Another Year, Another Record High for Greenhouse Gases | Climate Central

Another Year, Another Record High for Greenhouse Gases | Climate Central

2014 Climate Action Network Position Statement

Scientists, White House say ocean acidification is well under way

Scientists, White House say ocean acidification is well under way

Published 20 August 2014 Science 

The oceans aren’t vast enough to absorb growing amounts of carbon dioxide without ill effects to marine life and to the 1 billion people who make their living on the seas. Longer heat waves, drought, rising sea levels, more intense storms—these are some of the better-known impacts of climate change. Less familiar is the acidification of the oceans, which is well under way and will continue as the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide rises.

The oceans absorb about one-quarter of the CO 2 emitted from fossil-fuel combustion, about the same proportion taken up by land. The rest remains in the atmosphere, where its concentration steadily increases. The rate at which the oceans are acidifying, through chemical reactions with the CO 2, is faster than has occurred in at least 65 million years and possibly 300 million years, according to Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Queensland. Marine organisms that require carbonate ions to build their shells likely won’t have sufficient time to adapt to the changing pH. “We’re taking life outside the conditions that it actually evolved for,” Hoegh-Guldberg said at the Our Ocean Conference, sponsored by the US Department of State and held 16–17 June in Washington, DC.

A much slower acidification event that occurred 55 million years ago (the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum) caused a mass extinction of deep-sea plankton and a collapse of coral reefs, according to research published in May’s Paleoceanography.

Since the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of the oceans has jumped 25%, from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1, according to the US Global Change Research Program’s 2014 National Climate Assessment. If current trends in CO 2 emissions continue unchecked, acidity will increase by 100–150% from preindustrial levels by the end of the century, said Carol Turley of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory in the UK. “It is happening now, it’s happening rapidly, and it’s happening at a speed we haven’t seen for millions of years,” said Turley at the State Department conference.

The physical chemistry of ocean acidification caused by increased atmospheric CO 2 is straightforward: Some of the dissolved gas reacts with water to form carbonic acid, H 2CO 3. However, “it gets much more complicated in coastal waters, around a coral reef or shellfish beds and estuaries, because there’s other processes besides invasion of fossil-fuel CO 2,” says Scott Doney of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). “Coastal waters can be affected by a variety of biological processes, by chemicals, and by materials from the land,” he says. “In some places, fossil-fuel carbon may not even be the biggest contributor.”



Kramer D., 2014. Scientists, White House say ocean acidification is well under way. Physics Today 67 (8): 20-21. Article.

Climate Change and the Meat on Your Plate

Climate Change and the Meat on Your Plate
Julia Orr, 08/04/2014 huffingtonpost

Unless you are a climate change denier, it is inconceivable to ignore one of the largest contributors to global climate change -- industrialized animal agriculture. Is it because humans feel the right to eat whatever they want, even with a catastrophic impending disaster looming? Do we continue to ignore the facts to appease our palettes?

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction states that, "Indeed, climate change is no longer considered a problem of the future. According to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the effects are already present with a probable increase in the severity and frequency of disasters."

This is not new news; in 2006, a report by the United Nationals Food and Agriculture Organization stated that 18 percent of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) is attributable to livestock production. As if that wasn't bad enough, later analysis released in 2009 by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang stated that the figure was woefully underestimated. The actual figure resembled closer to 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions result from animal agriculture. Now these guys aren't amateurs; Robert Goodland served as the lead environmental adviser for the World Bank Group for 23 years, and Jeff Anhang is a research officer and environmental specialist at the World Bank Group's International Finance Corporation.

In neither report is the word "Vegan" mentioned. I am sure that is because the word generally seems to throw people into a major panic. Co-authors, Goodland and Anhang suggest eating "less meat." But even with this watered down version of this much-maligned word, we still seem to be ignoring this incredibly important factor. A fact that could easily have a dynamic effect on the rapid increase in global warming, more so than even the much touted replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy. In fact, the production of meat for your plate contributes more to global warming than our entire transportation system combined.

A recent documentary, Cowspiracy, goes a long way to investigate the irrationality of many environmental groups who appear to be choosing popularity with members over fact. If people truly were concerned about global climate change and the environment then ignoring the horrific impacts of animal agriculture let alone the inherent cruelty involved is ... well, alarming and more than a little foolish. Are the vegans the Rachel Carsons of today? Carson who blew the whistle on the serious impact of DDT on wildlife but was viciously vilified for her efforts?

If it's hard to go vegan, how much harder will it be to either endure floods orextreme heat and droughts, which will lead to food shortages and power outages at the very least. If one feels it's their "right" to eat whatever they want then what about the "right" of every being on this planet to live without the impact of global warming? I am not a religious person, but it's hard not to feel we are in the midst of apocalyptic times. According to Hopi prophecy, global climatic changes are inevitable but we humans can still impact the ferocity of those changes.


Bosnia floods

The refusal to address this issue seems like nothing less than obstinacy in the face of utter disaster. It is inconceivable to me that we continue to ignore this fact at our peril. On September 23, there is a global summit for climate change at the UN Headquarters in New York and a Peoples Climate March on Sunday, Sept 21. I wonder if the summit will be vegan? How many people will be feeling good about riding their bikes and taking public transport to the march whilst chomping down on a burger? The People's March is calling for "climate justice," I for one am demanding justice; justice for the millions of sentient beings that live briefly in utter pain and misery and are then killed for profit. Maybe the animal's revenge will be the end of the world as we know it.

Tar Sands Threaten World’s Largest Boreal Forest

Tar Sands Threaten World’s Largest Boreal Forest

Four Questions with Climate Science “Ambassador” Scott Mandia

Four Questions with Climate Science “Ambassador” Scott Mandia - The Equation

High-stakes climate poker

The fossil fuel industry's high-stakes bluff takes balls. 

High-stakes climate poker
The fossil fuel industry is betting that we'll keep pumping it money instead of paying less to switch to renewable energy

James Byrne 16 January 2014 theguardian.com

My friends and I get together once a month to play Texas HoldEm poker - great conversation, a few drinks, snacks and laughs. But I don't like high-stakes poker. Gambling with high-value is not a wise choice, particularly if the pain of the loss translates beyond oneself.

