Interesting item in the Courier Mail today, with a dire warning for the world’s population
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22780446-952,00.html
Action on Global Warming is no longer an academic request or an option.
The UN report on global warming mentioned impacts to Queensland's Great Barrier Reef and wet tropics. Scientist feel just 13 short years will see significant biodiversity losses in these regions. That means unless we do something today our children will not as Adults be able to see the things that we saw. And the heritage of hundreds of thousands of years that they entrusted us with has been destroyed in our lifetime, by our generation.
Australia’s production of crops has already peaked, and the drying up of our rivers, salinity increase and lack rainfall will increase the price of basic vegetables and fruit. Wheat costs and therefore bread has already risen. So the argument that it cost money to abate greenhouse gas is basically flawed. It is costing us money now to sit on our hands and be inactive as a nation. The lack of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is a national disgrace, and I believe that a government with the information we have now is not only negligent but culpable.
The loss of productivity in my wife’s home town of Mypolonga is catastrophic. As a farming (orchardist) community that lives off irrigation the drought and overuse of water upstream has decreased their allowance to 10% of what they had been able to use 5 years ago. What will be the financial impact to their community? Huge to say the least. This is one town of many, and is a graphic demonstration of the IPCC report of the cost of Global Warming on the world. They recommend that action now will reduce that overall financial impact. They further warn that lack of action will destroy whole economies. Well we see the evidence before us now……
Australia must act. We have the highest carbon imprint per person than any other country in the world. We must:
1. Sign the Kyoto Protocol and start a national carbon trading system
2. Reduce our carbon imprint through an energy reduction drive (already well supported by the community)
3. Improve the efficiency of land transportation and its consumption of fossil fuels
4. Increase the green energy production within our country and reduce the use of coal fired power stations
5. Demand more from our governments whilst doing more at a personal level.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Comments from Tim Flannery
This week I attended Energy21 in Australia. Tim Flannery was the key note address speaker (Australian of the year) with some interesting things to say. It went something like this:
If you took the world’s air, and compressed it to a liquid its volume would make up 1/500th of that of the oceans. Given therefore the container size (a great deal less that the oceans) the air is much more sensitive to pollutants (by volume) that the sea.
Over the last 120 years we have introduced a number of technologies that threaten the balance ecology of this planet directly. These impacts have all been to the atmospheric ecosystem. The first of these technologies was the electrical production based on coal fired (and now oil and gas fired) power stations. The second was the introduction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in 1928 and the third was the internal combustion engine (petrol and diesel based) that drives a lot of our ground based transportation today.
We faced two crisis now facing our third crisis as a result of the rapid uptake of these technologies.
Let’s talk about these crisis and our responses:
The first crisis was acid rain. The sulphur dioxide from both the production of electricity from coal fired power stations was seen to cause acid rain; which was destroying the forests. This was observed after the fact (many years of SO2 build up) but was acted upon quickly with scrubbers installed at power stations. The resulting management of the problem has had an immediate impact.
Fortunately for us SO2 is short ivied in the atmosphere, it is quickly dropped out by combining with water causing H2SO4 (Sulphuric Acid) hence the term acid rain1.
See: http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html
CFC’s and GHG’c unfortunately are longer term problems. Once created their life is in the order of hundreds of years.
Turning then to CFC’s; the second problem. We realized in the 1970’s that a hole was growing over the south pole. But it took us until the late 80’s to understand the link between CFC’s and Ozone depletion. To put this in proportion, in Australia Tim Flannery tell us that you have about 20 minutes when you go outside (without protection) before you become sunburned. This is at today’s protection rate where the Ozone layer blocks 90% of the sun’s harmful UV rays. If we didn’t act to stop the hole in the Ozone layer and deplete it completely (which was possible) then we would walk outside and be burnt in 20 seconds. This level of UV would destroy life (plant & animal) on this planet as we know it, so again something had to be done quickly. The Montreal Protocol banded the production of CFC’s and the Ozone hole has stabilized. It will take many years for the Ozone levels to rebuild, but the catastrophic possibility of Ozone depletion was avoided.
Now the third impact of our electrical production and transport technologies is creation of Green House Gases (GHG’s). We spill an increasing amount into the same container that we breathe from. The impact is Climate Change. Why are we surprised? With acid rain and ozone holes we have seen that we have large impacts on this relatively small container in a short time. As I mentioned above air is 1/500th of the oceans volume; so a little amount of GHG’s has a large influence. Unlike the impact of sewage and other contaminates in our oceans, our influence in the air is much higher.
The issue is this:
- Unlike water pollution – it’s difficult to see the impact because CO2 is invisible.
- Unlike Ozone and acid rain, the impact will have an avalanche point (it will have small impacts then cascade in impact)
- Temperature change (climate change) is very small (only 0.6oC average at the moment)
BUT
It’s there, and 2oC change will be catastrophic. We have already seen the impact of drought and storms due to 0.6oC increase throughout the world. When the polar ice starts melting, instead of the ice reflecting solar radiation, the blue sea will absorb it, so this provides a positive feedback loop that will reveal itself as an “avalanche” of change.
There is no doubt we can act and be successful in combating air pollution like acid rain and CFC’s – but we must start now otherwise we will enter the avalanche period and then there is no turning back. The impact of CFC’s and sulphurdioxide pollutant also to some degree acts as coolants. The risk is when we cut that pollution; the GHG’s again accelerate the impact of the current levels of GHG’s in the atmosphere. And, unlike Sulphur, the GHG’s will take hundreds of years to reduce their levels. So it is important we react and react strongly. For the impact is social and economic. More storms are obvious, drought and lower agricultural production is obvious.
Tim was very enlightening as a speaker, and in addressing the energy conference (Energy21 - Sydney) he made provocative and pointed requests to the power industry to take positive action and not wait for regulation to push them in a direction. He mentioned the culpability of the senior management teams in those organizations who understand the impact but use economics as a reason for inaction. The Stern report lays out well the fact that the mid to longer term economic impacts of inaction. This impact on all of us in society is actually the reason to do something and doing it now.
1Since coal and petroleum often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulphur dioxide. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, and thus acid rain.
If you took the world’s air, and compressed it to a liquid its volume would make up 1/500th of that of the oceans. Given therefore the container size (a great deal less that the oceans) the air is much more sensitive to pollutants (by volume) that the sea.
Over the last 120 years we have introduced a number of technologies that threaten the balance ecology of this planet directly. These impacts have all been to the atmospheric ecosystem. The first of these technologies was the electrical production based on coal fired (and now oil and gas fired) power stations. The second was the introduction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in 1928 and the third was the internal combustion engine (petrol and diesel based) that drives a lot of our ground based transportation today.
We faced two crisis now facing our third crisis as a result of the rapid uptake of these technologies.
Let’s talk about these crisis and our responses:
The first crisis was acid rain. The sulphur dioxide from both the production of electricity from coal fired power stations was seen to cause acid rain; which was destroying the forests. This was observed after the fact (many years of SO2 build up) but was acted upon quickly with scrubbers installed at power stations. The resulting management of the problem has had an immediate impact.
Fortunately for us SO2 is short ivied in the atmosphere, it is quickly dropped out by combining with water causing H2SO4 (Sulphuric Acid) hence the term acid rain1.
See: http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html
CFC’s and GHG’c unfortunately are longer term problems. Once created their life is in the order of hundreds of years.
Turning then to CFC’s; the second problem. We realized in the 1970’s that a hole was growing over the south pole. But it took us until the late 80’s to understand the link between CFC’s and Ozone depletion. To put this in proportion, in Australia Tim Flannery tell us that you have about 20 minutes when you go outside (without protection) before you become sunburned. This is at today’s protection rate where the Ozone layer blocks 90% of the sun’s harmful UV rays. If we didn’t act to stop the hole in the Ozone layer and deplete it completely (which was possible) then we would walk outside and be burnt in 20 seconds. This level of UV would destroy life (plant & animal) on this planet as we know it, so again something had to be done quickly. The Montreal Protocol banded the production of CFC’s and the Ozone hole has stabilized. It will take many years for the Ozone levels to rebuild, but the catastrophic possibility of Ozone depletion was avoided.
Now the third impact of our electrical production and transport technologies is creation of Green House Gases (GHG’s). We spill an increasing amount into the same container that we breathe from. The impact is Climate Change. Why are we surprised? With acid rain and ozone holes we have seen that we have large impacts on this relatively small container in a short time. As I mentioned above air is 1/500th of the oceans volume; so a little amount of GHG’s has a large influence. Unlike the impact of sewage and other contaminates in our oceans, our influence in the air is much higher.
The issue is this:
- Unlike water pollution – it’s difficult to see the impact because CO2 is invisible.
- Unlike Ozone and acid rain, the impact will have an avalanche point (it will have small impacts then cascade in impact)
- Temperature change (climate change) is very small (only 0.6oC average at the moment)
BUT
It’s there, and 2oC change will be catastrophic. We have already seen the impact of drought and storms due to 0.6oC increase throughout the world. When the polar ice starts melting, instead of the ice reflecting solar radiation, the blue sea will absorb it, so this provides a positive feedback loop that will reveal itself as an “avalanche” of change.
There is no doubt we can act and be successful in combating air pollution like acid rain and CFC’s – but we must start now otherwise we will enter the avalanche period and then there is no turning back. The impact of CFC’s and sulphurdioxide pollutant also to some degree acts as coolants. The risk is when we cut that pollution; the GHG’s again accelerate the impact of the current levels of GHG’s in the atmosphere. And, unlike Sulphur, the GHG’s will take hundreds of years to reduce their levels. So it is important we react and react strongly. For the impact is social and economic. More storms are obvious, drought and lower agricultural production is obvious.
Tim was very enlightening as a speaker, and in addressing the energy conference (Energy21 - Sydney) he made provocative and pointed requests to the power industry to take positive action and not wait for regulation to push them in a direction. He mentioned the culpability of the senior management teams in those organizations who understand the impact but use economics as a reason for inaction. The Stern report lays out well the fact that the mid to longer term economic impacts of inaction. This impact on all of us in society is actually the reason to do something and doing it now.
