Global Temperature by Janet Larsen Earth Policy Institute

Warmest Decade on Record Brings Record Temperatures and Weather Extremes

In recent years weather events have whiplashed between the extremes of heat and cold, flooding and drought. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases—largely from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas—have loaded up in the atmosphere, heating the planet and pushing humanity onto a climatic seesaw of weather irregularities. High-temperature records in many places are already being broken with startling frequency, and hotter temperatures are in store. Without a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel use, we will veer even further away from the “normal” temperatures and weather patterns that civilization is adapted to.

The world has warmed by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since the Industrial Revolution, with most of the rise in temperature coming since the 1970s. Such rapid warming is unprecedented over at least 20,000 years. The average global temperature in 2012 was 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit (14.56 degrees Celsius). This sets it among the 10 warmest years on record—all of which, according to NASA data dating back to 1880, have occurred in the last 14 years. (See data.)

The two headline-dominating weather events of 2012 both occurred in the United States: the intense summertime drought and heat that baked the country’s midsection and Superstorm Sandy, which clobbered the East Coast in late October. Overall, 2012 was the hottest year in U.S. history, topping the twentieth-century average by more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

After a winter that never seemed to take hold over much of the United States&‐with snow coverage across the lower 48 states the third lowest on record—summer-like weather arrived in March. Close to 15,000 new high-temperature records were set. Thus began the warmest spring in U.S. history, setting the stage for further high temperatures and an epic drought. July 2012 was the hottest month ever in the continental United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center. A third of the U.S. population witnessed summer temperatures of 100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher for 10 or more days. At its peak, drought covered nearly two thirds of the country. Power plants shut down because of the lack of cooling water. Low water levels disrupted Mississippi River barge traffic. Crops withered; corn yields in key producing areas were cut by a fifth or more. Purdue University economist Chris Hurt estimates the cost of the drought could exceed $75 billion. And with drought lingering into the new year, particularly in the Great Plains, the odds of a second year of harvest shortfalls are increasing.

The other most expensive weather event of 2012 was the opposite precipitation extreme: Superstorm Sandy. Sandy was number 18 of 19 named Atlantic storms in a season that began even before its official start, with two storms forming in May. After bringing heavy rain to the Caribbean and killing 72 people, Sandy merged with a winter storm, transforming into a meteorological chimera. Rather than travelling a more typical pathway out to sea, Sandy made an abrupt left-hand turn to make landfall on the U.S. East Coast. Fueled by high sea-surface temperatures and loaded with extra moisture due to warmer air temperatures, Sandy brought more than a foot of rainfall to parts of the mid-Atlantic region. Coasts from Maryland to Massachusetts were hit by a tremendous storm surge that in Lower Manhattan reached more than 9 feet above the normal high-tide level. In New York and New Jersey close to 100 people died, and more than a half-million homes were damaged or destroyed. Blizzards blanketed parts of Appalachia with the most snow ever recorded for a U.S. storm in October. Costs are still being tallied, but state governments report damages of $62 billion.

Some scientists propose that Sandy was pushed onto its unusual trajectory because of changes in atmospheric circulation caused by the loss of sea ice in the rapidly warming Arctic. As the Arctic’s reflective ice cover shrinks, more heat is absorbed, resulting in a smaller temperature differential between the North Pole and higher latitudes. This can cause the jet stream to slow down or become more wavy, stalling typical weather patterns and leading to prolonged extreme events. The regional warming is also accelerating ice melt on Greenland, which contains enough water to raise global sea level by 23 feet (7 meters). In late May 2012, southern Greenland reached a balmy 76.6 degrees Fahrenheit. In mid-July, 97 percent of its surface area showed signs of melting.