The fossil fuel industry is bluffing society in a multi-trillion dollar high-stakes poker game. Current reserves of fossil fuels are five times more than we can afford to burn if we want to keep global warming to less than 2°C; and we have to keep global warming below 2°C. The net worth of fossil fuel corporations, the value of their chip stack, is based on fully exploiting these reserves. Financial leaders are expressing great concerns about betting on fossil fuels. Forbes magazine says,

"Groups as diverse as Shell, Mercer, HSBC, prominent insurance companies and re-issuers, Standard & Poor's and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have been giving clear warning signs about continuing to invest in fossil fuels."

But fossil fuel-based corporations are still bluffing. They want expanded fossil fuel use; making massive investments in oil exploration, hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas, and the Canadian tar sands. The latter two are particularly bad bets given their large greenhouse gas footprints, water, soil and air pollution problems; and tar sands need 40 years to recover the costs of multi-billion dollar plants.

Why are fossil fuels a bad bet? (1) Continued use threatens our basic societal foundations through pollution, environmental disruption and growing health costs and infrastructure losses (fires, floods, droughts, heat waves, sea level rise, more violent weather, urban pollution and health); (2) the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says current fossil fuel subsidies are $1.9 trillion per year – these must be eliminated – that will make fossil fuels more expensive; (3) greater external costs of carbon taxes and emissions trading will be assigned to fossil fuels, make them more expensive; (4) renewable energy sources are competitive now and will be more so given fewer external costs than fossil fuels; and, (5) there is a growing fossil fuel divestment movementthat major financial managers fear.

Who really has the big chip stacks? The 2006 Stern Report on the Economics of Climate Change put the annual costs of transitioning to a renewable energy economy at about 1% of global GDP; about $850 billion. Is that a big bet? Well, current annual global subsidies to fossil fuels are about $1.9 trillion. The Climate Vulnerable Forum Report in 2012 estimated that humanity is now incurring about $1.2 trillion in losses every year due to climate change, and rising. That is 1.6% of global GDP. Oil consuming nations would spend arecord $2 trillion on oil in 2012, $500 billion on natural gas, and $500 billion on coal. So the annual costs to continue using fossil fuels is over $6 trillion, whereas we need to spend only $850 billion to switch to renewable energy and fix climate change.

The fossil fuel industry's bluff takes balls: they are betting humanity will continue to pay over $6 trillion annually to burn fossil fuels rather than $850 billion to convert to renewable energy. Worse, they are betting humanity will pay trillions for increasing climate change adaptation costs while we pay trillions for fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry is demanding humanity go on buying and burning unneeded fossil fuel reserves as the climate radically warms … all so these carbon kings can stay flush. Fossil fuel magnates and plutocrats are betting many billions more in a frenzied, massive exploration push to add to unneeded fossil fuel reserves.

There are other big chip stacks in the pot. We all know air pollution causes many diseases. The health care costs for treating fossil fuel pollution related disease are among the biggest chip stacks. A 2012 US EPA paper says the hidden health costs of pollution from fossil fuel electricity generation alone are 2–6% of US GDP – that is $300–900 billion! The USA has 4% of the global population and has reasonable pollution control technology. Global health cost equivalents must be many trillions of dollars.

Who is dying from fossil fuel pollution? Leading research agencies are debating the explicit numbers, but the best estimates are alarming. The World Health Organization estimated that climate change kills 150,000 people every year. The Climate Vulnerable Forum Report says the number of deaths is 400,000. The Canadian Medical Association Journal says 21,000 Canadians die prematurely due to fossil fuel pollution every year in Canada. The Lancet estimated that China suffers 1.2 million premature deaths due to fossil fuel pollution.

Canada has some of the best air pollution controls; China has some of the worst air pollution globally. But the death rate per million of population is similar: 700 in Canada, 900 in China. Extrapolating the Canada-China average death rate suggests 5.6 million people die every year due to fossil fuel pollution. We can debate the exact numbers; nevertheless, the magnitude is horrifying. Millions of people are dying every year due to fossil fuel air pollution, and deaths are increasing as the world burns more fossil fuels.

STOP this gamble. Fossil fuels are a losing hand for humanity. Clean, safe renewable energy wins for all of us. We can bet on it.

Global Warming and Livestock: Making the Links

Global Warming and Livestock: Making the Links

Fact-sheet by Climate Change 911

• From local to global, livestock is one of the top contributors of serious environmental problems
• Land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, extinction
• Agriculture is the leading cause of forest destruction and a major contributor to climate change (1)
• Animal products, both meat and dairy, require more resources and cause higher long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than plant-based alternatives
• Meat from cows cause about 40 times higher GHG per kilogram of protein compared to beans, and around 10 times higher compared to chickens (2)
• A UN report in 2010, "Priority, Products, and Materials", puts agriculture's global GHG emissions at 14%
• This means that agriculture is responsible for more GHG emissions than all forms of transport combined
• Agricultural CO2 emissions may double in 50 years to 13 Gton in 2070, compared to 7.1 Gton in 2000. (2)
• 70% of agricultural GHG emissions come from livestock, cows, sheep and other animals.
• The U.S. and the European Union have the highest meat consumption per capita in the world – and it continues to rise.
• In low- and mid-income countries, meat and dairy consumption increases along with income levels. (1)
• A World Watch Institute report suggest that GHG emissions from livestock and their by-products may be much higher than 14% (up to 51%)
• Livestock contribute about 40% of methane emissions in agriculture
• Livestock production is projected to increase substantially over the next decades (1)

• If we acknowledge the need to address climate change, then we cannot carry on with intense GHG activities like eating meat and dairy that are causing the damage in the first place
• Adopting a plant-based diet is as important as renewable energy and energy conservation
• In fact, eliminating all carbon dioxide emissions from the energy and transportation sectors is not enough because GHG from food and agriculture, mainly nitrous oxide from agricultural soils and methane from livestock, will continue to cause global warming (2)
• Halting the increase of greenhouse-gas emissions from livestock could curb warming fairly rapidly
• A University of Aberdeen study found that a worldwide adoption of a vegan diet would reduce CO2 emissions by a massive 7.8 gigatonnes
• Making our food system more efficient and eating healthier food can reduce annual carbon emissions from global agriculture by as much as 50 to 90 percent by 2030 - the equivalent of removing all the cars in the world (1)

1 Dickie, A., Streck, C., Roe, S., Zurek, M., Haupt, F., Dolginow, A. 2014. “Strategies for Mitigating Climate Change in Agriculture: Recommendations for Philanthropy.” Climate Focus and California Environmental Associates, prepared with the support of the Climate and Land Use Alliance. agriculturalmitigation.org

2 Fredrik Hedenus & Stefan Wirsenius & Daniel J. A. Johansson. "The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumptionfor meeting stringent climate change targets." Climatic Change (2014) 124:79–91. Published online: 28 March 2014

Report: Top 12 ways the world can eliminate agriculture's climate footprint

Report: Top 12 ways the world can eliminate agriculture's climate footprint
April 25, 2014 sciencecodex.com

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (24 April 2014)—Annual carbon emissions from global agriculture can be reduced by as much as 50 to 90 percent by 2030—the equivalent of removing all the cars in the world—according to a comprehensive new report released by Climate Focus and California Environmental Associates. The study highlights twelve key strategies—led by reduced global beef consumption, reduced food waste and better farm nutrient management and production—that can deliver big climate wins while maintaining food security and building resilience.

