Tian Lihua had just clocked in for work at a textile mill outside Jilin when she became nauseated, then dizzy. Moments later she passed out. In the next few days 1,200 of her co-workers developed medical issues ranging from seizures to shortness of breath and transient paralysis.

“When I came to, I could hear the doctors talking,” she told the New York Times last month. “They said I had a reaction to unknown substances.”

Tian and her colleagues believe those “unknown substances” had wafted downwind from the Jilin Connell Chemical Plant which makes aniline, a notoriously toxic chemical used to produce rubber, dyes,  polyurethane and herbicides.

Local hospitals began seeing befallen workers immediately after the plant opened this spring. On a bad day, so many workers showed up that the hospital was forced to put 2 in each bed.

The State Administration of Work Safety initially stated on its Web site that the cause was a “chemical leak,” but hours later the statement was pulled down.

Now, local health officials as well as those dispatched from Beijing contend the entire event is due to mass hysteria….psychological reactions on a massive scale to a presumed chemical exposure.

The officials have admonished the workers to “get a hold of their emotions” and get back to work, say afflicted individuals and their loved ones.

 “How could a psychological illness cause so much pain and misery?” asked 29 year-old Zhang Fusheng, who appeared to a Times reporter to be short of breath despite being hooked up to an oxygen mask. “My only wish is to get better so I can go back to work and take care of my family.”

The Ministry of Health in Beijing refused to release details of its investigation, but local officials insist they found no evidence of a toxic exposure.

The plant is partially owned by local government officials. Its president is Song Zhiping, who is also a representative to China’s legislative body, the National People’s Congress.

The “silent crisis” known as global warming already kills 300,000 people per year, and that number will double in just 2 decades, according to a report by the Global Humanitarian Forum.

The “Human Impact Report: Climate Change”  was released in anticipation of a meeting  of the United Nations Climate Conference to be held next winter.

The purpose of that conference will be to develop a post-Kyoto climate agreement.

“We are trying to get the world’s attention…climate change is not something waiting to happen. It is impacting seriously the lives of many people around the world,” Forum president Kofi Annan told CNN.

“This threat to our health…to food production… to security…raises political tensions. It will have people on the move — and they are on the move — and many more which will bring tensions,” Annan added.

The report states that the Earth’s atmosphere warmed 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit between 1906 and 2005. Most of the jump transpired in recent decades.

It projects that by the turn of the next century, the Earth’s atmospheric temperatures will jump a minimum of an additional 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit, “no matter what.”

“The suffering documented in this report is only the beginning.” The minimally expected rise, concluded the report, “would be catastrophic.”

Nearly all, 99%, of the 300,000 lives lost each year due to climate change are located in developing countries, which collectively produce about 1% of the world’s carbon emissions. Climate-related deaths due to malnutrition, diarrheal illnesses and malaria dwarf all other weather-related deaths.

The countries most vulnerable to global warming lie in a semi-arid belt extending from the Sahara/Sahel to the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as those in Sub-Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Arctic.

Australia was cited as the most vulnerable among first-world nations. It is already experiencing the worst 15-year drought in recorded history.

The report says developed countries need to contribute 100 times more funds than they currently devote to help developing nations fight the scourge.

Annan implored nations attending next winter’s meeting to reach a “global, effective, fair and binding” accord on climate change. Those talks could “well be the last chance for avoiding global catastrophe,” he told CNN.

Over 185 million Americans live under skies so polluted it endangers life, according to a report released last week by the American Lung Association.

The report grades 900 US counties on an A to F scale for ozone (smog), annual particle pollution, and 24-hour particle pollution.

Cities ranking in the top 3 on ozone pollution were the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area, Bakersfield and Visalia-Porterville.

The three cities also top the charts for year-round particle pollution, and follow just behind Pittsburgh-New Castle at the top of the list on 24-hour particle pollution.

Fargo, North Dakota came up cleanest in all categories.

“60% of Americans are breathing air dirty enough to send people to the emergency room, to shape how kids’ lungs develop, and to kill,” said ALA Chairman Stephen Nolan.

The ALA report indicates that 175 million Americans live in areas where there is a dangerous abundance of days in which unhealthy ozone levels are present. Ozone irritates the lungs like a bad sunburn. It triggers asthma and shortens life expectancy.

Particle pollution is the “most dangerous and deadly of the outdoor air pollutants,” according to the ALA, because it “can increase the risk of early death, heart attacks, strokes and emergency room visits for asthma and cardiovascular disease.”

One in 6 Americans lives in an area having unhealthy level of year-round fine particle pollution, and 30% reside in counties with unhealthy 24-hour levels, in which atmospheric fine particle concentrations spike to unhealthy levels for hours or even days.

“Air pollution can impair the lung function of even the healthiest people,” said Norman Edelman, the ALAs Chief Medical Officer, but “people with lung and heart disease (are) especially vulnerable,” he added.