The year was exceptionally warm in Canada, where summer 2012 was the warmest on record. For Russia it was the second warmest, just behind summer 2010, when Moscow was smothered by heat and choked with smoke from rampant wildfires. In both years crops suffered, contributing to a jump in food prices. In France, an unusually late and sudden heat wave toward the end of August broke the high-temperature records set during the 2003 heat wave that killed nearly 15,000 people nationwide. More

 

A Former US Ambassador's Advice on How to Work With Pakistan

Pakistan and America have had some tough years. When President Obama first took office, Pakistan had just returned to democracy after years of military rule, and many were optimistic that the two countries could build a new and healthy relationship.

Leaders in both countries hoped they could contribute to regional stability, promote prosperity, and work together against militancy and terrorism. Instead, despite great effort, we’ve seen increasing mistrust and skepticism on both sides. Now, as President Obama begins his second term, Pakistanis prepare for an election that, if it proceeds as hoped, would mark the successful completion of a civilian term of office and the continuation of civilian institutional rule, flawed as Pakistani democratic institutions might be.

In both capitals, the high hopes of 2008–2009 have given way to a more sober mood. We now should engage realistic assessments of what we can do. Let me suggest how we can assess the last four years, and look forward to progress in the next four and beyond.

First, the common task of fighting militancy and terrorism remains a priority for both countries. I believe it is a mistake for America to view Pakistan exclusively through the optic of our efforts in Afghanistan, as we’ve too frequently done in recent years. And yet as the situation changes in Afghanistan in 2014 and beyond, we need to marry realistic timelines and policy decisions with the priorities of Pakistani officials. This means continuing with the successful formula of high-level meetings that combine military and civilian leaders from both countries (“three-on-three”), talking together about military and civilian topics, so that joint decisions on security issues are not hampered, or even crippled, by institutional barriers in either government.

Second, we need to admit that the ambitious effort to balance our commitment to strengthening democratic institutions and building prosperity has not been as successful as we would have liked. The Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation, which generously authorized $7.5 billion dollars in civilian assistance to the post-Musharraf state for five years, has not had the impact its sponsors (and its implementers, such as the late Richard Holbrooke) had hoped.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but it is crucial that the Pakistani leadership step up and admit its failings rather than simply accuse the Americans of inefficiency or bad faith. Pakistan’s institutions, from federal ministries to provincial educational to health providers, need drastic reform — and so does the fiscal structure, which through anti-democratic favoring of feudal interests, cripples public faith in Pakistani democracy. Any American assistance from now on should require Pakistani leadership to reform; and it may be that Pakistani calls for an end to the dependency trap of traditional assistance are right.

If we agree on these two ideas — that we must continue a reasonable, clear-eyed cooperation on counterterrorism informed by (but not defined by) what happens in Afghanistan, and that we must reassess civilian assistance to encourage reform of Pakistani institutions that allow for truly democratic Pakistani leadership — then we have a strong start. The next step would be to break away from the tyranny of negative narratives that limit bilateral ties and reinforce the idea that we have a bad marriage or codependent relationship. If we can detach ourselves from these comfortable but lazy assumptions, we can open the door to new approaches. I suggest two.

First, wherever possible, we should not limit ourselves to bilateral solutions. Difficult as it may sound, there can be no solution to our long-term security needs in the region without paying attention to neighboring countries. Former Secretary Clinton began the process of looking at post-2014 security arrangements in a regional setting; she also emphasized that these arrangements are not sustainable without stronger regional economic relationships.

This regional approach should continue. We cannot discuss Pakistan without thinking about India, China, and Turkey, their interests, and the roles they may play in the future. Sure, it is more complicated, but it is also more realistic, and helps bury the “viceroy obsession” so prevalent in Pakistan today. More

 

The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful

Washington’s Dilemma on a “Lost” Planet

by Noam Chomsky

[This piece is adapted from “Uprisings,” a chapter in Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire, Noam Chomsky’s new interview book with David Barsamian (with thanks to the publisher, Metropolitan Books). The questions are Barsamian’s, the answers Chomsky’s.]

Does the United States still have the same level of control over the energy resources of the Middle East as it once had?