The report, Strategies for Mitigating Climate Change in Agriculture, offers a silver lining to the grim prognosis delivered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) this month. Overall, opportunities in Brazil, China, the European Union, India and the U.S. can provide the largest impact on global emissions.

The report, which reviewed and synthesized a wide range of literature on agriculture and climate change, including some unpublished data, stresses the fundamental yet under-emphasized role that consumption plays in fueling food-related emissions. It estimates that changing diets and reducing food waste in key countries could cut over three gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

"By reducing the climate impact of the food we eat, we can improve our health and the health of the planet," said Dr. Charlotte Streck of Climate Focus, co-author of the study. "By making the way we produce food more efficient, farmers can reap the benefits of increased production while decreasing the environmental impacts of farming. The energy and transport sectors have seen a significant growth in innovation needed to ensure the long term sustainability of the sectors. It is time that agriculture followed."

The study also shows that making our food system more efficient and eating healthier food would allow us to feed the growing population, expected to surpass 9 billion people by 2050, and limit the sector's significant climate footprint.

"There are so many ways in which policymakers can help farmers boost productivity while mitigating climate change," Streck said. "We need to dispel the notion, once and for all, that productivity and sustainability can't work hand in hand."

Too Much of a Good Thing is Not a Good Thing

The report finds that 70 percent of direct greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock, in particular from cows, sheep and other grazing animals. Much of these emissions could be eliminated if beef demand were reduced, particularly in two countries: the U.S., currently the world's biggest consumers of red meat, and China, where demand for beef is set to rise rapidly.

The U.S., where Meatless Mondays have taken hold and doctors increasingly advise patients to lay off the red meat, is already beginning to consume less beef. Per capita beef consumption dropped from its peak of 88.8 pounds in 1976 to 58.7 pounds in 2009, and consumer research indicates that the recent economic downturn alongside concerns of red meat's health impacts have suppressed beef consumption further—though consumption remains excessive by global standards. Considering beef's immense share of livestock carbon emissions—six times greater than poultry on a per unit basis—and its impact on tropical deforestation, the report recommends national public relations campaigns to continue this trend.

China, on the other hand, could avoid emissions if it were to shift away from its projected trend of becoming a beef eating nation. Increasingly affluent, and influenced by western culture, the country's consumers are poised to ramp up their red meat consumption by 116% by 2050.

"Because China already has a climate-friendly diet and hasn't yet embraced beef, it's still possible to discourage the consumption of more beef without changing the country's traditional beliefs and culture," said Amy Dickie of California Environmental Associates, co-author of the study. "Steering the Chinese diet in a more climate-friendly direction would yield enormous benefits for the country's health and food security—as well as the global climate."

The report cites the global public relations campaign designed to curb shark fin soup consumption in China, underpinned by the national government's prohibition on serving the dish at official banquets. These efforts cut shark fin imports by an enormous 50-70 percent, helping to conserve dwindling shark populations around the world. The report suggests that a similar effort could persuade diners to eat less meat altogether or, at least, to appreciate healthier, less water-intensive and less climate-intensive meats like pork or chicken.

Waste Not, Want Not

Eliminating food waste in the U.S. and China, as well as food loss in Sub-Saharan Africa and South and Southeast Asia, could also put a major dent in agricultural emissions. Globally, between 30 and 40 percent of all food is lost as it travels along the supply chain from the farm to the consumer. As food waste is a byproduct of inefficient production, storage, distribution and consumption practices, there are vast opportunities for savings for farmers, the private sector and consumers. Some affordable fixes include the following.

In the U.S., confusion surrounding 'sell by' and 'best by' dates and other food labels, which often mislead consumers into tossing perfectly good food, should be addressed.

In the U.S. and the European Union, the practice of tossing an enormous amount of food for aesthetic reasons—not having the right shape or color—before it even reaches consumers should be discouraged.

In China and the U.S., portion sizes in restaurants and catering should be slimmed down.

In Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, improving cooling and storage practices would prevent spoilage and food losses.

Chew on This

Similar to the demand-side findings, many of the production-side recommendations focus on reducing emissions from ruminants, animals—including cows, sheep, goats and buffalo—with a four-chamber stomach that emit methane during the digestion process. This process, called enteric fermentation, more fondly referred to as 'cow burps,' is responsible for over 40 percent the agricultural sector's direct emissions.

"There's no way around it," said Streck. "Cows are incredibly inefficient food sources. They eat an enormous amount of feed and require a lot of land and water resources. Pigs, chickens and sustainably caught or raised fish, not to mention non-meat proteins are so much better for the climate—and healthier for people as well."

Streck noted, however, that for millions of farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, cattle often offer a variety of benefits, such as providing essential protein and pulling ploughs and carts, that need to be considered when gauging what regions to target.

The report recommends two key tactics for eliminating livestock-production emissions. In Brazil, it can take up to 36 months for cows to reach slaughter weight. In the U.S., it only takes around 18 months. Improving grazing management in South America's cattle hub would make the country more efficient beef producers. Likewise, in India, feeding cattle and buffalo healthier diets would ramp up milk production while reducing the per-gallon climate footprint.

Farmers can also drastically reduce emissions by changing the way they grow food on their fields and pastures. In industrialized countries, particularly China, agriculture uses too much fertilizer. Most farmers in China could reduce fertilizer use by 30 to 60 percent without harming yields. Exacerbating this problem, coal—rather than more efficient natural gas—is used as the primary feedstock in Chinese fertilizer production. Fertilizer is also over-applied in India and the U.S., although domestic production is much more efficient.

