Life Needs H2O

The real deniers

The real 'deniers'

 

 

By Lorne Gunter, National PostMarch 10, 2009

 

 

Al Gore delivers a speech at the UN Climate Change Conference in Dec., 2007.

Photograph by: Jewel Samad, AFP, Getty Images, National Post

William Happer is hardly a climate change "denier." A physics professor at Princeton, he is a former director of energy research for the U. S. Department of Energy, where he supervised work on climate change between 1990 and 1993. He is also one of the world's leading experts on "the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases," and on carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. Two weeks ago, he told the U. S. Congress, "I believe the increase of CO2 (in the atmosphere) is not a cause for alarm."

Claims that an increase of atmospheric CO2 will lead to catastrophic warming "are wildly exaggerated," according to Prof. Happer. While a doubling (we have seen about a 35% rise since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution) might lead to a 0.6C rise in global temperature, he told Congress, "additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 ... that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can."

Prof. Happer added that while CO2 concentrations have risen steadily for more than 100 years, warming began before that -- 200 years ago -- and even during the time when temperatures and carbon concentrations have risen together, the link has hardly been consistent. For instance, while CO2 was rising rapidly from 1950 to 1970, temperatures were going through an especially cold period.

Over the past decade, while carbon dioxide concentrations have continued to grow, there has been "a slight cooling," according to the Princeton physicist. Any warming in recent decades, then, "seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide."

Why then do organizations such as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continue to put faith in climate supercomputer models that show disastrous warming in the coming century? Because, as Prof. Happer explained, the IPCC believes in what is called a "positive feedback loop."

In short, water vapour and clouds account for about 98% of the greenhouse effect versus less than 2% for CO2. The IPCC believes, though, that a doubling of CO2, while not significant on its own, will trigger a huge increase in the greenhouse impact of water vapour. But so far, in the realworld, "the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative." Prof. Happer testified.

The significance of Prof. Happer's statement is not that it proves global warming is false, but rather that it shows there is no consensus among respected scientists. The notion that the "science is settled," as claimed by global warming advocates, is not true.

Also, two weeks ago, three of five independent scientists asked by Japan's Society of Energy and Resources to assess the current state of climate science concluded that global warming, to the extent it is still occurring, is a natural phenomenon, not manmade.

In his official contribution, Kanya Kusano, program director at the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, called the IPCC's warming theories "an unprovable hypothesis" and likened the current supercomputer models to ancient astrology.

Even the Discovery Channel, never a fan of scientists who dissent from climate orthodoxy, reported last week on a University of Wisconsin study that shows global temperatures have at least flatlined during the past decade and that that trend could continue for another 30 years. The authors of that report -- Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis -- think rapid warming could resume after that. But for now, warming has ceased.

Against this legitimate scientific doubt, recent statements by environmentalists and alarmist scientists sounds positively hysterical.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and demanded their CEOs be jailed "for all eternity." Michael Tobis, a climate modeller at the University of Texas labelled as "palpably evil" anyone who questioned the wisdom of former U. S. vice-president Al Gore and suggested that doubting Mr. Gore was "morally comparable to killing 1,000 people."

U. S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu claimed warming will lead to "no more agriculture in California." Meanwhile Susan Solomon, of the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and lead scientist with the IPCC, said even if carbon emissions are stopped, temperatures around the globe will remain high until at least the year 3000 and within 10 years "the oceans will be toxic, and all life in them will die."

Ironic, isn't it, that those who doubt the warming theories are the ones called the "deniers."

lgunter@shaw.ca

© Copyright (c) National Post

Climate change, man made or not?

Climate change not all man-made, report says

 

Cites Natural Causes

 

By Tom Spears, Canwest News Service  April 2, 2009

 

 

 

Water levels are low at the San Luis Reservoir, near Los Banos, California, March 11, 2009. Policy-makers need to know whether natural changes or pollution is causing the current drought from California across to Texas, the report notes.

Photograph by: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images,

It's wrong to blame our warming climate on human pollution alone, says a major analysis by U. S. climate scientists who say North America's warming and drying trend also has important natural causes.

Natural shifts in ocean currents have caused much of the warming in recent decades, and almost all of the droughts, says the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Most climate researchers today deal exclusively with man-made "greenhouse" gases, and often dismiss suggestions of naturally caused warming as unscientific.

