China Goes Green

Well, cough cough, in a few days time, cough cough, the Olympics start in Beijing, cough cough splutter. I sincerely hope that the pollution and poor air quality does not harm any of the participants. While personally, if I were an athlete I would not be prepared to attend the games in a repressive country. However, it has the be a matter of personal concious.

Though the image of me as an athlete though is the most absurd image anyone could conjour as when I had Athletes Foot, I asked for a second opinion!

However, being serious, while china is very heavily pouted as a result of the rapid industrialisation in the country, China is however taking the issue of climate change seriously. While China has the right to develop economical, they have done so thus far by copying the mistakes of the west.

When electricity for lighting first appeared, it was in fact the loss of power through resistance that meant that we have power in our homes of 240 volts. I know there are variations around the world, but the principal is the same. It was the problem of getting power from the power station to the home or end user that lead to a standard of 240 volts in Britain and Europe.

However, had we gone for power for lighting and small appliances of just 12 volts then the system could have incorporated a storage system. Yes even at the beginning of the previous century that would have been possible, using lead acid batteries just as are still used in many cars. When I had my allotment I used a solar panel to charge a battery that lit the shed and chicken house. I know that two people followed my lead and did the same. It only cost me seventy five pounds to do it. It was cheaper for others as they were able to get old batteries, I had bought new. I even thought about doing this at my home, as while lighting is not my largest electricity cost, I could see that recouping the cost would take only a couple of years. Additionally, when I looked further into the issue, I discovered that there were many appliances that are manufactured that run on 12 volts for boats and caravans. For about two thousand pounds I could run a TV a DVD player, Fridge and Freezer even a computer all from solar power. That would have included the cost of the appliances.

This is something that is happening in many developing countries. As solar lighting reaches places that are far away from the “National Grid” (as we in the UK call our electricity infrastructure), it is even cheaper than a 240 volt system as it costs millions to install the infrastructure, the power lines and power stations. However, these systems are mainly installed in the homes of the poor. For example in India where kerosene is still the main source of lighting, these solar systems are installed as part of health programs as the kerosene causes breathing difficulties. The fact that is also environmentally friendly is an added bonus. Incidentally, in India alone fifty thousand tones of CO2 are released annually just from kerosene lamps.

Now I know that my reader is wondering what this has to do with China? As China develops its electricity infrastructure, they are making the same mistakes that we in the west made, large centralised power stations and cables carrying the power from the source of generation to the user. By following this model they are tying themselves into the addiction of power usage. If they went for small scale solar then the lighting and small appliance needs of the entire population could be met at the same cost of five coal fired power stations. Further, it would have the effect of closing down fifteen 1000 mega what stations. That is using current technology.

China is developing green technologies and last year invested twelve billion dollars (US equivalent) in renewables only just behind the world leader, Germany who invested fourteen billion dollars. While the US government hides its inaction on climate change behind the myth that China is doing nothing to combat climate change, the reality is that China spends more as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on renewables than the US and Canada does combined.

Now don't think that I am saying that China is wonderfully environmentally friendly, but they have recognised the problem and are trying to tackle the problem. And they are doing it in ways that are not damaging their economy, in fact they have recognised the economic advantages. The countries that do the most now to develop renewables will have a grater economical advantages in the years to come. While I know that the price of oil has dropped and the price of petrol is now falling, the cost of fossil fuels is going to rise.

Therefore any country that has true renewable energy generation will not have their economies damaged by the wild fluctuations that will continue to happen.

While I do find the Chinese government a distasteful one, I do have the hope that with the eyes on China during the Olympics they (the Chinese Government) can learn from the spirit of freedom that is supposed to be at the heart of the games. Equally, I hope that we can learn that China is trying to be green.

More on the Chinese renewables

Wind Turbines good for the Marine Environment

When the British government announced that there would be an expansion of off shore wind power generation, I personally gave the announcement a cautious welcome. The aspect that I was worried about was would the locating of the turbines damage habitat.

As I did not know, I decided to look into the matter and find out. What added to my concerns was that fishermen and the fishing industry were opposed to this. While I have to say that many fishermen are far from conservation minded, was this a matter where the people closest to that environment were being ignored?

The point where any turbine is located will cause some damage to the sea bed, but as has been proven time and again, building any structure out at sea actually attracts creatures. Ask any diver and wrecks are great places to find a whole range of marine wildlife. Further, artificial reefs have been created in British waters by sinking old vessels and by dropping crushed cars in the sea. All previously cleaned up so they don't create pollution it should be added. This is exactly what has happened around the the locations of existing off shore wind farms. In fact the additional habitat created by these projects are increasingly becoming important conservation areas. Therefore, my one major concern that there was a risk of damaging the marine environment is allayed as these structures enhance rather then damage marine ecology.

So why are the fishermen objecting? Well the main reason is that they would be excluded from fishing in the areas where these wind farms will be located. As each tower is spaced at five hundred metres apart, while there is room to manoeuvre a boat, any towed fishing gear would be in danger of getting snagged. Towed gear is not just simply nets, its the weights and dredges that are the greatest threat.

Here locally at Blyth where the British off shore wind industry started, the original test turbines are no longer generating electricity because the cable connecting the turbines to the shore was damaged by such fishing methods. Therefore with lessons learnt, fishing has to be excluded from the areas where these wind farms are situated and from the areas where the cables run. It should also be noted that the industrial fishing methods that will be excluded from these areas are the ones that have been most damaging to the marine environment.

The real problem with the fishing industry is that almost all the fishing methods are unsustainable. Fishermen are harvesting from the diminishing breeding population and are also taking fish and marine creatures that have not yet reached sexual maturity. Hence fishermen are and will cry foul of anything that restricts their activities. But just as happened to deep mining here in the UK, there comes a point when the industry has to end. With mining while there was still coal there, it was becoming increasingly dangerous to dig that coal out. However, with fishing unless we stop fishing now, the fishermen themselves will kill their own industry.

The fishing industry is in fact being very short sighted, as one of the advantages of the installation of all these off shore wind turbines will be to create undisturbed breeding and feeding grounds for an extensive variety of marine species. This will in time provide the solution to the collapse of marine animals that are used for food.

While I don't think that wind turbines are the whole solution to climate change, all of the incidental benefits of these off shore wind farms will make them vital for providing energy in the future.

One of the interesting things that I have discovered, Denmark have suffered much less than most nations with the hike in energy prices that has been occurring in recent years. Not least, because of the investment that they made in wind turbines in the past. While we in Britain are playing catch up on this, in ten years time we will actually have the buffer against the price rises that will happen in years to come. Equally once all these turbines are installed we will have done more to protect the marine environment than has ever happened in any part of our planet.

