC’s projections showed a worst-case scenario of just less than 2 feet of sea level rise by 2100. “Lots of people felt that the IPCC was too conservative," said co-author Grant Foster, of the consulting firm Tempo Analytics, in Garland, Maine. "The IPCC explicitly stated in the 2007 report that its models excluded 'future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow.' ” In other words, it didn’t allow for the fact that ice flowing into the sea from Greenland and Antarctica might speed up as the planet warms.

That doesn’t entirely account for the lower prediction, according to the study's lead author, Sefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam (Germany) Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We also have five more years of data,” Rahmstorf said. And much of that data is from satellites, which are more comprehensive than the tide gauges used in the pre-satellite era.

Still, many experts, including Rahmstorf, were convinced several years ago that the increase in sea level by 2100 should be more than 3 feet (assuming, that is, that no serious measures are taken to reduce heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions). Even the 1-foot rise in the New York area from 1900 to the present was enough to boost the destructive power of Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge; 3 feet of extra sea level could prove truly catastrophic. Their calculations were based, not on additional sea level data, but on more sophisticated analyses of the relation between sea level and temperature, based in part on evidence from ancient climate conditions.

The newly published figures don’t change that 3-foot projection for 2100: they look instead at the measured rate of sea level rise from 1993-2011, pegging it at about 3.2 millimeters per year. That’s 60 percent faster than the 2 millimeters per year the IPCC’s computer models suggested should have happened over that same period — a clear indication that those models weren’t especially accurate.

Even at 3.2 millimeters per year, sea level would only go up by a foot by 2100; the extra 2 feet almost everyone expects will come from an accelerating sea level rise caused by ever increasing temperatures.

But 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100 is a projection; it isn’t necessarily destiny. “A lot depends on what emissions path we follow,” Foster said. “If we get our acts together, it doesn’t have to go that high.”

Related Content
The Bad News Continues to Flow About Antarctica's Ice
Sandy's Storm Surge Explained and Why It Matters
Surging Seas: Sea level rise analysis by Climate Central

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/29/2012 1:01:48 PM

Palestinians certain to win UN recognition as a state but opposition could delay independence

By Edith M. Lederer, The Associated Press | Associated Press5 hrs ago

The Palestinians are certain to win U.N. recognition as a state on Thursday but success could exact a high price: delaying an independent state of Palestine because of Israel's vehement opposition.

The United States, Israel's closest ally, mounted an aggressive campaign to head off the General Assembly vote, which the Palestinians view as a historic step in their quest for global recognition.

The Palestinians say they need U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, the lands Israel captured in 1967, to be able to resume negotiations with Israel and the non-member observer state status could also open the way for possible war crimes charges against the Jewish state at the International Criminal Court.

In a last-ditch move Wednesday, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns made a personal appeal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas promising that President Barack Obama would re-engage as a mediator in 2013 if Abbas abandoned the effort to seek statehood. But the Palestinian leader refused, said Abbas aide Saeb Erekat.

For Abbas, the U.N. bid is crucial if he wants to maintain his leadership and relevance, especially following the recent conflict between his Hamas rivals in Gaza and Israel. It saw the Islamic militant group claim victory and raise its standing in the Arab world while his Fatah movement was sidelined and marginalized.

The Palestinians chose the "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" for the vote. Before it takes place, there will be a morning of speeches by supporters focusing on the rights of the Palestinians. Abbas is scheduled to be a speaker at that meeting, and again in the afternoon when he will present the case for Palestinian statehood in the General Assembly.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Wednesday that the U.N. vote will not fulfil the goal of independent Palestinian and Israeli states living side by side in peace, which the U.S. strongly supports because that requires direct negotiations.

"We need an environment conducive to that," she told reporters in Washington. "And we've urged both parties to refrain from actions that might in any way make a return to meaningful negotiations that focus on getting to a resolution more difficult."

