Jump to content

Environment News

Archive of our environment news, opinions, and analysis from between 2007-2015.
Here is another clever advertisement. This one is a billboard/solar plant. Yes, you heard right. The billboard has been transformed to a solar plant and generates about 3.4 Kw of electricity during the day. According to Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the owners of the ad, says that is enough electricity for a family of four.

Jennifer Zelwer, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) spokesperson, said that "the energy that is collected by the solar panels actually exceeds the amount used by it on a day-to-day basis." She proudly (I guess) stated that "this isn't a billboard. It's a power plant."
Simon
Simon
With the Australian government, Greenpeace and Sea Shephard watching and tracking the two Japanese whaling vessels it seems all the whales are gone. But when the Japanese whalers can't harpoon any whales they take hostages and make illegal fuel stops instead.

Now an article has appeared in Shukan Toyo Keizai, one of Japan's leading newspapers, were they encourage Japan to “re-examine the whaling issue”.



Being one of the few issues on which Japan has made a stand against the United States and European countries, the stance of whaling hardliners could also be a vent for narrow-minded nationalism. In the end, that could easily be detrimental to national interests. Perhaps the Japanese people need to take this opportunity to re-examine the whaling issue for themselves.

Making Waves has the full translation here.
Simon
Simon
The European Commissioner for energy policy, Andris Piebalgs, said yesterday during the press conference where the EU unveiled its plan of action against climate change:



In a time of growing oil prices and climate change concerns, renewable energy sources is an opportunity that we cannot miss. They will help us to reduce our CO2 emissions, strengthen our security of supply and develop jobs and growth in a high tech developing sector. If we do the effort now, Europe will be the leader in the race towards the low carbon economy that the planet so desperately needs.

Press Release: Boosting growth and jobs by meeting our climate change commitments
Simon
Simon
Yesterday the European Union agreed on a plan of action against climate change. The aim is a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 from the European countries. But the aim could be increased to 30% if other countries follow suite.

To be able to reach the 20% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by year 2020 the European Commission have outlined four measures that will help them achieve the goal:





An improved emissions trading system (ETS) is needed. The new improved trading system will cover more emissions and allow companies in one EU country to buy allowances in any other.
Emission reduction targets for industries not covered by the ETS, so that everyone can contribute. Examples on industries not covered are buildings, transport, waste etc.
Legally binding targets will be introduced for increasing the share of renewable energy in every country. The different targets will reflect each countries individual potential.
And finally new rules on carbon capture and storage and on environmental subsidies will be introduced throughout the EU.

The whole plan is expected to cost 3 euros a week for every citizen (60 billion euros a year). The European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso says the cost is “manageable”.

Yesterday at the press conference where EU's plan of action was presented, Jose Manuel Barroso said that:



Responding to the challenge of climate change is the ultimate political test for our generation. Our mission, indeed our duty, is to provide the right policy framework for transformation to an environment friendly European economy and to continue to lead the international action to protect our planet. Our package not only responds to this challenge, but holds the right answer to the challenge of energy security and is an opportunity that should create thousands of new businesses and millions of jobs in Europe. We must grasp that opportunity.

With this plan of action the EU is aiming to stopping the global temperatures to rise above 2 degrees. But is the plan enough? Many people think not.

Unfortunately a 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions is not enough to stop climate change running out of control. If you listen to the scientists a 2 degree increase in global temperature is not enough to stop the worst effects of climate change. Only aiming for 20% cuts will take us to a 3 degrees increase in global temperatures where climate change will run out of control and there will be no turning back.

Last time the earth were 3 degrees hotter than it is today the North Pole and Greenland were ice free, trees were growing in Antarctic and the sea level was 25 metres higher than it is today.

According to CarbonEquity we should, "if we value biodiversity and human life", instead aim for a 0,5 degree (320 ppm CO2e) target. In a recent paper, CarbonEquity explains why we should aim for 0,5 degrees and explains that it is possible with global and massive political actions.

Video: "Taking a head start to create a low carbon world economy"

abWritePlayer(1664375, 468, 400, "http://vid.adbrite.com/video/abplayer?");




Image and Video credit: European Communities.
Simon
Simon
This year Dell, the computer maker, will be 100% carbon neutral. They will become carbon neutral by buying carbon reductions. While it’s not the best way to go green it is the fastest and simplest way at the moment. You could see it as a big first step towards a more sustainable second step. One thing is for sure. Dell is trying to take the green lead in the computer world.

Michael Dell, the company’s chairman and CEO, says that "never before in the history of business have we seen such a critical need to build a worldwide community dedicated to improving the environment." He continued by saying that "leadership starts at home, which is why we [Dell] are going carbon-neutral, but this should only be the beginning of building long-term partnerships with customers, stakeholders and suppliers of all sizes to team up and make a difference for the Earth we all share."



Dell recently implemented a company-wide power saving program that, according to Dell, will result in a savings of about 13 million kilowatt hours of electricity (about 8,500 tons of CO2). This will also help save Dell about $1.8 million annually.

Dell is also on a pretty good spot on Greenpeace’s guide to greener electronics. But still Dell has no products on the market without the worst chemicals.

In November last year Dell's Inspiron 531 became the first PC to reach Energy Star 4.0. Dell is also teaming up with ABN AMRO, AMD, Ask.com, Salesforce.com and WellPoint in the "Plant a Tree for Me" program where the companies have committed to offsetting part of their carbon output by planting trees.

Image credit: Joi. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution license.
Simon
Simon
The European market for carbon dioxide emissions rights increased with 30% during January and September last year. Currently one ton of carbon dioxide emissions rights will cost you €24 (about $35).

The price for the same ton of emission rights during the period of 2005 and 2007 is currently €1 (about $1,46). This is due to the fact that the European Union has, as planned, lowered the number of emissions rights, and thus the demands on the market have increased the price for the emission rights.



Andrei Marcu, president of the International Emissions Trading Association, says that “establishing similar schemes to the European Union's emissions trading system in Canada and other parts of the world is crucial to the development of the carbon market and to helping the environment”.

Andrei Marcu is also hoping that Canada will follow EU’s path and introduce a similar trading scheme that could be linked with the European so that, hopefully, a global emissions trading system could emerge.