Production Potential

The report recommends pairing demand-side interventions with efforts to improve the efficiency of production. One of the largest challenges in containing the growth of agricultural GHG emissions is the diffuse nature of production. In the aggregate, the emissions reduction potential of the agricultural sector through supply-based approaches is nearly 2 Gt CO2e per year by 2030, including efficiencies gained in fertilizer production in China. These emissions reductions represent about a 30 percent reduction from 2030 levels. In most cases, these interventions would yield productivity gains and ought to be in the best interest of farmers and governments.

Priority focus areas include: reducing emissions from the largest cattle herds that are not produced as efficiently as they could be (e.g., Brazil's cattle population and India's dairy herd), reducing fertilizer use and production in China, reducing rice emissions in Southeast Asia, and improving stored manure practices in industrialized livestock systems.

Carbon Storage

The report also stresses the unique role that agriculture can play in sequestering, or storing, carbon in croplands, grazing lands and agroforestry. The study suggests, for example, that Brazil could integrate silvopastoral systems—a combination of crops, trees and livestock—and boost the quality of the grasses on its pastures as a means to store carbon. In turn, feeding cattle higher-quality food could lead to fewer emissions from deforestation, as ranchers would not need to chop down forests to create new pastures.

"There is a scientific debate about how effective different practices are at sequestering carbon, and quantifying the impacts of these efforts can be a challenge. Nonetheless, it's undisputed that increasing carbon leads to increased soil fertility and water retention, a boost to farmers," Dickie said. "The world should embrace available opportunities to boost the carbon in agricultural systems as long as they complement efforts to reduce emissions and boost food security. Especially in cases when these practices require little effort but offer significant potential benefits."

Productivity Matters

On par with the transportation sector, the production and consumption of food is responsible for around a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. And when ranchers and farmers need new land for food production, they clear forests, making agriculture the leading cause of forest destruction, another major contributor to climate change.

"Agriculture is the largest cause of deforestation worldwide," Dickie said. "Improvements to agricultural practices, as we've highlighted in this report, have so many benefits, including a reduction in deforestation and pollution of waterways."

However, despite agriculture's massive contribution to climate change—as well as its potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—agriculture still hasn't received the attention it deserves at the international climate talks, the report states.

One reason for the holdup, Streck said, is the belief that agricultural productivity and sustainable farming are mutually exclusive. The report shows that this is not the case, she added.

Graphic: Proud of Emissions?

Dr. Mike Aucott, Climate Change: Seeing Through The Nonsense; Getting Beyond the Hopelessness

Dr. Mike Aucott, Climate Change: Seeing Through The Nonsense; Getting Beyond the Hopelessness.
Published on May 18, 2014
Dr. Mike Aucott spoke at The Unitarian Universalist Church at Washington Crossing "UUCWC" at Titusville, NJ on May 12, 2014. Climate Change: Seeing Through the Nonsense; Getting Beyond the Hopelessness.

DR. Aucott http://www.dezinefusion.com/stevens/i... spoke for almost 55 minutes alongside presenting over 80+ informative slides that are shown in this video. Dr. Aucott gives us a convincing presentation for the evidence that humans are impacting climate both globally and locally in NJ. As per the presentation name, Dr. Aucott helps us to understand in both layman and technical terms how we are impacting our environment and ways we can make a difference, especially in his belief that we can have a real impact in controlling Greenhouse Gases through the creation of a Carbon Tax.

The event was sponsored by UUCWC Congregation!Climate!Action!Team http://uucwccat.blogspot.com/Please contact uucwc.cat@gmail.com for more information

Dr. Mike Aucott has a Ph.D. in environmental sciences from Rutgers University, and works with NJDEP's Division of Science, Research, & Technology. His work includes development of inventories of New Jersey emissions of greenhouse gases and researching potential impacts of climate change on the State. He currently heads up the Trends Team, which is responsible for development and regular updating of measurements and related trends relevant to the condition of the environment in New Jersey. He was a scientist for 27 years with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, where his research included greenhouse gas emission inventories, air pollution, and energy use.

Resource Sites:

• http://www.ipcc.ch/
• http://www.realclimate.org/
• http://www.skepticalscience.com/
• http://citizensclimatelobby.org/
• http://www.carbontax.org/
• http://pandoraspromise.com/

Dr Mayer Hillman on climate change

CFI UK presents Dr Mayer Hillman on climate change
Published on Jun 2, 2014
CFI UK presents Global Warming -- Where Do We Go From Here?Dr Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute, London. What do we do now that society is demonstrating all too clearly its strong preference for downplaying the significance and implications of climate change?

Last Hours

Last Hours
Published on Sep 28, 2013
"Last Hours" is the first in a series of short films that explore the perils of climate change and the solutions to avert climate disaster. Each subsequent film will highlight fact-based challenges facing the human race, and offer solutions to ameliorate these crises. The initial short film series will culminate in a feature film to be presented prior to COP21, the 2015 UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris.

An asset for the climate change movement, "Last Hours" will be disseminated globally to awaken modern culture worldwide about the various dangers associated with climate change.

"Last Hours" describes a science-based climate scenario where a tipping point to runaway climate change is triggered by massive releases of frozen methane. Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, has already started to percolate into the open seas and atmosphere from methane hydrate deposits beneath melting arctic ice, from the warming northern-hemisphere tundra, and from worldwide continental-shelf undersea methane clathrate pools.

Burning fossil fuels release carbon that, principally through greenhouse effect, heat the atmosphere and the seas. This is happening most rapidly at the polar extremes, and this heating has already begun the process of releasing methane. If we do not begin to significantly curtail the use of carbon-based fossil fuels, this freed methane threatens to radically accelerate the speed of global warming, potentially producing a disaster beyond the ability of the human species to adapt.

This first video is designed to awaken people to the fact that the earth has experienced five major extinctions in the deep geologic past -- times when more than half of all life on earth vanished -- and that we are now entering a sixth extinction. Industrial civilization with its production of greenhouse gases has the ability to trigger a mass extinction; in the extreme, it could threaten not just human civilization, but the very existence of human life on this planet.

The world community and global citizens urgently need to chart a path forward that greatly reduces green house gas emissions. To take action and follow the pathway to solutions to the climate crisis, you can explore this website and you can also sign-up for future updates. Thank you.

"Last Hours" is presented and narrated by Thom Hartmann and directed by Leila Conners. Executive Producers are George DiCaprio and Earl Katz. Last Hours is produced by Mathew Schmid of Tree Media Foundation, and was written by Thom Hartmann, Sam Sacks, and Leila Conners. Music is composed and performed by Francesco Lupica.