Yet NOAA says Western Canada has warmed by two degrees and Eastern Canada hasn't warmed at all because flows of air from naturally shifting Pacific currents have affected the West most.

The lengthy re-analysis of climate data doesn't dispute that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels cause a warmer climate. But it raises questions about the details: How much warming? How many causes? And why isn't it the same every-where?

It also stresses that we don't understand climate as well as we like to think, because scientists only have good data from about 1948 onward.

"Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences," said Mar-tin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist. But he said the question remains, "What does that mean for my backyard?"

Policy-makers need to know whether natural changes or pollution is causing local conditions such as the current drought from California across to Texas, the report notes.

"All regions are not participating [in warming] at the same rate as the global temperature is changing," Mr. Hoerling said. Some in the West are warming rapidly, and some not at all (the southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada).

Oceans carry vast amounts of heat, releasing heat and moisture into air, which then travels inland. The re-analysis focused on this fact.

Some of the changes in North America's warming trend of the past half-century have been due to shifting ocean currents, the NOAA team found. It estimates the "natural" change is substantial and could be close to half of all warming in North America (though it is still less than the amount caused by greenhouse gases.)

The study found:

- The 56-year trend of annual surface temperature showed a rise of 0.9C, plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.

- The greatest warming -- up two degrees -- has taken place across Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Alaska. Quebec and Atlantic Canada stayed cool.

That East-West difference "is not what we would expect from the effect of greenhouse gases alone," Mr. Hoerling said. Greenhouses gases should have influenced both. However, NOAA believes Western Canada is receiving more warm air due to shifting patterns of the Pacific Ocean currents.

- Variations within North America "are very likely influenced by variations in global sea surface temperatures through the effects of the latter on atmospheric circulation, especially during winter." The term "very likely" is defined as a chance of 90% or more.

- It's "unlikely" that patterns of drought have changed due to global warming caused by human pollution. Rather, natural shifts in ocean currents are probably to blame. For instance, the current drought in Texas and the southwest are due to La Nina, a Pacific Ocean current that starts and stops periodically (such as El Nino), and cuts off the movement of moist air inland. Warmer temperatures from greenhouse gases, however, would worsen the basic drought.

- Seven of the warmest 10 years since 1951 occurred in the decade from 1997 to 2006. The data in the study cover only to the end of 2007.

The study, Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features, was completed in December but hasn't been widely publicized.

Meanwhile, a study published in the research journal Science last week raises further questions about our under-standing of global warming. It disputes the theory that global warming is causing more major hurricanes.

NOAA and the University of Wisconsin at Madison blame, instead, a reduction in the number of volcanic eruptions and dust storms near the equator. When there's less airborne dust and ash, more sunshine reaches the planet's surface, which warms the tropical oceans and spawns strong hurricanes.

© Copyright (c) National Post

The Future Of Our Planet Is In Our Hands

Think Globally, Act Locally! by Jonathin Miller JonathanMi..

Have you heard that the massive amount of garbage we are dumping into our water is effecting our aquaculture? Did you know that 80% of life is in the water that covers 70% of our earth? Maybe you caught the news that the fish we eat contains toxic levels of mercury?

Did you leave the house today? It was a great day for a bike ride where I live, that is how I got to the market to buy my toxic free fish from sustainable brand CleanFish. Where did you go? How did you get there? Did you consider walking, riding your bike, taking the bus / subway?

OK. So the weather was not so nice where you live today and you can't possible imagine living without your car. Get online or go to your local car dealer and learn about all the options in hybrid vehicles. It is not your father's Pruis. Today you can buy everything from hybrid SUVs to luxury sedans and sports cars.

Maybe you don't care about the effect your actions have on the environment and how it effects you - a little mercury poisoning never hurt anyone... think about your children, or my children for that matter.

I would very much appreciate it if you would recycle, reduce and reuse so there is less toxic materials in our water and land fills. That the car you drive is not polluting our air.

Please don't shit in your own back yard and I will not shit in yours.

Thank You!

