Carbon Dioxide already at end of century levels

Over the last few weeks I have heard some really disturbing data regarding Climate Change. The first was a news story that was set to emerge regarding the break up of the sea ice at the northern latitudes. I was contacted by one of my readers who works in the Canadian government, as this person thought I might want to use it if and when the Polar Bear was put on the US endangered species list. While I could have used it then, and got a lead on the mainstream media, I wanted to see what this meant in relation to the climate models.

This caused me to be given a heads up about some important data that has been critical to the climate modelling that was just plain wrong. Following the second world war, the recorded sea temperature in the Atlantic dipped. As this apparent dip had a significant effect upon the the rate that the climate models showed an effect upon the projected temperature gradient and the rate that it will effect the Sea Ice and the land based glaciers an error here is very serious.

This was later confirmed when in either the science Journal Nature or Science, I cant remember, there was an article that explained how this error was made. As most of these readings were done by the Royal Navy and The US Navy, it was when the US Navy returned to America that this apparent dip in the sea temperature occurred. It turns out that it was just that both navies were using different methods and recording the temperature in a different way. Iron out those differences and the out puts of the climate models changes. Now the models indicate the sea ice gone in ten years. Suddenly the computer models are matching what is really happening in the Arctic.

However, there is a third factor, and this is real breaking news. In a report not yet published, it will show that CO2 levels have already reached to point that they were expected to be at by the end of this century.

I think that we are in the upper reaches of a very polluted river without any means of propulsion.

A Link to the story regarding the break up of the Sea Ice

Image Copyright CSA 2008

Fuel Efficient Cars, Not in America.

Following my critique of the media, it seems appropriate that I should now praise parts of the media. About a week ago on the radio they were reporting on the fact that American tax payers will soon be getting their tax rebate cheques as part of President Bush's plan to inject billions into the US economy. However the same day, was a comment regarding Ford who have decided that the fuel efficient model Ka, will not be made in or sold to the American market.

The report on the US tax rebates showed that most people were just going to spend this money to pay off bills or fill up on gasoline. All this will do is boost the profits of the oil companies. What make you think hat Bush is an oil man at heart?

While I am fully aware that rising energy costs are hurting Americans, the US people need to acknowledge that they have had incredibly cheap oil for far to long. Had Americans had to pay anywhere close to the costs that the rest of the world pays for petrol, they would not have the problem of everyone driving around in fuel hungry cars and trucks.

This interweaves the other story that Ford are not going to sell or make the fuel efficient model Ka in the US as they don't think Americans will buy them. As they can provide forty five miles per gallon, it makes me wonder what the thinking is behind this decision. Here at the Dagenham plant where Ford makes the car for the European market, they are at full stretch.

This prompted me to start digging. While I was aware that cars in America are marketed upon how macho they are, I had not realised just how deeply this culture was embedded. However, the real scandal is the way that the automotive industry has resisted change. By changing to the much more efficient models made for other markets, companies like ford could cut in half the CO2 emissions from cars immediately. Further, if the US Government were to force the automotive industry to seriously reduce CO2 emissions, this would boost US industry, create jobs and start the US on the road to cooperating with the rest of the world.

The US needs the boost that greening the Economy would bring. All it needs is leadership as well as inventive and creative thinking. What is so stupid about the current US governments approach is that if the US doesn't take action now, the already weak economy will suffer as Oil prices will continue to rise. Therefore, soon people will not be able to afford to buy gasoline at all to fill and drive there cars that will only do nine or ten miles per gallon.

The US government seems determined to support the oil industry by all and any means, even when that support is and will destroy the US economy.

A failure to reduce CO2

Just after the new year I calculated my carbon footprint, and I came out as producing up to five and half tonnes of carbon dioxide. I say up to as it depended upon what site I visited and it ranged from two and half tonnes to four and half tonnes using these sites. However I did my own calculations and included all the hidden CO2 that these sites often exclude and five and half tonnes is a figure that I would say is most accurate.

That is more than half of the average in Britain and nearly a fifth of the average American who emits a whopping twenty-five tonnes of CO2 per year.

Therefore I know that I am doing as much as I can to use only what I need. If I had more money I know I could do more. There are no convenient outlets to buy local food for me. Those that are around require me to travel there adding to my travel and carbon costs. Add to that often the price of produce at the Farmers markets etc is extortionate. While I am prepared to pay for quality, the prices are not reflective of any fair trade. The farmers criticise the supermarkets for excessive profits and can have mark ups of four or five hundred percent upon the price that the farmer gets paid. So why then is it right for farmers to then try charging, in some cases, double the price the supermarkets charge?

Equally I am trying really hard to not use plastic bags or any plastic packaging at all. But it is nearly impossible to buy goods without loads of plastic. As one of the shops in the UK, Marks & Spencer's announces that its going to start charging for plastic bags as a way of reducing the 1700,000,000 that we in the UK use each year, it makes me realise just how far we have to move to stop the effects of pollution and climate change.

Therefore, it did not surprise me that the big switch off day produced no noticeable effect. Those people like me who take climate change seriously are already doing what they can. And while locally I have helped a small number of people towards reducing their energy bills, I know that none of them would have done anything if it had not been for a hike in gas and electricity costs here. Further not one of them really cares about the environment.

Even many of the people who say they care about the environment and global warming still drive cars and must have their holidays in the sun, taking flights, as well as consuming all the latest gadgets. These people loose their concern for our planet as soon as it starts to impact upon their way of life or their freedom to pollute.

Then there is the hard core majority that don't care at all. Or delude themselves that some technological fix will come along and we can do all the things we have always done, and us environmentalists are just doom and gloom merchants.

While I am a pragmatist and realise that we do need lighting heat and power, there is so much that we could be doing. Take plastic bags as one example; around the globe we use one point two trillion of these per year. If we stopped using plastic bags that would save the equivalent of twelve million flights from Heathrow London to JFK New York. That's 12,000,000 all those zeros. That simple action alone would save well over four hundred million tonnes of CO2 per year.

