Japan Vows Big Climate Cut

Japan’s next leader has promised a big cut in greenhouse gas emissions, saying he will aim for a 25% reduction by 2020 compared with 1990 levels.

Democratic Party leader Yukio Hatoyama is due to take over as prime minister on 16 September, after a resounding election victory in August.

His predecessor, Taro Aso, had pledged cuts of only 8%.

Mr Hatoyama said the plan was dependent on other nations agreeing targets at December’s climate talks in Copenhagen.

Analysts say the targets – announced by Mr Hatoyama at a climate change symposium in Tokyo on Monday – are more ambitious than those of many other industrialised nations.

They won praise from the climate change chief of the UN, which is recommending developed countries commit to a 25-40% reduction by 2020.

“With such a target, Japan will take on the leadership role that industrialised countries have agreed to take in climate change abatement,” Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, told the conference.

Japan is the world’s second-largest economy and fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, which are a major contributor to climate change.

Correspondents say some Japanese business groups, including parts of the automotive industry, are expected to lobby against the plans.

The head of business lobby Keizai Doyukai (Japan Association of Corporate Executives) told the climate symposium the new government needed to spell out the policies in more detail.

“We basically welcome [the target], but we want to ask what policies and steps will be taken to achieve this 25% target,” Masamitsu Sakurai told the forum, according to Reuters news agency.

Japan’s new government envisages the plans will be achieved by bringing in emissions trading, renovating housing, subsidising solar panels and introducing low-energy technologies in cars.

Without mentioning China or India by name, Mr Hatoyama said: “We think developing countries are also required to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gases, as a global effort is needed on the issue of climate change,” reports AFP news agency.

December’s UN-backed climate talks in Copenhagen in Denmark will try to work out a deal on reducing emissions to succeed the current Kyoto Protocol, the first phase of which ends in 2012.

Japan has been under pressure to introduce tougher policies on climate change after its emissions rose last year to 16% above the Kyoto target, which it played a leading role in agreeing in 1997.

Empty Rhetoric?

Mr Hatoyama’s target puts Japan alongside the EU in pledging substantial greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Japan’s plan is conditional on achieving a deal at the UN summit in December, so it presents an additional “carrot” to negotiators; the new Japanese leadership has not spelled out what will happen if a deal is not reached.

The ambitious target amounts to an emissions cut of about one-third from current levels in just 11 years, in a country that already uses energy efficiently.

The new government now has some serious thinking to do about how to turn rhetoric into reality.

- Richard Black, BBC Environment Correspondent

Source: BBC Online

Herbs ‘can be natural pesticides’

Common herbs and spices show promise as an environmentally-friendly alternative to conventional pesticides, scientists have told a major US conference.

They have spent a decade researching the insecticidal properties of rosemary, thyme, clove and mint. They could become a key weapon against insect pests in organic agriculture, the researchers say, as the industry attempts to satisfy demand.

The “plant essential oils” have a broad range of action against bugs. Some kill them outright while others repel them.

Details were presented at the Fall Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in Washington DC.

These new pesticides are generally a mixture of tiny amounts of two to four different herbs diluted in water.

The research was led by Dr Murray Isman, from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

Some spice-based commercial products now being used by farmers have already shown success in protecting organic strawberry, spinach, and tomato crops against destructive aphids and mites, Dr Isman explained.

“These products expand the limited arsenal of organic growers to combat pests,” he said.

“They’re still only a small piece of the insecticide market, but they’re growing and gaining momentum.”

Unlike conventional pesticides, these “killer spices” do not require more limited approval from regulatory bodies and are readily available.

An additional advantage is that insects are less likely to evolve resistance – the ability to shrug off once-effective toxins – Isman says. They’re also safer for farm workers, who are at high risk for pesticide exposure, he notes.

But the herb-based pesticides also have shortcomings.

Since the essential oils made from these herbs tend to evaporate quickly and degrade rapidly in sunlight, farmers need to apply them to crops more frequently than conventional pesticides.

Some last only a few hours, compared to days or even months for conventional pesticides.

As they are also generally less potent than conventional pesticides, they must be applied in higher concentrations to achieve acceptable levels of pest control, Dr Isman said.

Researchers are now seeking ways of making the novel pesticides longer-lasting and more potent, he added.

“They’re not a panacea for pest control,” Dr Isman explained.

Conventional pesticides are still the most effective way to control caterpillars, grasshoppers, beetles and other large insects on commercial food crops, he added.

“It comes down to what’s good for the environment and what’s good for human health.”

Source: BBC

Review: Climate Change Expanding Tropics and Sub-Tropical Arid Zones, with Implications

photo: Tim via flickr

A review of peer-reviewed scientific literature done by researchers at Australia’s James Cook University reveals that in the past 25 years there’s been an expansion of the world’s tropical zones and that human activity has contributed to it:

The literature review shows that the areas which climatologists and meteorologists consider to be the tropics (which is defined differently than in geography, where it is defined as within 0 – 23.5 degrees N and S of the Equator) have expanded at minimum 300 kilometers (186 miles).

Future expansion of these zones is harder to predict, but based on what’s now known the planet could see a further spread of the tropical conditions over the next 25 years of between 222-553 kilometers (138-338 miles).

Sub-Tropical Arid Zones Push Into New Areas

The implication of this is that sub-tropical arid zones which border the tropics are being pushed into areas which previously had a more temperate climate, with more pronounced differences in seasonal temperatures and precipitation.

As these areas expand they will begin pushing into more heavily populated areas, with potentially severe impacts on society.

Such areas include heavily populated regions of southern Australia, southern Africa, the southern Europe-Mediterranean-Middle East region, the south-western United States, northern Mexico, and southern South America – all of which are predicted to experience severe drying.If the dry subtropics expand into these regions, the consequences could be devastating for water resources, natural ecosystems and agriculture, with potentially cascading environmental, social and health implications.

Tropical Diseases Spread Into New Areas

Furthermore, the expansion of tropical diseases such as dengue fever could hit areas where the diseases was previously not endemic or where epidemic levels of dengue were previously not present. Researchers said the literature showed that these areas include the southern United States, China, northern Africa in the northern hemisphere, and parts of South America, southern Africa, and most of Australia in the southern hemisphere.

Anthropogenic Causes

As to the cause of all this, the literature is less certain, though the most recent research points to anthropogenic causes. Research published earlier this year in the journalGeophysical Research Letters shows,

…that the observed widening of the tropics can only be accurately replicated by an atmospheric general circulation model that includes direct radiative effects related to human greenhouse gas emissions and stratospheric ozone depletion. Simulation models which did not include anthropogenic radiative effects showed no significant change in the width of the tropics.

Read the full report: Expansion of the Tropics: Evidence and implications (PDF)

Study: Rapid Recovery of Ecosystems

photo: Partners for Fish and Wildlife via flickr.

New research done at the Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental Science reinforces the idea that ecosystems are quiet resilient and can rebound from pollution and environmental degradation. Published in the journal PLoS ONE, the study shows that most damaged ecosystems worldwide can recover within a single lifetime, if the source of pollution is removed and restoration work done:

Forests Take Longest of Ecosystems Studied
The analysis found that on average forest ecosystems can recover in 42 years, while in takes only about 10 years for the ocean bottom to recover. If an area has seen multiple, interactive disturbances, it can take on average 56 years for recovery. In general, most ecosystems take longer to recover from human-induced disturbances than from natural events, such as hurricanes.

To reach these recovery averages, the researchers looked at data from peer-reviewed studies over the past 100 years on the rate of ecosystem recovery once the source of pollution was removed.

Interestingly, the researchers found that it appears that the rate at which an ecosystem recovers may be independent of its degraded condition: Aquatic systems may recover more quickly than, say, a forest, because the species and organisms that live in that ecosystem turn over more rapidly than in the forest.

Average recovery times by ecosystem type (top), disturbance (bottom). Image: PLoS ONE

Ecosystem Restoration Possible, and Justified
As to what this all means, Oswald Schmitz, professor of ecology at Yale and report co-author, says that this analysis shows that an increased effort to restore damaged ecosystems is justified, and that

“Restoration could become a more important tool in the management portfolio of conservation organizations that are entrusted to protect habitats on landscapes. We recognize that humankind has and will continue to actively domesticate nature to meet its own needs. The message of our paper is that recovery is possible and can be rapid for many ecosystems, giving much hope for a transition to sustainable management of global ecosystems”

- Oswald Schmitz, Professor of Ecology at Yale; Report Co-Author

A PDF copy of the report can be found here: Rapid Recovery of Ecosystems (Holly P. Jones, Oswald J. Schmitz)

$467 Million in Stimulus Money Released for Solar Power & Geothermal

photo: David Blaikie via flickr.

Solar power and geothermal power have finally gotten their portion of money allocated in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, to the tune of $467 million. President Obama announced this by touting the usual rhetoric of decreasing dependency on foreign oil and putting people back to work in through green energy jobs. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu too talked up green jobs, plus the role renewable energy can play in combatting climate change Frankly, absolutely nothing new or novel was said, but it is great that solar and geothermal have finally been shown some federal stimulus love. This is how all that money is being divided up:

Geothermal to Get Most of the Funding
All told geothermal is getting $350 million: $140 million is going toward Geothermal Demonstration Projects; $80 million towards Enhanced Geothermal Systems Technology Research and Development; $100 million towards Innovative Exploration Techniques; $30 million towards a National Geothermal Data System, Resource Assessment, and Classification System.

Solar Power Gets One-Third of Geothermal
Solar power has been allocated $117.6 million: $51.5 million for Photovoltaic Technology Development; $40.5 for Solar Energy Deployment (“Projects in this area will focus on non-technical barriers to solar energy deployment, including grid connection, market barriers to solar energy adoption in cities, and the shortage of trained solar energy installers.”); Concentrating Solar Power Research and Development brings up the rear with $25.6 million.

More: Department of Energy

Plants to Monitor Pollution in Two Turkish Cities

Redbud trees are among the plants that will help monitor air pollution in the Turkish cities of Tarsus and Erdemli. Photo by B~ via Flickr.

The bounty of tulips that the Istanbul municipality plants in the city’s public squares, parks, and gardens each April to celebrate the coming of spring shows how radically–and attractively–a bit of nature can transform urban space. But decorative plants are more, so to speak, than just a pretty face. By using them to monitor air pollution, cities can clean up as well as green up.

Monitoring heavy metals
A pilot project has been launched in two cities in the eastern Mediterranean province of Mersin to monitor the heavy metals and other pollutants in exhaust fumes using decorative plants, trees, and shrubs. A joint effort of the Alata Horticultural Research Institute, Çukurova University, and the Tarsus Municipality, with support from the country’s Ministry of Agriculture, the project will last for three years and will be conducted in Tarsus and Erdemli.

Some 390 redbuds, rubber plants, magnolias, orchids, Jacaranda, oleander, and Pyracantha have already been planted along busy roadways in the two cities.

A model for all of Turkey
Dr. Ayhan Aydın, the project officer at the Alata Horticultural Research Institute, where the plants to be used in the research are being cultivated, said if the pilot project is successful, it may be launched nationwide after the conclusion of the initial study period.

Istanbul could certainly use the additional greenery, as well as the new tool in its ongoing, and often seemingly futile, battle against pollution from cars, burning coal, industrial operations, and other sources. The capital, Ankara, and the Mediterranean city of Adana, the country’s fourth largest, are also air-quality trouble spots.

Air pollution a big issue
According to data compiled by the Environment and Forestry Minstry in 2007, out of the country’s 81 provinces, 73 are “faced with serious environmental problems.” Air pollution was named the most pressing problem in 27 provinces, but the ministry said it was an issue in almost all provinces.

A European Union report the same year said progress on the subject has been “limited” and “Turkey needs to adopt further legislation and take steps to start implementation, including upgrading air quality monitoring.” In making this recommendation, the EU may have envisioned something more high-tech than magnolia plants, but from small seeds, great things can sprout.

Via: “Plants to measure effects of exhaust gas,”Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review

Australia: The Politics of Environment – A Brief Round-Up

Kudos to Warren McLaren, Sydney for writing this great article for treehugger.com

They say “a week is a long time in politics.” And this was my first thought when Matthew asked me, a month ago, to consider a round-up of business and politics events from Australia.

It may be a large sunburnt land blessed with many natural assets, but the so called Lucky Country might be using up some of its nine lives, if recent events are anything to go by. Some of the worst weather since records began suggest the climate is a changing. And not just atmospherically, politically as well. Not only are international icons like the Great Barrier Reef at risk via climate change, so are one of the oldestindigenous peoples on the planet. So what should a country, which can claim the dubious distinction of being the world’s highest emitters of carbon dioxide per capita, do to improve it’s environmental footprint? We peek at a smattering of the issues below.

Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs

Photo: Peak Energy

Australia has a bit of reputation for being world class innovators, but lousy entrepreneurs. We can problem solve with great flair, but we’re not particular brilliant at bringing products to market, oftentimes selling the new technology to someone else to commercialise. This has been our experience with solar. As a staffer at one of our leading photovoltaic research universities recently told me, “We make engineers, we don’t make solar panels.”

So Australia has the technology. In many cases we invented it. We certainly have the sun. But we have just lacked the political and commercial will to forge this country into the solar dynamo it should be. One of Australia’s leading suppliers of renewable energy, Energy Matters, put its bluntly. Germany, “ … while having half the sunshine of Australia, have 200 times the solar production capacity of our country …” And they put this down to Germany having a generous feed-in tariff program.

A feed-in tariff is where the owner of a a grid connected renewable energy system, like solar, is paid a premium (usually greater than the retail price of electricity) for the energy they feed into the grid (that their electricity utility can on-sell to other users.) There are two basic types of tariffs, net and gross. Net is only paid for any energy supplied to the grid that is greater than what was used. For example, if the system generated 12 units of power, but also drew down on the grid for 10 units, then the tariff would only be paid for the 2 units that were in surplus. With a Gross Feed-In Tariff (FIT) the premium is paid for the full 12 units.

Australia has no national feed-in tariff, with some of the states only just implementing their own disparate versions in the past couple of years. At the time of writing, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) had the most generous solar program. In this our tiniest self governing region, they offer, to those of their 340,000 residents who have grid-connected photovoltaic systems, just over 50 cents AUD (38c USD) per kilowatt hour, for up to 10kw of solar capacity. This is roughly four times the retail price of electricity, depending on the plan an ACT customer is on. The program went live for residential solar systems in March 2009.

However, according to the recently announced Western Australian budget, the ACT has been trumped by a more generous feed-in tariff of 60 cents AUD (45c USD) per kilowatt hour. This high premium will only be open to those customers who also sign up for 100% GreenPower for the energy they purchase. With these rates it has been calculated by the WA Sustainable Energy Association that a solar system could be paid off in nine years. (Most solar panels are designed to function for 20-25 years.) The most populous Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) is currently deliberating on what form of feed-in tariff it will legislate. A result is expected by June 2009. The rest of country has a mish mash of tariff, but there remains a push for a national gross feed-in tariff of 80c /kWh.

Solar Power Adoption

Photo: PV-Tech

The feed-in tariff argument has recently reached prominence, due the success that Germany and Spain have had in rolling out photovoltaic systems. But it has not been the only influencing factoring in the slow adoption of solar technologies in Australia. Being a long way from anywhere has meant panels have been expensive to import. And with a relatively small population, (only 57% that of California!) sparsely spread around the country, they have tricky to produce locally, given high wages and small economies of scale. BP Solar, the only on-shore producer of PV panels announced in December 2008 they would close their Sydney plant to concentrate on production out of Asia.

In the face of such pricing pressures, various Australian federal and state governments have, over the years, rolled out different rebates for solar panel purchases. Initially these were to assist people in remote areas, but more recently with utilities embracing grid-connect systems, rebates for photovoltaics became more pervasive. In general the federal government will pay $8,000 towards the cost of 1 kW residential solar installations. In the 2008 budget the government announced the $8,000 rebate would ‘means tested’ and only available to those households with a combined income of less than $100,000. This sent a tremor of fear through the Australian solar industry. However, they need not have worried as, inexplicably, installation applications increased in such demand that rebate processing times about doubled.

It may have been that the political debate over the changes alerted more people to the fact that rebates were available, or maybe the announcement raised concerns that the rebate was being reviewed and interested parties needed to get in quick while it was still on offer. If the latter, then their instincts were spot on, for change was coming. For as of 30 June 2009 the $8,000 is gone, replaced by a new Solar Credits scheme.

Under this new process, there is no direct cash rebate, but tradable renewable energy credits (RECs) will allocated on a sliding scale of points, depending of the carbon reduction efficiency of the installed system. RECs are already in place for the likes of solar hot water rebates, but with the new Solar Credits program their value will beartificially increased five fold.

