Is nuclear power the way forward?

According to the UK government, nuclear power is the way forward for our future energy requirements. The supporters of nuclear power say it is far more environmentally friendly than many other forms of electricity generating methods. Nuclear power is cleaner, produces less carbon emissions and will eliminate our need to import energy, so the theory goes. Unfortunately, the whole picture may not be as rosy as the nuclear power supporters would have us believe. There are drawbacks to nuclear power that need to be taken into consideration.

For example, Greenpeace believe that pouring so much money into nuclear power will cut off funding for research into renewable power generating technologies. And then of course is the issue of the nuclear waste created by the nuclear power industry. Nuclear waste needs to be disposed in a safe and environmentally friendly way. Is this really possible? The issue of an industrial accident at a nuclear power plant is always a worry, but now we have the added threat of a terrorist attack too. The problem is, not enough money has been put into renewable energy generation, so now we are left with few choices. I really think the government never had any intention of investing in or using renewable energy on any kind of scale large enough to make it viable. To me, all their talk of renewable energy just seems like a PR exercise.

Fear turns Catalina green

The small but idyllic Catalina Island is turning green. Catalina is a small island off the southern coast of California. It has a population of around 3500 mostly conservative and affluent citizens. Not exactly stereotypical green activists, but the people of Catalina are embracing change to help reduce their impact on global warming. Their aim is to reduce their carbon emissions to as near zero as possible and be as self-sustaining as possible.

The reason? One film by Al Gore, you know the one, “An Inconvenient Truth” and the fact that their island paradise will very likely be underwater if global warming continues at its present rate.

Fear is driving their desire for change. It is fear that is creating the impetus for real change. The good people of Catalina are looking at their lifestyles and making changes to help themselves, both as individuals and as a society. They hope to be an example of model living that will influence others across the USA. The fact that it is helping the planet may initially have been of little interest to them, but does it really matter? The end result is the same: they are causing less damage to the planet.

So perhaps what some people need to drive positive change is fear. Rather than appealing to people’s sense of duty or concern for the environment, we should be making them afraid of the consequences to them. A good dose of fear may save the planet where common sense has failed.

The Great Global Warming Swindle appears to have been a swindle

How many of you watched ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ recently on channel 4? If you did, you will remember the whole programme was an attempt to portray global warming as a purely natural phenomenon caused primarily by solar activity. Even more disturbing, was the film-makers attempt to convince us the theory that global warming is being caused by human activity was false and basically a lie. Apparently we are all victims of a great big con.

Now it appears we were victims of a con. A con by the film-makers themselves. The programme has been referred to Ofcom, the regulatory watchdog, to consider a complaint by 37 scientists. The programme has been accused of misrepresenting the prevailing views and facts relating to global warming. Even one of the climate sceptics whose research work was used on the programme has accused the film-makers of broadcasting falsehoods.

I watched this programme with my partner and we were both shocked by the portrayal of global warming as nothing more than a natural cycle, the rising levels of carbon dioxide relegated to mere coincidence. It made us wonder at the time who was funding the programme and what their agenda was. Whatever it was, I found the whole thing irresponsible and detrimental to the cause of reducing the human activities associated with global warming. Nice one channel 4, way to save the planet.

UK Ministry of Defence pays £12 million to identify potential climate change conflicts

In the UK, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has agreed a £12 million contract with the Meteorological (Met) Office to identify areas of the world where climate change could cause conflict and pose security threats to the UK. The MOD needs to know both the locations of future conflicts and the environmental and climate outlook too for future military planning. The Met Office will use its expertise to determine areas that will be affected by global warming over the coming decades. The research will focus on two main possibilities, locations where drought could lead to food and water shortages and locations where previously unfertile land becomes fertile, either through rising temperatures or increased rainfall.

It is believed conflict could arise from both of these scenarios. The MOD’s chief scientific adviser, Roy Anderson said: "The MoD has identified climate change as a key strategic factor affecting societal stresses and the responses of communities and nations to those stresses. We have a pressing need for the best available advice on future climate change and, based on these predictions, assessments of the impacts of those changes on human societies at the regional and local scale." This particular project is only one part of a wider scheme to determine the effects of climate change globally and nationally. Defra, the environment department, has pledged £74m to help scientists provide more detailed forecasts of how UK weather is likely to change over the coming decades. The emphasis of the UK government has very clearly shifted from trying to determine if global warming is real to what the effects of global warming will be.