Recently I have been talking to a tree about Low energy light bulbs. She posted on her Blog about mercury vapour in the bulbs. I pointed out that the amount was minuscule and there is no real danger from them, yet products like these need to be recycled and disposed of properly. However, the real point is we all need light and as these bulbs are much more energy efficient we should all be using them. As well as turning off lights that are not needed.

It will not be until we clearly see the effects of Climate Change that the majority of people will even start to take action. By then it will be to late. Sir David King the former chief scientist in the UK said that Global Warming was a greater threat than Terrorism, on that he was spot on.
The reality is that unless we all stop polluting we will all suffer. Not only that we will make our children suffer. While there are many projects that are aimed at reducing CO2 emissions, we all need to reduce our CO2 emissions by changing our behaviour.

Further reading on the switch off day

Closing Down Four Coal Fired Power Stations

Yesterday, because of the poor weather forecast, I decided I would do my shopping early. Following my previous comments about wanting to avoid the chemical contamination of my foods by the “Food Industry” I have been using up more of the ingredient, stock and store cupboard items that I always keep, so I knew that this would be a big shop. At times like this I keep on saying I should hire myself out as a pack horse.

Sticking to my resolve of avoiding anything that would be better suited to a chemical factory, I loaded up my trolley. I knew it was not going to be a cheap trip, but even I was surprised when the bill came in at under forty pounds. Normally when I have to restock its over fifty.

So while its not yet proof, it does look as though avoiding processed foods is cheaper. Nor had I stinted on quality or quantity. But I had looked for any bargains. One of those bargains that I got was a Brisket of Beef, that was reduced because of a short sell by date. While I prefer to use the butchers, a joint of properly matured, 21 day, British beef was not one I was going to miss out on. And as I write, I am happily digesting the first meal this produced.

The other item that I bought was a Chicken from the high welfare standard range. Normally I would only buy free range, but I wanted to make a statement to the supermarket, that I will only buy chickens, or any meat for that matter, that comes from a high welfare standard. I also noted that the “Standard” low welfare birds have actually gone up in price. Further, the supermarket has signs up saying that following the television programmes, that they were striving to meet the increased demand for the higher welfare standard chickens, but there was now a shortage. Coincidently when I got home I made some enquires and discovered that the price rise on the “Standard” low welfare birds was forced upon them partly by farmers who are now earning triple from each bird, up from three pence to nine pence, but more importantly from customers who were appalled by the fact that the supermarkets were only paying the farmers third world prices.

Back at the supermarket, as Consett is situated at the top of a hill, it gets quite battered by the weather, and the high winds were battering us yesterday. However, while waiting for the bus to get back home, I spotted a bird that I surprised to see a Great Bustard. I wished I had had my camera with me, but with all this shopping to carry...

That was not the only pleasant surprise I had either as when I got back home I took my recycling to the recycling point and discovered that the council has installed a new bin for plastics. It has long been frustrating that plastics the biggest polluter and the greatest volume in most peoples bins, is not recycled. Finally it is happening.

Then to top all this, I got a phone call. As I mentioned in a previous posting, I helped one woman in the village reduce her electricity bills. Suddenly with the substantial rise in gas and electricity prices people are starting to see the wisdom of reducing energy consumption. I was being asked to help a small group of five women who were trying to reduce their bills. So today I went and had a chat with them.

The first comment I had to make was just how hot it was, in this woman's home. Granted it was blowing a blizzard outside, it was boiling in the house and everyone was wearing tee shirts. So the first thing I suggested was that everyone put on a jumper. The woman who was hosting this symposium said; “Oh no need I will just turn the heating up”

By explaining that it a lot cheaper to put on a jumper (American translation: Sweater) than racking up the heating they could all save up to forty percent off their heating bills, suddenly they could see the point. For example one woman last year had a winter quarter gas bill of over four hundred pounds. She is still paying this off. So reducing her bill by one third or more would make a real difference to her and her family.

The real shock was that all of these women had each got two low energy light bulbs but had not fitted them. One of the tabloid papers here, I will not name one of Rupert Murdock's trashy papers here, on 19th January gave away four and half million low energy light bulbs. All of them had these twin packs, but none had bin fitted. So I did a trail around fitting light bulbs. I gave some other advice but I am amazed at how people don't seem to be able to do the obvious things. I know that this is all small scale but little by little people are realising the value of saving energy even if only to save money.

However, the real story here is that in this consumer give away, if all those bulbs were fitted, in one year alone it would stop three thousand five hundred tonnes of CO2 going up into the atmosphere. Even more staggering is if we all changed to low energy bulbs we would reduce energy consumption by the equivalent of closing four coal fired power stations.

So why not change your bulbs today?

Carbon Offsetting

I genuinely don't have any problem with anyone making money. As long as each and every trade is a fair and equitable one. Further, while I don't see Carbon Offsetting as a solution to climate change, it is allowing NGO projects to help the poor in developing countries to buy energy saving appliances and reduce carbon emissions in that way. Also I do see planting trees as something we should all be doing.

However, as it takes fifty years for a tree to fully absorb the carbon produced now from burning fossil fuels, it creates the illusion that we can continue generating pollution and by offsetting we are being virtuous. The predicament we have is that we are burning ancient carbon from the Cretaceous period that was locked away millions of years ago and expecting to solve it by planting trees that will lock away the carbon for a few hundred years at best.

At the moment, the average temperature on earth is 14 degrees Celsius, that's a rise of one degree on the pre industrialised average In the Cretaceous period the average temperature was 25 degrees Celsius That is greater increase then the scientists are saying would have already made the human extinct.

While planting trees should be happening and I don't mind organisations making money from this, I do have a problem with some of the organisations that are seeking to collect money from offsetting.