Learn more:
- Certified Emission Reduction
- European Emissions Trade Takes Off as World Watches
- Voluntary Emissions Reduction
Simon
Simon
Ozone is a poisonous gas with strong smell, and is a form of oxygen. It is pollutant when it exists between 5-10km above the earth's surface, causes breathing problems and harms the eyes. However, the ozone layer high above the earth, between 15-30km is not only useful, but absolutely necessary. And that's because it absorbs harmful radiation from the sun and thus protects earth and the life on it. If that solar radiation was to reach the earth, single-cell organisms would die, DNA would sustain dramatic changes and there would be multiplied symptoms of skin cancer.



Since 1970 there has been detected a reduction in the amount of ozone, creating an ozone hole over Antarctica in 1980. Thanks to research it was found that the cause of this reduction is chlorofluorocarbon. This chemical is a compound containing carbon fluorine and chlorine; it is a CFC that destroys the ozone layer. CFCs are used as cooling substances in refrigerators, air-conditions and in sprays. When they reach the ozone layer there is a reaction between these chemical elements, making the layer thinner and thinner.

In 1994 the European Council banned the creation of more CFCs, so as for other ozone-friendly substances to be used. Greenpeace in Britain made it to construct a fridge without CFCs, but it wasn't made as known as it should have been as it was against the interests of large industries. Until the day they will put their personal interests aside, the ozone layer will keep becoming thinner and thinner...

Image credit: Frankie Roberto. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution license.
armadillo
armadillo
This is the final part of Climate Emergency and Sustainability Emergency, a two part article.

A few days ago at a social function I was asked by a top US atmosphere scientist - in Australia to work with top Australian atmospheric scientists - what would I do NOW. My answer in short was as follows: Australia has 50 Gigawatt (50 billion watt) electricity generating capacity (85% fossil fuel-driven at present); it currently spends about A$10 billion pa on fossil fuel subsidies; the installation cost for large-scale wind farms is about A$2 per watt of installed capacity; simply diverting this unconscionable fossil fuel subsidy to wind farm installation would yield A$10 billion pa /A$2 per watt = 5 billion watt capacity pa = 50 billion watt (50 Gigawatt) wind power electricity capacity in a mere 10 years, i.e. by 2017.

As detailed below, stated and committed Rudd Government policy means that it will INCREASE Australia’s fossil annual fuel-derived per capita CO2 pollution (already over 10 times higher than the world average if you include our fossil fuel exports) by about 50% by 2050. Every year is important. We must act urgently NOW. “Waiting for Godot†or, with the utmost respect, “waiting for Garnaut†is not an option.



1. Committed Rudd Labor Policy is effective Climate Racism from a per capita CO2 pollution standpoint

In the recent election campaign Rudd committed to “20% renewables by 2020â€, “â€60% reduction on 2000 greenhouse gas pollution by 2050†and no constraint on fossil fuel extraction for export. What this ACTUALLY means (based on US Energy Information Administration data, assuming current constant coal, gas and CO2 pollution growth rates, constant population and INCLUDING Australia’s fossil fuel EXPORTS) is the following pattern of “total annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 emission in tonnes per person per year†(i.e. “Total Annual Per Capita Pollution†or TAPCP) of 43 (2007), 56 (2020) and 65 (2050).

If Australia agrees to “25% reduction on 1990 domestic levels by 2020†this will mean a TAPCP of 44 (2020); a 40% reduction would mean 42. These values are still about 10 times greater than the “Annual Per Capita Pollution†(APCP) value (2004) for the World (4.2) and China (3.6), about 40 times greater than for India (1) and 160 times greater than for Bangladesh (0.25).

Australia’s TAPCP is already 10 times that of China’s 2004 value and Rudd Labor’s “do nothing, set up a committee†approach means a startling continuation in 2008 of Labor’s 2007 5-fold greater version of the racist Labor Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell’s notorious 1947 declaration: “Two Wongs do not make a White†(see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/17999/42/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Calwell ) – indeed on the above figures, assuming that China keeps its 2050 APCP to something like 2004 figure, Rudd Labor, for all its ostensible Philosinensis (indeed Arthur Calwell had Chinese friends and spoke Mandarin) is heading for a 2050 TAPCP (65.2) 18 times that of China’s 2004 APCP value (3.6).

2. Professor Garnaut’s “all men are created equal†position (December 2007)

Professor Garnaut (ABC, Lateline, 10 December 2007) stated: (from my notes): “Australia will be pulling its full weightâ€. “Pulling its full weight†means (if one accepts “all men are created equal†) that Australia achieves APCP parity (including our fossil fuel exports) with the rest of the world – something that Rudd Labor absolutely refuses to do (see #1). One hopes that the finalized Garnaut Report in late 2008 is able to convince Rudd Labor to eschew the Climate Racism of APCP non-parity.

3. Australian Greens policy consonant with non-Bush-ite “Rest of the World†consensus

The Australian Greens policy is to rapidly phase out fossil fuel extraction and to have an “80% reduction of greenhouse gas pollution by 2050â€. This yields an APCP of 2.4 in 2050 and consonant both with the IPCC and Stern 2007 demands for “80% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050â€, “Pulling its full weight†(Professor Garnaut, 2007) and “all men are created equal†(Thomas Jefferson, American Declaration of Independence, 1776).

4. US Energy Information Administration data and the climate criminal Bush-ite Coalition legacy

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA; see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm ) provides very detailed information about energy usage by all countries of the world for the last 10 years. Back in 1997 the decent world was so concerned about mounting evidence for anthropogenic, greenhouse gas-driven, climate change that it signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. Not only did climate criminal Australia (together with climate criminal US) not sign the Kyoto Protocol, but Australia’s “annual coal exportsâ€, “annual natural gas extractionâ€, “annual domestic fossil fuel-derived CO2 production†and “annual total fossil fuel-derived CO2 production†plotted versus time yield beautiful straight lines UPWARDS.

Indeed this beautiful linearity gives greater confidence for extrapolation at either end of these graphs. For the convenience of the reader with some graph paper the estimates of “DOMESTIC annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 production†(millions of tonnes) versus time (with per capita estimates of tonnes per person per year in parenthesis, assuming post-2007 population stasis at 21 million) are: 256 (12.2, 1990), 348 (18.2, 2000), 424 (20.2, 2007), 554 (26.3, 2020) and 853 (40.6, 2050); using the same assumptions the “TOTAL annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 production, TAPCP†(with per capita estimates of tonnes per person per year and year in parentheses) is 435 (25.7, 1990), 698 (36.5, 2000), 910 (43.3, 2007), 1,277 (60.8, 2020) and 2,122 (101.0, 2050).