In the run-up to the Summer Olympics, Chinese officials pressed mines and factories near Beijing to shutter or move elsewhere in an effort to assure the event would be held under blue skies.

Now, as China rushes to invest nearly $600 billion of stimulus money and shake off a rare economic slowdown caused by the Great Economic Crisis, its skies seem destined to turn smoggy once again. 

The Ministry of Environmental Protection has begun fast tracking hoards of industrial projects, almost completely trampling environmental reviews in the process.

In one 3-day period late last year for example, it green lighted 93 new projects worth $38 billion.

“This is the moment to decide whether we want to keep the old growth model or change it,” Ma Jun told the New York Times. “This new round of development might generate more pollution for the future,” understated the director of China’s Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs.

China’s brief industrial slump actually helped the country close in on environmental targets it had set years ago. Data from the second half of last year showed that China was on target to increase energy efficiency by 20% and to cut water and air pollution by 10% compared with 2005 levels

Meanwhile, the central government’s environmental movement, such as it is, remains plagued by bureaucracy, conflicts of interest and worse.

Take the strange case of Pan Yue. Pan had been the number 2 guy in China’s environment ministry and was by far the most outspoken green supporter within the Communist Party. For years he had led a rare public campaign against polluters and supported rigorous environmental inspections.

This angered provincial officials, state-owned companies and his current boss who eventually sidelined him, shook down his top aides and harassed his wife, according to people who confided in secrecy with the Times.

For the record, Pan chalked up his lower profile to an illness, and records show he had indeed been hospitalized for a time.

It’s not the first time Chinese party officials have wound up in the hospital after falling out of favor.

As birthrates in tropical countries drop and economic forces trigger migration toward cities, a funny thing is happening to the enormous swaths of farmland left behind.

They’re transforming back to what they were in the first place, tropical rain forests. 

And we’re not talking about a parcel of land the size of Granny’s Victory Garden, either.

In fact a recent report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates there are 2.1 billion acres of so-called “secondary” rain forest growing in the tropics right now.

That’s as big as the whole United States.

The pace of reforestation is phenomenal. Trees over 100 feet tall spring up within 15 years after land is abandoned, and in another 5 years a true rain-forest canopy forms once again.

According to the New York Times, for each acre of rain forest cut down today, 50 or so acres of secondary forest are growing on land that had recently been logged, farmed or damaged by natural disaster.

The unexpected development has actually triggered debate whether efforts to preserve first-growth rain forests are worth it or even necessary.

The good news is that secondary rain forests are avid carbon sinks just like their first-growth brethren. They will be an enormous help in blunting the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide that continues to be released in prodigious amounts as a byproduct of burning fossil fuels and biomass.

The bad news is that secondary rainforests are probably not going to save the jaguars, tapirs and thousands of bird and invertebrate species that are headed for extinction due to the wonton destruction of primeval rainforests.

The animals have no way to access the new growth.

As many as 50% of all rain forest species remain threatened despite these heartening developments.

Man-made atmospheric brown clouds have dimmed the skies over hundreds of Asian cities 25% in 30 years. A particularly nasty, 2-mile thick layer of soot, sulfates, toxic aerosols and carcinogens blankets South Asia these days, especially in winter.

We know quite a lot about the South Asian brown cloud. For example, we know it costs China, Japan and Korea $5 billion per year in crop damage and we know it causes 340,000 excess deaths per year from cardiovascular and respiratory disease.

But one thing we didn’t know until now was what caused it.

And for what it’s worth, most people who had ventured an opinion on the matter guessed incorrectly.

If Stockholm University’s Orjan Gustafsson and colleagues are to be believed, that is.

Scientists had debated for decades whether the South Asian brown cloud arose primarily from burning fossil fuels in cars and power plants or from burning wood, dung and related biomass for agriculture, deforestation and cooking.

The smart money had been on the former.

Then, in 2006, Gustafsson’s team secured some high-grade atmospheric soot from the South Asian cloud and tested it for carbon-14, a clever thing to do since the radioactive substance has a half-life of 5,700 years and therefore would not be present in fossil fuels created several million years ago.

What they found was a ton of C-14 in the samples, indicating that a good 2/3 of the brown cloud came from biomass combustion.
 
The paper is in Science. The conclusion is that regulating agricultural burning and using better cooking technology might do more to brighten the day for 2 the billion people living under the South Asian brown cloud than restricting cars or building clean coal power plants.

In a report released last week, the Environmental Protection Agency, US Geological Survey and other federal agencies concluded that rising sea levels triggered by global warming threatens coastal wetlands and barrier islands and in the Middle Atlantic States.
 
The report said the rate of rise in sea level is accelerating in part because of melting ice sheets and glaciers, and also because warmer water takes up more space.

