Working to cope with climate change

Trakar

VIP Member
Feb 28, 2011
1,699
73
83
Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser
Working to cope with climate change: A guest column by J. Wayne Leonard and Raymond C. Offenheiser | NOLA.com

...When extreme weather hits, communities suffer in myriad ways: homes are destroyed, businesses lost, ecosystems ravaged. As the heads of a national energy company and a global humanitarian organization, we've seen the damages first hand, and engaged in the painstaking and often dangerous work of recovery and restoration. We believe it's time to rally together to recognize the dangers of a changing climate, and to invest in reducing risk and building resilience.

At Entergy, we have a unique perspective on climate change. Our product -- power -- is vital to the public good. Extreme weather puts the reliability of our product at risk, and we must work with our communities to prepare for and respond to these hazards.

At Oxfam, we work to find lasting solutions to global poverty -- and the weather is literally working against us. Of the 820 disasters recorded last year, 90 percent were related to severe weather. Climate change is playing a role in this, and it's the poorest -- at home and around the world -- who are affected most acutely, and find their struggle against poverty increasingly difficult...

...Our country has been slow to accept the reality and risks of climate change. But it is absolutely essential at this point. With Oxfam, Entergy has joined companies representing a range of sectors -- insurance to finance, apparel to food -- to promote the importance of taking action. We believe that responsible business practices and strong policies will help us prepare for and respond to climate change. Failing to act will mean much greater costs later -- in dollars and cents, and in human suffering.

No matter our different perspectives, we end up at the same place: determined to act together to improve our ability to cope with the profound effects of climate change. The choice is ours to make; the time to make it is now.

••••••••

J. Wayne Leonard is CEO of Entergy Corp. and Raymond C. Offenheiser is president of Oxfam America.
 
:cool:
 

Attachments

  • $dino_rider_by_jacksonherbert-d320y5m.jpg
    $dino_rider_by_jacksonherbert-d320y5m.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 106
I never heard of Oxfam but it sounded like a manufactured product ....wrong...Oxfam is part of the global warmist extortion scheme.
 
Munich Re - Corporate Responsibility - Climate change

Putting knowledge to use, devising solutionsIn the financial and insurance sector, Munich Re is a pioneer in analysing the consequences of climate change. We are continually expanding the competence we have gained over decades in order to promote climate-protective solutions, for example, new cover concepts for investors in innovative, climate-friendly technologies. Moreover, we plan to place all our business activities within Munich Re (Group) throughout the world on a climate-neutral basis.

Munich Re has been studying the risks and opportunities posed by climate change since founding its Geo Risks Research Department back in 1974. Our knowledge in this field continued to grow and was concentrated in one place in 2008 when the » Corporate Climate Centre (CCC) was founded. In this network, staff members from all parts of the Group investigate the consequences of climate change and devise pioneering concepts and solutions for climate protection.

Adapting to the effects of climate change
Such concentrated competence is a huge help in opening up new fields of business and developing innovative cover concepts for adapting to the effects of climate change. In Munich Re's core business, these include crop failure covers and policies providing protection against flood damage. We also offer a truly unique service for better identifying complex natural hazards: the NATHAN Risk Suite. This made-to-measure product draws on extensive data resources to offer, among other options, precise identification of relatively highly exposed sites throughout the world, also taking into account the changes resulting from climate change
 
Sure Ole Rocks -- tons of money to be made appearing Green. Look at the dancing GE elephants commercials or the Fed Ex forest fairies.. When are you gonna realize you're being punked? GE makes off with BILLIONS in Green Fed giveaways and DEMs pretend they don't know why GE never paid taxes.

The gullible are being hosed.
 
Climate Change Science - Science behind climate change | Entergy

...The IPCC predicts an increase in sea levels of 3 feet by 2100 due to thermal expansion of the ocean. The areas shaded in red would be underwater.

Predictions for temperature increases range from 1.8 degrees (best case) to 8 degrees Celsius by 2100 if no action is taken to slow the current growth in global CO2 emissions. The thermal expansion of the oceans due to increased sea temperatures can be estimated, but the key unknown is the rate at which the land ice in Greenland and Antarctica will melt. The water contained in those glaciers represents approximately 39 feet of sea level equivalent. Even a fraction of that “melt” would be catastrophic.

