What Exxon Knew

Clearly, there's going to be an impact so I'm not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It'll have a warming impact. How large it is, is very hard for anyone to predict and depending on how large it is then projects how dire the consequences are. In the fall of 2015, an investigation by the Pulitzer Prize winning Inside Climate News as well as the Los Angeles Times and the Colombia School of Journalism revealed a trove of documents from scientists inside oil giant ExxonMobil, showing that Exxon scientists understood the mechanisms and consequences of human caused climate change as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman recently subpoenaed oil giant ExxonMobil, apparently seeking documents that might show the company had downplayed the risks to profits and therefore to investors of stronger regulations on burning fossil fuels. The documents show Exxon understood a clear scientific consensus existed on the greenhouse effect, that the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could become a serious problem and mentioned the distinct possibility of effects that could be catastrophic for a substantial fraction of the Earth's population.

Exxon scientists stated their research was in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate. Multiple documents mentioned potential adverse impacts such as flooding of coastal land masses due to the melting Antarctica sheets. Our view of this very complex subject over the years, over the decades, has mirrored that of the broader scientific community. In the early 1980s, the scientific community was just beginning to sound the alarm about increasing buildup of gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Researchers say increasingly large amounts of CO2 are accumulating in the atmosphere. They fear the earth will gradually become warmer, causing as yet uncertain but possibly disruptive changes in the Earth's climate 50 to 70 years from now. The discussions that have taken place inside our company among our scientists mirror the discussions that have been taking place in the work that's been taking place by the broader scientific community.

That's what the facts show. Scientists and a few politicians are beginning to worry that global energy planning does not take the greenhouse effect seriously enough. Those same computer models correctly predict the past climate of the Earth. They correctly predict the present climate of the Earth. It is reasonable that they are correctly predicting the future climate on the Earth, given the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that were pouring into the atmosphere. Internal briefing documents for Exxon executives showed a science effort that was on the very cutting edge for its time. Graphs showed projections of temperature rise derived from increasingly complex atmospheric models, much like temperatures that have now been observed in the real world. Using global climate models developed by NASA, Exxon scientists agreed with the mainstream projections of approximately 3 degrees global average temperature rise for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide with a rise of more than 10 degrees projected for polar regions, a phenomenon called polar amplification, which has now been actually observed. Exxon state-of-the-art climate modeling predicted a pattern of planetary warming, projecting the lower atmosphere to warm, while the upper atmosphere cooled, a telltale fingerprint of human-caused warming that has now also been observed in the real world.

This table from 1982 predicts conditions looking well into the future including the current year of 2015 where Exxon predicted atmospheric carbon levels for our time to within nine parts per million and a temperature rise to within a few tenths of degree of the best current observations. But in the following years, something happened at Exxon. The company seem to have forgotten the findings of its own experts. Proponents of the global warming theory say that higher levels of greenhouse gases are causing world temperatures to rise and the burning fossil fuels is the reason. The scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect global climate. You know, there was no doubt that fossil fuels were the main driver of higher CO2 emissions and that CO2 emissions will lead to the climate change, right.

What Exxon was trying to figure out in the 70s and 80s was, when is it gonna hit and how bad is it gonna be but they knew it was gonna be bad like they admitted it is going to be bad, they used the word 'catastrophic' over and over again in documents. Fifteen years later, as the science became more certain, Exxon backed away from that and Lee Raymond talked about that. Many scientists agree there's ample time to better understand climate systems and considered policy options so there's simply no reason to take drastic action now. It's a pretty startling walk back from what, you know, the scientists said 15 years earlier. What he's concerned about and wants to know, is whether Exxon was using one set of scientific models to do its work in the Arctic, for example, where Exxon has been engaged in drilling and on the other hand, telling the public, telling its shareholders a very different set of facts about the state of climate change.