1Since coal and petroleum often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulphur dioxide. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, and thus acid rain.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Jacque's bark
After yesterdays’ blog entry, I was contemplating the issue of why there are still people resisting Climate Change initiatives. Even if you don’t believe that climate change will happen from our dumping of Green House Gases into the atmosphere, you must support an approach that reverses the impact humans are having on the earth, making it less habitable every year – so, by this reasoning a more conservative approach to any “dumping” is a good thing; right? Then later today I saw this following comment by famous filmmaker and scientist Jacques Cousteau:
“Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans”....
We do need to protect the air and water, and I would have thought that leadership should be shown by the developed countries of the world and encouragement given to those developing nations to follow suit. This is the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol together with the more urgent need to address catastrophic climate change scenarios predicted by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). But as I say, support of Kyoto does not have do endorse Climate Change science, it provides a foundation of an approach that is needed to address Jacques famous statement about air and water.
“Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans”....
We do need to protect the air and water, and I would have thought that leadership should be shown by the developed countries of the world and encouragement given to those developing nations to follow suit. This is the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol together with the more urgent need to address catastrophic climate change scenarios predicted by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). But as I say, support of Kyoto does not have do endorse Climate Change science, it provides a foundation of an approach that is needed to address Jacques famous statement about air and water.
What’s the fuss about Kyoto?
We (the bigger “we” meaning those scientist vested with advising governments) have know for sometime that the earth’s balance is being disrupted by the impact of human activities. I don’t think in fact any one actually disputes this fact. It just the amount of impact that everyone seems hung up on.
Back in 1972 at the UN Conference for Human Environment in Stockholm pollution was the main theme on the agenda. The meeting drew attention to the fact that something dramatic was happening to the environment and that the parties present should find out about the effects and causes and take voluntary steps towards reducing pollution. No specific pollutants were mentioned.
Twenty years later we knew more. It had been observed that certain gases were having dramatic effect on our environment. The primary culprits were found to be 6 Green House Gases (GHG). They were isolated as being the most responsible. So, in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio - also known as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; 189 parties gathered together to make an agreement to reduce emissions of these GHG’s.
Unfortunately even though the knowledge of impact is there, the mechanisms of the climate and atmosphere are complex and therefore consensus takes sometime. My feeling is where doubt based on good scientific observation is in place we should act, because if we wait until it is absolutely unequivocal to all, it will be much too late to reserve the impacts.
Here’s the rub. The developed nations of the world are the primary producers of GHG from back in the 60’s till now. So the Kyoto accord decided to get those nations that profited creating GHG’s to start the reduction program. The program is a non-binding program to reduce GHG’s and the developing nations such as India and China (although larger producers now) do not have to sign off on reductions at this point.
Whilst many countries signed off on the above principles two notable exceptions (Australia and the USA) decided that they weren’t going to sign. They sight the fact that China and India don’t have to make reduction commitments and all sorts of things. But the fact is the USA and Australia (Australia on a per capita basis) are significant contributors GHG’s. America on the basis that it is 5% of the world’s population and contributes 25% of GHG’s - it has a lot to answer for…… The US also consumes 40% of the world’s oil, so just imagine if we don’t set and example and China plus India (2.4 Billion people) end up with the same rate of consumption and GHG production! Whew!
Note the Kyoto targets are actually non-binding, but they get the system of reduction mindedness and carbon trading in place for a more significant set of measures likely to be introduced in 2012. In its most simple form we have to sign off and move forward as leading nations of the world. To not do so only shows ignorance, arrogance and stupidity by the leaders of Australia and the USA.
Back in 1972 at the UN Conference for Human Environment in Stockholm pollution was the main theme on the agenda. The meeting drew attention to the fact that something dramatic was happening to the environment and that the parties present should find out about the effects and causes and take voluntary steps towards reducing pollution. No specific pollutants were mentioned.
Twenty years later we knew more. It had been observed that certain gases were having dramatic effect on our environment. The primary culprits were found to be 6 Green House Gases (GHG). They were isolated as being the most responsible. So, in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio - also known as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; 189 parties gathered together to make an agreement to reduce emissions of these GHG’s.
Unfortunately even though the knowledge of impact is there, the mechanisms of the climate and atmosphere are complex and therefore consensus takes sometime. My feeling is where doubt based on good scientific observation is in place we should act, because if we wait until it is absolutely unequivocal to all, it will be much too late to reserve the impacts.
Here’s the rub. The developed nations of the world are the primary producers of GHG from back in the 60’s till now. So the Kyoto accord decided to get those nations that profited creating GHG’s to start the reduction program. The program is a non-binding program to reduce GHG’s and the developing nations such as India and China (although larger producers now) do not have to sign off on reductions at this point.
Whilst many countries signed off on the above principles two notable exceptions (Australia and the USA) decided that they weren’t going to sign. They sight the fact that China and India don’t have to make reduction commitments and all sorts of things. But the fact is the USA and Australia (Australia on a per capita basis) are significant contributors GHG’s. America on the basis that it is 5% of the world’s population and contributes 25% of GHG’s - it has a lot to answer for…… The US also consumes 40% of the world’s oil, so just imagine if we don’t set and example and China plus India (2.4 Billion people) end up with the same rate of consumption and GHG production! Whew!
Note the Kyoto targets are actually non-binding, but they get the system of reduction mindedness and carbon trading in place for a more significant set of measures likely to be introduced in 2012. In its most simple form we have to sign off and move forward as leading nations of the world. To not do so only shows ignorance, arrogance and stupidity by the leaders of Australia and the USA.
Monday, October 15, 2007
10 things to help the planet
While it's often the grand environmental gestures that grab the headlines, simple actions such as turning off your lights can have a big cumulative effect. Here are 10 of the most cost-effective planet-friendly actions that almost anyone can do immediately.
1. Select Green Power Alternatives
Most electrical utilities now have offer green alternatives. Rather than making it the Utilities problem (because it is after all us using the power) – wouldn’t it be a nice problem if the demand for green power exceeded that of traditional forms of power. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were consumers that forced the change and not governments? Many consumers have already voted with their cheque books to install solar heating and gain the longer term benefit.
2. Reduce Standby Power
One of the big issues we have these days is all consumer products we have with the standby setting. Computers, stereos, TV’s and a spectrum of devices consume 10% of our energy needs when they are not in use. Cutting down on waste can be a big saving in the back pocket as well as saving our planet. Grouping of appliances office powerboards is an easy approach to handle this…
3. Change Light Bulbs
Incandescent light bulbs work by heating a filament up until it glows white hot. The result? About 90% of the energy is converted to heat and about 10% to light. A solid state light source will be the future answer LED (Light emitting diodes) are making their way into traffic lights and car stop lamps. Because they produce no heat they don’t suffer from thermal shock of a normal light bulb and so have 10 time the life. Today compact fluoro lamps will save 75% of your energy bill and again last much longer. They have sizes and shapes to replace all today’s traditional light bulbs.
4. Shower Efficiently
Heating water takes energy. Replacing the shower head with an efficient model not only save water, but keeps your hot water bills low! About 20% of the water you use goes down the plug hole with out hitting your body. The saving here is obvious.
5. Wash Clothes in Cold Water
With today’s detergents cold water does the same job at hot water. So coldwater washes help to shave an average of 475Kg of Greenhouse gases from the environment per family.
6. Dry Clothes naturally
The sun is an excellent clothes dryer. And, given that $100 of your annual bill is the clothes dryer, you can stand to save money by going back to the time tested method of clothes drying for the majority of needs.
7. Use aircon efficiently
A setting of between 24 and 27 in mid summer helps to reduce bills and still keeps a room comfortable. For every degree C that you reduce that setting you burn an extra 10%-15% of energy – again padding out the energy bill and contributing to tonnes more carbon in the atmosphere.
8. Check your fridge
The fridge is one of the big consumers of electricity because it works constantly day in day out. Poor door seals are the area to target here. A poor door seal can leak cold air out and keep the compressor running for much longer cycles. This again increases your bill unnecessarily. Ensuring that cold items are replaced in the fridge sooner rather than left out to heat up and then be put back in the fridge is another area to target.
9. Walk don’t drive
General principle; if it saves fuel it saves the planet. Riding a bike and walking can save fuel with each journey. We use our bikes for the trip to the local eatery, the trip to and from the gym and a host of other 1-2km journeys. Not only does it save you pocket and the planet, but it keeps you fitter as well.
10. Public Transport and car pooling
As above – if it saves fuel it save the planet. Linking this with other moves like more fuel efficient cars, hybrids, diesel, bio fuel using cars and mass transportation help to make the air more breathable and keep your cost at bay.
1. Select Green Power Alternatives
Most electrical utilities now have offer green alternatives. Rather than making it the Utilities problem (because it is after all us using the power) – wouldn’t it be a nice problem if the demand for green power exceeded that of traditional forms of power. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were consumers that forced the change and not governments? Many consumers have already voted with their cheque books to install solar heating and gain the longer term benefit.
2. Reduce Standby Power
One of the big issues we have these days is all consumer products we have with the standby setting. Computers, stereos, TV’s and a spectrum of devices consume 10% of our energy needs when they are not in use. Cutting down on waste can be a big saving in the back pocket as well as saving our planet. Grouping of appliances office powerboards is an easy approach to handle this…
3. Change Light Bulbs
Incandescent light bulbs work by heating a filament up until it glows white hot. The result? About 90% of the energy is converted to heat and about 10% to light. A solid state light source will be the future answer LED (Light emitting diodes) are making their way into traffic lights and car stop lamps. Because they produce no heat they don’t suffer from thermal shock of a normal light bulb and so have 10 time the life. Today compact fluoro lamps will save 75% of your energy bill and again last much longer. They have sizes and shapes to replace all today’s traditional light bulbs.
4. Shower Efficiently
Heating water takes energy. Replacing the shower head with an efficient model not only save water, but keeps your hot water bills low! About 20% of the water you use goes down the plug hole with out hitting your body. The saving here is obvious.
5. Wash Clothes in Cold Water
With today’s detergents cold water does the same job at hot water. So coldwater washes help to shave an average of 475Kg of Greenhouse gases from the environment per family.
6. Dry Clothes naturally
The sun is an excellent clothes dryer. And, given that $100 of your annual bill is the clothes dryer, you can stand to save money by going back to the time tested method of clothes drying for the majority of needs.
