Al Gore's dream come true

Things are not going too well for GW Bush. That's George W Bush, not Global Warming Bush.

On Monday the apex court of the US, the Supreme Court, ruled that "greenhouse gases are a pollutant and ordered federal environmental officials to re-examine their refusal to limit emissions of the gases from cars and trucks."

What this means is that it compels the EPA - the US Environmental Protection Agency - to determine if greenhouse gases is harmful humans (something it has tap-danced away from due to pressure from Washington) and if so, to start regulating its emissions or explain to the court why it will not.

Currently any program to limit emissions in the US are done voluntarily by individuals, private organizatons or local governments but not the Federal government.

This is likely to force doubters of global warming in Washington to go into unpleasant territory where a face-off with their campaign financiers - those with large business interests - will likely occur.

Al Gore is no doubt a happy man now that one obstacle is down.

Read the news article here.

Burn more wood, emit less Co2

Going back to the good old days. That's the British plan to avoid consuming more heating oil.

The plan is for the government to provide "2 million tonnes a year more wood available for fuel by 2020 through better forest management and support." If you've been to the UK you'll notice that most British homes are individually warmed up by coal, gas or oil.

On the question whether burning wood is more environmentally friendly than burning oil, apparently the answer is yes, to the tune of avoiding 400,000 tons of carbon compared to burning the equivalent in fossil fuel.

And how to deal with the remaining carbon that's released anyway? The British Forestry Commission will plant more trees to absorb some according to the report, suggesting that this is a program aimed at reducing carbon emissions, not eliminate it.

It does leave me wondering whether balancing carbon emissions is a factor in the sustainable logging programs in Malaysia or whether it is purely in support of an economic activity.

Read the complete report here.

Image source: here.

Autobahn putting on the brakes?

Will the Autboahn, Germany's famous no-speed-limit highway, finally give up its fame by imposing a 120kmh speed limit?

That's what the German Federal Environment Agency is mulling. The reason? To help Germany meet its promise to cut Co2 emissions.

A CNN spot last night did an interesting test to see what effect slowing down would have on feul burn. They took a BMW 5-series to the speedway, sped it past 240kmh and then reduced the speed down to half. The feul consumption was then compared. True enough, at 120 kmh consumption was cut down to half.

But Germany's speed demons were not amused though, some even angry.

Read the full news here.

Britons fight for road tax increase

What would you say to a 10-fold increase in road tax on the biggest gas-guzzling cars as part of an aggressive pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions, especially when you realize that road transport accounts for a fifth of the country's Co2 emissions?

This is on top of other extra fees imposed if you drive through the city.

This is what Friends of the Earth is campaigning to the British government in this news report.

It poses an interesting question. What would our public reaction be if such a move if done here?

Bear in mind Malaysia is a signatory to the Kyoto protocol.

The bad news gets badder

Here's some cheerful highlights from a sneak preview of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report:

- Within 20 years hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water.
- About 100 million will be made homeless due to flooding each year from rising sea levels
- Insect-borne diseases like malaria will spread. In 40 years, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos. Pests like fire ants will thrive.
- By 2080, half a billion people could face starvation.

So, still think its a good idea to have kids?

Link: here

Carbon-neutral bank

Is your bank carbon-neutral?

Mine isn't but its heartening to know that there are financial institutions out there who are putting money where their mouth is in the struggle against global warming. After all, banks are voracious consumers of materials such as paper and technology whose production involves the creation of megatons of greenhouse gases.

On 6th March '07, the largest retail bank in the US, Bank of America, announced a US$20 billion environmental initiative to encourage a greening of the environment. Some of the money goes to an internal drive to reduce consumables consumption, the rest to consumer programs and commercial lending and investment banking for "green" projects over the next decade.

It sounds like the start of a big corporate social responsibility campaign (CSR) for BA. CSR has gained ground in recent years as a new public relations weapon and it has worked very well in communities that puts high value on social well-being. By developing an image of a caring instituion, it puts itself in the same mindspace of the population mindful of the same concern. In other words, its a bit of smart marketing.

I wonder when our local institutions will start following suit.

Honda Formula 1 goes green

...and blue. Literally. F1 fans will see this car above instead of the usual red and white livery come 18th March when the new season flags off. Quite a turnabout for a team that used to carry the Lucky Strike cigarette brand decal.

And get this. For a pledge you can actually have your name incorporated in the artwork of the real F1 car! A brilliant opportunity at grandstanding if I may say so, never mind if you need a microscope to see your pixel-sized name on the car. I'm not sure what they do with the money you pledge though.

From their promotional website at www.myearthdream.com,


While this move may not actually change the sport in the short run, it will remind millions of TV viewers that a) the earth should look as green and blue as the livery, b) here's a team that puts the welfare of the planet above that of their team sponsors.

That bold statement, to me, is well worth the amount of sponsorships they forgo this season. I expect they will recoup some if not all of the cost of this from the increased sales of their hybrid street cars. Smart. Go Honda!

Links: Here and here.

Just when we thought we had it all covered

... and we discover more holes.

This time, the climate change experts apparently overlooked one big polluter: ships. And get this, the carbon dioxide emissions are found to be double that of the entire aviation industry!

At 600 and 800m tonnes of carbon dioxide, ships' emissions are in fact "nearly double Britain's total emissions and more than all African countries combined."

