Feed aggregator

This widely used practice is essential for maintaining harbours and shipping routes, but what are the risks?

Oliver Milman

Committee on Climate Change tells ministers to hold firm on commitment to cut carbon emissions drastically

Ministers must stand by their commitment to drastic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, despite deepening coalition rifts over the issue, the government's advisers on climate change have urged.

Households will pay just under £200 a year by 2020 to subsidise low-carbon energy and industry, rising to about £220 by 2030, they said. But these costs will save money in the longer term because they will reduce reliance on expensive imported gas – on current gas prices, about £100bn will be saved by 2050.

The Committee on Climate Change, the statutory body set up to advise the government on meeting long-term carbon goals, said firmly on Wednesday that there was no reason to revise the UK's carbon budgets, which require a halving of carbon emissions in the 2020s, compared with 1990 levels.

"This is clearly the most cost-effective way to proceed," said Lord Deben, chairman of the committee and former Conservative environment minister. He said the study had shown no evidence that businesses would fail to invest in the UK because of carbon reduction policies, and that the evidence suggested sticking to the carbon budgets would save money in the longer term.

However, the committee refused several requests to allow journalists to see the full document in advance of publication, releasing only an eight-page summary of the review.

The committee's review of the carbon budgets was at the behest of George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer, who has spoken out strongly against what he sees as the "burden" of green regulations on business. He suggested that the UK was in danger of losing competitive advantage by going further and faster on carbon cuts than rival countries.

But the committee told journalists the UK was "not out in front" compared with other EU member states and major trading nations such as China, which are also putting in place measures to curb greenhouse gases. Its study found that there was no impact on the UK's energy-intensive industries from the fourth carbon budget, which will run from 2023 to 2027, because they are already protected from carbon prices and rising energy costs.

Under the terms of the Climate Change Act, the government can only challenge the committee's findings if it can produce evidence contradicting the report. Any attempt to circumvent the advice would be subject to judicial review.

However, there is no deadline for the government's response to the study. That means that, in theory, the coalition could put off a decision until after the next general election in 2015. Lord Deben warned that postponing a response would hurt investment. "There is a huge market out there [for green goods and services] – I want those jobs and investment to come to Britain," he said.

Some sections of industry urged the chancellor to conduct his own "hard-edged" review of the carbon budgets. Steve Radley, director of policy at the manufacturers' organisation EEF, said: "Industry will be deeply concerned that the committee on climate change is advising that the UK remains on a unilateral trajectory towards a 50% reduction in emissions. With other EU members showing little appetite to match our ambitions, this will continue to push electricity prices above our competitors and risks pushing investment abroad. Government must now demonstrates it understands the competitiveness issues at stake by undertaking a hard-edged review of the committee's evidence."

The EU is set to discuss its 2030 emissions target in the next few months, and several member states are arguing for a 50% reduction compared with 1990 levels, if this level of ambition is matched by other countries. The EEF was unable, when asked, to provide examples of investment going abroad as a result of the UK's carbon policies, or research on how the UK's carbon targets would affect productivity.

Green groups said the committee's findings should be confirmed as government policy as soon as possible. Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: "There's no justification for watering down the fourth carbon budget – doing so would drive up emissions, drive away jobs and send Britain's international credibility on this crucial issue into reverse. Our over-reliance on increasingly costly fossil fuels has sent bills soaring. Leading businesses are crying out to invest in our huge renewable energy potential but they need the confidence to do so, which is why they are backing ambitious cuts in UK carbon."

More than 100 companies, including Unilever, Kingfisher and Sainsbury's, and a host of renewable energy and construction companies, called on the government to accept the committee's advice.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "The UK takes its obligations under the Climate Change Act, to cut emissions by 80% by 2050, extremely seriously. The committee's advice has an important role in the fourth carbon budget review and we agree with them that it is important to make a final decision as quickly as possible. We will consider the advice carefully as part of our work on the review, which will be published in the new year."

