Change of Atmosphere

Truth Will Out, rather than Out With Truth!

2010-06-02T20:55:00.002+01:00

Yes, yes after a little while I am back, and very pleased to have been goaded and pressed by many (yes actually, many) to put fingers to key board and continue this blog, thank you.
Much has been going on and I'd like to consider the state of climate change understanding and action. The last few months have seen two big and worrying events; the feeble conclusions of the Copenhagen summit and the severe undermining of opinion regarding the facts behind climate change by the revealing of clumsy, thoughtless and silly pieces of climate scientist's emails as well as ill considered. yet quoted "facts". regarding glacial melt by high ranking IPCC representatives.
You may have noticed then that it has all gone a bit quiet. Scientists and climate change commentators have kept their heads down, have shut up and clearly hope all the nasty deniers and sceptics and reporters go away and it will be alright in the end.
A rigorous appraisal of climate research is under way and scrutiny of results and conclusions is intense and merciless in it's thoroughness. Will this be enough? Will the scientists and advocates of action to mitigate climate change be able to rely on the gradual acceptance that there is a burning issue with global warming?
I am a sceptic, but not a denier. The two could not be more different. A climate sceptic examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where they lead.
A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing "confirmation bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest. Denial is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the belief takes precedence over evidence. They will often see themselves as underdogs fighting a corrupt elite.
No wonder it's all gone quiet out there.
Denialist movements can be beaten. Patient rebuttal is a powerful weapon. Let them be heard, examine their evidence, consider their interpretation. If they have anything of substance to say, then the truth will out.
Climate deniers wield considerable influence. There are many for whom it would be most beneficial for evidence of climate change, and especially "man made" climate change, to be wrong.
Eternal vigilance is the price we must pay for truth. Those who are in possession of the facts have a duty to stand up to the deniers and debunk them repeatedly and everywhere until they can take a proper sceptical view of the evidence and then I would think an acceptance following their scrutiny of the evidence..
We must consider the following;
1. They might be right and we should subject their arguments to proper scrutiny and if they stand up then they are likely to be correct.
2. They might be completely wrong, but in the process of examining their claims we discover the truth and improve our thinking.
3. It is never possible to know the absolute truth about anything (not in science anyway)so we must always be on the alert for where our ideas need to change.
I continue to read up and discover whatever I can about global warming and man's influence of natural systems. I remain convinced that we are at a great time of change for mankind and that decisions taken now can have massive repercussions for our children, preferably for their good and the good of all living things.

Dust to Dust

2010-02-10T12:18:00.004Z

Scrapping the scrappage scheme for cars... well, letting it fizzle away, is this a good thing? Tough one this. Carbon worriers were vocal at it's introduction about how encouraging people to buy new cars would increase carbon footprints, but it's a complicated story. Scrappage has been a great success and typically cars that have been bought under the scheme replaced vehicles that produced around 25% more CO2e emissions, so that's good.... I think.
It all comes down to the "dust to dust" carbon of a manufactured item. This is what Jeep refer to when they claim their vehicles are some of the very best you can buy in terms of environmental friendliness. Yes they use more fuel than others, but are typically replaced far less frequently. The smug Prius driver should consider the environmental costs of mining the metals (not least for the batteries which comes from Ontario) and shipping the cars.
It's all a bit, can't do right for doing wrong. I have said before and I will keep saying it; time to lose the car. The 19th century horse gave way to the 20th century car which needs to give way to the next transport revolution. We don't have that yet, not while car manufacturers and the oil business has so much influence. We need that breakthrough.
Horses continue in our society for recreation from racing to pony trecking. We could retain similar for cars, cars for fun. The real business of getting about needs to be something else.
Here is my latest solution to be getting on with; dig up (most are dug up now!) the central reservations of our motorways, dig up too the two fast lanes either side and build high speed rail in place. No land to purchase, much infrastucture already in place, a comprehensive network, perfect. Make the trains that run on it "drive on, drive off" like "Le Shuttle" and you begin to have a very efficient, low (lower)carbon system.
Little cars for beetling around town and local journeys, drive onto the train for inter city travel.

Zoom, Zoom.

2010-01-30T14:59:00.007Z

It is very difficult (well, impossible) to be entirely "green", totally "eco-friendly", of course it is. I once worked alongside a "green maniac" who was forever berating people about their behaviour, nagging them about the smallest of green peccadillo's, what a pain and how much damage did she do by putting people off?
Anyway, it is difficult to forgo some things and indeed surely we have the wit to solve sustainability without wearing the old hair shirt. Never-the-less here is one of my many failings..... driving fast, can't help it, love it, try as I might. Drivers seem to fall into one of two schools; the tut tutting pain in the neck, bimbling in the middle lane, (might as well just have two lane motorways, hey!), creep up to junction (causing huge queues behind and burnt out clutches) types or, the far too quick, scare people silly, too close to the person in front, bordering on maniac kind.
Here's a thought; when I started driving cars it really did feel that you were flying at the (truly fast) speed of 50mph, 60 would really rattle and shake and 70 was supersonic. My little old Mini had a delightful "sweet spot" at 62 and was deliciously terrifying at 70.
Increasingly cars have become bigger, heavier, better equipped, include more "safety" features (ABS, stability control, EBD etc) and so, increasingly cars have become faster and, more worryingly, easier to drive faster with less impression of speed.
So, come on car manufacturers, make cars less like a moving house than can travel well over 100mph and more like the thing that it is, a machine that hurtles you along at 50 mph. Strip out a load of weight (great for fuel efficiency and low carbon), make it fun to drive and in doing so unlikely to exceed the speed limit because that's quite fast enough!
I miss my little old Mini.

Many thanks to Adam at "PeopleProfitPlanet" (check them out)... for this; Animals Save the Planet... very good;
http://bit.ly/3A3Psv.

Climate is What You Expect, Weather is What You Get

2010-01-09T17:28:00.004Z

If you hear someone bleating on about how given the recent cold weather then climate change is nonsense ask them, "Next time there's a heatwave in summer or an unusually mild spell in winter will you accept you were wrong? If a cold snap means the weather is getting colder, surely a spell of hot weather proves it is getting warmer". Clearly all rubbish. A bout of extreme weather does not prove anything about climate change. Climate is the average weather over decades. Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
That said, it is perfectly reasonable to ask why, if the World is warming, have so many places in the northern hemisphere been experiencing record lows? The answer is that for the past few decades cold Arctic air has mostly stayed in the Arctic over winter, trapped by strong winds spinning around the pole. This winter the vortex has weakened and in many places cold air is spilling further south than usual. The result has been freezing weather as far afield as Florida, China and the U.K.. However, the Arctic, Greenland and much of the Mediterranean and southern Asia have been warmer than normal.
Some areas could have more cold weather in the future as part of just such changes in weather distribution. That will not change the big picture, the World warmed over the 20th century and it is going to get warmer still. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either intellectually challenged or dishonest.