In relation to the above estimates, the Bush-ite Coalition policy of BAU (business as usual) and no constraint on fossil fuel exports would, on the above assumptions, lead to a “total annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution, TAPCP†of 101 tonnes per person per year in 2050, 27 times China’s 2004 APCP value and 2.5 times Australia’s present TAPCP value.

5. Major international comparisons – Australia is the world’s worst developed country per capita greenhouse polluter

Despite the rhetoric, rational approaches to save the Planet are being resolutely opposed by racist, greedy Bush America (the world’s worst greenhouse gas polluter and stand-out Kyoto non-signatory) and previously Bush-ite and presently neo-Bush-ite Australia (the world’s developed country with the worst annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution and the world’s biggest coal exporter).

Thus 2004 data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA; see: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm ) reveal that “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution, APCP†in tonnes CO2/person is 19.2 (for Australia; 40 if you include Australia’s coal exports), 19.7 (the US), 18.4 (Canada), 9.9 (Japan), 4.2 (the World), 3.6 (China), 1.0 ( India) and 0.25 (for Bangladesh). Neither Bush America nor Bush-ite Australia will sign Kyoto nor cut greenhouse gas pollution – the countries facing devastation from global warming are the mega-delta, below-World-average polluting countries of China, India and Bangladesh.

Australia is the world’s big country with the highest annual per capita greenhouse polluter and is currently playing “dog in the manger†(together with the US, Canada and Japan) in opposing short-term greenhouse gas pollution reduction targets at the December 2007 Bali Conference.

6. Germanwatch index places Australia #54 in the list of the worst CO2 polluters (#56 being worst)

Of course “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution†is but one – albeit a very important – indicator of climate criminality. The Germanwatch Climate Change Index 2008, a comparison of the 56 top CO2 emitting nations (see: http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm ), takes other parameters into account in ranking. In this ranking of 56 top CO2 emitting nations, Sweden and Germany are #1 and #2 for greenhouse responsibility, while shale-oil-rich Canada (a US satrap), coal-rich Australia (a US satrap), the USA and oil-rich Saudi Arabia (a puppet of anti-Arab anti-Semitic, Islamophobic Bush US ) rank #53, #54, #55 and #56, respectively (see: http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm ) .

7. Annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution for the world and Australia with and without land use change (2000)

The US Energy Information Administration gives a year-by-year summary of fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution for every country in the world (see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/carbon.html ). However greenhouse gas pollution (methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and carbon dioxide, CO2) comes not just from burning hydrocarbons and coal but also from land use – specifically, agriculture, vegetative decomposition and animal husbandry. A 2000 list of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita provides data with and without this land use component (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita ). Land use contributes about 20% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Out of 185 countries Australia ranked 9th worst (with land use change) and 5th (without land use change). The tonnes of “CO2 equivalent†per person per year were 25.9 (with) and 25.6 (without land use change) for Australia, indicating the preponderant importance of fossil fuel burning to Australia’s “scoreâ€.

8. Annual per capita GDP is directly proportional to annual per capita CO2 emission

If you plot “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2†(2004) versus “annual per capita GDP†(2003) the data from most countries fall on a straight line (not quite going through zero on the “annual per capita GDP†axis) and with a slope of about 0.3 kilograms/US dollar of GDP or 300 grams per US dollar (300 g/US$). However many countries fall ABOVE this line, most notably the oil-rich Gulf States (2.5 kg/US$), world’s #1 coal exporter Australia (1.9 kg/US$), Kyoto-violator Canada (0.8 kg/US$) and Kyoto non-signatory US (0.5 kg/US$).

This analysis shows that GDP is currently directly proportional to CO2 emission and the consequence is that to cut emissions it is necessary to (a) cut GDP and/or ( cut CO2-polluting energy generation for GDP generation i.e. urgently promote renewables or suffer a declining GDP.

9. IPCC summary

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has delivered 4 Assessment reports since 1990, the latest being the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. The prognosis of the latest IPCC Report is very bleak but the situation is actually even worse than they state because of (a) the cut off in scientific papers considered and ( obfuscatory inputs by climate criminal countries such as the US. For a Summary of the Summary of the 2007 IPCC Synthesis Report of the Fourth Assessment Report see: http://green-blog.org/2007/11/21/summary-of-the-summary-of-the-2007-ipcc-ar4-synthesis-report/ .

The IPCC (2000) has defined various possible scenarios which are summarised in New Scientist, with the worst case scenario being the fast economic growth and globalization, fossil fuel-intensive A1F1 scenario in which global population peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and involving the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies (see: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11090). Of various scenarios discussed in the latest IPCC Synthesis Report (see: http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) “Category IV†seems the most favoured in public discussion (e.g. in report by Sir Nicholas Stern) and involves stabilization at 485-570 ppm CO2 , 3.2-4.0 degrees centigrade temperature rise above pre-industrial temperature (2-3 degrees above today’s) and 0.6-2.4 metres sea level above the pre-industrial sea level or 0.4 – 2.2 metres above today’s). However Professor Lovelock (“The Revenge of Gaiaâ€) thinks that 500ppm CO2 would cause disastrous phytoplankton and Greenland ice losses with irreversible loss of major global temperature controls.

Recent data from 2 independent sources (see: “Recent CO2 rises exceed worst case scenariosâ€, New Scientist) reveal that ACTUAL rates of CO2 emission are the same or worse than in the worst case scenario A1F1 that, according to the 2007 IPCC Summary, will lead to catastrophic, long-term stabilization at (upper estimates) 790 ppm CO2, and a 6 degree centigrade higher temperature and 3.7 meter sea level rise relative to pre-industrial levels i.e. CO2 catastrophically at twice today’s level of 379 ppm , temperatures 4-5 degree centigrade above today’s and sea level 0.8-3.5 metres above today’s.

Thanks to climate criminal, climate genocidal countries, notably Bush America (the world’s #1 GHG polluter) and Bush-ite Australia (the world’s #1 coal exporter) – noting that neither of these will constrain GHG (greenhouse gas) pollution - the world is on track to deliver this predicted catastrophe or even WORSE to our children and grandchildren.

10. The Rudd Labor “Garnaut Report excuseâ€, “waiting for Garnaut†gambit contradicts the expert, IPCC-endorsed Stern injunction to “Act Nowâ€

Both the IPCC Fourth Assessment report and the Stern Report say “act NOWâ€. However, stripped of mellifluous rhetoric (e.g. “there is no plan Bâ€) the Rudd Labor position involves a roughly 1 year delay (ONE YEAR DELAY) on any concrete action to constrain greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. After nearly 12 years of sustained upward growth of CO2 pollution under the climate criminal Bush-ite Coalition this is simply not good enough. If indeed “there is no plan B†why won’t Rudd Australia sign up to the “Plan A†endorsed by every country in the world except for the US and its satraps Australia, Canada and Japan i.e. “25-40% reduction by 2020â€?

According to Stern as quoted by the Guardian (2007): “The average emissions a head must fall from seven tonnes to two to three tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2050, he says. US emissions a head are more than 20 tonnes each year, with European citizens producing 10-15 tonnes each. In China it is about five tonnes, in India about one, and in Africa less than one tonne each†(see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/30/climatechange.carbonemissions ).

Australia is currently producing 43 tonnes each per annum (including fossil fuel exports) and according to the public committed Rudd Labor scenario projects 65 tonnes each per annum by 2050 i.e a 50% INCREASE.

11. Rudd Australia greenhouse pollution scenarios

As indicated above (#1) the “solidâ€, “committed†Rudd Labor Policy indicates “total annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution (million tonnes per year )†of 910 (2007), 1,277 (2020) and 2,122 (2050).

However it is salutary to consider the scenario if Rudd Labor accepted â€25% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050 - “total annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution (million tonnes per year )†would be 910 (2007), 915 (2020) and 1,371 (2050).

If Rudd Labor acceptedâ€40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050 - “total annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution (million tonnes per year )†would be 910 (2007), 877 (2020) and 1,371 (2050).

Even under Rudd Labor’s “20% renewable by 2020†and “â€60% on 2000 levels by 2050â€, the “domestic annual fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution (million tonnes per year )†would be 345 (2000), 424 (2007), 443 (2020) and 138 (2050).

12. Rudd Australia greenhouse pollution scenarios - per capita projections

As indicated above (#1) the “solid†Rudd Labor Policy indicates “total annual per capita pollution (TAPCP, tonnes per person per year)†of 43 (2007), 56 (2020) and 65 (2050);

If Rudd Labor accepted â€25% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050†, “total annual per capita pollution (TAPCP, tonnes per person per year)†would be 43 (2007), 44 (2020) and 65 (2050).

If Rudd Labor accepted “40% on 1990 levels by 2020†the “total annual per capita pollution (TAPCP, tonnes per person per year)†would be 43 (2007), 42 (2020) and 65 (2050).

Even under Rudd Labor’s CURRENTLY PROPOSED “20% renewable by 2020†and “â€60% reduction on 2000 levels by 2050†the “DOMESTIC annual per capita pollution (DAPCP, tonnes per person per year)†would be 18 (2000), 21 (2007) and 6.6 (2050) (still nearly twice that of China in 2004).

13. Who pays? Australia benefits from CO2 pollution, the World suffers

I repeat that one of the world's leading bioethicists Professor Peter Singer (Princeton University and University of Melbourne) is unequivocal in his expert judgment that “We are responsible not only for what we do but also for what we could have prevented… We should consider the consequences both of what we do and what we decide not to do.â€

(Singer, P. (2000), “Writings on an Ethical Lifeâ€, Ecco Press, New York; ppxv-xvi).

Unfortunately there is a major bipartisan agreement in Australia to ignore the global cost of Australia’s world #1 coal exports. The Australian Green proposal in the recent federal election campaign to rapidly phase out this highly irresponsible and planet-threatening industry was howled down by both the Bush-ite Coaltion and the neo-Bush-ite Labor Party.

At the next elections the Bush-ite Coalition will still have the support of about half the voters yet the former Coalition PM described as “crazy†the Rudd Labor proposal to cut emissions in 2050 to 60% of the 2000 value (a proposal that, as shown in #11 and #12 above, falls so far short of what is needed that Rudd Labor might just as well have not bothered except for the purpose of garnering the votes of the gullible).

According to the 2007 IPCC Synthesis report, unaddressed CO2 pollution and global warming will have a devastating effect on global malnutrition and poverty (see: http://green-blog.org/2007/11/21/summary-of-the-summary-of-the-2007-ipcc-ar4-synthesis-report/ ). According the Professor David Pimentel (2004), global malnutrition and poverty will be an “unimaginable†problem by 2054 (see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb04/AAAS.pimentel.hrs.html ), already pollution of the soil, water and air kills about 40% of the world’s population and 57% of the world’s population of 6.5 billion is already malnourished (see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug07/moreDiseases.sl.html ).

Already 16 million people due avoidably each year (9.6 million being under-5 year old infants) on a Spaceship Earth dominated by a profligate and unresponsive First World (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950â€, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ) – and Australia is on a per capita basis is one of the world’s worst offenders. As indicated above, according to Professor James Lovelock FRS unaddressed global warming will kill 6 billion people this century – Climate Genocide (“intent to destroy in whole or in part†according to Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention: http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/convention.html )

14. Who pays? The true environmental and human cost of coal-based electricity can be over 4 times the present market cost

According to a Ministry of Energy Report from Ontario, Canada, coal plants kill 668 people per year in Ontario (population 12.7 million), and cause 1,100 emergency room visits, and more than 300,000 minor illnesses per year. These and previous findings by the Ontario Medical Association were behind bi-partisan will to close Ontario’s coal-fired electricity plants. This Report estimated that a “market†cost of about 4 cents/kWh increases to a “true cost†of about 16 cents/kWh (see: http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8836 ): “The study estimated that the total net present value of coal-fired generation is costing Ontario $0.164 CAD/kWh. Environmental and health costs accounted for 77% to total generation costsâ€.

15. “True cost†of fossil fuels versus bearable cost, corporate/government-determined cost and A$10 billion pa subsidies for Australian fossil fuel burning

While the “true cost†of coal-based electricity can be over 4 times the “market†cost, this will be ignored in corporate, government and diplomatic “horse-trading†to set carbon price – just as society in practice ignores the “annual death rate†due to cigarette smoking (about 1,000 per million) or due to cars (about 100 per million) in assessing the “true cost†of tobacco or cars. Extrapolating from Ontario, the annual death rate from coal-fired power generation is about 50 per million.

If the true environmental and human cost of fossil fuel-derived power were taken into account then (a) economics would dictate “keep fossil fuels in the ground†(as advocated by the Australian Greens and by George Monbiot: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2225387,00.html ), ( subsidies would be immediately removed and © compensation ordered by the courts for the victims of this technological perversion (as has happened already in relation to victims of industrial use of asbestos).

16. Renewables are the way – keep fossil fuels in the ground

Here are some estimates of the cost in Australian cents per kilowatt-hour (Ac/kWh) of various sources of electricity (for a detailed discussion see “Renewables: how the numbers stack up†in New Matilda: http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=2398&CategoryID=213 ):

3-4 — coal, Australia;
18 — the real cost of coal, taking into account the environmental and health impact; according to a conservative Canadian Ontario Ministry of Energy Report (CAN$0.164);
15 — nuclear via the UK’s newest Sizewell B plant;
7.5-8.5 — wind power, Australia;
15 — concentrated solar power or CSP;
25-45 — standard silicon-based photovoltaics (PVs).

However recent advances means we must add the following to the list:

4 – the price of solar PV is set to fall dramatically to compete directly with the current “market price†of coal due to balloon, sliver and non-silicon PV technology advances. The non-silicon organic thin film technology developed by US Nobel Laureate Alan Heeger and his South Korean colleagues will reduce the cost of installing photovoltaic (PV) capacity by a factor of 20; the Swiss ETH CIGS non-silicon thin film system may be competitive with coal within 5 years (a related US Nanosolar technology is in mass production: http://www.investorideas.com/Articles/050707a_page1.asp ); Australian sliver silicon PV technology will drop silicon solar panel costs threefold. In particular, the Californian balloon solar capture technology is predicted to make PV solar competitive with “market price†coal by 2010 (see “Solar energy & the end of war. US balloon technology to slash solar energy cost 90% by 2010â€: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/ ).

4 – Australian geothermal. According to Professor John Veevers (“The Innamincka hot fractured rock project†in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statisticsâ€, editor Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007; also see energy cost-related related chapters by Dr Gideon Polya “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortalityâ€, Dr Mark Diesendorf “A sustainable energy future for Australiaâ€, and Martin Mahy “Hydrogen Minibusesâ€): “Modelled costs are 4 cents per kilowatt hour, plus half to 1 cent for transmission to grid. This compares with 3.5 cents for black coal, 4 cents for brown coal, 4.2 cents for gas, but all with uncosted emissions. Clean coal, the futuristic technology of coal gasification combined with CO2 sequestration or burial, yet to be demonstrated, comes in at 6.5 cents, and solar and wind power at 8 cents.â€

Further, wave, tidal, biomass and biofuel energy technologies are renewable technologies competitive with the “true cost†of fossil fuels. Australia’s huge reserves of economic geothermal power are expertly assessed to have the capacity to provide most of Australia’s energy needs for the best part of a millennium and Australia is blessed with huge solar, tidal, wave and wind resources.

17. Nuclear is not an option

The Bush-ite Coalition had an unerring knack of being resolutely incorrect or in denial about so many crucial matters – anthropogenic climate change, the reasons for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorist threat to Australia, and the cost of meeting the climate change crisis. They are also incorrect in relation to the nuclear option. As summarized in #16 above the nuclear option is more expensive than current renewable wind and geothermal technologies and as expensive as current concentrated solar technology. Further, the FULL nuclear cycle (from uranium mining and processing to waste disposal and plant de-commissioning) can be as expensive in terms of CO2 emissions as a gas-fired power station – and we still have the intractable security and waste disposal problems.

18. Mandated efficient energy PROVISION as well as USAGE

Australia has mandated replacement of incandescent globes with high efficiency electric lights over the next year or so. If Australia can legislatively mandate efficient energy USAGE it should also mandate the highest efficiency, lowest REAL cost energy PROVISION - currently geothermal, followed by wind with both of these set to be shortly supplanted by exciting low-cost solar technologies.

Failure of Australia to mandate minimum price energy provision simply reflects entrenched dishonesty and corruption in our society. This is briefly discussed further below in relation to the Australian and global impact of fossil fuel burning.

19. Oil, strategic hegemony and 5-8 million post-invasion excess deaths in the Bush Wars in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories

The strategic importance of the Middle East in terms of oil and global hegemony is the core reason for the Bush Asian Wars that have so far been associated with 5-8 million post-invasion excess deaths in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories. This explanation has been argued cogently by outstanding anti-war humanitarian Professor Noam Chomsky (from 63-Nobel- Laureate Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT) in an article entitled “Imminent Crises: Threats and Opportunities †in which he says of the Middle East : “the huge energy resources of the region were recognized by Washington sixty years ago as a “stupendous source of strategic power,†the “strategically most important area of the world,†and “one of the greatest material prizes in world history.â€[reference] 1 Control over this stupendous prize has been a primary goal of U.S. policy ever since, and threats to it have naturally aroused enormous concern.â€

Total post-invasion excess deaths in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories now stand at about 5-8 million. There has been a horrendous human cost of the ongoing Palestinian Genocide, Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide (post-invasion excess deaths 0.3 million, 1.5-2 million and 3-6 million, respectively; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.2 million, 0.6 million and 2.2 million, respectively; and refugees total 7 million, 4.5 million and 4 million, respectively) (updated figures from MWC News).

However there is a further huge cost in the US$2.5 trillion accrual cost of the Bush wars (according to 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz) that has recently been updated to $3.5 trillion by a Congressional Report (see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/13099/26/ ) ; the $2.6 trillion post-1956 accrual cost of US aid for Zionist colonization of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria (see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/533/26/ ); the huge human cost of the US-expanded opiate trade – 0.6 million post-2001 global opiate drug-related deaths (about 2,000 in Australia) due to US Alliance restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry from about 5% of world market share in 2001 to 93% in 2007; and huge diversion of financial support from alleviation of global warming-exacerbated poverty (the “War on Terror†has cost Australia alone about $20 billion in corporate and government domestic security measures and billions more in overseas military deployments).

20. Huge environmental cost and environmental economic cost of fossil fuel burning and deforestation for Australia and the World

It has been estimated by Balmford et al in the prestigious scientific journal Science (see “Economic reasons for preserving wild natureâ€: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/5583/950 ) that for a variety of “biomes†(ecological systems) the total economic value (TEV) is about 50% greater when the resource is used sustainably as opposed to destructive conversion. Further, these scientists have found that the economic benefit from preserving what is left of wild nature is OVER 100 TIMES greater than the cost of preservation.

However these estimates are IGNORED by Lib-Lab Australian Governments in the interests of “current jobs†and corporations as we see in the ongoing deforestation of Victoria and Tasmania. The true economic value of State-owned assets are not being considered – these citizen-owned public resources are effectively being given away to private corporations.

These ugly realities of dishonesty and environmental vandalism reach a pinnacle in relation to greenhouse gas pollution. The polluters are not being charged the full cost of what they are destroying. Indeed quite the reverse is happening – fossil fuel burning is actually SUBSIDIZED to the tune of about $10 billion annually in Australia (see: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22873649-12377,00.html ).

A further concrete Australian example is the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from global warming as spelled out in the latest 2007 IPCC Synthesis Report (see: http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) – this is of course a major tourist asset in an economic sense.

21. Biofuels represent a perversion with 57% malnourished, grain production peaking and grain price rising due to Biofuels and Meat

As outlined in #13, According to the 2007 IPCC Synthesis report, unaddressed CO2 pollution and global warming will have a devastating effect on global malnutrition and poverty (see: http://www.ipcc.ch/). According the Professor David Pimentel (2004) of Cornell University, New York, global malnutrition and poverty will be an “unimaginable†problem by 2054 (see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb04/AAAS.pimentel.hrs.html ), already pollution of the soil, water and air kills about 40% of the world’s population and 57% of the world’s population of 6.5 billion is already malnourished (see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug07/moreDiseases.sl.html ).

Already 16 million people due avoidably each year (9.6 million being under-5 year old infants) on a Spaceship Earth dominated by a profligate and unresponsive First World (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950â€, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) – and Australia on a per capita basis is one of the world’s worst offenders.

Biofuels are formally CO2 neutral and renewable – however in the context of horrendous global poverty, a major decline in grain production, huge increases in grain price and increasing diversion of grain for biofuel generation (see: http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2006/05-06/graintoc.htm ) this is a perversion and a crime against humanity, the more so when alternative cheap, efficient renewable energy options are technically already available (see #16).

22. Oil is the feedstock for sophisticated organic chemical industry – it should NOT be burned

Forty years ago my organic chemistry lecturer told us that we are actually BURNING the feedstock for sophisticated chemical industry, the material used to make pharmaceuticals and plastics that dominate modern life. Today this wanton destruction of an immensely valuable resource is continuing. The “real cost†and the “real value†are ignored because of the political might of fossil fuel burning corporations.

I am acutely aware of this travesty as the author of a huge pharmacological reference text (Gideon Polya, “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds. A pharmacological reference guide to sites of action and biological effects†CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003:

http://www.amazon.com/Biochemical-Targets-Plant-Bioactive-Compounds/dp/0415308291 ).

23. Deforestation can be halved by investing US$15 billion per annum

Further to the points made in relation to environmental impacts of global warming, deforestation contributes about 15-20% to increased net global greenhouse gas production annually. Yet according to Sir Nicholas Stern: "For $10-15bn (£4.8-7.2bn) per year, a programme could be constructed that could stop up to half the deforestation†(see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/30/climatechange.carbonemissions ).

In addition to playing a vital role in global temperature homeostasis, forest ecosystems are sources for invaluable pharmaceutical resources (see my recent huge reference book: Gideon Polya, “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds. A pharmacological reference guide to sites of action and biological effectsâ€, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003: http://www.amazon.com/Biochemical-Targets-Plant-Bioactive-Compounds/dp/0415308291 ).

24. Climate criminal countries such as Australia face Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands

The science and technology has been well reviewed internationally (see the 2007 IPCC Reports: http://www.ipcc.ch/ and a recent review of renewable scenarios: http://www.martinot.info/Martinot_et_al_AR32_prepub.pdf ) as indeed has the economic of climate change via the Stern Report (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review ).

The Rudd Government intransigence in not supporting the draft Bali proposal of “25-40% reduction by 2020†is ostensibly because of the economic review by Professor Garnaut due in first draft in mid-2008 and presumably finalized by late 2008.

Yet one boundary condition of Professor Garnaut’s report is already clear – in his own words (December 2007) “Australia will be pulling its full weight†which means (if one accepts “all men are created equal†) that Australia achieves “annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution†parity with the rest of the world. However the other boundary condition (perceived “affordability†in the light of Australia-specific economic analysis) is completely uncertain for the simple reason that the World may decide to take action against climate criminal countries such as Australia and the US through imposition of Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands.

Indeed a SOLUTION to greedy, climate criminal US, Canada, Japan and Australian intransigence at Bali would be international Sanctions and Boycotts or, more precisely, "Green Tariffs" and Reparations Demands that recognize the REAL environmental and human cost of goods produced by these irresponsible and intrinsically RACIST climate criminal countries.

It is notable that these 4 countries have ANOTHER intrinsically racist and genocidal activity in common - various participation in the genocidal Bush Asian Wars - post-invasion excess deaths in the Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide now total 1.5-2 million and 3-6 million, respectively; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.6 million and 2.2 million, respectively; and refugees total 4.5 million and about 4 million, respectively) (see: "Solar energy & the end of war": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/ ).

What Australia and the US are doing is far more serious and intrinsically racist than the crimes of Apartheid South Africa, a system that was eventually disposed of through international Sanctions and Boycotts. Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands may well be applied to Australia, the US and like climate criminal countries that are threatening the Planet with climate genocide. Indeed a model for this comes from outstanding American academic, writer, editor and economist, Father of Reaganomics Dr Paul Craig Roberts who explicitly demands that the world should stop the “Iraqi genocide†by “dumping the dollar†(see: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02122007.html ). The World is evidently doing just that – and may well act similarly towards an intransigent Australia, on a per capita basis the world’s worst developed country greenhouse gas polluter.

Summary

On a per capita basis and including our fossil fuel exports, Australia is the developed country with the highest greenhouse gas pollution. Thus 2004 data from the US Energy Information Administration reveal that “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution†in tonnes CO2/person is 19.2 (for Australia; 40 if you include Australia’s coal exports), 19.7 (the US), 18.4 (Canada), 9.9 (Japan), 4.2 (the World), 3.6 (China), 1.0 ( India) and 0.25 (for Bangladesh).

The Rudd Labor commitment to “20% renewables by 2020â€, “â€60% reduction on 2000 greenhouse gas pollution by 2050†and no constraint on fossil fuel extraction for export ACTUALLY means (based on US Energy Information Administration data, assuming current constant coal, gas and CO2 pollution growth rates, constant population and including Australia’s fossil fuel EXPORTS) “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 emission in tonnes per person per year†of 43 (2007), 56 (2020) and 65 (2050).