7. Use aircon efficiently
A setting of between 24 and 27 in mid summer helps to reduce bills and still keeps a room comfortable. For every degree C that you reduce that setting you burn an extra 10%-15% of energy – again padding out the energy bill and contributing to tonnes more carbon in the atmosphere.
8. Check your fridge
The fridge is one of the big consumers of electricity because it works constantly day in day out. Poor door seals are the area to target here. A poor door seal can leak cold air out and keep the compressor running for much longer cycles. This again increases your bill unnecessarily. Ensuring that cold items are replaced in the fridge sooner rather than left out to heat up and then be put back in the fridge is another area to target.
9. Walk don’t drive
General principle; if it saves fuel it saves the planet. Riding a bike and walking can save fuel with each journey. We use our bikes for the trip to the local eatery, the trip to and from the gym and a host of other 1-2km journeys. Not only does it save you pocket and the planet, but it keeps you fitter as well.
10. Public Transport and car pooling
As above – if it saves fuel it save the planet. Linking this with other moves like more fuel efficient cars, hybrids, diesel, bio fuel using cars and mass transportation help to make the air more breathable and keep your cost at bay.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
We just say we are committed
I think the latest news from the Australian Prime Ministers office is a classic political run around. Get the latest statement from Howard published in the Energy Supply Association of Australia magazine:
Firstly the “I support comment” from Howard:
Prime Minister John Howard has welcomed an announcement by the United States of a meeting of major economies in late September to progress an initiative by President George W. Bush to build a broader coalition for practical international climate change action.
Next the “Democratic run around”:
Prime Minister John Howard has made a decision to defer setting a long-term target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions until the full facts are known. “Otherwise one might come up with a lot of emotional and political responses that may or may not be the best, and I think in a democracy it’s important to see there is an informed debate in officialdom as well as in the public.”
Well that’s great given most informed people know how long the Howard government has also been dancing around the lack of commitment to Kyoto. He has had years to have “informed debate” but of course hasn’t.
Action is needed according to a final report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
“A greater focus on adapting to climate change is required to reduce Australia’s vulnerability. Impact on major infrastructure is likely to increase in Australia. By 2030, design criteria for extreme events are very likely to be exceeded more frequently: risks include more blackouts, failure of floodplain protection and urban drainage-sewerage, increased storm and fire damage, and more heatwaves. In addition, water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia as a result of reduced precipitation and increased evaporation.”
We need someone with the guts to take action, otherwise we have to live with a decision maker who only has his political interests at heart; not our longer term wellbeing.
Firstly the “I support comment” from Howard:
Prime Minister John Howard has welcomed an announcement by the United States of a meeting of major economies in late September to progress an initiative by President George W. Bush to build a broader coalition for practical international climate change action.
Next the “Democratic run around”:
Prime Minister John Howard has made a decision to defer setting a long-term target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions until the full facts are known. “Otherwise one might come up with a lot of emotional and political responses that may or may not be the best, and I think in a democracy it’s important to see there is an informed debate in officialdom as well as in the public.”
Well that’s great given most informed people know how long the Howard government has also been dancing around the lack of commitment to Kyoto. He has had years to have “informed debate” but of course hasn’t.
Action is needed according to a final report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
“A greater focus on adapting to climate change is required to reduce Australia’s vulnerability. Impact on major infrastructure is likely to increase in Australia. By 2030, design criteria for extreme events are very likely to be exceeded more frequently: risks include more blackouts, failure of floodplain protection and urban drainage-sewerage, increased storm and fire damage, and more heatwaves. In addition, water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia as a result of reduced precipitation and increased evaporation.”
We need someone with the guts to take action, otherwise we have to live with a decision maker who only has his political interests at heart; not our longer term wellbeing.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Getting the household involved
The report the third in the IPCC series has been hailed by many for bridging differences on the issue of climate change. The report shows scientific consensus that human activity was to blame for climate change and that global warming was already adversely affecting human, animal and plant life.
As I have outlined in this blog many times efficiency within the transport, buildings and household is one key factor that can lower emissions without a real change to lifestyle. It is clear the next two to three decades are crucial in setting the stage for stabilisation of the concentration of carbon dioxide, the key greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.
I am an advocate for action such as a fuel tax or mechanisms that bind us to the limits for carbon dioxide emissions set by the Kyoto Protocol. However not all actions should be at a Governmental level. On the efficiency end we can get our children involved at a household level and bring up their awareness. Here’s how we are doing it in our house…
Our children get pocket money like many other children. But they need to invoice us as parents on a weekly basis. No invoice, no pocket money. The end amount scales up to a maximum sum that they get if they have made adequate contribution that week. Within our “family council” we have evolved the design of the invoice over time to include aspects such as tidiness and energy consumption…. their actions to turn of lights, aircon and reduce our consumption of electricity is a factor in the weekly pocket money. In Singapore it’s hot every night, so they have the responsibility to turn off aircon when they come out of their rooms in the morning. Lack of action on this item will reduce the amount they can claim for that day.
It’s worked for us; we don’t have to harp on about turning off electrical devices and saving energy. And, our discussion and agreement around the invoice design gets agreement on what’s important and why. It’s a simple one page sheet with tick boxes and it sits on a clip board in the room. The use is daily (although I must admit sometimes this needs a little reminder!). Even discussion on what temperature we should set the thermostat to is a critical discussion.
For short trips (to the local shops and Roti Prata stall) we use and encourage bike riding rather than taking the car on these short trips. Again you can engage your family in a discussion about the impact of this action - raising awareness and benefit of reducing car usage. 
Depending on your views it is also known that one non-technical option for mitigating climate change, is eating less meat. Emissions associated with the beef cycle are significant however we have not invoked this, and prefer to use other mechanisms to reduce our carbon footprint. But the family discussion is worth the time and effort again just to look at how the earth is impacted by our activity and what actions is appropriate for us as a family to minimize our footprint.
As I have outlined in this blog many times efficiency within the transport, buildings and household is one key factor that can lower emissions without a real change to lifestyle. It is clear the next two to three decades are crucial in setting the stage for stabilisation of the concentration of carbon dioxide, the key greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.
I am an advocate for action such as a fuel tax or mechanisms that bind us to the limits for carbon dioxide emissions set by the Kyoto Protocol. However not all actions should be at a Governmental level. On the efficiency end we can get our children involved at a household level and bring up their awareness. Here’s how we are doing it in our house…
Our children get pocket money like many other children. But they need to invoice us as parents on a weekly basis. No invoice, no pocket money. The end amount scales up to a maximum sum that they get if they have made adequate contribution that week. Within our “family council” we have evolved the design of the invoice over time to include aspects such as tidiness and energy consumption…. their actions to turn of lights, aircon and reduce our consumption of electricity is a factor in the weekly pocket money. In Singapore it’s hot every night, so they have the responsibility to turn off aircon when they come out of their rooms in the morning. Lack of action on this item will reduce the amount they can claim for that day.
It’s worked for us; we don’t have to harp on about turning off electrical devices and saving energy. And, our discussion and agreement around the invoice design gets agreement on what’s important and why. It’s a simple one page sheet with tick boxes and it sits on a clip board in the room. The use is daily (although I must admit sometimes this needs a little reminder!). Even discussion on what temperature we should set the thermostat to is a critical discussion.
Replacing all bulbs that were incandescent with low energy long light bulbs was another action that is simple and effective action that reduces consumption without changing lifestyle. Have a look at this slide from a kids school presentation that I did. The first
For short trips (to the local shops and Roti Prata stall) we use and encourage bike riding rather than taking the car on these short trips. Again you can engage your family in a discussion about the impact of this action - raising awareness and benefit of reducing car usage. Depending on your views it is also known that one non-technical option for mitigating climate change, is eating less meat. Emissions associated with the beef cycle are significant however we have not invoked this, and prefer to use other mechanisms to reduce our carbon footprint. But the family discussion is worth the time and effort again just to look at how the earth is impacted by our activity and what actions is appropriate for us as a family to minimize our footprint.
Cutting your losses
With drought one of the biggest concerns in terms of climate impacts, the world is in a good position to both adapt to and mitigate climate change, if it is able to reduce green house gas now. Australia is in a good position to help this issue because water has always been scarce that country.
By using water in different ways you can get a lot of outcomes from one bucket of water.
At the moment water is very cheap and there's a lot of it around, so farmers tend to let it drain through the soil profile, causing problems such as wetland salinity. Only 70% of irrigation supply makes it onto the farm, the rest seeps into the groundwater or evaporates.
What we need to do is reduce demand and increase efficiency, and there are a number of steps that can accommodate that. For example, automated water control systems, and improvements in weather forecasting could both reduce the amount of water being pumped around any country. On Australia's typically long flat rivers it takes about a week for water to get from a dam source to irrigators, and if it rains in region being irrigated in the meantime that rainwater water goes to waste. So an integrated view of weather prediction must be coupled with irrigation.
In urban areas, the energy impact of water can be decreased by a shift towards local supplies, reducing household demand (with water efficient shower heads and better appliances), recycling on site and pumping water less around cities.
Cities can be much more water efficient than they have been. For example you could be using wetlands to trap stormwater and pumping that back to houses for gardens as a second reticulation system. My earlier blog also covered some need inventions in Australia for reusing grey and black water.
Eventually countries need to find new water supply systems, and this is where R&D can help to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Desalination and recycling have high energy costs but new technologies are being developed that could reduce energy needs eight-fold, says Prosser. Nanotechnology being developed by CSIRO in Australia and local university scientists can improve the membranes used to remove salt or pollutants from desalinated or recycled water. The membrane massively increases throughput rate and reduces clogging, so less force is required to push water through the membrane.
Other options include storing water in aquifers or pumping out groundwater, (although this can have severe consequences for some ecosystems).
Australia has an unprecedented budget surplus from the commodity boom in Asia. This is where the spending should be reallocated from. Again in a brilliant political move the Australian Prime Minister John Howard funnels the money to households as increases in social spending to buy the voters at this years elections – rather than producing some research activity that will boost Australia’s position in fighting climate change. “Good on ya John” again like Bush, great demonstrations of leadership (not!).