Computer models predict that the Middle East will become increasingly hotter and drier, with 30% less rainfall by 2010. In such a volatile area, increased drought will only add to the tensions and conflicts. With oil still the mainstay of Europe and the US economies, this is an area that is very likely to draw us into conflict.

Worryingly for the MOD, it is predicted that by the end of the century there could be as many as 130 days each year that are too hot for soldiers to operate.

In the US, a report for the government back in March warned that the US must be prepared to intervene in escalating crises around the world brought on by climate change. Global Business Network, a consultancy based in San Francisco said in their paper ‘Impacts of Climate Change’ “…crises may force the US as a global leader to act in situations that it might otherwise have preferred to ignore…to adopt a ‘pre-emptive’ approach to forestall the worst effects of collapsing ecosystems, water systems…”

Looking at the whole raft of measures the UK government is putting in place, it would appear that they are resigned to global warming and are looking at ways to deal with the impact rather than try to stop it happening. If this is the case in the US and other countries too, it looks like it is up to us as individuals to do everything we can to minimize our carbon emissions, both personally and with the products and services we buy.

[Via The Guardian]

Tories embrace the environment with new policies

The conservative party is fast becoming the party of the environment, with an 800-page report due to be published on Thursday outlining a raft of policies to make us all more environmentally friendly. The report promises to be bold and innovative in its approach to protecting the environment. There are proposals to ban electrical appliances that exceed precise limits on energy consumption. Another idea worth mentioning is to force manufacturers to fit appliances with devices that switch them off rather than leave them on stand-by. These are great ideas, they will force manufacturers to develop technology that is better geared to reducing climate change emissions.

The other important element of this policy document is the concept of increasing taxation on energy wasteful practices, such as buying big petrol guzzling cars and giving rebates to households that take positive steps to reduce their energy use. Some may see this as a cynical marketing ploy to attract voters, but I like to think that whatever the motivation behind the policies, as long as the policies are effective, it does not really matter.


[Via The Telegraph]

Eco-housing gets a boost

The second largest house-builder in the UK, Persimmon has pledged to support the government’s plans for low carbon emission housing. The company has said it wants to help build the 3 million houses needed by 2020. They have agreed to introduce environmental measures in the new homes to try to get the zero carbon emissions standard the government wants. They are currently testing things like wind turbines and photovoltaic solar cell roof tiles. The company in return wants the government to change the planning laws to speed up the planning application process and make it easier for them to buy land to build on.

This may appear to be a worthwhile move by a building company, but is it? Building new homes with renewable energy technologies is a great idea and needs to be a statutory requirement for all new houses, not a marketing ploy by builders. The worrying element of this deal is the relaxation of the planning application law that could allow builders to use precious greenbelt land to build on. They are in effect holding the government to ransom. The government knows the country needs 3 million new homes, so they will have to cave-in to house-builders demands to ease planning and building restrictions.

[Via The Guardian]

Biofuel demand starts to hurt poorest communities

As predicted by many environmentalists recently, the demand for corn (or maize) for biofuel production has started to cause suffering among the poorest of communities. Western demand for biofuel is leading to higher prices and declining food stocks for people in the poorest countries. An example of this is Mexico, where demand for corn in the USA has increased dramatically since president Bush stated his aim that the US produce 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017. Corn is a main staple in the Mexican diet, and when the price jumped by 50% there were protests in the streets. The Mexican government had to step in and enforce a price freeze. As demand grows further there are fears that decreased stocks and price rises will create more problems in Mexico. As Doña Catalina, making and selling tortillas from her little shop says "Poor corn..It isn't meant to go in cars. It is meant to feed our children and our grandchildren. And their grandchildren too."

The scale of demand for biofuel crops such as corn is staggering. In the US alone there are already 121 ethanol biorefineries with a 76 under construction. Even so, this will only meet a third of president Bush’s quota of biofuel production. The whole international biofuel production process has to be managed effectively and fairly otherwise it will be another case of the richer developed countries inflicting suffering on the poorest countries to satisfy their own greed.