• Committee on Climate Change
• Carbon emissions
• Climate change
• Carbon tax
• Pollution
• George Osborne
• Green politics
• Renewable energy

Fiona Harvey
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Department of Environment sounds warning about impact of dumping sediment after government approves expansion

Oliver Milman

Yanzhou Coal Mining Company, a Chinese state-owned enterprise, allowed to maintain its 78% share in Yancoal

The Greens’ deputy leader, Adam Bandt, describes Coalition MP's move as a “a sneak attack on the environment'

Daniel Hurst

Jeff Sparrow: Political protests used to be seen by many – even politicians – as a legitimate form of popular expression and a way for citizens to shape the direction of their nation. Not anymore

Jeff Sparrow

Pipe Break, a photo by mikey and wendy on Flickr.

The city water pipe by our tub broke this morning as we were warming up from a low of 6 degrees last night. The repair went smoothly taking about 20 minutes to patch up.

Sidewinder Hike, a photo by mikey and wendy on Flickr.

I'm kind of glad that I went for a hike today instead of going running.

The Greens senator Larissa Waters says the government approved the building of the world's largest coal port on the Great Barrier Reef last night

An operation in Namibia owned by the same parent company suffered a breach of its leach tank, injuring employees

Bridie Jabour

George Osborne hiding behind Davies commission, says MP, after claims that report options all involve Heathrow expansion

A Conservative MP has claimed the government was trying to push through a third runway at Heathrow by hiding behind initial recommendations made by the independent airports commission led by Sir Howard Davies, whose interim report is due out next week.

Zac Goldsmith, the MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, accused George Osborne of "yearning for a China-style government", saying on Twitter: "Osborne has spent public money on a review whose only purpose is to make a 3rd runway decision look like it was reached independently."

His outburst came after sources close to the inquiry, which will recommend where a new runway for London should be built, claimed Davies would set out three options for extra airport capacity in the south-east in the interim report: a third Heathrow runway, a four-runway Heathrow, and another runway at both Heathrow and Gatwick.

The Davies commission is due to issue its interim report on December 17 giving a shortlist of optio for long-term airport expansion in the south-east and evaluating whether expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted or the Thames estuary scheme favoured by Boris Johnson should continue to be considered.

If the initial speculation is correct it would mean all options would start with Heathrow expansion – a potential source of embarrassment for the government, which wanted to defer such a toxic political question until after the next general election, when the Davies committee is due to reach its final conclusion.

However, in a brief conversation after the Heathrow speculation surfaced, Davies said it was "untrue" that all options he would recommend would involve a Heathrow runway and said he did "not recognise" in the commission process anything of Goldsmith's criticisms.

One source said Davies had been asked by No 10 to broaden the shortlist to avert any outcry about Heathrow. But this could not be verified.

Davies has already indicated he would like to narrow the options as much as possible within the constraints of his remit, which was in effect to produce a recommendation for where a new runway should be built in a final report to be delivered after the 2015 general election.

• Heathrow third runway
• Airline industry
• Travel and transport
• London
• Heathrow
• Air transport
• Zac Goldsmith
• George Osborne

Gwyn Topham
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Smithfield Foods has been working hard to convince critics since the 90s, but now faces renewed doubt over water and waste

After racking up millions of dollars in environmental fines for water contamination in the 1990s, the world's biggest hog and pork producer, Smithfield Foods, has been working hard to convince critics that it has changed. Over the past decade, its sustainability efforts have garnered awards and international certifications.

But its sale to Chinese meat processor Shuanghui International Holdings in September has raised new questions about the future of its sustainability commitments.

The new owner has a poor food safety record. And the Chinese pork industry as a whole has made headlines for lacing its products with illegal additives and filling rivers with dead pigs.

Larry Baldwin, who coordinates the Waterkeeper Alliance's North Carolina Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations campaign, said the buyout leaves the US on the losing side of China's pollution outsourcing.

"Products are going to be exported, but what do we keep here? We keep the waste," he said, adding that pigs produce as much as 10 times the waste a person produces every day. "What benefit is there to Shuanghui to really try to improve the sustainability of this industry when they are basically not here to have to deal with the byproducts?"