Meat the hidden culprit of climate change

Moving to a completely meat-free diet would go a long way to tackling climate change.

Meat the hidden culprit of climate change
Ruby Hamad Mon 28 Apr 2014 abc.net.au

Most of us agree that action needs to be taken to address climate change, but when it comes to moving to a meat-free diet to drastically reduce emissions, suddenly we're not so keen, writes Ruby Hamad.

The cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead famously said, "It is easier to change a man's religion than his diet." It is also, apparently, easier to change the entire world's energy production.

Earlier this month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report, "Mitigation of Climate Change", citing fossil fuels as the biggest source of emissions, with coal, oil, and natural gas the major culprits.

However, the panel also implicates animal agriculture, noting that"changes in diet and reductions of losses in the food supply chain, have a significant, but uncertain, potential to reduce GHG emissions from food production."

Seventy per cent of agricultural emissions come directly from livestock - and about 37 per cent of total worldwide methane emissions - and it is clear that moving away from animal products is not just potentially significant but downright necessary.

The IPCC findings come hot on the heels of another study, "The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets", published in the April edition of Climate Change.

The study's lead author argues that targeting the fossil fuel industry alone is insufficient because "the agricultural emissions ... may be too high. Thus we have to take action in both sectors."

In 2010 a UN report, "Priority, Products, and Materials" concluded that, "A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products."

That report puts agriculture's global emissions at 14 per cent, and while not giving an exact figure, the researchers warn that "animal products, both meat and dairy, in general require more resources and cause higher emissions than plant-based alternatives". Subsequent research suggests emissions from livestock and their by-products may be much higher (even as high as 51 per cent). Even if we err on the side of conservatism and stick to the lower UN figure, it still indicates that agriculture is responsible for more emissions that all means of transport combined.

No one who cares about the threat of climate change is ignorant of the importance of renewable energy and a reduction in energy use. So why do we still have our collective head in the sand about the need to change our diet?

In an impassioned tirade against Earth Day (April 22), which he dismisses as emblematic of "the culture of progressive green denial", The Nation's Wen Stephenson calls for radical action, namely, "physically, non-violently disrupting the fossil-fuel industry and the institutions that support and abet it ... Forcing the issue. Finally acting as though we accept what the science is telling us."

I don't know what Stephenson's food habits are but, ironically, in a piece railing against denialism, he does not mention meat consumption once. It is rather extraordinary how we acknowledge the need to address climate change and then carry on with those very activities that are causing the damage in the first place.

While some media outlets do report on the link between animal agriculture and global warming, they also undermine the urgency by featuring stories on, for example, how to include bacon in every meal - including dessert. TV channels flog reality shows glorifying high levels of meat consumption, and fast food outlets compete to see who can stuff the most meat and cheese into a single, fat-laden item.

All as scientists warn of the need to move away from dependency on animals as a food source.

When those of us who are concerned by the devastating effects of animal agriculture raise the issue, somehow the focus shifts from saving the planet to respecting personal choice, as if the choice to eat certain foods is sacrosanct.

We have to compromise our personal preferences every day in the interests of public safety. Smoking prohibitions, speed limits, alcohol restrictions, even initiatives promoting recycling and "green" household products all affect our choices.

But, for some reason, requesting people reduce their consumption of meat is taken as a personal affront to their very being. Humans have been eating animals for so long, and in such large quantities, we think we are entitled to their bodies, regardless of the consequences.

Clearly, our dependence on fossil fuels has to change but it is quite remarkable that we actually consider restructuring our entire energy system as an easier and more viable undertaking than simply altering our food habits.

The Guardian's food writer Jay Rayner unwittingly demonstrates this in his reaction to a University of Aberdeen study that found a worldwide adoption of a vegan diet would reduce CO2 emissions by a massive 7.8 gigatonnes. But, rather than take this on board, Rayner chooses instead to shrug his shoulders, declare that "the world is not going vegan any time soon" and condemn "self-righteous vegans" for "making airy proclamations about the way forward when [they] have no power whatsoever to make it happen".

But why don't we have the power to make it happen?

Even if we don't all go completely vegan, surely the takeaway is that everyone should eat less meat and more plants, and not just on Meatless Mondays?

It's easy to point the finger only at fossil fuels because this requires no major personal sacrifice. We can pin all the blame on big corporations, demand policy change, and then feel good about ourselves by declaring on Facebook that we are against dredging the Barrier Reef and we don't support fracking.

But meat is different. Meat means we have to change. It means we have to sacrifice something we enjoy, something we believe we are entitled to. And most of us simply aren't willing to compromise that entitlement, so we pretend that the idea of a worldwide shift to a plant-based diet is simply too ridiculous to contemplate. That's if we even acknowledge the crisis at all.

So we sign petitions and attend demonstrations. Some of us even drive less, take shorter showers, and use eco light bulbs. But nothing it seems, not even the looming threat of environmental catastrophe, could compel a significant number of us to simply change our diet.

To Avoid Global Warming Stop Eating Meat and Cheese

To Avoid Global Warming Stop Eating Meat and Cheese
Fredrik Hedenus APRIL 1, 2014 nytimes.com

To avoid dangerous climate change and limit global warming to below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the level of preindustrial times – a target endorsed by the international community and the United States – global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 80 to 90 percent by the second half of this century. But even eliminating all carbon dioxide emissions from the energy and transportation sectors may not be enough to reach that target because greenhouse gases from food and agriculture, mainly nitrous oxide from agricultural soils and methane from livestock, will be too large.

By the second half of the century, there will be many more of us on this planet. Diets high in meat and cheese are expected to become more common. Even when factoring in expected productivity increases we estimate that global agricultural emissions could double in 50 to 60 years. This alone could make meeting the climate target essentially impossible.

Technological options to reduce agricultural emissions are not promising and offer at best a very uncertain path toward the climate target. A more risk-averse and powerful way of curbing emissions is to reduce beef consumption, and shift to other protein-rich food. Beef causes about 40 times higher greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of protein compared to beans, and around 10 times higher compared to chicken meat.

Today, the U.S. and the European Union have the highest meat consumption per capita in the world – and it continues to rise. In low- and mid-income countries, meat and dairy consumption increases along with their income levels. The longer these trends go on, the harder it will be to meet the climate target. Changing these trends will be an arduous task, and may take a long time, but rich countries could set the example by implementing measures to moderate their meat and dairy consumption.