Climate Statement by the G8

Here is the full unabridged text to the statement on Climate issued by sixteen countries at the G8

We, the leaders of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States met as the world's major economies in Tokyo, Hokkaido, Japan, on 9 July, 2008, and declare as follows:

1. Climate change is one of the great global challenges of our time. Conscious of our leadership role in meeting such challenges, we, the leaders of the world's major economies, both developed and developing, commit to combat climate change in accordance with our common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and confront the interlinked challenges of sustainable development, including energy and food security, and human health.

We have come together to contribute to efforts under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the global forum for climate negotiations. Our contribution and cooperation are rooted in the objective, provisions, and principles of the Convention.

2. We welcome decisions taken by the international community in Bali, including to launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective, and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term co-operative action, now, up to, and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome in December 2009

Recognising the scale and urgency of the challenge, we will continue working together to strengthen implementation of the Convention and to ensure that the agreed outcome maximises the efforts of all nations and contributes to achieving the ultimate objective in Article 2 of the Convention, which should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

3. The Major Economies Meetings constructively contribute to the Bali process in several ways:

First, our dialogue at political, policy, and technical levels has built confidence among our nations and deepened mutual understanding of the many challenges confronting the world community as we consider next steps under the Convention and continue to mobilise political will to combat global climate change.

Second, without prejudging outcomes or the views of other nations, we believe that the common understandings in this Declaration will help advance the work of the international community so it is possible to reach an agreed outcome by the end of 2009

Third, recognising the need for urgent action and the Bali Action Plan's directive for enhanced implementation of the Convention between now and 2012, we commit to taking the actions in paragraph 10 without delay.

4. We support a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions, that assures growth, prosperity, and other aspects of sustainable development, including major efforts towards sustainable consumption and production, all aimed at achieving a low carbon society.

Taking account of the science, we recognise that deep cuts in global emissions will be necessary to achieve the Convention's ultimate objective, and that adaptation will play a correspondingly vital role. We believe that it would be desirable for the Parties to adopt in the negotiations under the Convention a long-term global goal for reducing global emissions, taking into account the principle of equity.

We urge that serious consideration be given in particular to ambitious IPCC scenarios. Significant progress toward a long-term global goal will be made by increasing financing of the broad deployment of existing technologies and best practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience. However, our ability ultimately to achieve a long-term global goal will also depend on affordable, new, more advanced, and innovative technologies, infrastructure, and practices that transform the way we live, produce and use energy, and manage land.

5. Taking into account assessments of science, technology, and economics, we recognise the essential importance of enhanced greenhouse gas mitigation that is ambitious, realistic, and achievable. We will do more. We will continue to improve our policies and our performance while meeting other priority objectives, in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Achieving our long-term global goal requires respective mid-term goals, commitments and actions, to be reflected in the agreed outcome of the Bali Action Plan, taking into account differences in social and economic conditions, energy mix, demographics, and infrastructure among other factors, and the above IPCC scenarios.
In this regard, the developed major economies will implement, consistent with international obligations, economy-wide mid-term goals and take corresponding actions in order to achieve absolute emission reductions and, where applicable, first stop the growth of emissions as soon as possible, reflecting comparable efforts among them. At the same time, the developing major economies will pursue, in the context of sustainable development, nationally appropriate mitigation actions, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, with a view to achieving a deviation from business as usual emissions.

6. We recognise that actions to reduce emissions, including from deforestation and forest degradation, and to increase removals by sinks in the land use, land use change, and forestry sector, including cooperation on tackling forest fires, can make a contribution to stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These actions also reduce climate change impacts and can have significant co-benefits by maintaining multiple economic goods and ecological services. Our nations will continue to cooperate on capacity-building and demonstration activities; on innovative solutions, including financing, to reduce emissions and increase removals by sinks; and on methodological issues. We also stress the need to improve forest-related governance and cooperative actions at all levels.

7. We recognise that adaptation is vital to addressing the effects of inevitable climate change and that the adverse impacts of climate change are likely to affect developing countries disproportionately. We will work together in accordance with our Convention commitments to strengthen the ability of developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable ones, to adapt to climate change. This includes the development and dissemination of tools and methodologies to improve vulnerability and adaptation assessments, the integration of climate change adaptation into overall development strategies, increased implementation of adaptation strategies, increased emphasis on adaptation technologies, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability, and consideration of means to stimulate investment and increased availability of financial and technical assistance.

8. We affirm the critical role of technology and the need for technological breakthroughs in meeting the interlinked global challenges of energy security and climate change. In the near term, broader deployment of many existing technologies will be vital for both mitigation and adaptation. In particular, energy conservation, energy efficiency, disaster reduction, and water and natural resource management technologies are important.

We will promote the uptake and use of such technologies including renewables, cleaner and low-carbon technologies, and, for those of us interested, nuclear power. Technology cooperation with and transfer to developing countries are also vital in this effort, as is promoting capacity building.
For the longer term, research, development, demonstration, deployment, and transfer of innovative technologies will be crucial, and we acknowledge the need to enhance our investment and collaboration in these areas. Mindful of the important role of a range of alternative energy technologies, we recognise, in particular, the need for research, development, and large-scale demonstration of and cooperation on carbon capture and storage. We also note the value of technology roadmaps as tools to promote continuous investment and cooperation in clean energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment.

9. We recognise that tackling climate change will require greater mobilization of financial resources, both domestically and internationally. There is an urgent need to scale up financial flows, particularly financial support to developing countries; to create positive incentives for actions; to finance the incremental costs of cleaner and low-carbon technologies; to make more efficient use of funds directed toward climate change; to realise the full potential of appropriate market mechanisms that can provide pricing signals and economic incentives to the private sector; to promote public sector investment; to create enabling environments that promote private investment that is commercially viable; to develop innovative approaches; and to lower costs by creating appropriate incentives for and reducing and eliminating obstacles to technology transfer relevant to both mitigation and adaptation.

10. To enable the full, effective, and sustained implementation of the Convention between now and 2012, we will:

Work together on mitigation-related technology cooperation strategies in specific economic sectors, promote the exchange of mitigation information and analysis on sectoral efficiency, the identification of national technology needs and voluntary, action-oriented international cooperation, and consider the role of cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions, consistent with the Convention;

Direct our trade officials responsible for WTO issues to advance with a sense of urgency their discussions on issues relevant to promoting our cooperation on climate change;

Accelerate enhanced action on technology development, transfer, financing, and capacity building to support mitigation and adaptation efforts;

Support implementation of the Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change;

Improve significantly energy efficiency, a low-cost way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance energy security;

Continue to promote actions under the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer for the benefit of the global climate system;

And Intensify our efforts without delay within existing fora to improve effective greenhouse gas measurement.

11. Our nations will continue to work constructively together to promote the success of the Copenhagen climate change conference in 2009.

Weather and Badgers

I don't know what's happened to the Summer? I placed my order last year and I am still waiting for the Royal Mail to deliver it.

But seriously, for the next two days I am expecting heavy rain. Down in the South West of England, there are six flood alerts. The rain that has already started is expected to greatly increase the risk of flooding and there are flood alerts in my region too.

