Climate change to make 2010 the warmest year on record?

Many climate change scientists predict that 2010 will be the hottest year in recorded history. Many people will say that this will not be the case, especially given the very cold winter in Europe and North America, but we must not forget that climate change is global phenomenon, and therefore if we look at the global data we can see that period from January to March was one of the seven warmest starts to the year on record.

The data gathered from Nasa also shows that global temperatures, averaged over the past 12 months, were the warmest for 130 years. And the warming trend looks very likely to continue for the rest of the year. According to Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, the year 2010 has therefore more than a 50% chance of being the warmest on record.


The year 2010 has more than decent chance to become the warmest year on record.

Warming is not only connected with climate change but also with El Nino effect which has caused the ocean to release large amounts of heat into the atmosphere by making temporary shift in Pacific currents.

Some scientists like Kevin Trenberth from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado believe that warming trend in 2010 will be more the result of El Nino phenomenon rather than climate change.

In any case both these factors will likely play a huge role if average temperatures reach roof this summer. I say if because with climate you can never be sure, as Mother Nature tends to surprise climate change scientists from time to time.

Climate change to increase salinity in Baltic sea

Climate change and warmer temperatures are likely to increase salinity in the Baltic sea which could lead to major changes for the Baltic's sensitive ecosystems. The researchers from the University of Gothenburg have discovered that warmer temperatures as the result of climate change will likely reduce river runoff to the Baltic sea, and increase salinity in the Baltic Sea.

Scientists fear that increased salinity is likely to have extremely negative impact on sensitive life in this area, because Baltic is a unique ecosystem that contains both marine and freshwater species.

Even the tiny changes in salinity of Baltic sea could have major impact on these sensitive ecosystems because balance between salt and freshwater is very delicate, and needs to be maintained that way.

A saltier sea will no doubt benefit certain animal and plant species while doing great damage to other plants and animals, which could upset the entire ecosystem as it will break the delicate balance of these sensitive ecosystems.

Scientists also believe that there will be major regional differences at Baltic. Daniel Hansson, researcher at the Department of Geosciences said that "more freshwater runs off in the northern Baltic and Gulf of Finland when it's warmer, while the opposite occurs in the southern Baltic. The reason for this is that a warmer climate leads to increased rainfall in the north and east and less rainfall in the south. The decrease in the south is greater than the increase in the north, which means that overall the water will be saltier.

Arctic ice - Current condition

What is the current condition with Arctic's ice? Well, the latest report coming from an international science team led by Ohio State University says that less ice covers the Arctic today than at any time in recent geologic history, a clear sign of ongoing climate change.

This study should be noted trustworthy because researchers have compiled the first comprehensive history of Arctic ice by re-examining the data from past and ongoing studies (around 300 different studies), and combining their results to form a big-picture view of the North pole’s climate history stretching back millions of years.

Leonid Polyak, a research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University said that "the ice loss that we see today is the ice loss that started in the early 20th Century and accelerated during the last 30 years, appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years.

He also added that the newest satellite techniques and field observations allow scientists to see that the volume of ice is shrinking much faster than its area today, and that this is the sign for worry.

If we want to stop losing so much ice cover at Arctic then the world needs to significantly reduce carbon emissions. Climate talks at Copenhagen failed miserably showing yet again how little we care about our planet.

Ignorance won't be enough in this case because climate change is the biggest environmental problem in our history. If only politicians would understand this...

Climate change in Arctic - Quick facts

In the last three decades, the Arctic ice has shrunk by about 10% a decade, which is around 28,000 square miles each year.

Polar bears are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and the loss of Arctic's ice. Polar bears have experinced significant decline in population in the last couple of years, and some scientists estimate that if current trend continues polar bears will become extinct before the end of this century.

Due to ever-increasing climate change impact many unique Arctic habitats for flora and fauna are disappearing. For instance we can already see tundra ecosystems being replaced by species typical of more southern locations, such as evergreen shrubs in some locations due to warmer temperatures. Some studies have even showed that the Arctic region was getting darker and absorbing more heat in the summer because of a significant shift in plant growth from grasses and lichen to larger shrubs over the past 30 years due to warmer temperatures.

Some recent studies have confirmed that surface temperatures over much of the Arctic landscape, have jumped six to 10 degrees C above normal in recent years, especially in summer months. One of the main reasons for this is the loss of reflective, white sea ice which causes more solar radiation to be absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.

Additional reason to worry is the fact that the accelerated warming of the Arctic area will soon release more greenhouse gases from the Arctic that were previously locked in permanently frozen ground.

Arctic ice is not getting enough time to thicken because accelerated warming causes the surface water to get warmer, which delays the onset of freeze up in the winter and leads to a shorter period of ice growth.

Many studies have so far confirmed that nearly all Arctic's glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels.

In summer of 2008, for the first time in recorded history, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free.

The worst ice decline at Arctic was in the summer of 2007 when ice covered only 4.4m square kilometres.

Climate change impact on food supply

Many people connect climate change only with extreme weather events and increased temperatures but climate change is much bigger problem that has many different dimensions. One of these dimensions is no doubt food supply, and according to the latest report from the Utrecht University climate change will threaten the food supply of more than 60 million people in Asia in the coming decades.

The main reason why climate change will likely have this highly negative impact on food supply in Asia is because increased temperatures will drastically reduce the discharge of snow and ice meltwater in a region of the Himalayas.

It is estimated that more than one billion people depend on the meltwater supplied by the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Yangtze and Yellow River. According to the scientists the most important is the meltwater in the Indus basin because the downstream sections of the Indus are dry, are home to one of the largest irrigation networks in the world and are completely dependent on meltwater.

The Dutch scientists believe that the Brahmaputra and Indus are the most vulnerable, and that this will threaten the food supply of the approximately 60 million people that live in these areas by the year 2050.

It also needs to be said that Dutch scientists do not include the possibility of the opposite scenario because in the Yellow River basin, an increase in wintertime rainfall is expected, resulting in increased availability of water early in the growing season.

This latest study was the combination of hydrologic models, climate forecasts from five different climate scenarios, and satellite images depicting snow and ice, rainfall, and changes in the Earth's gravitational field.