Meanwhile, Dennis Treacy, Smithfield's chief sustainability officer and vice-president, claims Shuanghui is more likely to import some of Smithfield's sustainability practices than export its own.

"Each time I've met the top brass of Shuanghui, they come up to me and say, 'We want you to do exactly what you're doing, but more,'" Treacy said. "They are anxious for us to continue our program … so they can retain the idea they have purchased and are delivering high-quality meat from the US."

Integrating farms and factories

With revenues topping $13bn, Smithfield has built its success on an integrated operation that takes roughly 16m hogs in the US from farm to plate annually under brand names such as Eckrich, Armour and John Morrell.

The integrated factory farm system often draws criticism from environmental and animal rights advocates because it tightly confines animals and concentrates their waste. But it also gives Smithfield a level of control over its meat quality that Chinese meat processors can only dream of. In China, where water and soil pollution are widespread, most hogs are raised on small farms in varying conditions.

"When you have an integrated supply, one thing it does mean is we know where every animal comes from. We know what it's been fed," Treacy said. "We do have control over the supply chain and that was interesting to [Shuanghui]."

Concerns from critics

Even before the Chinese purchase, though, the Waterkeeper Alliance wasn't sold on the idea that Smithfield has become a sustainable company.

Kelly Foster, a senior attorney with the Alliance, said water quality near North Carolina hog farms that supply Smithfield is as poor as ever. Although Smithfield's 460 company-owned farms have had no environmental violations in three years, Foster chalks this up to poor enforcement by government regulators.

The company also owns only 18% of farms that supply it, and doesn't apply its sustainability goals to contract farms.

Taking skepticism head on

Treacy is accustomed to skepticism. He previously directed the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality when it sued Smithfield for environmental violations.

"When I first came to Smithfield, I didn't know whether I'd be here a week. A lot of people said, 'They bought you off,'" said Treacy, who has stayed more than a decade. "But I took [the job] because I like to go into a situation and make it better."

Initially, Smithfield saw environmental compliance as a requirement rather than an opportunity, Treacy said. That changed, partly as conservation saved the company money: an estimated $374m since 2004, according to Smithfield's 2013 integrated report.

Sustainability has also become a selling point, and Treacy now goes along on many sales calls. "All our big customers, grocery stores and restaurant chains, are asking about sustainability before they ask about price," he said.

Key successes

This is what potential customers learn: all Smithfield's company-owned farms in the US now have International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 environmental certification, one of the highest standards for environmental management.

Smithfield has reduced the use of antibiotics in pig feed and is moving away from housing pregnant sows in boxes that limit their movement. And it's mostly ahead of schedule on goals to reduce its water and energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste sent to landfills by 10%.

"I know what greenwashing is, and I don't allow it here at Smithfield," Treacy said. "No matter how well you perform today … it is hard to convince people you've really changed."

Heather Duncan is a freelance reporter who has covered environmental topics for newspapers for more than a dozen years. She eats her country ham in Knoxville, Tennessee

• Water
• Food

Heather Duncan
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Nelson Mandela is feted today as a hero, but in the past British police put anti-apartheid campaigners under extensive surveillance

British politicians have been queueing up to pay tribute to Nelson Mandela in recent days. There were many times of course when the British establishment did not give him and the anti-apartheid movement such whole-hearted support.

Today Conservative politicians such as David Cameron may laud him as a hero, but back in the day, Cameron's real hero, Margaret Thatcher, denounced the African National Congress as "a typical terrorist organisation".

Read this and this, for example, by my colleagues Marina Hyde and Hugh Muir, for a caustic view on what might charitably be called a change of heart.

It should also not be forgotten that the British police went to enormous lengths to infiltrate and disrupt the campaign in this country to help sweep away apartheid.

Previously confidential official files released under the freedom of information act show how Special Branch penetrated the Anti-Apartheid Movement from top to bottom over 25 years. The infiltration stretched at least from 1969 to 1995, according to the files.