I had been hoping to go out to watch the badgers tonight, but there are only so many soakings any mouse can take.

Before I go on ranting about the weather, there are developments on the Badger front. I now have permission again to access the main sett that I have been watching. The problem as my regular reader will know, was that other people were going on to the land and causing damage. However, that was only part of the story, as there was a pair of Red Kites nesting very close. I could not disclose this as, there was a serious risk of disturbance. Unfortunately there are some people who do not find these birds as magical as most people do. I wanted to film them but I don't have a licence to do that yet, but next year who knows. Anyway, the happy news is one chick fledged.

Also as my regular reader may know, or did I send that reader to sleep? I have been trying to write a book on the Badgers. I had two potential publishers that were interested. One pulled out due to the Credit Crunch, the other one has also decided not to proceed. They were only really interested in the book, the project had the government gone ahead with a cull of Badgers. They wanted a book that was full of conflict. As people in the UK will know the government has rejected a cull of Badgers to control TB. At least they have followed the science. But while it has curtailed the book for the moment, I will continue observing the badgers. However, I will reduce my observations so I can do other things too. So watch out I will inflict it all on you folks.

Anyway, back to the weather. One thing that I have done is bought some ex army extreme weather gloves. I have bought them during the summer as they were a quarter of the price they were in the winter. That will ensure that this winter I should remain more comfortable than I was during the last. If it was not for the enjoyment I get from seeing the wildlife, I would think I was mad. My psychiatrist may even agree with me.

However there is a serious point that I want to make about the weather. On the news I am getting sick of hearing that this weather is nothing to do with Climate change. These type of events are all in line with the events forecast in the climate models. Its almost as if everyone is trying to ignore the real effects of dangerous Climate change we are all seeing.

One good thing that this weather will do for me though is, I will have the time to continue with cataloguing the video that I have been filming. I have only just reached the film I shot in May, and at least once I get on top of all this I will be able to find the stuff properly. I think I just need someone to keep me in order.

UFOs and Ghosts

In the last post, I showed how a simple solution enabled badgers to regain habitat. Often all that is needed is some straight forward logical thinking.

Now to go off on a tangent, a couple of months ago the MOD (Ministry of Defence) released files relating to UFO sittings in Britain. Now I have had three occasions when I ave seen things that have made me wonder what I was seeing. The first time I was looking after a friends Cats, staying in her flat, and in an unfamiliar bed. I awoke to see a formation of lights that had the classic shape a flying saucer. As I pulled myself from sleep and watched the object transformed its shape into a jumbo jet. In the dark and from the angle it looked like a UFO but once identified it had a rational explanation.

Then a few years latter I had just moved into a flat in Gateshead. I had not had the time to get any curtains up so in the middle of the night when I was awoken by a frightful bright light flooding through the window, my first thought was that I was being abducted by aliens. It was not the most crime free area and the explanation was simply hat the police helicopter was shining its light down and into my window, as well as illuminating the suspect just as he was arrested.

Both sightings, apart from the sleep factor, were quickly resolved by simple logical thought and observation. There was also an incident when out in the Northumberland National Park. With some friends, we had all been drinking and were staying in a village hall as part of a conservation work team. While outside smoking and staring at the stars, it is a great place for star gazing, someone spotted an object in the sky. It was not a conventional aircraft, and sometimes it was moving at others it hovered. We could see it for twenty minutes or so, then it descended. What was amusing was the speculation, straight away everyone was talking about other worldly explanations. No one was prepared to apply any logic to what we had seen. Then the following morning the description of what was seen to the people in the group that had not seen the lights in the sky, was growing with each telling.

My speculation was that it was likely to be something the military were doing that we saw, and it was nothing to do with little green/grey/blue (delete as appropriate) men from out there. But there were people that convinced themselves that what they saw was something from outer space. No logic and no facts was going to dissuade them of this. I even tried to make a joke of it by saying that I was glad that I had not been the victim of a crime as the police would never catch the culprit had my fellow slaves been the witnesses.

It is actually something that is well known to the law enforcement that people will elaborate upon what they have seen. That's why in fishing stories the one that got away grows in size with each telling.

The problem with UFOs is that people start to believe what they want rather than what the facts are. Just because you may see something that is unidentified, or you cant identify, does not mean that it is extra terrestrial Personally I think that if someone wants to believe that there ETs exist they are more likely to give an extra terrestrial explanation should they see something. I genuinely have an open mind, but thus far all the supposed sightings have a rational explanation. I would love to find or see real evidence of flying saucers, but until I see that I will remain unconvinced that we are being visited.

The problem for me is that with our currant scientific knowledge it is impossible to cross the void of space. The distances are to vast and the amount of food, water and fuel needed to make the journey across the vast distances impossible. Further, only by having beings that could be very long lived would that journey possible. While I love science fiction, that's me revealed as a geek, until we invent the warp engine, it is just that, fiction.

Coincidently, the formation of lights seen in Northumberland was very similar to the infra red illumination that are used on the remote observation drones that are used by the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While on the topic of curios incidents, I recently discovered a ghost story that was linked to a place I used to live. When my ex wife and I split I moved to a flat in Gateshead. Not the same one where the police made me think I was being abducted by aliens, and the next street had literary connotations it was called Bronte Street. Therefore when I spotted mention of a haunting in that street I wanted to know more.

In 1963/4 the Coulthard family reported poltergeist activity. A local clergyman carried out an Exorcism but with no effect. The effects of the poltergeist was objects moving plates crashing off the shelves, objects moving. As the property was a council house they were eventually rehoused.
That last fact narrowed down the property, as Bronte Street was a small street, it has now been demolished, and the house had to be close to the railway line. As only the houses at that end were council owned. The rest were privately owned. While when I lived there the rail there was mainly used by the Metro, Newcastle's light rail system, there were also mainline tracks running alongside. Further, I knew from talking to neighbours who had lived in the area for years that during the fifties and sixties trains passing would rattle the houses there. In fact when having tea with the old lady and her mother who lived below me, when I first moved in. They told me that during that time you did not need to stir your tea as the passing trains would do it for you.
So poltergeist activity? Also, the area has had for a long time been a difficult area to live in because of crime and such, so I can see the Coulthard family using a story of a haunting to get themselves rehoused to a better area.

Just as with UFOs people will believe what they want to believe no matter what the facts are.

While I hope that aspects of these stories have amused you, I also hope that it has got you thinking about the way that some people will ignore the facts and follow their own agenda or prejudice or mindset. When talking of UFOs or ghosts, well they are free to believe what they want. The problem is when we are talking about Climate Change, ignoring the facts, the science will only lead to us creating an environment that is going to be difficult to live with. It makes me think, does it make you think?