While we're fitting new taps, cycling to work and switching to solar power the inevitable impacts of climate change will be landing heavily on those perhaps least equipped to change - the biological world around us.
Many climate impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation, but even the most stringent mitigation efforts cannot avoid further impacts of climate change in the next few decades.
In Australian some species are vulnerable to even moderate climate change. With a 1-2 degree rise 88% of butterfly core habitat is lost, and there would be a 40% drop in total Eucalyptus species numbers. With catastrophic climate change - when temperatures rise over 5 degrees C - 90-100% of core habitat is lost for most of our native species. So, we are in a critical situation in Australia that will be impacted. Overseas in some countries this will even be greater.
Here’s some interesting links (all thanks to the ABC):
Climate impact in Australia: More bushfires, worse droughts and the death of the Great Barrier Reef. These are just some of the impacts predicted for Australia in the latest UN Climate Change report.
The Road to 2050: Never before has climate change been such a hot topic for the public. ABC Science series of features on what the science says we should be doing, what the policy makers and industry leaders are doing, and what we ourselves can do to cut greenhouse emissions.
Council House Two - the eco-office block of the future: Council House Two, or CH2 as its known, is quite possibly the eco-office block of the future – many of its design principles have been taken from nature.
Climate change quiz: Climate change is one of the biggest and most controversial issues facing humanity today, but with information exceeding action it can be hard to see the wood for the trees. Take the quiz to find out what you know.
Greenhouse calculator: Are you a greenhouse pig? Maybe you're an environmental Ghandi. Try this 5 minute greenhouse calculator.
It's easy being greener: Climate change is big news at the moment. If you're inspired to do something about it then making a few simple changes where it counts can have a big impact.
Ask an expert - Climate change: Climate change is one of the major challenges facing humanity in the 21st Century. Here are the answers from some of Australia's top climate change experts.
By using water in different ways you can get a lot of outcomes from one bucket of water.
At the moment water is very cheap and there's a lot of it around, so farmers tend to let it drain through the soil profile, causing problems such as wetland salinity. Only 70% of irrigation supply makes it onto the farm, the rest seeps into the groundwater or evaporates.
What we need to do is reduce demand and increase efficiency, and there are a number of steps that can accommodate that. For example, automated water control systems, and improvements in weather forecasting could both reduce the amount of water being pumped around any country. On Australia's typically long flat rivers it takes about a week for water to get from a dam source to irrigators, and if it rains in region being irrigated in the meantime that rainwater water goes to waste. So an integrated view of weather prediction must be coupled with irrigation.
In urban areas, the energy impact of water can be decreased by a shift towards local supplies, reducing household demand (with water efficient shower heads and better appliances), recycling on site and pumping water less around cities.
Cities can be much more water efficient than they have been. For example you could be using wetlands to trap stormwater and pumping that back to houses for gardens as a second reticulation system. My earlier blog also covered some need inventions in Australia for reusing grey and black water.
Eventually countries need to find new water supply systems, and this is where R&D can help to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Desalination and recycling have high energy costs but new technologies are being developed that could reduce energy needs eight-fold, says Prosser. Nanotechnology being developed by CSIRO in Australia and local university scientists can improve the membranes used to remove salt or pollutants from desalinated or recycled water. The membrane massively increases throughput rate and reduces clogging, so less force is required to push water through the membrane.
Other options include storing water in aquifers or pumping out groundwater, (although this can have severe consequences for some ecosystems).
Australia has an unprecedented budget surplus from the commodity boom in Asia. This is where the spending should be reallocated from. Again in a brilliant political move the Australian Prime Minister John Howard funnels the money to households as increases in social spending to buy the voters at this years elections – rather than producing some research activity that will boost Australia’s position in fighting climate change. “Good on ya John” again like Bush, great demonstrations of leadership (not!).
While we're fitting new taps, cycling to work and switching to solar power the inevitable impacts of climate change will be landing heavily on those perhaps least equipped to change - the biological world around us.
Many climate impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation, but even the most stringent mitigation efforts cannot avoid further impacts of climate change in the next few decades.
In Australian some species are vulnerable to even moderate climate change. With a 1-2 degree rise 88% of butterfly core habitat is lost, and there would be a 40% drop in total Eucalyptus species numbers. With catastrophic climate change - when temperatures rise over 5 degrees C - 90-100% of core habitat is lost for most of our native species. So, we are in a critical situation in Australia that will be impacted. Overseas in some countries this will even be greater.
Here’s some interesting links (all thanks to the ABC):
Climate impact in Australia: More bushfires, worse droughts and the death of the Great Barrier Reef. These are just some of the impacts predicted for Australia in the latest UN Climate Change report.
The Road to 2050: Never before has climate change been such a hot topic for the public. ABC Science series of features on what the science says we should be doing, what the policy makers and industry leaders are doing, and what we ourselves can do to cut greenhouse emissions.
Council House Two - the eco-office block of the future: Council House Two, or CH2 as its known, is quite possibly the eco-office block of the future – many of its design principles have been taken from nature.
Climate change quiz: Climate change is one of the biggest and most controversial issues facing humanity today, but with information exceeding action it can be hard to see the wood for the trees. Take the quiz to find out what you know.
Greenhouse calculator: Are you a greenhouse pig? Maybe you're an environmental Ghandi. Try this 5 minute greenhouse calculator.
It's easy being greener: Climate change is big news at the moment. If you're inspired to do something about it then making a few simple changes where it counts can have a big impact.
Ask an expert - Climate change: Climate change is one of the major challenges facing humanity in the 21st Century. Here are the answers from some of Australia's top climate change experts.
It's hard to look intelligent George....
Bush can’t help it. He gets it wrong everyday. Look at this report from Europe:
Reported by the Straights Times – “DIVISIONS over how to confront climate change and regional security are looming over a summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) wealthy industrial economies.
Even before the summit begins today, the United States put a damper on proceedings by opposing a proposal to combat global warming by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the host of the summit, which takes place at the Baltic resort of Heiigendamm. The proposal calls for an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. The US opposes such a mandated reduction, preferring voluntary country-by-country targets. A lunch meeting between US President George W. Bush and Dr Merkel failed to close the gap, though both sides expressed a willingness to work together on climate change.”
Bush is clearly concerned about his oil interests. So here he is with the thought of “On one hand my oil interests, on the other Global Annihilation”. Hmm which one to take? Like a good politician with the thoughts of the people clearly at heart he chooses his oil interests.
As I have said before calling Bush a “leader” is a clear stretch of the imagination.
Here an interesting report from Greenland:
Video story
Bush is more concerned with the potential for Nuclear weapons in Korea and Iran. Climate takes the back burner. I read a great bit of dialog from the New York Times on this last year when the editorial said something like “oh yea, I get it, we (Americans) have the good nuclear weapons and the Koreans and Iranians have the bad ones; so we can’t allow that!”
So again Bush, leading the biggest Green House gas producing country in the world throws cold water on any sensible suggestion to save humanity – good for you George!
Reported by the Straights Times – “DIVISIONS over how to confront climate change and regional security are looming over a summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) wealthy industrial economies.
Even before the summit begins today, the United States put a damper on proceedings by opposing a proposal to combat global warming by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the host of the summit, which takes place at the Baltic resort of Heiigendamm. The proposal calls for an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. The US opposes such a mandated reduction, preferring voluntary country-by-country targets. A lunch meeting between US President George W. Bush and Dr Merkel failed to close the gap, though both sides expressed a willingness to work together on climate change.”
Bush is clearly concerned about his oil interests. So here he is with the thought of “On one hand my oil interests, on the other Global Annihilation”. Hmm which one to take? Like a good politician with the thoughts of the people clearly at heart he chooses his oil interests.
As I have said before calling Bush a “leader” is a clear stretch of the imagination.
Here an interesting report from Greenland:
Video story
Bush is more concerned with the potential for Nuclear weapons in Korea and Iran. Climate takes the back burner. I read a great bit of dialog from the New York Times on this last year when the editorial said something like “oh yea, I get it, we (Americans) have the good nuclear weapons and the Koreans and Iranians have the bad ones; so we can’t allow that!”
So again Bush, leading the biggest Green House gas producing country in the world throws cold water on any sensible suggestion to save humanity – good for you George!
Sunday, May 27, 2007
What we can do (cont.)
I’m still in Australia over this weekend, so I’ll keep the dialog on what can be done here. Interesting enough, in the last few days in Australia Seventy-five professors of economics have called on the Australian Federal Government to stop undermining international efforts to tackle climate change and ratify the Kyoto Protocol without delay. They are among 271 Australian university economists who have signed a statement drawing attention to the economic damage that could be done to Australia for failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Still, the government haven't got the message, let alone the intellect to act on it!
My earlier blog focused around Energy Production and Transport; the two big ones. It also mapped out some Agricultural activity and a link between innovation in water recycling and green house gas. What it also showed is that the problems are solved what we need is the impetus from our various Australia government to ensure implementation.
The NSW government announced on Friday it had the answer to Sydney’s pollution. Rather than tackle the problem it will just send out SMS’s to notify that it’s now dangerous today. What tosser in the government thought of that? I mean to say talk about putting your head in the sand!
Well, continuing on. They are plenty of real things that can be done.
Green buildings
The way we plan and build things can have a big impact on our carbon footprint. According to statistics from the Green Building Council of Australia, the built environment - including schools, hospitals, residential and commercial buildings - contributes 40% of all our energy consumption and uses 15% of our water.
Again I’ll say it the technology is all in place; just not the leadership. Estimates say new climate friendly buildings comes at a higher cost initially - from 3% to 10% more depending on how climate friendly you want to go - price signals would eventually bring the price down by creating more demand for environmentally efficient buildings. The overall sayings over 10 years far outweigh the initial additional costs. There is much money to be saved, unfortunately developers go for low build cost and are not impacted by the tenancy costs. So this has to be addressed at a legislative level. We also need incentives from the government to upgrade old buildings because it's more environmentally sound to upgrade an old building than it is to build new ones. Given the profile that Green House now has, shortly buildings where water, energy and indoor air quality are not upgraded are going to lose tenants.