Climate change even worse than predicted: expert

 

AFP/File – Icebergs in Vincennes Bay in the Australian Antarctic Territory in January 2008. It seems the dire warnings …

• Slideshow:Climate Change Issues
• Play Video Video:Obama reverses Bush climate policies Reuters
• Play Video Video:Climate change will have impact on Northwest KING5 Seattle

CHICAGO (AFP) – It seems the dire warnings about the oncoming devastation wrought by global warming were not dire enough, a top climate scientist warned Saturday.

It has been just over a year since the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a landmark report warning of rising sea levels, expanding deserts, more intense storms and the extinction of up to 30 percent of plant and animal species.

But recent climate studies suggest that report significantly underestimates the potential severity of global warming over the next 100 years, a senior member of the panel warned.

"We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected," said Chris Field, who was a coordinating lead author of the report.

This is "primarily because developing countries like China and India saw a huge upsurge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal," Field said in a statement ahead of a presentation to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Without decisive action to slow global warming, higher temperatures could ignite tropical forests and thaw the Arctic tundra, potentially releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide that has been stored for thousands of years.

That could raise temperatures even more and create "a vicious cycle that could spiral out of control by the end of the century."

"We don't want to cross a critical threshold where this massive release of carbon starts to run on autopilot," said Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University.

The amount of carbon that could be released is staggering.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and estimated 350 billions tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) has been released through the burning of fossil fuels.

The new estimate of the amount of carbon stored in the Arctic's permafrost soils is around 1,000 billion tons. And the Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the globe.

Several recent climate models have estimated that the loss of tropical rainforests to wildfires, deforestation and other causes could increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 10 to 100 parts per million by the end of the century.

The current level is about 380 parts per million.

"Tropical forests are essentially inflammable," Field said. "You couldn't get a fire to burn there if you tried. But if they dry out just a little bit, the result can be very large and destructive wildfires."

Recent studies have also shown that global warming is reducing the ocean's ability to store carbon by altering wind patterns in the Southern Ocean.

"As the Earth warms, it generates faster winds over the oceans surrounding Antarctica," Field explained.

"These winds essentially blow the surface water out of the way, allowing water with higher concentrations of CO2 to rise to the surface. This higher-CO2 water is closer to CO2-saturated, so it takes up less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."

Field is co-chair of the group charged with assessing the impacts of climate change on social, economic and natural systems for the IPCC's fifth assessment due in 2014.

The 2007 fourth assessment presented at a "very conservative range of climate outcomes" but the next report will "include futures with a lot more warming," Field said.

"We now know that, without effective action, climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with than we thought."