Rich countries not doing enough to tackle climate change

Rich countries are still not doing enough to tackle climate change. From the current point of view it looks like the world leaders still hope for some kind of miracle that will drive climate change away but sadly "a miracle to save the day" doesn't look like the possible scenario. The obvious truth is that without the strict and legally binding climate deal that would oblige countries to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions very little (if anything) can be done to tackle climate change.

Politicians on the other hand do not look to be to much concerned about what is going to happen to our future climate. I mean who cares whether our future generations will struggle to survive or not because of our mistakes when there's so many bigger questions that need to be resolved, like for instance where do we go this year on holidays?

This world is so selfish, and each person looks only for its interests, thinking only about current good times, and not thinking about the heritage we will live to our children and grandchildren. If climate change continue to further strengthen its impact how will our future look like? Do we really want to make a life as hard as possible for our future generations, and why in the God's name do we care so little for our planet?

Rich countries have all the power in the world but yet they are acting as if climate change is somebody else's problem. They still fail to see that climate change is global problem that will affect all countries, and thus the petty differences between developed and developing countries are not the right reason to delay new climate deal agreement.

In the last year or so I have been increasingly frustrated with these differences between developed and developing countries that look to be the main obstacle towards the new climate deal. Global problem like climate change requires global responsibility, and global responsibility requires more flexibility from both parties.

Can world finally act as one?

Climate law this year - Likely or unlikely?

Will Congress pass this year new climate legislation? Difficult to tell, and based on previous experiences it is perhaps wise not to expect miracles. In any case, changes are coming too slow, and legislators still look to be kind of afraid with the fact that this new climate bill could hurt domestic industry.

I do not look at climate change issue in that way. New climate deal will perhaps have some short-term negative consequences for domestic industry but on the long run we could actually see some economic benefits. Of course, in order to achieve this U.S. will have to fully reshape nation’s economic, environmental and legal standards.

There are many political analysts who believe that new climate bill take plenty of dramatic twists and turns, and that President Obama will have to increase its efforts by pushing Congress to come up with the adequate climate legislation.

Industry won't sit back and wait, and they will probably use their huge influence on politics to challenge every single climate change legislation that they do not like.

The role of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will also be one of the key battles. Will EPA be able to regulate the emissions under the Clean Air Act? Many expect that there'll be long legal fight, and the winner is still uncertain (though odds are in favor of EPA, especially after the Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2007).

One thing is sure though, expect lot of political turmoil, promises, excuses, delays, you know the usual political stuff. And don't be surprised if everything once again ends up with huge disappointment. After all we are talking about climate change issue, and up to this point, climate change was only connected with huge failures, both on domestic as well as on international level.

Can we fix climate with geoengineering?

Since world leaders still cannot agree on how will new climate deal look like there is increased number of scientists who believe that we should give geoengineering a shot. The simplest geoengineering definition would be injecting sunlight-reflecting gases (aerosols) into the upper atmosphere to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.

Can geoengineering really turn out to be a right solution for climate change? Well, if are to believe the latest study from Kate Ricke, a climate physicist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and her colleagues then the answer is no it can't.

This group of scientists has concluded that using geoengineering to counteract climate change effect isn't connected with certain outcomes because not only could solar-radiation management lead to declines in rainfall in the long term, but geoengineering effects would also very likely vary by region, meaning that some places would likely be over-cooled by atmospheric changes that are on the other hand too small to be effective for their neighbors.

Scientists believe that geoengineering supporters do not take regional effects into consideration when discussing this topic. According to Ricke's modelling, levels of sulphate that kept China closest to its original climate were so high that they made India cold and wet. Those that were best for India caused China to overheat. In other words what's good enough for my neighbor doesn't have to be also good enough for me.

The scientists have also concluded that these effects tend to worsen even further over long-time periods, and as Ricke concluded "the longer you do it, the more imperfect it becomes".

Thus, Ricke and her colleagues concluded that geoengineering is at best temporary solution against climate change, even more temporary than some scientists had expected.

Are we still blind to see the climate change?

The recent reports say that global temperatures in the first half of the year were the hottest since records began, and this is a clear indicator which shows the strengthening of climate change impact. This however doesn't look to be giving lot of sleepless nights to politicians because global climate deal is still far, far away.

Rich countries protect their own interests, developing countries feel like rich countries should do much more than they propose to do, and the result of this is one big nothing, just another disappointing delay.

Both rich and poor countries fear that climate deal might slow down their economic development by hurting competitiveness of their domestic industries on global level. The sad truth about our civilization is the fact that despite living in the 21st century we still haven't learned one very important thing, namely setting our priorities.

What is bigger priority? Saving our planet or saving our industries? Isn't Earth our only home? If that is the case then saving our planet should be our top priority but sadly when it comes to our planet we seem to be taking everything for granted.

Instead of making everything in our power to protect our planet we only think about how to make more money like having lot of material goods is the ultimate goal of our existence. If this is the case then we really deserve the worst that can happen to us.

The connection between climate change and ocean circulation

If you ask climate change scientists about the connection between climate change and ocean circulation many of them will tell you that there is a very strong connection between these two. A team of scientists from the University of Cardiff has managed to find the evidence which connects fluctuations in ocean circulation to the climate change and temperature.

The primary focus of their study was Atlantic meridional overturning circulation that carries tropical surface waters northwards, and cold deep water from the North Atlantic southwards to fill the Atlantic basin. In Atlantic basin this water gets mixed with deep waters that originate in the Antarctic region.

Ocean circulation.

Climate change scientists already know that in times when ocean circulation is strong, heat is moved efficiently from the tropics to the poles, and when the circulation is weak the poles become colder.

Scientists believe that that during particularly cold periods in the last ice age Atlantic meridional overturning circulation was very weakened, and when this circulation strengthens after a period of weak circulation, it doesn't just return to its "normal" extent but it gets stronger than before.

The lead author of this study, Dr Stephen Barker from Cardiff University, explained this very vividly by saying "when the circulation kicks back in, it comes back with a vengeance".

These changes in ocean circulation are extremely important, and according to a scientific analysis they were responsible for the increase of 9 degrees Celsius over the course of just a few decades, 14,600 years ago.

So many factors influence climate change, and ocean circulation looks to be among the most important ones.

Climate change protests in Australia

Climate change protests are becoming more frequent in Australia and many hope that this will create enough political pressure to urge the major political parties to take action on climate change.