The U.S. Congress has threatened financial sanctions if the Palestinians improve their status at theUnited Nations.

Ahead of the vote, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch filed an amendment to a defence bill Wednesday that would eliminate funding for the United Nations if the General Assembly changes Palestine's status.

"Increasing the Palestinians' role in the United Nations is absolutely the wrong approach, especially in light of recent military developments in the Middle East," he said in a statement. "Israel is one of America's closest allies, and any movement to strengthen one of its fiercest enemies must not be tolerated."

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said that by going to the U.N., the Palestinians violate "both the spirit and the word of signed agreements to solve issues through negotiations," which broke down four years ago.

But Israeli officials appeared to back away from threats of drastic measures if the Palestinians get U.N. approval, with officials suggesting the government would take steps only if the Palestinians use their new status to act against Israel.

Regev, meanwhile, affirmed that Israel is willing to resume talks without preconditions.

U.N. diplomats said they will be listening closely to Abbas' speech to the General Assembly on Thursday afternoon before the vote to see if he makes an offer of fresh negotiations with no strings, which could lead to new talks. The Palestinians have been demanding a freeze on Israeli settlements as a precondition.

As a sign of the importance Israel attaches to the vote, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermanflew to New York and was scheduled to meet Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon before the vote. Israel's U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor had been scheduled to speak in the General Assembly after Abbas, but it appears Lieberman may now make Israel's case opposing the resolution.

Unlike the Security Council, there are no vetoes in the General Assembly. The 193-member world body is dominated by countries sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and the resolution to raise its status from an observer to a nonmember observer state only requires a majority vote for approval. To date, 132 countries — over two-thirds of the U.N. member states — have recognized the state of Palestine.

The Palestinians have been courting Western nations, especially the Europeans, seen as critical to enhancing their international standing. A number have announced they will vote "yes" including France, Spain, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland. Those opposed or abstaining include the U.S., Israel, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands and Australia.

A high vote could boost Abbas' standing.

"If there is a poor turnout, a poor vote, the radicals gain," said India's U.N. Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri.

The Palestinians turned to the General Assembly after the United States announced it would veto their bid last fall for full U.N. membership until there is a peace deal with Israel.

Following last year's move by the Palestinians to join the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO, the United States withheld funds from the organization, which amount to 22 per cent of its budget. The U.S. also withheld money to the Palestinians.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/29/2012 1:08:13 PM

Israeli official downplays Palestinian UN bid


Associated Press/Nasser Ishtayeh - Palestinian schoolgirls hold pictures of President Mahmoud Abbas with Yasser Arafat, flowers and olive branches during a rally supporting the Palestinian UN bid for observer state status, in the West Bank city of Nablus, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012. The Palestinians will request to upgrade their status on November 29. The status could add weight to Palestinian claims for a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war from Jordan. (AP Photo/Nasser Ishtayeh)

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, right, shakes hands with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at U.N. headquarters Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)
Plestinian security officers slide down from a building next to a banner of President Mahmoud Abbas with Yasser Arafat, in the West Bank town of Jenin, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012. The Palestinians will request the UN to upgrade their status to an observer state on November 29. The status could add weight to Palestinian claims for a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war from Jordan. Arabic on the left reads "our hero prisoners, the covenant is the covenant and the section is the section, your liberty will stay our first priority,"and right, "all your people (are) with you."(AP Photo/Mohammed Ballas)
JERUSALEM (AP) —
Israel's deputy foreign minister downplayed the Palestinians' statehood bid at the United Nations on Thursday, calling their internationally backed quest for global recognition a "virtual move without any substance" that could boomerang against them.

After four years of deadlocked negotiations, the Palestinians plan to ask the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday to recognize a non-member state of Palestine in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem, and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

The measure, advanced over Israeli and U.S. objections, is expected to pass because the Palestinians have overwhelming support in the assembly and do not face a U.S. veto there as they do in the Security Council.

