17 Jan 2008
Source: NOAA
NOAA
Website: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/

The Zambeze (Zambezi) River in central Mozambique was still rising when the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA's Aqua satellite captured the top image on January 15, 2008. Compared to conditions on December 26, three weeks earlier, the river was kilometers wider than normal. Early rains fell over the Zambeze River basin in Zimbabwe throughout December, taxing the massive Cahora Bassa reservoir meant to control flooding on the Zambeze. By January, water was being discharged from the reservoir, and this led to flooding downstream.

The images show the Zambeze River downstream from the Cahora Bassa reservoir near the border of the Sofala, Tete, and Zambézia provinces. Water is dark blue or black in the images, which were made with infrared and visible light. The surrounding plant-covered land is bright green, and scattered clouds are pale blue and white. Bare earth is tan. Not only is the Zambeze River flooded in the January 15 image, but its tributaries, including the Shire River, are also swollen. Twice-daily images of the floods in Mozambique are available from the MODIS Rapid Response System. Summer flooding is common on the Zambeze, but in 2007-2008, the floods rose a month earlier than normal. By January 15, water levels already rivaled those seen during the devastating floods of 2000-2001, which killed 700 and displaced 500,000, reported the Deutsche Presse Agentur. Resettlement, preparation, and evacuation prevented a similar disaster in 2008, said the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Despite the flood danger, the Zambeze flood plain is an attractive place to live because of the fertile soils it offers subsistence farmers. As of January 13, approximately 62,000 people had been evacuated from the Zambeze River Valley in Mozambique, said the Mozambique News Agency. The government planned to evacuate thousands more by airlift and boat. The floods could persist or worsen as the rainy season progresses through February and March. Late summer could also bring flood-inducing tropical cyclones from the southern Indian Ocean.

For the article and image, please visit: http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/satelliteimages/120058031481.htm

(This article was published on December 17, 2007)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2007) — Climate advocate Al Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize this December 10th. New Norwegian research suggests, however, that there is no connection between environmental crises and armed conflict.

"Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

A broader concept of peace

This is an excerpt from the Nobel Committee's explanation for the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, shared equally by the former US Vice President Al Gore Jr. and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

The Nobel Committee interprets "working for peace" as including saving the Earth's environment. Researchers, advocacy groups, politicians and the media have all highlighted local resource crises as the reason for a host of armed conflicts around the globe. The premise underlying the Nobel Committee's expanded definition of peace is that there is a causal connection between natural resource shortages and violent conflict.

But is that true? Not according to a new study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

Surprising results

A series of case studies in recent years from areas stricken by conflict has helped develop a theoretical basis for the claim that natural resource scarcity leads to armed conflict. Darfur, Sudan, is a recent example of this presumed causal connection, with Rwanda, Haiti and Somalia as other examples.

Helga Malmin Binningsbø, Indra de Soysa and Nils Petter Gleditsch, from NTNU's Department of Sociology and Political Science, looked at the environmental pressures in 150 countries in the period from 1961 to 1999. By using an internationally recognized technique for measuring a country's environmental sustainability -"The Ecological Footprint" - the researchers were able to compare these numbers with statistics on armed conflict during the same period.

Their conclusion may seem paradoxical---lands where resources are heavily exploited show a clear connection to a lack of armed conflict. Or alternatively, nations troubled by war during the research period had lower exploitation rates of their natural resources. The findings give researchers solid empirical support for stating that environmental scarcity is not the reason behind violent conflict.

--A higher Ecological Footprint is negatively correlated with conflict onset, controlling for income effects and other factors, the researchers say in their article, published in the peer-reviewed journal Population and Environment.

-- Of course people fight over resources, that's not our argument. We believe, rather, that we have a strong scientific case against the Neomalthusian model, says Binningsbø.

For the full article, please visit: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071216133126.htm  

Source: Reuters 

Accessed at http://www.enn.com/energy/article/29461

Date: January 17, 2008 

By Alex Lawler

LONDON (Reuters) - World oil production may peak in the coming years, but it will be because of a decline in demand for petroleum rather than constraint on supply, a BP economist said on Wednesday.

The comments come in the wake of remarks from other industry officials who in recent months have questioned mainstream supply forecasts, suggesting a peak in output may be closer than the industry has previously admitted.

"I believe there is a realistic possibility that world oil production will peak within the next generation as a result of peaking demand," BP Special Economic Advisor Peter Davies told a meeting at parliament organized by a group of lawmakers looking into peak oil.

A rally in oil prices, which hit a record high above $100 a barrel earlier this month, is leading to growing interest in peak oil -- the view that supply has reached, or will soon reach, a high point and then fall.

London-based BP, the world's third-largest fully publicly traded oil company by market value, dismisses the view that there is a problem with the amount of oil left in the ground.

Statistics complied by BP show the world has proven oil reserves of 1.2 trillion barrels, enough to sustain current output for 40 years.

Rather, Davies said environmental regulations, including efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, could cause consumers to move away from oil.

"I think we will run out of demand before we run out of supply," he said. "There's a distinct possibility that global oil consumption could peak as a result of climate policies."

The BP economist said there were also concerns whether there is enough investment. Many major producing countries ban foreign investment in their oilfields or allow it on terms the oil firms deem uncompetitive.

"An imminent peak in oil production is not likely," Davies said. "Valid concerns remain over investment, especially in resource-rich regions."

Davies said it was possible to boost world oil production to 100 million barrels per day, a rate senior figures, such as the chief executive of French oil company Total, have questioned in recent months.

The world is expected to need more than 100 million bpd of oil later this century, according to forecasts from the International Energy Agency and others, up from around 86 million bpd now.

"I believe 100 million barrels per day is achievable," Davies said. "This is achievable in resource terms but it does come down to how much investment is going to take place."

(Reporting by Alex Lawler; editing by Marguerita Choy)