[Via The Guardian]

Solar powered watch to save the planet

In the Guardian today there is an article called ‘Top 10 green gadgets’ which I just happened to glance at while I was reading the more serious news items. Number six on the list is a Citizen solar powered watch. I never thought of a solar powered watch as something that could save the planet, but now I’m convinced. All I need to do now is persuade my partner that this is something I simply must buy to reduce the threat of global warming. The rationale behind this broad statement is that people tend to buy new watches quite frequently, many just replace their watch when the battery has died rather than have the battery changed. 18.4 million watches are sold in the UK alone in 2003, imagine how many are sold every year throughout the world. Having a watch like this one means you can keep the same watch for life, saving energy and resources, thereby protecting the environment. You can find these ‘green’ watches at Citizens website. They have women’s and men’s watches in sporty, classic and dress styles. My favourite is the perpetual calendar sports model for £299, so if Father Christmas is reading this, I’ve been good all year, honest!

Climate change hits Inuit way of life

Climate change is something that we sometimes perceive as abstract and a bit unreal at the moment, in our country at least. We have not really had to experience the devastating effects of global warming on our way of life, yet. For the Inuit people of Canada, Greenland, Alaska and Russia’s far east, climate change is real and it is current. Rising temperatures, melting ice and rising sea levels are affecting entire communities and their traditional way of life. This is not something that they need to worry about in the future, this is their reality now. Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the former president and international chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) is trying to raise awareness of the effect of global warming to her people. She talks about increasing numbers of hunters falling through the ice. She explains about her neighbour: “He fell through the ice and found him two days or three days later when his legs were frozen…

…It's a remarkable story because he is an experienced hunter yet even he couldn't read the condition of the ice. What you see on the surface of the ice may look like what you've been taught for generations, but the ice is forming differently because the Arctic sink is warmer”

She goes on to say: “In Baffin, yes, the floe edge is much closer than before. In Greenland, the ice sheet is melting much faster than anything that they have ever experienced in the past few years. Alaska has been hit very hard as communities are literally falling into the sea.” This really brings home to me how important it is for us to do everything we can to reduce our own carbon footprint. It is not just about us, and our future, it is about other people around the world and their present. We owe it them.

[Via The Guardian]

Gadget swapping parties (not just for men)

Clothes swapping events have been going on for some time now, we read about them everywhere. This is great for all you ethical fashionistas, but what about us ethical techies? we want to do our bit to save the planet too! Well, now there is something for us too, Cadge-IT swapping parties. The concept of Cadge-IT is to get a group of guys to bring their unwanted electrical gadgets, power tools, sports kit, basically whatever they have bought and no longer want, have a few drinks and then swap stuff.
According to YouGov, each household has around £460 worth of unused products, which adds up to £9 billion nationwide.

That’s £9 billion worth of products buried and forgotten in people’s lofts and garages. Rather than waste it, swap it should be the message for everyone. It’s a simple and fun idea that will help towards reducing climate change gas emissions. Although the idea is aimed at men, I’m sure women will participate in our gadget parties before too long!

[Via The Independent]

Airlines attacked by MP’s

British airlines have been criticised by MP’s for not doing enough about carbon offsetting. Whenever I see politicians accusing others of ‘not doing enough’ about climate change the phrase about ‘pot, kettle and black’ pops into my head for some reason. Aircraft produce greenhouse gases, and until the engines that power the aircraft are developed sufficiently to produce less greenhouse gas emissions, there is not much the airlines can do about it. Carbon offsetting is both unproven and unreliable in reducing CO2 emissions. The government pushing the airlines to promote carbon offsetting will not necessarily reduce climate change. This just looks like another token effort to give the appearance of effective action.

The aviation industry is a contributor to climate change because people want the convenience of flying to any destination whenever they want to. We as a society and as individuals have to decide if we value our planet more than our way of life. The two are simply incompatible at the moment. The way we are choosing to live is damaging the planet, and the more our population grows, the more damage we do. It all comes down to how much we are prepared to change to save our future.

[Via The Telegraph]

The increase in rainfall is due to human activity

A new paper published in the journal Nature today has concluded that human activity is causing the global shifts in rainfall patterns and contributing to both the wetter weather and hot dry weather we are experiencing. This is something most people felt was true anyway, but this is the first important study to show the direct link between human activity and increased rainfall. The research was carried out by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office in conjunction with a number of national climate research institutes. The study looked at weather records from around the world going back to 1925 and used 10 computer models to predict the weather changes. The only models that could explain the recorded change in rainfall were the ones that factored in human induced climate change.

So there you have it, evidence that we have altered the planet’s weather systems and made our own lives more difficult. The worrying thing is there may be worse to come. Hopefully the government will take the flooding seriously enough to spend the money to improve flood defences and set up a flood response unit that can quickly send assistance to the affected areas.