Yesterday, I noticed an advert that I had to explore as the strap line was Gore was wrong. The web site detailed the fact that since the 15th century we have reduced tree cover by ten billion acres. Further, that just by planting trees we solve the problem. While this may be great PR (Bulls**t) for the offsetting industry, it is based upon bad science. As I have already said the carbon that is causing the problem is the ancient carbon from millions of years ago. Additionally, trees can only capture the carbon for a few hundred years and eventually even if those trees are then replaced CO2 emissions will then start increasing as we have filled all the spare land with woodlands and forests.

I bookmarked the site as I was thinking of writing about it as junk science and junk science, particularly the myths perpetuated by the oil companies, is largely responsible for much of the inaction on tackling climate change. Then I thought I would investigate further. Using the contact details they provide on the site, I discovered that its run by a “FOR PROFIT” company called American Capital Resource's and Information and not the not for profit group that are claimed on the website.

Therefore anyone wanting to offset their carbon from air travel say, needs to be sure of the people they are giving their money to. Additionally, to truly offset the CO2 from a flight you will need to plant much more than the one or two trees that most offsetting sites will tell you. As a fully laden flight from Heathrow to Orlando in Florida, each passenger will need to plant one hundred and fifty trees to absorb the CO2 from that flight alone. That is the true cost of carbon offsetting.

The Website in Question

The People behind the website

Beyond a Silent Spring – A New Years Wish

When Rachael Carson wrote her book, many of the effects that she predicted didn’t happen because action was taken. When a hole was discovered in the Ozone layer of the atmosphere, we were fortunate as it was located at the South Pole, and while it will take fifty to seventy-five more years to heal, it is healing as action was taken to stop that pollution.

However, the difficulty we all face now with Climate Change is that we are not prepared to stop the pollution. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today, the effects of what we have burnt already will not stop for two hundred years.

This is why Climate Change is the greatest challenge that humanity faces, the biggest threat to our existence, much greater than Terrorism or any natural disaster.

The examples of DDT and its effects upon the environment and those of CFCs are apt as the solution found was to ban them. Yet while this is eventually what we need to do with using Fossil fuels, what needs to occur now is that we use them to built new methods of sustainable energy production.

The real problem with DDT was that it was used irresponsibly. If users had just used the insecticide as instructed then it would have remained effective. But some people over used it, so that it built up in the environment and impacted upon other species, fish and birds. Or people used it in a weaker solution to make it go further. That caused resistance for the chemical to build up in some agricultural pests. Therefore more and more of the chemical was used, polluting the environment and more importantly the food chain.

Had the manufactures been more careful about ensuring that it was used sensibly, and not tried to maximise sales and profits by tacitly encouraging over use, it could well be that this effective chemical would be available today to deal with malaria carrying mosquitoes and Blue Tongue carrying Midges.

It is the same with CFCs a very effective refrigerant, but again manufacturers wanted more sales and greater profits so it went into every aerosol product you could think of.

We were lucky as the hole the CFCs made happened at the South Pole and at the equator, as deaths would have occurred in the millions before we ever knew what was going on. Had CFCs just been kept as a refrigerant, we would have some very energy efficient refrigerators and air conditioners.

The difficulty we need to overcome is our thinking on climate changing gasses is to adjust our attitude towards the environment. There is nothing we can do to stop the effects of a changing climate; we have already emitted more than enough CO2 in to the atmosphere to seriously damage our planet.

That change in attitude primarily means that we need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels. By burning them we are releasing Carbon that our planet locked away millions of years ago. Had that not happened we would not have evolved. Further, if we don’t change we will (Humans) become an evolutionary footnote in our biological record.

That is not just the obvious uses of energy, heating and lighting but all the hidden energy that arises from manufactured goods. That means not changing or upgrading consumer goods. If something needs to be replaced why not buy second hand? Or something refurbished?

Buy your food locally, shipping costs obviously are adding to the price as well as the carbon burnt to get that food to you. Equally why not get together with your neighbours so that only one shopping trip is made for three or four homes. Instantly you can reduce the cost to the environment by a quarter.

However, the real change that needs to happen is to start building or installing other means of power generation, wind turbines, Solar even geo-thermal. It will cost money, but if this doesn’t happen now none of us will have energy at all. The increase in Sea levels will flood oil terminals and ports hampering or even preventing the distribution of fossil fuels will force us into an energy famine.

Further, we need to force our governments to start cooperating and build sustainable power stations. We already have the technology to do this, but all governments balk at the idea of giving away expensive advanced technology. Further, because this would aid developing nations, all the developed nations hate the idea of advancing another countries economy. Yet, they fail to see the larger picture. By helping countries in North Africa as an example, to build solar power stations, photovoltaic and mirror farms, we enable them to get out of poverty. That will stop the economic migration from these nations and will stop the poverty that feeds into extremism, violence and terrorism.

One of the lessons that we learnt in the UK from the terrorism in Northern Ireland was that poor education and poverty fed the prejudices that spawned the violence. Equally NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) have for years known that helping educate people, especially women helped resolve many of the problems in the world. That is why I despair at the attitude of the American Government who link aid to the direct financial and trade benefits of the US. Other countries do this too but the US is most blatant. Yet by aiding these developing countries to generate power from natural sustainable recourses, we can stop the problems of poverty, health and famine.

We can do this and it could all be done in twenty-five years. The technology exists, and by fairly distributing the know how and recourses around the world we can eliminate almost all the Carbon pollution around the world. Further, we can stop the poverty that leads to conflict.

I know that most people that read this will think that this is an unrealistic dream, but it is my wish for this coming year and for many years to come.

Americas Bali Road Map to Inaction

The day after agreeing to the Bali Road Map for tackling Climate Change, America and especially the White House started backing off from the agreement. My reaction to that was one of puzzlement. If the US government didn’t agree with or want to be a part of the solution then why sign up?

Further, during the extension of the negotiations it did look as though the US were going to block an agreement. It became clear that the US was isolated and while on minor details America did have its supporters, the overwhelming feeling was that the US were trying to prevent agreement.

Then something rather curious happened. The Dutch Diplomat and Chief negotiator, Yvo De Boer came to the podium and after deigning that the secretariat had been involved in secret and separate talks he broke down and was lead off stage in tears.