Backing for the Palestinians' appeal to the U.N. bid came from an unexpected quarter Thursday, when former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was quoted as saying the Palestinian request "is congruent with the basic concept" of the two-state solution.

"Therefore, I see no reason to oppose it," said, according to The Daily Beast news website. An Olmert spokesman did not return a call for comment.

Olmert, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and their teams conducted peace talks in 2007 through early 2009, but never clinched a deal.

The U.S. and Israel mounted an aggressive campaign to head off the General Assembly vote.

In a last-ditch move Wednesday, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns made a personal appeal to Abbas, promising that President Barack Obama would re-engage as a mediator in 2013 if Abbas abandoned the statehood effort. The Palestinian leader refused, according to Abbas' aide Saeb Erekat.

For Abbas, the U.N. bid is crucial if he wants to maintain his leadership and relevance. The Islamic militant group's standing in the Arab world has risen as changes sweep the region, while Abbas' Fatah movement, which governs the West Bank, has been sidelined and marginalized.

Israel, meanwhile, focused on lining up European powers against the bid. But France and other European nations have lined up behind the Palestinians, Germany announced Thursday that it would abstain and Britain indicated it might do the same.

Still, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon insisted Thursday that "the Palestinians will come out the losers in the end."

The statehood bid, he told Army Radio, constitutes a "serious violation" of peace accords between the two sides. Israel will consequently feel itself "less bound" by those agreements, and could respond by withholding funds or security cooperation from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, he said.

"In my opinion, it's a losing proposition," Ayalon said. "It's a virtual move without any substance."

The Israeli government argues that the Palestinians can only win a state through negotiations with Israel and maintains the U.N. appeal violates peace accords by sidestepping talks.

However, Ron Pundak, one of the architects of those mid-1990s accords, told Army Radio on Thursday that the agreements contained no provision blocking such a move.

The Palestinians are turning to the General Assembly a year after they failed to muster Security Council to recognize "Palestine" as a full-fledged U.N. member.

Intense Israeli and U.S. lobbying against that earlier bid buried it. But this year, the Palestinians have been helped by another year of stalemate and perhaps more important, changes in the Arab world that have strengthened the Palestinian Authority's militant Hamas rivals, who oppose negotiations with Israel.

European nations have been more receptive to this latest bid, in the hope of bolstering the authority's moderate president, Mahmoud Abbas, who governs the West Bank. Abbas champions negotiations, but his stature at home has suffered because of his failure to deliver a state through diplomacy during his eight-year tenure.

General Assembly recognition of an independent state of Palestine will not actually deliver a state, end the Israeli occupation or reunify the Palestinians, who are ruled by dueling governments in the West Bank and Gaza.

But the Palestinians hope U.N. recognition will add weight to their claims for an independent homeland and say they hope to leverage it to resume negotiations.

The Palestinians are going to the U.N. on an emotionally charged date. On Nov. 29, 1947, the U.N. decided to partition what was then British-ruled Palestine into Jewish and Arab territories. Jewish leaders accepted the plan, but Arabs rejected it, and the Palestinians were left without a state.


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/29/2012 1:22:05 PM

Bangladesh fire protests rage, supervisors arrested


Reuters/Reuters - Three supervisors of a Bangladeshi garment factory are escorted by the police after their arrest in Dhaka in this still image taken from November 28, 2012 video footage. The three supervisors were arrested on Wednesday as protests over a suspected arson fire that killed more than 100 people in the country's worst-ever industrial blaze raged on into a third day, with textile workers and police clashing in the streets of a Dhaka suburb. REUTERS/ATN News via Reuters TV

DHAKA/CHICAGO (Reuters) - Three supervisors of a Bangladeshi garment factory were arrested on Wednesday as protests over a suspected arson fire that killed more than 100 people raged on into a third day, with textile workers and police clashing in the streets of a Dhaka suburb.