The major energy-producing countries are still firmly under the control of the Western-backed dictatorships. So, actually, the progress made by the Arab Spring is limited, but it’s not insignificant. The Western-controlled dictatorial system is eroding. In fact, it’s been eroding for some time. So, for example, if you go back 50 years, the energy resources -- the main concern of U.S. planners -- have been mostly nationalized. There are constantly attempts to reverse that, but they have not succeeded.

Take the U.S. invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region. You’re not supposed to say this. It’s considered a conspiracy theory.

The United States was seriously defeated in Iraq by Iraqi nationalism -- mostly by nonviolent resistance. The United States could kill the insurgents, but they couldn’t deal with half a million people demonstrating in the streets. Step by step, Iraq was able to dismantle the controls put in place by the occupying forces. By November 2007, it was becoming pretty clear that it was going to be very hard to reach U.S. goals. And at that point, interestingly, those goals were explicitly stated. So in November 2007 the Bush II administration came out with an official declaration about what any future arrangement with Iraq would have to be. It had two major requirements: one, that the United States must be free to carry out combat operations from its military bases, which it will retain; and two, “encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments.” In January 2008, Bush made this clear in one of his signing statements. A couple of months later, in the face of Iraqi resistance, the United States had to give that up. Control of Iraq is now disappearing before their eyes.

Iraq was an attempt to reinstitute by force something like the old system of control, but it was beaten back. In general, I think, U.S. policies remain constant, going back to the Second World War. But the capacity to implement them is declining.

Declining because of economic weakness?

Partly because the world is just becoming more diverse. It has more diverse power centers. At the end of the Second World War, the United States was absolutely at the peak of its power. It had half the world’s wealth and every one of its competitors was seriously damaged or destroyed. It had a position of unimaginable security and developed plans to essentially run the world -- not unrealistically at the time.

This was called “Grand Area” planning?

Yes. Right after the Second World War, George Kennan, head of the U.S. State Department policy planning staff, and others sketched out the details, and then they were implemented. What’s happening now in the Middle East and North Africa, to an extent, and in South America substantially goes all the way back to the late 1940s. The first major successful resistance to U.S. hegemony was in 1949. That’s when an event took place, which, interestingly, is called “the loss of China.” It’s a very interesting phrase, never challenged. There was a lot of discussion about who is responsible for the loss of China. It became a huge domestic issue. But it’s a very interesting phrase. You can only lose something if you own it. It was just taken for granted: we possess China -- and if they move toward independence, we’ve lost China. Later came concerns about “the loss of Latin America,” “the loss of the Middle East,” “the loss of” certain countries, all based on the premise that we own the world and anything that weakens our control is a loss to us and we wonder how to recover it.

Today, if you read, say, foreign policy journals or, in a farcical form, listen to the Republican debates, they’re asking, “How do we prevent further losses?”

On the other hand, the capacity to preserve control has sharply declined. By 1970, the world was already what was called tripolar economically, with a U.S.-based North American industrial center, a German-based European center, roughly comparable in size, and a Japan-based East Asian center, which was then the most dynamic growth region in the world. Since then, the global economic order has become much more diverse. So it’s harder to carry out our policies, but the underlying principles have not changed much.

Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.” That goes beyond anything that George W. Bush said. But it was quiet and it wasn’t arrogant and abrasive, so it didn’t cause much of an uproar. The belief in that entitlement continues right to the present. It’s also part of the intellectual culture.

Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to. More

 

Brennan Blueprint: US drones people for what they haven't done?

President Obama's choice to become the next chief of the CIA went through a tough confirmation hearing at the US Senate. But it wasn't the lawmakers who put John Brennan under the spotlight over his role in the controversial US drone program. The session was interrupted several times by protesters who put up signs with slogans such as 'Stop CIA Murder'. They were addressing the issue of US drone use for targeted strikes against suspected terrorists. John Brennan defended the program which he helped develop, saying it is "ethical and just" and claiming the strikes are carefully vetted. However human rights groups claim the program has in fact led to a large number of civilian deaths. So did US lawmakers hold Brennan accountable for his counter terrorism policies? RT's Gayane Chichakyan has the details.

