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.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Climate is What You Expect, Weather is What You Get
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
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
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Terra Branco to Terra Preta
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.
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.
Monday, 21 December 2009
A lesson in Geopolitics.
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.
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.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Glam, Grim and Glum.
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.
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.
Sunday, 6 December 2009
Good Luck Delegates (on yer bike sceptics).
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.
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.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Shut up and get on with it.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