Where clean water is a pipedream

By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News website For nearly one billion people, clean drinking water is still a mirage If you want a graphic demonstration of the health impacts of poor drinking water, look no further than Zimbabwe. Three thousand people dead, at least 60,000 ill - all from a disease that is almost completely preventable. In general, with very few exceptions, people simply do not get cholera when the water supply works. It is almost unknown in the west for that single, simple reason. As the World Health Organization (WHO) puts it: "Measures for the prevention of cholera have not changed much in recent decades, and mostly consist of providing clean water and proper sanitation." The provision of safe water and sanitation… remains the critical factor in reducing the impact of cholera outbreaks WHO In Zimbabwe, political and economic circumstances have created a situation where the availability of clean water and proper sanitation is no longer routine. People are now feeling the impacts of that lack of investment - investment that research shows is well worthwhile. "Research shows that if you invest $1 in clean water and sanitation, the return is between $5 and $28," says Yves Chartier of WHO's water, sanitation, hygiene and health unit. The cholera bacterium is far from being the only infectious microbe lurking in dirty water. Typhoid, cryptosporidium, giardia… the list continues. "About 10% of the total global burden of disease is down to poor water, sanitation and hygiene," says Dr Chartier. It was this kind of statistic that led governments to sign up in the year 2000 to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) - a set of targets on issues such as maternal health, education and poverty. The water target is straightforward - to halve the proportion of the world's population without access to clean water and proper sanitation by 2015. THE WATER TARGET Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation Millennium Development Goal 7.C In the years immediately following the signing of the MDGs, water and sanitation were seen as "poor cousins", attracting less aid money and interest than some of the other issues. But on water, at least, that has changed. "The world as a whole is now on target to meet the water MDG, but a number of countries and regions are still off track," says Andrew Hudson of the UN Development Programme's (UNDP) water governance programme. "Most of the countries that have made impressive progress were poor countries, and that to me is a tremendous message because it shows it's less about the money and much more about the political will." Protect and survive Statistics are compiled on the basis of "reasonable" access to "improved" supplies of drinking water. This means that within a kilometre or so there should be a source such as a standpipe, a borehole, a protected well or spring - or, of course, it can come straight into your house. The "protection" element is aimed at making sure that unwanted things including the cholera bacterium do not get into the water source - especially preventing people and animals from defecating in the vicinity. There's still a stigma of talking about sanitation Andrew Hudson, UNDP Millennium goals: Down the pan? That is sometimes easier said than done, especially in city slums, where the sheer lack of space often means latrines have to sit next to supply streams - or even, in extreme cases, that the outflow from the latrines becomes the supply stream. UNDP data shows that in many countries, as the urban population increases, the proportion of that urban population with access to safe water declines; infrastructure investment does not keep up with a growing urban population. And whereas investment in water has put the world on target for the water element of MDG 7, sanitation is a different matter. "There's still a stigma of talking about sanitation," comments Dr Hudson. "But countries such as India, that have mounted massive community-led campaigns on things like elimination of open defecation, have made really big strides." Underground movement In eastern India, however, and in neighbouring Bangladesh, another way that poor water causes poor health has come into dramatic relief in recent years. In the 1980s, tales of illness in Bangladeshi villages began circulating - an illness that was eventually traced to arsenic in the water they were drinking. With surface water sources likely to harbour disease-causing microbes, aid agencies had initiated a programme of digging wells to provide safer drinking water - not realising that the water would bring with it enough arsenic to constitute a chronic poison. The problem has now been detected in other countries, and according to one recent estimate, about 140 million people are at risk from drinking water containing the toxic metal, which causes cancers and lung disease. Industries such as tanning can leave their trace in water Compared with water-borne microbes, water-borne pollution has received little attention, according to the Blacksmith Foundation, a charity whose aim is to clean up pollution hotspots in developing countries. Cleaning up the India/Bangladesh arsenic problem is probably beyond anyone's capacity right now - although agencies are looking at it - but industrial pollution is a different matter. In the slums of many developing world cities, you find water of hues that water does not naturally assume - blues, yellows, purples and greens that speak of industrial outflows not very far upstream. "So we've been running pilot projects in India trying to clean up hexavalent chromium, which is produced by the country's huge tanning industry," says Blacksmith's executive director Meredith Block. (Hexavalent chromium, the pollutant involved in the Erin Brockovich case in the US that was immortalised on celluloid by Julia Roberts, is a known carcinogen.) "And by injecting a chemical (an "electron donor" into the groundwater we could turn it to the [non-toxic] trivalent form; analysis suggests it's working, with no side-effects." One of these pilot projects, in Kanpur, was on a site that Ms Block is typical of many developing world cities - an industrial estate, home to perhaps 50 or more small factories, working with or producing a mix of hazardous substances such as heavy metals and pesticides. The health impact of water pollution globally is unknown. A 2007 study from Cornell University estimated that 40% of deaths worldwide were associated with some kind of pollution - though how much of this is water-borne is another question. WATER TRENDS How availability, use and needs are changing across the world In graphics But, says Ms Block, it is proving hard to interest agencies in polluted water. "The environmental causes aren't related to climate change or global warming," she says. "And it seems that people in the US couldn't care less if you can't relate an issue to global warming." Diseases such as cholera, by contrast, do have a climate link. The cholera bacterium (Vibrio cholerae) appears to survive better in warmer waters, leading to fears that it could emerge in regions such as the southern coasts of the US as sea temperatures increase. But for the mass of humanity, climate is likely to be a minor determinant of the water quality they get, and the disease burden that implies. To quote the WHO on cholera: "Since 2005, the re-emergence of cholera has been noted in parallel with the ever-increasing size of vulnerable populations living in unsanitary conditions. "The provision of safe water and sanitation… remains the critical factor in reducing the impact of cholera outbreaks" - as it does for many other diseases of water. It sounds easy - but for the 100 or so countries off target with MDG 7, most spectacularly Zimbabwe, it is proving anything but. Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

This story belongs to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7873516.stm

Rapid ice melting could shift earths axis

THE NEW CLIMAT

Sea levels would rise unevenly as ice sheet melts, study says
Globe and Mail, Canada - 6 Feb 2009

Coasts of Argentina would see no change, but Vancouver would be inundated

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

February 6, 2009

ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

The collapse of the massive ice sheet covering West Antarctica has always been one of the nightmare scenarios of global warming. So much water is locked away in the ice that if it were distributed evenly in the world's oceans, it would raise sea levels by an average of five metres.