This process has drawn flak from many quarters. Some believe it means polluters, like coal-fired power stations, buying the exchangable credits on the market, will be purchasing much cheaper credits to allow them to continue their carbon dioxide emissions,negating the efforts of the homeowner to reduce CO2 output . In pure economic terms, the RECs will not, in many instances, reward the residential householder as much as the current lump sum $8,000 rebate.

Couple these rebate changes, with the aforementioned move to gross feed-in tariffs and with the newly emerging business model of communities, co-ops and businesses bulk buying panels and inverters to bring the price down even further, and you have a mad rush of residential solar installations.

Renewable Energy Targets

Photo: Wind in the Bush

All of which goes to help the government inch closer (sounds better than ‘centimetre closer’) to their stated aim of 20% renewable energy by 2020. Back in April of this year the federal and state governments under the umbrella of the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) agreed to expand the existing Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) to this goal. In reality this means that nationally Australia will strive for a legislated target of 45,000 gigawatt-hours by 2020. More than four times larger than the present MRET.

This won’t just come from solar, but also the likes of wind, biomass and geothermal (aka “hot rocks”). But on the solar side of things, the government of Kevin Rudd, just this weekend past detailed one the ways the federal government will be contributing to this target.

It plans under its Clean Energy Initiative to build four solar plants, which in aggregate will amount to “largest solar energy project in the world.” As the Australian newspaper understands the Solar Flagships proposal, there will be almost $1.4 billion AUD invested in two solar thermal, and two solar photovoltaic stations with a combined output of 1000MW coming on stream by 2015.

Other government initiatives like Solar Schools and Solar Cities will also contribute towards the national MRET. As will wind power, although rolling out wind farms tends to more problematic when the NIMBY (not in my back yard) element comes into play.

Geothermal energy holds great promise as water is flushed into deep holes in the earth’s crust, to be heated by hot rocks and returning to the surface as steam, to drive turbines. Although feasible to the point it is said it could provide for all of Australia’s energy needs, it is currently experiencing some technical teething issues. But not everyone will need to make a contribution, like the big polluters, known as ”emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industry”, who’ll be largely exempt.
In the federal Budget just announced last week the government said they would invest $465 million to establish Renewables Australia to support this sort of leading edge research and make it commercial.

Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

Photo: AAP / Dean Lewins from the ABC

However Australian governments aren’t having the good news stories all flow their way.

The federal Rudd Government have come under concentrated attack from green groups, and particularly the national Greens poltical party, for their 2009 budget announcement, that they’ll be funding so called ‘clean coal’ to the turn of $2.4 billion AUD, most of which will be directed a Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program. That’s $0.4 billion more than the Solar Flagships program.

And the Victorian government has been chastised for its feed-in tariff, which will be a net system, not gross and be eligible for only up to 3.2 kW energy systems (the ACT’s is 10 kW) and will be a credit on their electricity bill, not a payment.

On the much bigger picture is the federal government’s emission trading scheme, or as they prefer to call it, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Many believe that the Labor party was successful at the 2007 election, in part because they promised to sign the Kyoto Protocol and actually do something about climate change, unlike the previous government.

Professor Ross Garnaut, was employed to inform the Australian government on the economic impact of global warming to the country. Part of his recommendations included the establishment of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). (The US has been talking around a similar idea, but using the terminology ‘cap and trade.’ In short, enterprises who want increase their emissions beyond an allowance (or cap), set by the government need to buy (trade) credits from businesses who emit less greenhouse gases.

Anyhow. acting on the Garnaut report, the government developed their version of an ETS. But up until recently they have had no joy getting anyone to like it. Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the federal opposition party, the Liberal/National Coalition was right when he said, “It’s literally completely friendless.” Environmentalists and The Greens felt it was wishy washy, because it only strove to reduce emissions by 5% and gave a heap of ‘get out of jail’ free cards to the big emitters. The influential mining industry (Australia is the world’s largest exporter or coal) obviously are not keen on any legislation that impedes business opportunities. It was so universally disliked that it did not pass through the parliament. It didn’t look like anything was going to be place by the election promised date of 2010.

Then at the start of May 2009 the government reneged, coming out with a revised plan. They were now moving it back to 2011 and implementing a raft of compromises, like a new low price for carbon — $10 a tonne — and yet more free permits for large polluting industries. Yet these changes enabled them to drop their bombshell (the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had repeatedly stated that “It would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and for our environment,” to delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme), supported on the day, by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and mainstream enviro groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Climate Institute and the World Wildlife Fund.

One of the concessions was that Australia would move to a 25% Greenhouse Gas reduction by by 2020. Which on the surface sounded great. But devil is always in the detail. This cut would only occur if a comprehensive global agreement on emissions reduction can be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. Of course, the Greens are incensed at what they see as ‘smoke and mirrors.’ But the government wants some sort of scheme passed by parliament, so it can attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen with at least something in its pocket, as a bargaining chip.

And There’s More?

Photo: Warren McLaren / INOV8

With all this talk of emissions trading and solar programs one could be forgiven in thinking there weren’t other environment issues stalking the corridors of Australian political office. Let’s briefly touch on just a few.

As previously noted here the state governments couldn’t agree on national campaign to rid shops and waterways of the dreaded plastic shopping bag, so South Australia went it alone. (As they many years ago, being the only state to have Container Deposit Legislation, placing a redeemable deposit on all beverage containers.)

The food bowl of Australia is the catchment of two major river, the so-called Murray-Darling basin; it is, as Reuters points out, “as large as France and Germany combined, accounts for 41 percent of Australia’s agriculture and provides A$21 billion ($13.54 billion) worth of farm exports to Asia and the Middle East. Around 70 percent of irrigated agriculture comes from the basin. And whether due to the worst drought in over a century, or the early onset of climate change the region is under some pretty severe stress.

“The drought has already wiped more than A$20 billion from the $1 trillion economy since 2002. It is the worst in 117 years of record-keeping, with 80 percent of eucalyptus trees already dead or stressed in the Murray-Darling region.”

It’s not just ecosystems at imminent risk of devastation. If the current dry conditions continue, as they are forecast to, then the South Australian capital of Adelaide may run out of water within two years. Other states have offered to sent drinking water for the city of over 1 million people, but they too draw upon the Murray river, which only has 18% of its capacity at the moment. The federal government has given the The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) $50 million to buy back some of the seven billion litres of water from water licence holders along the catchment, who are willing to sell.

The devastating bushfires in the state of Victoria, which claimed around 170 lives and 2,000 homes, are another aspect of Australia’s dry climate. There are claims that not enough fuel reduction burns were undertaken preceding the fires, though the bush and forest is the reason many of the people live in those locations in the first place. Others believe that with the ongoing drought, there are not enough safe days in the year to undertake the scale of reduction burns needed. A Royal Commission is presently underway to determine the factors that contributed to the most deadly natural disaster in Australian history.

Before the Commission convened and on behalf of more than 13,000 firefighters and support staff, the National Secretary of United Firefighters Union of Australia sent an open letter to the Australian Prime Minister and Victorian Premie. It said, in part:

“Something is going on. As we battle blazes here in Victoria, firefighters are busy rescuing people from floods in Queensland. Without a massive turnaround in policies, aside from the tragic loss of life and property, we will be asking firefighters to put themselves at an unacceptable risk. Firefighters know that it is better to prevent an emergency than to have to rescue people from it, and we urge state and federal governments to follow scientific advice and keep firefighters and the community safe by halving the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.”

And how about this one: The ABC reports that “Tasmania’s Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts will be shut down to help cover a looming budget black hole.”

But there is some good news. A massive amount of environmental rebates available from state and national government to help householders, landlords, schools and community groups. These cover ceiling insulation; rainwater tanks (with added incentives if these are connected up to washing machines and flushing toilets); solar hot water systems; energy and water efficient washing machines; compost bins; drip water gardening systems; grey water systems, green loans, and more.

And we have to stop there. For next week there’ll be a whole new set of challenges and opportunities confronting our elected representatives.

Study: Mercury in Pacific to Rise by 50% by 2050

Simplified mercury biogeochemical cycle

According to a new study, if mercury levels continue to rise at the rate they’re predicted to rise, the amount of mercury in the Pacific will increase by 50% over the next 40 years. The study also shows just how the mercury in emissions from around the world wind up in the North Pacific Ocean.

“This unprecedented USGS study is critically important to the health and safety of the American people and our wildlife because it helps us understand the relationship between atmospheric emissions of mercury and concentrations of mercury in marine fish,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

So, how does the mercury get into the food stream?

[M]ethylmercury is produced in mid-depth ocean waters by processes linked to the “ocean rain.” Algae, which are produced in sunlit waters near the surface, die quickly and “rain” downward to greater water depths. At depth, the settling algae are decomposed by bacteria and the interaction of this decomposition process in the presence of mercury results in the formation of methylmercury. Many steps up the food chain later, predators like tuna receive methylmercury from the fish they consume…it appears the recent mercury enrichment of the sampled Pacific Ocean waters is caused by emissions originating from fallout near the Asian coasts. The mercury-enriched waters then enter a long-range eastward transport by large ocean circulation currents,” said USGS scientist and coauthor David Krabbenhoft.

Via Science Daily

Here’s an abstract for the scientific study:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GB003425.shtml

Marc Ona Essangui awarded 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize

A campaigner who was jailed during his battle to save the rainforest in Gabon has received a top international award.

Marc Ona Essangui was honoured for his fight to stop what he describes as a destructive mining project in the Ivindo National Park.

He is one of seven people from six continental regions to be awarded an equal share of the $900,000 (£600,000) 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize.

It has been described as “the Nobel Prize for grassroots environmentalism”.

Mr Ona has campaigned for three years against the Belinga mine project – a deal between the government in Gabon and the Chinese mining and engineering company, CMEC, to extract iron ore.

The project includes the construction of a large hydroelectric dam, which is already underway, to provide power for the mine.

The dam is being built on the Ivindo River, near the Kongou Falls, Gabon’s highest waterfall.

Mr Ona, who described the falls as “the most beautiful in central Africa”, said that Gabon’s government had failed to consult the local population and had not assessed the impact of the development on the environment before it gave permission for construction to begin.

He told BBC News that he hoped his receipt of the Goldman Prize would “draw international attention to just how precious this area is”.

Political protest

Mr Ona, who uses a wheelchair, dedicated his early career to improving education and communication infrastructure in Gabon, including working with the United Nations Development Programme. He later turned his attention to environmental issues.

He eventually decided to focus his efforts full time on the work of his own environmental NGO, Brainforest, which aims to protect the rainforest for the benefit local of communities.

“The government established 13 national parks here, and I became interested in all the activities within them,” he said.

“In 2006, my colleagues and I noticed that roads were being built within Ivindo.”

(The Ivindo River in Gabon’s Ivindo National Park flows down rapids and then into Kongou Falls. A dam project to power a Chinese-financed iron ore mining venture is threatening to destroy the falls. Photo: Candace Feit for The New York Times)

When Mr Ona investigated, he discovered that there had been no environmental impact studies carried out before the road building started.

On its website, the Gabonese government describes the national parks as having been “classified for the conservation of Gabon’s rich biodiversity”.

The key goals of the national park scheme, it says, are preservation of “the wealth of the ecosystem… for current and future generations” and stimulating “the development of ecotourism as an economic alternative to the exploitation of natural resources”.

Mr Ona said: “All of this construction was carried out illegally and against the code of the national parks.”

He also unearthed and leaked a copy of the Belinga mine project agreement between the government and CMEC, revealing that CMEC had been offered a 25-year tax break as part of the deal.

“When we really started to look into the deal, we noticed that it was China, not Gabon, that was the major beneficiary,” he said.

Under pressure

He and his colleagues embarked on their campaign, working with other environmental NGOs, holding news conferences and meeting with local communities.

“The government even motivated some protests against the NGOs involved,” he recalled.

“They alleged that we were working [on behalf of] Western powers, and we received a lot of pressure to stop the campaign.”

This culminated in Mr Ona being arrested and charged with “incitement to rebellion”.

He was jailed by the Gabonese judicial police on 31 December 2008; but following an internationally co-ordinated campaign for his release, he was freed on 12 January 2009.

Since June 2006, however, he has been banned from travelling outside the country.

His passport was returned to him only 24 hours before he was due to travel to San Francisco for the Goldman award ceremony.

There has been no construction in Ivindo for almost a year, but Mr Ona says this has more to do with the economic crisis and the price of iron ore than with the Gabonese government backing down.

He has no plans to give up his quest.

“Some of the money from this award will go to the functioning of Brainforest, and the rest will be allocated to setting up small- and medium-sized businesses for local communities,” he said.

“I want to set up a clinic near Ivindo where the local people can be treated using traditional medicine. Some of the money will serve to establish this health centre for all of those communities.”

No fear

The organisers of the Goldman Prize describe the six winners as “a group of fearless grassroots leaders, taking on government and corporate interests and working to improve the environment for people in their communities”.

Among the other 2009 recipients are Maria Gunnoe from West Virginia, US, who has faced death threats for her outspoken activism to stop destruction of the Appalachia by the coal industry.

Also rewarded are Russian scientist Olga Speranskaya, who connected NGOs across Eastern Europe and the Caucasus region to identify and safely remove toxic chemical stockpiles, and Rizwana Hasan, Bangladesh’s leading environmental attorney, whose legal advocacy led to tighter regulations on the ship-breaking industry.

Salmon Numbers Dwindle – Fishing Ban in California Expected

You know the fish aren’t jumpin’ when the very people who make their living reeling in chinook salmon are proposing a ban on ocean fishing for a second straight year.

That is exactly what happened Monday at the annual Pacific Fishery Management Council meetings in Seattle, where the gory details of the catastrophic decline of California’s salmon has become woefully apparent.

Fishing-industry representatives on a council advisory panel looked at the dismal state of the fall run of Sacramento River salmon and proposed closing the 2009 ocean salmon fishing season, except, perhaps, for a bit of recreational fishing near the Oregon border.

“It is pretty simple in California,” said Peter Dygert, a fishery biologist for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s fisheries service. “Both the recreational and commercial trollers on the advisory panel have proposed no fishing.

“This is grim news for the state of California,” Don Hansen, chairman of the council, said in a statement. “We won’t be able to talk about this without using the word ‘disaster.’”

The management council, a 14-member federal panel that manages the Pacific Coast fishery, is expected to come up with three options for ocean fishing after a week of testimony and the digestion of mounds of documents and studies.

There isn’t much mystery about what the council will propose, given that the folks most likely to lobby for more fishing are proposing the elimination of the season. The only thing to decide, really, is whether to allow recreational fishing on certain dates in the summer from the Oregon border south to a spot near the mouth of the Klamath River, which had a slightly better salmon return than the Central Valley river system. The current proposals would allow sportfishing over the July 4 weekend and from Aug. 15 to Sept. 7. An alternate plan would allow it only from Aug. 29 to Sept. 7.

Biologists estimated only 66,000 adult salmon returned to spawn last fall in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, based on a count of egg nests in the river bed. It was the lowest return on record. The collapse caused regulators to ban ocean salmon fishing in California and most of Oregon last year. The collapse led to an emergency declaration and appropriation of federal disaster assistance to keep fishing businesses alive.

The dismal spawning numbers are expected to continue this year. Fisheries biologists are projecting that the fall run of chinook in the system this year will be a little bit higher than last year. Still, the numbers will barely reach the council’s spawning goals even if there is no fishing, according to the projections.

Both the Klamath and Sacramento rivers have suffered recently from extremely low returns. Declines have also been seen in the Columbia-Snake River System over the past several years. Last year, more than 2,200 fishermen and fishing-related business workers lost their jobs. Fishing communities and fishing-related businesses lost more than $250 million, according to some estimates. Indirect economic impacts were even higher, according to fishing industry representatives.

The collapse in California is especially troubling because the Central Valley fall run of chinook has for many years been the backbone of the West Coast fishing industry. Big salmon from the Sacramento River have been reeled in as far north as Alaska, according to biologists.

The council is considering allowing fishing of only hatchery fish – identifiable because their fleshy adipose fins are removed – off the Oregon coast. Meanwhile, more than 75 commercial and recreational fishing associations and conservation organizations signed a letter Monday urging President Obama to create a new position of salmon director to help restore the West Coast salmon populations, protect fishing jobs and rebuild the salmon economy.

A final decision on the ban and the hatchery fishing is expected in early April.

EU Environment Ministers Hash Out Post-2012 Climate Plan

Image via: Green Roof Offsets

EU Environment Ministers met this week for the first time under new Czech leadership. The goal – to formalize more of the post-2012 climate change actions, which are due to be finalized in December at Copenhagen. On the agenda, emissions goals, a carbon market and getting developing countries on-board. Environment Minister Martin Bursik gives the meeting two thumbs up, saying “we have reached 99% of what we wanted to.”