Oil Prices, Climate Change and Food

Yesterday saw lorry drivers in Britain lobbying Parliament over the price of fuel. While from an economic prospective, I can understand that people are feeling the pain of the increase in the price of oil, but there is actually nothing that government can do.

I have watched the situation carefully, trying to understand what is really going on. What was perplexing was simply that when the price of oil started reaching new and record highs, it was the forward price that was rising. That meant oil for delivery in six weeks was at $120 to 130 per barrel, this price for immediate delivery stayed at $75-80 per barrel. While this has now changed upwards, the oil companies profited from this for over eight weeks selling petrol at the price it would be in six weeks time, while they were only paying for it at the $75-80 per barrel mark.

While this profiteering by the oil companies was a factor driving this it could not explain the whole of what was driving the market. The other aspect that doesn't make sense is that while the current global use is close to the current output, there is still more production than use. On the classic supply and demand principals of economics there is no logic to this.

There is a new factor that has come into play, that of the speculators. While there has always been some speculation in the commodity markets, with the rich and the super rich no longer making money from property vast sums are being ploughed into commodities like oil and wheat. However, while this is an important aspect that is driving the price, it is not the only factor. If it were then they will get their finger burnt when this bubble bursts. As it will.

The real difficulty is that of politics and the lack of political will to tackle climate change. Part of the political factors is the Iran question. While I personally don't like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, the rhetoric that the US government is using, is making the oil producing states and the emerging economy of China very nervous as they fear that Bush could suddenly rack this up to war.

While I personally doubt that even Bush could be that stupid, I can understand the rest of the globe becoming wary about this and the effect upon oil supplies. Thus some nations are increasing their stocks of petroleum.

The other political aspect is the lack of action regarding Climate change. This is the part that really makes my head hurt trying to understand the logic here.

There is a lack of investment in refining capacity, and the oil companies don't want to make that investment because they are worried about immanent sea level rise. They don't want to build on or at the coast where refineries have traditionally been constructed, as they would be lost when the seas rise. Nor do they want to build inland at a greater elevation, as that would mean the oil industry is acknowledging the reality of dangerous Climate Change.

Even looking at all these factors together still only provides an incomplete picture. But before we look at the other factors, I want to deal with three issues, not least the price of Diesel. The truck drivers protest and lobbying of parliament has provided a useful hook to examine the problem of rising oil costs. But the price of diesel is actually a symptom and not the problem. The reality is that there are to many trucks on the road. That's not a political or environmental statement but an economic one. There are twenty five percent more trucks than there are loads to carry. Even if the fuel costs were stable or even falling, there still would be businesses failing. The difficulty is that the price diesel is accelerating the failure of businesses that are failing anyway. It is painful, that I understand, but nothing can or should be done to keep lorries on the road.

The other area where the price of diesel is hastening the end of a moribund industry, is fishing.

For the last twenty years in Europe, we have continued taking fish from the breeding populations of the fish we use for food. It has also been happening all around the world, but here in Europe we actually have good data that shows what needs to be done. As during the Second world war when fishing was not possible particularly in the North Sea, fish stocks recovered and when fishing resumed fish was abundant. The only way of ensuring a fishing industry in the future is to stop fishing now. Not reduce the catch but a complete cessation to fishing and that has to be for ten years.

Fishermen will wail in protest at that, but if not there will be no fish to catch in ten to fifteen years as we are currently harvesting the breeding stock. The increase in diesel costs means that the boats can no longer afford to travel the great distances searching for the fish. They are having to search for fish that are not there. When they do catch fish, they are smaller, often not even having reached sexual maturity. Again this increase in the price of diesel is not the problem it is and has been the industrial scale harvesting of the seas that has eliminated the fish stocks. There are also additional factors such as warming seas driving the remnants of the fish populations further north, but the longer that fishing continues the faster the fishermen will kill their industry.

The last point regarding oil prices is that of speculation. The immorality of the rich gambling on the price of oil and foods, beggars belief. They are making money off poor and vulnerable people. Here in the UK the price of heating oil will be around £1200 ($2000) per delivery this winter at current prices. In many rural areas where there is no gas, that will mean the poor, the elderly will suffer, as in cold weather that delivery would only last four to six weeks. I fear that people will end up dyeing from cold this winter. I am saying this now as I will rage when it happens.
However, the speculation on the oil price is only part of the picture as it is the speculation on foods that is really what is driving the up the coast of oil. I can see the puzzled looks from here, but as the value of crops like wheat and maize go up, more farmers are planting them. That means there is and will be, a greater demand for diesel to power the tractors.

It doesn't end there, as our chemical based farming is reliant upon fertilizers that are made from oil. It is in fact this factor that is what is really driving up the price of oil.

We obviously do need to feed the world, but we have become so fixated upon the chemical inputs to grow crops that we are failing to utilise the traditional methods of feeding the soil.

This is why we are all having to pay more for oil and food.

It is a complex picture, and it has taken a while to unravel what is really happening, but this is all the result of our addiction to oil.

Florida Buys back the Everglades

While I am never short of information to post here, as there is so much going on in the world of conservation, environmental concerns, and my own wildlife watching, occasionally I pick up on a story that I have to refrain from talking about. This often is more to do with protecting the area or ecosystem, but on occasion it is just that the facts are not clear. It was such a story that I first got sketchy information on about six months ago. An American agricultural company were selling off all its land because with Climate Change brining higher sea levels the company would lose all its assets.

While I dug as far as I could, I kept on coming up against barriers. While I could not confirm the story, I also could not dismiss it either. Especially as the commodity that was being grown was sugar. With the drive in the US for producing Ethanol, essentially alcohol from sugars, everyone I spoke to could not understand any part of US Agri-Business leaving the sector at this time, unless they knew something we didn't. When I suggested to my contacts that it could be because of impending Sea level rise, while they accepted that something of that sort could be the only justification for this happening, I also faced the same sceptical attitude about how real Climate Change is.

Now, today on the NPR Environment Podcast, there was a story that The United States Sugar Corporation has sold the State of Florida one hundred eighty seven thousand acres of land, thats over three hundred square miles, in the Everglades for $1.7 billion

While the slant given to the story was that this was a great boost to the restoration programme that has been going on for the last nine years, no one could understand why this had happened.

While I personally am more than happy to see this land brought back into the unique ecology of the Everglades, the state has been misled into paying a premium for the land. However, what the state of Florida has done via this land purchase is provide land that will be needed to mitigate the effect of a rising sea level. Therefore, while they may have paid top dollar now, the people in that region will come to see this as money well spent, as restoring the Everglades will help prevent the loss of homes and lives when the sea does rise.

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.

The Madness of Green Washing our Rubbish

A couple of weeks ago, there was a story about a man who was fined for overfilling his bin so that the lid couldn't close. While most of the press and media reported it as, “Council gone mad” I had an open mind. Further, I doubted that the media was reporting the full facts. In fact the media reports were downright bias. I was tempted to make a posting at the time, along the lines of a man gets fined for leaving the lid up, something that all women will understand.