Tens of thousands of climate change protesters in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth have protested against current climate change policy.

The politicians still fail to adequately punish big polluters, and many people believe that the time has come for politicians to step up and take responsibility because climate change needs quick action.

The public is very disappointed with false promises, constant delays, and wants to see real action in form of strict laws that would curb carbon pollution in Australia.

There were also dozens of climate change skeptics who tried to disrupt rally in some cities but they failed to do so. The only thing they managed to do was to create minor incidents which police had to break up.

These events could be very helpful because many politicians will be forced to listen what their voters want from them, and perhaps politics will become more ignorant to powerful fossil fuel lobbies that delay major political decisions connected with climate change.

Will climate change reduce or increase rainfall?

According to the latest scientific reports Earth is warming up rapidly, and this should in short-term increase the global amount of rainfall. The scientists have even calculated that the rainfall will increase globally by 2-3 per cent for every degree Celsius that the Earth's surface heats up, so by the current looks of it we are in for a heavy rainfall in years to come.

There are some scientists who do not totally agree with this theory claiming that this calculation won't work if the balance of factors causing global warming changes significantly. There are several different factors that will have significant effect on the amount of rainfall in years to come such as the level of solar radiation, the amount of greenhouse gases, etc.

One of the less known but still very important factors are dark aerosols that have the ability to absorb enough sunlight in the atmosphere to suppress the expected rainfall response to increased temperatures, and the immediate result of this could be less rainfall.

When discussing this rather interesting topic Dr Timothy Andrews, scientist at the University of Leeds, said that two effects should be counted together because they go in tandem: "a fast atmospheric response that is closely linked with the type of climate change mechanism, and a slower response to surface temperature change that happens regardless of the climate change mechanism."

According to him these slow effects do produce the predicted 2-3 per cent increase in rainfall but fast atmospheric response might change all of this, depending on factors involved (such as dark aerosols).

There will be more rainfall if the current balance of factors remains pretty much the same in years the come. If by any chance this balance changes due to increased significance of certain factor we can even expect less rainfall in years to come.

Is it possible to predict future climate change?

The majority of scientists believes that climate change is not only the real thing but that we are also yet to see the worst the climate change has to offer. Climate change is already there and we need to adapt to it as quickly as possible. This lead us to a question can today's science also predict what will our future climate look like?

My answer is no, there are too much factors that affect our climate so scientists despite all their efforts are still far away from being able to predict future climate change. Scientists have already discovered bunch of different factors that have serious impact on climate change, and there are probably many factors that are yet to be discovered, not to mention finding interlinking between these factors. In other words, climate change phenomenon is still too complex for today's science.

Yes, ice is melting, and yes, temperatures are rising on global level but how much will temperature rise in years to come is impossible to tell. Increase in global temperature isn't only connected with the amount of carbon emissions but with many other factors, and only by incorporating all these factors we could be able to give some decent prediction. The problem? We still don't know half of these factors so we can't really set the equation.

Climate change science is still pretty much tapping in the dark hoping that somewhere there's the right switch to turn the lights on. What this basically means is that we are still swimming in theory waters, meaning that there are many possible scenarios for future climate change. The only bad thing is that most of these scenarios were made for the disaster movies.

US climate change legislation - Nothing without EPA

Despite many promises and strong support from president Obama, US still failed to pass cap-and- trade legislation, as there is still not enough political will for such action, or as some others would say fossil fuels lobbies are still too powerful. The only somewhat good news came from climate negotiator Todd Stern who recently said that despite the failure of cap-and-trade legislation US won’t change its target for 2020 to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by approximately 17 percent.

If you follow what's happening with climate change legislation in United States then you already know that The House approved a bill last year to set limits on carbon emissions linked to climate change but this bill stalled in Senate. Though cap-and-trade legislation would be more than welcome passing this bill will take some time, and in the meantime Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to step in, and use existing laws to at least regulate some sources of carbon pollution.

By the current looks of it, EPA will not be afraid to use these laws, and the EPA regulation planned for next year will set the U.S.’s first nationwide limits on greenhouse-gas pollution in the effort to curb global warming. This is a clear sign that EPA will continue pushing forward towards the adequate climate change legislation.

Many political analysts believe that the adequate domestic climate change legislation is the key to success to the international climate deal. Copenhagen was yet another big failure on international stage, mainly because US failed to give positive examples to other countries. Hopefully, this situation will soon improve.

Heavy melting of Arctic ice continues

Arctic sea ice is still experiencing a heavy melting, in fact according to the latest report Arctic sea ice melted from a winter maximum of about 15 million square kilometers to a September coverage area of just five million square kilometers, which represents the third biggest melting since satellite monitoring began about 30 years ago. Not only that, this data also means that the four greatest ice melts since the satellite measurements began in the late 1970s have occurred in the past four years, a clear sign of climate change.

What this also means is that the recent claims that the Arctic sea ice is recovering and getting thicker again are far from the reality, and that heavy melting trend is still on.

It is well known fact that Arctic ice reaches its minimum in mid-September, and the 2007 was remembered as the year with the least ice cover in the recorded history, little more than four million square kilometers. Last few years continued this trend, and none of them was nowhere close the 30-year average minimum of about seven million square kilometers.

Even despite these alarming numbers world leaders still fail to agree on new climate deal, and global CO2 emissions are not decreasing, meaning that the melting trend will continue in years to come.

If current trend of ice melting continues in years to come (and there's 99% chance it will) Arctic will soon become ice free during the summer months. This is because old, thick ice is disappearing and is replaced by younger and thinner ice, which takes very little to melt during the summer months.

No ice in summer months would probably cause massive increase in ship traffic in Arctic area as once-frozen shipping lanes become unlocked. The increased ship traffic could cause tremendous damage to sensitive Arctic's ecosystems. Like climate change alone is not enough.

Greenhouse gas emissions rising in Scotland

When talking about greenhouse gases that significantly contribute to climate change most people only refer to carbon dioxide (CO2) but there are plenty of other greenhouse gases, many of which are much more powerful than CO2. World’s most potent greenhouse gas is sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), and scientists have calculated that this gas is around 24,000 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, a huge concern for a further strengthening of the climate change impact.