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT

RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 500 million YouTube views benchmark.

US drones creating difficulties for Pakistan army in tribal region

Islamabad: Former Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations Major General (retd) Athar Abbas has said that the US drone attacks create difficulties for the Pakistan army in the tribal region near Afghan border.

He was speaking at a round-table-conference organized by Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) on Thursday in Islamabad. Prominet among others who attended the conference included defence analyst Ejaz Haider, defence analyst Sikandar Shah and social worker Navid Shinwari. The speakers stressed the need for a strategy in addressing the concerns regarding the US drone.

Abbas said that a cause of opposing the drone attacks was that the army and its intelligence services had the ability to take action against armed mercenaries in the restive region.

The former DG of army’s media wing conceded that Pakistan army could not win public support since the decisions taken on tribal areas before 2008 were not ideal. He said the army achieved success in Swat and some tribal areas after army and the civilian government developed consensus in taking decision regarding war against militancy.

Ali Sarwar Naqvi Former Ambassador and Executive Director, Center for International Strategic Studies highlighted increasing militarization of US foreign policy decision making and said, lately pentagon has dictated the US foreign policy on issues related to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Shinwari shared the findings of their study which reveals that majority of people in Fata are against drone strikes and favored Pakistan Army operation to clean up militants from their areas.

Navid Shinvari also said that though he had been supporting the drone attacks since they killed several al-Qaeda figures, they were also making tribesmen to continue their armed resistance.

He said that although the local tribes had been opposing the army operation out rightly in the beginning , now they had started supporting the military in its efforts against militancy.

He also said that, in earlier days, field commanders of Pakistan Army didn’t opposed use of drone to take out adversaries if they were used sparingly, conducted mutually and were based on hundred percent matured intelligence

Ejaz Haider, Senior Advisor, SDPI started the discussion and raised various policy points while elaborating operational and strategic concerns. “Is Pakistan opposing drone as a weapon of war or the way USA is using drone is the reason for dissent? “ he questioned. He said, there is no way US can give drone technology to Pakistan as it involves access to sophisticated satellite network which is not possible at any stage.

Presiding over the conference Ejaz Haider said that neglecting violation of Pakistan sovereignty in the shape of tolerating US drone attacks would be tantamount to contempt of country’s sovereignty.

Sikandar Shah said that every country had the right of self defence and it could move United Nation’s Security Council if any country violate its sovereignty.

According to official release of SDPI “there is need for clear international legal, operational and ethical framework for the use of drone strikes in any part of the world, stated participants of a round table discussion on drone strike in Pakistan here on Tuesday.” More

 

 

Defense in an Age of Austerity

Unless the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration avert the mandated sequestration of $1.2 trillion from the discretionary accounts of the federal budget, then severe cuts of nearly equal amounts will be imposed on U.S. defense and domestic programs beginning in March 2013.

In other words, if and when this sequestration occurs, the U.S. defense budget will be reduced by some $500 billion beyond the $487 billion in cuts already programmed over the next decade by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Where might the department find these savings? Some could and should be found by introducing further efficiencies, reforming acquisition practices, and adjusting personnel compensation packages. But these steps alone would not yield savings of the magnitude that might be required.

Reductions of the magnitude implied by sequestration should not be made without a reexamination of the current U.S. defense strategy. The department would no longer be able to afford the suite of capabilities envisioned by U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in his strategic guidance issued in January 2012. Although making across-the-board cuts or eliminating programs that offer prompt savings would be tempting options, they would yield an unbalanced force in the short term and potentially higher program costs in future years.

Reductions of the magnitude implied by sequestration should not be made without a reexamination of the current U.S. defense strategy.