But a Canadian-led research team has made an unusual discovery about what will happen if the ice melts: Not all coastlines of the world will be affected equally.

Some lucky areas, notably in Southern Chile and Argentina, will experience no sea-level change on their coasts. But other places along the populous Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada and the United States would have seas rise by six to seven metres, inundating cities such as Vancouver and New York with a much worse-than-expected increase.

"When an ice sheet melts, sea level does not change uniformly," says Jerry Mitrovica, a geophysicist at the University of Toronto who led the research team that made the discovery. "You get this whopping amplification of sea-level rise in North America."

Although no one is predicting the imminent demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet, some scientists worry that it is at risk from global warming. It would likely take centuries or even millenniums to melt, so it is a modest near-term threat to humanity - but a possible major problem over the longer term.

A research study issued last month indicated that temperatures on the ice sheet are beginning to increase, suggesting that additional melting is more than a remote possibility. Among the world's ice sheets, the one on West Antarctica causes an unusual amount of fretting among climate scientists because it rests on bedrock that is beneath sea level, making it more vulnerable to washing into the ocean.

It might, at first glance, seem intuitive that if an ice sheet melts, the world's oceans would be affected equally, just like adding more water to a bathtub causes the same rise everywhere. Most previous reports on the Antarctic ice sheet have assumed just that.

But in a paper in today's issue of the journal Science, Dr. Mitrovica and a pair of other researchers say this seemingly common-sense, bathtub type outcome won't occur.

One reason is that there is so much ice on West Antarctica that it exerts a huge gravitational pull on the surrounding ocean water, much like the moon causes tides on Earth.

If the ice were to melt, this attractive force would vanish and cause sea levels around the ice sheet in Antarctica to plunge, perhaps by as much as 30 metres, according to Dr. Mitrovica. But the water now attracted by gravity around the coast of the southern continent will flow away if there is melting, causing additional sea-level rise elsewhere.

Another odd effect identified by the researchers is that the Antarctic bedrock on which the ice sheet rests will rise if there is melting. The ice is so thick it has caused the bedrock to be depressed by an estimated 500 metres to one kilometre. That means some land will rise, Atlantis-like, out of the ocean, if the ice melts.

The water displaced by this rebounding would flow into the world's oceans, adding to the sea level elsewhere, although Dr. Mitrovica said this would take thousands of years.

The researchers also believe the melting would cause the Earth's rotation axis to shift by about 500 metres, causing the equator to move northward by that amount and water to shift from the Southern to the Northern Hemisphere.

According to Dr. Mitrovica, these physical properties would cause sea level to rise 25 per cent more than is currently expected along some coastlines. The worst effects would be in places such as New York City, Washington, D.C., and the coast of California. Southern Florida would disappear if sea levels were to rise more than six metres.

"We aren't suggesting that a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet is imminent," said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at Oregon State University, who also worked on the study.

The third researcher was U of T graduate student Natalya Gomez.

The study was funded by a number of organizations, including the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.

Oceans rising

A new study concludes that, if global warming causes the West Antarctic ice sheet to collapse, sea levels would rise much higher in some parts of the world than current models predict.

WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET

Covers the portion of Antarctica west of the Transantarctic Mountains.

Onshore ice flows continuously out toward the coast.

Ice continues to flow outward onto the water, creating a floating ice shelf attached to the continent.

Melt water flows under the ice sheet and weakens it close to the coast.

Floating ice shelf has largely broken away in places.

Weight of ice has pushed bedrock below sea level.

UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION

The new model predicts that, if the West Antarctic ice sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise most in the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans. Much of Asia, though, would still see levels rise by five metres or more.

Gulf of Mexico

The new model predicts sea levels could rise as much as 6.4 metres above current levels.