In the last ten years Scottish SF6 emissions have increased dramatically, and according to the latest UK government data Scotland’s production of SF6 has increased by two-thirds since 1995. In fact in 2008 alone SF6 contributed seven times more to warming effect than carbon dioxide, and this is the major reason for concern.

15,000 tonnes of SF6 that Scotland produced in 2008 equals to 360 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. SF6 can be found in many different industrial products such as semiconductors used in electricity.

SF6 is not the only powerful greenhouse gas that experienced massive increase in Scotland in the last few decades as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), have also experienced massive increases since 1995. Since the 1995 Scottish emissions of HFCs have increased by staggering 610%, and HFC's are 11,000 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

Huge rise of HFC's emissions is not only trend in Scotland but also in Wales and Northern Ireland, only England showed decrease in HFC's emissions in the last couple of years.

It looks like Britain will not only have to focus on reducing the carbon emissions but also on reducing SF6 and HFC's levels as these greenhouse gases are much more harmful compared to CO2.

Climate change is still not obvious enough?

According to the recent reports this year is one of the hottest years in recorded history. Arctic summer sea ice continues to shrink, coral reefs are being devastated by global bleaching, there are massive wildfires in Russia, flooding in China, but these obvious signs of climate change are still not enough for world leaders to do something about it.

So much was expected from Copenhagen, and in the end everything failed miserably. Developed world doesn't share the same political and economic interests as the developing world, and individual interests still outweigh the global interest of entire mankind.

Science is clearly not enough to convince world leaders (and many other climate change skeptics) about the severity of climate change. It is like people wait for worst to happen in order to be convinced how serious this issue really is.

If the scientific predictions are true, and we continue to emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere our children and grandchildren will be the ones that will suffer the most once climate change starts showing its scary face.

United States and China are the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, and other countries wait for them to make the first moves. While China is doing huge steps to embrace clean energy in years to come, the prospect of a federal cap on carbon emissions in United States is with each new day looking more and more unlikely to happen, and some leading American politicians like Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal even believe that cap-and-trade is as good as dead.

The political games between the Republicans and Democrats are the last thing that global climate efforts currently need because many countries wait for US to show them a positive move forward. Such move is unlikely to happen because US is still all about talks, and even Obama looks to be losing interest to push climate change issue all the way, regardless of what some lobbies may think about it.

We all know that talk is cheap, and nothing gets done by talking. The last thing this world needs is even more false promises.

Clean energy key to climate change success

Climate change talks have failed miserably in Copenhagen, and since there's obviously not enough political will to agree legally binding international climate deal something else must be done instead. A global push for more clean energy looks to be one of the best solutions.

International bodies such as UN should be doing much more to support clean energy by monitoring the situation regarding investments in new renewable energy projects, by establishing some guidelines under which the commitment of each country to go for clean energy would be judged, all in order to ensure global "clean energy revolution".

Many countries are pushing for more renewable energy but world is still lacking global renewable energy goals, there are still no global monitoring mechanisms, and there is no international body that would help countries achieve their clean energy targets.

There are still many differences between developed and developing world, and these differences are the major stumbling block that prevents world from agreeing new international climate deal.

Each country promotes its own political and economic interests, and with so many different interests global climate deal looks impossible. But there's also one interest that all countries will likely support, namely more clean energy to satisfy our energy needs.

So why not go global with it?

Climate change impact in Africa

Climate change is already doing significant damage to Africa in forms of flooding and drought, and things will be likely much worse in years to come. Some top African officials are reporting that climate change is already causing growing internal population migrations and displacements in Africa because more and more people try to get away from areas hit by flooding, drought, and other natural disasters.

Africa will have tough time adapting to climate change because of its poverty, and without the help of the developed world, Africa will soon become even poorer than it is today, with more natural disasters, more hunger, and more diseases.

Current world efforts to tackle climate change are not enough, and if world fails to agree new climate deal, Africa will be the first in the line, experiencing the worst that climate change has to offer.

Climate change is already a reality for most of the Africa, and the best proof to this is the fact that in the last 20 years the number of recorded natural disasters has doubled from around 200 to over 400 per year, and scientists believe that 90% of these disasters were climate change related.

The temperatures in Africa will likely rise even further in years to come. This will lead to even bigger urbanization, and food and water will become even more scarcer than they are today, and thus much more expensive.

The rising temperatures are also the perfect breeding ground for many diseases. The combination of severe food and water shortages, uncontrolled urbanization and many diseases will probably lead to social and political conflicts, even wars.

World has to do something for Africa before it is too late.

Climate change opens door for invasive species

Climate change will likely create huge damage for many native animal and plant species in years to come because changing climate conditions will open the door for many invasive species. This will not only cause huge environmental damage but also huge economic damage, and according to the scientists from the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) invasion of alien species will likely cost countries 10% of their gross domestic product (GDP).

The link between climate change and invasive species is more than evident, and their combination has been already described by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as the "deadly duo".

Something certainly needs to be done to lessen their impact, and the most obvious solution looks to be in form of a new international climate deal that would oblige countries to significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and with it stop further strengthening of the climate change impact.

Invasive species are already big environmental problem in many parts of the world, and if climate change continues to further strengthen its ever-increasing impact biodiversity as we know it today could be irreversibly lost in many parts of the world.

Estimated economic damage from invasive species worldwide totals more than $1.4 trillion annually, which accounts approximately for around 5% of the global economy. Unless world does something to prevent the spreading of invasive species this number will soon become even larger, and even more damaging to global economy.

World leaders are still not aware how dangerous this interaction between climate change and invasive species is, and what kind of damage could this interaction create to global biodiversity. Biodiversity is the key component of all life on our planet, including the lives of each and every one of us, and world must act very quick to stop the currently ongoing huge loss of biodiversity.

Will poor countries get enough money to adapt to climate change?

The only way developing world can adapt to climate change is if rich world carries the financial burden needed to help developing nations adapt to droughts, floods and rising sea levels.

Last year's Copenhagen summit was generally one big failure but nevertheless the rich countries have still pledged to raise $100bn a year in climate aid from 2020 in order to help developing world. Can this really be achieved and will poor countries really get enough money to adapt to climate change?

According to the latest UN report obtaining this money will be challenging but still feasible, because UN believes that the public sector could extract more than $100bn and the private sector five times more, up to $500bn a year.