The government has blamed last weekend's disaster, the country's worst-ever industrial blaze, on saboteurs and police said they had arrested two people, who were seen on CCTV footage trying to set fire to stockpiles of material in another factory.

The fire at Tazreen Fashions has put a spotlight on global retailers that source clothes fromBangladesh, where wage costs are low - as little as $37 a month for some workers. Rights groups have called on Western firms to sign on to a safety program in that country, the world's second-biggest clothes exporter.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc, the world's largest retailer, said one of its suppliers subcontracted work to the now burned-out factory without authorization and would no longer be used. But one of the most senior figures in the country's garment industry cast doubt on that claim.

"I won't believe Walmart entirely if they say they did not know of this at all. That is because even if I am subcontracted for a Walmart deal, those subcontracted factories still need to be certified by Walmart," Annisul Huq, former president of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association, told Reuters following a meeting of association members.

"You can skirt rules for one or two odd times if it is for a very small quantity, but no decent quantity of work can be done without the client's knowledge and permission," he said.

Wal-Mart, in a statement, reiterated that while it does have an audit and notification system in place, in this case a supplier subcontracted to the workshop without approval.

MOST FACTORIES CLOSED

Witnesses said that at least 20 people were injured on Wednesday in the capital's industrial suburb of Ashulia as police pushed back protesters demanding safer factories and punishment for those responsible for the blaze, which killed 111 workers and injured more than 150.

Thousands of workers poured out onto the roads, blocking traffic, as the authorities closed most of the 300 garment factories in the area. They were driven back by riot police using tear gas and batons.

Three employees of Tazreen Fashions - an administrative officer, a store manager and a security supervisor - were arrested and paraded in front of the media.

Dhaka District Police Chief Habibur Rahman told Reuters they would be investigated for suspected negligence.

He said police were investigating complaints from some survivors that factory managers had stopped workers from leaving the multi-story building after a fire alarm went off.

Representatives of the Tazreen Fashions factory, including the owner, were not available for comment.

CCTV SHOWS APPARENT ARSON ATTEMPT

The country's interior minister, Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, has blamed saboteurs for the fire.

Adding to the case for arson, a news channel aired CCTV footage showing two employees of another factory in the Ashulia area trying to set fire to stockpiles of material.

Police chief Rahman said a woman and a man, who were identified from the video, had been taken into custody.

The TV clip shows a lone woman wearing a mauve head scarf and traditional loose garment passing through a room with clothes piled neatly in various places on a table. She briefly disappears from view beneath the table and then is shown again walking through the room and out of camera range.

Smoke soon begins to billow, first slowly then more rapidly, from the spot where the woman was seen ducking under the table.

Workers come running in and try to douse the flames by various means. The woman in the mauve scarf reenters the room and is seen helping workers in their efforts to put out the blaze.

Two other incidents in the outskirts of Dhaka - a fire at a factory on Monday morning and an explosion and fire at a facility on Tuesday evening - have raised concerns among manufacturing leaders that the industry may be under attack.

Talk of sabotage has also spread fear.

At least 50 garment workers were injured in a stampede as they tried to flee from their factory after a faulty generator caught fire in the city of Chittagong, the fire service said. Factory workers quickly put out the flames.

Bangladesh has about 4,500 garment factories and is the world's biggest exporter of clothing after China, with garments making up 80 percent of its $24 billion annual exports.

Working conditions in Bangladeshi factories are notoriously poor, with little enforcement of safety laws. Overcrowding and locked fire doors are not uncommon.

More than 300 factories near Dhaka were shut for almost a week earlier this year as workers demanded higher wages and better conditions. At least 500 have died in garment factory accidents in Bangladesh since 2006, according to fire brigade officials.