As for carbon emissions targets (mitigation), the group agrees to reduce emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. Developed countries must also make mid-term commitments and goals for emission reductions, and “developed” non-Annex I countries are encouraged to make goals that they are capable of meeting given their capacity. Developing countries are encouraged to make development plans that include low-carbon communities and lifestyles.

The group next proposes to build a “robust” cap and trade carbon market by, preferably, 2015. More-advanced developing countries will be encouraged to participate by 2020. To further encourage developing countries to participate, sector specific markets will be created so that developing nations can get involved where they can. On another note, the Council encouraged the members to look into the recycled and reused goods market, particularly the fall in demand, and see if there is a way to support this market.

The EU is the only community in the world with a binding 20% reduction target, and they plan to increase that to 30% once more groups get on board. The costs of implementing these reductions, especially among developing countries were considered. Ultimately the group felt that the current, weakened economy is actually a good “opportunity to modernize and shift our economy towards a more efficient and low-carbon one, bringing millions of new green jobs” said Bursik. :EU Environment Post-2012 Climate Change Agreement

More on Post-Kyoto Climate Change Agreements
TH Forums: Thoughts on Post-Kyoto Accord Agreements
$215 Billion Could be Raised by Rich Nations to Help Poor Combat Climate Change
Turkey Finally Gets on Board with Kyoto
Al Gore Tells Senate Committe That We Have Arrived at a Moment of Decision Regarding Climate Change

New Delhi to Ban Plastic Bags

Source: “Delhi to Ban Plastic Bags”, treehugger.com, Bonnie Alter, 19th Jan 2009

image by nitawriter.wordpress.com

New Delhi has banned the use of plastic bags in all shops, starting very soon. Notification has been sent out to all shopkeepers, and they are being given 10 to 12 days to fall into line. After that, traders will have to pay a penalty or spend five years in prison (what!). That’s the new law that the Delhi government says it is ready to enforce. Civil servants said that punitive measures were needed after another law prohibiting plastic bags was ignored. However they do accept that the new ban will have to be implemented slowly.

This will be a huge change for this city of 16M people. Now residents use more than 10 M every day in the capital. The streets are littered with them and they clog up sewage pipes and are breeding grounds for malaria and dengue fever. Traders are being told to use jute, paper and cloth instead. However in a nation of small shops, the carry bag might turn out to be more expensive than the goods being sold.

image by stylehive.com

Initially, the sale and storage of all plastic bags will be forbidden in 5 star and 4 star hotels, hospitals, large restaurants, and large chains. In other places only the use of biodegradable plastic bags will be allowed. These have been used in many shops and cafes for several months now and manufacturers claim that the price is not so prohibitive. However, ultimately these will be banned too.

Things sound pretty chaotic with many claiming not to even know that the edict was in existence. Needless to say the shopkeepers are frantic. They are now asking the government for assistance. To begin with, the ban will be lightly enforced. Officials said it would be up to the courts to decide on how harsh a sentence an offender might face — and refused to comment on the chances of shoppers going to jail.

Environmentalists feel that the government has to do more: “The government needs to give incentives for using alternatives. Several cottage industries that were involved in making paper and cloth bags died out due to competition from plastic but they have to be revived for which a fixed market needs to be created, at least initially. “

Countries such as Rwanda, Bhutan and Bangladesh have all had bans enforced.Guardian

More on Cities Banning Plastic Bags

San Francisco to Ban Plastic Bags
China Launches Crack Down on Plastic Bags
Modbury: A Year without Plastic Bags

EPA Sued to Force Restoration of Degraded Chesapeake Bay Waters

Source: “EPA Sued to Force Restoration of Degraded Chesapeake Bay Waters“, treehugger.com, Matthew McDermott, 6th January 2009

photo: Andrew Bossi

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, along with a coalition of partners has filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia which seeks to force the EPA to enforce laws requiring the reduction of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay to levels that the bay can be removed from the federal ‘impaired waters’ list.

Speaking on why the action was taken CBF president William Baker said,

EPA Has ‘Abdicated Leadership’ 

Over the last eight years the EPA, which has the responsibility to lead the effort to enforce the Clean Water Act, has abdicated leadership and weakened regulations that would have reduced pollution. The rule of science and the rule of law have been subjugated to political dogma and a policy of deregulation that has wreaked havoc from financial markets to environmental protection. Science has provided a roadmap for Bay restoration and EPA has the tools to get the job done. The Bay is still polluted due to the lack of political will.

 

Though there have been three agreements between the EPA and the states bordering the bay to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, going back as far as 1983, the EPA has acknowledged that the latest goal for cleanup of 2010 will not be met.

Efforts EPA Should Take
Among the efforts the CBF would like to the EPA to take are the following:

• Requiring EPA to commit to achieve 80 percent of the pollution reduction goal by 2012, with full implementation by 2015.
• Requiring EPA to take an active role in wastewater treatment plant permits to ensure compliance with pollution reduction goals and that there will be no net increase in pollution loadings.
• Requiring tough construction stormwater permits at sites that discharge into impaired waters.
• Requiring all power plants that generate air pollution that affects the region’s waterways to install existing technologies that would reduce that pollution.
• Requiring that new and existing agricultural conservation funding be geographically targeted to practices that achieve the most pollution reduction.
• Requiring that a portion of federal transportation funding be directed to stormwater management on highways.

 

According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, most of the waters of the bay are degraded, with much of the bay’s fish and shellfish population at historically low levels.

Partners in the lawsuit are the Virginia State Waterman’s Association, the Maryland Waterman’s Association, the Maryland Saltwater Sportfisherman’s Association, former Maryland Governor Harry Hughes, retired Maryland Senator Bernie Fowler, former Virginia legislator and Natural Resources Secretary Tayloe Murphy, and former Washington DC Mayor Anthony Williams

More: Chesapeake Bay Foundation and ENS

Water Pollution
Ocean ‘Dead Zones’ Increasing: 400 Oxygen-Deprived Areas Now Exist
California Commits to Significantly Reducing Stormwater Pollution
Bush Admin’s Parting Gift to the Factory Farms

Ocean Iron Fertilization Test in South Atlantic Given Go Ahead

Source: “Ocean Iron Fertilization Test in South Atlantic Given Go Ahead“, treehugger.com, Matthew McDermott, 6th Jan 2009

The test will be conducted off of South Georgia Island, pictured here. Photo: NASA viaWikipedia

TreeHugger has covered plans for ocean iron fertilization a number of times and the basic premise goes like this: By fertilizing parts of the ocean with iron filings you can increase the rate of photosynthesis in phytoplankton, increasing the amount of carbon dioxide which can be absorbed by the ocean. There the greenhouse gas emissions can be sequestered for long enough that global warming can be slowed.

One concern though is the effect that this will have on ocean ecosystems. Now, following a discovery by a British Royal Navy vessel off the coast of Antarctica, some of these concerns have been allayed enough for a test of the procedure near South Georgia Island:

Icebergs Release Enough Iron to Allow Larger Testing
The discovery which led up to this is that melting icebergs are already releasing large enough quantities of tiny iron particles iron into the oceans that fears about harming marine life have been reduced sufficiently to perform larger scale iron fertilization tests.  

Prof Rob Raiswell of Leeds University, who is lead researcher on the project described the discovery by saying, “The Earth itself seems to want to save us.”

(Personally, I don’t think the planet, though undoubtedly self-regulating, gives a hoot about saving humanity specifically…but it is interesting that it may be that as more icebergs break free more iron particles are released into the ocean naturally, potentially increasing algae growth.)

Algae Needs to Sink Thousands of Feet for Procedure to Work
The new test will consist of several tons of iron sulphate being dumped in the ocean to create an artificial algae bloom. The researchers will then determine how much algae sinks to sufficient depth (a couple miles is needed) that the absorbed carbon can be trapped for at least a couple hundred years. If the algae doesn’t sink far enough will just release the absorbed carbon back into the atmosphere.

via: Cleantech and Daily Mail

Geo-Engineering
German Scientist Outlines Massive Iron Fertilization Plan to Save the Antarctic
What Would Be the Side Effects of Iron Fertilization
International Team of Scientists to Test South Atlantic Carbon Sink in 2009

Obama Nominates 2 Leading Global Warming Specialists for Key Science Posts in his Administration

 

Harvard physicist John Holdren will be Mr Obama’s scientific adviser while marine biologist Jane Lubchenco will head the US oceanic research body.

Both have advocated greater government action on climate change.

Their appointments have been seen as a sign of Mr Obama’s commitment to tackling environmental issues.

In his weekly address, Mr Obama said that “today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation”.

He said it was “time we once again put science at the top of our agenda” and that he was confident that the US could “lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity”.

‘Respectful’

Mr Holdren was described by Mr Obama as “one of the most passionate and persistent voices of our time about the growing threat of climate change”.

 

Ms Lubchenco has criticised the Bush administration’s scientific policies

Mr Holdren will become director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the co-chair of the Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.

He will share the latter post with Nobel Prize-winning scientist Harold Varmus and Eric Lander, a specialist in human genome research.

Mr Lander’s appointment has been seen as an indication of the importance of genetic research to the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, Ms Lubchenco will direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which monitors global weather patterns and ocean currents.

She had criticised the Bush administration earlier this year for not being “respectful” of science.

“I am very much looking forward to a new administration that does respect scientific information and that considers it very seriously in making environmental policies,” she said.

Mr Obama, who takes office on 20 January, has now filled all the posts in the cabinet. However all nominees must still be vetted and approved by the Senate.

Scotland Crafts Own World-Beating Climate Bill

Source:”Scotland Crafts Own World-Beating Climate Bill“, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 6th Dec 2008

 

Image from amandabhslater

If you liked Obama’s proposed climate agenda, then you’ll love Scotland’s. Not only would it require an 80 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by mid-century, it would also require equivalent reductions from the five other major greenhouse gases. Emission levels would have to be reduced 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Unlike most other international variants, it would target shipping and aviation emissions as well, reports the BBC.

Image from robertpogorzelski  

Other goodies the bill includes are measures on recycling and packaging, waste reduction, energy efficiency and renewable energy for the forestry sector. In case retailers are unwilling to charge customers for the use of plastic bags, the bill also authorizes government ministers to make them do so as a “last resort”. (Several retailers have already begun charging for their use.)

A Committee on Climate Change, or other advisory body, would be established by the government to provide recommendations and guidance on its implementation. If passed by the Parliament, the bill would give the country one of the most forward-looking climate change portfolios in the world. Stewart Stevenson, the Climate Change Minister (don’t you love the sound of that?), hopes that developing a range of short, medium and long-term measures will help guarantee the bill’s success.

Scotland has been on a roll of late in the climate change/renewable energy arena, committing to building one of Europe’s largest onshore wind farms (Romania took the cake in that category) and one of its largest biomass plants while also launching theworld’s largest prize for marine renewable energy. Oh, and it doesn’t hurt that Edinburgh remains one of Northern Europe’s most sustainable cities (though it’s a shame the government caved on Donald Trump’s proposed golf course project).

President-elect Obama could certainly do worse than consult with the Scottish government before crafting what many hope will be his own world-beating climate bill.

More about Scotland
Europe’s Largest Single Onshore Windfarm to be Built in Scotland
U.K. Set to Build Largest Biomass Plant in Scotland

EPA Ignores Own Scientists’ Advice, Makes a Gift to Coal Mining Interests

Source: “EPA Ignores Own Scientists’ Advice, Makes a Gift to Coal Mining Interests”, treehugger.com, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 5th December 2008

Image from Jen SFO-CBN

In what’s become a depressingly predictable trend, the EPA’s higher-ups have once again chosen to consciously ignore the better advice of their scientists and reverse a long-standing rule banning the dumping of coal mining debris into mountain streams.ProPublica’s Joaquin Sapien writes that the reversal will clear the new for a new measure that environmental groups are rightly calling a “gift to mining interests”: the ability to dispose of leftover rocks and dirt from mountaintop mining (a practice Bush officials have allowed to expand in recent years) by flagrantly violating the landmark Clean Water Act.

Image from Wikimedia Commons

Even top EPA officials were at a loss to justify their deeply flawed decision, with Administrator Stephen Johnson simply telling Interior Department Secretary Dirk Kempthorne that “nothing in the regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Clean Water Act.” (The Interior Department needed the EPA’s approval before finalizing the rule.) Big Coal and its allies in the Bush administration had spent years fighting a rule that required mining companies to obtain permits before dumping waste into rivers.

A few months ago, a number of environmentalists had met with the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Interior Department officials to strongly urge them not to enact the new rules without considering their scientists’ recommendations. Just five days later, said OMB officials met with representatives of the National Mining Association. Need I say more?

As Sapien points out, the EPA had twice before found that dropping mining debris — or as it’s commonly referred to, “valley fill” — into rivers degraded water quality and killed the local aquatic wildlife. One of the studies in question determined that the water tested downstream from a dumping ground had excessively high levels of dangerous chemicals. A coalition of environmental lawyers cited this study and a related brief in submitting their comments to the EPA — comments that, of course, went unheeded.

The best part of this?

Johnson’s letter went on to suggest that the rule will help meet President Bush’s goal of promoting “the increased use of clean coal technology in order to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”

Assuming the Obama administration decides to quickly reverse this and other Bush “midnight regulations,” it will have a tough road ahead. (As of now, the transition team has “no comment”.) For one thing, the process of repealing these rules can grind on for years because of all the legal theatrics (you can bet the coal companies will be fighting tooth-and-nail to ensure the Obama team does not succeed). The other problem is that the worst damage may well have already been done by the time Obama officials reverse these measures.

More EPA shenanigans
US Environmental Destruction Agency: Making National Parks Coal-Friendly
EPA Reforms Rule on Hazardous Waste, Boosts Recycling

Pasir Ris Mangrove Clean-Ups

Hello, this goes out to all, who are in Singapore, or coming to Singapore, or regular volunteers of the mangrove clean-ups

There are some new dates where you guys can sign up on,

 

1oth January (3.30pm)

7th February (2.30pm)

7th March (1.30pm)

Pardon the scorching sun during these hours, but the timings have been made in consideration of the tides. Cleanup can only occur during low tide

If you’re looking for an afternoon of giving a little back to conserve and protect the mangroves of Pasir Ris, feel free to contact Grant via email at grant@singapore.com

Bush Administration to Open Public Lands Near Utah’s National Parks for Natural Gas and Oil Drilling

Source:”Bush Administration to Open Public Lands Near Utah’s National Parks for Natural Gas and Oil Drilling“, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 9th Nov 2008

Image from jderuna

There is no doubt that the Bushies will go down in history as the administration with the least environmentally-friendly record (among other dubious distinctions). Having already gutted the Endangered Species Act, denied the existence of climate change and vehemently resisted efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, it is not as if the president has been trying especially hard to rehabilitate his dismal reputation. Last Friday, we learned of the Bush administration’s latest environmental hit job, courtesy ofThe New York Times‘ Felicity Barringer: a plan by the Bureau of Land Management to open tens of thousands of acres on or near the borders of three national parks in eastern Utah, including Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park, to drilling.

Image from Wolfgang Staudt

Decision taken without consulting National Park Service
In light of the administration’s ongoing (and recently accelerated) efforts to ease regulations on its industry allies, this does not exactly come as a shock (see Greg Haegele’s list of top 10 “eco-horrors” for more recent coverage). What was perhaps a little surprising was that the BLM did not even bother to notify officials in the National Park Service (some of whom presumably adhere to the administration’s anti-environment philosophy); instead, the agency quietly released an updated lease proposal (the first one was also heavily criticized for giving the green light to further industrial activity) that included 40 – 45 new areas. It evidently hoped to attract as little attention as possible, releasing it on November 4.

Late auction date will hurt next administration’s efforts to reverse sales
The new tracts will be sold at auction on December 19. (Incidentally, this is the last lease sale before the president leaves office.) As a result, instead of having the customary 1 – 3 months to comment on the new proposal, top managers at the NPS will have precious little time to voice their concerns about the drilling’s impact on the parks’ water, air and wildlife. When asked if she would reconsider offering the tracts in December, Selma Sierra, BLM’s state director, pointedly refused, Barringer notes.

Those who believe an Obama administration would be able to easily reverse the sales are mistaken: Any effort by the new government to do so would likely result in the energy companies filing suit or taking other retaliatory action — moves that would likely drag out the process for several months or years.

Earlier this year I wrote about the NPS selling our parks short by inhibiting its own ability to purchase the estimated 1.8 million acres of land listed for acquisition (it only requested $100 million from Congress for fiscal year 2009 to buy $1.9 billion worth of land). The fact that this administration has even managed to take its own officials by surprise speaks volumes.

More about the Bush administration’s shenanigans
In this Week’s Bargain Bin: Our National Parks
10 Eco-Horrors That Should Have You Scared
A Return To Colorado Oil Shale?