Here is the Study: Download Here

Abstract
For agriculture, there are three major options for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: 1) productivity improvements, particularly in the livestock sector; 2) dedicated technical mitigation measures; and 3) human dietary changes. The aim of the paper is to estimate long-term agricultural GHG emissions, under different mitigation scenarios, and to relate them to the emissions space compatible with the 2 °C temperature target. Our estimates include emissions up to 2070 from agricultural soils, manure management, enteric fermentation and paddy rice fields, and are based on IPCC Tier 2 methodology. We find that baseline agricultural CO2-equivalent emissions (using Global Warming Potentials with a 100 year time horizon) will be approximately 13 Gton CO2eq/year in 2070, compared to 7.1 Gton CO2eq/year 2000. However, if faster growth in livestock productivity is combined with dedicated technical mitigation measures, emissions may be kept to 7.7 Gton CO2eq/year in 2070. If structural changes in human diets are included, emissions may be reduced further, to 3–5 Gton CO2eq/year in 2070. The total annual emissions for meeting the 2 °C target with a chance above 50 % is in the order of 13 Gton CO2eq/year or less in 2070, for all sectors combined. We conclude that reduced ruminant meat and dairy consumption will be indispensable for reaching the 2 °C target with a high probability, unless unprecedented advances in technology take place.

To Fight Climate Change, the Entire World Will Have to Eat Less Meat

To Fight Climate Change, the Entire World Will Have to Eat Less Meat
It will be impossible to reach U.N. temperature targets without reducing our intake of certain foods, researchers say.
JOHN METCALFE Mar 31, 2014 citylab.com

Serious about battling climate change? Then you might want to consider going vegetarian. That's because it's looking like world temperatures will continue to climb unless people stop chowing on so much meat and dairy, according to new research from Sweden.

The United Nations believes it's imperative to keep future warming from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To meet that target, there will have to be a sharp decrease in greenhouse-gas emissions by the end of the century. Some of the reductions must come from the energy industry, and some must hail from the agricultural realm.

But with agriculture, it won't be enough to roll out "smarter" animal feeds and better methods of crop production, say scientists at the Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg. Rather, "reduced ruminant meat and dairy consumption will be indispensable for reaching the 2 °C target with a high probability, unless unprecedented advances in technology take place," they assert in a study in Climatic Change.

Here's the crux of their findings:

Emissions from agriculture threaten to keep increasing as global meat and dairy consumption increases. If agricultural emissions are not addressed, nitrous oxide from fields and methane from livestock may double by 2070. This alone would make meeting the climate target essentially impossible.

"We have shown that reducing meat and dairy consumption is key to bringing agricultural climate pollution down to safe levels," says Fredrik Hedenus, one of the study authors. "Broad dietary change can take a long time. We should already be thinking about how we can make our food more climate friendly."

Many in the agricultural industry are trying to cut emissions of nitrous oxide and methane (the latter being a mightily potent greenhouse gas). There's the general streamlining of processes to make meat and dairy production more efficient, for example. Then there are technical tweaks. One is occasionally draining the water from rice paddies, as microbes in flooded paddies generate a large amount of methane. Another is adding supplements to livestock feed to prevent the animals from belching so much. Gassy livestock is a serious atmospheric force; for instance, the fermentation taking place inside cows and sheep accounts for two-thirds of Australia's agricultural emissions.

The Swedish team thinks that if these improvements become widespread they will get us close to U.N. targets, but not quite there. They whipped up this graph to show how agricultural emissions are likely to change if conditions remain static (blue), if productivity and technical innovations are widely adopted (orange), and if technical measures are paired with a 75 percent reduction in meat-and-dairy eating across the globe. The gray line shows "how much total emissions must be reduced to meet the two degree target with large certainty," they say, and the "distance between the bars and the line shows the total possible magnitude of emissions from energy, transport, industry and deforestation":

But how do you stop an increasingly voracious planet from eating dairy and meat? It surely won't be enough to ask people to change their diets. One interesting possibility is tinkering with food economics. In a study published in December, scientists suggested reducing the global mass of 3.6 billion ruminants—which is 50 percent more than roamed the planet a half-century ago—by implementing some sort of tax-or-trade system. The Guardian explains:

The scientists' analysis, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, takes the contentious step of suggesting methane emissions be cut by pushing up the price of meat through a tax or emissions trading scheme.

"Influencing human behaviour is one of the most challenging aspects of any large-scale policy, and it is unlikely that a large-scale dietary change will happen voluntarily without incentives," they say. "Implementing a tax or emission trading scheme on livestock's greenhouse gas emissions could be an economically sound policy that would modify consumer prices and affect consumption patterns."

What if Everyone in the World Became a Vegetarian? Calculating the chaos and the changed climate

Treating yourself to vegan burgers with sweet potato and chickpeas isn't just a delicious indulgence; it could help save the planet. Photo by Elena Veselova/Thinkstock

What if Everyone in the World Became a Vegetarian? Calculating the chaos and the changed climate.
By L.V. Anderson May 1, 2014 slate.com

The meat industry is one of the top contributors to climate change, directly and indirectly producing about 14.5 percent of the world’s anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and global meat consumption is on the rise. People generally like eating meat—when poor people start making more money, they almost invariably start buying more meat. As the population grows and eats more animal products, the consequences for climate change, pollution, and land use could be catastrophic.

Attempts to reduce meat consumption usually focus on baby steps—Meatless Monday and “vegan before 6,” passable fake chicken, and in vitro burgers. If the world is going to eat less meat, it’s going to have to be coaxed and cajoled into doing it, according to conventional wisdom.

But what if the convincing were the easy part? Suppose everyone in the world voluntarily stopped eating meat, en masse. I know it’s not actually going to happen. But the best-case scenario from a climate perspective would be if all 7 billion of us woke up one day and realized that PETA was right all along. If this collective change of spirit came to pass, like Peter Singer’s dearest fantasy come true, what would the ramifications be?

At least one research team has run the numbers on what global veganism would mean for the planet. In 2009 researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency published their projections of the greenhouse gas consequences if humanity came to eat less meat, no meat, or no animal products at all. The researchers predicted that universal veganism would reduce agriculture-related carbon emissions by 17 percent, methane emissions by 24 percent, and nitrous oxide emissions by 21 percent by 2050. Universal vegetarianism would result in similarly impressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. What’s more, the Dutch researchers found that worldwide vegetarianism or veganism would achieve these gains at a much lower cost than a purely energy-focused intervention involving carbon taxes and renewable energy technology. The upshot: Universal eschewal of meat wouldn’t single-handedly stave off global warming, but it would go a long way toward mitigating climate change.