What's the best way to get two whales in a Mini?
You don't it's far better to get to Wales by train to save carbon emissions............. sorry!!

Here is a link to a talk (on the excellent TED website... bookmark it) with Rachel Pike explaining the science behind a climate headline, just a few minutes, cut and paste the link.

http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_pike_the_science_behind_a_climate_headline.html

Terra Branco to Terra Preta

2010-01-05T11:02:00.013Z

Gazing out at the snow falling on snow and listening to sun tanned cricketers in South Africa it almost makes you long for Global warming! Despairing of our inabilities to make even the simplest of agreements in the farrago that was Copenhagen it is tempting just to think, "tsch! Bring it on!".
Certainly the author of the Gaia hypothesis, James Lovelock is of the opinion that it's too late now to do anything about climate change apart from adapt, and even then, adaptation will only prolong the agonies of massive World disorder for a very short time. All off to hell in that hand cart it seems.
Well no, still time to come to our senses, re build international cooperation, re double our efforts to improve societies through innovative and inventive alternatives to pillaging our fragile and only World. Still time to affect the global politics of haves and have nots by redistributing energy provision. Still time to discover how to move people and goods around, provide enough food for ourselves and yet maintain the habitats of all the other life. Big job, but someone's got to do it.
Actually, James Lovelock does consider that there could be one redeeming solution, along with others he proposes that we adopt the system of sequestering carbon in our soils, then if we (and it needs to be quickly!) enable the use of agriculture and land management to be the very significant solution to climate crisis that it could be.
The dependence on large scale industrial agriculture increases the amount of fuel required to transport the food from field to table, needs huge amounts of fossil fuel to drive the tractors and trucks, manufacture the fertilizers and herbicides, deliver the food (often from one continent to another), all the while degrading the land.
A dramatic shift in agricultural policy (and Hilary Benn MP has started that in today's release of the governments' agricultural policy going forward) and practices to focus on building soil organic matter, including the restoration of carbon to the soil, by organically managing and enriching soils. Currently, soluble nitrogen fertilizers are used which encourage very rapid and complete decay of organic matter, sending carbon into the atmosphere instead of retaining it in the soil as organic systems do. By using "no till" techniques and by enriching soils with natural sources of nutrients, farmers can cut costs and improve on both productivity and profitability.
Success will depend on two factors; A strong bottom up demand for change and a top down shift in national, European and Global policies to support farmers in this transition. Farmers should be paid on the basis of how much carbon they put back into and keep in their soil rather than how many tonnes of grain they can produce. Some experts consider that the potential scale of what can be accomplished by such a shift of agricultural practice could sequester nearly 40% of current CO2 emissions.
That's not all, one of the most exciting new strategies for restoring carbon to depleted soils and sequestering significant amounts of CO2 for 1000 years and more is the use of biochar. Mr Lovelocks panacea. Biochar is a form of fine grained, porous charcoal that is highly resilient to decomposition in most soil environments. It occurs naturally but can be manufactured cheaply in large quantities by burning wood, grasses, manure, stubble or other biomass in an oxygen free or low oxygen environment. This transforms the biomass into charcoal more than 80% pure carbon. The process can also be designed to produce gas that helps fuel the process for making more biochar.
Burying biochar in soil replenishes the carbon content, protects important soil microbes and helps the soil to retain nutrients and water. It reduces the accumulation of greenhouse gas pollution by avoiding the releases that would occur by the rotting of the biomass on the surface, by sequestering the CO2 contained in the biochar, and by assisting the process by which plants growing in the soil pull CO2 out of the air with photosynthesis. Biochar also increases the organic health of soil by stimulating the growth of rhizobium bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi, improving the overall quality of the soil. Not much is new, Amazonian Indians were using biochar at least one thousand years ago to create fertile black soils that are still more productive than the soils around them. These soils, called terra preta by the Portuguese provide a unique way of assessing the benefits to soils by using biochar.
So, there you have it and to quote our old friend Mr Lovelock; ".... you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull CO2 down quite fast.... this is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it."
It's still snowing, terra branco.

A lesson in Geopolitics.

2009-12-21T13:54:00.006Z

Well that's it, Copenhagen talks simply paralysed by the growing chasm between rich and poor countries. The accord finally pushed out by the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa did not receive the universal support from the 193 countries represented and provoked reactions from fury to despair. Sudan's chief negotiator compared it to the Holocaust! Hugo Chavez talked of the sulphur of hell and suggested that Obama was Satan. Ian Fry of the drowning island of Tuvalu likened the accord "to being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people of the future".
We need to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves down and , well, pretty much start all over again. However, surely you didn't expect a sweeping deal out of Copenhagen, not if you considered today's polarised and charged geopolitics. The rift between rich and poor countries is wide, and the chasm paralysed the negotiations.
China opposed key elements of proposals, not least (unsurprisingly) external monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions and yet had moved very far coming into the talks. India too found some proposals one too far and then retreated to a fail safe position. The World's changing political land is partly why even Obama's last minute brokering did not produce something powerful. Many in G77 see Obama forming a league of super-polluters and would-be super polluters, a coalition of foxes who would together govern the hen house.

Well, well are we all doomed? The accord is better than no accord, even if below our ambition and well short of what is desperately required. They are all going to have to go back to their capitals and think long and hard. Meanwhile lets see what we've got.
Copenhagen has given us the first significant climate fund for poor nations, promising $30bn over the next three years and to raise $100million in yearly climate financing for poor countries. A deal was struck helping developing economies convert to green energy. Not enough I fear.
The question is whether these initial financial commitments are seen by developing countries as an incremental step that moves towards figures they see as sufficient.
The next UN climate conference in Mexico in 2010 will present many of the same challenges that faced leaders in Copenhagen, it will be very interesting to see how they approach this one. They should all remember that flood, drought, fire and all the other effects of rampant global warming are indiscriminate, a category 5 hurricane hitting, say Miami would be no less damaging than a typhoon hitting Bangladesh, global warming is not just a problem for the developing World.

Glam, Grim and Glum.