However, I was also aware of the serious aspect, that of the vast amounts of rubbish we in the UK send to landfill. Therefore, I wanted to think that this was more about a council trying to reduce waste rather than officials over reacting to the breaking of rules.

Then, in a separate report, I heard about a small greengrocer who has been fined for recycling cardboard and composting his dead stock. By the same county council.

I have spoken before of the problem of rubbish going into landfill and that I personally am trying to reduce the volume of rubbish that I generate. Even I recognise that I could do more, but will require an investment that I can not afford at this time. But I will make this investment in the future. However, at the moment I only need to have my bin emptied every third or fourth week. Most frequently my bin is not full when emptied. Locally, I still do get weekly collections but some councils have changed to fortnightly collections. This benefits the environment as it reduces the number of miles that the trash trucks have to travel.

But this switch to fortnightly collections has caused some people problems. While for people like me who are environmentally aware, refusing the extra packaging that often makes up most of the rubbish in peoples bins is easy. For most of the population this all means that people need to change their behaviour. This includes the way they shop, not over buying food that just goes strait from basket to fridge to bin.

Therefore, my reaction to the first story was that it seemed that the local council were trying to get the reductions in the volumes of rubbish down, yet this man that was fined was probably not cooperating. However my opinion changed when I heard about the greengrocer who was fined for doing what was right for the environment.

Instead of adding to landfill, he was taking his cardboard to a recycling point and composting the waste food from his shop. But as I suspected with the first story, there is more to this than meets the eye. The recycling point where the greengrocer was taking the cardboard is not open to commercial traders or businesses and there is no recycling of commercial waste. Also as the council charges businesses for collecting rubbish, it hits their revenues if a shop or business doesn't send their rubbish to landfill.

Therefore the real story here is that the council are trying to reduce the volume of household waste as that's a cost, but as business waste generates income...

To me that shows that most of the so called recycling done by councils is nothing more than Green Washing.

A link to the first Story

A link to the Second Story

Greenland Ice Sheet

In Sciences magazine and via National Public Radio (All Things Considered, part of the NPR Environment Podcast), from America, reports of the effects of Climate change on the Greenland ice sheet. However the content of the reports were very in much downplaying the alarming content.

In August last year, two scientists one from the Woods hall Oceanographic Institute, and the other from the University of Washington had set up instruments to measure the effects of climate change on the glacier. With increased temperatures the two mile thick ice sheet is melting from the top. This melt water forms lakes that then flows, through the ice, to the base of the glacier. With these instruments are they were able to measure the effect of one single lake, that was two miles long and 40 ft deep. That lake drained in 90 minutes with a flow greater than that of the Niagara falls. Using seismic data and satellite telemetry, the effect of this melting water draining to the base the glacier lifted the glacier three feet and send it hurtling towards the coast. Once that water drained the glacier resumed its sedentary pace.

The way this was being reported, made it sound as though we had nothing to worry about from this. However, this was just one lake of over one thousand that are now forming in the summer months. While not all will drain to the base of the glaciers and provide the lubrication for glacier movements. These sudden flows of the ice, and this increase speed as measured in this instance, facilitates the break-up of the glaciers into blocks. That will more readily flow into the sea.

As my regular reader will know, and to the derision of many, I am predicting that the Greenland Ice sheet will rapidly diminish following the loss of summer sea ice. That will occur in four to five years, by 2012-2013. I predict this not because I am some kind of doom munger but because this is what the science is saying.

However, and this is the real point of this posting, there really seems to be a concerted effort by the media and by governments not to give the people the real facts behind climate change. In fact anybody that tries to alert people to the real danger that we are facing, seems to be gagged. Or worse still derided as a profit of doom.

This all has the effect of creating the impression that climate change is not as serious as it really is. Until governments and the media start taking this issue seriously how can the general public? At the moment there are far too many vested interests influencing government and policy. Further as government seem to assume that this is a problem for the future, they fail to tackle the issue today. While there are many individuals who are making the effort to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we all need guidance as well as policies from government.

We're already seeing the effects of climate change, this is not something for the future this is something that is happening now. The Human Animal is releasing carbon dioxide is their atmosphere at a rate of 14,000 times more than has ever occurred in our planet's history. In some ways it is remarkable that the planets of thermostat has been made to cope thus far. But with the ocean saturated with carbon, to the extent that it is killing off life in the oceans, it will only be a matter of years before we see the full extent of that damage to the planet.

When half of the living Nobel prize winners signed a document telling the worlds governments that we were ten years away from irreversible change, the media and governments ignored this. We are now reaping the harvest of that ignorance.

UK Government buys Fifty Billion Pounds of Bad Debt

Last week in the Guardian was a quote from the banking industry that said:

“The banks will now only lend to people who can repay the loan”

That's like saying that the banks will only employ people that know the difference their Elbow from there... well you know the rest of the phrase!

No other business, industry could, or would, expect the government to bail it out when it made a loss. Further while the banks keep all of their profits when they make them, it will be the tax payer that picks up the tab for all these losses. The UK government has just knowingly bought fifty billion pounds worth of bad debts from the banks. So it is the tax payer that will have to pay for this stupid and reckless lending.

There will be some people that disagree with me, but providing a mortgage of 125% of the value of a property is reckless. While for people struggling to afford to buy a home a loan that allowed the buyer to obtain the property and furnish it may have seemed like a blessing. But that thinking is based upon the assumption that house prices would only go up. While looking at the historical data many people could be forgiven for thinking that was the case, however looking at all the other data should have alerted people to the fact that house prices were artificially high.

There has been direct and deliberate manipulation of the housing market. Builders who have been providing false price and sales data to the Land Registry. Estate Agents who have been manipulating prices by not passing on details of lower offers. Charted Surveyors, the valuers that are not given work unless they provide valuations that match the asking price. All reported in the media over the past five years, but no one wanted to take notice. Thus the value of property has been kept artificially high by direct and deliberate price manipulation add to that the irresponsible gambling by the banks all added to the artificially inflated value of properties.

Then there is the role of the government, for the last ten years and more, the economy has only been growing by promoting consumer spending via borrowing. This has lead to the average person owing more than twenty thousand pounds in personal debt. Yet like any borrowing it now has to be paid back.

While this situation is far from ideal, it is far from a crisis. While it will be difficult for some people, and people don't need to panic. While the paper value of your home has fallen and it will continue to fall, as long as you keep up repayments you will not loose your home. Again while it will be hard, pay off those credit cards and only spend the spare income you have. Look at not replacing all the toys and gadgets that litter your home. Unless a vehicle is vital for work, if you can use public transport or cycle to work, sell the car or cars.

Eventually, once those debts are cleared you will be better off not only financially, but you will have developed a real sense of value of the chattels you own.

This is all part of a change that I have been foreseeing for years. The endless growth of the economy, in the way that it has been occurring, had to end. Where growth will happen now will be in rebuilding of the infrastructure that really matters.