Then the most curious aspect was that all of a sudden Paula Dobrianski under secretary of state and the US representative, said that America would join in and follow the majority, that’s the rest of the world as the US were indeed isolated.

I can now report what actually happened. The US had no intention of signing up to any agreement on climate change, well nothing that would be meaningful of effective. Further, in Bali the US were effectively trying to scupper any agreement by holding secret talks with other nations. It was only when the US were discovered doing this that the American delegation agreed to sign up to the Bali Road Map. That is why the Bush administration is calling foul and trying to avoid its responsibility.

The reality is that the US under Bush will do nothing to curb CO2 or take climate change seriously. While the US Government is saying that Climate Change is real it is doing so reluctantly. Additionally, while Americans are the greatest polluters of our planet, even the very weak energy bill that the president has just signed into law is woefully weak. Even the Chinese are implementing measures that are more effective than the US.

I suspect that the US is attempting to create the illusion of tackling the problem, while in reality it will be business as usual. Eventually this inaction by American will end up causing America real pain.

One of the conundrums of climate change is the simple fact that as the planet is warming more water vapour has been released into the atmosphere. As has been shown with Hurricane Katrina and the flooding that occurred in the UK this year, eventually that water will fall as rain. Further, the atmosphere has been retaining more water vapour than any of the computer models were ever predicting. Apart from the fact that this is speeding up the warming of the planet, current thinking is that at some point in the Weather/Climate cycle most of this extra moisture will be released in sudden and violent downpours. Not in areas normally affected by flooding but in places that monsoon type rains would not normally happen. Therefore just on the basis of landmass, America will be hard hit. It is just an event that the models are predicting like the snowstorms that have hit America. The inaction of the Bush government is impacting the population of America.

Beyond Kyoto and Bali

Just at the start of the Bali conference the BBC interviewed the chief scientific advisor to the white house on climate change. What he said was depressing, as it didn’t bode well for the climate change conference in Bali. What he said was that until the science can say at what level CO2 in the atmosphere was dangerous the US would not be doing anything that might damage the US economy.

When in Bali, Al Gore the former US Vice President, stood up and told the conference that he was ashamed of America. The attitude of the George W Bush government on climate change is shameful, shameful but honest. As the largest polluter the American government should be accepting that the American people need to stop the profligate waste of energy. But it’s only via this gorging of the energy resources that the US Economy makes its money.

The Stand off between the US and Europe created the illusion that Europe was being the good guy. Though the reality is that Europe has failed to meet its Kyoto targets just as much as any other country.

In Britain there is a lot of rhetoric but very little real action. Some action has been taken, promoting wind power, but very little else. We could have banned High Energy light bulbs, but this was consigned to the future.

Even in Europe action on climate change is always to be taken tomorrow and never today.

The problem is that we have thus far failed to see a real global event occur. While localised events are happening and acknowledged as being the result of Climate Change, until something dramatic happens the vast majority of people will not change their behaviour. For example all the protestors and lobbyist that went to Bali would have flown in, adding to CO2 pollution so that they could protest about CO2 pollution.

Personally I think the conference should have been held at the North Pole in summer, and they should not have been allowed back until an agreement on deep cuts was reached, or until the sea ice melted.

Bali and Kyoto before it have focused on the wrong problem. While CO2 is the measured green house gas, and a handy short hand for climate change, pollutants like nitrous oxide and water vapour are even more effective as greenhouse gasses. The whole Kyoto process is based upon the idea of continuing to pollute but slightly less. Its like telling an Alcoholic with impending liver failure that if you cut back on drinking everything will be all right.

There was a time when it looked as if we were going to run out of oil, but technology and new oil finds have extended the amount of available oil well into this century. Add to that the amount of coal globally and we have enough fossil fuel to last us about three hundred years. But if we burnt all that fossil fuel we would change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from the current four hundred parts per million to two thousand parts per million.

The seas would be dead as they would be to acid to support life beyond specialised bacteria, temperatures would be twenty to thirty degrees hotter, and mass extinctions will have occurred including Homo sapiens.

The IPCC recognises in its last report that feedback systems are probably in place in our climate but it will not be until we see them happening will we know for sure. The obvious one is the melting of the Sea Ice in the Artic. That is leading to the loss of the Greenland Ice sheet. The rise in seawater will then impact on the Western Antarctic Ice shelf causing this to break up adding to the rising sea levels, as well as affecting the flow of the Amazon River and flooding large areas of the rain forest, possibly killing off the planets lungs. The impacts of all these events would change the Monsoons in Africa and India, causing a severe drought.

In Europe we are already seeing the effect of a changing climate upon our food supplies. The rise in the price of wheat, while helping beleaguered farmers, is a direct result of poorer yields. This is not just a minor blip, but has been occurring for the last few years. In Europe the EU has sold all its stored wheat, as there has not been sufficient production in the past couple of years. This is not just happening in Europe but in America and Russia too.

All this means that climate change is already having an effect upon food supplies. So far all that most people will have noticed is an increase the price of food. In coming years we will see this effect exacerbated. Eventually there will be shortages of foods, especially for the poor.

We are facing stark choices, we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels and expect to have a planet fit to live on.

What is needed is leadership from and by America on climate change. What George W, or more realistically who ever replaces him, needs to announce the equivalent of the space race for tackling climate change. This must not just be for the benefit of the US but for the whole of humanity. Further this needs to involve all the countries and peoples of the planet. That way the US will no longer be seen as an arrogant imperialistic state it has become, but as part of the solution in helping to heal the planet.

I wish I had been Wrong - Part One Melting Ice Caps

I know that I have been ridiculed for my predictions of an ecological disaster regarding climate change, and I have stuck my neck out and said that it will be happening in the next four to five years. Even amongst friends and acquaintances, people have said in veiled terms, that I must be mentally ill, paranoid and delusional. But while I hate to say it, I told you so!