ExxonMobil Still Fighting Hard to Avoid Making Interest Payments in Valdez Oil Spill Debacle

Source: “ExxonMobil Still Fighting Hard to Avoid Making Interest Payments in Valdez Oil Spill Debacle”, treehugger.com, Jeremy Elton Jacqout, 1st Nov 2008

Image from marinephotobank

For a company that supposedly prides itself on being more than just your “regular” oil firm (is it just me or was every other ad during the Beijing Olympics an ad for ExxonMobil’s “softer” side?), ExxonMobil sure has a strange way of showing it. Indeed, while it continues to rake in record profits (most of which I’m guessing does not derive from its non-oil initiatives), it has fought tooth and nail in court to avoid making the interest payments it owes to the victims of the 1989 Valdez oil spill. The Center for Public Integrity’s Marianne Lavelle, who got the scoop on the story, notes that the amount it owes, roughly $500 million, corresponds to about three days‘ worth of its profits.

Image from YourLocalDave

Supreme Court decision spared Exxon from worst of punitive measures
You may remember that Exxon got off relatively easy in the lawsuit filed against it by a coalition of Alaskan fishermen, cannery workers and others affected by the spill, with the Supreme Court ruling that it would only need to pay $500 million in damages instead of the original $2.5 billion. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that, on top of the $500 million, Exxon also owes the Alaskans $500 million — the equivalent of 12 years’ worth of interest (since the date of the original judgment on September 24, 1996).

Exxon interpretation would allow it to only pay several months’ worth in interest
Exxon, obviously, did not agree with the lawyers’ interpretation, saying that it should only owe interest from June 25, the date of the Supreme Court’s decision. This comes at a time when Exxon announced $14.8 billion in quarterly profits, the largest of any U.S. company in history and divulged that it had spent $8 billion to buy back its own stock.

Before any money gets disbursed to the plaintiffs (assuming they win their case, of course), another dispute involving Sea Hawk Seafoods, a Seattle-based company that operated a fish-processing plant in the area, will need to be resolved. The company has challenged the court’s formula for distributing the money, so a decision will need to be reached before the other plaintiffs can begin receiving an average of $15,000 (double that if Exxon is made to cough up the interest) each.

Looks like Exxon may need to pour more cash into blanketing the airwaves with sappy, tear-jerking ads if it hopes to get rid of all this bad (but well-deserved) publicity.

Via: PaperTrail Blog: ENERGY: Amid Record Profits, Exxon Tries to Shirk Interest Payments in Valdez Oil Spill Case

More news about ExxonMobil
Exxon Blocking Toy Safety Bill That Would Ban Phthalates in Toys
Greenwash Watch: Exxon’s New Improved Lithium Ion Battery
Who Are They Kidding: Exxon Says Never Doubted Climate Change

My Bottom Line is Green: McCain v. Obama on Renewable Energy

 

Source: “My Bottom Line is Green: McCain v. Obama on Renewable Energy”, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, Matthew McDermott, 17th Sept 2008

In politics everyone has their bottom line issue: The issue for them which is the ultimate deciding factor when comparing candidates running for office. For me, and I suspect many TreeHugger readers, that issue is the environment.

In that spirit, over the next couple of weeks I’m going to be presenting a series of posts comparing the proposed policies of Barack Obama and John McCain, mostly in their own words and with my take on them at the end. Many people have already made up their minds, but for those who haven’t I hope this comparison proves useful. Renewable Energy is up first:

Before we get into the heart of this everyone needs to keep in mind that both candidates undoubtedly place energy policy high on their list of priorities, which is a good thing. How each prioritizes the co-joined issues of energy independence and greening our energy mix, not to mention the best way to go about doing each, vary considerably.

John McCain on Renewable Energy

The first thing about the McCain renewable energy policy in the official campaign literature is that any reference to it occurs after mentioning expanding domestic oil and natural gas production, after expanding nuclear power, and after mention of clean coal—all of which will be tackled in future posts—and when he does get around to talking about renewable energy it is in fairly general terms:

“Even-handed” System of Tax Credits to Promote Renewables

According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continued its double-digit annual growth rate in 2006. To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers’ dollars. (McCain-Palin 2008)

 

Biofuels Show Promise
On biofuels, McCain’s official position is similarly succinct:

…Alcohol-based fuels hold great promise as an alternative to gasoline and as a means of expanding consumer choices. Some choices such as ethanol are on the market right now. The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won’t compete with food crops, are showing great potential.(McCain-Palin 2008)

 

No Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard
In regards to any mandatory federal Renewable Portfolio Standard, McCain has indicated that he would prefer the market to decide the best solution and states to set standards as they deem appropriate:

As a strong supporter of a greenhouse gas cap and trade system, I believe that such an approach is a better way to diversify and cleanup up the nation’s energy mix by harnessing the power of market forces. I believe that government’s role is to set appropriate standards to protect the environment and allow the market to determine the best means of achieving them. To the extent that state and local policymakers identify useful ways to augment this architecture, I believe that governors, mayors, county supervisors, public utility commission and other authorities can better tailor such policies to local conditions and resources. (‘08 On The Record)

 

When asked recently by Science Debate 2008 how government should support renewable energy he said:

Government must be an ally but not an arbiter. [...] I’ve voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary, and often the result of who had the best lobbyist instead of who had the best ideas. But the objective itself was right and urgent. [...] We will reform the effort so that it is fair, rational and permanent, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy.

 

In a broader perspective , The League of Conservation Voters has given John McCain’s lifetime environmental voting record a score of 24 out of 100, adding that he has repeated “rejected even the weakest renewable energy programs.”

Sarah Palin’s Position on Renewable Energy
There’s no doubt that Sarah Palin speaks out far more about expanding production of fossil fuels than on the benefits of renewable energy and her now oft-cited quote,“alternative energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop” (The Post & Courier), does little to promote any other viewpoint.

That said, last year she did add her name to a letter to the Senate Committee on Agriculture which isn’t so hostile towards, and frankly ignorant about, renewable energy:

If the nation is to pursue energy independence, we must look beyond traditional biofuels production. [...] Local production of renewable biomass energy benefits the national economy, promotes national and regional energy security and stimulates the rural economy through the creation of high quality jobs. Encouraging such production will require increased federal investment in programs that support cellulosic biofuels research, increased biodiesel production and use, increases in wind and solar energy and energy from animal wastes, improvements in energy efficiency, bio-based product development, effective carbon storage, and other renewable technologies. (On The Issues 2008)

Barack Obama on Renewable Energy

Low Carbon Fuel Standard
In addition to the 25% by 2025 Renewable Portfolio Standard mentioned above, Obama would:

Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuel suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon of their fuels by 5% within 5 years and 10% within 10 years. The Obama plan will incentivize increased private sector investment in advanced low-carbon fuels and has a sustainability provision to ensure that increased biofuel production does not come at the expense of environmental conservation. (Barack Obama and Joe Biden)

 

Food Versus Fuel
On May 4th of this year on Meet the Press Obama weighed in on the food versus fuel debate. He was asked whether he would consider changing the current ethanol subsidy program:

We’ve got rising food prices here in the US. In other countries we’re seeing riots because of the lack of food supplies. So this is something that we’re going to have to deal with. [...] My top priority is making sure that people are able to get enough to eat. And if it turns out that we’ve got to make changes in our ethanol policy to help people get something to eat, then that’s got to be the step we take. But I also believe that ethanol has been a important transitional tool for us to start dealing with our long-term energy crisis ultimately. Over time we’re going to shift to cellulosic ethanol, where we’re not using food stocks but we’re using wood chips & prairie grass.

 

The League of Conservation Voters has given Obama’s lifetime environmental voting record a score of 96 out of 100.

How Does Joe Biden Play Into This?
According to the LCV, Joe Biden has a lifetime environmental voting record score of 84, which compares to a Senate average of 52. When asked about a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard by LCV he said,

I support setting a national renewable fuel standard of 20% to increase the use of renewable fuels. We should have a national policy that encourages the development of clean, renewable energy and we should invest in developing renewable energy technology. The US should be a world leader not only in using renewable energy but also in developing and exporting renewable technology to the rest of the world.

Barack Obama’s position on renewable energy is well publicized in his campaign documents. He has promised to invest $150 billion over 10 years in renewable energy technologies; he has said that by 2030 he will require at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels be incorporated into the national fuel mix; by 2025 Obama would require that 25% of the US electricity supply be generated from “clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal; and he would extend the federal production tax credit for five years to assist in making this happen.

To my knowledge, he’s not offered any definitive plan as to how US developed technology will be exported to the rest of the world—is he referring to technology transfer to developing countries or just the normal trade that already goes on?—but either way it’s good to see this mentioned.

McCain & Obama Head to Head

Obama supports strong national policies promoting renewable energy, including a strong Renewable Portfolio Standard; McCain would leave many such decisions to the states and has expressed no support for a national RPS. Obama has a clear position on how long renewable energy tax credits would be extended; McCain only states that an “even-handed system” is needed until renewable energy no longer needs support. Both candidates support biofuels, and seem to have gotten the message that first generation biofuels aren’t quite the thing we thought they were, but here too Obama’s position is more detailed and clear. In terms of running-mates, Joe Biden is far more articulate on the issue of renewable energy than Sarah Palin and is clearly a supporter; whereas Palin is ambivalent at best and at worst simply doesn’t get it.McCain Talks Renewable Energy But Clearly Prioritizes Other Energy Sources
Overall though, I think the starkest contrast between the campaigns is that the McCain platform clearly prioritizes increasing domestic fossil fuel production and expansion of nuclear power over renewable energy. It is somewhat supportive of renewables in its rhetoric—though it seems as though he thinks the current renewable energy tax credits are some sort of command economy lite, which they simply aren’t—but this is secondary to the issue of increasing energy independence.

Obama Places Renewables on More Even Footing
The Obama campaign clearly envisions renewable energy occupying a greater portion of the United States’ energy supply in a shorter time period than does the McCain campaign. While it too mentions nuclear and the oxymoronic clean coal these are prioritized far differently than in the McCain campaign. Obama has clearly expressed that the federal government should take the lead in promoting renewable energy, again a stark difference. While it may not be perfect—$150 billion over ten years is an genuine increase in government investment in renewables, but it is a small fraction of overall investment that is needed—the Obama position on renewable energy is simply stronger.

2008 US Presidential Elections
John McCain on Amtrak
John McCain’s Bear Problem
“Drill Baby Drill” Screams Punctuate McCain’s Energy Policy in Acceptance Speech
Economic Advantages of Green Energy Take Precedence Over Environmental Benefits in Obama Acceptance Speech
What Green Words Are Obama and McCain Really Saying? Ask SpeechWars
Offshore Oil Drilling Will Still Not Lower Gasoline Prices: Barack Obama and Legislative Compromise

Sarah Palin’s Record On the Environment: A Closer Look

Palin on the Environment, Beyond the Sound Bites
We’ve all heard the big ones by now: Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in global warming (as a result of human practices, at least), she’s suing the federal government to getpolar bears removed from the endangered species list, and she vigorously supports opening the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve up for drilling.

But Palin’s stance on environmental issues is far more detailed than those simple, sound bite-friendly talking points. A recent Associated Press article delves into her repeated run-ins with environmentalists and federal marine scientists and breaks down her votes on a slew of environmental issues. Take a look at some of the Alaskan governor’s votes and stances:

Palin’s Votes on Alaskan Environmental Issues
(from the AP ):

-Her administration disputes conclusions by the federal National Marine Fisheries Service and its science advisers that the beluga whale population is in critical danger. The state argues that 2007 data shows the whale rebounding.
-Palin opposed a state ballot initiative to increase protection of salmon streams from mining operations. It was defeated.
-She also opposed a ballot initiative barring the shooting of wolves and bears from aircraft except in biological emergencies. It was also defeated.

 

And then there’s this:

Under Palin, the state Board of Game authorized for the first time in 20 years the shooting of wolves by state wildlife officials from helicopters. The order resulted in the controversial shooting this summer of 14 one-month-old wolf pups taken from dens on a remote peninsula 800 miles southwest of Anchorage — an act that environmentalists claim was illegal. State officials characterized the killings as humanitarian, saying the pups would have suffered and eventually died without the care of their parents. Environmentalists argued they were killed to boost caribou populations to the benefit of hunters.

Additionally, she enacted a policy that provides a bounty of $150 for each freshly killed wolf turned in to the state, which is paid for with state funds.

In Palin’s Defence
Palin’s defenders, as cited in the article, say that she’s acted to preserve the economy of state, since “the extraction of oil, natural gas, gold, zinc, fish and other natural resources is the primary source of state income and jobs.”

And that very well may be the case—but it doesn’t mean she couldn’t look into more environmentally responsible methods of obtaining resources; like creating sustainable fisheries, for instance—instead, she seems to possess a genuine impulse to vote against the environment when it imposes any economic restrictions to her state and not look back.

The Environment Under Vice President Palin
The sheer number of times she’s voted against the interests of environmental preservation is also a pretty clear indicator of her attitude towards the matter (as is perhaps Palin’s office décor)—which is worrisome, to say the least, to those who believe that environmental threats like global warming constitute some of the most important issues the next vice president (and potential president) may face.

More on Presidential Environmental Politics
John McCain’s Bear Problem
John McCain on Amtrak

Source:

“Sarah Palin’s Record On the Environment: A Closer Look“, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, Brian Merchant, 6th Sept 2008

Poor Management Costing Fisheries Upwards of $50 Billion a Year

Image courtesy of Greenpeace

Given the gusto with which we’ve decimated the ocean’s major fisheries stocks over the past half-century, it should hardly come as a surprise that we’ve been extremely wasteful in the process. According to a new U.N. report, entitled “The Sunken Billions: Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform,” the world’s fishing fleets are pissing away close to $50 billion a year through poor management and overfishing, reports BBC News‘ Richard Black.

The report concludes that half of the fleet could be removed without any change in catch. The two principal reasons for this waste — poor regulation and depleted stocks (which makes catching the same amount of fish every year increasingly difficult) — could thus be remedied: boosting the industry’s profits and sharply reducing its pressure on the world’s remaining fisheries stocks.

Overfishing: A major problem that is only getting worse
Recent studies have pegged the number of significantly depleted stocks at one-third of the total; as I wrote about a few months ago, a study authored by Daniel Pauly, one of the world’s foremost fisheries experts, found that catches in several tropical island countries was up to 17 times higher than officially reported, a trend that is likely replicated elsewhere around the world.

Discounting the effects of climate change and overfishing
Others have shown that the impacts of climate change — the warming of sea surface waters and an increase in sea ice melting, for example — are being seriously underestimated by fishing fleets and the world’s regulatory authorities. This impairs fish quotas and licensing decisions, resulting in commercial-scale fisheries often benefiting at the expense of small, local fisheries in developing countries.

Many of the fish stocks the scientists examined could go extinct over the next four decades if present trends continue. Even though fishing fleets have been ramping up their operations in recent years to compensate for the decline in fish stocks, the report finds that catches have not been increasing — they are stable at around 80 million tons — and that fishing isn’t become any more profitable.

One problem driving this trend is the excessive amount of subsidies, which researchers say has only helped accelerate it. The other major issue is the lack of sustainable fishery models and poor management approaches, which has caused many fisheries to repeat the same mistakes over the last decade.

Thankfully, a few countries, including New Zealand, Iceland and parts of Australia and (yes) the United States, have shown what conservation and good management can accomplish — though the report says that even they could improve. Perhaps the global adoption of a catch-share system, under which fishers are granted a percentage share of the total allowable catch, could help resolve many of these lingering problems.

Via ::BBC News: Fisheries waste ‘costs billions’ (news website)

More about fisheries
::Catch-Share System Could Save World’s Fisheries From Collapse
::Global Fisheries Hit by Climate Change and Overfishing
::Overfishing Update: Endangered Atlantic Bluefin on the Menu at Nobu in London, EU to Reconsider Fishing Common Policy

Source:

“Poor Management Costing Fisheries Upwards of $50 Billion a Year“, treehugger.com, Science & Nature, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 11th Oct 2008

German Scientist Outlines Massive Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) Plan to Save the Antarctic

Image from es0teric

To save Antarctica from following the fate of the (doomed) Arctic ice cap, we must place our faith in phytoplankton, says Victor Shahed Smetacek. Though it may already be too late to save the Arctic — as we’ve written before, most scientists predict it will be gone by century’s end — it is possible that we could forestall the wholesale melting of the Antarctic ice cap if we start dumping large amounts of iron into the Southern Ocean.

If you’re a longtime reader of this site, then iron fertilization won’t be anything new to you (in fact, we first described Smetacek’s plan a year ago): The basic gist is that, by fertilizing large patches of the ocean with iron filings (typically as iron sulfate particles), you kickstart phytoplankton productivity by allowing them to increase their rates of photosynthesis — which leads to more atmospheric carbon dioxide being taken up in the ocean.