These events are the start of the real green revolution the planet has been waiting for. With the increases in the cost of living that is happening and will continue, the need for people to tighten their belts, will reduce the spending on environmentally damaging activities, such as the rampant consumerism and flippant global travel. With less money to spend on luxury goods like TVs or iPods or any number of manufactured items, we will see less damage to the environment occurring. It will not happen over night, but these events are the start of us humans being re-educated about what really matters.

While events yet to happen will still show us that we need to work with the environment and not against it, the people that start to adapt now will have a head start. This includes using your spare time to grow at least some of your own food. Be this some salad crops in pots on the window seal or two or three neighbours sharing an allotment, you will need to grow at least some of your own food. Food prices are going up and quite soon, this year or next, growing some of your own food will become vital.

The cost of energy will continue to rise, especially petrol (Gas). So learning to do away with the car will become essential. Not having a car will save you at least two thousand five hundred pounds per year, and that excludes the cost of using it. While this is not going to be realistic for everyone, it will be the people that can give up their cars that will cope with the changes that are coming.

There will be people who read this and think this is mostly a lot of nonsense, but weather events will seriously impact food and energy over the next ten to twenty years. This will seriously and adversely effect the conventional economy. Further, the sudden influx of seawater from rising sea levels will disrupt our ability to travel.

The choices we all make now will effect how well we as individuals, our families cope with the changes that have already started.

Food and Population Follow up - Plan A? Or Plan B?

Following my posting about Food shortages and Population growth, a rather interesting comment was made. Sometimes when I am writing about something I feel so passionately about, I can occasionally say something that is not as clear as intended. Often as I am writing a stream of conciousness, although many of my readers may say that is more a stream of unconsciousness, I don't always provide the clarity that I aim for.

Additionally, I do try to hard to be diplomatic at times. This posting and the comment are a classic example. Personally, I think that as a result of Climate Change, there will not be the projected increase in the global population. In fact I we will soon start to see population decline. That will be as a direct result of food shortages giving rise to famine and to put it bluntly, people starving to death. This is not alarmist as it is already happening. This occurs not from lack of food, but from poverty. As I stated in my previous posting, eight hundred and fifty million people will not get enough food today. That is nearly three times the population of the USA, or over fourteen time the population of the UK. The reason for choosing these two countries as examples is that in both enough food per day is thrown away that would feed the underfed the under nourished and the starving. I thank my contact in the UN for clarify the situation in the US.

Now if we cant feed the world now, how can we hope to feed the a growing population? Add in to that the difficulties of a changing climate and the whole concept of a population reaching nine billion looks impossible.

Put quite simply without the political will to distribute food fairly now, the population will not grow as fast as projections estimate. In the natural world food and water is the limiting factor regarding population size. Therefore without the food or the capacity to grow the food the human population will never reach the projected twelve billion humans on the planet. Personally, the way that we in the west are dealing with the problem will result in the global population falling. In nature, no population like ours can be sustained. Further in biology, any cell or group of cells that grows out of control is called a cancer. Is that the way humanity wants to be remembered, as a cancer on the planet?

That brings me on to the main are that I need to provide clarification on. Currently in the developing world there is a crisis brought about by HIV/AIDS. So many of the solutions that the western developed world has proposed or has been prepared to fund, involve preaching abstinence. I use the word preaching quite deliberately, as while intellectually I can see that if we got the whole world to stop having sex would stop HIV/AIDS, it is just not going to happen. Via this naïve and frankly ridiculous policy, inspired by religious morality, it has condemned millions in Africa alone to grow up with out parents. In some parts of Africa the HIV+ rate is as high as forty percent of the adult population. Had the religious busy bodies kept their noses out, we would have seen twenty years of good family planing, far lower rates of infection not just of HIV+ but of other STD and lower birth rates.

While I am not saying that family planning is the only solution here, for the last twenty years the interference from religious groups has done more harm than good in providing development to the countries of Africa. Yet where non judgemental healthcare and education has occurred, in Africa and Asia, it has not only helped stem the spread of HIV infections it has helped reduce the birth rate.

The one aspect that all of the NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) agree on though is that educating women really helps. Even organisations like Oxfam, the UN Food and Health programmes and many others don't fully understand why, but it seems that by even teaching women something as basic as the ability to read and write, helps empower women to access information regarding women's health issues and in particular information regarding family planning. That helps reduce the size of the families. Put simply the fewer children the families have the lower the financial cost. Further, there is also lower child mortality rates in the families where the woman has been educated.

We in the Western developed world just don't realise just how easy we have it, and just how difficult it is in other parts of our planet. However the real point is, that had we not tried to impose our morality upon other people and cultures, it is possible that we would not now be facing the projected growth of planets population to such unsustainable levels.

While I am not advocating any form of forced population control, if people in the developing world were provided with the education and choice, most would use family planning as they see it as the most sustainable way out of poverty there is.

The trouble is so far we have not even tried plan A so no one has thought of a Plan B.

Global Food System Must Change Population and Food

Here is a mind boggling fact;

There are more human beings alive on the planet today then have ever lived in the whole of human existence.

Human population is the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change and the environment. Not least in the moral abhorrent image of genocide sparked by raising the issue. Thus, very few governments, will actually even discuss the issue. Or when they do they only talk about it in economic terms, such as the so called demographic time bomb. That's where with an ageing population, there are fears that we will not have enough new workers entering the job market to pay the taxes that will enable a government to pay for the health and social services. Even then it is only in terms of increasing the population further.


This prospective of only seeing people as economic units, consumers and or as producers is very short sighted. As quite simply a constantly growing population requires more resources: Food, Water, Shelter and Warmth. These are the basics of life, no matter if you live in the developed world or in the developing world. The problem is that at a global population of six and a half billion we cant get this right, so how are we going to cope with nine billion? Or even the twelve billion that is the expected peek?

I have constantly tried to write a posting on this topic of population growth, but I kept on getting sidetracked. I now understand why, it is simply that I can not see it happening. It is not that I can envisage that many people on the planet, but that I can not see how the this can happen without the already stressed natural systems breaking down.

Even if you take out of the equation the likely effects of a changing climate, the two key elements are food and water. Water and food poverty are already serious issues around the planet. People are already starving, 850 million people will not have enough food to eat today. With another two or three billion mouths to feed, how will we grow that food?

Already the over use of non organic chemical fertilisers has created a run off into the oceans creating dead zones. Therefore, if we expand yields by this method, it will only work in the short term. Add to that the very real problem of expanding deserts, water scarcity and degraded soils, then that too will prevent the planet from expanding its food production to meet this growing population. Further, the way we are polluting the seas, as well as over fishing them, we will lose that resource as a means of feeding people too.

