The hubbub has settled somewhat on the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s awarding the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations network of scientists, “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change,” leaving behind the grumble of controversy.

A swath of Americans was less than pleased about Al Gore’s victory. Some showed skepticism, typified by CNN USA, who followed their broadcast of the announcement with, “but does he deserve it?” And in what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman refers to as “Gore Derangement Syndrome,” others were downright virulent (just cruise the blogosphere for proof). Some critics took aim at the Norwegian Nobel Committee, accusing them of being more irrelevant and out of touch than ever and, horror of all horrors, politically motivated.

But who’s more out of touch with global peace challenges, cynical skeptics and knee-jerk reactionaries caught up in the cult of personality or a committee whose mandate is to earnestly observe the causes of war and peace (a committee, by the way, based in a country directly experiencing the effects of global warming in its Svalbard archipelago)? Too many people care more about the achievements—or not—of Al Gore, or any other recipient, than they do about real problems faced on a global scale. Al Gore is not the issue, climate change and its potential disastrous effects is.

That climate change is already beginning to affect the security of humans is evident in poorer continents like Africa, where survival hinges on a threadlike balance. Take Sudan, for instance, where it’s acknowledged more and more that desertification and regular drought cycles brought about by climate change have reduced availability of water and arable land, exacerbating conflicts between nomadic and sedentary groups over resource shortages.

The result is several hundred thousand dead and a conflict spilling over national borders into neighboring Chad. Granted, the relationship between climate change and conflict is complex and not yet fully understood, but the theory is gaining momentum, evidenced by the variety of groups commissioning research on the issue, from non-governmental organizations to the United Nations to the Pentagon. Observing patterns of Nobel Peace Prize recipients over the past century clearly demonstrates that the prize has evolved with the times, maintaining its relevancy.

Prior to 1970, the majority of Peace Prize recipients were based in Europe and North American, and many were arbitrators, peace or humanitarian organizations focused on conventional warfare. You could even go so far as to call the prize “Eurocentric.” As more global and unconventional challenges to peace emerged, such as nuclear weapons, oppression of human rights, and dwindling resources, the Peace Prize broadened its scope to not only include recipients from Asia, Africa and Latin America, but also those individuals and organizations dedicated to resolving more nontraditional causes of conflict. Does the Nobel Peace Prize stand accused of being political? You bet it does.

It’s precisely in the realm of the political where issues of peace and conflict are grappled with—or not. The Nobel Peace Prize is like a spot light that shines into a dark closet forcing the global community to pay attention. In the case of the 2007 award, it’s a call to global action, or in the words of the Committee, “Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.” Environmental organizations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have been shouting about climate change and global warming on mainly deaf ears for years, but it wasn’t until a certain American of stature, Al Gore, started talking that the public started listening. Now, collective global action is more than just a wing and a prayer, it’s a reality. As Sheila Watt-Gloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist who was also nominated for the prize put it, “The Planet Earth is a winner today, and that is what counts for me.”

Conserving energy is all about efficiency - getting the same or better results from just a fraction of the energy. For example, replacing wasteful incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving compact fluorescent ones will get the same light for 80 percent less power.
A state-of-the-art water boiler with a digitally controlled pump, and wrapped insulation around the pipes slashes 60 percent off electricity bills. Lower energy needs reduce annual carbon emissions by more than 200 metric tons. With the world worried about energy supplies, efficiency holds the answer.

“Increasing energy efficiency is the largest, least expensive, most benign, most quickly deployable, least visible, least understood and most neglected way” to meet future energy demand, says energy guru Amory Lovins, head of the Colorado-based Rocky Mountain Institute.

The word ‘conservation’ suggests a mode of behaviour that requires an individual to forgo some personal comforts. Turning down the thermostat, switching off lights, turning off running faucets while shaving or brushing your teeth, walking or cycling instead of driving and taking short showers are viewed as a personal sacrifice to some. The concept of conservation should not be looked upon as an inconvenience but as a way of smart living. With today’s energy efficient technology, it is easier than ever before to incorporate conservation into our daily lives.