Middle Atlantic States are especially at risk because much of their infrastructure has been placed at or near sea level and because the area is hit frequently by major storms.

The report, available here, mentions that in the last century, coastal erosion occurred at between 2.4 and 4.4 millimeters per year, or roughly one foot for the 100 year period. But “it is virtually certain,” according to the report, that the pace of this erosion will double in the 21st century.

Barrier islands, coastal waterways and spits are unlikely to withstand this sea rise. “It is likely that some barrier islands in this region will cross a threshold,” and start disintegrating, according to the report, which mentioned in particular the islands of North Carolina’s Outer Banks.

The report’s prediction of rising sea levels supports an earlier prediction by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-based initiative. The Panel believes the seas will rise as much as 2 feet in this century.

In less-developed areas, coastal wetlands might survive the sea level rise by moving to higher ground. But in the Middle Atlantic States, a dense mixture of buildings and roads renders inland migration impossible.

Last week, the Department of the Interior concluded that a proposed 24 square-mile wind farm 5 miles off Cape Cod posed no threat to the environment.

The conclusion represented a victory for the Cape Wind project, which wants to become the nation’s first offshore wind farm.

Many Cape residents, including Senator Edward Kennedy oppose the project on grounds that it would hurt wildlife and tourism, not to mention mess with the views from certain family compounds in Hyannis.

Cape Wind would cost $1 billion to build. It would include 130 turbines rising 440 feet above Nantucket Sound. On clear days, turbines would be visible a half inch above the horizon.

The project’s contractor is Energy Management Inc. Its president, Jim Gordon hopes construction can begin this year and that Cape Wind can produce electricity in 3 years.

 “We think this wind farm is going to be embraced by…Cape Cod (and)…the nation” Gordon told the New York Times.  “It has already encouraged other states to look at developing…coastal wind resources.”

So now it’s up to the Big O administration to rule on the decision. If it favors Cape Wind, it’s free and clear to lease an appropriate part of the Sound to Energy Management.

Except maybe not so fast. Turns out the FAA has to decide whether the farm would interfere with airplane radar, and the Coast Guard needs to assure it doesn’t mess with marine radar.

Also pending is an investigation by the inspector general at the Department of the Interior which was requested by locals who raised concerns about procedural issues in the review.

Project advocates believe Cape Wind can supply 75% of the electricity required by the Cape, Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard while cutting emissions by an amount equal to that produced by 175,000 cars. Detractors say it will double electricity costs.

Amid the unfolding economic crisis, VC investment in clean tech dropped 35% in Q4 2008 when compared to the previous quarter. It was the sharpest fall in 2 years.

A total of $1.7 billion was invested in clean tech during Q4 according to the San Francisco-based market tracking company Cleantech Group.

(Hat tip: Gooz) Clean tech includes solar, clean coal, wind and other technologies that help control industrial pollution and emissions.

Officials at Cleantech Group believe the dropoff is likely to persist through Q1 of this year, but remain optimistic that investment will pick up especially since the Big O indicated he wants to invest heavily in the sector.

“The fundamentals are still strong when it comes to clean tech,” Brian Fan told the Wall Street Journal. Cleantech’s senior director of research added “we know the world has to get off coal and has to replace oil.”

Despite the Q4 downturn, VC investments in the space rose 38% for the year, to an all-time high of $8.4 billion. These numbers have risen every year since 2001 when investments totaled $506.8 million.

There were 241 disclosed investment rounds in the sector in 2008. The most frequent investors were Khosla Ventures (21 separate investments) and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (18).

Solar power accounted for 40% of the investment in the space, followed by biofuels, transportation and wind.

Many of the larger investments during Q4 2008 were sunk into so-called thin-film solar companies, which produce solar panels from materials other than silicon and are hence notably cheaper.

The key component of solar panels is silicon, but the stuff is expensive so producers are always tempted to utilize less of it.

In fact the latest generation of panels features silicon layers no more than 2 microns thick. Earlier generations were 100 times thicker.

The problem is that thinner cells are less efficient, and these new ones produce 20% less electricity per unit area than the older ones.

But Kylie Catchpole, from Canberra’s Australian National University and Albert Polman, from the Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics in Amsterdam might have solved the problem.

All they did was add a few silver atoms to those thin silicon panels.

When sunlight strikes the silver atoms, it excites their electrons. A moment later, they fall back to an unexcited state and release light of their own.

If the silver atoms are arrayed correctly along the silicon layers of a solar panel, that light runs along the surface of the layer rather than penetrating through it.

This has the effect of maximizing the photoelectric effects of whatever small amounts of silicon may be present in the cell.

The scientists write in Optics Express that their silver bullet increases the efficiency of the thin silicon cells to a point where they produce approximately as much electricity as the more expensive, earlier generation panels.

And yes silver is itself expensive, but the new technique uses so little of it, it adds only a few pennies to the price.