Even those buildings where it is not economically feasible to upgrade can be managed more efficiently. Adopting sustainable energy supplies such as solar or wind power, adding sensors rather than light switches, or adding more switches so that only part of a floor's lights are switched on at once, are all simple improvements we can make.
Simple initiatives such as rainwater tanks, dual flush toilet systems, black and grey water treatment, and waterless urinals can save on water. The City of Melbourne head office, has a water mine in the basement and creates a surplus water supply that is used to water plants in the CBD. The Olympic Park development in Sydney is a great example of what is possible.
The Park showcases a variety of energy-efficient building designs and technologies which include:
My earlier blog focused around Energy Production and Transport; the two big ones. It also mapped out some Agricultural activity and a link between innovation in water recycling and green house gas. What it also showed is that the problems are solved what we need is the impetus from our various Australia government to ensure implementation.
The NSW government announced on Friday it had the answer to Sydney’s pollution. Rather than tackle the problem it will just send out SMS’s to notify that it’s now dangerous today. What tosser in the government thought of that? I mean to say talk about putting your head in the sand!
Well, continuing on. They are plenty of real things that can be done.
Green buildings
The way we plan and build things can have a big impact on our carbon footprint. According to statistics from the Green Building Council of Australia, the built environment - including schools, hospitals, residential and commercial buildings - contributes 40% of all our energy consumption and uses 15% of our water.
Again I’ll say it the technology is all in place; just not the leadership. Estimates say new climate friendly buildings comes at a higher cost initially - from 3% to 10% more depending on how climate friendly you want to go - price signals would eventually bring the price down by creating more demand for environmentally efficient buildings. The overall sayings over 10 years far outweigh the initial additional costs. There is much money to be saved, unfortunately developers go for low build cost and are not impacted by the tenancy costs. So this has to be addressed at a legislative level. We also need incentives from the government to upgrade old buildings because it's more environmentally sound to upgrade an old building than it is to build new ones. Given the profile that Green House now has, shortly buildings where water, energy and indoor air quality are not upgraded are going to lose tenants.
Even those buildings where it is not economically feasible to upgrade can be managed more efficiently. Adopting sustainable energy supplies such as solar or wind power, adding sensors rather than light switches, or adding more switches so that only part of a floor's lights are switched on at once, are all simple improvements we can make.
Simple initiatives such as rainwater tanks, dual flush toilet systems, black and grey water treatment, and waterless urinals can save on water. The City of Melbourne head office, has a water mine in the basement and creates a surplus water supply that is used to water plants in the CBD. The Olympic Park development in Sydney is a great example of what is possible.
The Park showcases a variety of energy-efficient building designs and technologies which include:
-30 metre high photovoltaic towers lining Olympic Boulevard
-extensive use of rooftop solar collection systems and solar hot water systems
-extensive use of natural lighting and ventilation
-innovative solar technology to power water pumps within the parklands
-extensive use of renewable energy sources ("Green Power").
The entire site serves as a physical demonstration of how a commitment to energy conservation can continue to be realised in terms of its supply, management and use.
Photo-Voltaic Lighting Towers
There are 19, 30 metre high photovoltaic (PV) towers on Olympic Boulevard. The towers provide lighting for Olympic Boulevard at night. The Photo-Voltaic collectors were developed by University of NSW and manufactured by BP Solar. Each tower has a generating capacity of 23 Kilowatt hours (kWh) per day, equivalent to the amount of energy used to power a small house. Power is fed into the main grid during the day and drawn from the grid at night. When all towers are operating they can produce between 130-160,000 kWh of energy each year, equivalent to their estimated annual energy consumption. 
Just imagine. How simple is this? Water pumping is done during the day when solar is available. Pumping and watering of greens doesn’t have to be done at night it can wait till the opportunity for energy arises. An old brick pit has become a huge reservoir of water. The processing again happens when the energy is available. It just needs minds set changes on energy use and sustainable alternatives; not doing without.
Here are the great fountains, powered by solar.
Here is the recycling station. Generating power on site and then completing the pumping cycle locally reduces so much waste. Especially when you know that 20% of energy is lost between the main power stations and the users on the city grid in Sydney. 
Finally, notice how I did my tour…. Yes, cycle power rather than car.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
What can we do
Today’s discussion is about what to do to reduce the carbon footprint.
Energy
The IPCC report (see links to the right) identifies the production of electricity as the primary target area for Green House Gas reduction; and running a close second the transport area. The reason that Howard won’t support the Kyoto Protocol is because he sees carbon trading schemes as hitting one of Australia’s biggest exports – coal. Despite this; Australia could be one of the leaders in this area. With low population density geosequestration (deep burial) of emissions are one of the obvious solutions for Australians to explore and export along with the energy source.
Shifting to sustainable power will also of course show a positive impact on the carbon pricing. This will in turn stimulate the alternative industry area to support these initiatives.
A carbon tax of A$20-$30 CO2 per tonne is the kind of incentive required to see 35% of energy coming from the renewables sector - such as solar, wind and wave energy. And it's a price industry can well afford to pay, according to the CSIRO Energy Futures Forum, with the Australian GDP continuing to thrive even if carbon pricing is introduced. In fact it will stimulate Australia capability in Solar and wave energy development. Areas where we have an abundance of places to explore. Wind energy I think is monopolised by the Europeans, so lets see some focus on these two areas in Australian development. In fact we should give incentives to early development - to the CSIRO or BP Solar (Sydney) – a very much going concern for that matter
Transport
From the transport area I have covered this subject a few days back. Car / Truck efficiency and fuel type are key; better biofuels and advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with improved batteries are important options to develop, and I’m sure if we had real leadership (remember my mention of this) in Australia we could get Toyota (already leaders in Hybrid) or GM or Ford to use Australia as a means to develop Hybrid and electric technology. (For Ford and GM Australia is that novel place somewhere down under – and its too far away to impact local markets, but it may be a way to have an each way bet on the future).
The humble car also generates lots of tyres per year. An Aussie called John Dobozy is one innovator we need. He runs Molectra Tyre Recycling. John has invented a new recycling technology for extracting lucrative materials from waste tyres, economically and environmentally. The process reclaims all of the components that make up a tyre cleanly and efficiently without waste, residue, or emissions whilst extracting various products for re-use. The process recycles one hundred percent of the tyre. John calls himself an ‘Innovation Architect’, and I know that he one of our thousands of potential Aussie innovations; given the right climate set from the government.
Agriculture
Again in Australia agriculture is capable of making significant contributions to climate mitigation and has already done so - by lowering emissions by 40% since 1990 levels, largely due to the ban on land clearing.
Emissions trading should be the major means of mitigation in agriculture, providing incentives for farmers to offset emissions by planting trees, or adapting greener practices. Farmers plant 20 million trees a year, which leaves any other tree planting program behind. But farmers can't be expected to take steps towards mitigation unless there are incentives to do so. Some individuals have had to pay a high price for the rest of the community to benefit.
One issue we have here is water. For instance there can be issues with water trading when combined with carbon credits, the other flag-bearer of mitigation efforts. If you wanted to turn pasture into forest (gaining carbon credits), it creates a decline in stream flow downstream (lowering your water trading capacity). This is where another couple of Australian innovations come to the fore.
I’m in Australia this week and I turned on the ABC tonight to see an invention called “Water Fresh”. Waterfresh is a mechanical water disinfection system, designed to kill pathogens. It is important because many country towns use traditional sewage treatment or septics as a means of treating effluent and grey water. Anthony (Tony) Dickson demonstrated tonight how he was inspired to create a new sewage treatment system when he was dining at a restaurant. As he sipped on a glass of water, he could smell and taste the chlorine and thought to himself, ‘surely we can do better than that’. He set about creating a water disinfection system that does not require large amounts of chemicals. The result is Waterfresh, a technology that can clean sewage to class A level and make drinking water without the use of free chlorine. This is innovation at work and linked with a tree planting program goes a long way to solve Australia’s water problems.
Focussing particuarly in the Agriculture region, just a short time ago again on the inventors program Dean Cameron demonstrated a thing he calls the The Biolytix Filter. It is a compact waste treatment system which converts raw sewage, wastewater and food waste into high quality irrigation water on site. So again another alternative. Eleven years ago, Dean was pained to see that existing waste treatment systems had foul smells, flies, and a regular need to be treated with chemicals, as well as a tendency to break down. Dean was convinced that nature had the answer, and the breakthrough came in his observations of forest litter decomposition. He found that the fastest and most efficent decomposition occurred not in the water, but on the riverbank. Dean carefully engineered the habitat needed for the complex food webs that thrive on the river edges, and the Biolytix “live wiggling” Filter system was born. Dean Cameron who is an ecologist. He is passionate about urban ecology, in particular designing and creating human habitats that integrate natural material and energy cycles. Dean wants to develop practical, replicable and affordable products for the 2.5 billion people worldwide who have inadequate housing, water, sanitation and nutrition.
John Howard’s answer to Australia’s water problems is praying. I say help yourself (or others) John! Get with the program and support Aussie innovation that can and will make a difference. John can stop praying and start acting; but as I say, we need a leader, and a leader he is not. He needs guys like Dean and Tony. So, get with the program John Howard and give attention (and impetus) to Dean Tony and the other Australian innovators!!
Energy
The IPCC report (see links to the right) identifies the production of electricity as the primary target area for Green House Gas reduction; and running a close second the transport area. The reason that Howard won’t support the Kyoto Protocol is because he sees carbon trading schemes as hitting one of Australia’s biggest exports – coal. Despite this; Australia could be one of the leaders in this area. With low population density geosequestration (deep burial) of emissions are one of the obvious solutions for Australians to explore and export along with the energy source.
Shifting to sustainable power will also of course show a positive impact on the carbon pricing. This will in turn stimulate the alternative industry area to support these initiatives.