When you're making public disclosures to investors and when you're making public disclosures to government officials, there are laws regulating whether or not that's something that you really need to stand by so if there's evidence demonstrating purposeful concealment and it's too early to say then it really could be a big cloud over the company site. Exxon has funded a number of organizations that he said have been openly climate change deniers, he mentioned the American Enterprise Institute… Take for example, this hold 97% of scientists agree on global warming. That is an utterly fraudulent number. Has Exxon been funding these organizations? Well, the answer is yes, and I'll let those organizations respond for themselves. They're basically saying you and your industry are hiding the risks of climate change just like the tobacco companies hid the risks of smoking.

.. and then using tactics that are very similar to what the cigarette industry or tobacco industry used for many years even though the overwhelming scientific consensus was that smoking cigarettes is bad for you, they would find a few scientists that would disagree and then they would say, look, scientists disagree so that's essentially how they would try to trick the public into thinking that smoking is not that bad. There are allegations that ExxonMobil also funded research from somebody for example at the Smithsonian Institution without disclosing and without that person disclosing that he was going on a certain path whereby there were other scientists within ExxonMobil that might have had beliefs to the contrary. You have received over a million dollars and funds from coal and oil interests. The last grant you received from a funder with no ties to the energy industry was in 2002. That's over a decade ago. In recent weeks, ExxonMobil has accused Columbia School of Journalism of ethical misconduct in reporting this story. In response, Steve Coll, the Dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, has refuted those allegations in a detailed letter since published in The New York Times.

Meanwhile, 2015 will soon go down in history as the hottest year globally in the modern record with indications that 2016 will be even warmer. We can't be a 100% sure, but which is more prudent? Which is wiser? …to do nothing and hope that a mistake has been made, or to take these predictions seriously even if there's a chance the precautions you will take will be unnecessary..

China’s Climate Stance Laid Out by a Top Government Strategist

The key change is now China is faced with the so-called middle-income trap. In this stage, we continue to prioritize the development agenda — urbanization and industrialization. We haven't finished that. But on the other hand we have stringent constraints on natural resources and environmental quality. I would say there are two major aspects for China to shape its climate policy. One is its own development process. Another one is international responsibility. For the first aspect, its own development course, I would say there have been more and more endogenous reasons for China to take action. I would interpret that into restructuring the economy and changing the development pattern to upgrade its economy. China had to do something to change its economy. Otherwise there would be no hope for its further development. For the other aspect, its international responsibility, my understanding is China will take its responsibilities as a large developing country, but certainly subject to its capabilities, also on an equitable basis.

China will make the decision not only with the understanding of its own situation …but also the overall design of the global responsibility system, including looking at the share of burden or benefits in the process from other countries — for example the United States, Europe, Japan. In these aspects China continues to keep the idea of common but differentiated responsibilities, very frankly…. China insists in the position to make the framework [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] the political and legal basis for the global regime and we do not see the necessity or need to rewrite or interpret the convention. There have been a lot of changes in the past years, but our observation is for the basis of the convention, its principles and supporting scientific facts, there have been no significant changes. Take cumulative [greenhouse gas] emissions as an example. Up to now, by 2010, our estimation is Annex 1 parties [industrialized countries as agreed to at the time] continue to account for around 70 percent of the cumulative emissions. This is one of the supporting scientific facts.

This is why the U.N.F.C.C.C. believes developed countries should take this historic responsibility. Further interpretation of historic responsibility is the course, the reason for this landscape of cumulative emissions…. Certainly there will be an evolution. China's share will become larger and larger in these indicators. But anyway, now the decision we will make will be based on the facts today. When we design the architecture for the next 10 or 20 years that means today when we discuss that, we encourage developed countries to consider their cumulative emissions as a total and then to take more responsibility. Furthermore, let me come back to the pathway as the source of cumulative emissions — energy mix, efficiency, technology finance, population, etc. etc., we believe this is the deeper driver to lead to the landscape of cumulative emissions. But we need to change that. If we want to make change we need to influence those drivers.