Western Europe

Sea levels would rise about 5.5 metres, devastating the Netherlands and Belgium.

The Indian subcontinent

Sea levels could rise by five metres - the global average - overrunning the Ganges delta.

Similar stories here:

Antarctic ice melt could shift Earth's rotation: Study Canada.com
Ice shelf collapse could shift axis of Earth, study says CTV.ca
North America at greater risk from Antarctic ice sheet melt: study CBC.ca

 

 

The wood smoke issue from Burning Issues

Burning solid fuel yields particulate pollution - solid particles smaller than a red blood cell which have been implicated in 30,000 deaths in the US and 2.1 million deaths world wide per year. .  "Particulate pollution is the most important contaminant in our air. ...we know that when particle levels go up, people die¹. "   Indeed, wood smoke is chemically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco².

1. Joel Schwartz, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health, E Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2002

2. Wm. A Pryor, Persistent Free Radicals in Woodsmoke: An ESR Spin Trapping Study, Free Radical Biology and Medicine 1989, 7(1): 17-21

 

 

The Wood Smoke Issue: Comparison of Fuel Emissions

All combustion results in very fine micro particulates and there is no safe level of this asbestos sized, dangerous air pollutant. Solid fuels, such as pellets and especially wood, produce many orders of magnitude more smoke & fine particulate air pollutants than cleaner fuels.

Latest Wood Smoke News:

Since the high costs of energy is an important reason that causes wood burners to burn. We suggest that you understand and support the Energy Inititive by Al Gore.

EPA Report showing that certified wood stoves deteriorate over time.

World Health Organization: 2 million premature deaths every year due to air pollution. They urge cleaning up the air.

Wood smoke from heating and cooking raises lung cancer risk. Featured Health Science: Reuters Health

Outdoor wood burning fireplaces and fire pits are selling like hot cakes all around the United States. Special Report.

Featured Report: Outdoor Wood Boilers

More Cities and Towns reconsider wood burning stoves

Davis fired up over proposed limits on wood-burning in homes

By Hudson Sangree
hsangree@sacbee.com

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 09, 2008 | Page 4B

As nights turn cold and days stay gray, the city of Davis is weighing a ban on a symbol of domestic warmth: the wood-burning fireplace.

Not just fireplaces, but wood stoves that don't meet strict environmental standards.

Even the cleanest-burning stoves could be used only about half the days of winter, and then for just six hours a day, under the proposed ordinance. If enacted, it would be one of the toughest wood-burning measures in the state.

"It will restrict burning more than any other ordinance that we're aware of," said Alan Pryor, an environmental consultant who has spearheaded the effort.

The proposed fireplace ban has caused a ruckus in Davis, which currently has few restrictions.

City Councilman Stephen Souza said the debate is nearly as heated as the recent fights over the Covell Village subdivision, which failed at the ballot box in 2005, or a Target store, which voters approved and which is now being built.

Residents concerned about environmental health, including folks with asthma and other breathing problems, are firing off letters and phoning city officials.

So are those who burn wood for warmth or pleasure. Some have expressed their love of the "primal" quality of an open fire.

Council members are approaching the issue with caution.

Souza said he wants to increase government rebates to help people replace their open fireplaces or old-style wood stoves with cleaner-burning stoves.

Councilman Don Saylor says he considers the whole issue up for discussion. The council likely won't vote until at least the second week of January, he said.

Pryor said he first proposed a total ban on wood burning after caring for his mother, who died of lung cancer last year.

He said a neighbor in Merced stoked his wood stove night and day, and the smoke seeped into his mother's house, even with the windows and doors sealed.

He realized that wood burning could be a localized health hazard, with smoke drifting to neighbors' houses, even on days when regional air quality allowed it.

"The research we did found very high neighborhood concentrations (of particulate matter) that are relatively independent of regional concentrations," he said.

The current proposal – passed by the city's Natural Resources Commission just before Thanksgiving – is a scaled-back version of the total ban that Pryor sought.

Unlike other rules around the region, it takes wind speed into account, in addition to the amount of particulate matter in the air.

When winds are under 5 mph, Pryor said, smoke settles in a neighborhood.

So burning with clean-burning stoves or pellet stoves would be allowed only on breezy days with low levels of air pollution.