A carbon tax of A$20-$30 CO2 per tonne is the kind of incentive required to see 35% of energy coming from the renewables sector - such as solar, wind and wave energy. And it's a price industry can well afford to pay, according to the CSIRO Energy Futures Forum, with the Australian GDP continuing to thrive even if carbon pricing is introduced. In fact it will stimulate Australia capability in Solar and wave energy development. Areas where we have an abundance of places to explore. Wind energy I think is monopolised by the Europeans, so lets see some focus on these two areas in Australian development. In fact we should give incentives to early development - to the CSIRO or BP Solar (Sydney) – a very much going concern for that matter
Transport
From the transport area I have covered this subject a few days back. Car / Truck efficiency and fuel type are key; better biofuels and advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with improved batteries are important options to develop, and I’m sure if we had real leadership (remember my mention of this) in Australia we could get Toyota (already leaders in Hybrid) or GM or Ford to use Australia as a means to develop Hybrid and electric technology. (For Ford and GM Australia is that novel place somewhere down under – and its too far away to impact local markets, but it may be a way to have an each way bet on the future).
The humble car also generates lots of tyres per year. An Aussie called John Dobozy is one innovator we need. He runs Molectra Tyre Recycling. John has invented a new recycling technology for extracting lucrative materials from waste tyres, economically and environmentally. The process reclaims all of the components that make up a tyre cleanly and efficiently without waste, residue, or emissions whilst extracting various products for re-use. The process recycles one hundred percent of the tyre. John calls himself an ‘Innovation Architect’, and I know that he one of our thousands of potential Aussie innovations; given the right climate set from the government.
Agriculture
Again in Australia agriculture is capable of making significant contributions to climate mitigation and has already done so - by lowering emissions by 40% since 1990 levels, largely due to the ban on land clearing.
Emissions trading should be the major means of mitigation in agriculture, providing incentives for farmers to offset emissions by planting trees, or adapting greener practices. Farmers plant 20 million trees a year, which leaves any other tree planting program behind. But farmers can't be expected to take steps towards mitigation unless there are incentives to do so. Some individuals have had to pay a high price for the rest of the community to benefit.
One issue we have here is water. For instance there can be issues with water trading when combined with carbon credits, the other flag-bearer of mitigation efforts. If you wanted to turn pasture into forest (gaining carbon credits), it creates a decline in stream flow downstream (lowering your water trading capacity). This is where another couple of Australian innovations come to the fore.
I’m in Australia this week and I turned on the ABC tonight to see an invention called “Water Fresh”. Waterfresh is a mechanical water disinfection system, designed to kill pathogens. It is important because many country towns use traditional sewage treatment or septics as a means of treating effluent and grey water. Anthony (Tony) Dickson demonstrated tonight how he was inspired to create a new sewage treatment system when he was dining at a restaurant. As he sipped on a glass of water, he could smell and taste the chlorine and thought to himself, ‘surely we can do better than that’. He set about creating a water disinfection system that does not require large amounts of chemicals. The result is Waterfresh, a technology that can clean sewage to class A level and make drinking water without the use of free chlorine. This is innovation at work and linked with a tree planting program goes a long way to solve Australia’s water problems.
Focussing particuarly in the Agriculture region, just a short time ago again on the inventors program Dean Cameron demonstrated a thing he calls the The Biolytix Filter. It is a compact waste treatment system which converts raw sewage, wastewater and food waste into high quality irrigation water on site. So again another alternative. Eleven years ago, Dean was pained to see that existing waste treatment systems had foul smells, flies, and a regular need to be treated with chemicals, as well as a tendency to break down. Dean was convinced that nature had the answer, and the breakthrough came in his observations of forest litter decomposition. He found that the fastest and most efficent decomposition occurred not in the water, but on the riverbank. Dean carefully engineered the habitat needed for the complex food webs that thrive on the river edges, and the Biolytix “live wiggling” Filter system was born. Dean Cameron who is an ecologist. He is passionate about urban ecology, in particular designing and creating human habitats that integrate natural material and energy cycles. Dean wants to develop practical, replicable and affordable products for the 2.5 billion people worldwide who have inadequate housing, water, sanitation and nutrition.
John Howard’s answer to Australia’s water problems is praying. I say help yourself (or others) John! Get with the program and support Aussie innovation that can and will make a difference. John can stop praying and start acting; but as I say, we need a leader, and a leader he is not. He needs guys like Dean and Tony. So, get with the program John Howard and give attention (and impetus) to Dean Tony and the other Australian innovators!!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
A shift of leadership
On Wednesday I mentioned the 160 odd countries that have ratified Kyoto (actually169 as of December 2006) and the two countries that have refused. USA and Australia are those two countries; they have signed the protocol document (agreed with it in principle) but refused to ratify (no implementation) showing what a lack of leadership two great countries can have.
Right now the only thing we need is leadership. Let me explore that thought…..
Over the past 10 years (coincidentally during the Bush administration) Leadership for Environmental Policy has migrated from the US to EU (European Union). At the same time enlightened companies (many of them US based multinationals) have changed from a Policy of controlling production waste (air, water and land pollution) to a Policy of preventing waste. That is they have sort to reduce their output of chemicals and gases (spilt from chimneys, waste water and landfill creation). They have, of their own initiative, sort to reduce their formation of Greenhouse Gas. The sensitivity for industrial output, as a result of their operations is (ie through electrical consumption of fossil fired power generation, and transport) is becoming more inline with what the needs of society are…... It is a heartening trend in industry but not in some Government Policy.
Now this is what I mean about leadership. While the U.S represents only five percent of the world's population, it consumes 25 percent of its energy and generates about 25 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. citizens, for example, use more energy per capita for transportation than do citizens of any other industrialized nation. With those statistics what is the US government doing? The US government seems to support the fact that the consumption of the average car in the USA is way under that of say the average car in China or Japan. In fact if you compare car standards in China you will see that fuel consumption is about 3 times better than the average American car. Why won’t the US leadership do something about that?
The consumption of the average car in Europe is better than that of China, and the fuel prices are manipulated to ensure that consumers are fuel consumption sensitive.
Australia also has the “World Price Parity” policy on fuel pricing despite the fact that it is over 70% self sufficient on fuel production. It is the consumer in the end that will dictate the consumption demanded by the vehicles they buy; so governments can and do act to work on the pricing of fossil fuels to adjust the demand. Some figures I saw recently showed that in fact the American public is very price sensitive, and an increase in US fuel prices to world parity levels would drastically cut consumption at the motorist level. This shows the lack of appetite for addressing the problem at a political level in the US (again demonstrating lack of leadership).
We can look further than the humble car. We can look to the use of renewable energy sources in electricity production. The countries of the European Union, taken together, constitute the leading world power in the development and application of renewable energies. Promotion of renewable energies plays an important role both in the reduction of the EU dependence on foreign energy imports and in the measures which it must take to combat climate change.
The Maastricht Treaty set an objective of promoting stable growth that is also protective of the environment. The Amsterdam Treaty added the principle of sustainable development to the objectives of the EU. Since 1997, the EU has been working towards a having renewable energies supply 12% of total EU energy consumption in 2010.
In the European Conference for Renewable Energy (Berlin 2004), the EU defined more ambitious goals. The recommendation is to meet a 20% of total energy consumption requirements with renewable energy sources by 2020. The EU and other nations have formed the group of "pioneer countries", to establish further go-getting national or even regional goals to achieve global targets. A key organization in this scheme is the Johannesburg Renewable Energy Coalition (JREC) has a total of more than 80 member countries, the EU, Brazil, South Africa and New Zealand among others. It is ambitious targets and goals set by these governments that clearly demonstrate where the leadership resides in respect of Climate Change and Green House gas reduction in the world. It’s not unfortunately in Australia or America.
Right now the only thing we need is leadership. Let me explore that thought…..
Over the past 10 years (coincidentally during the Bush administration) Leadership for Environmental Policy has migrated from the US to EU (European Union). At the same time enlightened companies (many of them US based multinationals) have changed from a Policy of controlling production waste (air, water and land pollution) to a Policy of preventing waste. That is they have sort to reduce their output of chemicals and gases (spilt from chimneys, waste water and landfill creation). They have, of their own initiative, sort to reduce their formation of Greenhouse Gas. The sensitivity for industrial output, as a result of their operations is (ie through electrical consumption of fossil fired power generation, and transport) is becoming more inline with what the needs of society are…... It is a heartening trend in industry but not in some Government Policy.
Now this is what I mean about leadership. While the U.S represents only five percent of the world's population, it consumes 25 percent of its energy and generates about 25 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. citizens, for example, use more energy per capita for transportation than do citizens of any other industrialized nation. With those statistics what is the US government doing? The US government seems to support the fact that the consumption of the average car in the USA is way under that of say the average car in China or Japan. In fact if you compare car standards in China you will see that fuel consumption is about 3 times better than the average American car. Why won’t the US leadership do something about that?
The consumption of the average car in Europe is better than that of China, and the fuel prices are manipulated to ensure that consumers are fuel consumption sensitive.
Australia also has the “World Price Parity” policy on fuel pricing despite the fact that it is over 70% self sufficient on fuel production. It is the consumer in the end that will dictate the consumption demanded by the vehicles they buy; so governments can and do act to work on the pricing of fossil fuels to adjust the demand. Some figures I saw recently showed that in fact the American public is very price sensitive, and an increase in US fuel prices to world parity levels would drastically cut consumption at the motorist level. This shows the lack of appetite for addressing the problem at a political level in the US (again demonstrating lack of leadership).We can look further than the humble car. We can look to the use of renewable energy sources in electricity production. The countries of the European Union, taken together, constitute the leading world power in the development and application of renewable energies. Promotion of renewable energies plays an important role both in the reduction of the EU dependence on foreign energy imports and in the measures which it must take to combat climate change.
The Maastricht Treaty set an objective of promoting stable growth that is also protective of the environment. The Amsterdam Treaty added the principle of sustainable development to the objectives of the EU. Since 1997, the EU has been working towards a having renewable energies supply 12% of total EU energy consumption in 2010.