Scientists believe climate change will also affect the basic elements of life for people around the world such as access to water and food production. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

The ramifications of global climate change, while uncertain, paint a devastating portrait of an unsustainable world. What the United States does now is critical to eliminating or at least reducing the possibility of catastrophic outcomes for future generations.

Investments made today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the cost of adaptation in the future. The notion of a no-cost, “do-nothing” option contradicts a key principle in business and life: probability diminishes in importance as the risk of disastrous consequences rises. If the world waits to act, climate change could be abrupt and impervious to any last-ditch, 11th-hour heroics.

Sounds like an accurate and legitimate climate concern message to me.

Greenhouse gas performance and commitment | Entergy


  • In 2001, Entergy partnered with Environmental Defense and became the first domestic utility to voluntarily enact a five-year plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 2000 levels. Entergy beat the original target by 23 percent while increasing sales 21 percent during the same period.

  • In 2006, Entergy made a second commitment to stabilize CO2 emissions from its power plants and controllable purchased power at 20 percent below 2000 levels through 2010. Our cumulative CO2 emissions for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 were 122.9 million tons, 4 percent better than our stabilization goal of 127.7 million. Since we made our first stabilization commitment in 2001, we have emitted 327.4 million tons of CO2, which is nearly 17 percent below our cumulative stabilization goal for the eight-year period.

  • Entergy established a $25 million Environmental Initiatives Fund with 80 percent dedicated to changes in Entergy-owned assets and 20 percent for the purchase of CO2 offsets (e.g., agricultural projects, geologic sequestration or enhanced oil recovery).

  • Through the EIF, Entergy has made capital improvements on its existing fossil fleet, including coal plants, to improve efficiency. Improvements include increasing production from non-emitting nuclear units through capacity up-rates and increasing capacity factors, and increasing production from more efficient, low-emitting combined cycle gas turbines and combined heat and power resources.

While I wouldn't call this list profound, they are certainly productive steps in the right direction and demonstrate a sincere effort to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Many major corporations are headed in a similar direction.
 
There has always been climate change on planet earth since it was formed, and there always will be until the sun goes nova.
 
Munich Re - Corporate Responsibility - Climate change

Putting knowledge to use, devising solutionsIn the financial and insurance sector, Munich Re is a pioneer in analysing the consequences of climate change. We are continually expanding the competence we have gained over decades in order to promote climate-protective solutions, for example, new cover concepts for investors in innovative, climate-friendly technologies. Moreover, we plan to place all our business activities within Munich Re (Group) throughout the world on a climate-neutral basis.

Munich Re has been studying the risks and opportunities posed by climate change since founding its Geo Risks Research Department back in 1974. Our knowledge in this field continued to grow and was concentrated in one place in 2008 when the » Corporate Climate Centre (CCC) was founded. In this network, staff members from all parts of the Group investigate the consequences of climate change and devise pioneering concepts and solutions for climate protection.

Adapting to the effects of climate change
Such concentrated competence is a huge help in opening up new fields of business and developing innovative cover concepts for adapting to the effects of climate change. In Munich Re's core business, these include crop failure covers and policies providing protection against flood damage. We also offer a truly unique service for better identifying complex natural hazards: the NATHAN Risk Suite. This made-to-measure product draws on extensive data resources to offer, among other options, precise identification of relatively highly exposed sites throughout the world, also taking into account the changes resulting from climate change

In 1974 Climate Change was Global Cooling.

There's money to be made from GlobalWarmerCoolering, what a shocker

LOL What the fuck is a "Climate neutral basis"? LOL Did they plan on moving the Sun?
 
Climate Change Science - Science behind climate change | Entergy

...The IPCC predicts an increase in sea levels of 3 feet by 2100 due to thermal expansion of the ocean. The areas shaded in red would be underwater.

Predictions for temperature increases range from 1.8 degrees (best case) to 8 degrees Celsius by 2100 if no action is taken to slow the current growth in global CO2 emissions. The thermal expansion of the oceans due to increased sea temperatures can be estimated, but the key unknown is the rate at which the land ice in Greenland and Antarctica will melt. The water contained in those glaciers represents approximately 39 feet of sea level equivalent. Even a fraction of that “melt” would be catastrophic.