The UN report has also specified possible sources by claiming that between $2bn and $27bn could be raised from financial transaction taxes on foreign exchange, $4bn to $9bn from shipping, $2bn to $3bn from aviation, $3bn to $8bn from removal of fossil fuel subsidies and $8bn to $38bn from auctioning carbon allowances.

Putting prices on carbon emissions is still the key to success, and it has been calculated that carbon price needs to be in the range of $20 to $25 a tonne of carbon dioxide if the world wants to reach the desired $100bn mark.

Global politics is yet to achieve the desired level of political acceptability for this plan because there are still many issues between developed and developing world that need to be sorted out prior to reaching the final agreement.

Climate talks in Cancun are fast approaching, and it will be very interesting to see how far did countries progressed since Copenhagen, and whether world is finally ready to act as one in order to tackle climate change.

Climate change issue in US - Interesting observations

US Republican party is the only major party in the developed world that denies existence of climate change. Weren't they also the ones who said that smoking doesn't cause cancer?

50% of the new Congressmen deny the existence of manmade climate change. It looks like US is still pretty much ignorant to anything that isn't strongly connected with almighty dollar.

Cap and trade scheme that should have been the US answer to tackle climate change will likely remain just a fond memory of once existed optimism that US will actually do something about climate change issue.

The US is one of the few countries in the world where politicians seem to know lot more about climate, our environment, our planet in general than scientists do.

US, a global leader in international climate talks? Now, that's a laugh.

How much of US politicians have basic science literacy? It's certainly better not to answer to this question.

Why should US spend extra money to tackle climate change? Just because of catastrophic future full of floods, droughts, hurricanes diseases and hunger? Come on, give us a right reason.

Is US really living in 21th century when it comes to climate change issue? Even George Washington would look like progressive politician compared to some Republicans.

What should be in the focus of international climate deal?

There are many people who are still convinced in the positive outcome of Cancun climate talks that are just behind the corner. Whether we'll actually see something positive or not it is difficult to tell because even top political analysts have so far been sending us mixed signals about the possible success of international climate deal.

There are four major areas which should be in the focus of new international climate deal: first of all is how to adapt to climate change, second how to curb carbon emissions in order not to make climate change worse than it already is, third transfer of clean technologies from rich to poor countries, and fourth to create international fund for long-term climate financing.

Adapting to climate change would be crucial in years to come, and this is only possible if rich countries help poor countries, after all this should be the moral duty of rich countries since they are the ones that are mostly responsible for climate change issue because of their excessive carbon dioxide emissions.

World will have to significantly curb carbon emissions in years to come. Whether this will be achieved by renewable energy or clean coal technologies doesn't really matter, the most important thing is to get it done, because if we continue with our current levels of carbon emissions climate change impact will continue to grow.

Transfer of clean technologies (renewable energy and some alternative solutions like clean coal technologies) is also something that needs to be done because developing countries are mostly using coal to boost their economies, and coal is the dirtiest fuel of them all. The developing world should focus more on renewable energy technologies, and this is where rich countries should step in and provide adequate knowledge and funds.

World also needs to create international fund for long-term climate financing, because climate change is long-term phenomenon, and world will no doubt need lot of money to adapt to changes that climate change will no doubt bring in years to come. International fund for long-term climate financing is therefore also a necessity.

Cancun climate talks will soon start, and world leaders have once again the chance to do something for our planet, and protect our future generations from the worst that climate change has to offer. Have they learned something from their past mistakes? We'll soon see.

UK not doing enough to decrease carbon emissions

UK will have to seriously increase its efforts in order to ensure low-carbon economy in years to come because based on the last report UK will need to triple its current efforts towards cutting emissions in order to transform to a low-carbon economy by 2050.

According to the latest report by wildlife charity WWF and innovation company Ecofys UK is well behind Germany, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden on the overall efforts to cut carbon emissions and transform to a low-carbon economy.

Carbon emissions can be decreased on several different ways, for instance by adding more renewable power to energy grid or improving energy efficiency. At this moment UK is well behind Denmark and Germany on renewables, behind Ireland on energy efficiency and behind France and the Czech Republic on cutting emissions associated with buildings.

Overall speaking, UK belongs to the average category when describing EU countries efforts to cut carbon emissions by between 80% and 95% by mid-century. Average is definitely not enough for UK because UK certainly wants to become one of clean energy leaders in years to come.

Though UK was the first country in the world that set the legally binding long-term targets for cutting emissions in form of Climate Change Act, this is far from being enough, and UK will have to look its current policies regarding renewable energy and efficiency in order to get on the right track.

Renewable energy sector in UK is currently experiencing positive trend in UK, which cannot be said about the issues connected with energy efficiency, transport and industry.

Climate change again becoming hot topic

Climate change is currently one of the hottest topics, which is of course the result of Cancun climate talks, where world leaders will try to clean the mess that was left by Copenhagen, or what is more likely create even bigger mess and lead this world to the brink of total environmental disaster.

It is difficult to be optimist about it, especially after so many disappointments, and the current political climate looks anything but ready to find the way to significantly lower emissions on global level. US is not ready to lead the world, China isn't giving up on coal, renewable energy sector is still not developed, and the differences between countries are still pretty much the same as they were last year in Copenhagen.

New, legally binding climate deal therefore looks more like a nice dream after which it's time to get back in the harsh reality. And this reality will likely become even harsher in years to come because climate change will likely very soon pass the point of no return, namely the 2C temperature increase.

The two largest CO2 emitters in the world are China and United States, and so any success of climate deal will primarily depend upon the will of these two countries to significantly curb their own emissions.

The difference in opinions between developed and developing world is still the biggest obstacle that will likely undermine all current climate efforts, and yet again postpone the decisive political action.

What to expect from Cancun climate talks? A lot of expectations resulting in one huge disappointment is the most likely scenario.

What must world do to stop climate change?

These are the most important things world needs to do in order to stop climate change from strengthening its impact:

1. Significantly reduce the global level of greenhouse gas emissions, not only carbon dioxide (CO2) but also other greenhouse gases such as methane.

2. Agree on new international climate deal that would legally oblige countries to curb their emissions. Kyoto protocol definitely needs much stronger successor to make the difference.