Copies of some of the files are here and here.

It seemed that Special Branch saw fit to snoop on even the smallest gatherings of campaigners.

One report details how the Croydon branch of the Anti-Apartheid Movement held a meeting at 7.30pm on May 27 1982 at the White Horse Manor school in Thornton Heath. How many campaigners were at this meeting? Seven, it seems.

Special Branch diligently records that the seven finished their meeting at 9.45, "without incident."

It is striking how it seems that no detail is too trivial to be stored. Here are some examples :

In September 1984, the Special Branch in Surrey reported that a student working part-time at Sainsbury's was "actively passing anti-apartheid literature to other members of staff." A report on the student was sent to an entity described merely in the files as "Snuffbox" - a codename for the security service, MI5.

In October 1982, a Home Beat officer in Barnet, north London deemed it necessary to report to the Commander of Special Branch that "he had discovered a shed which contains a large number of political posters with a left-wing bias." A detective constable was deputed to investigate and reported that the posters probably belonged to local anti-apartheid campaigners.

Special Branch noted at one point in the 1970s how a 17-year had formed a local group in the west London suburb of Ealing.

Some of the reports appear to have emanated from informants (activists who have been recruited by the police to pass on information).

For instance, a "secret and reliable source" supplied information about the monthly meeting of the Highgate branch of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in June 1982. Six campaigners were at the meeting which was held at the home of one of the activists. The source appears to have been attended as he or she was in a position to report details of the meeting, such as the fact that it started at 7.30pm and ended at 10.20pm. The source could also report that "the meeting adhered to the prepared agenda, a copy of which was submitted with" his or her account.

The files contain confidential reports of demonstrations (names of speakers, what they said, how they were received by the audience and the such like) and plans for protests in the pipeline.

There are also reports of private meetings of the movement's national leaders, along with the makes and registration numbers of their cars, and copies of internal memos.

The files were were unearthed by BBC journalist Martin Rosenbaum for a 2005 radio programme. He says that Special Branch had around 30 inch-thick files cataloguing its surveillance of the anti-apartheid movement. See here and here for more details of the programme.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement was one of the first political groups to be penetrated by an undercover police officer. In 1968, Special Branch set up its covert unit of long-term undercover officers, known as the Special Demonstration Squad.

One of the unit's first undercover officers, Mike Ferguson, was sent to infiltrate the anti-apartheid movement in the late 1960s.

According to this account in a BBC documentary, his handler, another Special Branch officer called Wilf Knight, said Ferguson foiled at least one demonstration by the anti-apartheid campaigners.

Knight tells a story of how the campaigners suspected that there was a spy within the ranks. Ferguson deflected attention from himself by pointing the finger of suspicion at another campaigner. Wrongly accusing innocent activists was a favourite tactic of the undercover spies to save themselves from being rumbled.

How many undercover police officers spied on anti-apartheid activists over the decades is not known - another of Scotland Yard's secrets.

Perhaps one day, the long-running internal police investigation into the conduct of the undercover officers, known as Operation Herne, may tell the public?

• Undercover police and policing
• Nelson Mandela
• South Africa
• Espionage
• Crime
• UK civil liberties
• Surveillance
• Activism
• Metropolitan police

Rob Evans
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The city has set a sustainability template for the rest of America, but it must continue 'to lead from the front' on climate change

During his 12 years as mayor of New York city, billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg has had an indelible effect on America's largest metropolis.

As his tenure comes to a close, both the media and New Yorkers are analysing his legacy, from his aggressive reform of the school system to his controversial stop-and-frisk police policy. Rarely mentioned, however, is Bloomberg's dogged effort to make New York a sustainable city by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and protecting its 8.4 million residents from the perils of climate change.

Bloomberg's sustainability push began quietly in 2005 when demographers projected that New York City would grow by 1 million people by 2030. His staff immediately started searching for ways to fit the extra residents into an already cramped and overstrained city. The solution, they eventually realised, was sustainability. By conserving water and energy resources, slashing air pollution and bolstering public transportation, the city could make life better and healthier for its growing population—while also dealing with global warming.