The latest projections from scientists are that by the summer of 2013 we will loose the sea Ice in the Artic. This will devastate the species that rely upon this habitat like ring seals and polar bears and we are likely to see them become extinct in the wild in the next ten years.

Even the IPCC in their latest report say that it its too late and climate feedback systems are now operating expanding the effect of global warming. In the case of the Artic that means the darker seawater is absorbing more of the suns energy, warming the liquid water and speeding the melting of the Ice.

That is not the only feedback system that is operating in the Artic, as the loss of the sea ice is also warming the air temperatures and this is melting the glaciers on the Greenland Ice shelf.

While scientists may not want to be alarmist and don’t want to make predictions of a massive sea rise, I will. As when these glaciers do slip into the sea, I do say when and not if, there will be a rise is sea levels of about seven meters.

While at grass roots level there are people who care and understand the dangers, our political leaders are still hoping that a technical quick fix can be found. The difficulty is that our whole economic system is flawed. Therefore while this sudden upward swelling of sea levels will be a disaster for many millions of people, it will also be the wake up call that the world needs. This rise is inevitable as even if we stop burning all fossil fuels today, the melting of the sea ice and the glaciers will still happen.

It will only be via a disaster like this can we get all the worlds governments to stop worrying about all the trivial matters in the world and start to really develop an economic and energy system that is fair to all the peoples on the planet.

For example if half the money that were spent on military expenditure were put in to developing, manufacturing and installing Solar Photo Voltaic around the planet many of the problems that cause the instability and insecurity would be solved. This would also help developing countries provide their peoples with energy and essential services. Clean water is often not available to many peoples because there is no electricity to pump the water. The health of peoples in developing countries can often be vastly improved by providing electricity to health clinics and hospitals. None of this is rocket science either.

We could go further and in parts of the deserts like the Sahara, we could install banks of Photo Voltaic panels, enough to provide enough energy for all the counties in north Africa and provide them with an industry that will earn their economies the revenue they need to develop as well as providing Europe with some of its electricity with a minimal carbon impact. While this would cost large sums of money, if the money wasted on the building of the International Space station had been used for this project, we could have done this three times over.

While there will be some that will think that this will damage the desert ecology, not so, as climate change will render extinct ninety-nine percent of the species in the Sahara. Additional, with careful engineering, the solar panels can have a duel purpose as they can help capture the small amounts of water vapour in the air, condensing it on the panels, thus providing some of the water needs for people in these arid regions.

Equally, we could use geo-thermal energy. Iceland has developed the technology and all around the Pacific Rim we could help those countries to build plants and power stations using this low carbon energy. Again it would help developing countries without causing them to go down the route of heavily polluting coal or oil. Further, this would help these peoples to stop relying on cutting down their forests as the only real way of earning export income.

With this type of energy generation, it is not just the developing world that would benefit, as countries like Japan could provide fifty percent of its energy needs via Geo-thermal electricity production. All around the world we could generate from ten percent to twenty-five percent of the global energy needs from geo-thermal. Incidentally, if industries like aluminium smelting were relocated to these geo-thermal power plants, then as aluminium smelting is responsible for three percent of all the Carbon dioxide released globally, we would save over two billion tonnes of CO2 pollution.

These are all solutions that could be enacted today if there were the will. The trouble is while businesses are taking climate change seriously, most of the effort is going into developing ways of making money from the situation. What we need is to share skills and technology as by helping the developing world we also help save our own environments.

Further Information on the Melting Ice Cap

I wish I had been Wrong - Part Two Saturated Oceans

While in the previous section of this post I have shown that predictions of devastating climate change is now inevitable. I have also shown that there are potential solutions if we can find the will to act.

While the attention has been focused on the atmosphere as climate change has been allowed to creep on, it is in the oceans that drive the climate where real damage has been allowed to become so polluted that we have created the situation where we cannot stop climate change.

The seas are now saturated with CO2 that it cannot absorb much more. If we don’t start to take real action today the effects that are already going to occur will only be the devastating beginning of the extinction of the human race.

Further Information on the Seas failing to absorb CO2

A Sea of Wind Turbines

On Sunday John Hutton, the business secretary, announced that the UK government was planning a major expansion of offshore wind electricity generation. The irony that on that day the UK is being battered by high wind was not lost on me. I was also pleased to see that it was not the environment minister that was making the announcement. I was going to write about it on the day, but as I started looking at the details I realised that it looked less a definite plan than an aspiration.

First, to have this policy announced by someone other than the environment minister shows that the UK government is starting to take the issues of climate change seriously and that environmental considerations are permeating all aspects of government policy. There are other aspects of policy that are far from environmental, but this does sound as if in part at least the UK government appears to be taking the issues of climate change seriously. I say appears as while this policy and plan has been announced, the government expects private investment to create this massive engineering project.

What has been announced is that all around the UK coasts around seven hundred new turbines will be constructed, expanding our generating capacity to 38 giga watts. Unlike the positioning of wind turbines on the land these will be in positions where the turbines will fully benefit from the wind.

One of the problems of the current situation is where turbines are placed on the land; they are frequently sited near the infrastructure, to connect to the grid, rather than placed where they will benefit from the wind. All this is purely because of government grants and tax breaks, which subsidise the manufacturing and installation of these turbines, hence the companies positioning them are not basing their positioning decisions upon the need the need to generate the maximum electricity to make the turbines pay as they would if this were a purely commercial decision. Therefore creating opposition to wind power.

The difficulty with pensioning wind turbines off shore is quite a technical problem because of the difficulties of servicing the modules once installed, as well as the difficulties of building them. But one thing our off shore oil industry gave us was the skills to work in this hostile environment. The plans to involve building enough capacity to generate enough to power for every home in the UK, and that will mean about 7000 of these windmills. This will have the potential to either damage or enhance the marine environment.