Scientists believe climate change will also affect the basic elements of life for people around the world such as access to water and food production. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

The ramifications of global climate change, while uncertain, paint a devastating portrait of an unsustainable world. What the United States does now is critical to eliminating or at least reducing the possibility of catastrophic outcomes for future generations.

Investments made today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the cost of adaptation in the future. The notion of a no-cost, “do-nothing” option contradicts a key principle in business and life: probability diminishes in importance as the risk of disastrous consequences rises. If the world waits to act, climate change could be abrupt and impervious to any last-ditch, 11th-hour heroics.

Sounds like an accurate and legitimate climate concern message to me.

Greenhouse gas performance and commitment | Entergy


  • In 2001, Entergy partnered with Environmental Defense and became the first domestic utility to voluntarily enact a five-year plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 2000 levels. Entergy beat the original target by 23 percent while increasing sales 21 percent during the same period.

  • In 2006, Entergy made a second commitment to stabilize CO2 emissions from its power plants and controllable purchased power at 20 percent below 2000 levels through 2010. Our cumulative CO2 emissions for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 were 122.9 million tons, 4 percent better than our stabilization goal of 127.7 million. Since we made our first stabilization commitment in 2001, we have emitted 327.4 million tons of CO2, which is nearly 17 percent below our cumulative stabilization goal for the eight-year period.

  • Entergy established a $25 million Environmental Initiatives Fund with 80 percent dedicated to changes in Entergy-owned assets and 20 percent for the purchase of CO2 offsets (e.g., agricultural projects, geologic sequestration or enhanced oil recovery).

  • Through the EIF, Entergy has made capital improvements on its existing fossil fleet, including coal plants, to improve efficiency. Improvements include increasing production from non-emitting nuclear units through capacity up-rates and increasing capacity factors, and increasing production from more efficient, low-emitting combined cycle gas turbines and combined heat and power resources.

While I wouldn't call this list profound, they are certainly productive steps in the right direction and demonstrate a sincere effort to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Many major corporations are headed in a similar direction.

IPCC is an EnviroMarxist organization that has a policy of redistributing wealth through Climate change.

(this post was made on a Climate neutral basis, the climate was not dramatically altered as a direct or indirect result of this post)
 
Last edited:
Remember when Bush CAUSED Hurricane Katrina.:lol:

GW does a thing, which makes people THINK he enhances storm-surges, since low-pressure is similar to putting your mouth on a gasoline-hose and huffing. They are caused by a relief, of pressure.

But what GW really did was say 'nukuler,' a lot. He was an AGW detractor. AGW detractors won't let anybody legalize hemp or do CO2-neutral biomass research, and Democrats help them get'r'done, by passing Obamacare, losing the US House, and THEN the Ds tried to pass biomass research, which lost, 2012. Ds and Rs are NOT doctors. :cuckoo:

Politicians and their pig-appointees are a nuisance, with a big carbon footprint. Al Gore goes off, at his skeptics, but he really feeds them, when for years, he would not support legal pot, biomass like switchgrass, or re-greening. Electirc gear-freaks continue to develop gear, which costs a lot, and it relies on coal-fired generators, to re-charge

Meanwhile, warming and acidification are both ACCELERATING. Storms, desertification, and acidification can all cause mass extinction event 6. Extinctions are 100 times, headed for 1000 times normal. Oysters just had a die-off, in the Pacific NW. The cod were decimated, and they are not recovering. Reefs, plankton, eggs, little fish, and the entire oceanic food chain are threatened, NOW.

We either get CO2-neutral biomass and genetically engineered plants, to re-green, or we lose food from the oceans, then food from the land. Hey, those hurricanes and tornadoes are rough. The sea will come get us, in SF, LA, NYC, Miami, etc. But the carbonic acid will stop the food chain, including the crops, on land. Be stupid, if you must, but here comes real trouble.
 
Remember when Bush CAUSED Hurricane Katrina.:lol:

GW does a thing, which makes people THINK he enhances storm-surges, since low-pressure is similar to putting your mouth on a gasoline-hose and huffing. They are caused by a relief, of pressure.