Smetacek, an oceanographer from the University of Bremen whose research I’ve been closely following over the last few years, happens to be one of iron fertilization’s most vocal proponents (and an excellent scientist). The best way to naturally sequester carbon, he believes, is to use phytoplankton to suck up excess carbon dioxide and drag it to the bottom of the ocean when they die, ensuring the gas doesn’t get released back to the atmosphere. In an interview with the New Brunswick Business Journal, he said that iron-enriched phytoplankton could remove up to a gigaton, or one trillion kilograms (!), of carbon dioxide every year.

Derwin Gowan describes his plan in more detail:

However, it would take only five to 10 ocean-going ships, possibly tankers or ore carriers, to fertilize the oceans each year with iron sulphate, a waste product from smelting titanium and iron, he said.The ships would drift with wind and current. They might accommodate tourists, maybe summer students, who would underwrite part of the cost. They might even lend their labour to shovel the stuff overboard.

The project would cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than the billions or trillions it would costs for other geo-engineering proposals – such as seeding the upper atmosphere with particles to reflect sunlight back into space, Smetacek said. It could save hundrds of millions of people from being displaced, he said.

 

His plan certainly won’t please the many environmentalists and scientists who are (understandably) wary of tinkering with the planet on such a grand scale. (As someone who’s heard/learned a lot about iron biogeochemistry and oceanography over the last year and a half, I have to say that I’m still not fully convinced of OIF’s merits.)

Some also argue that using geoengineering — other techniques include carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere – will give big industries carte blanche to keep on polluting, reducing the effectiveness of GHG mitigation and energy conservation efforts.

Recognizing this, Smetacek acknowledges that any large-scale iron fertilization demonstration will need to be paired with stringent emission caps and mitigation efforts to have a sustained impact on climate change. Also, he doesn’t believe that companies should be allowed to engage in iron fertilization, because he argues that all aspects of fertilization need be tightly controlled and overseen by trained scientists.

He envisages a long-term fertilization program that would remove 100 to 1,000 megatons of carbon every year. It remains to be seen whether his lofty scenario will square with reality, however, since there isn’t yet any empirical evidence to back up his projections.

Via ::New Brunswick Business Journal: ‘Geo-engineering’ might save planet: scientist(news website)

More about iron fertilization
::Where We Stand on Iron Fertilization
::What Would Be the Side Effects of Iron Fertilization?
::International Team Of Scientists To Test South Atlantic Carbon Sink In 2009

Source:

“German Scientist Outlines Massive Iron Fertilization Plan to Save Antarctica”, treehugger.com, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 1st Oct 2008

Millions May Gain Access to Clean Water After Clinton Global Initiative ‘Mega-Commitment’

 

photo: Pierre Holtz for UNICEF | hdptcar.net

Though the issue of clean water and sanitation hasn’t made it onto the environmental radar of late as much as equally critical issues such as global warming, renewable energy or tropical deforestation, it is one of monumental significance. The statistics alone are staggering: 2.6 billion people in the world lack access to sanitary toilet facilities and 1.1 billion people have no access to safe drinking water; diarrhea is the number two killer of children under age 5 in the world, ten times greater than malaria and HIV combined.

Addressing this issue is one of the most important commitments made at this year’sClinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting, the so-called “Water & Sanitation Mega-Commitment”:

Nearly $460 Million Pledged For Water & Sanitation
In total, 15 CGI member organizations have come together in making collectively a commitment nearing $460 million dollars that will improve the very basic quality of life and improve the health of some 6 million of the world’s poorest people. There’s a lot being done here, to the point that I’m just providing links to the organizations so that readers can delve more into the work these organizations are doing.

This is a summary of the different programs which are part of the mega-commitment.

Aquaya Institute
$25,000 over 1 year
The Aquaya Institute will be undertaking a “Community Level Trial of the PUR Purifier of Water.” With support of the Tigerlake Foundation, this San Francisco-based NGO is working with the Safe Water and AIDS Project to develop small safe water vending businesses in Kenya.

Estamos
$2 million over 3 years
A Mozambique-based non-profit, Estamos will be providing “100% Access to Water and Sanitation in 50 Villages”. In addition, education about hygiene and HIV/AIDS will be conducted through music and theatre presentations.

Global Action and the Heinrich Family Foundation
$550,000 over 3 Years 
In “Implementing Safe Water Interventions in Tanzania” Global Action and the Heinrich Family Foundation will be reducing micronutrient malnutrition and increase access to safe drinking water for 25,000 children living in Tanzania by integrating in-house use micronutrient fortification and water purification interventions.

Global Water Challenge
$25 million over 3-5 years
A Washington DC-based coalition of 22 companies, non-profits, health organizations, and foundations, Global Water Challenge will be funding several innovative new local entrepreneurial water and sanitation projects through their Changemakerscompetition.

video: Global Water Challenge

Source:

“Millions May Gain Access to Clean Water After Clinton Global Initiative ‘Mega-Commitment’“, treehugger.com, Food & Health, Matthew McDermott, 26th Sept 2008

The Arctic – Fastest August Ice Retreat in History

Images from NSIDC

While we may have narrowly avoided setting a new record high in Arctic ice loss this year, it look as though we may have still hit a dubious milestone: achieving the fastest rate of melting during a four-week period in August than at any time in recent history. Between August 1 and August 31, sea ice declined at a rate of 32,700 square miles per day compared to a rate of roughly 24,400 square miles per day last year. The historical average for that period is 19,700 square miles per day.

As Matthew noted in a recent post, we barely missed passing the record set last year. According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), sea ice covered around 4.5 million square kilometers at its lowest point on September 12; by comparison, sea ice covered 4.1 million square kilometers the same time last year.

Not that we should consider this temporary reprieve an auspicious sign. The BBCarticle Matthew cited quoted the NSIDC’s Walt Meier as saying: “(…) so people might be tempted to call it a recovery, but I don’t think that’s a good term, we’re still on a downwards trend towards ice-free Arctic summers.” Indeed, most climate scientists still believe that, if present trends continue, all arctic sea ice will be gone by the end of the century.

Researchers believe that the uptick in melting could be due in part to conditioning taking place in the region; in a study published in Geophysical Research Letters, Jennifer Kay of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and her colleagues found that diminished cloud cover in 2007 allowed more sunlight to reach Earth, which caused more ice melting at the surface and, by warming sea surface temperatures, melting from below as well. This trend is likely to continue as the sea ice, besieged by warming surface water temperatures on one side and a higher albedo effect on the other, becomes thinner and loses the capacity to regenerate.

Via ::ScienceDaily: Arctic Saw Fastest August Sea Ice Retreat On Record, NASA Data Show (news website)

More about Arctic ice cap melting
::Arctic Ice Is Melting At Record Highs
::Melting Arctic Ice Increases Permafrost Thaw Farther Inland Than Previously Thought
::Oh! So Close: Arctic Sea Ice Summer Melt Fails to Set Record in 2008

Source:

“Arctic Just Witnessed Fastest August Ice Retreat in History”, treehugger.com, Science & Technology, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 27th Sept 2008

Wal-Mart Goes on a Plastic Diet: 9 Million Plastic Bags to Be Eliminated From Waste Stream

photo: Jim

Another significant environmental commitment coming out of the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting comes from an seemingly unlikely paring: The Environmental Defense Fund and Wal-Mart.

Announced in the Metropolitan Ballroom by President Bill Clinton, who was keen to point out the odd-couple nature of the situation, the Global Plastic Shopping Bag Commitment stands to make a serious dent in the plastic shopping bag waste by big box mega-retailer Wal-Mart. How much waste will be avoided:

One-Third Per Store Plastic Bag Reduction by 2013
Granted the qualifying word “potentially” prefaced this next figure in the public announcement, but this commitment could eliminate 9 million plastic shopping bags per year from Wal-Mart stores. To do this EDF will help Wal-Mart develop strategies for recycling, reusing and reducing the use of plastic bags in its stores by an average of one-third per store, from 2008 levels, by 2013.

An estimated 290,000 tonnes of carbon emissions and energy consumption equal to 678,000 barrels of oil will be eliminated through this action.

Specific Measures That EDF Will Be Taking 
Proving scientific advice to Wal-Mart on the environmental impact of plastic bag use, as well as quantifying the carbon footprint of alternative bags and packing options.

Assist in developing educational materials for Wal-Mart customers.

Evaluating Wal-Mart projections for program’s environmental benefits.

Monitor and assess the project’s progress.

:: Clinton Global Initiative

Clinton Global Initiative
3500 MW of Green Power in India, China to be Developed by Suzlon Green Power
Clinton Global Initiative Highlights: Old World is Oil, New World is Renewables

Plastic Bags
Encinitas, CA – Latest City to Ban Plastic Bags
Paper Bags or Plastic Bags? Everything You Need to Know

Source:

“Wal-Mart Goes on a Plastic Diet: 9 Million Plastic Bags to Be Eliminated From Waste Stream“, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, Matthew McDermott, 25th Sept 2008

Obama Versus McCain on Offshore Drilling & ANWR

photo: Tim Thomson

As the House of Representatives just approved a new energy package which contains provisions to allow some offshore oil drilling, it may seem to be a moot point to go into a discussion of where John McCain and Barack Obama stand on the issue, but as there are still legislative hurdles to be cleared before any law is actually passed on the matter, it’s worthwhile to go over their positions. So here there are, Obama and McCain on oil drilling, both offshore and in ANWR:

Again, many TreeHugger readers have probably already formed opinions about which of these candidates they back. (Or a third-party candidate, but since realistically it will be one these two men who is the next US president I’m consciously confining the discussion to Obama and McCain; please don’t take this as advocating that two political parties is the best way to run a country.) For those people who haven’t yet made up their minds, I hope this proves useful.  

---

photo: McCain-Palin 2008   

John McCain on Offshore Oil Drilling & ANWR

As the screams of “drill, baby, drill” during John McCain’s nomination acceptance speech were met with grins from the man of the moment there’s little mistaking where he stands on the issue. One look as the McCain-Palin campaign literature confirms that expanding domestic oil and natural gas production will head up his energy policy, at least in the short-term. This is increasingly presented as the best route towards energy independence in the United States.On Domestic Oil Drilling

The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. (McCain-Palin 2008)

 

In a Republican primary debate at the end of 2007, McCain even went so far as to say that the United States could be oil independent within the next decade: 

We have got to achieve energy independence, oil independence in this nation. I will make it a Manhattan Project, and we will in five years become oil independent.

 

Viewed in a conciliatory light this would be an overly optimistic position to take. According to the a Pentagon report published in 2004, the earliest the US could realistically be free from imported oil would be 2040. (On the Issues)

Offshore Drilling Viewed More Favorably Than Before
It’s useful to note that McCain’s position on offshore oil drilling underwent a sea change between May and June of this year.

On May 29th he said of offshore oil drilling, “… I also have to tell you that with those resources, which would take years to develop, it would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels.”

However, by June 16th he had moved to this position, “Providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.”

ANWR: McCain & Palin Differ
Though John McCain has expressed opposition to opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, Sarah Palin has on numerous occasions expressed vociferous support for oil drilling in ANWR:

Pres. Bush is right. Across the nation, communities are feeling the pinch of high energy costs. It is absurd that we are borrowing from one foreign country to buy oil from another. It is a threat to our national security and economic well-being. It is well past time for America to develop our own supplies. (Alaska Governor’s Office press release, April 29, 2008)

 

It remains to be seen whether Palin will be able to influence McCain’s position or whether her’s will have to be subdued.

---

photo: David Katz/Obama for America  

Barack Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling & ANWR

The official Obama-Biden position on domestic oil drilling is terse in comparison to the McCain position. Obama states clearly that he believes that there is no way the United States can drill its way towards energy independence, but he does add that,

U.S. oil and gas production plays an important role in our domestic economy and remains critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher. There are several key opportunities to support increased U.S. production of oil and gas that do not require opening up currently protected areas. (New Energy for America)

Offshore Drilling Will Not Lower Oil Prices Today…Or Five Years From Now
At a speech in Jacksonville, Florida on June 20th of this year, Obama stated his position a bit more definitively. 

What wouldn’t do a thing to lower gas prices is [...] to open up Florida’s coastline to offshore drilling [...] It would have long term consequences for our coastlines but no short term benefits since it would take at least 10 years to get any oil. [...] Offshore oil drilling would not lower gas prices today. It would not lower gas prices tomorrow. It would not lower gas prices next year. It would not lower gas prices five years from now. In fact, President Bush’s own energy department says that we won’t see a drop of oil…until 2017. And, in fact, you won’t see any full production from any oil drilling off the coasts until 2030. It will take a generation to reach full production and even then the effect on gas prices will be minimal at best.

 

Compromise Would Be Considered
However, he went on to say that if offshore oil drilling could be shown to have a beneficial effect on reducing oil prices in the short term, he would not be opposed to it. And in future statements he expressed that he is willing to compromise on offshore drilling if it is part of a larger package which supports renewable energy,

If we have a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set, and there are some things in there that I don’t like … I would consider it because that’s the nature of how we govern in a democracy. 

I remain skeptical of some of the drilling provisions [in the so-called “Gang of Ten” bill], but I will give them [the bill's drafters] credit that the way they crafted the drilling provisions are about as careful and responsible as you might expect for a drilling agenda.

 

At the time this opened up Obama to accusations of doing pretty much the same thing that McCain did in changing his position on offshore drilling (and I’m sure there people who currently believe this).

ANWR is Out
In stark contrast to the Palin position on ANWR is Obama’s. It may be brief but here it is:

I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernible impact on U.S. energy security. (ANWR)

 

---

ANWR photo: Madhav Pai  

Oil Drilling Head to Head

Both myself and a number of other TreeHugger writers have taken on the issue of offshore oil drilling a number of times, and at the level of utility alone (leaving aside environmental concerns about pollution or otherwise disturbing ecosystems, which are genuine concerns) Obama’s position is solidly borne out. He correctly states the best estimates for how long it would take to bring new offshore oil online and correctly quotes the assessments as to what sort of impact on prices it will have.Take It From the Feds
The US Geological Survey estimates that there are 17.8 billion of barrels offshore in areas under moratorium; the EIA says this wouldn’t have an impact on prices until 2030; and then the “impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant” (same EIA citation).

Perhaps a Chart is Better
In terms of what percentage of oil is actually in protected areas offshore compared to how much oil the United States uses, I’ll simply repost the chart that TreeHugger posted a few days ago:

image: Architecture 2030

Offshore Oil Drilling a Distraction From More Important Issues
As I said in commenting on John McCain’s acceptance speech two weeks ago, this constant focus on opening up new areas in the United States to oil drilling is simply a distraction from the greater issues of reducing fossil fuel consumption, developing clean energy sources, and moving the economy away from polluting and increasingly scarce energy sources.

While the psychological effect of opening up new areas to drilling may reduce prices slightly, they could just as easily be increased based on fears of another hurricane smashing into Louisiana and Texas, of Hugo Chavez cutting off oil supplies to the US, or an RPG attack on a tanker in the Persian Gulf.

The prime beneficiaries of any offshore oil drilling will ultimately be the companies doing the drilling, not the citizens of the United States.

---

Want to know where McCain and Obama stand on renewable energy? Check out My Bottom Line is Green: McCain v. Obama on Renewable Energy. 

---

2008 US Presidential Elections
John McCain on Amtrak
John McCain’s Bear Problem
“Drill Baby Drill” Screams Punctuate McCain’s Energy Policy in Acceptance Speech
Economic Advantages of Green Energy Take Precedence Over Environmental Benefits in Obama Acceptance Speech
What Green Words Are Obama and McCain Really Saying? Ask SpeechWars
Offshore Oil Drilling Will Still Not Lower Gasoline Prices: Barack Obama and Legislative Compromise  

Source:

“Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel: McCain v. Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling & ANWR“, treehugger.com, Politics & Business, Matthew McDermott, 19th Sept 2008

Permafrost Holds Twice as Much Greenhouse Gases as Previously Thought: Over 1500 Billion Tons of CO2 and Methane

Image from jurvetson

Following on the heels of a recently published study in the journal Nature Geoscience, which estimated that Arctic permafrost could hold 60% more organic carbon than previously thought, a team of scientists from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has found that the planet’s permafrost layers — comprising an area that covers a fifth of Earth’s land mass – store twice as much methane and carbon dioxide as previously believed.

The results of their study, published in the journal Bioscience, state that permafrost layers located at high altitudes contain over 1500 billion tons of CO2 and methane, or twice the amount of GHG currently present in the atmosphere.

Image from Sergei Zimov/CSIRO

Release of even a fraction could greatly increase future temperature rise
While he said it was too early to start making dire predictions about future melting rates, Pep Canadell, a CSIRO atmospheric scientist who co-authored the paper, warned that: “With temperatures in the higher latitudes estimated to rise by as much as eight degrees by the end of this century, the world could experience a major melt of large tracts of permafrost in Canada, Russia, Alaska, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Greenland”.