Now if you then add in the effects of global warming, an already mind numbing situation starts to look like a disaster. Even if we only add in the most conservative effects of Climate Change, drought from the loss of the mountain glaciers, coastal flooding causing salinity of the farming land around the worlds coasts, and hotter dryer summers combined with sudden flood events, the problem of water becomes obvious.

Already, there are problems with food shortages. The effects of Climate Change are reducing yields of important food crops already. Wheat, Corn and Rice. This is provoking food riots among the poor around the world. This is happening now, so how much worse will it be if we have a population of nine billion?

Quite simply we will face refugees fleeing famine.

This is why I can not see that level of population ever occurring. We are just to selfish and wasteful to provide an equitable distribution food around the world today, so how can we feed another three billion people?

Here is another fact that should shock people. Here in the UK every day eight million pounds worth of food is thrown out. Exclude the environmental cost of shipping in and then throwing out all that food, and you still have enough food discarded to feed all of the under nourished around the world.

The one key fact that I have learnt about providing good development is that education is vital. Further, educating women is the cornerstone of good development policy. As well as the simple fact that women in most of the world are the food growers and providers, but educating women empowers them to have greater control of their bodies. Put quite simply educated women have fewer children. Additionally, providing an education to women has been proven by the Non Government Agencies, charities providers of aid and education, is the most effective route out of poverty for most families. However, there is another factor in this equation that of religious and social taboos regarding sex. This became most apparent in the fight to stop the spread of AIDS/HIV.

Rather than enable the use of Condoms, religious leaders would advocate abstinence. While that may sound a reasonable way forward to many people, it actually ignores the reality of cultural differences and the way that women are still treated as property.

I have spoken before of my repugnance of the policy of people like Bush who will not fund any development project that enables the use of Condoms or provides education regarding family planning. However it is not just George W, there are almost all the religious leaders; Christian, Muslim etc., who are promoting this form of keeping women oppressed and keeping people in poverty

If we are to even start tackling this crisis of over population then we really need to start tackling poverty head on.

I don't see the future as a desperate one. We can make the future better for all, what is needed is the political will.

Global Food System Must Change

Pleasing My Bank Manager by being Green

When I was a vegetarian, a diet that I had for twenty-five years, when people discovered this the inevitable question was what do you eat came next. Initially I would always try to enlighten people that a vegetarian diet was very varied and interesting. However, I quickly realised that what they were really trying to discover was if I was some sort of hypocrite. Did I wear leather? Did I eat fish? And all that. Those that were genuinely interested, I found it far easier to cook them a meal and share good food with them to show that vegetarian food was far from boring or bland.

I expected others to be that honest with me when I planed on opening an Organic food shop. While I needed to make a living from it, I also wanted to show that Organic produce need not be that expensive. In fact I matched the prices of non organic produce in the supermarkets most of the time. However, I soon discovered that most of the people who were saying they would buy Organic if they could get it cheaper, were full of hot air. It was never the price that stops them its the effort they need to put into washing the mud of a few carrots that really was the issue.

Further, most of these avowed environmentalists would happily drive several miles to a store where the seller was flogging cheap imported, short dated chemically enhanced food. I know as I went there and saw twenty of my customers there stocking up on the very produce the said they wanted to avoid.

That experience allows me to understand why it is that here I get criticised for advocating saving energy, yet embracing technology. While it is true that all the electronic gadgets I use do rely on energy, electricity, I have also chosen well.

My Computer is reasonably energy efficient, also I turn it off when its not in use. That includes turning off the plugs at the mains. Also, my digital cameras rely on batteries. I use rechargeable batteries, that greatly reduces waste and means that using them has a lower carbon footprint than would the case if I were using disposable batteries.

Equally the equipment I have bought is predominantly second hand, thus reducing the environmental impact of its manufacture and helping reduce the amount of waste going off to landfill.

So while I am used to being criticised by the ignorant, this week I had proof that my efforts were working. I received my energy bill for the winter quarter. I will point out that I had paid more than I needed on the previous bill, but even I was pleased to see that it was only Forty pounds and thirty pence.

While I am careful about what energy I do use, I don't skimp on my creature comforts either. I keep my home warm, I don't scrabble around in the dark, well not in the house. One of the things that I always find surprising is just how hot people have their houses in winter. Often their homes are hotter than outdoor summer temperatures. Now I know that because I am often out in the cold, my personal tolerance for the cold is higher than most people, but I am sure that most people could halve their energy bills by simple conservation measures.

Well I at least know that I have done my best to reduce my environmental impact, and it has made my bank manager happy too.

Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses

While there was a time when people dismissed Climate Change as some unproven theory, at least now we have an awareness of the reality of this serious problem. The most serious humanity has ever faced. Yet it is the unwillingness to take the situation seriously that causes me to feel despair.

In part it is that people are still viewing this as a problem for the future, something that will happen. Yet the effects of a changing climate is real and immediate. In the UK we are seeing early signs of spring coming four to five weeks earlier, while the weather is still predominantly that of winter. All of this adding to the decline of a number of species.

Yet the real effects of Climate Change that are being noticed are not to do with weather but with cost of food. While part of the reason for this is an increased demand out striping supply, the effects of a Changing Climate are inhibiting the growing of food crops. This removes our ability to increase production to accommodate this new reality. Thus climate change is hitting us in our pockets first.

The reality is that the majority of people are unwilling to change the way they live for the benefit of themselves or the future. We continue to consume vast amounts of the earth's resources on trivial items that we don't need. We are to lazy to walk to the shops, we prefer to drive. We are so inactive that its a effort to get out of a chair to change the television channel or even turn the TV off.

Well what has this all got to do with another lump of Sea Ice breaking away from the Antarctic? It in its self doesn't raise sea levels, but it removes the barriers that prevent the land based Ice from sliding into the Sea.

Well to all you who don't believe this can happen, in Russia that's exactly what did happen in the Caucasus Mountains. A glacial slid down the mountain at one hundred miles per hour, as a direct result of global warming. Its already known that the melt water on glacial is percolating down to the base, lubricating their flow...

Therefore in a few years, three or four, we will see a sudden and dramatic rise in sea levels.

A link to the News Story

Terminal Five

Well I think that British Airways and The British Airports Authority should both be praised for doing their bit to reduce climate change. Effectively they have combined efforts to make air travel so unpleasant that it will put so many people off every flying again that we should see a marked reduction in greenhouse gases.

On the other hand it could be that they are just crap companies.

Not A Green Budget

While there were a couple of measures in the Budget that could be seen as “Green”, these measures are more about raising revenue than attempting to benefit the environment. The greatest obstacle is this obsession with growth.

The growth of an economy by measuring the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a seriously blunt instrument. Further, even most economists don't understand how or what elements of the economy go towards making up this measure. Put simply, it measures the total earnings of all individuals, the businesses and the government in the country. Now if we were just talking about people, businesses and government departments just buying goods and services then as a measure it would be useful. However as it also measures many negative aspects of life that money get spent on, it fails to show the real state of any economy.