The prudent approach would be to decide first on a strategic direction, clarifying which forces and equipment the United States should preserve as priorities and which could be cut back or eliminated. Establishing a strategic direction prior to such reductions would limit the risk they might impose or, at the very least, make that risk explicit to U.S. leaders. This effort would entail prioritization of the defense challenges and of what risks to accept, with program and budget decisions following.

While not advocating further defense cuts, we offer three alternative ways to cut roughly $400–$500 billion more from U.S. defense programs over the next decade without crippling the force. At the upper end, this amount reaches the level of cuts suggested by the sequestration mandate. Each alternative strategic direction is summarized below, outlining the force reductions and other programmatic cuts that would be necessary to achieve the targeted savings. To further illuminate the dialogue that can and should take place, we make explicit the risks that would be incurred by following one or another of the alternative strategic directions. These alternatives are not mutually exclusive, and combinations of features of each are possible.

Alternative I

Prepare for Persistent Land-Based Conflict

Projected Savings, Fiscal Years 2014–2023: $488–$523 billion

This option assumes that violent extremism and related insurgencies will outlast efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and remain a serious threat to the United States and its interests — first and foremost, the protection of its citizenry. Therefore, readiness to respond to that threat must remain a top U.S. defense priority. This alternative retains the capability to commit sizable U.S. land forces for counterinsurgency and stabilization operations. Ground forces would not be scaled back beyond the reductions outlined by Panetta in January 2012. However, aviation and maritime forces would be drawn down further than currently planned. More

 

5 Sobering Realities About Global Water Security

Some people say that water is the oil of the 21st Century. If only water were that simple.

Water is very complicated. It’s affected by large-scale issues like climate change and globalization. International commerce moves virtual water (the water it takes to grow or produce a product) from farms in Brazil to grocery stores in China and Egypt.

But water is also inherently local, impacted by site-specific weather, geography, and other environmental and land use conditions. Managing and using water, then, requires understanding it in its full geographic context.

Today, WRI is launching its new Aqueduct mapping tool to do just that. Aqueduct provides businesses, governments, and other decision makers with the highest-resolution, most up-to-date data on water risk across the globe. Armed with this information, these decision-makers can better understand how water risk impacts them—and hopefully, take actions to improve water security.

5 Findings about Water

So, what are these global maps telling us? Here are five immediate conclusions:

• Water risk has many dimensions. WRI’s Aqueduct tool offers a new way of combining and mapping multiple indicators of water stress. Factors like inter-annual variability, floods, droughts, and groundwater depletion are added to baseline water stress, revealing a richer picture of water stress across the globe. Other important factors related to water quality and reputational risk are also included to help companies and governments understand the full breadth of water risks associated with a particular region or water basin. Not only do these layers enrich the overall picture, they can help inform strategies for improving water security.

• Water stress is growing worldwide. Our new global Aqueduct maps use the most recent 2010 data (previous maps used data from 2000). The picture that emerges shows that water stress is both more prevalent and more severe than estimated in 2000. The new maps reveal areas of higher water stress on every continent, particularlyin China, South and Central Asia, and Africa.

• Water stress isn’t just in arid regions anymore. One of the striking things about Aqueduct’s new maps is that many parts of Europe and the U.S. East Coast and upper Midwest now show medium to high levels of water risk. These regions are not arid, yet they still face significant water stress as demand increases and supply is affected by climate change and other factors.

• High competition and annual variability make for a bad combination. In some areas with elevated water stress—including the U.S. West, Australia, northern China, northwest India, and parts of Pakistan—there is also high variability in available water supply from year to year. In places where demand for water is high relative to the available supply, a greater likelihood of low-water years makes the situation even riskier.

• Increasing risks to food security. Most of the world’s water is used for agriculture, which accounts for approximately 70 percent of all freshwater withdrawals. Overlaying the world’s major irrigated crop regions on Aqueduct maps reveals that many of these areas already face significant water stress. The situation may become more severe in the future—water stress is likely to grow due to climate change and increased demand for food and water. More