Consequences could be worsened by positive feedback loop
The great fear among scientists, of course, is that a sudden release of methane and CO2 from the thawing permafrost could perpetuate a dangerous positive feedback cycle in which rising atmospheric GHG levels could accelerate climate change, resulting in more melting and, thus, more emissions. What is clear, in the wake of this and the Nature study, is that climate researchers will have to rejigger their models — which could lead to some sobering revisions in emission targets.

Methane: a potential energy source?
Aside from simply slowing the release of GHG emissions (easier said than done), there is the possibility that some of that trapped methane could be harnessed as an alternative source of energy. Though risky (methane is roughly 21-23 times more potent a GHG than CO2), Japan, Canada and a few other countries have been working on finding economical ways to safely extract the methane hydrates from wells in the permafrost. For now, however, it’s probably best to focus on the main issue at hand: drastically reducing our current emission production.

Via ::Climate Change Blog: Permafrost Perma-Emergency (blog)

More about permafrost
::60% More Greenhouse Gases Trapped in Permafrost Than Previously Thought
::Melting Arctic Ice Increases Permafrost Thaw Farther Inland Than Previously Thought
::Researchers Extract Permafrost-Locked Methane from Gas Hydrates, Potentially Paving Way for Large New Energy Source

Source:

“Permafrost Holds Twice as Much GHGs as Previously Thought: Over 1500 Billion Tons of CO2 and Methane”, treehugger.com, Science & Technology, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 13th Sept 2008

Palin & McCain – At Odds Over the Environment

Someone, please, clarify something for me: what happens when a president and his vice-president “agree to disagree”?

At least the George W Bush administration was consistent within itself. But with the new Republican ticket, we are faced with the prospect of a US president who is against drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge paired to a VP who staunchly supports it, and says the two will just have to “agree to disagree”.

What does that mean? And will she be equally conciliatory about their opposite views regarding the causes of climate change? It’s difficult to follow McCain’s mercurial views, but he backs the scientific consensus that industrial activities are causing climate change and has supported cap and trade. Palin, on the other hand acknowledges that global warming is happening, but is “not one who would attribute it to being man-made”.

When couples agree to disagree, it’s generally a way of closing a discussion, shelving it, putting it away, forgetting about it entirely. But this is crunch-time for the climate. In Copenhagen in 2009, world leaders will have to make arguably the most important environmental decision of their respective terms in office.

For the new US government, it will be their first great foray into international climate negotiations. After years of supreme isolationism, finally broken by the Bush administration’s astonishing performance at UN climate talks last December, the world will be looking to the US. What - what - will happen if the country’s leaders have “agreed to disagree”?

“When it comes to environmental issues, the only difference between George W Bush and Sarah Palin is lipstick,” said Kate Troll, executive director of Alaska Conservation Voters, a local green group.

I disagree. Bush may have had his arm twisted, but he did concede that humans are causing climate change. It may have taken many a sleepless night in Bali, but his representatives did agree to draw up a post-Kyoto treaty by 2009. It may have caused him to shun UN discussions on climate change, but his world’s biggest emitters committee did create a forum for China and the US to meet and discuss their positions on climate at the highest possible level.

The difference between Bush and Palin is not lipstick. It’s much more than that. Palin makes Bush look like a forward-thinking tree-hugger. To elect her would be to take four steps back after it took Bush eight years to take two steps forward.

Yes, in the short term, the world is going to have to burn more fossil fuels. But we desperately need leaders – not just US leaders, mind – who can look beyond the short-term, and far beyond their terms in office. Climate agreements span decades. The leaders who sign them are working on long-term legacy, not short-term glory.

The vacancy at the White House requires someone who can deal with short-term crises and has the ideals to form a realistic long-term vision. With all due respect, Palin does not fit the bill. “Agreeing to disagree” probably makes her a very pleasant person to spend time with. It does not make her a vice-president.

Source:

“Palin and mccain: At odds over the environment”, New Scientist Environment Blog, Catherine Brahic, 12th Sept 2008

Global Warming boosts strongest storms

 

Typhoon Nuri was the 12th tropical storm to hit the Philippines this year

The strongest tropical storms are becoming even stronger as the world’s oceans warm, scientists have confirmed.

Analysis of satellite data shows that in the last 25 years, strong cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons have become more frequent in most of the tropics.

Writing in the journal Nature, they say the number of weaker storms has not noticeably altered.

The idea that climate change might be linked to tropical storms has been highly controversial.

A few years ago, it was claimed that hurricanes would become more frequent as well as more common in a warming world.

The swirling winds pick up energy from a warm ocean.

But recent research has suggested they would occur less frequently, though likely to pack a more powerful punch each time.

James Elsner from Florida State University in Tallahassee, US and colleagues believed the link might become clearer if they analysed data according to the strength of storms.

HOW TROPICAL STORMS FORM Sea surface temperatures above 26.5C (79.7F) A pre-existing weather disturbance Moisture in the atmosphere Favourable conditions, such as light winds or weak wind shear Animated guide: Tropical storms

“We’re seeing a signal, and it’s telling us that the strongest effect (of rising ocean temperatures) is on the strongest storms,” he told BBC News.

“At average or median wind speeds, about 40m/s, we don’t see a trend; but when we get up to 50 or 60m/s we do see a trend.”

A hurricane featuring winds of 40m/s (89mph) is a Category One storm according to the often-used Saffir-Simpson scale.

At about 60m/s (134mph) it enters Category Four, the strength at which Hurricane Gustav recently hit Cuba before weakening to Category One over the US coast.

Tropical trends

Hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones are different terms used in different regions of the world for the same phenomenon.

However, the bulk of the scientific work on possible links to climate change has featured North Atlantic hurricanes, largely because of the relatively good historical records contained in the US.

The new analysis, using satellite data acquired by US, European and Japanese programmes, shows up different trends across the tropics.

A memorial marks the damaging 1900 hurricane in Galveston, US

The increase in strong storms shows up most markedly in the North Atlantic and Indian oceans, and is absent in the South Pacific.

“We’re looking at different ocean basins, and some are already pretty warm,” said Professor Elsner.

“So there, an increase in temperature isn’t going to produce as strong an increase as in basins where the the temperatures are only marginally supportive of cyclones.”

The researchers believe weaker storms are not affected so much because the factors that prevent them developing to their full potential, notably wind shear – abrupt changes in wind speed and direction that prevent the cyclone fuelling itself with ocean heat – are not related to ocean temperatures.

Globally, a rise of 1C in sea surface temperature would increase the occurrence of strong storms by about one third, the researchers calculate.

Apart from human-induced climate change, the incidence of tropical storms is determined by natural cycles such as El Nino that affect surface temperatures in various parts of the oceans.

The damage they do is affected far less by their strength than by where they hit land, and by how able a society is to withstand the winds and rain.

Source:

“Warming boosts strongest storms” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7596643.stm), BBC News Online, Science/Nature, Richard Black, 3rd Sept 2008

Obama’s Energy Plan

 

Many of you have probably seen, heard or read about Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last night. For those who haven’t seen it and who have 45 minutes to spare, a video of the entire speech is embedded above. However for those with less time on their hands, here are the relevant portions in regards to what Mr Obama has said in regards to energy policy. 

Environmental and climate change policy were not mentioned.The fact that these are absent from this speech is slightly disconcerting, but if pushing forward the economic benefits of renewable energy is what it takes to convince more people of its virtues (and the end result is lowered greenhouse gas emissions), then I won’t begrudge Barack for not mentioning them in this venue.

Ending Oil Dependency

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East. We will do this. 

Washington — Washington has been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years. And, by the way, John McCain has been there for 26 of them. And in that time, he has said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels.And today, we import triple the amount of oil than we had on the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution, not even close.

 

It probably goes without saying that better fuel efficiency standards, more investment in renewable energy and more consistent government policy on incentives (too bad this last one wasn’t mentioned…) are all perennial themes on TreeHugger. It’s also good to see that Obama has said that simply drilling for more oil is not a realistic proposition for kicking the oil habit.

Energy Security/Independence

As president, as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. [...] Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient.

 

I would have liked to see renewable energy come first in the speech—and as we’ve said before, there’s really no such thing as clean coal— but then again I don’t have to carry coal-producing states. I guess we’ll have to see how this one pans out if Obama is elected.

In regards to the government leading on energy policy, but all of us having to do our part to improve how efficiently we use energy: It sounds like he’s been reading TreeHugger.

On Renewable Energy

And I’ll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy — wind power, and solar power, and the next generation of biofuels — an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.

 

Can’t complain here, especially considering there’s mention of the next generation of biofuels, rather than the support he’s previously shown for corn ethanol.

Obviously there’s no specific policy to comment upon here, but the fact that he recognizes the economic benefits of increasing renewable energy investment is good to see. As I said at the outset, while I might argue that the environmental benefits of renewable energy are even more important than the real economic benefits, in uncertain economic times if that’s what it takes to sell the concept, then so be it.

:: Barack Obama

Offshore Oil Drilling, Fuel Efficiency, Renewable Energy, More…
Offshore Oil Drilling Will Still Not Lower Gasoline Prices: Barack Obama and Legislative Compromise
Bush’s New Fuel Economy Rules Look Good…Until You Read All 417 Pages
Important U.S. Renewable Energy Incentive Package Still Stalled in Senate
New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants More Expensive than Expected
There Is No Such Thing As Clean Coal
First Commercial-Scale Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Approved for California
Mapping the Alternative Energy Potential of the United States

Source:

“Economic Advantages of Green Energy Take Precedence over Environmental Benefits in Obama Acceptance Speech“, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, Matthew McDermott, 29th August 2008 

Green Tech in “Formula Zero” Race

Delft University’s Greenchoice leads the newly established table The world’s first international hydrogen-powered motorsport race was held in Rotterdam this weekend. Dubbed the Formula Zero championship, the contest pitted teams from five countries against each other in a zero-emissions go-kart race. Each team’s entry was powered by a commercial fuel cell that produces electricity from hydrogen. A Dutch team won the endurance event, while a Spanish team clinched the award for fastest lap. Peak power Founded by Dutch motorsport enthusiasts Godert van Hardenbroek and Eelco Rietveld, Formula Zero is already recognised by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile, the world’s motorsport governing body. The championship consisted of several events, with teams from the UK, US, the Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium competing for the top honour: zeroth place. The events included a sprint race, won by a Spanish team called EuplatecH2 with a lap time of 36 seconds. In the endurance event, the Greenchoice Forze team from Delft University took the zeroth place on the podium.   Formula Zero looks set to green up motorsport That puts the Delft team on top in the standings. In third place was Imperial College London’s team Imperial Racing Green, who proved to have the most reliable entry if not eventually the fastest. “In 10 years if the motorsport industry as a whole hasn’t engaged in zero or low emission principles, it probably won’t be around,” said Greg Offer, who headed up the Imperial team. “Teams that embrace this new technology early on will succeed, and those that don’t will fall by the wayside.” Racing excitement won’t suffer, though; Dr. Offer says that fuel-cell powered vehicles don’t represent a compromise in performance over traditional petrol-fuelled engines. “With a combustion engine, you have to reach three or four thousand rev[olutions per minute] to get your peak power,” he says. “With an electric vehicle, it’s all there from standing, and they’re more efficient.” It is expected that the class will grow to Formula Three standard and then full-size racing class as interest in green motoring escalates. The next event will be held in the US in March. In 2009 the Formula Zero championship will comprise four races.

IKEA Puts $U.S. 75 Million Toward Cheap Solar

Johan Stenebo is chief of an IKEA susidiary called Greentech, and a man with a dream. Stenebo wants to invest in the “cheapest, best” PV roof panels available in order to sell them in IKEA stores in the next two to four years.

Low-cost solar a tall order
Of course, that’s a very tall order. But IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad’s son Peter is an avowed green tech believer, and Stenebo’s Greentech will put about US$75 million into at many as ten companies in five different areas: solar technology, energy conservation, water saving products, alternative lighting, and new product materials. Scandinavian companies are Greentech’s first focus. Nearly all of these areas are ones we would welcome the IKEA low-cost approach to, although setting up solar roof panels with just the simplistic diagrams and little Allen keys that accompany IKEA’s usual do-it-yourself furniture seems something of a stretch. Then there’s the problem than many installations require building and other permits. But IKEA’s fabulous distribution network of 270 global superstores would mean green tech for the global masses, a welcome development.

Solar supermarkets in four years?
Up until now, IKEA has held itself to interior decoration rather than pursuing the constructing and building sector that is dominated (at least in the U.S.) by players such as Lowe’s and Home Depot. But these megastores haven’t tried to sell green solutions in any organized fashion, so IKEA sees little current competition for its plans to get products to stores in three to four years. Via ::Miljö Aktuellt (Swedish)

Read more on IKEA:
IKEA Bans Plastic Bags For Good
IKEA Gives Out 60,000 Free CFLs
IKEA Lighting The Way To Warmer LED Lamps

Source:

“IKEA Puts $U.S. 75 Million Toward Cheap Solar”, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, April Streeter, 14th Aug 2008

China Raises Taxes on Big Cars (Up to 40%), Lowers Them on Small Cars (Down to 1%)

Trying to Fight Air Pollution
Only 4 months ago, we wrote about how big cars were the stars at the Beijing Auto Show. But now that air pollution is in the news more than ever because of the olympics, it seems like the Chinese government has had second thoughts: It decided to reduce taxes on small cars, and increase them on big vehicles. And they’re not taking half-measures. The tax on some big vehicles can be as high as 40%.

China’s Tax Scale is Based on Engine Size
Starting on September 1st, passenger vehicles with engines bigger than 4 liters will see their tax doubled to 40% from 20%. Engines with displacement from 2 liters to 4 liters will be taxed 25%, up from the current 15%, and cars with engines at or smaller than 1 liter would drop to 1% from the current 3%.

Emission Standards

Via Detroit News:

The country’s big cities have imposed auto emissions standards that exceed those in the U.S. and are at least equal to European levels. Shanghai has banned heavily polluting small motor scooters and limits access to its downtown areas by vehicles failing to meet clean air standards.

China is already the world’s second biggest market for cars, and there’s no doubt that it will become number 1. It’s only a question of time.

Fuel Subisides in China
As we wrote about in a post titled Price Controls on Gasoline in Certain Asian Countries, China has some of the least expensive gasoline in Asia. Almost half of the prices in Hong Kong. Cutting these fuel subsidies, more than taxing vehicles, would probably have a bigger impact on what type of vehicles people want to buy and on air quality.

It will also be interesting to see if China can produce plug-in hybrids (like the BYD F6DM) and electric cars (like BYD’s E6) inexpensively enough for its own population to buy them. This could help it leapfrog many western nations.

China
California Uses More Gasoline and Diesel than China
China’s BYD to Sell Electric Cars and Plug-in Hybrids in Israel in 2009
BYD F6DM: Will the First Plug-In Hybrid be Chinese?
Price Controls on Gasoline in Certain Asian Countries

More on China Taxing Big Cars
China raises tax on big cars to cut pollution

Source:

“China Raises Taxes on Big Cars (Up to 40%), Lowers Them on Small Cars (Down to 1%)”, treehugger.com, Cars & Transportation, Michael Graham Richard, 15th Aug 2008

“Repowering America”, Speech by Al Gore

At D.A.R. Constitution Hall in Washington D.C., Al Gore delivered a speech which outlines his vision of how the United States needs another ‘moon shot’ to solve the intertwined problems of climate change and energy independence. Though he doesn’t come out and say it, he even alludes to peak oil.

Here are some of choice quotes from Mr Gore’s speech:

Reliance on carbon-fuels the source of the environmental problems we’re facing

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges – the economic, environmental and national security crises. We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change. But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we’re holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.

Renewable energy the solution to climate crisis, economic woes, national security

The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels. In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of “solutions summits” with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.

Best way to use renewable energy is for electricity

The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses. But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation’s problems, we need a new start.

100% renewably generated electricity in 10 years

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans – in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

 

National grid infrastructure must be expanded to areas best suited for renewable development

To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity.

 

Carbon tax should replace large part of payroll tax

Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.

 

U.S. Should rejoin the international community regarding climate change

In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world’s agenda for solving the climate crisis.

 

Peak Oil? In all but name.

If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.

 

Obligatory memory of the first ‘moon shot’

On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy’s challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later. 


I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket’s engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.

We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.

Perhaps Bill McKibben, quoted in the We Campaign’s press materials, says it more succinctly that I can, “Finally a response to both the science of climate and the economics of energy on a scale commensurate with the problem. This is a plan that breaks us out of muddling, temporizing stalemate and sets a clear path forward towards an imaginable future.”

Access the complete speech text, A Generational Challenge to Repower America.