We see some changes of emissions trajectories in developed countries. If there are some reductions we welcome them. But we would request more because we believe this is something developed countries have to do to take their historic responsibility. But furthermore, we see this high-carbon pathway has been transferred to developing countries, and also multiplied or enhanced by the current international trade and investment system, especially in the context of globalization. So this is also dominated by developed countries. This is my understanding. But certainly complaints cannot solve the problem. We want to be more constructive so let's see how we can change the drivers, especially for developing countries, especially for emerging economies. So I believe we should work together to see how to change the drivers of development pathways for both developed and developing countries and the unite way we expect more emission reductions from developed countries while we have new innovative development pathways for emerging economies.

In my mind I have three typical pathways. One is the U.S. pathway, with per capita emissions at around 20 or 18 tons [per year] per capita and the European pathway around 10 or less, and a third one will be innovative for China, India and later developing countries. But actually the third one, the innovative one, has not existed in reality but we have to work together to create that. This leads to the need for technological assistance, financial assistance, and also the need for innovation for technology for the global regime. This is what we have to work together very hard for 2015 agreement. Coming back to China, China has a stronger and stronger endogenous motivation to make emission reductions. Because we are aware that, along the classic pathway, we have no hope for the future. We need to make some change in energy mix. It seems to me, based on lessons learned from developed countries and their history, their change has mainly derived from fuel switching — from coal to oil to natural gas, with less and less carbon intensity. This is a successful experience in history.

So my question is if China can follow that. I hope we can. Then the question is can we have the safe, reliable import of natural gas, because our own reserve is very limited for the moment and the U.S. becomes larger and larger, and maybe the largest oil and gas production country. Certainly I'm very interested in that. And then the Middle East, Russia and other sources. If we can have very stable, very reliable and safe supply of natural gas, why not? And also the price. One thing I was exploring recently was, the U.S. can export natural gas or it can export the capacity to drill for natural gas. How much can the U.S. help China through partnership with getting at your own gas reserves, or is that on a time scale that's just too long? I think this is one of the key prioritized areas for the U.S. and China to cooperate with each other… Certainly we have different geographical structure so we need some technology development, but I believe that experience and technology from U.

S., including the commercial model, should be helpful for us. We are keen to communicate with the U.S. and to explore the opportunity to cooperate. But certainly natural gas or shale gas should not be the only aspects that we work together on. Certainly we have some other things to do — for example efficiency. Energy efficiency for manufacturers, buildings, transport. They have huge potential based on our estimates and I.E.A estimates, this is the major arena for us to reduce emissions in the coming decades. … For the moment, coal-fired power plants dominate our share of generation, so ultra super critical or even I.G.C.C. The other one is C.C.S. The reality is coal will continue to be a major source [of energy] for our country although we hope we can reduce the share of coal. And renewables should also be another area where we work together. But certainly one outstanding issue is the enabling environment, including the treaty environment. Very frankly, presently, we two countries, also with the E.

U., we have some trade conflict on solar PV [photovoltaic panels], etc., etc. I think we should sit together to consider how to address this specific issue. In my mind, renewable energy is very important for climate protection. We should work together. On the one hand, we follow the [World Trade Organization] rules, market rules, but on the other hand we should consider how to address global commons issues, externality issues. I do not believe that only market rules can address that. Market rules are good enough for trade, for commercial benefits but for global commons we need some additional institutional arrangement. I've written about some new businesses in the States that are doing very well installing solar panels. But the reason they're prospering is because China's price is low.

So there's a benefit in the United States to installers of solar panels from the fact that China has a lot of capacity, which cuts against this concern that some in the U.S. have that China's cheap solar panels are bad. It's a little complicated. If you look at the overall global supply chain, sometimes we are mixed. Some U.S. companies and Chinese companies have shared stockholders… It would be nice if we can sit together to have some joint research, joint study on cost/benefit analysis, trade analysis, legal analysis to see how to develop some win/win solutions. … The ideal outcome will be the commercial society will continue to make money to support the economic recovery, but on the other hand we have a stronger and stronger renewable industry to contribute to emission reduction for the whole world. Policymakers and think tanks should work along this direction.