The problem is that if there is a spate of arson, the cost of rebuilding the properties gets measured as does the increase in insurance premiums. This all makes it look as though the economy is growing, as if you lose everything in a house fire say you then have to spend more on refurnishing your new abode. However the GDP fails to measure the losses of the original property.

Looking at an environmental prospective; even shutting down an industry that was heavily polluting adds a paper benefit to the economy as the costs of clearing up the pollution gets seen as a benefit to the economy.

The economists have the same mindset as the people I challenge for dropping litter. The people who toss rubbish in the street, will often say that they are keeping the road cleaners employed.

Therefore the economists and politicians see growth as useful measure but fail to see that a shrinking economy can be equally as good if not better. If the shrinking was due to high unemployment then that would be bad. But if there was a downturn that was caused by the majority of office workers working from home, utilising the internet and telecommunications to do the same work and no longer having to travel to a place of work, the losses would occur in the daily cost of travel for those individuals. While there would be less money spent on petrol that would impact the oil companies and allied businesses, the benefits will also be less congestion delaying the essential journeys, less pollution to cause breathing problems and expenditure on health care.

All this could happen using existing technology, and that shrinking of the GDP would benefit all but a few vested interests.

This is just one example of where a shrinking could be a real benefit to the overall economy. If everyone who can grew their own vegetables, that would mean that there was less money spent in the supermarkets as well as the reduction in the cost of health care from improved diet and better exercise. The trouble is that activities like this, in the eyes of the economists, are not seen to benefit the economy in ways that can be measured.

Staying with the environment, growth in personal transport is seen as good for the economy. As well as greater volume in car sales benefiting manufacturing and the suppliers of the fuel, the conventional economists prospective fails to take account of the costs that go with this. Like congestion extending the time required to travel anywhere, or the effects of pollution on health. In fact these extra costs are seen as benefiting the GDP as more money is spent on these.

It is this drive for growth that is damaging the environment and stopping any real growth in the quality of life.

This method of only looking at the world purely in terms of its monetary value is at the core of most of the problems we have today. Environmentally where the worlds forests are only valued in terms of the economic earnings from the timber, and not in the way that these forests hold back rainwater, preventing flooding and providing drinking water.

Additionally this fixation on growth of GDP means that important tasks in our societies become undervalued. Here in the UK while the cost of childcare is expensive the wages for the people who work in childcare is very low. This leads to people who would be the best people to care for children, will move on to better paid jobs. Yet caring for the next generation should be one of the most valued tasks in life. Yet people who trade in financial derivatives get paid small fortunes even for doing their job badly.

Equally there needs to be a change to fair trade. While the concept of free trade may sound the right way to carry out commerce, free trade is in fact exploitation. It is based upon paying the least you can for any resource and selling it for the maximum price you can get. While that may earn businesses or individuals good profits, it also creates volatility in the market. That is why crude oil has hit record highs yet again. At the time of writing oil is 110 US dollars per barrel while it only costs 20 US dollars to produce. Yet the free market also means that livestock farmers in the UK and the US are struggling to make any profits as it is cheaper to ship in meat from halfway around the world. Even excluding the environmental cost, this free trading creates the situation where the UK and the US are placing themselves at risk of being held hostage over food supplies. If we loose the ability to feed ourselves we are venerable to any number of situations that could disrupt international transport.

Fair trade has the effect of ensuring a stable price, for the farmer and prevents inflation. While it does prevent spectacular profits, it stops the exploitation. Further, by stabilising supply there is less risk of starvation occurring.

Fair trade not only applies to food, when applied to all areas of commerce the consumer gets a better standard of product that's safer and lasts longer. The manufactures also get a better price, leading to better wages and less environmental impacts. Less resources wasted, Less energy used, fewer good transported around the world.

We need to start looking for alternative economic solutions. For example if everyone who is unemployed were provided with an allotment to grow some of their own food, we would reduce the cost of unemployment. However, I am a realist and know that most of the unemployed would not make the effort.

Just as I know that no government will really start to tackle climate change until we have the levels of the seas rising.

Climate Change not to blame for Summer Flooding - Who are you trying to kid

In the summer during 2007 parts of the UK suffered from flooding in what a new report from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) were the result of record breaking rainfall.

Now I wonder if they were assisted by the University of the Bleeding Obvious!

This whole report is pure propaganda to down play the effects of climate change. While not totally ruling out climate change, they say that we have not had enough extreme events to say if climate change is the cause.

Now as I sit here writing this we in the UK are facing another storm with winds of eighty miles an hour, the third in a row and only days after the last one, I am left wondering what it will take to convince people of the reality of what we have done to our planet. Yes winter storms happen, but this is supposed to be Spring. Wet summers do happen but as summer floods are supposed to be once in fifty year events, we can see no more summer flooding for next half a millennium can we?

We have, under Gordon Brown, a prime minister who pays lip service to the environment, but follows policies that will further damage the environment and our climate. The economic damage of not tackling this problem will be even greater than the investment in the solutions.

But we need to pull our heads out of the sand and see what is really happening.

The News Story

Head or Heart the logic of Climate Change

I was talking recently to a friend about the way that some people are in denial about climate change. However it is not just on this topic but on many aspects of life, as most people don't think. I am not saying they are thoughtless, its just that they think with their hearts and not their head.

If we take Evolution as an example, no matter how much proof there is placed before creationists, they will not accept that we, human animals, are the result of evolution. Because of their blind faith they can not see, or are not prepared to see that rational thought shows the logic of natural selection to be true. They are thinking with their hears and not their heads. The most wide spread manifestation of this phenomena is in sport, where millions of people get all fired up over adults playing children's games.

When it comes to climate change there are those who deny the evidence and have blind faith that it has to be natural. While others have their head in the sand, and don't want to acknowledge the reality of a human induced changing climate as it would mean them changing their behaviour.

The reality is that we will all get a shock when the level of the seas rise. While the IPCC predicts a rise of up to one metre by the end of this century, that forecast is simply wrong. As the IPCC, to get agreement only included the science where there was no dissent. This was done for political reasons but by excluding all the other quality science then available, it effectively watered down the degree of the effects we will see from Climate Change.

Therefore much of the planning and policy derived by governments from that report doesn't go anywhere near implementing the changes that will be required to survive a hotter planet.

The aspect of a changing climate that most people have the greatest mistake about is that of melting polar ice. It was always assumed that the ice had to melt off of Greenland and the Antarctic to cause a rise in sea levels, not so as we already have over one foot of rise, and with tidal action and summer surface melting draining to the base of glacial lubricating their flow, a modest rise in sea level of less than a foot is all it will take to break up the Ice and float the ice off the land. All this adds to the rise in sea levels that in turn speeds up the loss of ice from the land.

This will not be a slow occurrence but swift and dramatic. When it does happen then denial of climate change will disappear, but then so will we.