[Via The Guardian]

USA looks to new technology to reduce climate change

I know the accepted view of the USA’s efforts to reduce climate change is poor to say the least. And yes, I know it is pretty easy to take swipes at President Bush and his environmental policies, after all, he has steered the USA away from any global climate control treaties over the last few years. On the surface, it does look like President Bush is putting the US economy before the planet. Maybe there is truth in these perceptions, but, to give credit where it is due, the US Department of Energy (DOE) is spending money on research into new technologies that promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes.

One such area of research is CO2 sequestration. Nine specially selected projects have received a total of $24 million to develop technologies that will allow CO2 to be captured and safely removed from coal-fired power stations’ emissions. This is a fascinating area of research, and once the technology is fully developed, should make it easier for the USA to reduce its CO2 emissions without having to drastically change or impair their economic performance.

In combination with changes to the way people use energy, this kind of technology, if it comes online soon enough, can make a real difference to the growing problem of climate change. The beauty of this kind of approach is that it can be exported to big emitters like India and China and allow them the economic growth they need to sustain their populations whilst minimising their impact on global warming. Hopefully with enough research into ways of reducing CO2 emissions from existing processes and research into new energy sources, we may just beat global warming.

Trees cut down in Australia by angry farmers

In a conflict growing in bitterness, farmers across Australia each cut down one tree on their land. The farmers are threatening to raise the number of trees they fell each day, so that by the end of the week more than 128,00 trees could be cut down in one day. The cause of their anger is the government’s refusal to review the land-clearing laws that prevent farmers from felling trees on their land. The problem according to the farmers is that by banning them from clearing trees from their land, they are losing acres of usable farmland, making many farms unviable. The government response is that the trees are needed to soak up CO2 and without the law, huge areas would be cleared to make arable land.

This is a sensitive and difficult issue, with no obvious possible resolution. On the one hand, the trees are vital to help combat rising levels of CO2 and on the other the farmers’ livelihoods are on the line. The farmers claim that the destruction of their farming capacity will cause food shortages in Australia.

Even with the law protecting the environment, illegal land clearing is a big problem in some Australian states. A WWF study in New South Wales estimated that in 2006 alone, 80 million reptiles and 13 million birds were wiped out because their habitat was destroyed. Again this highlights the problem that is being faced by politicians everywhere, how to balance the needs of the planet with the needs of ever growing populations. This is an issue that will not go away and will need to be resolved at some point.

[Via The Times]

Many people are still sceptical of climate change

Strange as it sounds, many people still do not believe global warming is a serious issue that they need to deal with. A poll by Ipsos Mori on the BBC News website shows that many Britons still believe the problem of climate change is being overstated by politicians and scientists. Even more worrying is that 56% believe that scientists are still questioning the human impact on climate change. The situation is being exacerbated by people’s belief that politicians are using the issue of climate change as a means of increasing revenue through new and extended taxes.

Such cynicism is to be expected after so many years of political spin on any number of issues. We live in a period where politicians are viewed with mistrust and pretty much everything they say has to be taken with a ‘pinch of salt’, nothing coming from government is ever as clear-cut or simple or as wholly truthful as they would have us believe. I do not think that this is the real problem though.

The real problem I think is that many people want to carry on living their lives in the same way as they have always done. Making lifestyle changes is difficult for most people. People are used to having electronic gadgets to make their lives easier and more pleasant, having cars to allow them the freedom to get around, taking holidays anywhere in the world, along with everything else that is contributing to global warming. So for many people, any excuse they can find to doubt global warming will help them to justify their lifestyle. I think it is more a way of avoiding having to do anything rather than a genuine belief that global warming is not real and is not a threat.

Somehow though, the general population needs to be made aware of the reality of global warming. Time is fast running out for us to be able to reverse the changes to the climate.

Sainsbury’s deliveries go green…well 20% at least

Sainsbury’s, like the other main supermarkets, is looking at promoting itself as a green supermarket. There is money to be made by any company selling its green credentials now. How much of this is pure marketing and how much is genuine concern for the environment is open to question. But, does it really matter? As long as steps are taken to reduce CO2 emissions does it really matter about the motives? I for one do not think so, what matters is the reduction in CO2.

With this in mind, Sainsbury’s have announced that by September 2008, 20% of their online deliveries will be made with electric vans. This is expected to save 45 tonnes of CO2 emissions in the first year alone. In addition, Sainsbury’s delivery drivers will take away the plastic carrier bags to be recycled. Hopefully they will expand the service to all their delivery vans eventually. After all, 20% of vans being electric can be perceived as a publicity exercise, because 80% are still powered by diesel and petrol.