For more than a year, hundreds of city staffers, local scientists, environmentalists and community leaders hammered out a sweeping sustainability agenda, known as PlaNYC. Released in April 2007, it included 127 initiatives that would transform New York into a greener city and a leader in the fight against climate change.

PlaNYC suffered some big setbacks in its first few years. New York state legislators rejected Bloomberg's much-lauded plan to charge drivers a fee to enter parts of Manhattan during rush hour—similar to an existing programme in London. The 2008 financial crisis forced budget cuts that delayed or scaled-back some projects. Real estate developers and property owners at first opposed stricter energy efficiency standards and green building codes.

But the Bloomberg administration pressed ahead, and New York was gradually and dramatically transformed.

Bloomberg and his staff created hundreds of acres of new parks, planted nearly 1 million trees and replenished wetlands. They turned concrete lots into green play spaces, built hundreds of miles of bike lanes and poured billions of dollars into cleaning up the city's waterways. A programme to swap high-sulfur heating oil with cleaner alternatives helped cut soot pollution 23% and sulphur dioxide 69%. The city reached the halfway point in its greenhouse gas emission reduction goal.

Despite this progress, however, little attention was paid to adaptation measures—often more costly and large-scale than mitigation—to protect residents and infrastructure along the city's 520-mile coastline from the impacts of climate change.

All that changed when superstorm Sandy slammed into New York City on 29 October, 2012.

Hurricane-force winds ripped across the city, tearing trees from their roots and snapping utility poles in half. Surges of water turned streets into rivers, flooding subway tunnels and washing away homes, storefronts and cars. Overnight, the city's worst climate-related fears came true. Sandy was a wake-up call that even after five years of work New York had a long way to go.

Scientists warned the risk would only worsen in the coming decades.

New York City has already experienced sea level rise nearly twice the global average since 1900, climbing 1.2 inches per decade. By the 2050s, sea level in New York harbour will likely rise 11 to 24 inches—or maybe as much as 31 inches. As ocean heights rise, even a storm much smaller than Sandy could cause the same amount of damage.

In the wake of Sandy, Bloomberg and his staff rushed to create a $19.5bn (£12bn) rebuilding plan that would not only help New York recover from the storm, but rebuild stronger and smarter so it would be better prepared for future climate threats. Finished in June 2013, the strategy, known as the special initiative on rebuilding and resiliency, required a massive overhaul of transportation, energy, parks, building and insurance programmes, as well as the creation of a sweeping coastal protection system. The plan includes 257 initiatives spread across the city's five boroughs.

Bloomberg and his staff have tried to finish or at least start as many of these initiatives as possible before the mayor leaves office this month. But responsibility for the majority of the plan—as well as for all of Bloomberg's sustainability and climate initiatives—will rest with future New York City leaders, beginning with Bloomberg's successor, Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio.

Under Bloomberg, New York has proven that local governments can help fill the void left by fragmented or non-existent national and global policies. It has created a roadmap for other cities looking to reduce their emissions and adapt to a warming climate. It has also shown the need for powerful, strong-willed leaders who understand that protecting their cities from climate change is a worthy pursuit. As Bloomberg told InsideClimate News in September, "You gotta lead from the front."

• Katherine Bagley and Maria Gallucci are the authors of Bloomberg's Hidden Legacy: Climate Change and the Future of New York City , published by InsideClimate News.

• New York
• United States
• Michael Bloomberg
• Climate change
• Carbon emissions
• Natural disasters and extreme weather
• Hurricane Sandy
• Sea level
• Sustainable development
• Travel and transport

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Perfluorotributylamine is an unregulated, long-living industrial chemical that breaks all records for potential climate impacts

A new greenhouse gas that is 7,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the Earth has been discovered by researchers in Toronto.

The newly discovered gas, perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA), has been in use by the electrical industry since the mid-20th century.

The chemical, that does not occur naturally, breaks all records for potential impacts on the climate, said the researchers at the University of Toronto's department of chemistry.