2009-12-16T13:45:00.004Z

Good to see so many famous faces giving their best in Copenhagen, or "Hopenhagen" as it now is. We have the Glam Arnie, the Grim Gordon and the Glum Prince amongst many others. Fine words from these guys, some great ideas coming forward (not least the "Tobin Tax", brilliant)... now sign on the line please.
Given the amount of coverage of COP15, and that it all hangs in the balance, I thought I'd rather comment on Mr Cameron's proposals this week, just to give you a break from talks in Denmark. Poor Mr Cameron, not in Copenhagen, no one asked him so he's reduced to waving his arms around and huffing and puffing over here.
Having said that, I do like his comment that environmentalism is becoming "limited to well-suited politicians stepping out of aeroplanes on to tarmac" although I suspect he rather wishes he was just such a figure, out there on the tarmac with Glam, Grim and Glum.
So, what is it that he's been working up, ready to unleash as soon as he's over the threshold of No.10 and sorted out a space in the shed for his bicycle? Well, he's a Tory so he likes the capitalist system above all else and likes to get into bed with big successful money makers. Off to see the big retailers then, first port of call Tesco and M&S who with David's help are going to "share our savings on energy", thanks.
Here's the scheme; Tesco or other High Street oligarch, will fit out the lowly householder with a basic pack of energy saving measures, insulation and the like. In return Tesco, or other High Street oligarch shares in the resultant cost savings from the energy supplier who is likely to be err, Tesco (or other High Street oligarch). We'll be able to share our savings with them for a number of years.
Now, I don't want to be unkind to Mr Tesco or any other High Street oligarch but I never did think that these guys had an understanding of the word "altruistic". Although it has been wonderful that they have halved the number of plastic bags they have to buy, and wonderful too that they can sell us such profitable "bags for life" and give us some extra "green points" on our loyalty card.
Now, I think I'll get back to the very serious issue of the talks in Copenhagen, cross my fingers for a sensible outcome and pick out the salient parts for you in my next missive.

Good Luck Delegates (on yer bike sceptics).

2009-12-06T12:48:00.009Z

It is the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Change talks. A binding treaty agreed by all countries seems unlikely but we hope for far reaching and accelerating policies from all to stimulate action and protect our environment for future generations.
Ahead of all this has been a catalogue of distractions; e mail leaks discrediting climatologists, a rise of voices sceptical of the influence by mankind on World climate, sloping shoulders, disinformation, exaggeration, politicisation and procrastination! There is a lot to be gained by those with a vested interest in debunking climate change evidence and diluting desired outcomes of the Copenhagen summit, not least the value of their shares.
I clutch my head in anguish as I listen or read the climate change sceptics. They clearly have a personal agenda which is thinly veiled greed. They are old timers, living in the past.
Lets take the atmosphere first.... whether you are a climatologist, a president, a pauper or an apologist, it's there, but it's tiny. How far to Space? About 62miles, an atmosphere 62 miles thick on a planet 8000 miles across, it's tiny. It's thin and delicate and contains all known life. Belch around 80 million tonnes of CO2e into it every day, an unprecedented amount, and it seems to me you're asking for trouble. That's not naivety, that's common sense.
The exploitative nature of energy procurement and use is just SO 20th century! Lets move on. Just as horse power fizzled out in the 19th century, so motor power should have done so in the 20th. Time for better, we move on. The car has reached the limit of it's capability and excellence, at best we can improve on it only by adding another superfluous device, "oh good electric windows", "oh good speed indicator on the windscreen", a breakthrough for mankind, no not really, they're backward steps that each in their small way increase division and inequality.
Time for new and better and hope and action and if we need the excuse of climate change to do it, jolly good. Stop protecting the status quo (no, not the bloody band, although they are of course a world treasure) and protect the environment around you.
Which would you rather have? A giant, smoking concrete stack requiring huge swaths of land to be dug up every day to provide the fuel for them to produce your electricity (not to mention the terrible working conditions for those having to do it) or a slowly revolving propeller gracefully sweeping round? Away with you nimby wind turbine protestors!
Good luck Copenhagen delegates, the World needs you.

Shut up and get on with it.

2009-11-18T17:08:00.004Z

Crikey, it's getting hot out there! Everywhere you go, which ever way you turn; more about climate change, Copenhagen, Obama's dilemma, the desperate need for global agreements on climate action, and the confusion around how those might become binding. It is no wonder that according to the recent Times commissioned survey nearly half of us don't believe that a World crisis IS happening, or if it is, it is not a man made phenomenon. Yet apparently we do believe the whole climate change thing is a government ploy to raise unfair taxes. Good for you, Times readers.
It's all very fraught. Well, regardless of what you think. Regardless of what the government and your company and your neighbours are doing about climate change. Regardless of what the weather might be doing today or tomorrow we are heading for a low carbon economy. It's happening, regardless, for what ever reason, people are getting on with it.
Overarching sustainability strategies are being developed, innovative technologies are being invested in , developed and delivered, new ways of reducing environmental impact and increasing cooperation across divides is happening with no regard for whose fault it is or whether the climate is or isn't changing. It's the way we are going, it's where the best new investment is going, it's creative and exciting.
My best advice; don't fret about the weather, don't bother about Copenhagen and China and population statistics, hey, just get on board and help make the World a greener place.

Unclear about Nuclear

2009-11-09T16:25:00.007Z

As expected our Mr Ed Milliband has today confirmed the government commitment to future energy supply based on a basket of sources which will, as the mainstay energy producer include nuclear. Really hard this for Green supporters, many of whom are still signed up CND supporters with battle scars from protesting against nuclear in the 60s.
I did O' level geography a long time ago, for one of our field trips we went to Suffolk and included in our studies a visit to the then quite new (and now quite shut down) Sizewell A nuclear power station. We were taken round the impressive site by an eager P.R chap who without a shudder proudly told us that the fish in the local waters were far bigger than elsewhere. Whether they glowed or had two heads he did not say.
The great guru of Green thinkers and the inventor of the Gaia hypothesis is James Lovelock. Here's what he has to say about nuclear; "We must conquer our fears and accept nuclear energy as the one safe and proven energy source that has minimal global consequences. It is now as reliable as any human engineering can be and has the best safety record of all large scale energy sources."
Easy for him to say, I still have visions of giant fish, but he's not wrong. France grasped the idea early and produces much of it's energy from nuclear thus making it more self sufficient and less vulnerable to major energy exporters with a hand on the the big "off" tap.
There are statistically minute risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Almost a third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breath air laden with the pervasive carcinogen, oxygen.
The World Health Organisation states that only 75 people died as a result of the steam explosion and subsequent fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. The area itself is now verdant and teaming with life, so here's what Lovelock suggests; go to nuclear for a large proportion of energy production, and the rather difficult to deal with waste?..... dump it in the rain forests so nobody can go there!
I have to say, a bit of a CND campaigner myself in my time, it makes sense, at least until we can sort out nuclear fission as a power source.....perhaps we can use those big fish too.