3. Listen to science, and ensure better funding for science researches that study the climate change phenomenon. Climate change is extremely complex and multidimensional issue which is why science needs all the help it can get in form of adequate funding.

4. Stop deforestation in Amazon rainforests, and other large rainforests and forests on our planet because these forests absorb huge quantities of CO2.

5. Stop the ocean acidification because this could disrupt the ability of oceans to sink CO2, and they are currently, together with rainforests, the largest CO2 absorbers on our planet.

6. Develop renewable energy sector to get more energy from renewable energy, and decrease the fossil fuels consumption because burning fossil fuels creates harmful carbon emissions.

7. Significantly improve energy efficiency. By improving energy efficiency world would also decrease its need for energy coming from fossil fuels which would result in less CO2 emissions.

Cancun climate talks success or not?

It is very difficult to characterize Cancun climate talks as successful. True, there were some small steps forward like the decision to give more money to poor countries in a form of a Green Climate Fund that would give $100 billion a year in aid to poor nations by 2020 (though the mechanism for raising this amount of money each year is still unclear). Other positive notes include certain measures to protect tropical forests and ways to share clean energy technologies.

But despite these positive things world leaders still failed on the most important thing of them all, namely there was no progress at all in extending the Kyoto protocol and oblige countries to curb their carbon emissions.

Most of world leaders will likely describe Cancun climate talks like U.S. president Obama did by saying that "the Cancun meeting was a success and advances the world's response to climate change". Of course, most environmentalists will not agree with such statements.

Niklas Hoehne, director of energy and climate policy at consultancy Ecofys, believes that this isn't enough to halt temperature rise, and that existing government policies will lead to a rise in world temperatures of about 3.6 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times.

The best way to describe this year's climate talks in Cancun would be "not a total failure like Copenhagen last year but still not a step forward many of us were expecting".

The next climate talks will be held at the end of 2011 in South Africa.

Arctic ice could even recover?

Many scientists support the thesis that once temperatures reach "tipping point" then the climate change will eventually push the Arctic's ice towards the total melting, meaning that Arctic summer ice would completely disappear.

Among scientists who do not agree with this opinion is Steven Amstrup, a professor at the University of Washington. Professor Amstrup in his recent study concluded that "There is no 'tipping point' that would result in unstoppable loss of summer sea ice when greenhouse gas-driven warming rose above a certain threshold".

The most recent reports claim that Arctic ice has shrank by close to 20 percent in the last few decades, and many scientists are worried that if the current warming trend (regional temperature at Arctic has in the same period increased twice or triple the global average) at Arctic continues in years to come Arctic will become totally free of ice during summer months.

Professor Amstrup has based his study on computer models, and his study showed that if annual emissions of greenhouse gases are significantly reduced over the next twenty years, an initial phase of rapid ice loss would afterward be replaced by a period of stability and, eventually, partial recovery.

This would in the best possible scenario mean that polar bears might actually get a decent chance to survive because after some time Arctic could recover enough ice, which would give polar bears more habitat needed to stop the further population decline.

Many polar bears are dying of hunger because the ice has started melting much sooner in the spring which has significantly shortened their hunting season. World needs to do something fast or Arctic' largest predator will soon come to the very brink of the extinction.

Cancun climate talks have showed certain positive outlook but world needs to transform this into legally obliging international climate deal. This shouldn't be done only to protect polar bears from extinction but also to ensure our future generations healthy planet, free of environmental disasters such as droughts, floods, sea level rise, etc.

The most mentioned climate change threats

Here are some of the most mentioned climate change threats:

More frequent extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, hurricanes which will not only create huge environmental but also huge economic damage.

Arctic totally free of summer ice, and rapid melting of Antarctica's ice. This could cause serious sea level rise, and threaten many coastal areas around the globe.

More hunger in the world, because of new pests and new diseases that will have the negative impact on crop health. More hunger in the world could lead to new wars.

Severe water shortages in some parts of the world. This, just like hunger issue, could lead to new wars.

More refugees. Climate change has the potential to make living impossible in certain areas of our planet which could turn lot of people into refugees.

Extinction of many animal and plant species. We are not talking only about polar bears but many other animals which will find it hard to adapt to rapid changes in climate. Biodiversity loss is already a huge problem, and in years to come it could reach catastrophic proportions.

Climate change and glacier melting - Latest data

There have been many studies conducted with the purpose of determining the level of glacier melting and shrinkage in years to come, and the latest comes from the the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Here are some of the most interesting conclusions of this study:

1. Mountain glaciers and ice caps are projected to lose 15-27% of their volume by 2100, though this will significantly vary by region. It is expected that European Alps and New Zealand will shrink the most (by more than 70%) while on the other hand shrinkage is predicted to reach about 10% in Greenland and high-mountain Asia.

2. Melting of the glaciers will threaten the water supplies of cities such as Kathmandu in Nepal and La Paz in Bolivia, which depend substantially on glacial meltwater for drinking and farming.

3. Melting glaciers and ice caps will be responsible for increases in sea levels of 8.7-16.1cm by 2100 (this doesn't include ice loss from calving).

4. Total sea level rise is likely to be considerably higher but glacier melting has made a growing contribution to sea level rise over past decades.

5. Mountain glaciers and ice caps include less than one percent of all water on Earth bound in glacier ice but despite this their retreat has caused half of sea level rises from melting ice over the past 50 years.

Climate change in 2011 - What needs to change?

The year 2010 was the year of big expectations, and there were many environmentalists who believed that world would be finally able to stop the further increase in CO2 emissions by agreeing on new climate deal. Sadly, Cancun climate talks, despite providing some glimpses of optimism, still weren't successful in uniting the world to tackle the climate change, well at least not in the form of new international climate deal which would oblige countries to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions.

Will we see a change for better in 2011, and will this be a year when the world will finally act as one in order to agree the so much needed successor to Kyoto protocol, or will once again the differences in opinion between developed and developing countries prove to be too much of the stumbling block for world leaders to unite?

World leaders still prefer talk instead of the real action so don't be surprised if the 2011 ends up in similar tone like the 2010, namely plenty of expectations, with not much positive in the end. I would really like to think otherwise but the way things have been going lately it is very difficult to remain optimistic about it.

World leaders still do not realize that there is no time to delay on climate change. Time is running out, and climate change is becoming stronger and stronger, after all the year 2010 was the joint warmest year on record.