In the European Conference for Renewable Energy (Berlin 2004), the EU defined more ambitious goals. The recommendation is to meet a 20% of total energy consumption requirements with renewable energy sources by 2020. The EU and other nations have formed the group of "pioneer countries", to establish further go-getting national or even regional goals to achieve global targets. A key organization in this scheme is the Johannesburg Renewable Energy Coalition (JREC) has a total of more than 80 member countries, the EU, Brazil, South Africa and New Zealand among others. It is ambitious targets and goals set by these governments that clearly demonstrate where the leadership resides in respect of Climate Change and Green House gas reduction in the world. It’s not unfortunately in Australia or America.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Front Page News
Today, on the front page of the main Singapore news paper was an article on “Global warming; The climate’s ripe for change”. This viewpoint followed the 15 minutes of lights out on Wednesday evening in Thailand. Not as a big an effort as Sydney’s lights out, and not nearly as well patronized. But it’s a start in somewhere like Bangkok. The press coverage was a great thing to see in Singapore. Front page articles like this bring the issue mainstream; with the apparent support of the Singapore Government.The article is reasonably informative covering the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its third assessment report released in Bangkok earlier in the month. It positions the Stern Report in the UK and the increasing violence witnessed in storms; relating this to climate change. It also mentions the awakening of the Australian public through the issue being bought to the forefront in the coming Australian elections. Finally it covers the deforestation in Indonesia, via burning off; and the impact this has on Singapore.
What I do like about this article is the way the writer brings in the recent memory of the SARS epidemic, and how the adoption of avoidance behaviour succeeded in preventing an outbreak. He says that “It was a lesson in human adaptability for the sake of survival”. Spot on comments, given the slowness of the public to respond to this much greater threat. Articles like this raise public awareness and bring it to an emotional level. One that I feel is necessary to invoke reaction.
Here in Singapore they have started to allocate funds for Green House reductions initiatives. And, the Government seems more in tune with the needs of the people than in Australia. So, getting it mainstream in the face of the people (front page Straights Times) is a good thing.
More could be done here in Singapore. The government have a good handle on adjusting the supply/demand dynamic of cars on the road through a system of auction for number plates. As the number of plates available is reduced the price goes up and the demand goes down. Australia needs some common sense approaches like this…… But why not extend this? Why not adjust the taxation on cars according to their standard measured fuel consumption? Increase the tax proportionally to poorer levels of consumption. Penalise fossil fuel over-use and reward thriftiness. This could be an extension of the way supply/demand is tweaked; making it directly related to CO2 output.
Emissions trading in considered one of the more effective approaches to Green House reduction programmes implicit in Kyoto Protocol. Let’s maintain the approach to Land transport at an individual level and use carbon taxing as means of getting everyone to contribute and be responsive to their carbon footprint and environmental impact. This could be extended to trucks and taxis, given their use of diesel. Bio-Diesel is a viable alternative which again could use tax systems to influence the demand side of the equation. Singapore could embrace this very quickly given the supply chain and distribution systems neatly package within the one island.
Now that public awareness is increasing; let’s take the political initiative in Singapore to the next level. Nirmal Ghosh, correspondent for the Straight Times, thanks for a well written and well positioned article.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
A Shrinking Issue
Here is a picture that shows the 2002 breakup of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in the Antarctic. This region covering approximately 3250 km2 with 200 m thick ice had been continuously glaciated since before the end of the last glacial period.
What this shows us is what we already know. The increase in temperature is melting the poles. The two significant areas of ice that are above sea level are those of Antarctica and Greenland. The melting of the Artic sea ice (North Pole) is not an issue for sea level change, as we all know – with icebergs, most of the mass is already below the sea level. However Greenland ice is all above the water level. And the Antarctic is a cap of frozen water some 5km deep in some places above the largest continent on the planet. This ice represents 80% of the world’s fresh water between them. Melting of either or both has dire consequences.
How could humans have created this impact on a planet like earth? We have quadrupled the population on the earth in the last 100 years. At the same time we have introduced technologies (car transport, plane transport and electric power generation) that burn fossil fuels at a huge rate of consumption - all in that 100 year history. This is a significant change since the dawn of humanity.
Previously I have talked about CO2; but what are the Green House gases?
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2),
• Methane (CH4),
• Nitrous Oxide (N20)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perflurocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6)
The top two are the most significant offenders, with CO2 the direct result of fossil fuel use and forest burning. Pump these into the air, and the heat can’t escape as it did before, so you get climate change (temperature increase). Just acting on CO2 and to a lesser extent Methane is the real task at hand. In totality though we must address all elements of the Green House gas equation.
With the climate change comes dramatic differences in the world’s climate (more drought in some areas, more violent storms in others). This effects crop production and collection of water for drinking. We of course are witnessing this first hand in Australia. Put on top of that a growing population off the current base of 6.5 Billion people and you have a crisis.
Now, moving away from the drama of this situation, the crisis is actually manageable if we take action at this moment in time. For Climate Change, time is of the essence.
Here are the actions that are needed:
A reduction in electricity production via coal (one of the worse polluters)
A reduction in consumption of electricity in the home and business
A reduction on the use of fossil fuels for transport
An increase in the use of renewable energy sources ie Electricity Generation with:
- Solar
- Wind
- Hydro
- Wave/tide
The use of Petrol/Diesel fuels alternatives:
- Electric Cars
- Fuel Cell powered Cars
- Smaller lighter cars with more fuel efficient engines (ie the Toyota hybrid)
- Bio fuels in Trucks and even in planes
An increase in the use of recycling as a means to reduce the energy used to create products from their natural state ie:
- Paper (also impacts deforestation and the absorption of CO2)
- Steel
- Aluminium
- Glass
This is not invoking rocket science or developing technologies that don’t exist. All the technologies above are in existence. The cost is just not commoditized because we haven’t taken steps to wean ourselves off petrol & coal, and make each alternative a main stream way of life.
The Australian governments’ move to subsidize solar energy installation is I think a poorly planned PR response. It’s an insult to intelligence when you consider the total $30M rebate cost is insignificant to the $10B subsidisation of fossil fuel based industries each year in Australia. For a start you could carbon tax and increase the price of carbon generating devices and industries and let the marketplace use free market dynamics to fill the gaps. The subsidisation currently devised favours solar, but has the effect of stifling other promising options. It creates a funnel effect on the evolution of energy production, and thereby innovation.
Kyoto, through Carbon Trading systems, has a similar impact to Carbon taxing, it increases the cost of carbon producing elements in our economic system and “finances” the innovation and alternative low carbon footprint industries, processes and transport alternatives. It doesn’t say which alternative; it lets the market define that issue. But our Australian government in their infinite wisdom did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This by the way is the same government that thought up the very limited response to political pressure but the brilliantly conceived solar system rebate (sarcasm, sorry!).
Here’s the position of the world today. Green is good, red is bad. What colour is Australia? Who did we follow like mindless idiots? George W Bush (oh of course! what a good idea, just like the current solar rebate increase!). I don’t see any leadership at all at the helm of the country I love.
Shame on our Australian Government!
So we have choices in this world. Individual and group choices. Let’s not vote for a narrow minded government that has a last minute reaction to political pressure and is still (and never was) on board with the single most important thing that we can do today. That is; committed reduction of our carbon footprint.
What this shows us is what we already know. The increase in temperature is melting the poles. The two significant areas of ice that are above sea level are those of Antarctica and Greenland. The melting of the Artic sea ice (North Pole) is not an issue for sea level change, as we all know – with icebergs, most of the mass is already below the sea level. However Greenland ice is all above the water level. And the Antarctic is a cap of frozen water some 5km deep in some places above the largest continent on the planet. This ice represents 80% of the world’s fresh water between them. Melting of either or both has dire consequences.
How could humans have created this impact on a planet like earth? We have quadrupled the population on the earth in the last 100 years. At the same time we have introduced technologies (car transport, plane transport and electric power generation) that burn fossil fuels at a huge rate of consumption - all in that 100 year history. This is a significant change since the dawn of humanity.
Previously I have talked about CO2; but what are the Green House gases?
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2),
• Methane (CH4),
• Nitrous Oxide (N20)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
• Perflurocarbons (PFCs)
• Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6)
The top two are the most significant offenders, with CO2 the direct result of fossil fuel use and forest burning. Pump these into the air, and the heat can’t escape as it did before, so you get climate change (temperature increase). Just acting on CO2 and to a lesser extent Methane is the real task at hand. In totality though we must address all elements of the Green House gas equation.
With the climate change comes dramatic differences in the world’s climate (more drought in some areas, more violent storms in others). This effects crop production and collection of water for drinking. We of course are witnessing this first hand in Australia. Put on top of that a growing population off the current base of 6.5 Billion people and you have a crisis.
Now, moving away from the drama of this situation, the crisis is actually manageable if we take action at this moment in time. For Climate Change, time is of the essence.
Here are the actions that are needed:
A reduction in electricity production via coal (one of the worse polluters)
A reduction in consumption of electricity in the home and business
A reduction on the use of fossil fuels for transport
An increase in the use of renewable energy sources ie Electricity Generation with:
- Solar
- Wind
- Hydro
- Wave/tide
The use of Petrol/Diesel fuels alternatives:
- Electric Cars
- Fuel Cell powered Cars
- Smaller lighter cars with more fuel efficient engines (ie the Toyota hybrid)
- Bio fuels in Trucks and even in planes
An increase in the use of recycling as a means to reduce the energy used to create products from their natural state ie:
- Paper (also impacts deforestation and the absorption of CO2)
- Steel
- Aluminium
- Glass
This is not invoking rocket science or developing technologies that don’t exist. All the technologies above are in existence. The cost is just not commoditized because we haven’t taken steps to wean ourselves off petrol & coal, and make each alternative a main stream way of life.
The Australian governments’ move to subsidize solar energy installation is I think a poorly planned PR response. It’s an insult to intelligence when you consider the total $30M rebate cost is insignificant to the $10B subsidisation of fossil fuel based industries each year in Australia. For a start you could carbon tax and increase the price of carbon generating devices and industries and let the marketplace use free market dynamics to fill the gaps. The subsidisation currently devised favours solar, but has the effect of stifling other promising options. It creates a funnel effect on the evolution of energy production, and thereby innovation.
Kyoto, through Carbon Trading systems, has a similar impact to Carbon taxing, it increases the cost of carbon producing elements in our economic system and “finances” the innovation and alternative low carbon footprint industries, processes and transport alternatives. It doesn’t say which alternative; it lets the market define that issue. But our Australian government in their infinite wisdom did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This by the way is the same government that thought up the very limited response to political pressure but the brilliantly conceived solar system rebate (sarcasm, sorry!).