The Dutch researchers didn’t take into account what else might happen if everyone gave up meat. “In this scenario study we have ignored possible socio-economic implications such as the effect of health changes on GDP and population numbers,” wrote Elke Stehfest and her colleagues. “We have not analyzed the agro-economic consequences of the dietary changes and its implications; such consequences might not only involve transition costs, but also impacts on land prices. The costs that are associated with this transition might obviously offset some of the gains discussed here.”

Indeed. If the world actually did collectively go vegetarian or vegan over the course of a decade or two, it’s reasonable to think the economy would tank. According to “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” the influential 2006 U.N. report about meat’s devastating environmental effects, livestock production accounts for 1.4 percent of the world’s total GDP. The production and sale of animal products account for 1.3 billion people’s jobs, and 987 million of those people are poor. If demand for meat were to disappear overnight, those people’s livelihoods would disappear, and they would have to find new ways of making money. Now, some of them—like the industrial farmers who grow the corn that currently goes to feed animals on factory farms—would be in a position to adapt by shifting to in-demand plant-based food production. Others, namely the “huge number of people involved in livestock for lack of an alternative, particularly in Africa and Asia,” would probably be out of luck. (Things would be better for the global poor involved in the livestock trade if everyone continued to consume other animal products, such as eggs, milk, and wool, than if everyone decided to go vegan.) As the economy adjusted to the sudden lack of demand for meat products, we would expect to see widespread suffering and social unrest.

A second major ramification of global vegetarianism would be expanses of new land available. Currently, grazing land for ruminants—cows and their kin—accounts for a staggering 26 percent of the world’s ice-free land surface. The Dutch scientists predict that 2.7 billion hectares (about 10.4 million square miles) of that grazing land would be freed up by global vegetarianism, along with 100 million hectares (about 386,000 square miles) of land that’s currently used to grow crops for livestock. Not all of this land would be suitable for humans, but surely it stands to reason that this sudden influx of new territory would make land much cheaper on the whole.

A third major ramification of global vegetarianism would be that the risk of antibiotic-resistant infections would plummet. Currently, the routine use of antibiotics in animal farming to promote weight gain and prevent illness in unsanitary conditions is a major contributor to antibiotic resistance. Last year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that at least 2 million Americans fall ill from antibiotic-resistant pathogens every year and declared that “much of antibiotic use in animals is unnecessary and inappropriate and makes everyone less safe.” The overprescription of antibiotics for humans plays a big role in antibiotic resistance, but eradicating the factory farms from which many antibiotic-resistant bacteria emerge would make it more likely that we could continue to count on antibiotics to cure serious illnesses. (For a sense of what a “post-antibiotics future” would look like, read Maryn McKenna’samazing article on the topic for Medium and her story about a possible solution for chicken farming in Slate.)

So what would be the result, in an all-vegetarian world, of the combination of widespread unemployment and economic disruption, millions of square miles of available land, and a lowered risk of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea? I can only conclude that people would band together to form communes in order to escape capitalism’s ruthlessness, squat on the former pasture land, and adopt a lifestyle of free love.

I kid. Mostly. It’s easy to get carried away when you’re speculating about unlikely scenarios—and sudden intercontinental vegetarianism is very much an unlikely scenario.

But if the result of a worldwide shift to a plant-based diet sounds like a right-winger’s worst nightmare, it’s worth pointing out that continuing to eat as much meat as we currently do promises to result in a left-winger’s worst nightmare: In a world of untrammeled global warming, where disastrous weather events are routine, global conflicts will increase, only the wealthy will thrive, and the poor will suffer.

Let’s try a middle path. We’re not all going to become vegetarians, but most of us can stop giving our money to factory farms—the biggest and worst offenders, from a pollution and public health perspective. We can eat less meat than we currently do, especially meat from methane-releasing ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats, etc.). Just because a sudden global conversion to vegetarianism would have jarring effects doesn’t mean we can’t gradually reduce our consumption of meat, giving the market time to adjust. We not only can; we must. After all, with the world’s population slated to grow to 9 billion by 2050, we’ll be needing to take some of the 25 percent of the world’s land area back from the cows.

James Hansen: To Save Our Planet

James Hansen: To Save Our Planet
Published on Apr 10, 2013
Climate scientist James Hansen's talk after public reading of Karen Malpede's new play, Extreme Whether, based on his struggle to bring public awareness of catastrophic climate change and the need to quickly lower fossil fuel consumption.

Obama Climate Rules Not Enough to Fight Global Warming

Obama Climate Rules Not Enough to Fight Global Warming
Climate change experts want more certain actions than are called for in the new proposed rule to cut carbon dioxide from power plants. Climate change is a global problem, and addressing it would require concerted action by all nations. Yet the EPA regulations are a step in the right direction. 

Gayathri Vaidyanathan, Jun 3, 2014 ClimateWire

If the measure of President Obama's proposed power plant regulations is their impact on climate change, they would be doomed to failure, according to climate scientists.

Under the U.S. EPA proposal, carbon emissions from the power generation sector would fall by 30 percent below 2005 levels. The reductions would be split among the states, with each state assigned a distinct target by EPA. The power sector contributes 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the United States, and coal-fired power plants are the sector's biggest emitters.

EPA's proposal is remarkable given the relative paralysis on climate action in Washington, but it would not budge the world's ever-rising emissions trajectory. That's because climate change is a global problem, and addressing it would require concerted action by all nations, heavy investments in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and near-zero emissions before 2050.

The new EPA rules as currently structured do not promote CCS and will likely shift the nation toward reliance on natural gas, which is also a greenhouse gas emitter, for power generation, cautioned Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford.

The reason for climate scientists' pessimism is this: Carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for centuries, so today's emissions would trap heat at the Earth's surface well into the future. And at the rate we are emitting, the world would exceed the 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature change limit for 2100 that nations aspire to, according to climate models in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) fifth assessment report.

Curbing emissions from just coal-powered electricity, and in just one country, would not change that reality, said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

"Marginal cuts by the U.S. don't have a long-term overall big effect on the climate," he said. "What has to happen to have a big effect on the global climate is for all the big emitters to get together and decide that they are all going to cut some substantial fraction [of emissions]."

He said that global action, especially from developing nations such as China and India, could be more likely now that the U.S. has indicated its commitment to the problem. But observers of international treaty negotiations remain pessimistic about that prospect (ClimateWire, June 2).