"We claim that PFTBA has the highest radiative efficiency of any molecule detected in the atmosphere to date," said Angela Hong, one of the co-authors.

The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found PFTBA was 7,100 times more powerful at warming the Earth over a 100-year time span than CO2.

Concentrations of PFTBA in the atmosphere are low – 0.18 parts per trillion in the Toronto area – compared to 400 parts per million for carbon dioxide. So PFTBA does not in any way displace the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal as the main drivers of climate change.

Dr Drew Shindell, a climatologist at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said:

"This is a warning to us that this gas could have a very very large impact on climate change – if there were a lot of it. Since there is not a lot of it now, we don't have to worry about it at present, but we have to make sure it doesn't grow and become a very large contributor to global warming.".

He said a number of recent studies had drawn attention to other potential new greenhouse gases which, like PFTBA, pack a lot of warming potential in each molecule but are not very prevalent in the atmosphere.

Such studies were a warning against increasing uses of such compounds without first understanding their impact on climate change, he added.

"From a climate change perspective, individually, PFTBA's atmospheric concentration does not significantly alert the phenomenon of climate change," Hong said. "Still the biggest culprit is CO2 from fossil fuel emissions."

But PFTBA is long-lived. The Toronot researchers estimated PFTBA remains in the atmosphere for about 500 years, and unlike carbon dioxide, that is taken up by forests and oceans, there are no known natural "sinks" on Earth to absorb it.

"It is so much less than carbon dioxide, but the important thing is on a per molecule basis, it is very very effective in interacting with heat from the Earth," she said. "Individually each molecule is able to affect the climate potentially and because its lifetime is so long it also has a long-lasting effect."

Hong said the discovery of PFTBA and its warming potential raises questions about the climate impacts of other chemicals used in industrial processes.

PFTBA has been in use since the mid-20th century for various applications in electrical equipment, such as transistors and capacitors. The researchers said it was unclear how widespread its use was today.

It belongs to an entire class of chemicals used for industrial applications whose effects on the atmosphere remain unknown.

"PFTBA is just one example of an industrial chemical that is produced but there are no policies that control its production, use or emission," Hong said. "It is not being regulated by any type of climate policy."

• Climate change
• Carbon emissions
• Chemistry
• Climate change

Suzanne Goldenberg
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development approves strategy that will see more investment in energy efficiency and renewable power

Award-winning wildlife photographer's book tells the story of elephants through pictures taken over 20 years in Africa

Eric Hilaire

Guardian science correspondent Alok Jha and documentary filmmaker Laurence Topham familiarise themselves with the ship that will be their home in the coming weeks on the Australasian Antarctic Expedition

Laurence TophamAlok Jha

A new paper shows that global warming has continued over the past decade, and been manifested in different ways

New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research investigates how the warming of the Earth's climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous few decades. They conclude that while the rate of increase of average global surface temperatures has slowed since 1998, melting of Arctic ice, rising sea levels, and warming oceans have continued apace.

The widespread mainstream media focus on the slowed global surface warming has led some climate scientists like Trenberth and Fasullo to investigate its causes and how much various factors have contributed to the so-called 'pause' or 'hiatus.' However, the authors note that while the increase in global temperatures has slowed, the oceans have taken up heat at a faster rate since the turn of the century. Over 90 percent of the overall extra heat goes into the oceans, with only about 2 percent heating the Earth's atmosphere. The myth of the 'pause' is based on ignoring 98 percent of global warming and focusing exclusively on the one bit that's slowed.

Nevertheless, the causes of the slowed global surface temperature increase present an interesting scientific question. In examining changes in the activity of the sun and volcanoes, Trenberth and Fasullo estimated that they can account for no more than a 20 percent reduction in the Earth's energy imbalance, which is what causes global warming. Thus the cause of the slowed surface warming must primarily lie elsewhere, and ocean cycles are the most likely culprit.