:: We Can Solve It

Al Gore
Al Gore Readies Sequel to “An Inconvenient Truth”
Al Gore Announces Big Climate Change Ad Campaign

Climate Change
Climate Change Melting Glaciers, Shrinking Harvests in China and India
Global Warming Changes to Snowmelt Patterns in Western US Could Have Larger Impact Than Previously Thought

Renewable Energy
Solar Power to Reach Parity by 2015, New Study Claims
Second Siemens Wind Turbine Plant to Open in Illinois

High School Harvests 280,000 Gallons of Rainwater Each Year

by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 18th July 2008 for treehugger.com

Green High School
The Langston Brown Community Center and High School in Arlington, Virginia, has a LEED Silver rating and has quite a few interesting green features. The enormous water tanks used to store rainwater certainly are the most visible (though the one on the front of the building is hidden by panels that make it blend in the overall design).

The two 11,000-gallon tanks store about 280,000 gallons of rainwater per year, and that water is used for “onsite irrigation, sidewalk washing, and other uses.” We wish they would consider using it for toilets too, though they already have waterless urinals that contribute to the project’s 23% reduction in potable water use.

Other Green Features

The indoor environment features adhesives, solvents, paints, and carpets with low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Each classroom provides at least four switches to control lighting levels. Sunshades provide indirect daylighting while maintaining views in more than 90% of the building’s occupied spaces. Additional daylighting in every third-floor classroom comes from clerestory windows. A stained concrete floor system was used in lieu of vinyl composition tile.

Green Education
Ontario School Gives Students a Lesson in Clean Energy
University of Pennsylvania Becomes #1 Among U.S. Universities for Wind-Power Usage

More on Langston Brown High School
US Green Building Council
High School Captures 280,000 Gallons Of Water Per Year

Plant on Abandoned Farmlands to Make Biofuels Work, Study Says

by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 24th June 2008 for treehugger.com

Image from Thiru Murugan

Biofuels could yet play a pivotal role in future energy generation if done right, according to a study released by scientists from Stanford University’s Carnegie Institution. To avoid the need to displace agricultural production or forests, abandoned or depleted farmlands should be used to plant energy crops. This strategy could prove particularly fruitful for developing countries, where the potential exists to produce large quantities of bioenergy that would far outstrip their current needs.

Image from Randy OHC

The energy potential of abandoned farmland crop biofuel production
Elliott Campbell, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of Global Ecology, and his colleagues calculated that there may be up to 4.7 million square kilometers, or 1.8 million square miles, of abandoned farmlands available worldwide. The potential yield could be as much as 2.1 billion tons of dry biomass, enough to produce 41 exajoules’ (1 exajoule = 1 billion billion joules) worth of bioenergy — roughly equivalent to the energy content of 170 million barrels of oil.

The researchers used historical land-use data, satellite images and ecosystem models to calculate the amount of abandoned or degraded agricultural lands and estimate their biofuel potential. Land that had been converted to urban areas or reverted back to forests wasn’t factored into their calculations.

Finding opportunities in the developing world
At best, then, this would still only supply approximately 8 percent of current global energy needs. In some developing countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, Campbell believes biomass could provide up to 37 times the amount of energy used now. Thanks to their low fossil fuel consumption and highly productive grassland systems, this can all be done without compromising either food production or forest integrity, the authors argue.

“At the national scale, the bioenergy potential is largest in the United States, Brazil, and Australia. These countries have the most extensive areas of abandoned crop and pasture lands. Eastern North America has the largest area of abandoned croplands, and the Midwest has the biggest expanse of abandoned pastureland. Even so, if 100% of these lands were used for bioenergy, they would still only yield enough for about 6% of our national energy needs,” said Campbell.

Via ::ScienceDaily: Abandoned Farmlands Are Key To Sustainable Bioenergy (news website)

More Biofuel Woes
::Biofuel Crop Expansion Will Destroy Important Kenyan Coastal Wetland
::Biofuel Comparison Chart: The “Good,” the Bad and the (Really) Ugly

Alternatives to Food Crop Biofuels
::Algae-based Biofuels from Power Plant Emissions, Redux
::Sixty Thousand Bushels Beneath The Sea: The Biofuels Potential Of Mariculture

New Thin-film Solar Cell Coater Reaches 1GW Annual Output

by Matthew McDermott, Brooklyn, NY on 19th June ‘08 for treehugger.com

What you’re watching above is a new thin-film coater from Nanosolar in action. The San Jose-based company calls the machine a “milestone in solar technology” and while usually such language is standard PR hyperbole, considering that 10-30MW in annual production through other methods is usual, the 1 gigawatt annual throughput of this coater really is a cut above.

Nanosolar says the way in which it can achieve such high levels of production is through its proprietary nanoparticle ink, which allows them simply print their highly efficient (up to 14.5%) solar cells at rates up to 100 feet per minute.

The cost of the coater is $1.65 million, which is significantly less expensive that vacuum process tools, as well as being much faster in operation.

Nanosolar began shipping its first panels last December.

:: Nanosolar

Other Links by treehugger.com
EDF Energies Nouvelles Invests $50M in Nanosolar
Nanosolar: Printing Solar Film Like Paper
19.9%: New Thin Film Solar Efficiency Record
Sharp Invests $725 Million in 480 MW Thin-Film Solar Plant

See Also from The Green Guy Blog:

New Solar Cell Rivals Silicon-Based Ones

(Another article on Thin-film Solar Cells except from another company. Tells you a lot about the competition in this field yea?)

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) webcast with John Barry, VP Unconventionals, Enhanced Oil Recovery and CO2

Just yesterday, I received an invitation to an online discussion with Shell on CCS, Enhanced Oil Recovery etc.

As a blog with a well-informed interest in the energy challenge and new technologies to reduce the impact of CO2 emissions on the environment, I hope you (and your readers) will be interested in this invitation to join Shell for an online discussion on Carbon Capture and Storage.

John Barry, Shell’s VP Unconventionals, Enhanced Oil Recovery & CO2 will be answering your questions about this technology in a live webchat on June 19 at 5pm CET (11am in NYC) athttp://www.shell.com/dialogues. If you visit the site in advance of this date you can watch a short video where he gives some useful background information on this exciting technology and Shell’s strategy.

Please take the opportunity to register now so that you can post your questions to him on June 19 and to receive reminders about this and future webcast and Q&As. Registration will take only 30 seconds.

Please do feel free to pass this message on to others who you think may like to attend this webchat, and do feel free to blog it either before or afterwards.

(I hope you don’t mind me posting this invitation as a comment – I couldn’t see an email address to contact you privately.)

Best wishes

Chris Reed
Shell Scenarios team

Click here to pre-register:

http://www.shelldialogues.com/carbon-capture-and-storage

Pre-register to have your say, opinions, ideas heard!

Personally, I’m pretty much skeptical about carbon sequestration, not as a solution to the current global warming crisis but as a high-fidelity long-term solution. Would efficient CCS leave us complacent and permit ourselves to more carbon dioxide emission? Would this “out of sight, out of minds” scenario be possible? What are the statistics for long-term viability for CCS?

However, I’m not undermining the help that CCS could bring, especially in this last hour where I foresee that climate change mitigation at the current pace is not nearly enough to prevent severe global warming. So with this perspective, CCS is arguably a great time buyer for other green policies and technologies to bring down the carbon dioxide concentrations in the air.

What are YOUR thoughts?

 

Could Microgeneration Be as Powerful as Nuclear Energy?

Microgeneration (according to Wikipedia) is the generation of zero or low-carbon heat and power by individuals, small businesses and communities to meet their own needs.

In other words, microgeneration, as the name suggests, is a form of energy generation that is at a very small scale. That solar panel, or that small wind turbine you plan to install, is microgeneration. 

Microgeneration has always been touted to collectively generate a signifiant amount of energy. However, the actual statistics and understanding of the full impact of microgeneration had always been elusive.

However, according to The Guardian a new report shows that expanding microgeneration could generate as much energy as five new nuclear plants.

Commissioned by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR), the report on growth potential for microgeneration details how by increasing the number of buildings with microgeneration units in place though incentive programs from the current estimate of 100,000 to some 10-million over the next twelve years—admittedly no small undertaking—30-million tonnes of CO2 emissions could be saved and energy equivalent to five nuclear power plants could be generated.

Heading the recommended methods for spurring this expansion is the development of a feed-in tariff system—people who install a microgeneration unit on their building would be paid a fixed rate for the energy they generate and feed into the electric grid, with the costs of tariff being distributed over all electric consumers. Similar systems are at the heart of many renewable energy incentive programs across the EU, but have yet to be employed in the UK.

Though UK-specific in focus, the principle behind the report has much wider implications. If we concentrate efforts at expanding renewable energy technologies into centralized production and distribution we may be missing a significant opportunity for displacing fossil fuel generated energy. What would you rather have, every third building with a small wind or solar unit, or five new nuclear plants?

More on Microgeneration from Treehugger:
Brits Bringing Micropower to the People!
Home Wind Turbines Are A Worthless, Dangerous, Wasteful Vanity

 

Geothermal Energy Research Expanded As NZ Drought Continues

by Matthew McDermott, Brooklyn, NY on 06.11.08 for treehugger.com

photo credit: nivedita kashyap on flickr

Chalk it up to coincidence? New Zealand is on the verge of a power crisis (though prime minister Helen Clark won’t call it an actual emergency) and NZ$2.6 million (US$1.97 million) is awarded to GNS Science to carry out research on the potential of geothermal energy in the Pacific island nation.

Hydroelectric Running Dry
Some background for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere: New Zealand has been experiencing drier than normal conditions for the past two years. This would be serious in any nation, but is even more so for New Zealand, which generates 75% of its electricity through hydroelectric dams. Due to the lack of rain this percentage has been reduced to 50% in recent weeks. Fossil fuel sources are strained in taking up the slack. Unless “significant” rainfall comes soon residents will be asked to voluntarily reduce their electric usage by 15%, energy minister David Parker said.

Geothermal grant for GNS Science
Enter GNS Science, which has been awarded a sizable grant to study low temperature geothermal energy over the next three years. Low temperature? Where your average geothermal energy plant might use water in the 200°C range, low temperature geothermal uses heat sources which are generally less than 150°C, and in some cases as low as 80°C.

According to GNS, “Low temperature geothermal resources are widespread throughout New Zealand and there is significant potential to increase there use.”

While this research will do little to alleviate NZ’s current electric crunch, it could go a long way towards diversifying its electric generation portfolio. Wise energy policy regardless of source and all the more so given the low carbon emissions of geothermal.

via :: The New Zealand Herald and :: The Guardian

Geothermal Power by treehugger.com
Is Geothermal Energy The Way Of The Future?
Finding Geothermal Energy Just Got Easier
Geothermal Energy: Renewables’ Poor Cousin
A Primer To Iceland’s Geothermal Power Stations

Green Media Outreach: An Analysis

 

That explains why the Channel NewsAsia logo at the bottom left of your TV screen takes on a green hue.

Logos on the other TV channels, as well as the mastheads for TODAY, 8 Days and i-weekly, have also adopted the same colour change. Channel NewsAsia presenters, too, are donning green. 

All these as MediaCorp launched its second ‘Saving Gaia’ initiative on Thursday. 

Various programmes and activities have been planned, with environment awareness in mind. These include the Gaia Life Challenge to be held at Bugis Junction from 21-24 June. Details are available at www.savinggaia.sg. 

While online, you can pledge your commitment to the environment. 

On air, advertisements will take on a strong public service message highlighting issues such as global warming, pollution and the depletion of natural resources. 

Arts Central will feature environment-related programmes. 

And, the “Saving Gaia” documentary returns for a second season on Channel NewsAsia. 

At the same time, MediaCorp’s radio stations will feature special segments and music carrying the green theme. 

The green issue will also take centrestage in MediaCorp publications like Style: Living, 8 Days and i-weekly. 

 

Source:

MediaCorp goes green in support of World Environment Day, Latest News, Channel News Asia Online, 5th June 2008

My Comments:

Its an extremely good start. Media social and environmental responsibility is probably the best conduit for public awareness as opposed to more group level talks, tours, speeches etc. But both must work in concert, if any meaningful impact were to occur. Media is always constrained by the lack of air time, other agendas, goals etc. Hence, more personal, group level educating is necessary to push understanding, maturity of ideas, informed opinion to a further level. This is obviously an oversimplification of issues, but it is a mere example of the different roles, not necessarily mutually exclusive ones at that, that the two general forms of outreach can take.

On a second note, media outreach has another kind of sociological effect. For one thing, environmentalism, or at least “Greenism”, wouldn’t be as compelling or appealing if there isn’t some kind of societal pressure to adopt these lifestyle and mindset changes. For example, a certain hotel (the exact details elude me) performed a certain experiment within its own establishment. At first, they had messages on water conservation put up in the toilets of all their rooms. The reasons, they gave, for water wastage were on how harmful its impact was on the local environment. There weren’t any statistics; it was a simple straightforward statement.

Expectedly, there was hardly any change to water consumption. So, they chose to try out a different approach. Instead of simply stating the negative impacts of water wastage, they put up a statistic that 70% of the other guests on average were also doing so. 

This time, they got results.

My point, as you might have surmised, is that sometimes, people simply do things because others are doing so too, like some sort of conformity in mindsets. Like an equilibrating social standard, which encompasses moral issues, social responsibilities etc.

Now applying this back to Mediacorp’s initiatives. It could be perceived by the general public that such changes in programming, could be due to a change in societal perspectives, from the majority of the “others”. And viola, a runaway effect of a gradually greening zeitgeist is born. It will be slow, but it will eventually happen. It could also be due to a similar form of influence or pressure from other the Green Zeitgeist in other countries, where such issues have grown to become a significant consideration in lifestyle, politics, industry, consumerism etc, that Mediacorp may have chosen to ride to boost viewership or improve its reputation. The results are arguable. And I suppose only Mediacorp will have the results on viewership.

Of course, things aren’t nearly so simple. So let’s continue with our Green ways, or start on it (for new Green Peeps), and watch the whole “Green Zeitgeist ” unfold.

UN Conference fails life on Earth

Photo Credit:  Nick Lawes on flickr

Panthera pardus orientalis (A census in 2000 revealed that there were 22 – 27 amur leopards in total in the wild)

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) fails to address the urgency of biodiversity loss by 2010. Although 191 countries agreed in Bonn that the diversity of life on Earth is essential for human survival, and despite scientific proof that species are rapidly declining, they were unable to agree on many of the concrete steps forward that would have been necessary.

The global Partnership of BirdLife International today expressed its deep disappointment at the lack of progress, especially on financing biodiversity, protected areas and tackling the increasing threat to biodiversity from climate change.

“Despite good leadership shown from Germany, most other rich countries have failed to match their words with financial commitments” —Dr Mike Rands, Director and Chief Executive of BirdLife International

Dr Mike Rands, Director and Chief Executive of BirdLife International stressed “Despite good leadership shown from Germany, most other rich countries have failed to match their words with financial commitments. BirdLife urges governments to recognise the urgency and importance of biodiversity conservation, by immediately making money available to save life on Earth.”

At the conference an economic study was presented showing that if investments are made now, the costs will be far lower than if we delay.

Governments were also unable to agree on concrete steps to establish a global network of protected areas. Without a comprehensive network of protected areas it is highly unlikely that the global community will meet its 2010 commitments.

Climate change presents an unprecedented threat to humans and nature. At the same time, biodiversity plays a crucial role in enabling us to overcome the challenges of climate change. Despite this, with final conclusions pending, the Bonn conference risks failing to establish the urgently needed cooperation between the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The conference also missed the opportunity to take immediate action to prevent damage to biodiversity from biofuels.

With only 18 months to go until 2010, BirdLife urges the global community to face reality, cooperate and take responsibility for future generations.

Source:

UN Conference Fails Life on Earth, BirdLife International, 30th May 2008

Links:

Don’t miss the previous article by Channel News Asia on what came out of the Convention for Biological Diversity

UN biodiversity conference ends with package to protect wildlife

UN biodiversity conference ends with package to protect wildlife

BONN, Germany – UN talks on Friday yielded a package of measures aimed at staving off what scientists fear is a mass extinction of Earth’s species and blocking irreparable damage to the ecosystems on which human life depends. 

After a 12-day conference, 191 nations attending the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to set up the first-ever deep-sea nature preserve and expand reserves on land to an area that, if combined, would be nearly twice the size of Germany. 

In another first, a long-stymied effort to compensate developing nations for “genetic resources” extracted to make drugs and cosmetics also gained traction. 

German Environment minister Sigmar Gabriel hailed progress on this so-called access and benefits-sharing regime as a “real success.” 

Other measures passed included a de-facto ban on sowing oceans with chemicals, an experimental process championed by some nations — notably Australia — as a potential carbon-reducing solution to global warming. 

And the conference also took the first steps toward setting global standards for developing biofuels, a renewable energy that has been accused of accelerating deforestation and widening hunger as farmers swap food crops for fuel crops. 