Copenhagen draws near and clearly the various representatives of the various interested parties are getting fretful and protectionist and edgy. Doubtless the same old, same old will happen; none will give an inch and then after all that time there, at the eleventh hour, following a variety of dramatic brinkmanship ploys, an agreement of sorts, not strong enough but with the potential to be improved at another summit, will be approved. You mark my words.

Brilliant! It's really difficult to visualise just what a tonne of carbon is.... well here is a fantastic piece of work that does just that, check it out here now;
http://carbonquilt.org/

Carbon Paw Prints

2009-10-28T15:20:00.003Z

As if you weren't subject enough to the needs of the planet, what with insulating your house, leaving the car in the garage, turning the damn lights off and the heating down, reducing the number of kids you have and what else besides. Well, what else besides might be to consider keeping a no pet home.
Owning a pet comes at a far higher cost than you might have thought. According to the authors of the new book, "Time to Eat the Dog" it takes 0.84 hectares of land to keep a medium sized dog fed. Meanwhile, running a 4.6 litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing, and drive it 10,000 Km/yr, requires a mere 0.41 hectares!
Or how about some other troubling comparisons? The average citizen of Vietnam has an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares and an Ethiopian just 0.67. In a World of scarce resources can we justify keeping pets?
We grudgingly put out the recycling and use low energy light bulbs, is giving up our pets in the name of sustainability a sacrifice too far?
Well, perhaps we could start thinking about reducing our pet's impact. Feeding your dog or cat or gerbil leftovers will have an immediate effect and help to do something about the scandal of food waste. Pet food manufacturers sell us the idea that nothing is too good for our beloved pets and indeed the choice for them is staggering, it takes longer to choose the dog's dinner in the supermarket than your own. The first manufacturer to produce green products would be ahead of the game.
Oh, cats? Eco-footprint 0.15 hectares (similar to a VW Golf). Fluffy hamster? 0.014 hectares... large dog; a staggering 1.1 hectares.
But that's not all, every year the U.K's 7.7 million cats kill over 188 million wild animals (one common objection to wind turbines is "bird strike", reasonably calculated at one bird killed per year, per turbine. I bet there's a NIMBY wind turbine objector or two with a cat or two).
Dogs are not entirely blameless either, in 2007 the University of New South Wales monitored bird life in woodlands to assess the impact of dogs being walked there. They showed that bird life in areas frequented by dogs, even when kept on a lead, had 35% less diversity and 41% fewer birds overall.
Areas with off-lead dogs seem to suffer even more; ongoing studies here in the U.K. indicate that dogs are aiding the decline of some rare species of birds, such as European nightjars. As if that weren't enough we should consider the effects of tonnes and tonnes of pet faeces on the environment... it's pretty bad!
Solution? Well, obviously fewer pets or perhaps eating them or turning them into pet-food at the end of their lives.

Dirty Aliens/CRC

2009-10-19T11:21:00.005+01:00

Looking for life on other Worlds has long fascinated us. Seeking out radio noise has been the preferred method for some time, but do Aliens pollute their planets? If they do, then this would give us a promising way to spot where they live.
Light pollution from out cities might give us away and we can look for a similar glow on far away planets although our detectors would need to be very sensitive. Our presence on Earth also leaves other traces that could be observed from afar, CFCs strongly absorb infrared light making them detectable in the atmosphere, as do other artificial compounds, each with their own characteristic infrared fingerprint. So, if you don't want to be invaded by Alien monsters, stop polluting!

I keep being asked about CRC, so here it is, pay attention;

The CRC has now been renamed, rather nattily, as the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme, which trips off the tongue as easy as a peanut butter sandwich.
Under various climate change agreements the government has incentives in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from big energy intensive industries. The next stage of the government plan to achieve it's obligations is now being introduced.
The new emissions trading scheme, this CRC energy efficiency scheme thingy (herein after called the CRC) is a mandatory scheme starting next April and affects all businesses and organisations whose electricity consumption exceeds 6000 MW/hr... or in other words, those with an electricity bill of more than around £500K ... that is many businesses and organisations (Councils for example) . This will include companies that operate across multiple sites, or that have franchises, or groups of companies in private equity ownership.
From April 2010 all organisations in this category will be required to measure their carbon footprints and then purchase carbon credits at a currently fixed price of £12/tonne CO2e.
At the end of each year, performance will be summarised in published league tables outlining the best and worst performers in terms of carbon emissions and reductions. The auction revenues generated by the initial sale of the credits will be recycled back to participants with organisations receiving payments back from the government in relation to their first year emissions, plus or minus a bonus or penalty dependent on their league table position.
In year one the maximum bonus or penalty rate is 10%. This will rise to +/- 50% by year 5.
In 2013 the ante will be upped and the system will become a full cap and trade system with carbon credits being sold on the open market by those with surplus through efficient operation and purchased by those that increase their greenhouse gas emissions.
I think this is a superb piece of government thinking, and if you're eligible then you'd better get on it sharpish.
The organisation performance will be ranked in the league table using three metrics;
Absolute Metric; the relative change in absolute emissions
Growth Metric; their change in emissions relative to revenue
Early Action Metric; whether they have taken voluntary steps to reduce emissions prior to 2010.
Any business out their not up to speed.... you'd better contact Change of Atmosphere.