Trenberth and Fasullo found that after the massive El Niño event in 1998, the Pacific Ocean appears to have shifted into a new mode of operation. Since that time, Trenberth's research has shown that the deep oceans have absorbed more heat than at any other time in the past 50 years.

As a recent paper published in the journal Nature showed, the Pacific Ocean in particular appears to be the key component of the climate's natural internal variability, and the main culprit behind the slowed global surface warming over the past 15 years. However, another important recent paper by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way showed that the global surface temperature rise has not slowed as much as some previously thought; in fact, the surface warming since 1997 happened more than twice as fast as previous estimates.

Trenberth and Fasullo's new paper also casts doubt on the conclusions a few recent studies that estimated the Earth's climate is less sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect than previously thought. These studies have been based on measurements of recent climate change, including the warming of the oceans. Climate contrarians like Matt Ridley have of course emphasized their results, because these few papers seem to suggest the climate won't warm quite as much over the next century as climate scientists previously thought.

However, the type of approach taken by these studies suffers from some significant drawbacks. Mainly the size of the cooling effect due to human aerosol pollution remains highly uncertain, and while the oceans have been warming rapidly, just how rapidly is another unsettled question.

Previous estimates put the amount of heat accumulated by the world's oceans over the past decade equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second, on average, but Trenberth's research puts the estimate equivalent to more than 6 detonations per second. Trenberth and Fasullo note that using their ocean heating estimate by itself would increase the equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate in the paper referenced by Ridley from 2°C to 2.5°C average global surface warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and using other more widespread accepted values would bring the estimate in line with the standard value of 3°C. They thus note,

"Using short records with uncertain forcings of the Earth system that is not in equilibrium does not (yet) produce reliable estimates of climate sensitivity."

In any case, the main point of the paper is that global warming is stuck on fast forward. Ice continues to melt, sea levels continue to rise, and the oceans continue to warm rapidly. While the warming of global surface temperatures has slowed somewhat, that appears to primarily be due to changing ocean cycles, particularly in the Pacific. However, these changes are mostly just causing the oceans to absorb more heat, leaving less for the atmosphere. As Trenberth and Fasullo conclude,

"[Global warming] is very much alive but being manifested in somewhat different ways than a simple increase in global mean surface temperature."

• Climate change
• Climate change scepticism
• Oceans
• Climate change

Dana Nuccitelli
theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

High-profile prisoners could secure their freedom under amnesty planned this month by Vladimir Putin

Two members of punk protest band Pussy Riot could be freed from prison and 30 people arrested in a Greenpeace protest could avoid jail under an amnesty proposed by Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, lawyers said on Tuesday.

Putin plans the amnesty this month to mark the anniversary of the adoption of Russia's post-Communist constitution in 1993.

According to a draft text on the lower house of parliament's website, people convicted of hooliganism will be released under the amnesty. This is the charge on which Pussy Riot's Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina are serving two-year jail terms for a protest against Putin in a cathedral.

"I very much hope so," Irina Khrunova, a lawyer for Tolokonnikova, said when asked whether she believed her client – due for release in March – would be free by 1 January. "If the prison authorities drag this out, we will take measures."

Tolokonnikova, 24, and Alyokhina, 25, also appear to be eligible for release as mothers of young children. Khrunova said both women would qualify if parliament, which is dominated by a party loyal to Putin, approves the draft amnesty.

Thirty people arrested after a Greenpeace protest at an offshore oil platform in the Arctic in September are also charged with hooliganism, punishable by up to seven years in prison. All 30 have been released on bail but still face trial.

Mikhail Fedotov, head of a Kremlin advisory council on human rights, said he thought those arrested in the Greenpeace protest would be eligible for the amnesty. A lower house official who declined to be named also said he believed they would qualify.

Russia's record on human rights is in the spotlight as the country prepares to host the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi in February.

The prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, has indicated that former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky will not be freed under the amnesty. Khodorkovsky was arrested in 2003 and later convicted of financial crimes.

• Russia
• Europe
• Vladimir Putin
• Human rights
• Pussy Riot
• Greenpeace
• Activism

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds