The EU Ecolabel

As some major Asian economies settle comfortably in their polluted air and water and argue why their industries cannot be so eco-friendly, Europe has pulled ahead with initiative after initiative.

Few in Malaysia would have heard of the EU Eco-label, the flower logo above that is affixed to products that have been verified by independent bodies as complying with strict ecological and performance criteria.

Their website lists 11 product categories under this system - Bedding, Gardening, Electronic equipment, Footwear, Household Appliances, Textiles, DIY, Cleaning, Paper, Services and Lubricants.

For example, the compliance requirements for bedding manufacturers look like this:


This is not just a commercial branding stunt but a carefully administered plan by the European Eco-labelling Board (EUEB) and receives the support of the European Commission, all Member States of the European Union and the European Economic Area (EEA).

According to their website, the Eco-labelling Board includes representatives such as industry, environment protection groups and consumer organisations.

Read their FAQ here about the whats and whys of the EU eco-label. The EUROPA website also has a good backgrounder on this.

My question is with Asia's notoriously booming population, will their governments have the will to adopt anything like this soon? How about anytime this century?

Formula One: Green quotes

...any research to improve that racing engine would have to be directly relevant to research to improve fuel efficiency in road cars... actually contribute something to society rather than yearly sterile research for another 200-300rpm from a fixed-capacity engine.

FIA President Max Mosley on the motor sport's brand new focus on fuel economy


The entire fuel bill and the carbon burn for the entire formula one world championship season is less than one 747 taking off for one flight.

Steve Slater
Formula One commentator


Jenson Button's Earth Car (the green Honda) will emit 50 tonnes of carbon this formula one season, five times higher than the average Briton produces in 12 months.

Guardian sport

Although the messages may be a little confusing for now, something green is brewing in F1. Great news indeed for conservation.

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.

World public opinion on global warming

WorldPublicOpinion.org recently conducted a poll to split hairs over what people thought about global warming.

The poll was conducted in 17 countries—China, India, USA, Indonesia, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel and Armenia. These represent more than 55 percent of the world population.


The results were not unexpected. About 12-13% of people in the US and China think global warming is not an important threat compared to only 4-5% of South Koreans and Australians who felt the same way. Surprisingly 70% of Mexicans believe the problem is critical compared to the USA's 46%.

On the need to take action, Indians were the least supportive with 24% feeling that unless we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not do anything that would cost money. On the other hand, Australians seems the most concerned with 69% saying something should be done now even if the costs are significant.

The study does affirm that although there are dissenters, an overwhelming majority in the countries polled believe global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed. But the data also shows that the protection of economic interests may prove to be a wet blanket with developing countries like the Philippines (49%), Thailand (41%), Poland (39%), Ukraine (37%) and India (30%) leading the way on "going slow".

Graphic source: here.
Read the detailed srticle here.

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.