Copenhagen or Bust

2009-10-09T15:28:00.008+01:00

Plenty is going on regarding sustainability, low carbon technologies, climate forecasts, government shilly-shallying, and a simple wising up to what is going on. Much of this of course is down to governments, and any with vested interests, jockeying for position ahead of the crucial Copenhagen talks in December. These ought to be, NEED to be, delivering a global consensus on the requirements to solve climate change and a binding treaty delivering fair, far reaching and deliverable solutions.
One of the starting problems is calculating the true emissions of each country and how much carbon is absorbed by forests and farms, it's a tricky task, especially when politicians do it.
We have a bit of time to turn things around and recession helps, U.K. greenhouse gas emissions are expected to fall by 3% this year due to reductions in production and consumption, but at the pace we going it is not nearly enough. Copenhagen and all the delegates need to be bold. No solution or inadequate solutions coming from this summit would be deeply and unforgivably immoral. It would condemn coming generations to a catastrophically diminished future.
A warning out today suggests that utility costs will rise by as much as 60% over the next 6 years. This would be the case if we, the U.K. did little to secure energy procurement and protect and invest in home energy production rather than import.
I seem to remember dim and distant school discussions that any sovereign nation should be wary of giving up control of it's basic needs. Keep all your primary industries (ooops), ensure national control of transport structure (ooops) and always keep full control of your energy production (oh dear!). A country should be self sufficient, hmmmm, well perhaps we might consider now the implications of becoming almost wholly reliant on imported gas and electricity. Invest now and invest wisely in a basket of energy sources, renewable, nuclear, clean coal et al and invest now in the means to reduce consumption. It has to be done, it must be done to reduce emissions significantly and protect us from energy charges far in excess of inflation.....not to mention the devastating effects of accelerating climate change.
The really cool thing about the solutions being put forward to make the changes we need is that they bring with them new ways of thinking, new ways of resolving issues that create new markets and new opportunities. A fresh "wealth" creation system that doesn't simply rely on GDP and unsustainable, greedy, unbridled profit growth as the measurement of success, but rather a whole host of factors including quality of life, numbers of people and eco systems benefiting etc.
President Sarkozy has put together a very powerful think-tank to look at this and will be presenting the findings at a G8 sometime soon. Bon, tres bon!

Thy heart with dead, wing'd innocencies fill'd, Even as a nest with birds after the old ones by the hawk are kill'd.

2009-10-02T10:10:00.004+01:00

Recently a young mother of four in Northern Ireland, Lisa Saunders, spent some time looking at all the entries in the New Oxford Junior Dictionary and compared it to previous editions noting newly included and removed words.

Here is a list of some of the words removed;
Catkin, brook, minnow, acorn, buttercup, heron, almond, ash, marzipan, beetroot, bray, bridle, porpoise, gooseberry, raven, sycamore, tulip, blackberry, cygnet, porridge, magpie, violet, vine, conker.

Here are some of the words newly included;
Celebrity, tolerant, vandalism, negotiate, interdependent, creep, citizenship, childhood, conflict, bungee jumping, cope, committee, compulsory, democratic, allergic, biodegradable, emotion, dyslexic, donate, endangered, Euro, square number, mp3 player, block graph, attachment, data-base, analogue, voicemail, chatroom and yes, blog.
(actually, "blackberry has been replaced by "BlackBerry" an electronic, hand held device).

Environmentalists of the future need to get out more.

Masterpiece

2009-09-23T13:07:00.005+01:00

Just a short missive today to implore you to read Paul Hawken's amazing Commencement Address he delivered earlier this year to students at Portland University.
His speech is (as he was asked for it to be); direct, naked, taut, honest, passionate, lean, shivering, startling and graceful. Check it out here... now, cut and paste this link into your tool bar;
http://www.paulhawken.com/multimedia/UofP_Commencement_05.03.09.pdf

Wriggling Presidents

2009-09-16T17:18:00.004+01:00

Copenhagen beckons. The crucial political negotiations on a global deal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and broker a deal to replace the Kyoto protocols with a substantial, serious and enforceable treaty is fast approaching. The conference is in December and there is much political wriggling going on ahead of then.
Key to success is the Obama administration coming good to deliver the emission cuts in the U.S. previously proposed. Guess what? They're starting to wriggle. Pressure from the right and their oil producing benefactors are giving the presidency the jitters and overtures to dilute the original proposals are being orchestrated.
The U.S. has submitted to the U.N. their "implementing agreement"ahead of Copenhagen which includes the statement that emissions reductions would be subject to "conformity with domestic law". In other words a piece of wriggle designed to protect the U.S. from being forced to implement international action.
Ban Ki-moon (why do UN secretary generals always have great names? Must be a prerequisite for the role) has much to do ahead of the conference to drive home the point, which he clearly and deeply understands, that failure is not an option.
The UN's intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change state that World emissions of greenhouse gases need to peak by 2015 to give any chance of gaining less than a 2 degree Celsius average global temperature rise. Phew!
Meanwhile the Global Humanitarian Forum led by Kofi Annan has made it clear that climate change already kills 300,000 people per year (as many as killed by the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004). Most of the deaths are due not to extreme weather events but gradual (yet accelerating) environmental degradation, such as flooding, droughts and crop failure leading to malnutrition. Climate justice means pollution has a cost, and those costs must be borne by the polluters.

The Dirty Dozen.

2009-09-01T10:45:00.004+01:00

Climate Campers are out and about, dashing around London, targeting their twelve "climate criminals" as well as having a stab at anything else that may be connected... step forward the World Wide Movement Against Globalisation(!).
Here are the 12 targets, the Dirty Dozen;
1. The Department of Energy and Climate Change .... could be doing more perhaps, but have to be politically astute and crafty to be able to get anything done to change the other eleven I'd say. Their recent announcements (see blog 17 July; Curing the Mischiefs of Faction) are bold compared to others yet are somewhat watery given the need.
2. The European Climate Exchange. Yep.... paper tiger that it is.
3 & 4. The Departments for Business and Transport.... absolutely.... failing to protect UK prosperity by neglecting, wriggling out of or diluting the policies that we need to ensure long term remedies for climate change and laying the foundations of alternative ways of sustainable living.
5. The Stock Exchange... obviously.
6. The Bank of England... yep.
7. The Royal Bank of Scotland... yep.
8. The Treasury..... they miss opportunity after opportunity to help ensure government is properly funded to be able to move forward in such a way as to put climate change at the heart of every department, short termism personified.
9. Heathrow airport... predictably.
10, 11 & 12. Shell and B.P. H.Q and the London office of E.ON.... right on!

All very well but I am a little concerned that the protesters on Blackheath this week need to become more effective. Not that they lack conviction, far from it, but that they target abstracts. Targeting institutions and phenomena rather than singling out individuals to act as the personification of a particular "evil" will always blur the message. Climate campaigners seem somewhat preoccupied with their relationship with the media and the police.
If we want to change the World then we need to be inclusive, engaging as well as challenging. The Climate Camp needs to become a symbol of climate change movement impacting on the public consciousness and ultimately on policy makers.
The Climate Campers need a set of achievable and well understood goals that those outside the camp can identify with. Making a case for why change is necessary and urgent. That's not to say it should'nt be radical and revolutionary... none of your watered down decisions here. Liberals protest, radicals rebel, liberals become indignant, radicals become fighting mad and go into action. Go Campers, Go!