But I do not believe it will be workable just to complain and debate trade conflicts. I think we can do something for that. My individual judgment is we continue to need nuclear. Although there are a lot of concerns about safety, but if you look at different industries at different times of the past, if you look at the performance realities all over the world, from France to the U.S., I should say essentially they are safe, and they are becoming safer and safer. Given the different options, we should not give up nuclear for the moment. It should be one of the important options. It's a matter of trading off among different sources of energy, costs and benefits, safety and risk, etc. But after all I we should keep some share for nuclear, especially for China. The U.S. also has some very advanced technologies.

I believe we two countries should cooperate on nuclear to make it safer and safer..

Humans Aren’t Causing Climate Change, Schoolchildren Are Being “Brainwashed”

I greet you in the love and the light of the infinite Creator. US Senate Committee Chairman: Humans Aren�t Causing Climate Change, Schoolchildren Are Being �Brainwashed�. Arjun Walia. Climate change remains one of the most hotly debated scientific issues today. Though we at CE don�t deny that it�s happening, we also recognize that it is, at least to a certain extent, a natural part of the Earth�s fluctuations. The question then has become, to what extent is the climate change we are currently experiencing the result of human activity (greenhouse gases), and how much of it is inevitable? While the mainstream media presents this as a clearcut case, ridiculing or outright ignoring scientists who question our impact, the issue is far more complex than we are being led to believe, and much is still in doubt.

There are other factors we need to take into consideration. Senator James Inofhe, chairman of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is a good person to start with if we want to get the objective story on climate change. Not long ago, he appeared on the �The Eric Metaxas Show,� warning that �our kids are being brainwashed in school� when it comes to climate change. He recounted a moment where his �own granddaughter came home one day� and disputed his claims that climate change is a myth. He goes on to say that he �did some checking� and that �the stuff they teach our kids nowadays, they are brainwashing � you have to un-brainwash them when they get out.� In the video below, Inhofe explains his stance and provides a list of hundreds of world-renowned scientists who have contacted him in support of it. Thousands of Scientists Want To Debate Human Impact On Climate Change. You may be surprised to learn that human impact on climate change is not well established in other scientific literature, only government scientific literature.

Climate change is no joke, but how much it has been affected by human activity and greenhouse gases emissions is still unclear. There is a lot of discrepancy between various scientists, in part because there are so many other factors to consider when measuring it. The climate has always been changing, for one thing, and Richard Lindzen is one out of thousands of renowned scientists in the field trying to tell this to the world. Yet mainstream news outlets refuse to share their concerns regarding the politicization of climate science. What�s worse, academic journals won�t even accept their papers for publication. One out of many examples comes from Swedish climatologist and professor Lennard Bengtsson, a researcher at the University of Reading, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and winner of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction. He is perhaps the most distinguished scientist yet to change his perspective on the global warming issue.

Four of the world�s foremost climate scientists (one of them being Bengtsson) had their recent research rejected by one of the world�s top academic journals. The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC. Going Against The Grain. The moment you consider the opposing side, especially if you are a person with a distinguished background like the people above, you will be ridiculed by mass media. Those who put their faith in the media will then brand you as crazy or a conspiracy theorist. This is why the Australian prime minister�s chief business adviser, along with many others, recently said explicitly that fraudulent climate science is being used to establish a new world order. This is not to say that we can in good conscience continue treating the planet as we have; we are messing up our environment, and we need to change to clean energy technology (which exists) right away, but we also need to recognize the political agenda driving this conversation.

It�s always about fear. It�s also important to mention that geoengieering operational programs are never brought up in this debate. Senator Inhofe is just one of many brave scientists speaking up and challenging mainstream views, even in the face of ridicule and criticism. The fact that there are thousands of scientists calling for a debate on the human impact on global climate should make it clear that this issue is far from resolved, yet the average person has no idea this is happening, because the media only offers one story and one voice. Despite these concerns, it�s utterly clear that the way we do things here with regards to energy generation, electricity, and more is destroying our planet. I personally support new energy technologies, and I know of groundbreaking technologies that could completely revolutionize our planet, but the real revolution starts with us. We can�t operate from a place of fear.