As with any construction in the sea, there is the potential to damage the delicate marine habitats, be it reefs or sand banks or the spawning grounds of a multitude of species that inhabit our waters. Therefore the exact positioning of each structure needs to be carefully planed. After all destroying one environment to try and save another would leave a bitter taste in the mouth of many. However, the towers that have been installed thus far have produced mini reefs allowing many marine creatures a safe and expanded habitat.

All this could dramatically reduce the carbon impact of electricity generation, while it is true that manufacturing and installation will generate a carbon footprint, at least the positioning of these turbines offshore will ensure the turbines will be placed where they will operate most efficiently. The will also be the need for other forms of generation as turbines only generate power when the wind is blowing. Also these windmills cannot generate power in very high winds.

However, on the whole all this could reduce the climatic impact and carbon footprint for future generations.

While I have reservations about the environmental impact of this on the marine environment, on the whole I am in favour of this plan if it ever becomes a reality.

Further Reading

A Changing Climate around the World

I know that most of the people that read the mouse’s Blog think that I must be a fruitcake and a doom seer, with my predictions of the coming climate change catastrophe. But my predictions are not the visions of a crazed lunatic; they are based soundly on the scientific data available to all. The real problem is that far to many people choose to ignore what is really happening to our climate and our environment, further they assume that as nothing disastrous has happened yet, a climate change disaster must just be a myth.

This attitude is not helped by all the vested interests. People who stand to loose out financially when we are all finally forced to take action to cope with this changed and changing climate.

Even with streets and roads choked with fumes and clogged with traffic, people refuse to give up their cars. But what’s worse, people insist on buying and driving a vehicle that’s much larger than they need and consequently costs more to run. The attitude seems to be that if they can afford to run an inefficient vehicle they will. All this leads to cars that emit more CO2 than is needed.

But its not just cars, I have lost count of the people that I have meet who on the surface are very committed environmentalists, but given the chance of a cheap flight or holiday overseas, principals evaporate as quickly as a jet produces Nitrous oxide and water vapour, both potent and long lasting greenhouse gases.

I keep on looking around me and around the world and wonder if its me? Am I the only one that can see the very real effects of Climate change going on? That question is a rhetorical one, as I know that I am not alone but I do feel like a lone voice in the wilderness.

To give you all a round up: In Australia there has been a drought going on for ten years. While large areas of Australia are deserts, it is the impact of a changing climate that has caused this drought.

In Georgia and other neighbouring states in the south east US there is a drought that has affected towns and cities like Atlanta and Birmingham, Alabama where all their water is coming from the same source.

In the Great Lakes region, the water level in Lake Superior is two feet lower than it should be. As each inch represents five hundred billion gallons of water, that’s one point two trillion gallons of water lost as vapour into the atmosphere, with all that water vapour adding to the greenhouse effect.

The forest fires that raged in California were as a direct result of a climate change induced drought. The list could go on, but it’s in the real wilderness places that the effect is most dramatic. The loss of the summer ice at the North Pole has been well reported. But what is less well known is that this level of melting of the sea ice was not expected until 2050. While all the computer models for the climate were predicting this to happen, it has occurred forty years earlier than expected.

While the global average increase in temperatures has only been just over one degree Celsius in two places its four and five degrees. In Japan temperatures are now five degrees higher than they were ten years ago and that has been constant for the past five years. In Southern Spain temperatures are four degrees higher and droughts there have exhausted the aquifers (underground water stored in rocks) to such an extent that salts are now leaching out and poisoning the land.

While each of these impacts are happening in local regions the effect has a global implication. The problem is that because these effects of climate change are occurring locally, they are all parts off a much larger image of global warming.

We already have gone past the point of no return and while governments argue about setting limits to how much we can be allowed to pollute our nest, none of the decisions made in Bali will stop what is already happening. It is in fact down to all of us to take action. Each little action will help.

Firstly we need to stop wasting energy; turning off lights, appliances and turning down the heating.

Further, we need to stop travelling, there are some journeys that are essential, going to work etc but there will be someone you can share your car with on at least some of your trips. However, the most important action must be to stop flying. While aircraft produce only four percent of the global CO2, the Nitrous Oxide and the water vapour generated are magnifying the greenhouse effect as the gasses are released in the upper atmosphere, just where it needs to be to warm the planet.

Water is the key to life on this planet. The human animal cannot survive more than three days without it, yet we are failing to take the global water crisis seriously. We all need to save water, act as though we all are living in an arid region and that water costs more than gold. In a few years it may well become that precious.

Our climate has gone into a feedback system; our climate is and will change. We can’t stop it now, but we can work on reducing the way it impacts the lives of our kith and kin.

I hope to be able to bring you news and information of what people are actually doing to help themselves, and to help the planet. At times I have felt that I am utterly alone in trying to live in an environmentally responsible way, so I hope that here we can all share ideas and information about the way we can all help heal the scars inflicted upon our home planet.

Save the Cow, Save The World

Recently the militant vegetarian organisations, Viva, were saying that the way to solve Climate Change was to stop eating meat and to switch to a completely vegetarian diet.

As I used to be a vegetarian I wanted to look at the data, as it seemed that if what they were saying was correct then I may have missed something. However, while I some sympathy for what they are saying, I do feel that we do eat to much meat, the science is not only flawed it is wrong. Further, they are trying to push their animal rights agenda on the back of climate change. Also while anyone changing their diet to a vegetarian one will not do themselves any harm, the organisation, Viva, will harm the environment as anyone following their agenda will be distracted from the actions that really need to be taken.

At the heart of their claim is the myth regarding the methane that cattle and ruminants produce. More than once in the media here in the UK, mainly the tabloid press it has to be said, Climate Change has been blamed on farting cows. While it is true that bovines produce methane as part of their digestive process, most of it is released via belching. Further while methane is twenty times stronger as a greenhouse gas than Carbon dioxide, it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere.

If this was the cause for Climate change then when the buffalo herds were slaughtered in the North American plains then we should have suffered a global cooling. Also we used to use horses as the main form of motive and agricultural power and again they produce methane too. The simple fact is that while there is to much methane released into the atmosphere, it is not the cause or a major contributor to climate change. Any methane released today will be lost to the vacuum of space in five to ten years.