Rubbish Lorries

2009-08-17T11:05:00.004+01:00

I am doing some work for Leeds Paper Recycling. In order to capture more contracts to process waste they are actively seeking to understand their carbon footprint and how to significantly minimise the environmental impact of the processing.
They are working hard finely sorting the waste and dealing with each aspect in the best way. They recycle what they can and are looking to produce usable energy from the rest rather than send it to landfill. It's quite an operation.
Measuring their carbon footprint it struck me that despite all their hard work one aspect of the business is a very major contributor to their greenhouse gas emissions which they have limited control over. Not only that but it's a very large source of global emissions that seems to get little focus. Ninety percent of L.P.R.'s operational footprint is from transport, driving their wagons around.
In the World of cars the industry is in crisis, sales of petrol slurping monster utility vehicles have plummeted and all the research and focus is on fuel efficiency and fuel alternatives.
So what of the trucks, the juggernauts and wagons and lorries that rattle past my house 24/7?
Heavy wagons are shifting somewhere in the order of 70% of all freight in the U.K. . With a recession on, high fuel costs and tighter emission laws you might think that manufacturers and operators alike would be driving full tilt towards low-carbon. You'd be wrong. The average fuel efficiency of cars has doubled in the last 40 years, today's lorries guzzle the same amount of fuel as they did in 1969.
Compared to other forms of freight transport trucks are responsible for the most carbon emissions and the largest percentage increase. Since 1990 road transport has increased by 77.8% in contrast to an air freight increase of 4.5%, rail 33% and water 9%. More and more trucks on our congested roads and their fuel economy is not improving.
What to do..... only 6.5% of the energy in a big wagon's fuel is used to shift the cargo inside it. 11% moves the vehicle, 6.5% accelerates the cargo and 4.5% accelerates the vehicle. The rest is wasted; 50% as waste heat, 19% battling against aerodynamic forces, 12% simply idling, 11% tyre roll resistance and 2% transmission drag.
There's much work to do, some petrol-electric hybrid, a Prius truck, would help if available, as would a system to capture some of the waste heat and using it to help power the truck. Aerodynamics has a way to go, square ends on trucks leave trails of drag inducing turbulence in their wake which simple redesign can offer up to 11% fuel saving.
There are the beginnings of improvements. "E-Traction" a company based in Holland has developed an electric motor for trucks and buses that fits inside each wheel, putting the power down right where it is needed and eliminating the need for heavy transmission and gearing that soaks up a significant portion of the engine's power.
Other ideas are coming through too.... modified shock absorbers that stop the vehicle bouncing after going over a pothole or bump and absorbing the motion in a piston filled with viscous fluid and driving this through a small turbine to drive an electrical generator.
My favourite? In the U.S. one shipping giant uses routeing software that seeks to avoid left turns, that is turns across the flow of oncoming traffic (that would be right turns here). This cuts down the time spent idling and the company claims that this, along with other tweaks has saved it 11 million litres of fuel in 2007 alone.
C'mon truckers! Wise up, there's money to be saved, there's carbon to reduce! Or, better than that.... stick it on a train.

Train connections

2009-08-05T16:41:00.003+01:00

Continental Europe has had a far stronger commitment to high speed rail over the past few decades than the U.K.. Where once Great Britain led the way, opening the World's first, fast intercity railway between London and Birmingham in 1837, it now boasts a rail system in shambles following years of a make do and mend approach to rail infrastructure by successive governments.
There has never been a better time to invest in rail. The technology already exists to operate fast, efficient, low carbon trains. The U.K. currently has 113 Km of high speed track and no more currently under construction or planned, the lowest of all European countries (well nearly, Switzerland will have 107Km). Built, under construction and planned track across Europe has: Belgium 209Km, France 4787Km, Germany 2333KM, Italy 1271, Portugal 1006Km, Spain 5515 to name but just 6.
Here's the good news; the government has made the demise of domestic air travel an explicit policy target by aiming to replace short haul flights with a new 250mph high speed rail network.
The transport secretary Lord Adonis (yes, Lord Adonis, bronzed I am sure) has put the switching of 46 million domestic air passengers per year to a multi billion pound north - south high speed rail alternative at the top of his agenda.
It makes a great deal of sense, rail uses one third of the land that motorways use and can move far more people/hour than air or car, carbon emissions are a quarter of those for car or aeroplane per passenger and the technology already exists to be able to get on with something that works and will continue to do so well into the future. Cost? High, but not that high... and would save £5 billion/year current rail subsidy (one would hope!).
Connected thinking is what we need here. Why do people travel in their cars rather than on the train? Is one good reason because in a car they have their own private space unimpeded by others while they travel? On the 13th July my blog mentioned "Riversimple" a company producing new hydrogen fuel cell powered cars. What if we were greatly encouraged to travel in these (and similar)? Local journeys would be a joy, long journeys..... ah, long journeys.... we stick our little car onto the high speed train (Eurotunnel style) zoom across to the city or town we want to be in sitting in our car, drive out of the train and whizz about in our little car. That would work.

Little Porritt - What the Dickens.....

2009-07-28T11:45:00.003+01:00

Mr Porritt has long been in the Westminster prison for debtors, "Weshallsee"and has had the dubious task to be chair of the Sustainable Development Commission. His lot has been alleviated by his devotion to his "Little Dorrits" his commissioners and Secretariat whom he praises for their experience, passion and commitment. Their work balancing advisory and capacity building work on the one hand and watchdog work on the other, he says is nothing short of an "art form".
He steps down from Chair of the SDC having moved from a situation where there was "little understanding across government that sustainable development was anything other than environmentalism by another name", to one where there is now a low carbon transition plan backed by active steps to make sure firms in the U.K. grab the greater opportunities in nuclear, renewable energy production, in low to no CO2 car production and others.
He goes with a few parting shots of course. Lord Merdle of Hartlepool (to keep the Little Dorrit analogy going.... sorry) is noted as particularly hostile to the concept of sustainable development.
He criticises ministers on the environment and social justice for failing to protect U.K. prosperity, with the biggest problems (very worryingly) in the treasury, business and transport departments. He goes on; that for years the treasury has dogmatically defended the Thatherite model of consumption driven economic growth, regardless of the costs that growth generates.
I hope the SDC moves forward effectively without him and I wish him well and thank him for the tremendous amount of work for sustainable issues he has done so far. Certainly it's time that people, company CEOs, department heads.... well, everybody, "got it", that we must leave unbridled profit growth as a past goal, embrace sustainable development as the very best and only way forward.