Here’s the position of the world today. Green is good, red is bad. What colour is Australia? Who did we follow like mindless idiots? George W Bush (oh of course! what a good idea, just like the current solar rebate increase!). I don’t see any leadership at all at the helm of the country I love.
Shame on our Australian Government!So we have choices in this world. Individual and group choices. Let’s not vote for a narrow minded government that has a last minute reaction to political pressure and is still (and never was) on board with the single most important thing that we can do today. That is; committed reduction of our carbon footprint.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Eco Feedback
Here’s the case for the skeptics that say “there is little impact now, so we are over reacting”.
We live in an eco system that has a feedback loop. A thermostat in a building uses a set point to control a feedback loop. This in turn controls the amount of hot or cold air that enters a room; as a control system is called a feedback loop. Unfortunately for us the feedback loop in our eco system is not geared to obtain and manage to a set point. It is more likely to spiral an effect, and amplify a trend.
Scientist have evidence that global warming will:
- Reduce the ice cap and therefore the reflective capability of the Polar Regions – further accelerating temperature increases.
- The higher temperatures cause plants and soils to soak up less carbon from the atmosphere and cause permafrost to thaw, potentially releasing large quantities of Methane – Methane is 60 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
So the cycle has a feedback loop that once the increase starts it is amplified. Just like a loudspeaker system amplifies the small signal from a microphone. In this analogy the out of control part is like the screech we sometimes hear in a PA system. We see it doing a good job of amplifying what it should until all of a sudden it starts amplifying its own noise and goes out of control. We hear a “scream” or “feedback” in an out of control PA system. This is where we need to have our fingers on the volume control; or in climate terms drastically reducing CO2, Methane and other Green House gases. Best case scenario is that we do that now before things get out of control.
Analysis of warming events in the distant past indicates that such feedbacks could amplify warming by an additional 1 – 2°C by the end of the century. For more information on past events follow this link.
Al Gore talks in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” about switches in the climate system. This is what I think he is referring to with those comments. The risk is at first we see only small changes as the atmosphere has the capacity to absorb CO2 and Methane. Then we increase temperature or atmospheric CO2 a few more points and then system changes suddenly.
We know already that warming is going to intensify the water cycle, reinforcing existing patterns of water scarcity and abundance and increasing the risk of droughts and floods. We are experiencing the start of these already. What we don’t know is what will happen if we get to a “switch point”.
This is why all of a sudden there is reaction throughout the world on Green House Gas reduction.
Earthrace
I was at One degree 15 marina on the weekend, and caught a good look at the a boat called “Earthrace”. From a distance is looked a little like a space ship on water. I was delighted to find that this boat is in fact a prime example of the achievements of the emerging eco-technology industry.The Earthrace team aims to set a record by circumnavigating the globe faster than any other boat before it. And, it will do this in an eco friendly hi-tech design. Earthrace is fuelled by biodiesel, a fuel produced from renewable crops such as canola. It has a plethora of leading edge technology; including engines, composites, hull design and motors. To beat the record it needs to complete the journey in just 65 days. It will mark the first time in history that an official UIM Powerboat record will be held by a vessel using renewable fuel.
The current record was set by British boat "Cable & Wireless" in 1998, when the diesel-powered craft covered the 24,382 nautical miles in just under 75 days.
To learn more, go to this website:
Earthrace
The global awakening
In an era of increasing use of fossil fuels, and unprecedented increases in Green House gas emissions, the world is becoming aware.
Years of reports and warnings by scientist aren’t enough to convince our governments; but an economic report that outlines die consequence if we don’t act to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere has started excellent public debate. On the back of Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, we then have turned awareness into a public response avalanche. Al Gore outlines that: “Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb” and it is that level of drama and passion behind this film that has been needed to turn heads, to enable people to stop ignoring rising evidence and get on board about the world that we borrow from our children. It is our responsibility to manage this world today and hand it in a functional state to our children. Trouble is, we have just used and consumed without an understanding of the consequence, trusting that the earth has the capacity to absorb our abuse.
Al Core clarified the physical consequences and through a book and movie. He has set the plot; he made it real and tangible for us all to image the future. Stern brought the economics into focus. The potential for “the greatest market failure we have seen”; to compare with the great depression. It is a collapse of this magnitude that we can avoid in the near future by our actions and investments in corrective activity and greenhouse gas reductions today. I urge you to use the supplied links to “An Inconvenient Truth” and the “Stern Report” web sites and understand the issues.
It seems that most countries now recognise that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. I am amazed, as an Australian, how our countries Prime Minister (John Howard) avoided taking any action during his two terms. Finally, with a threatened loss at this year’s election unless he demonstrates clear and effective action to curb greenhouse emissions in Australia, he seems to have obtained environmental empathy. He was the one, along with President Bush, that has the dubious pleasure of being the two industrialised nations to stand outside the other 160 countries that have embraced it. They will both I hope suffer that political backlash at the very least. In the future I am sure Leaders such as Howard and Bush; given that they had the information available; will be seen as criminal in their inaction. Whilst we have barely forgotten of the Nazi holocaust against the Jews, the impact of climate change has the potential for a much greater holocaust against the whole human race. Inaction in this case has greater potential of impact than the World War activities of Hitler. Inaction to mitigate the impacts and damages of climate change may well make it into the realm of liability, unfortunately probably evidenced after these two men have left the planet.
There are many other governments of course that need to take action, and the Government of Indonesia is another one that fails to take decisive action against land clearing and burn off activities in the Palm Oil industry. One impact which we yearly suffer from in Singapore. As citizens of this world, it is time we took action against belligerent, ineffectual governments as we now do to industries that pollute and deface our surrounding environment. I urge everyone to take the environment to the polls as one of the most important ways to caste effective action and make environmentally dormant governments obsolete.
The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing. It is the result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activity. Most climate models show the likelihood of a rise of between 2 – 5°C in global mean temperatures (if the current levels of greenhouse gas increase are maintained). The scientific community have predicted this will be reached between 2030 and 2060.
An increase of 5°C globally would be equivalent to the difference between temperatures during the last ice age and today. 2°C increases are predicted to kill our Great Barrier Reef in Australia and all the other tropical reefs now in existence. To make the issue more compelling, new studies imply that warming could be greater than the 5°C limit outlined in the stern report.
This drama and forbidding outlines the potential penalty of non-action. It is not just at a government level, but a personal and community level that action is required. For we can take action today that will reverse this increasing trend and stabilise the climate change at perhaps 1°C or very little more. But it will take commitment. Personal and community commitment is required. As I have outlined above political action is required. Vote for a future you are proud to hand to your children. On a personal level, start with analysing your impact. Go to one of the following sites and undertake an assessment:
SafeClimate calculator
http://www.safeclimate.net/calculator/index.php
or Carbon FootprintsTM calculator
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.html
or BP’s calculator
http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9008204&contentId=7015209
Years of reports and warnings by scientist aren’t enough to convince our governments; but an economic report that outlines die consequence if we don’t act to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere has started excellent public debate. On the back of Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, we then have turned awareness into a public response avalanche. Al Gore outlines that: “Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb” and it is that level of drama and passion behind this film that has been needed to turn heads, to enable people to stop ignoring rising evidence and get on board about the world that we borrow from our children. It is our responsibility to manage this world today and hand it in a functional state to our children. Trouble is, we have just used and consumed without an understanding of the consequence, trusting that the earth has the capacity to absorb our abuse.
Al Core clarified the physical consequences and through a book and movie. He has set the plot; he made it real and tangible for us all to image the future. Stern brought the economics into focus. The potential for “the greatest market failure we have seen”; to compare with the great depression. It is a collapse of this magnitude that we can avoid in the near future by our actions and investments in corrective activity and greenhouse gas reductions today. I urge you to use the supplied links to “An Inconvenient Truth” and the “Stern Report” web sites and understand the issues.
It seems that most countries now recognise that climate change is a serious and urgent issue. I am amazed, as an Australian, how our countries Prime Minister (John Howard) avoided taking any action during his two terms. Finally, with a threatened loss at this year’s election unless he demonstrates clear and effective action to curb greenhouse emissions in Australia, he seems to have obtained environmental empathy. He was the one, along with President Bush, that has the dubious pleasure of being the two industrialised nations to stand outside the other 160 countries that have embraced it. They will both I hope suffer that political backlash at the very least. In the future I am sure Leaders such as Howard and Bush; given that they had the information available; will be seen as criminal in their inaction. Whilst we have barely forgotten of the Nazi holocaust against the Jews, the impact of climate change has the potential for a much greater holocaust against the whole human race. Inaction in this case has greater potential of impact than the World War activities of Hitler. Inaction to mitigate the impacts and damages of climate change may well make it into the realm of liability, unfortunately probably evidenced after these two men have left the planet.
There are many other governments of course that need to take action, and the Government of Indonesia is another one that fails to take decisive action against land clearing and burn off activities in the Palm Oil industry. One impact which we yearly suffer from in Singapore. As citizens of this world, it is time we took action against belligerent, ineffectual governments as we now do to industries that pollute and deface our surrounding environment. I urge everyone to take the environment to the polls as one of the most important ways to caste effective action and make environmentally dormant governments obsolete.
The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing. It is the result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activity. Most climate models show the likelihood of a rise of between 2 – 5°C in global mean temperatures (if the current levels of greenhouse gas increase are maintained). The scientific community have predicted this will be reached between 2030 and 2060.
An increase of 5°C globally would be equivalent to the difference between temperatures during the last ice age and today. 2°C increases are predicted to kill our Great Barrier Reef in Australia and all the other tropical reefs now in existence. To make the issue more compelling, new studies imply that warming could be greater than the 5°C limit outlined in the stern report.
This drama and forbidding outlines the potential penalty of non-action. It is not just at a government level, but a personal and community level that action is required. For we can take action today that will reverse this increasing trend and stabilise the climate change at perhaps 1°C or very little more. But it will take commitment. Personal and community commitment is required. As I have outlined above political action is required. Vote for a future you are proud to hand to your children. On a personal level, start with analysing your impact. Go to one of the following sites and undertake an assessment:
SafeClimate calculator
http://www.safeclimate.net/calculator/index.php
or Carbon FootprintsTM calculator
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.html
or BP’s calculator
http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9008204&contentId=7015209
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