The use of water boilers, space heaters, air conditioners and other heating and cooling technologies have been notoriously inefficient-only a fraction of the energy pumped into them is actually used to change the temperature. The heat pump has altered that equation. It removes ambient heat from the air outside or the ground below and uses it to supply heat to a building or its water supply. In the summer, the system can be reversed to cool buildings as well. Hybrid cars, light sensors, high efficiency furnaces and efficient management control systems are some other examples of efficient devices. If there’s a need to commute to work and there is no public transport, an individual can either car pool or drive a gas or electric hybrid automobile. When the size of your home is like a castle, just make sure the walls are well insulated and the heating and cooling system has an aggressive energy-efficiency rating.

In the next 20 years much of the expected increase in energy needs will be met by coal-based electric generation, with another feasible option being nuclear power, which raises waste management worries. Import of energy from other countries can negatively affect the United States trade balance and pose a serious national security risk. Since new technologies take years to be available to all, it is imperative to make conservation a priority.

Conservation by using energy-efficient devices is the most inexpensive, fastest and safest way to extend the energy supplies. Law makers should continue to be encouraged to put policies in place to limit the size of automobiles and American auto makers should be encouraged to introduce new hybrid cars each year. The IRS allows several models of hybrid cars to be income tax deductible. These are positive steps in the right direction for reinforcing the importance of conservation.

The problems of conservation are intricate, with ever changing challenges that involve politics, economics and cultures. Political and business leaders worldwide will take the lead to initiate an active vision for research, policy advocacy, education and communication that will enable public and private partnerships to collaborate with strategies to optimize renewable resources and provide continuing growth in technology to provide energy efficiency. Efficient technology is here now, proven and cheap. Compared with all our other options, it’s the biggest, easiest and most profitable by far.

Global warming is a threat that will affect generations to come. The atmosphere surrounding us that supports life is a God-given gift. It must be protected. We should be leaders in efforts to fight global warming, not resistant followers.

Biofuels are fuels that are produced from biological sources such as trees, plants or micro-organisms. They are carbon neutral, because they do not result in fossil carbon being released into the atmosphere. All of the carbon contained in a biofuel was absorbed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis in plants, just a few months or years earlier. This means that when you burn a biofuel, you simply release the carbon back into the atmosphere, and have no overall effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. In contrast, fossil fuels contain carbon that has been locked up underground for millions of years. Burning a fossil fuel increases the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it is not balanced out by photosynthesis.

The three biofuels which are most widely used are bioethanol, biodiesel and wood.

Bioethanol can be used in standard gasoline engines with fairly small modifications, provided that it is mixed with normal gasoline. E10 is a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. There are several race cars running on E10 fuel in the prestigious American Le Mans Series. For many years, Brazil has successfully used a mixture of gasoline and bioethanol produced from sugar cane in its cars. E85 is a mixture of 85% bioethanol and 15% gasoline, and is actually a high performance fuel due to the high octane rating of ethanol. Some manufacturers are bringing out cars capable of running on E85, but availability of this fuel is still very limited.

There is some controversy over bioethanol, as it is questionable whether the fossil carbon savings are balanced by the fossil fuel used in its production. Research is still ongoing to make bioethanol from cheap sources such as wood.

Biodiesel is made from vegetable oils. It can be used in diesel engines, and can be mixed with standard diesel and used in most modern diesel cars with small modifications. Biodiesel use is gradually increasing in Europe, where around 50% of new cars are sold with diesel engines. Again, there is debate as to how much biodiesel can reasonably be produced. Small amounts are being made out of recycled vegetable oil from restaurants.