Maritime emissions are not covered by the Kyoto accord. It is also absent from many discussions that pounce on lesser things like airline pollution.

It is estimated that the world now has 70,000 ships and there are apparently about 20,000 new ships on order.

Why so many ships? If you own anything that is imported, chances are it was brought in by a ship. The more we consume, the more cargo ships required for transport. The fuel they often use? Diesel.

Read the article here.

Image source: Freefoto.com

USD25 million for the best greenhouse sucker

Got an idea of how to suck one billion tonnes of Co2 a year from the atmosphere?

Al Gore and Virgin Group chairman Sir Richard Branson teamed up to launch the Virgin Earth Challenge on 9 Feb 2007, announcing the $25m cash reward that they hope will inspire innovations in the field of combating climate change.

"The earth cannot wait 60 years," said Branson at a news conference.

Read more here and here.

London's plan to cut emissions (27th Feb)

The aim according to the London Mayor is to reduce the city's emissions by 20.2 million tons by 2025.

The plan?

Hit it where it hurts. Impose a $16 (Rm56) charge for cars traveling in the busiest sections of the London and charge vehicles according to their emissions levels. Zero-emission vehicles travel free while the highest-polluting cars pay $49 (Rm172) a day.

Will KL ever do the same some day?

Read more here.

Five US governers cooperate to cut emissions (26th Feb)

Fed up with the inaction of the US federal government, the governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington state have agreed to work together to develop a plan targeting a reduction in the emission of their states' greenhouse gases.

It's nice to see that environmentally friendly leaders really do exist.

Read the rest of it here.

Gore's inconvenient electricity bill

What: Gore mansion's electricity bill
Where: Nashville, Tn
How much: About USD 1,300 a month

Many of Al Gore's detractors were quick to jump on this new revelation to accuse him of hypocrisy, of lecturing other people to reduce their energy consumption at home while he spends 20 times the US national average on the same.

Responding on his behalf, his aide said that Gore and his wife Tipper works at home and hence use more energy than the average home. To play his part in reducing carbon emissions, he buys his energy from a green energy supplier and he is in the process of installing energy savers like solar panels and energy-saving light bulbs.

To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores are said to invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption.

The group that's accusing Gore, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, disputes that global warming is a serious problem.

Read more here and here.

YTL's Climate Change Week, 6-9 March

YTL is organizing an event called Climate Change Week on 6-9 March in KL. Its apparently a business conference aimed at promoting companies to go greener, I presume as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) plan. For details go to their website here.

I took the trouble to enquire at their call center for details. I was told it will be held at the Ritz Carlton KL, will cost RM200 per participant and there will be no public gallery or exhibition.

The Inconvenient Truth - March 15

This much awaited movie, starring Al Gore, is coming to a theater near you starting March 15.

The movie-documentary bagged 2 Oscars recently. I promise it will be an eye opener for those trying to comprehend the situation.

Watch the trailer here.

Don't buy Beachfront Property

(This post is reproduced from my other blog Bryan's Cafe)

Unless it's perched high up on a granite cliff or you enjoy snorkeling in your living room.

It seems that an ommission in earlier reports on global warming painted a misleading picture of the crisis. To quote this Guardian article "Climate change: scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice caps",

"The revelation comes as a new report points out that greenhouse gas emissions running into hundreds of millions of tonnes have not been disclosed by Britain's biggest businesses, masking the full extent of the UK's contribution to global warming."


An earlier IPCC report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is now seemingly erroneous as only 16 of Britain's FTSE 100 companies met disclosure guidelines of CO2 emissions, meaning that about 200m jaw-dropping tonnes of damaging CO2 is estimated to be missing from earlier estimates, an amount more than "annual reported emissions of Pakistan and Greece combined."

This discovery pretty much lobbed a grenade into the kitchen. Forecasts are now more onminous with the prospect that "there is "a significant probability that some large-scale events (eg deglaciation of major ice sheets) may no longer be avoided due to historical greenhouse gas emissions and the inertia of the climate system"."

"Areas such as the Maldives would be swamped and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands and Bangladesh, as well as coastal cities including London, New York and Tokyo, would face critical flooding...Such melting would raise sea levels by four to six metres, the scientists say. "

Would island nations like Taiwan, Sri Lanka and Singapore lose precious land mass to the water and see their countries shrink dramatically? It would pose a national defense issue like no other, something no missile or warship could avert.

"New studies of Greenland and Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50% chance that widespread ice sheet loss "may no longer be avoided" because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.... The previous official line, issued in 2001, was that the chance of such an event was "not well known, but probably very low"."

That's what happens when politics stands in the way of scientific objectivity and countires thumb their noses to the cries of panic in the name of economic sustainability. We do get what we deserve.

But there is an opportunity in every disaster.

"...average temperatures would probably increase by 4C this century if emissions continue to rise. Even under its most optimistic scenario, based on a declining world population and a rapid switch to clean technology, temperatures are still likely to rise by 1.8C."

Maybe I should invest in companies that build cooling systems and tree nurseries?

"Very large sea level rises that would result from widespread deglaciation of Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets imply major changes in coastlines..."

I'll avoid investing in beachfront property and in companies building beachfront resorts. But mountain resorts like Genting should be ok.

The IPCC report which assesses the likely impacts of global warming and will be published in April. I will be anxiously waiting.