We must instead come together and work for the common good. Here is a great quote to end off with, as this �invisible government� has infiltrated the highest levels of science, not just media and the newspapers, but academic journals as well. John F. Hylan was Mayor of New York City from 1918-1925 and he was famously quoted as saying: The time of new energy is here, and we must transition to a cleaner, more harmonious way of living. Our way of life must be to protect the planet and all its life, not to destroy it for the sake of economic growth. We have technologies that could make this transition simple and relatively painless, but bureaucratic red tape and other factors have prevented their quick emergence onto the market. The prevailing energy models are, simply put, destroying our planet and poisoning everything living on it. Whether human activity is causing climate change or not is almost irrelevant in the face of the havoc its wreaking on the planet otherwise. There are other factors to consider when it comes to climate change space weather, solar cycles, Earth�s history of climate change, etc. but the fact remains, things need to change.

Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world�s top experts in the field and lead author of �Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,� Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change�s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He knows that all climate science we receive is IPCC United Nations science. One of the scientists mentioned on the senator�s list, in this video, he talks about the politics of climate science and the manipulation of data something that plagues all fields of science today. The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation . . . The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties . . .

[and] control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection. See video links in the article below in the description..

Understanding Climate Change – How Greenhouse Gases Warm the Earth

Our atmosphere contains a number of different gases. It's mostly made up of nitrogen (about 78%) and oxygen, about 21%. But it also contains a number of gases known as greenhouse gases. These include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons, which are usually man-made. They're called greenhouse gases because the properties of these gases allow them to retain heat leading to a warming of our atmosphere. Let's take a closer look at how this happens. Our sun produces light, which is composed of small particles called photons. These photons pass through the atmosphere and collide with the surface of the planet. If the surface of the planet is lightly colored, such as areas that are covered by ice or snow, the photons may be reflected back into space. However, if the surface is darker, such as forests or oceans, the photons are absorbed.

When this happens, some of the photons' energy is converted to heat, which radiates away from the surface. You experience this effect when you wear darker clothing outside. The dark fabric absorbs photons from the sun's rays, usually resulting in heat. This heat from photons, also called infrared radiation, radiates from the surface into the atmosphere. Most of this heat moves through the atmosphere and is lost into space. However, some of the heat interacts with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide water vapor, and methane. These molecules absorb the infrared energy and slowly release it back into the atmosphere over time. It's important to realize that greenhouse gases play an essential role in the maintenance of our planet's temperature, helping it to stay within the limits that allow life to flourish. Normally, these gases are needed at very small concentrations, often in the magnitude of parts per million. In fact, if our atmosphere had fewer greenhouse gases, the majority of the water on the planet would exist as ice. However, human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, and modern agricultural practices, have resulted in an increase in the concentration of some types of greenhouse gases – most notably carbon dioxide and methane.

This graph shows the progressive increase in carbon dioxide concentrations over the past five decades. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now over 400 parts per million, which represents a greater than 20% increase since the 1960s. This increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, as well as other greenhouse gases such as methane, is directly related to an observed increase in global temperatures as shown on the graph here. This process is called global warming. As the planet warms, it causes changes in regional climates. This is commonly referred to as climate change. Scientists have already documented numerous cases where climate change is altering weather patterns, producing areas of severe storms, flooding, and droughts. At the current rate of greenhouse gas increase, it's projected that the average global temperature may increase by another 3.6 degrees F by 2100.

However, the exact amount of warming that will occur in the coming century depends largely on the energy choices we make now and in the coming years. Particularly since those choices directly influence how fast we put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..