Man as God

2009-07-22T14:08:00.003+01:00

Climate change has been a hot topic (sorry) for decades now and along with many others I see that the huge problem of Global Warming is accelerating but that it is not beyond the wit of mankind to find a solution. Actually, that has to be the case. Irreversible and accelerating warming is doubtless happening now, and the inertia of that change will take more than changing a few light bulbs to stop.
At best all we can each do, however meagre it might seem, to slow the process is essential. Drive less, walk more. Turn your heating down. Insulate your loft and walls. Turn things off when you are not using them etc etc. Do all these things and more to buy us more time. More time to find the real solution.
Well, the elephant in the room is geo-engineering, tampering with the Earth's atmosphere to halt and even reverse global warming. We have the ability to do it now, and cheaply. It could be localised to affect those areas that require most change, e.g. seeding the atmosphere with particulates above the poles to encourage rapid reversal of warming, leaving temperate and middle latitudes maintaining status-quo. Scary isn't it?
Should we do serious research into this topic? How would you draw up a treaty to agree who had control of the process? What's to stop one group just getting on with it for their best advantage? Certainly China or India for example could easily undertake geo-engineering without recourse to western morals.
Not only scary but it draws down the following moral hazard. Knowledge that geo-engineering is possible makes climate impacts look less fearsome and thereby weakens the commitment to cut emissions now.
I think this is a worrying topic but one that needs bringing out into the open and looking at very very carefully.
Talking elephants take a look at this ... grand prize winning, 50 seconds,excellent "the Sky is Falling"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bak50U6HiRk

Curing The Mischiefs Of Faction

2009-07-17T13:35:00.004+01:00

Hoorah for the DECC (sorry, the Department of Energy and Climate Change....Ed Milliband and his lot)! I must admit to being reasonably impressed by the announcements on Wednesday outlining the government plan to move the U.K onto a permanent low carbon footing.
It sets out the targets to achieve and shows how it will "transform the country into a cleaner, greener and more prosperous place to live" and puts it at the heart of our economic plans for "Building Britain's Future".
Over the next 10years it sets out how we will; have more than 1.2 million people in "green jobs", have 7 million homes benefit from whole house makeovers and 1.5 million households supported to produce their own energy.
40% of energy will be delivered from a basket of low carbon sources, from renewables, nuclear and clean coal. We will be importing half the amount of gas we would otherwise and cars will emit 40% less carbon than now.
All this (and lots more) to achieve a 34% reduction in carbon emissions on 1990 levels by 2020.
And it here that I have concerns. As the press release says itself, we have already delivered a 21% reduction ("equivalent to cutting emissions entirely from 4 cities the size of London"), so that leaves us a target of a further 13% reduction over the next 11years. Laudable reductions so far (maybe, maybe not!) but is the remainder enough? Should we have moved the base (1990 levels) to more recent (and more accurate measures) of emission levels? Is it enough to do what needs to be done?
Here are 10 things to worry you on the situation taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report update, June 2009;
1. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are responsible for most of the increase in global temperature with greater than 90% certainty. Many aspects of climate change explicitly link them to human activity.
2. Human induced climate change is already affecting multiple systems, both physical and biological.
3. Changes in polar temperatures are attributed "conclusively" to human activity. A detectable human influence on sea ice melt extends back to the early 1990s, even before (and including) "the recent and rapid increase in melting".
4. Global precipitation trends across all areas of the World are larger than model predictions and may already be impacting ecosystems, agriculture and human health.
5. Satellites show an increase in total atmospheric moisture content over the oceans since 1998 attributable to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses.
6. New research finds a significant chance (84%) that human activities are responsible for most of the observed increase in sea surface temperature which contributes to more intense hurricanes.
Ocean acidification (by absorption of CO2 forming carbonic acid) is occurring threatening the World's coral reefs, shellfish and marine ecosystems leading to a direct threat to food security, biodiversity, tourism and coastal protection.
7. A better understanding of the behaviour of large ice sheets and of rapid melting has raised projections of 21 century global sea level rise (see my posting 7th July).
8. Surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is accelerating... satellite observations indicate that 2007 was a record year for Greenland surface melt - 60% more melt than the previous record of 1998. A similar story for the Antarctic ice shelves and for the Arctic sea ice.
9. Permafrost is thawing more rapidly than previously thought. The permafrost (the Arctic land mass) contains significantly more CO2 than currently exists in the Earth's atmosphere. Release of both CO2 and CH4 (methane) occurs with the thawing of these areas. Methane emissions from Siberian thaw lakes "may be more than 5 times higher than previous estimates" and expansion of thaw lakes in response to Arctic warming has led to a 58% increase in methane emissions (remember, methane is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2).
10. The impacts of climate change may persist more than 1000 years, even after human-induced emissions of CO2 have stopped completely.

Well, I didn't mean to scare you, but it does beg the question that despite the fact that the U.K. is at the "forefront of a low carbon economic revolution" with the excellent Department of Energy and Climate Change plan, is it enough, and is it enough, soon enough?

If you'd like to read the full, terrifying report go to; http://www.pewclimate.org/brief/science-developments/June2009

Good news today though..... leading retailers have only just missed their target to reduce the number of plastic carrier bags given to their customers. The scheme aimed for reduction of 50% and has achieved.... 48%. I wonder what their monetary savings have been as a result, what their income from "bags for life" is and what they have done with that money. Still, we mustn't be too mean in our thoughts for the 7 supermarkets' brave attempts to save the World. They have reduced the number by 372 million bags in the last year compared to the number handed out in 2006.

Oh, and the title of today's missive.... comes from U.S president, philosopher and generally regarded master of the bon mot, James Madison in 1788.... "There are two methods of curing the mischief's of faction: the one by removing it's causes, the other by controlling it's effects"

Sheffield Business School

2009-07-13T19:07:00.018+01:00

I thoroughly enjoyed my meeting today with Jane, a senior lecturer at Hallam University business school. Jane specialises in supply chain management and is looking for potential company partners to help 3rd year undergraduates complete their "capstone" project. Projects designed to help students recognise the implications of decisions made in business.
Jane is particularly interested in sustainability and carbon issues associated along all or any parts of supply chain. Fascinating stuff believe it or not.
We talked and talked .... future trends and what to do now to prepare, how to engage suppliers, what initiatives work, hidden environmental costs, supply chain visibility, challenges and opportunities up and down the supply chain, branding, value led markets, root value of things and on and on. You may not believe me but it's riveting stuff with so many implications for all.