Those conditions exist on about half the days from November through February, Pryor said.

Roger Schiffman, who heats his entire home with a clean-burning wood stove, said he doesn't want to create a health problem but remains unconvinced by proponents' data.

Schiffman, who works for an energy consulting firm, said he spends $700 to $800 a year on wood – much less than his prior gas bills.

He also said he gets "a higher quality heat from the wood," and his house stays warmer.

Schiffman is worried about losing the $10,000 he spent to install the wood stove and the upgrades, including circulating fans and ducts, that allow it to heat the whole house.

"It would cost us more," he said, "and result in a colder house for us than what we currently enjoy."

PROPOSED DAVIS FIREPLACE, STOVE RESTRICTIONS

Davis City Council will vote in January whether to impose restrictions on fireplaces and wood stoves. The Davis proposal would:

Ban: Wood burning in open fireplaces and wood stoves not certified Phase II by the EPA;

Permit: Wood burning in pellet stoves or EPA-certified wood stoves on "allowable burn days" for a maximum of six hours a day. The proposal defines allowable days as those with wind speeds of 5 mph or more and light air pollution, as determined by regional air quality officials.

Exempt: Stoves or fireplaces used as a home's sole heat source, or during power failures.

What is carbon dioxide?

Carbon dioxide is one of the more frequent found gases on the earth. It is a by-product of combustion processes and the natural metabolism of living organisms. We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide level in exhaled air is rather constant about 3,8 % (38.000 ppm). When carbon dioxide is exhaled it will quickly be mixed with the surrounding air and, if the ventilation is good, the concentration will be reduced to harmless levels. Indoor CO2 levels usually vary between 400 and 2000 ppm (parts per million). Outdoor CO2 levels are usually 350 - 450 ppm. Heavily industrialized or contaminated areas may periodically have a CO2 concentration of up to 800 ppm. The levels of outdoor CO2 are higher in areas where traffic is very heavy. CO2 must not be confused with carbon monoxide (CO), a very toxic gas that is a by-product from poor combustion in i.e. cars and fireplaces. Carbon monoxide is dangerous at very low concentrations (25 to 50 ppm).

Is CO2 an indoor air pollution? Carbon dioxide is not seen as an indoor air pollution but it is a suitable tracer gas for indicating possible micro-organisms generated by people that contributes to deteriorated comfort.This is why a higher level of pure CO2 is permitted in industrial environments, than in buildings where people- generated micro-organisms and CO2 is the principal concern. In industrial environments where process generated CO2 dominates (or CO2 not generated by people), Even if CO2 itself is not dangerous in normal concentrations it is frequently used as a reference and an indicator of indoor air quality and therefore ventilation performance. That is due to the fact that people, when they exhale CO2, also exhale and emit many other micro-organisms. These micro-organisms may be gases, odours, particles and germs. When the concentration of these micro-organisms, as a result of bad ventilation, is permitted to increase in a room, occupants complain of tiredness, headache, and even worse; feeling of sickness. Carbon dioxide itself does not give these problems until high levels are developed. High CO2 levels in a room occupied by a lot of people indicates that the air is likely to be contaminated.

Meeting Basic Needs

To ensure our basic needs, we all need 20 to 50 litres of water free from harmful contaminants each and every day. In addition, a child born in the developed world consumes 30 to 50 times as much water as one in the developing world. The state of human health is inextricably linked to a range of water-related conditions: safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, minimized burden of water-related disease and healthy freshwater ecosystems. Urgent improvements in the ways in which water use and sanitation are managed are needed to improve progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) related to human health.

Targets

UN Millennium Development Goal (2000):
'Reduce by half, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water.'

:: Access the UN Millennium Development Goals

World Summit on Sustainable Development, Plan of Implementation (2002):
'... we agree to halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water (as outlined in the Millennium Declaration) and the proportion of people who do not have access to basic sanitation.'

:: Access the Plan of Implementation

Water supply, distribution of unserved populations	Sanitation, distribution of unserved populations
Asia shows the highest number of people unserved by either water supply or sanitation; yet it is important to note that proportionally, this group is bigger in Africa because of the difference of population size between the two continents.
Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme, (2002), extracted from WWDR1, 'Water for People, Water for Life' (UNESCO-WWAP, 2003)