If Australia continues to refuse to act on both domestic and exported greenhouse gas pollution it will very likely face international action through Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands. The Rudd “Garnaut Report†excuse for inaction at Bali is contradicted by Professor Garnaut’s recent very clear and highly ethical declaration that ““Australia will be pulling its full weight†which, given the equality of all Men, surely means massive reduction of CO2 pollution to per capita parity with countries such as India and China.

Simple notional calculations tell us that Australia could completely replace its current 50 Gigawatt electricity generating capacity with wind power within 10 years by simply investing its current $10 billion annual fossil fuel subsidies into wind farms (noting of course, that other renewable options are now ALREADY much cheaper than the “true cost†of fossil-fuel-based electricity).

In short, the world is facing a Climate Emergency and a Sustainability Emergency that requires urgent action NOW to REDUCE atmospheric CO2 from a current 383 ppm to a level of 300-350 ppm required for biosphere sustainability. The science, technology and economics all instruct (subject to transition and related qualifications) that we should keep the fossil fuels in the ground – indeed we need to have a NEGATIVE atmospheric CO2 growth.

This has been written in the public interest.

This was part two of two. You can find part one here.

Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). He has just published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950†(G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contribution “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality†in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics†(edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm ).

Truth, Reason and Words having failed in the Western Murdochracies, as an artist as well as a scientist he has painted several huge paintings relating to the Climate Emergency, namely “Terraâ€: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/15671/42/ and “Apocalypse Nowâ€: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/17652/42/ .
Dr Gideon Polya
Dr Gideon Polya
“Climate Emergency and Sustainability Emergency†- Submission from Dr Gideon Polya to the Garnaut Climate Change Review Garnaut Climate Change Review, Level 2, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne, VIC 3002

This submission by a senior scientist is in response to a general invitation for submissions made on the Garnaut Climate Change Review Website.

This is part one of two parts. You can find part two here.




Background

The Garnaut Climate Change Review is an independent study by Professor Ross Garnaut, commissioned by Australia's State and Territory Governments on 30 April 2007. A new Australian Government under Labor Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was sworn in on Monday 3 December, 2007 and the newly-elected PM Rudd has confirmed the participation of the Commonwealth Government in the Review.

The Review will examine the impacts of climate change on the Australian economy, and recommend medium to long-term policies and policy frameworks to improve the prospects for sustainable prosperity. The Review's final report is due on 30 September 2008, with a draft by 30 June 2008. A number of forums will also be held around Australia to engage the public on various issues relating to the Review.

This submission to the Garnaut Change Review is by a senior scientist committed to Rational Risk Management that successively involves (a) accurate data, ( scientific analysis and © systemic change to minimize risk (for a detailed, expert exposition see Professor James Reason, “Human error: models and managementâ€, British Medical Journal, vol. 320, 768-770, 2000: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7237/768 ).

Indeed as a responsible pubIic service I have committed a lot of time and effort to informing governments, media and fellow citizens about important matters, of which the most critically important are Australia’s involvement in the ongoing Aboriginal Genocide (90,000 excess Indigenous deaths under 11 years of Coalition rule) , the Iraqi Genocide (1.5-2 million post-invasion excess deaths, 4.5 million refugees), the Afghan Genocide (3-6 million post-invasion excess deaths, 4 million refugees) and prospective Climate Genocide through Global Warming that threatens 6 billion avoidable deaths this century (see: The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock; for detailed and documented analyses see Rudd Australia Report Cards #1, #2 and #3:; Iraqi Genocide; Climate Genocide; Afghan Genocide).

16 million people die avoidably in the world each year (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950†(G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com) but global warming is already impacting human excess mortality and eminent atmosphere scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS estimates that 6 billion will die this century due to unaddressed global warming (see: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock ).

The world is facing a potential catastrophe due successively to industrial profligacy, greenhouse gas pollution, global warming and declining per capita sustainable resources. This potential problem of environmental pollution and impacts on biological sustainability has been familiar to scientists since the 19th century research of John Tyndall; was addressed by the Club of Rome in circa 1970; and which was further addressed by successive Assessment Reports of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change since 1990 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change ).

As a chemistry-based scientist for 4 decades, I was aware of the finiteness of the atmosphere, the oceans, arable land and fossil fuel reserves from the start of my career. I was made aware of the mounting atmospheric problems back in 1972 as a Queen Elizabeth II Fellow in the department of one of Australia’s top hydrologists and biophysicists who later went on to be Chief Scientist of Australia.

In 1998 I published a book entitled “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability†(see: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ). In short, I argued that history ignored yields history repeated, holocaust ignored yields holocaust repeated and that the ignoring of successive Bengali Holocausts under the British - the 1769-1770 Bengal Famine (10 million deaths) and the 1943-1944 Bengal Famine (4 million deaths) - will permit a horrendous disaster in the 21st century due to industrial profligacy, man-made global warming and destructive inundation of mega-deltaic Bengal. My predictions of holocaust ignoring and irresponsible industrial profligacy are already being realized – recently formerly densely populated Bengali islands permanently disappeared under the waves, and the last major Bay of Bengal hurricane was the worst for several decades.

Indeed at the height of the “forgotten†4 million excess death WW2 Bengal Famine (experienced and studied by 1998 Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen of Cambridge and thence Harvard universities) millions of tons of wheat were used to run the railways in Argentina due to the WW2 shortage a coal (see: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) – an obscenity now mirrored in the current huge diversion of US grain production to biofuel production with (together with other factors) a consequent steep increase in food prices, the lowest number of food supply days for decades and looming famine for the 2 billion people ALREADY suffering food deprivation.

Climate change is already contributing to the 16 million avoidable deaths (including 9.6 million of under-5 year old infants) that occur each year on Spaceship Earth with the profligate First World in charge of the flight deck (2003 figures; see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950â€, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ). Worse is yet to come due to DECLINE in agricultural sustainability, potable water, fisheries, tropical and sub-tropical agricultural productivity, drought, developing world nutrition and even safe living space for mega-delta communities subject to sea level rise, storm surges and salinization.

A must-read document for policy makers is the 2007 “Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)†(for a Summary of the Summary see: http://green-blog.org/ and http://green-blog.org/2007/11/21/summary-of-the-summary-of-the-2007-ipcc-ar4-synthesis-report/ .

