Beating global warming: An Australian perspective

FIRST

We must accept the reality that information on environmental issues and global warming issues are being manipulated by skilful public relation gurus to maintain the sales of fossil carbon based fuels and products.

SECOND

We remove the excess carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. We do this by modifying our agricultural practices to enhance the buildup of soil organic matter.

THIRD

For large-scale industrial power generation, we switch from a system primarily based on fossil fuels, to a system primarily based on nuclear fuels. It is both the only feasible option, and the safest.

FOURTH

For our mobile transport fuels we switch totally to ethanol and biodiesel produced from sugarcane and grains, and oil palms and oil seeds. That’s for cars, trucks, busses, ships and aeroplanes. Source.

The article is a long read but if you can put aside some of its diatribes, you might find some practical suggestions on what an agro-commercial society can do.

And since Malaysia wants to go big into that space with our palm oil and stuff, an alternative view into the practice of large-scale organic farming could be insightful.
.

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.

All talk no action

I've always stayed clear of the political aspect of the global warming debate, firstly because I don't care for politics and secondly because I don't believe science can be mixed with consensus (politics). If its science its not consensus. If its consensus its not science. I prefer to stick with science.

Be that as it may, I do keep a pulse on what world bodies are debating ...errr.. doing. One thing that keeps coming up since the days of Kyoto protocol is who - as in which nations - are to blame.

The rationale of the debate I suppose is to decide who should be doing the most of the cleaning up. We can read that as bearing the cost and possible economic slowdown as industry rules are altered. One of the reasons why the US didn't go with Kyoto was their claim that developing economies were not subject to the targets that the rich countries were.

The other side's defence is that most of the Co2 presently circulating in the atmosphere have been dumped there by indutrialized countries decades and centuries ago, hence it is they who should be leading the cleanup efforts.

It sounds reasonable until you realize where the argument is heading: that if America and Europe had polluted well and hard in the past, then why can't India and China do the same today?

Its like a youngster telling someone you can't stop me from dumping trash out to the street because you yourself did it when you were young.

Maybe I'm being a little simplistic and there's a lot more to the arguments but I think the basic principles are the same. Squabbling about history will not change the fact that we - as in the Americans, Asians and Europeans - are all stuck in the same sinking ship.

The irony is that while the Americans may not have signed Kyoto, they are doing something to change the situation as I blogged here, here, here and here, probably forced to by a more environmentally mature citizenry, while some nations that signed Kyoto could only give excuses why its hard to implement measures in their countries. Lets be honest. Which country would you rather live in - one where the rivers are clean and clear but didn't sign Kyoto or one who let its rivers be biologically poisoned but signed Kyoto.

This is why I prefer to stick to science. Action speaks louder than words. A lot louder.

Read this, this and this for perspectives of India and China on this issue.

Why our storms are getting fiercer

Storms and flooding are hitting us with a vengeance this year. For the first time in my life I was nearly blown off my feet by super strong winds and rain that was unleashed in PJ last Friday evening.

This freaky weather phenomena looks set to be a long term if not permanent feature of our weather system if this report is true. Scientists now say pollution from Asia is helping generate stronger storms. These come in the form of tiny particles generated from coal burning in China and India which had been going on for decades.

The terrible air pollution in China is no fairy tale as I found out recently when I went there.


Above was the sight that greeted me on the approach to Guangzhou airport. The clouds sit in a reddish brown soup caused by emissions from coal fired plants.


And this is the view of Guangzhou airport as we drove on the highway. The haze is a permanent feature that just hangs in the air day and night. Even rain won't clear it.

While Malaysia is quite far away from the North Pacific area mentioned in the report, I don't think we are ever free from the climactic effects of pollution from the greater Asian continent. We experience this first hand every August & September when haze from Indonesian forest fires envelop us.

Whether forest fire or dirty coal-fired plants, tons of carbon particles are ejected into the air where they stay suspended and add to the grim load already carried by the atmosphere.

"The Pacific storm track, they noted, plays a critical role in global atmospheric circulation, and altering this weather pattern could have a significant impact on the climate," says the report.

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.

Is nuclear power carbon-free?

Not according to Dr Uwe Fritsche, a researcher at the Öko Institut in Darmstadt, Germany, who says there's no such thing as carbon-free power.

A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life, he says. Its does better than coal- and gas-fired turbines but in reality, a lot of Co2 is produced in setting up the plant, mining the uranium ore it requires and in operating it.

So it seems that when its life-cycle cost of reducing Co2 emissions is compared with other energy alternatives, nuclear power may not fare as well in the global warming equation. There are suggestions that improving a nation's energy efficiency would produce far less Co2 than a new nuclear plant.


Source: Öko Institut

Link: Here