A sustainability strategy may have a number of objectives; social issues, environmental issues, economical issues etc. often these may well be in conflict. How do we manage these? Where in the supply chain do we put our influence to best effect, for example, Ikea concentrate greatly on forestry and raw materials, they actually buy finished (or rather packs of finished bits and -1 screws) products but get huge benefit from working with supply chain one step removed. They add their clever efficiencies and ensure the best sustainable forestry with the woodmen , who can then provide cheaper and "greener" material to Ikea's suppliers who will then though have to share the savings with Ikea. All have (probably) benefited.
Talking of business and new business models take a look at the new car company "Riversimple" at www.riversimple.com What a great business model. These guys have produced a lightweight electric vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cells, but that's not the best thing. Best of all is how it will all work. Complete and comprehensive plans on how to build these excellent little cars will be available, free, on the www. so anyone can set up and produce them. £200 per month will lease you a car built locally using local workforce. The price includes everything even the fuel you use. What is also so clever is that it takes away the car manafacturers in-built strategy to build in obsolescence, there will never be a time you need to buy a new car, just swap it, no charge for another.

Damned if you do...........

2009-07-11T12:54:00.002+01:00

I work hard to reduce my carbon footprint. When I do so I save money. With that money I buy things............ that creates carbon, arrgggh! Hard is'nt it? The other thing we are all, I think guilty of is picking and choosing; I will, say, install low energy light bulbs, I won't stop driving too quickly, or I will put on a jumper and turn down the heating, but I will also stand too long under the shower. So, how about having a go at this? Make a list of things you know are green house gas expensive but are reluctant to give up on and of those that you find easy to forego. Now you can manage that list, hang on perhaps I can stop doing this or that carbon expensive action, perhaps I can increase the amount I do of this or that carbon saving action... a simple review. I bet you you can easily make big carbon savings (and money savings) just by doing this.

I enjoyed the HRH Prince Charles' Dimbleby lecture the other day, bumbling as it was it typically contained "joined up thinking" and important views of the way forward from the mess we find ourselves in. I liked his phrase, "...what sustains us must itself be sustained" so that we protect and encourage the environment and count sustainability as part of bottom line profit rather than continue hell for leather to drive for unbridled growth.

Change of Atmosphere

2009-07-07T11:25:00.002+01:00

"Well it seems we are not only certain that sea level rise is inevitable but that it will happen faster than previously thought. Official estimates put rises of 0.2 - 0.6m by 2100, it could actually be more like 1 - 2m. Well, so what? Most countries will only lose a tiny percentage of their land.... that is apart from the Netherlands, Florida, Bangladesh et al, and that 'tiny percentage of land' just tends to be the bit where we have built and are building. Large parts of London, New York, Sydney, Tokyo and other cities are sprawling out across areas destined to be sea floor before long.
Huge engineering effort and cost will be required to protect these areas. Planning for new coastal development is plain daft. Stop building in the danger zones.

'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' remarked Arthur C Clarke. Magically, much is happening in the advance of technology to help mitigate climate change. This is what keeps me cheery. It all seems to be accelerating and new inventions, innovations and ideas to curb, stop or store carbon are becoming main stream, but no less magical. It is our hope. Reduce your greenhouse gas emissions now, however much you feel it may be a drop in ocean (as it were), do it... buy us more time to solve the problems.
Posted by Change of Atmosphere at 15:00 0 comments
Labels: Magic and"

Change of Atmosphere

2009-07-07T11:25:00.001+01:00

Change of Atmosphere: "Flying and Copenhagen
Word in the pub yesterday is that the ever amazing Ryanair is investigating how to get aircraft designed so passengers stand for the flight duration, taking out the seats and replacing them with pub like poser tables to lean against. A flying packed pub of Brits slooshing down the Guinness and Jamesons winging it's way to southern Spain.
Not sure what to make of this, although certainly CO2e footprint per traveller will be improved. Might help with landing and taking off too if we can all just sychronise jumping.... one, two, three and UP we go.

Word too that the December United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is looking more promising than it might have been.
Certainly with Mr Obama around I would expect rather more than from his predecessor.
The agreement coming out of this conference is to replace the Kyoto Protocol of a few years ago. The big problem with Kyoto was that the USA delegation came back with a treaty they new would never make it through the Senate. The Kyoto Protocol which set binding targets to reduce greenhouse gasses was signed and ratified by 184 countries with the very noticable exception of the United States.
With Obama at the helm the United States is back in the international climate change process as well as engaging with issues at a domestic level.... Cmon!"

Flying and Copenhagen

2009-07-07T10:25:00.003+01:00

Word in the pub yesterday is that the ever amazing Ryanair is investigating how to get aircraft designed so passengers stand for the flight duration, taking out the seats and replacing them with pub like poser tables to lean against. A flying packed pub of Brits slooshing down the Guinness and Jamesons winging it's way to southern Spain.
Not sure what to make of this, although certainly CO2e footprint per traveller will be improved. Might help with landing and taking off too if we can all just sychronise jumping.... one, two, three and UP we go.

Word too that the December United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is looking more promising than it might have been.
Certainly with Mr Obama around I would expect rather more than from his predecessor.
The agreement coming out of this conference is to replace the Kyoto Protocol of a few years ago. The big problem with Kyoto was that the USA delegation came back with a treaty they new would never make it through the Senate. The Kyoto Protocol which set binding targets to reduce greenhouse gasses was signed and ratified by 184 countries with the very noticable exception of the United States.
With Obama at the helm the United States is back in the international climate change process as well as engaging with issues at a domestic level.... Cmon!

Magic and flooding

2009-07-04T15:00:00.003+01:00

Well it seems we are not only certain that sea level rise is inevitable but that it will happen faster than previously thought. Official estimates put rises of 0.2 - 0.6m by 2100, it could actually be more like 1 - 2m. Well, so what? Most countries will only lose a tiny percentage of their land.... that is apart from the Netherlands, Florida, Bangladesh et al, and that "tiny percentage of land" just tends to be the bit where we have built and are building. Large parts of London, New York, Sydney, Tokyo and other cities are sprawling out across areas destined to be sea floor before long.
Huge engineering effort and cost will be required to protect these areas. Planning for new coastal development is plain daft. Stop building in the danger zones.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" remarked Arthur C Clarke. Magically, much is happening in the advance of technology to help mitigate climate change. This is what keeps me cheery. It all seems to be accelerating and new inventions, innovations and ideas to curb, stop or store carbon are becoming main stream, but no less magical. It is our hope. Reduce your greenhouse gas emissions now, however much you feel it may be a drop in ocean (as it were), do it... buy us more time to solve the problems.