NASA’s Earth Minute: Gas Problem

The Earth’s atmosphere is a mixture of gasses. Some are known as greenhouse gases. That’s because they trap heat from the sun and warm the Earth. That’s good, because without greenhouse gases, our planet would freeze and life as most of us know it would be impossible. These greenhouse gases – mainly water vapor and carbon dioxide naturally cycle between the land and atmosphere and ocean. And over the ages, these greenhouse gases have reached a delicate balance that results in temperatures that we like. A lot. It’s been that way for thousands of years. Until the last 150 years. That’s when people began burning fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels – coal, oil, natural gas – contain carbon that’s been locked away from the natural cycle for eons. But when we burn them, that carbon joins with oxygen to make carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere. It throws the natural balance out of whack. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more heat that is trapped.

And the warmer it gets. And the warmer it gets, the more the climate changes. And the higher the ocean will rise. The more we learn about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the better we can deal with the changes caused by global warming. Because good planets are hard to find!.

The Fern That Cooled the Planet

Let’s talk about climate change, and I don’t mean the kind that’s happening right now. I mean the massive shift in climate that happened about 50 million years back, when Earth went from toasty warm to ice age. And that huge change may have mostly been caused by … a fern. Alright, so Earth was really hot 50 million years ago. I’m talking like, total greenhouse planet, lots of CO2 in the air, palm trees and alligators living near the poles. That kind of hot. Then something happened. The planet started to slowly cool, and all those poor gators had to relocate as the poles eventually formed ice caps, and the climate eventually shifted into cycles of hundred-thousand-year ice ages with shorter breaks in between them. In 2004, an Arctic Coring Expedition started poking around the North Pole looking for clues about what might have tipped the scales toward that global cooling so long ago.

When they pulled up sediment core samples from under the Arctic Ocean, they found a series of sediment layers that reached back nearly 80 million years. And sure enough, the scientists noticed something unusual right around the 50 million year mark. A column of tiny fossilized ferns that was almost 10 meters deep. That was …. surprising. The ferns were a type of Azolla, a genus of dime-sized, moss-like aquatic ferns that grow floating on the surface of water. Specifically though, fresh water. But if these ferns grow in fresh water, what were they doing in the arctic ocean? Well, you gotta keep in mind that the Earth’s geography was very different back then. The Arctic ocean was essentially landlocked, and researchers think that runoff from rivers formed a layer of fresh water over the saltwater. Which made it a cozy, nutrient-rich environment that Azolla ferns would have loved. Like, really loved.

The little plant flourished for nearly a million years, erupting in blooms that covered millions of square kilometers. Eventually, though, shifting landmasses reopened a connection to other oceans, causing a deadly influx of saltwater. That’s when the Azolla died and sank to the bottom of the ocean, forming the layers of sediment that we’d pull up millions of years later. But what does all this have to do with Earth cooling down? Well, as you probably know, long-term climate cycles have a lot to do with the atmospheric tug of war between various gases. Extra carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases, for example, can trap heat and warm the planet. And Azolla may have helped remove a lot of those gases in a few ways. First, there’s the fern’s relationship with a type of cyanobacteria called Anabaena The bacteria pass between ferns through their reproductive spores, and live within their leaves. Anabaena is great at taking in nitrogen from the atmosphere, and using it to provide the fern with fertilizer. This fertilizing process is so effective that under the right conditions, Azolla can double its mass in just a couple of days. It also would have helped absorb lots and lots of nitrogen from the atmosphere.

There’s also the fact that Azolla, like all photosynthesizing plants, is really good at eating up carbon dioxide. In fact, researchers estimate that over the course of those million years or so, Azolla blooms might have gobbled up about half of all atmospheric CO2 — reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from an estimated 2500 – 3500 parts per million down to like 1500 parts per million, and kicking off a cooling trend in the climate. When the Arctic eventually opened up again, those huge blooms sank deep into the ocean, where a lack of oxygen kept them from decaying, effectively keeping all of that carbon dioxide locked up, and out of the atmosphere. Azolla is still around today, and there are at least six known living species, and there’s enough of the stuff that it’s considered a weed in some places. It can be used as fertilizer, food for livestock, and has shown some promise in wastewater treatment. There’s also a crowdfunded research project that’s currently working on expanding our knowledge of the plant’s evolution and ecology by sequencing the Azolla genome.