The thing that needs to change the most about the climate change in 2011 is the way world leaders look at it, or to be more precise world leaders should add the factor of urgency when discussing climate change, and they should stop talking about this issue like they have all the time in the world to tackle it.

Inactivity means stronger climate change impact, and the more stronger climate change gets the more closer this world is to a state of total environmental and economic disaster where large parts of the world will be inhabitable, with millions people as refugees.

More commitment and more urgency in tackling the climate change issue are two main things that need to change in 2011. Without these two, yet another year will end up in disappointing tone.

Greenland ice melting in 2010 facts

The year 2010 was the warmest year on record, and Greenland being one of the most sensitive areas to increased temperatures, certainly felt the effects of that by having 50 days longer melting period in many areas, from the end of April till the mid September.

2010 summer temperatures in Greenland were 3C above the average, and this is the main reason why Greenland experienced this prolonged period of melting.

This year, the largest city in Greenland, Nuuk, experienced the warmest spring and summer in history since the measurements began in 1873.

Greenland ice melting is one of the main contributing factors to global sea level rise, and there is large number of scientists such as WWF climate specialist Dr. Martin Sommerkorn who believe that sea levels will rise by more than 1 meter till the end of this century. Scientists have calculated that Greenland ice melt currently contributes to global sea level rise at about .02 inches a year, but the potential impact is enormous.

According to the Marco Tedesco, director of the Cryospheric Processes Laboratory at The City College of New York, in 2010 an area of the size of France melted in Greenland.

Greenland has about one-twentieth of the world's total ice, and if all of this ice were to melt this would cause 21 feet of global sea rise.

Despite the record ice melting in 2010, it is estimated that the scenario in which Greenland would lose all its ice would take at least few centuries to be completed. However, once rapid melting starts (and it certainly looks like this process has already started) it is extremely difficult to reverse it, and this is one of the main reasons why world leaders should finally agree new climate deal which would limit greenhouse gas production. This is really world's only chance to stop further ice melting at Greenland.

Himalayan glaciers - Melting or not?

There have been several different reports claiming that climate change is the main factor responsible for the melting of Himalayan glaciers but the latest study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himalaya, are doing quite an opposite, namely growing and not melting.

If the results of this study are correct then this would mean that climate change in form of global warming isn't the only deciding factor whether certain glacier will melt or not.

The scientists found out that global warming is not the main force behind the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, the most important role in fact belongs to the amount of debris (rocks and mud) – strewn on their surface. What this means is that the glaciers surrounded by high mountains and covered with more than two centimeters of debris are well protected from melting.

Such conclusion can be also drawn from the fact that debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are very rare in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where melting rates are significantly higher.

The scientists have studied 286 glaciers between the Hindu Kush on the Afghan-Pakistan border to Bhutan, and they discovered that more than half of these glaciers are in stable or even advancing state.

Debris cover therefore looks to be the factor of major importance when it comes to melting of the glaciers, and this effect has so far been neglected in many previous climate change studies.

UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change still hasn't expressed their opinion on this study. It would be very interesting to hear their opinion about this matter, particularly given the fact that their first reports on this matter predicted that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

Climate change already showing its scary face in Australia?

If you take into account the recent record fires and massive floods, and also the visit of a giant Cyclone Yasi you could pretty much say that climate change is already showing its scary face in Australia. In any case these latest events have at least spurred very lively political debate down under.

There are still many people in Australia who do not see any connection between climate change and these recent disasters. Many environmentalists believe that the main reason why many of Australian politicians are reluctant to accept the connection between climate change and these extreme weather events lies in powerful fossil fuel lobbies.

But perhaps things are changing for better in Australia because Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has recently (at least) admitted that climate change was real but still hesitated to connect climate change with these recent disasters.

Admitting the climate change isn't enough and environmentalists ask from government to price carbon emissions. The issue whether to price carbon emissions or not has stirred many political debates for almost a decade, on one hand environmentalists believe that this is the only way to tackle climate change in Australia while opposition coming from fossil fuel lobbies believe that such measure would cause higher taxes and job losses.

The recent rise of extreme weather events has been very evident in Australia. This latest cyclone is really just a continuation, and many Australians still remember the year 2006 and cyclone Larry that tore through the northern Queensland town of Innisfail, accounting for an estimated A$1.5 billion in damage to the area.

There was also the combination of drought and heatwave in February 2009 which caused the nation's deadliest fires around the southern city of Melbourne, and floods in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have destroyed around 30,000 Australian homes.

When you look at all of these, Australia certainly has plenty of reasons to think about the possible connection between the climate change and recent extreme weather events.

Why is climate change having negative impact on polar bears?

Polar bears have over the years become negative symbol for climate change, and the most obvious negative impact of climate change in reference to polar bears has certainly been the rapid loss of ice in polar areas.

Polar bears depend on ice not only for hunting prey (because early melting of the ice makes it more difficult for the bears to hunt seals successfully) but also for successful breeding.

The latest study by the researchers from the University of Alberta has showed that rapid loss of ice cover has very negative impact on breeding because females are hunting seals on the ice to gather enough energy for the autumn and winter when they will hibernate for up to eight months and give birth.

Less ice means less prey, and less prey means less energy, which in the ends results in fewer cubs.

The scientists calculated that if the ice melts up two months earlier than in the 1990s, there is a 55 to a full 100% chance that all pregnant female polar bears will not have a single cub.

Researchers usually study Hudson Bay polar bear population, and this was also the case in this study. The researchers have calculated that if spring break up in Hudson Bay comes one month earlier than in the 1990s, there is a 40 to 73% chance that pregnant female polar bears will not give birth to a single cub.

Hudson Bay polar bear population currently counts around 900 individuals, down from 1200 individuals a decade ago. The total number of polar bears across the entire Arctic is estimated at around 20,000.

The equation is pretty simple, namely less ice equals less polar bears. Judging by the current levels (Arctic sea ice was at its lowest ever level this January), things are certainly not looking good for polar bears in years to come.

Is it too late to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

The most obvious solution to tackle climate change is to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But would this solution actually stop warming of our planet?

According to the researchers from the University of Washington even if greenhouse gas emissions were to be stopped right now, earth would still very likely continue the warming trend because of the excessive greenhouse gas emissions that have occurred up to now.