Green groups were critical, though. They slammed the outcome as badly failing the UN Millennium Development Goal which sets 2010 as the deadline to “substantially reduce” biodiversity loss. 

The bloc of 77 developing countries and China approved the consensus package but issued a warning. 

A major reduction of biodiversity loss by 2010 “is unlikely at the current rates,” they said. “Let history not say about our age that we were rich in resources but poor in will.” 

They also called for benefit-sharing from genetic resources to be given legal teeth. This was an issue that divided the industrialised north and the developing south. 

Gabriel acknowledged that Bonn meeting “achieved less than we should have, given the dimension of the problems.” 

But, he argued, “achieving unanimity among 191 states is difficult.” 

The conference agreed on criteria for marine protected areas in the high seas and deep-sea habitats. 

On land, tens of millions of hectares (acres) are to be earmarked for nature preserves, under initiatives unveiled Indonesia, Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Bosnia. 

Another hotly contested issue — how to describe the link between climate change and biodiversity — ended with a vague statement which said efforts to reduce and adapt to global warming should avoid potentially negative impacts on biodiversity. 

Scientists say that species are becoming extinct at a dizzying rate — between 100 and 1,000 times the natural pace of extinction. 

One in four mammals, one bird in eight, one third of all amphibians and 70 percent of plants are under threat. 

The Biodiversity Convention is an offspring of the 1992 Earth Summit, but it has long played the frustrating role of junior partner to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rio’s other landmark treaty. 

The Bonn meeting was framed as an attempt to catapult Earth’s other environmental crisis to greater prominence. 

In attempt to show the dollar value of natural resources, development economist Pavan Sukhdev estimated that the lost benefits of biodiversity and ecosystems cost as much as 3.1 trillion dollars a year, or six percent of the planet’s gross national product. 

Another initiative at the conference was to set up an independent panel of scientists to deliver regular assessments on the state biodiversity, modelled on the lines of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged 500 million euros (785 million dollars) in funding for biodiversity work before 2013, and an equal amount annually thereafter. But other major economies are yet to follow suit. 

Source:

UN biodiversity conference ends with package to protect wildlife, Channel News Asia Online, 31st May 2008

 

 

Protected forests in Brazil could cut CO2 drastically: study

Photo Credit: apoloniox70 on flickr

Para State, Brazil. August 27th 2007. Flight from Itaituba to Alta Floresta (Brazilian Amazon). Tropical forest destruction is responsible for up to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Protecting ancient forests like the Amazon is crucial to preserve biodiversity and the global climate. 

An ambitious plan to put more than 10 per cent of Brazil’s Amazon forest beyond the grasp of loggers and agribusiness could slash carbon emissions by 1.1 billion tonnes by mid-century, according to a study released on Wednesday.

Deforestation in the tropics accounts for 20 per cent of global emissions of CO2, making it the second largest driver of global warming after the burning of fossil fuels.

Amazonia alone accounts for nearly half of those emissions, and 65 per cent of the Amazon forest is in Brazil.

Researchers at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil and the Woods Hole Research Centre in Massachusetts calculated that the areas pegged for protection under the Amazon Region Areas Programme (ARPA) stock some 4.6 billion tonnes of carbon, equivalent to 20 times the annual emissions of Germany.

The ARPA network, slated for completion in 2012, would cover 12 per cent of Brazil’s tropical forests.

They then estimated how much carbon would be released into the atmosphere over the next four decades if the designated areas were not protected – a total of some 1.1 billion tonnes of CO2.

The report was presented in Bonn at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, where more than 6,000 representative from 191 countries have gathered to map out a plan for saving the planet’s flora and flauna.

Whether these carbon emissions can be avoided depends a lot on enforcement in the nature reserves, experts say.

‘Brazil is trying to battle illegal logging, but as long as the demand for the wood remains strong, they have a very hard time doing anything about it,’ said Mr Saskia Richartz, policy director for biodiversity at Greenpeace.

Brazil’s new environment minister, Mr Carlos Minc, took up his functions on Tuesday in a government increasingly split over how to balance preservation and development in the Amazon rainforest.

Minc, the 56-year-old former environment secretary for the state of Rio de Janeiro, replaces a highly respected minister, Marina Silva, who unexpectedly stepped down early this month after losing a series of inter-ministry fights over the future of the Amazon.

The rate of deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon forest declined for the third consecutive year in 2007, but has again increased during the first half of this year, according to studies based on satellite photos.

More than 11,224 square kilometres of Brazil’s tropical forest disappeared last year. (That’s 16.4 times the total land area of Singapore!)

Sources:

Protected forests in Brazil could cut CO2 drastically: study, The Straits Times Online, 29th May 2008, Tech and Science

In Spite Of Reduce And Reuse, Hong Kong’s Plastic Passion Barely Dented

by April Streeter, Gothenburg, Sweden on 05.26.08 for treehugger.com

Hong Kong’s 7 million citizens use about 3 bags each each day. (Photo tboothhk @ flickr)

In Hong Kong, long known as a shopper’s paradise, everything you buy is swathed in plastic – plastic wrap covers each cucumber, and if you buy the cucumber you’ll probably get offered another plastic bag to put it in. Plastic is so ubiquitous to daily life here that it’s no surprise that 23 million bags get thrown away each day – 8.3 billion for the government to dispose of annually. Last year Hong Kong placed a levy on bags, and it is estimated that by this summer 1 billion fewer bags will be passed out, slightly slowing the filling of Hong Kong’s dumps, which are estimated to reach capacity well within a decade.

There is a noticeable difference in the streets compared to a year or two ago – many more citizens are carrying cloth or at the very least some sort of reusable-looking bag, and at the upscale City Super grocery, customers are offered a panoply of chic reusable bags to purchase. However, shop keepers still seem uniformly surprised when you say, “No bag” at purchase, and Hong Kong lags behind its neighbor Taiwan, which has cut plastic bag use around 80 percent since 2002. Hong Kong’s China parent is banning giving out free plastic bags starting next week. Ultra-thin plastic bags (less than .0025 millimeters) will be banned outright from that date – the country is hoping to save about 37 million barrels of oil from the ban.

More Information:

 Handbag Hysteria Hits Hong Kong, and China Launches Crackdown On Plastic Bags

My Input:

A very good start. Many domestic conveniences are surprisingly carbon disasters. Irresponsible, misinformed, ill-informed, ignorant consumerism is one of the greatest contributors of anthropogenic carbon. In fact, you could argue it to be the source of all anthropogenic carbon, for all aspects of human lifestyle can be inevitably traced to the satiation of human needs. For example, foods. Food wastage leads to a real water wastage, that is, the water that was used to grow those crops, for sustain those animals. Some kinds of textile, cotton for example, required water to grow. Plastic bags require fossil fuels to manufacture. So is almost everything, to your computer, your speakers, your mouse etc. A huge percentage of energy use would ultimately come from fossil fuel power generation.

As such, it is rather blatant, that not only should there be government pressure on industries to be more carbon-neutral, in the form of CCS or renewable sources or higher efficiencies, there should ALSO be a responsibility at the level of the individual’s lifestyle to reduce the demand for energy in the first place. Buy only what you need. That’s the best start. Even if you were to buy the next iPod, or a digital camera, find out how to recycle it when you’re done with it. Or perhaps, keep it in a good condition for second-hand resale. Many companies are increasingly allowing a recollection of old products for recycling.

If you feel guilty with such hedonistic pleasures, but would still like the comforts of 21st Century living, then save the energy in different places. Turn off appliances when not in use. Pluck out the plugs from the sockets to reduce energy leakage. Stop keeping your computer or other appliances on sleep mode or low power mode. The list is ENDLESS.

 

Feel free to ask me by leaving a comment. I’ll get back to you ASAP.

Scientists Develop Low-Cost Version of CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage)

by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 05.17.08 for Treehugger.com

Image courtesy of melancholic optimist via flickr

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has always been a tough proposition: Scientists and environmentalists worry about the potential leakage from storage sites and its additional fuel requirements, while energy utilities complain about the excessive costs and risks associated with the technology. A new technology developed by scientists at the University of Wyoming, Laramie, could help ease its adoption by significantly reducing the cost factor.

Currently, companies typically pass their carbon dioxide emissions through a solution containing monoethanolamine (MEA) to bind the gas. The process of heating the saturated MEA solution, which is necessary to release CO2 and restore the material, incurs huge costs; it is believed to drive the cost of recovering CO2 to around $47 a ton.

Maciej Radosz and his colleagues at UW decided to use activated carbon and other carbon-rich materials — much cheaper alternatives — to adsorb the CO2. While previous studies had suggested that high pressure conditions were needed for the carbon-rich materials to work effectively, Radosz intuited that separation could also occur under low pressure/temperature conditions — a gamble that paid off when he put it into practice.

The researchers are now working on scaling up the process and on making the carbon materials more selective; if successful, they believe it could drop the cost of CCS to $20 a ton, or less than half current prices. Yet doing so could prove tricky: As we’ve mentioned before, scaling up such technologies can often reveal hidden costs, environmental and other.

URL: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/better-ccs.php

 

S’porean Environmental Apathy

A particular problem for me, considering that I’m a semi-active (due to NS) environmentalist, and maintain an environmentally-friendly, perhaps sustainable lifestyle as far as possible. Its especially annoying, for the reasons for it, I seriously believe, lie in the appeal for free will. Here’s how an argument on taking baths against showers went (it happened while I was in Taiwan with friends):

“Why would you go for a bath? Its as good as soaking in your own dirty bathwater. Whereas a shower removes the grime as you have it. (An Appeal to Common Sense)”

“Because shiok mah.”

“But its a waste of water. (An Appeal to Environmental & Social Responsibility(I kinda forgot the statistics to support this. Too long from my job…)

“Its Taiwan’s water. Plus I’m not paying for it.”

“Water isn’t owned by anyone. Its a natural resource.”

I stopped arguing at this moment. Not because he was right, but because it was pointless. The argument would eventually return to the fact that it was for his own hedonistic pleasure and that I had no say or authority over what he wants to do. That’s free will. Not exactly responsible, but free will nevertheless.

Now, any sufficiently discerning Singaporean could say that S’poreans are screwed up, the government is screwed up, the policies are screwed up. However, it would take more than just a keen “new-age” following of singapore politics and society to understand that the two issues, singapore society and the government are interdependent.

Winning the argument above through reason is probably impossible. Even if I manage to show that baths were more environmentally taxing and a waste of water, and a waste of funds recycling that water, and that it would have ultimate negative impacts on the environment that would ultimately affect him. All he would have to say would be “So?”. If he doesn’t care, I wouldn’t be able to do anything to convince him out of his apathy, bigotry or irresponsibility. Highly probably, he’s not the only one in Singapore that’s like that. Highly probably, he’s one of many of the Singaporeans that’s like that.

And in such a scenario, if the government or any leader for that matter is unable to convince the public, then the only choice would be to impose it on the Singaporean people. And the people will complain. Rising prices for water and other utilities, incentives for savers, disincentives for those who use too much. There will then be the problem of deciding how much is too much and so on.

“I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yet, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use.

We decide what is right, never mind what the people think. That’s another problem.”

(Tremewan, 1994, as cited in Privacy and Human, 2003).

How difficult the job of Singaporean environmentalists.

Does Recycling Plastic Cost More Than Making It?

In 1967, Mr. McGuire had one piece of career advice for young Benjamin Braddock — plastics. Indeed. In the 40 years since “The Graduate,” plastic has exploded in applications, from car bumpers to computers, and it has been classified into seven types, including PET #1, the type used for plastic water and soda bottles. Now the looming question is what to do with all that plastic. Of the 2.7 million tons of plastic PET bottles on U.S. shelves in 2006, four-fifths went to landfills.

Setting aside environmental concerns, the economic success or failure of plastics recycling relies on two variables: the cost of the raw materials used to make virgin plastic, petroleum and natural gas, and the cost of recycling versus the cost of disposal, which fluctuates based on a city’s proximity to recycling centers and the price to dump in local landfills. A University of California, Berkeley study estimated that areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco could gain an economic benefit of $200 a ton for recycling instead of dumping. Nonetheless, the cost of recycling a bottle versus making a new one simply varies, depending where the bottle is and what the capricious price of oil happens to be.

Each year, 29 billion plastic water bottles are produced for use in the United States, according to the Earth Policy Institute, an environmental organization in Washington, D.C. Manufacturing them requires the equivalent of 17 million barrels of crude oil, so rising oil and natural gas prices have only exacerbated the high price of virgin plastic. “Plastics News,” a trade magazine, lists the recent price of PET virgin bottle resin pellets between 83 and 85 cents a pound, compared to only 58 to 66 cents a pound for PET recycled pellets.

Yet escalating plastic prices have done little to curb demand. The amount of PET plastic on U.S. shelves has more than doubled in the last decade, according to the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR). The increase is a result of the surging demand for bottled water. In 2005, seven and a half billion gallons of water flooded U.S. shelves – roughly equivalent to the average amount of water that flows over Niagara Falls in three hours. That’s 21 times more bottled water than the amount available on shelves in 1976, according to U.S. government data.

All that extra plastic, and the petroleum used to make it, is expensive. NAPCOR estimates that 5.5 billion pounds of PET bottles and jars passed over U.S. shelves in 2006. Making this many PET bottles and jars today from virgin plastic would cost $4.5 billion just for the raw materials, without considering the cost of operating bottle production plants.

Prior to its reincarnation as industrial carpet or sleeping bag stuffing, a plastic bottle in the recycle bin has a long journey ahead of it. First it goes to a collection facility to be inspected for contaminants like rock or glass. Then it is washed and chopped into flakes. The flakes are dried and melted into plastic lava, which is filtered for impurities and formed into strands. Finally, the strands are cooled in water and chopped into pellets that can go to market.

Landfills, however, are the final resting place for most bottles. Ostensibly this is the cheaper option. But landfill tipping fees, the dumping tariffs levied to offset the cost of creating, maintaining and closing a landfill, can be quite expensive compared to recycling. This is especially true in densely populated areas like the East Coast or areas like Florida with shallow water tables. In fact, fees can run from $10 a ton to over $100, according to Jerry Powell, editor of the trade publication “Plastics Recycling Update.” Additionally, dumping wastes a valuable commodity: In 2005, about half a billion dollars worth of PET bottles went to landfills, according to the Container Recycling Institute, a non-profit organization.

Rising plastic prices have forced some companies that bottle their product, like Coca-Cola, to think twice about using expensive virgin plastic resin. Now they are working to make more lightweight bottles that contain more recycled resin, Powell explained. Bottles made with thinner plastic use 30 percent less resin and rely on the water or liquid inside to maintain their shape. Using less resin per bottle could translate to a savings on raw materials of about $1.5 billion a year for the bottling industry. Powell thinks it’s a positive step for business and the environment. “That’s what we need,” he remarked. “Less plastic. Not just recycling.”

This answer is provided by Scienceline, a project of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

Treehugger

Came across this website. Its highly informative, packed with guides on how to go green, green news in Science and Technology, Food and Health etc, gift ideas, great external links. Do check it out and get it bookmarked.

www.treehugger.com

Enjoy!

Mister W.

Awesome video clip. Watch it to the end and you’ll know what I mean.

Here’s the url:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY

Green Technology News

Here’s something interesting I found a while back.

The Straits Times, Home p16, Tuesday, 18th December 2007

Recycling Company building $50m plastic-to-fuel plant

Newspaper Cutting

For those who are too lazy to read the full article or wait for the thingy to load. Here’s a summary.

• Mainboard-listed Enviro-Hub Holdings announced it is building the world’s first large-scale commercial plastic-to-fuel plant
• S’pore first $50m plastic-to-fuel plant – which converts waste plastic into useable fuels and gas
• Technology was imported from India
• Patented technology, for which Enviro-Hub now holds an exclusive license
• Mixed waste plastic is fed to a reactor to be melted at 350 degrees Celsius
• Special catalyst added at controlled intervals to encourage depolymerization (breaking apart the polymers of the waste plastic)
• Heating process would be emissions-free
• By-products include diesel (85%), liquid petroleum gas (10%) and coke (5%)
• Process takes an initial 3 hours to start up, after which waste plastic can be fed continuously into the reactor all day
• First phase of plant will be able to take up to 100 tonnes of waste plastic a day
• Plant is expected to produce 20 million litres of diesel, 4 – 5 million kg of gas and 1500 tonnes of coke
• Operation will occur 330 days of the year

Now that’s really impressive. Finally, a rather good solution to the problem of plastic non-biodegradability. The technology kills 2 birds with one stone. First is as mentioned, the problem of waste plastic, which is clearly in excess. The second is the prospect of returns in the form of fuels. It doesn’t solve the problem of the pollutive nature of carbon-based fuels but it is a good midlong-term solution. Alternative energy should still reign as top priority