Wood is a biofuel that humans have used for thousands of years. It can be burned as logs on a roaring fire to heat a home, produce hot water and to cook food. However, there are now modern systems that have brought wood into the 21st century. Automatic boilers have been produced that burn wood pellets to heat a house. The homeowner simply has to tip a bag of wood pellets into a hopper once every two or three days, and the system will do the rest. Alternatively a bulk pellet tank can be installed to feed the system automatically. Modern wood fired boilers are so efficient that the ash container need only be emptied once a month. This is nearly as convenient as using an oil burning boiler, but releases 90% less fossil carbon, even including the fuel used to harvest and transport the wood.

If you wish to reduce your fossil carbon emissions, biofuels are not a total solution. However, they can be used in conjunction with efficiency savings to help reduce your fossil fuel consumption, and shrink your carbon footprint.

According to NASA, the hottest year on record was 2005, which matched 1998. Twice in the last ten years, we’ve had the hottest temperatures on average ever recorded in our planet’s history. That is very likely more than just a coincidence.

In fact, the past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record, a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record. For that to happen, it’s likely there has to be an underlying factor, and that factor seems to be global warming.

U.S. and global annual temperatures are now around 1.0 F degrees warmer than they were in 1900. The rate of warming has accelerated over the past 30 years, increasing at a rate of three times faster than the century-scale trend. It’s likely the increase in CO2 emissions has something to do with that rate increase.

According to an MIT study, there’s been a 100% increase in the intensity and duration of hurricanes and tropical storms since the 1970s, most likely due to the increased amount of CO2 emissions to our atmosphere, which has increased the Earth’s surface temperature, and warmer weather is believed to increase the intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes.

In fact, the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 31% between 1800 and 2000, going from 280 parts per million to 367 parts per million. Scientists predict that carbon dioxide levels could be as high as 970 parts per million by the year 2100.

According to the National Climactic Data Centre estimates, $100 billion of damage was caused by hurricanes hitting the U.S. coast in 2005 alone. The increase in severity of the hurricanes and tropical storms is most likely due to the increase of CO2 emissions, which heats up the Earth’s near-surface temperatures. In fact, the average surface temperature has increased by about 0.6 C (1.0 F) over the last 100 years. This is likely why snow cover and ice extent have decreased over the past few decades.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey predictions, Glacier National Park will have no glaciers left by the year 2030, further showing the rapidity of global warming and the impact it can have on our planet in the very near future.

According to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 400,000 square miles of Arctic sea ice have melted, which is threatening polar bear habitats and further accelerating global warming worldwide. That amount of Arctic sea ice is approximately the size of the state of Texas, and we’ve lost that in just the last 30 years, further emphasizing that we need to take action now before the damage becomes too severe for our efforts to really matter.

The sea level has risen by 4?-8? (10-20 cm) over the past 100 years, which is likely due to the melting of the polar glaciers, which is likely due to the increase in the Earth’s near-surface temperature, and that’s being increased by the increase in CO2 emissions into Earth’s atmosphere. This can lead to devastating effects for coastal communities because the sea level is rising, which means that when the sea comes in-tide, more erosion can occur, and if coastal communities are present, more damage done to them. In addition, losing the glaciers reduces the amount of usable fresh water on our planet.

It is also projected that 15-37% of all plant and animal species could be wiped out by global warming by the year 2050, which could further cause considerable damage to our planet’s ecosystem.

The United States is ranked nr.1 among large nations of being a global warming polluter, contributing 25% of emissions, even though the U.S. only makes up 5% of the world’s population. This provides more evidence that the U.S. Government must do more to combat global warming. In fact, six former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leaders say that the U.S. is not doing enough to fight global warming. The fact that there have been NO bills passed by the U.S. Congress to cut global warming pollution further confirms what many EPA leaders are saying.

As you can see, there is statistical evidence that proves that global warming is causing changes to our planet, and changes that will do more harm than good. Governments and individuals need to pay close attention to these statistics in order to figure out ways to reverse the disturbing trends that are now occurring. The sooner we take heed of these statistics and implement changes that address global warming, the quicker we can reverse the disturbing trends and the less damage will occur to our planet and way of life.