Greenhouse gases such as CO2 which are already emitted are likely to persist in the Earth's atmosphere for thousands of years so it is very possible that warming would still continue even if all greenhouse gas sources would be suddenly eliminated.

Kyle Armour, a UW doctoral student in physics explains this by connecting greenhouse gases with aerosols. According to Armour aerosols which tend to counteract the effect of greenhouse warming by reflecting sunlight back into space, would last only a matter of weeks once emissions stopped, while the greenhouse gases would continue on. However, Armour also notes that the overall effect of aerosols is still the largest uncertainty in climate research so this is really only a very likely possibility.

This research does not send the message that we should be indifferent to reducing the greenhouse gases because if we continue current trend of emissions things will likely become much worse in years to come.

Today's temperature is already about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it was 200 years ago. Many scientists agree that a threshold at which the climate change related damage begins to occur is if the average temperature on our planet would rise to 3.5 degrees F higher than before the Industrial Revolution.

Is it too late to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

The most obvious solution to tackle climate change is to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But would this solution actually stop warming of our planet?

According to the researchers from the University of Washington even if greenhouse gas emissions were to be stopped right now, earth would still very likely continue the warming trend because of the excessive greenhouse gas emissions that have occurred up to now.

Greenhouse gases such as CO2 which are already emitted are likely to persist in the Earth's atmosphere for thousands of years so it is very possible that warming would still continue even if all greenhouse gas sources would be suddenly eliminated.

Kyle Armour, a UW doctoral student in physics explains this by connecting greenhouse gases with aerosols. According to Armour aerosols which tend to counteract the effect of greenhouse warming by reflecting sunlight back into space, would last only a matter of weeks once emissions stopped, while the greenhouse gases would continue on. However, Armour also notes that the overall effect of aerosols is still the largest uncertainty in climate research so this is really only a very likely possibility.

This research does not send the message that we should be indifferent to reducing the greenhouse gases because if we continue current trend of emissions things will likely become much worse in years to come.

Today's temperature is already about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it was 200 years ago. Many scientists agree that a threshold at which the climate change related damage begins to occur is if the average temperature on our planet would rise to 3.5 degrees F higher than before the Industrial Revolution.

There's really no point in climate change talks

This year's climate change talks will be held in South Africa, and by the current looks of it everything will remain only on talks. This is because many political analysts believe that it is almost impossible to expect international climate deal to be agreed given the current political situation in the world.

Last year's climate change talks in Cancun ended with some fairly modest advancements, and it looks like the same scenario could happen once again because of the difference in opinion between the developed and developing countries.

The major players, and world's largest CO2 polluters China and United States are still not prepared to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, and without these two countries showing the example everything else is pretty much useless.

As said before the gap in opinions between the developed and the developing world is still a too big obstacle to any success in reaching the international climate deal. Developing countries believe that rich industrialized countries should make legally binding commitments to deeper cuts in the emissions of the greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2).

Rich countries believe that deeper CO2 cuts would hurt their economies too much, especially if developing countries such as China and India would be left out of it.

Basically, it is status quo situation with none of major players ready to show the will to actually do something about climate change issue. Top polluters are anything but ready to legally commit to emission cuts, and if you look at these things more closely there's really no point in climate change talks. Just a high expectations resulting in one big disappointment.

Climate change issue - Ten things that need to be done

1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions on global level. In order to do so countries must agree new international climate deal, at this point this looks to be impossible because of difference in opinions between the developed and the developing world.

2. Help animals and plants to adapt to climate change or else many species will go extinct. The biodiversity loss is already huge, and climate change has the potential to make things even worse.

3. Develop strong renewable energy sector on global level. Strong renewable energy sector would mean less need for fossil fuels, and less fossil fuels burning means less CO2 emissions.

4. Improve energy efficiency. Together with developing renewable energy sector world also needs to improve efficiency of currently dominant energy technologies.

5. Protect our oceans and forests. Our oceans and forests are our planet's largest absorbers of carbon dioxide, and maintaining this extremely useful ability of theirs is crucial thing in fight against climate change.

6. Adequate environmental and renewable energy legislation, both on national as well as international level.

7. Create funds for poor countries because poor countries do not have enough money to adapt to climate change. After all, these countries are the least responsible for ongoing climate change phenomenon, and they certainly do not deserve to suffer the most because of it.

8. Create more funds for climate change research. Much of climate change is still in sphere of predictions and scientific research will play a key role in developing a best possible strategy in our fight against climate change.

9. Stop deforestation. Deforestation not only destroys forests that sink lot of carbon dioxide but it is also responsible for around one fifth of total world's carbon emissions.

10. Green development of our entire society. People need to develop ecological conscience, and change their current system of values where everything resolves around the money. We need to know that we need nature much more than nature needs us.

What is the key to success in tackling climate change?

Climate change presents a huge threat to human well being. There are many people wondering why are world leaders doing so little to save us from seeing the worst of climate change. International climate talks are always just talks and nothing else, and such strategy will definitely not be enough to tackle climate change. What we need is an immediate action, and not more talks and false promises.

Many scientists will agree that the best way to tackle climate change is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2 emissions). In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we need to first identify the main cause of these emissions.

The main cause of greenhouse gas emissions is fossil fuels burning. World economy still heavily relies on fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and as long as fossil fuels remain dominant sources of energy we won't have any chance to successfully tackle climate change.

What's the alternative to fossil fuels? The answer is quite simple, namely the renewable energy. If world would to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources this would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that end up in earth's atmosphere, and stop climate change from going totally out of control.

So what's the problem then? Well, besides the fact that some people still do not believe in climate change there is also the problem regarding the reliability of renewable energy, namely renewable energy technologies are still not developed enough to reliably deliver enough power needed to satisfy a global economy.

Renewable energy is also more expensive option compared to fossil fuels, and not many people are willing to pay higher energy bills, because to many people money is still more important than saving our planet from huge environmental catastrophe.

The key to success in tackling climate change is basically in changing the ethical values of our society. World has to stop its blind faith in money because there are things much more important than money like for instance our environment, or in general our planet.

Climate change has the potential to completely destroy our way of life and people should be really asking themselves what's the use in having all the money in the world if you don't have nothing to spend it on?