To control the rising global temperature we need more than token gestures, we need real change.

Are biofuels the answer to all our fuel problems?

There is government and EU pressure to increase the use of biofuels both in the UK and throughout Europe. In the USA the government is promoting the development of biofuels as the answer to their fuel problems. Over here in the UK, BP and ABF have joined forces with DuPont to build a biofuels plant at BP’s chemicals site at Saltend near Hull. The £200 million biofuels plant will help to meet the demand for greener petrol for the foreseeable future. Due to start production in 2009, the plant will produce around 420 million litres of bioethanol a year. This plant alone is expected to meet around a third of the county’s demand for bioethanol. Under the government’s Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, at 5% of fuel sold at petrol stations by 2010 will be biofuels, so the future in biofuels is pretty much assured. There is money to be made in biofuels, so investment can only increase. Which is a good thing, right?

Well, possibly yes and probably no. The problem with biofuels, is that they are made from staples like corn, wheat, palm oil and soya oil. As demand for these grows in the developed world, prices could go up, and make them less affordable to communities in third world countries that rely on these for food. Will we end up creating more starving people in the third world as we in the West buy up wheat and corn for our biofuels? The environment could suffer too, as vast areas of rainforest are burned or logged to make room for biofuel crops. Will we destroy the rainforests that reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to make ‘greener’ petrol? The biofuels market has to be regulated and monitored effectively if the benefits in CO2 reduction aren’t overshadowed by the damage to the environment and to the poorer communities around the world.

[Via The Independent]

Is the Darfur conflict due to climate change?

Is the Darfur conflict caused by climate change? Is this a sign of things to come as global temperatures rise and liveable land, water and food become scarcer? A report published by the UN Environment Programme following an 18 month study of Sudan concludes “Darfur…holds grim lessons for other countries at risk”. The report basically says that the conflict in Darfur has been driven by climate change. The region has suffered a 30% drop in rainfall over the last 40 years and the Sahara desert is advancing by over a mile each year. This is causing tensions in the area between farmers and herders as they fight over disappearing pastures and drying water holes. When one group happens to be of a different ethnic group to the other, you have the seeds of a local war. The UN warns that this type of conflict will spread throughout Africa as climate change creates droughts, increases desert areas and forces population movement into neighbouring areas. The potential for war is growing as fast as the temperatures are rising. Global warming is already affecting many parts of the world, and as the temperature rises, the consequences will be more widespread and far-reaching. Do we really want to live in a world where wars are fought over liveable land and resources like food and water? Do we really want mass migration and the havoc that will cause? Action is needed now.

[Via The Guardian]

Al Gore talks tough on global warming

Al Gore, ex-vice president and once almost president of the USA has now turned eco-activist. Is this just another politician looking for public approval as a prelude to a presidential run? Or is Al Gore a committed environmentalist with a genuine concern for our planet? In a new forward for his revised book ‘Earth in the Balance’ he makes some valid points about the scientific community and raises some quite disturbing issues with the Bush administration. Mr Gore says with amazing hindsight “I wish that we could have had in the 1990’s the deafening scientific consensus that has emerged in more recent years”. I do believe there were some scientists and many environmentalists talking about rising global temperatures in the 1990’s, but they were either ignored or ridiculed. The US government, like all governments, chooses carefully which scientific advice to follow at any given moment, usually the advice that matches its own aims. In the case of the Bush administration, this was taken to new levels as Mr Gore states that under Bush the US pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, reversed their pledge to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and replaced key scientific advisors with ones suggested by ExxonMobil.

This last act has probably done the most damage, as the new scientific advisors allegedly vetted and adjusted scientific evidence to raise doubts about the human impact on global warming, and even tried to cast doubts on global warming actually existing. The question is though, would a president Gore have done any more to reduce CO2 emissions in the USA? While he was vice president to Bill Clinton, carbon emissions rose by 15%, faster than at any time in modern US history. I think it is always easier to be an armchair president or prime minister, all you have to worry about is getting in the papers and on tv, and of course impressing the voters, but once you’re in power you have many more restrictions on what you can do. The reality of running a modern economy is far more complex than Mr Gore makes out. Every decision has consequences to the economy, to the people, to business and to the environment. Nothing is ever simple nor is it ever black and white.

[Via The Independent]