The difficulty with the approach that Viva want is that if everyone did stop eating meat, there would then be sixty billion animals extra to feed. That’s how many are killed for food each year. I suspect that if there was a great change in diet from meat that these animals would suffer. Also good traditional agricultural practice needs the manure and waste from livestock to fertilise the land to produce the vegetated crops. Without animal fertilisers then more polluting artificial fertilisers would be used.

What I find frustrating with so many of these organisations that are trying to push their agenda is that they miss the point. We all need to drastically change what we do. These organisations fool people into thinking that if they just do that one thing they will be doing all they can. However, we all need to do many things. We need to always think about the environmental impact of everything we do.

Also we do need to be cynical about the companies and businesses that are trying to “sell” us their product(s) as the solution. Nor should we allow ourselves be fooled by green-washing, companies that claim to be acting environmentally but are only doing what looks good. Its like Airlines who claim they are carbon offsetting, while planting trees and taking other measures to mitigate the carbon dioxide is useful, it is not the solution. The only real solution is to stop adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere by stopping consuming and only travelling when needed.

Good News Bad News

When this Mouse switched on his computer this morning, there were two news stories that caused my whiskers to twitch. The first was that Kevin Rudd the new Australian prime minister had as his first action after being sworn in has ratified (signed) the Kyoto Protocol. That leaves only the US as the only major developed country not to have signed the treaty.

All this is happening just as government representatives are meeting in Bali to discus what follows Kyoto. While it is taking time, little by little, politicians around the world are finally taking the issues of climate change seriously. I have even noticed that in the media they are no longer referring to the process as Global Warming, but are calling it Climate Change. As calling it global warming makes it sound like a jolly nice thing to happen, I am glad to see that the media is finally taking the matter seriously.

Then I came across this story:

The Story on the BBC

An investigation has revealed that some airlines are flying longer routes to avoid paying higher Air Traffic Control fees. In doing so they are burning (Wasting) more Fuel and creating an extra three tones of CO2 per flight. That’s six extra tones for each aircraft in every round trip, all this to save a whopping ninety-nine pounds sterling.

The airlines in question say that they do it to maintain schedules, but if the Air Traffic Controllers didn’t have to adjust flight and holding patterns to accommodate aircraft like these coming in via the back door, there would be no delays.

Until we have people and industries thinking and acting in an environmentally responsible way, we all face the effects of the irresponsible.

Business as usual for Bush on Climate Change

One of the greatest difficulties for all of us in our attempts to tackle climate change is the lack of political leadership, especially from the largest polluters. While not the largest population the change of leadership in Australia will be good news in tackling climate pollution.

However while US president Bush has finally been acknowledging that climate change is a problem, events this week shows that the Bush Government intends to do nothing to reduce the Carbon-dioxide emissions from the US. Here in the UK, in the Financial Times, the leading business and financial publication, a conglomerate of international businesses, in a two-page advert, called for leadership in dealing with climate change. The response from the white house was simple, the US will not do anything to cap CO2 emissions and it, the bush government, can not even say when the US will be able to start reducing its carbon footprint.

The science and the evidence is so compelling now that, international business people realise that real action has to be taken. The difficulty is that unless the US, the largest economy in the world, takes political action and tackles climate change then business can’t plan for the investment in a low carbon future.

While there are some businesses that are making the effort, if we have a large economy like the US that refuses to impose regulation, then those businesses will loose money and or profits. Put simply the people that make the effort will always be undercut by the most polluting countries. In some ways this problem is similar to the way that manufacturing has chased the low wages in china. However, unlike this chasing of low wages, governments like the US allowing carbon pollution to occur will kill all industry.

The greatest problem is that oil men like Bush see climate change as an advantage as it is allowing access to the vast oil and gas deposits that are untapped in the artic circle. Further, the US Japan China and the EU are all looking to the probability of mining helium three on the moon, as a new wonder fuel. That is why there is a new moon race and why so many countries are rushing to land men on the moon again. The carbon footprint from these enterprises are vast and will mean that we will seriously damage our climate in trying to obtain this new fuel for an unproven technology.

Further, the US bush government; in particular, assume that the loss of the sea ice will not be that serious for the climate. However that is based upon a false assumption and reliant upon out of date science. In the last five years the unexpected acceleration in the melting of the sea ice has allowed the Greenland Ice cap to start melting. It is loosing up to 150 cubic kilometres of melt water per year. Further this is increasing and this water is flowing into the sea.

Also the Greenland Ice Cap is suffering from cracks and crevices opening up on the suffice of this vast glacier. This means that lakes of melt water that form in the summer are draining down to the bedrock where it is lubricating the flow of the Ice. But this melt water doesn’t re-freeze during the winter as just as happens in a pond or lake the ice on top insulates the water and stops it from freezing. All this is making the three kilometre thick glacier that is the Greenland Ice Cap very unstable.

It will not take a lot for this ice to break up. Scientists are monitoring the Ice and recording the vibrations of the cracking up of this glacier, known as Ice quakes, they occur every twenty minutes. There is an inevitability that sooner rather than later there will be a large area of this glacier will calf and slip into the sea. This will raise sea levels.

Further, any sizeable earthquake nearby could provide the trigger to allow very sizeable chunks of the Ice cap to slide into the sea. This could trigger Tidal waves as well as a sudden and substantial rise in sea levels. What makes this scenario even more disturbing is that the trigger is already in place. Mount St Helens in the US, an active volcano has a bulging plug in its calderas, and when that blows, the quakes and vibrations from that could well be all that it takes to see the glacier slip into the sea.

This is not something that will happen in some mythical time years hence, but within the next four to five years. I just hope that when it happens it finally shocks the US government into taking action on climate change.

I make a clear distinction here between the American people who want action taken on climate change and the Government who have their head in the sand.