Because the question on a lot of minds right now is… can Azolla help cool the planet again? With more research, we might just find out. Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow, which was brought to you by our patrons on Patreon. If you want to help support this show, you can go to patreon.com/scishow. And don’t forget to go to youtube.com/scishow and subscribe!.

Global Warming is Destroying People’s Homes

Global warming is already destroying the environment. Climate change has started its path of destruction and Kiribati is the warning light for the world. Signs of global warming can be observed on the Kiribati islands, which is an Island Republic, comprised of 33 coral atolls, stretching along the equator. Most of the islands rise only about 2 meters above sea level and most of them are, only about, 2 km wide. There, climate change already affects the local’s way of life. Cyclones are destroying local towns. The scary part is that the Kiribati Islands are located on the equator, where cyclones actually form. Then they travel either North or South.

Not this time though. This time it actually affected the Islands themselves, which has never happened before. Because of that, communities already had to be dislocated to a safer area. By 2100 it’s said that sea levels are going to rise by 1 meter. But what a lot of people don’t know, this doesn’t come gradually. Along with the rising waters, Hurricanes come, along with huge waves. In this scenario The Kiribati are doomed, since waves will just cover the whole islands in water. They do not have higher ground, and the can’t get away from the shoreline far enough, since the further you get from one shoreline the closer you get to the one on the other side of island. They are already building walls around Islands to protect themselves. Kiribati’s president Anote Tong says: “We are fighting a war we have no hope of winning”. But still they do not lose their hope. Already ideas are being brought up to address this horrible issue.

Idea number 1: Build floating Islands. This may sound funny, but it isn’t, when you understand that these people are seriously considering this option, in order to survive. Japan is already building those after all. Idea number 2: Planned migration. The Kiribati people don’t want to end up migrating when the natural disaster strikes them, but rather have the option to migrate early on, so to avoid the catastrophe that is coming. But under these circumstances they will lose their identity as a culture. Idea number 3: Cut emissions to prevent the rising of sea levels. Recently, when Pacific countries leaders met, they had an argument. The president of the Kiribati asked New Zealand and Australia to further cut emissions, but they refused. Kiribati can’t solve this problem on their own. Only a global initiative will bring results. If not, the Kiribati will not survive. To fight sacrifices are required.

As president Anote Tong said: “Something has to be done about Climate Change for the children”. It’s not about national interest, everyone affects the world. It’s a global phenomenon and has to be dealt with collectively. Our planet is at stake. From the 30th of November to the 11th of December a United Nations conference on climate change will be held in Paris, addressing all of the major issues of global warming. Your voice matter too, let’s tell the leaders of the world, that we want this issue to be solve

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy Duty Vehicles

Trucks, buses and working vehicles… We rely on them for commerce, safety, transportation, and to get the job done. They’re the engine of the American economy. They’re also one of the nation’s largest and fastest growing sources of the carbon dioxide that harms our climate, threatening our health and environment. That’s why President Obama’s Climate Action Plan calls for the next phase of strong and affordable greenhouse gas standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks. The new standards deliver by cutting more than a billion tons of carbon dioxide over the life of the vehicles. Increased fuel efficiency will save an estimated 2 billion barrels of oil. More work per gallon will pump about 170 billion dollars back to American businesses. Let’s look under the hood. Advanced aerodynamics, engine and transmission improvements and other innovations will allow medium and heavy-duty trucks to cut carbon pollution by up to 25 percent per truck by 2027. The standards pay for themselves mile after mile: new trucks will burn less fuel and save money – paying their owners back in two to four years. The standards phase in over time.

Trailer standards start in 2018, truck standards start in 2021, and all standards ramp up through 2027 – giving manufacturers significant time to design new vehicles, while providing extra time for small businesses. New, cleaner trucks will keep America’s economy rolling. U.S. companies will continue to pull ahead as leaders in technological innovation. Down the road, that means we’ll drive progress against climate change, better protecting the future of communities across the country and the next generation.