A switch to natural gas won't do
Kenneth Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, said EPA's actions have to be the first step, and the agency needs to take similar steps every two years or so. And on top of that, the rest of the world needs to follow the United States' lead.

"But if this is the effort, and that is the end of it, then it's nowhere near the scale of what needs to be done," Caldeira said.

However, EPA's power plant regulations are likely the last major step toward achieving emissions reductions by 2020.

EPA is expecting some states to cut emissions by switching to natural gas for electricity generation, according to senior agency officials on a media briefing. Natural gas combined-cycle power plants are already heavily favored by utilities to the near exclusion of coal, said Joost de Gouw, an atmospheric scientist with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. On a per-megawatt basis, these plants emit just 40 percent of the emissions as coal-fired power plants.

But switching to natural gas for power generation does not solve the climate problem, scientists cautioned. Climate models in the IPCC's latest report indicate that to keep within the 2 C target by 2100, the world would have to emit close to zero, or even negative, quantities of greenhouse gases by 2050.

CCS, in which power plants trap carbon from flue gases and bury it underground, would be the only way to bring emissions to zero, Allen of Oxford said. The EPA proposal does not require CCS for either coal- or natural-gas-fired power plants.

Carbon capture is required
To ensure CCS development by 2050, EPA needs to regulate emissions from all fossil fuels—not just coal—today, Allen said. And immediate action is needed on CCS because any new power plants built now would still be operational in 2050. The energy system of the future would have to be implemented today.

"You would get exactly the same impact and guarantee a climate win, if instead of just targeting coal, the EPA would require a fraction of the carbon content of all forms of fossil energy should be sequestered," he said. "If they did that, job done."

Another potential problem with relying too much on natural gas is that the fuel is primarily made up of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Studies have suggested that leaks of methane during production from oil and gas wells are so high that the fuel may be no better for the climate than coal. Research into the problem is ongoing.

The EPA-proposed rules apply to existing coal-fired power plants and would be implemented by executive order rather than as law. That means the rule could be changed by successive administrations, which creates regulatory uncertainty.

The rules may even be altered to allow coal back into the energy mix if the U.S. is faced with scarce resources, Allen said.

A step in the right direction?
"If the impact of these cuts is to mean the U.S. burns gas faster, and then goes back to burning its coal reserves in 2030, arguably it will make the problem worse," he said.

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex, said the less permanent nature of executive orders can discourage investments in power plants, which are long-lasting infrastructure. He pointed to the United Kingdom, where long-term investments in power generation have stalled because climate and energy policy keeps changing "week to week."

"If you have a good reason to believe the rules of the game will change, then you are better off waiting and not investing," he said. "The next president may not agree with whatever Obama has done, and it creates an uncertainty that is very, very detrimental to investors."

Tol, at the same time, praised the EPA regulations as a step in the right direction. Given the humongous scope of the problem, action can seem beside the point, but "that creates a sense of defeatism right?" he said.

"If nobody does anything, then the problem will not go away," he said. "Every little bit will help."

Read The Secret Trade Memo Calling For More Fracking and Offshore Drilling

Read The Secret Trade Memo Calling For More Fracking and Offshore Drilling
Zach Carter and Kate Sheppard 05/19/2014 huffingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON -- The European Union is pressing the Obama administration to expand U.S. fracking, offshore oil drilling and natural gas exploration under the terms of a secret negotiation text obtained by The Huffington Post.

The controversial document is an early draft of energy policies that EU negotiators hope to see adopted under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade deal, which is currently being negotiated. The text was shared with American officials in September. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declined to comment on the document.

Environmental groups fear the broad language proposed for the deal would eliminate key restrictions on the export of crude oil and natural gas, fossil fuels that contribute to climate change. The document marks the first major bone of contention in the EU deal, amid an outcry from environmentalists over leaked terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a separate pact that the U.S. and 11 Pacific nations are also negotiating.

"Exports of energy goods to the other Party shall be deemed automatically to comply with any conditions and tests foreseen in the Parties’ respective legislation for the granting of export licenses," the memo reads, defining "energy goods" as "coal, crude oil, oil products, natural gas, whether liquefied or not, and electrical energy."

The U.S. government treats trade negotiation texts as classified information. Previous leaks concerning the EU deal have focused on lighter topics, including whether American cheesemakers can call their products "feta" or "parmesan."

By encouraging more crude oil and natural gas exports to the EU -- a massive economic force that uses a tremendous amount of global energy -- the proposal could spur more domestic oil and gas drilling and discourage the development of green energy in the EU, dealing a significant blow to efforts to avert climate change. Some environmental and citizens groups also object to the fracking process itself -- in which a high-pressure mixture of chemicals, water, and sand is injected into rock formations to release natural gas -- because of concerns that it might affect groundwater supplies.

"Encouraging trade in dirty fossil fuels would mean more dangerous fracking here in the U.S. and would push more climate-disrupting fuels into the European Union," Ilana Solomon, director of the Responsible Trade Program at Sierra Club, told HuffPost. "The oil and gas industry is the only winner in this situation."

The U.S. banned crude oil exports in 1975, and imposes a host of restrictions on the export of natural gas for both economic and national security reasons. But the president can issue special licenses to exempt some crude oil exports from the ban, and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said this month that he wants to consider relaxing it.

There has also been an increasing push to loosen constraints on natural gas exports from the U.S. to Europe, particularly as the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine has grown, highlighting Europe's dependency on Russian energy. Although burning natural gas produces lower emissions than oil or coal, the energy-intensive storage and shipping process -- liquefying the gas and then sending it in fuel-burning vessels -- eliminates many of its advantages. And critics of gas say that increasing exports would only increase reliance on fossil fuels, rather than speeding the transition to renewables. It would also likely increase energy prices in the U.S., although the effects of the deal would not come to fruition for several years.

Free trade agreements frequently bind all of their participants to a specific regulatory regime, hindering the deployment of future regulations in response to new problems. Trade pacts are enforced by international courts, which can issue economic sanctions against countries that violate the deals. The proposed EU language would run counter to existing environmental standards that limit the development of the fossil fuel industry.

"It expands a trend in trade negotiations of removing policy decisions from national and local governments and enshrining those policy decisions in international trade laws," said Sarah Burt, an attorney with the environmentalist legal organization Earthjustice, who has seen the document. Those negotiations, said Burt, happen outside of the public eye and are an "opaque process where trade and economics are elevated above any other values."

Read the full document here.