Unhealthy Skies

While I know that some of my readers think I “Bang On” about Climate Change far too much, it is the greatest threat we face. This Article on the BBC website should send a chill down all our backs. It contains a warning by Nobuo Tanaka, the Executive director of the International Energy Agency; he is warning that our energy demands are outstripping resources. However it is the figures quoted about the current global CO2 emissions that are most frightening. In 2005 they were 27 giga-tonnes! That is 27 trillion, trillion tonnes of new CO2 released into our air that year. I say new but its really old carbon that our planet locked away millions of years ago.

We are rapidly returning our home world back to the primeval first stages of life. The result will be that most of the Fauna and Flora will not survive, and Homo sapiens will become a footnote in the evolutionary history of our planet.

The BBC Article

Mass Extinction and Climate Change

When I saw the headline of this story on the BBC web site, I thought this is not news, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) have already reported that we will have up to a forty percent loss of species as a direct result of this man made pollution we call climate change. However, this research is new and marks an important change in the attitude of scientists. Previously the language used “Hedged the Bets” and spoke of what was theoretically possible rather than what was actually happening.

Part of the problem in dealing with the man made pollution that is climate change, is a psychological one. In the past we have seen pollution as localised, and no matter how bad it got, when action was finally taken, the environment improved and the problem dissipated. Even with acid rain as that was a regional problem, in Europe for example, when Europeans acted collectively the situation reversed. And while there still is some sulphur pollution that is causing acid rain, it is relatively negligible.

With Climate Change, we can not see (or at least some can) that there is anything we can do, as we psychologically assume that there is no point as China or India or what ever other country we want to use as an excuse, are not doing the same. What is needed is leadership, and that should be coming from America and Europe. As the USA is the biggest polluter, producing 24 tonnes of CO2 per head of population they should be taking the lead here.

But the problem is that everyone is hoping for that technological fix, that mythical grail of pollution free energy. As a planet we have squandered our energy resources. We have allowed a culture that is so reliant upon oil to develop that we are prepared to fight wars for access to it, and allowed our whole way of life to become dominated by the automobile. The problem is that to power our way of life we are burning billions of tonnes of oil and releasing all the carbon dioxide that the planet sequestrated away back into the atmosphere.

What this new research shows is that while climate change has naturally occurred in the past, and effected the biodiversity of our planet, our current man made driven warming of the globe could wipe out most of the life on our home world. That as I am sick of having to point out includes us.

If we lost important pollinators like bees how long would we last? That’s not a rhetorical question, but fortunately minds far better than mine have already done the research and tell us that we would last only six years. We would loose our ability to grow over ninety percent of our food. That is what mass extinction will do to us.

Even now when there are clear signs of the effects of Climate Change in the forest fires in California, we still do nothing. Unless we act now, if we survive, we will become the most hated generation of humans within our children’s history.

The BBC Article

The Truth is Inconvenient

As I haven’t seen the Al Gore film the inconvenient truth, I cannot say if the film is party political or not. But Climate Change is political, if only because so many people are trying to keep their heads in the sand over it. I am glad that British school children will be getting the chance to see this film, as hopefully it will help capture the hearts and minds of the coming generation.

Even today the news that the old energy inefficient incandescent light bulbs are to be phased out is bitter news as it will not be until 2012 this happens. When it could have happened by the end of this year. That will mean at least twenty-five extra tonnes of CO2 will be released into our biosphere before the ban occurs. It’s all far too little, lets hope that it’s not too late.

After all the important line in the IPCC report that everyone seems to have missed says; “If Climate Change is not reversed, we will face temperature increases that will make life on this planet unsustainable”

I shouldn’t need to translate that but that means WE BECOME EXTINCT.

Already this year there is less sea ice in the Artic, and even conservative predictions are saying it will disappear by 2030, that’s only twenty-three years away. And once we have lost a critical mass of that sea ice, we then have thermal induction and convection from the sea, accelerating the rise in air temperatures. In reality if we lose the Sea Ice we lose the fight and the domination of Homo sapiens ends.

Therefore I hope this misguided parent looses his legal challenge to the film being shown to our children so that even if we fail to act, they will.


The original story on the BBC Web Site

Catching Up

Today and part of yesterday I have been playing catch up. I have been so busy out of the house, that even my cat, was asking who I was when I came in. So it was down to all the boring housework bits. However, because of where I am living as I hung my washing out on the line, I saw two of the Red Kites glide over in the distance. It even made me feel less peeved at having to do the housework.

In between doing essential bits around the house I have been trying to catch up on some emails and letters, so if anyone is expecting a message from the mouse it will be coming, soon…

Its not all been hard work though and I did get some time for a stroll That’s when I saw this Phaeoulus schweinitzeii although I took this image off it a few weeks ago. I was surprised it was still there, as frequently the kids destroy any of the fruiting bodies of fungi they see.

Because I was playing catch up, I was able to find the time to read some of my friends Blog's, and one made an interesting point. Because of where she lives, it sounds like a paradise the way she writes about it; she has to use wood as her fuel. However, it concerns her that it adds to her carbon footprint.

The simple answer is no it doesn’t, as it is part of a closed carbon cycle loop. The tree grows, capturing carbon, which is only released when it is burnt.

However, it is a little more complex than that as that carbon that is released will be around for about fifty years before it is reabsorbed. Thus while it still is that closed carbon cycle it is the timescale that prevents the answer being simple. This is also why carbon offsetting is so unrealistically simplistic.

This is where people pay for trees to be planted as a salve for their conscience when they jet off on holiday. Even if everyone did that from now on it would not be for fifty to seventy five years that those trees would start to have any impact upon carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

The real problem with burning any fuel is understanding its source. If that fuel was produced using the suns energy from the last couple of centuries, then it is part of a closed loop carbon cycle. With using the suns energy stored in fossil fuels is that it old energy and ancient carbon, that became locked away to provide the breathable atmosphere we have to day.

By releasing that old carbon we are changing the atmosphere back to a state when life barely existed. Not forgetting that plants were first, we are in danger of wiping out all animal life on the planet.