(Additional reporting by Jessica Wohl in Chicago; Writing by John Chalmers and Ben Berkowitz; Editing by Robert Birsel and Gunna Dickson)


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/29/2012 3:38:29 PM
How Big Oil Spent Part of Its $90 Billion in Profits So Far in 2012













Written by Daniel J. Weiss, Jackie Weidman

Lingering high oil and gasoline prices contributed to another quarter of huge profits for the big five oil companies: BP plc, Chevron Corp, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil Corp, and the Royal Dutch Shell Group. They earned a combined $28 billion in the third quarter of 2012, reaping more than $90 billion in profits through the first three quarters of the year. (see Table 1) As they did last year, the “big five” are on track to easily exceed $100 billion in profits this year.

What makes this figure all the more staggering is that these companies actually producedless oil in 2012 compared to 2011. The big five oil companies’ total oil production in the third quarter was 5 percent—or 400,000 barrels per day—lower than in the third quarter of 2011.

And despite such impressive profits, U.S. taxpayers are still subsidizing these companies. In 2012 the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that these big five oil companies would receive $2.4 billion in special tax breaks. The three U.S. oil companies among this cohort—Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil—also pay a relatively low effective federal tax rate. Reuters reports that in 2011 these three companies paid 19 percent, 18 percent, and 13 percent effective federal tax rate, respectively. These oil companies’ tax rates, Reuters concluded, are “a far cry from the 35 percent top corporate tax rate.”

So what benefits do these profits produce? Do they create new jobs, as those advocating for the tax breaks and lower corporate tax rates would lead us to believe? Not exactly. Between 2005 and 2010—the last year for which data is available—the “big five” reduced their workforce by 11,200 employees, according to a report by the Democratic staff of the House Natural Resources Committee. And the profits certainly haven’t been used as a buffer to lower gas prices, which are still hovering around $3.50, according to the American Automobile Association. Instead, the companies used these enormous profits on some other activities.

For starters, these companies continue to use massive profits to enrich their top executives and largest shareholders by repurchasing their own stock. The big five oil companies spent nearly one-quarter of their third-quarter profits buying back their own stock. These companies are also sitting on $70.7 billion in cash reserves—money not invested in searching for new sources of energy.

But the “big five” did spend lots of money on Capitol Hill in 2012, investing heavily to protect their special tax breaks. Since 2011 they have spent more than $100 million lobbying Congress to protect low tax rates and block pollution controls and safeguards for public health.

In addition to lobbying Congress, the big five oil companies have directly contributed $6.7 million to federal candidates and political parties with 78 percent going to Republicans and 22 percent to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

We also know that these companies have been funneling money into super PACs and political advocacy organizations to broadcast ads that oppose President Obama and his clean energy agenda and promote the companies’ tax breaks. Last month, for example, Chevron made the single-largest corporate donation since the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporate money in elections in its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. The company invested $2.5 million in the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC for House Republicans.

This relatively modest investment in lobbying, elections, and politics by oil companies has paid off handsomely. In addition to maintaining their special tax breaks, the FY 2013 budgetpassed by the house would provide an additional new tax cut of more than $2 billion annuallyfor these same companies in the fiscal year beginning this past October. Overall, the House of Representatives voted 109 times this Congress to enrich oil companies, according to a study by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA). This is a return on investment that would make Donald Trump jealous.

If the story of huge profits, stock buybacks, cash reserves, lobbying, and campaign dollars by big oil companies sounds familiar, that’s because it is. The “big five” rake in billions of dollars due to high oil and gasoline prices, all while receiving special tax breaks and producing less oil. It’s a story that will be rebroadcast again and again until Congress begins to reform this industry, starting with ending their $2.4 billion in special tax breaks.

This post was originally published by the Center for American Progress.

Related Stories:

America’s New Mandate on Climate Change

Oil-Soaked Saudi Arabia Sets Goal of 100% Renewable Energy

British Engineers Create Gasoline Out Of Thin Air

Read more: , , , , , , ,

Photo: Rainforest Action Network/flickr



Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/how-big-oil-spent-part-of-its-90-billion-in-profits-so-far-in-2012.html#ixzz2Dct5Ggru

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!