But what GW really did was say 'nukuler,' a lot. He was an AGW detractor. AGW detractors won't let anybody legalize hemp or do CO2-neutral biomass research, and Democrats help them get'r'done, by passing Obamacare, losing the US House, and THEN the Ds tried to pass biomass research, which lost, 2012. Ds and Rs are NOT doctors. :cuckoo:

Politicians and their pig-appointees are a nuisance, with a big carbon footprint. Al Gore goes off, at his skeptics, but he really feeds them, when for years, he would not support legal pot, biomass like switchgrass, or re-greening. Electirc gear-freaks continue to develop gear, which costs a lot, and it relies on coal-fired generators, to re-charge

Meanwhile, warming and acidification are both ACCELERATING. Storms, desertification, and acidification can all cause mass extinction event 6. Extinctions are 100 times, headed for 1000 times normal. Oysters just had a die-off, in the Pacific NW. The cod were decimated, and they are not recovering. Reefs, plankton, eggs, little fish, and the entire oceanic food chain are threatened, NOW.

We either get CO2-neutral biomass and genetically engineered plants, to re-green, or we lose food from the oceans, then food from the land. Hey, those hurricanes and tornadoes are rough. The sea will come get us, in SF, LA, NYC, Miami, etc. But the carbonic acid will stop the food chain, including the crops, on land. Be stupid, if you must, but here comes real trouble.

Did you say "Ocean acidification"?
 
Local News | Acidity in ocean killed NW oysters, new study says | Seattle Times Newspaper

Researchers said Wednesday they can definitively show that ocean acidification is at least partly responsible for massive oyster die-offs at the hatchery in Netarts Bay, Ore.

It's the first concrete finding in North America that carbon dioxide being taken up by the oceans already is helping kill marine species.

"This is the smoking gun for oyster larvae," said Richard Feely, an oceanographer and leading marine-chemistry researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle and one of the paper's authors.

Said Alan Barton, another of the paper's authors: "It's now an incontrovertible fact that ocean chemistry is affecting our larvae."
 
Local News | Acidity in ocean killed NW oysters, new study says | Seattle Times Newspaper

Researchers said Wednesday they can definitively show that ocean acidification is at least partly responsible for massive oyster die-offs at the hatchery in Netarts Bay, Ore.

It's the first concrete finding in North America that carbon dioxide being taken up by the oceans already is helping kill marine species.

"This is the smoking gun for oyster larvae," said Richard Feely, an oceanographer and leading marine-chemistry researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle and one of the paper's authors.

Said Alan Barton, another of the paper's authors: "It's now an incontrovertible fact that ocean chemistry is affecting our larvae."

I thought CO2 was leeching OUT of the oceans in a "Feedback Loop"?

Having the oceans suddenly absorb more CO2 is mutually exclusive with the central theory of AGW that as we head up the planet by burning fossil fuels the oceans loose their ability to absorb their "Fair share" of CO2

What acid does CO2 make when it enters the water? Can you tell the good people playing along at home?

prinn-roulette-4.jpg
 
New research from last week 18/2012 « AGW Observer

Expected ocean acidification from human actions seems to be unprecedented in the geologic past

History of Seawater Carbonate Chemistry, Atmospheric CO2, and Ocean Acidification – Zeebe (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: “Humans are continuing to add vast amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and other activities. A large fraction of the CO2 is taken up by the oceans in a process that lowers ocean pH and carbonate mineral saturation state. This effect has potentially serious consequences for marine life, which are, however, difficult to predict. One approach to address the issue is to study the geologic record, which may provide clues about what the future holds for ocean chemistry and marine organisms. This article reviews basic controls on ocean carbonate chemistry on different timescales and examines past ocean chemistry changes and ocean acidification events during various geologic eras. The results allow evaluation of the current anthropogenic perturbation in the context of Earth’s history. It appears that the ocean acidification event that humans are expected to cause is unprecedented in the geologic past, for which sufficiently well-preserved records are available.”

Citation: Richard E. Zeebe, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 40: 141-165 (Volume publication date May 2012), DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105521.
 

Forum List

Back
Top