Sir Nicholas Stern his authoritative Stern report on the economics of climate change states that it will be cheaper to act now rather than later. For example, in a recent lecture Sir Nicholas Stern states: "For $10-15bn (£4.8-7.2bn) per year, a programme could be constructed that could stop up to half the deforestation†(which contributes 10-15% of greenhouse pollution) and after describing climate change as the “world’s worst market failureâ€, he says that there must be an 80% reduction in rich nations' greenhouse gas pollution by 2050 if the world is to avoid "destructive" consequences of global warming (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/30/climatechange.carbonemissions ).

Indeed the draft recommendation at the December 2007 Bali Conference was for a developed country 25-40% reduction on 1990 levels of greenhouse gas pollution by 2020 – a position opposed by climate criminal countries the US, Canada, Japan and Rudd Australia (see:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22910382-5013871,00.html ).

Unfortunately Rudd Labor, while having secured an urgently needed victory in the elections over the greenhouse sceptic and greenhouse unresponsive Bush-ite Coalition, is simply not green enough (see: link ). While Rudd Labor has ratified Kyoto, it is using the otherwise sensible need for “evidence before policy change†as an EXCUSE not to commit to short-term greenhouse reduction targets until the final form of the Garnaut Report in late 2008. With due respect to the eminent and respected Professor Garnaut and his Report-in-Progress we ALREADY have the Stern Report (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review ) from a former Chief Economist of the World Bank (endorsed and indeed criticized as too conservative by former World Bank Chief Economist and 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University) and the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (see: http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) endorsed by leading climate change scientists from essentially all countries.

Indeed the likely target of Stern (500-550 ppm atmospheric CO2 ) is a catastrophe for the planet – according to Professor James Lovelock FRS at 500 ppm atmospheric CO2 the Greenland Ice Sheet goes and so does the ocean phytoplankton system that is crucial for cloud formation (through dimethyl sulphide production), planetary temperature homeostasis (through CO2 sequestration) and oceanic food chains (J. Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaiaâ€, Penguin, London, 2006).

PM Rudd has stated that before making a decision on short term targets his Government needs to have the “factsâ€. Well, the World has had the “facts†for a dozen years and what follows is a scientist’s assessment of the “facts†drawn from authoritative American and European technical sources. Unfortunately in the Australian Murdochracy, the politically correct racist (PC racist) Land of Lies and Flies, Australia’s world #1 coal exports that contribute over 50% of Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas pollution are not even a matter for public discussion (except for the ethical and responsible Australian Greens) (for how a mature society regards the matter see George Monbiot’s “The real answer to climate change is to leave fossil fuels in the groundâ€: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2225387,00.html ).

Indeed any specifically “economic impact†research in 2007-2008 by the eminent Professor Ross Garnaut Climate Change Review will be instantly trashed if the Rest of the World (i.e. other than the US-Australia-Canada-Japan quartet opposing 25-40% reduction in CO2 pollution by 2020) decides officially or unofficially to impose Sanctions, Boycotts or Green Tariffs on the goods and services of climate criminal countries.

Further, what we are facing is a Climate Emergency and a Sustainability Emergency as revealed by the eminent American atmosphere scientist Dr James Hansen who has recently stated that 300-350 ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is the safe, sustainable level for the biosphere and human survival – whereas it is actually 383 ppm now and increasing by 2.5 ppm every year. Dr Hansen is effectively calling not for ZERO EMISSIONS but NEGATIVE CO2 EMISSIONS (see the Friends of the Earth’s â€Climate Code Red – the case for a sustainability emergencyâ€: http://www.climatecodered.net/ and http://climatecodered.blogspot.com/ ).

Australia and the World are already experiencing mass flora and fauna extinctions. Qualitatively, this huge destruction of what we can never replace is utterly unacceptable. This economic barbarism is dramatically illustrated by the Great Barrier Reef of Australia.

A recent paper in the prestigious journal Science reveals that at 450 ppm CO2 world coral reefs will start dying from ocean acidification (see: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2115399.htm ). The coal industry (that is helping to destroy world coral reefs) is worth about A$25 billion pa to Australia (A$2 billion to 25,000 workers and at 30% company tax, about A$8 billion to the taxpayer) - as compared to A$7 billion pa from tourism and 63,000 jobs associated with the Great Barrier Reef (Access Economics: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/22661/rp_87-GBRCA-economic-contribution-2005-06-final-report.pdf ).

However what is INESTIMABLY more important than a mere circa 1% of Australia’s annual GDP is the prospective destruction of organisms that have been around for half a billion years, the destruction of complex coral ecosystems that have been around for tens of millions of years and the attendant devastation of the ecosystems crucially required for numerous other marine organisms and crucial, humanity-sustaining fisheries.

A crucial paper in the top scientific journal Science of major importance for the Garnaut Review is the seminal, multi-author paper by Balmford et al entitled “Economic reasons for conserving wild nature†(Science, 9 August 2002, 950: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/297/5583/950.pdf ; http://www.envirosecurity.org/conference/working/ReasonsConservWildNature.pdf ). These authors estimate that for a number of ecosystems (biomes) studied the total economic value (TEV) is about 50% greater if the natural resource is used sustainably as opposed to irreversibly and destructively. They have further found that the economic benefit from preserving what is left of wild nature exceeds the cost of doing so by a factor of over 100 (one hundred).

The outstanding Australian bioethicist Professor Peter Singer (Princeton University and University of Melbourne) has stated that: “We are responsible not only for what we do but also for what we could have prevented… We should consider the consequences both of what we do and what we decide not to do.â€

(Singer, P. (2000), Writings on an Ethical Life (Ecco Press, New York; ppxv-xvi ). Accordingly we must act NOW in the face of what can be reasonably decribed by sober, informed, economically conservative scientists as a Climate Emergency and a Sustainability Emergency.

This was part one of two parts. You can find part two here.

Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). He has just published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950†(G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contribution “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality†in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics†(edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1445960.htm ).

Truth, Reason and Words having failed in the Western Murdochracies, as an artist as well as a scientist he has painted several huge paintings relating to the Climate Emergency, namely “Terraâ€: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/15671/42/ and “Apocalypse Nowâ€: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/17652/42/ .
Dr Gideon Polya
Dr Gideon Polya
Spain recently inaugurated its brand new high-speed railway system called AVE (Alta Velocidad Española). The new high-speed trains will travel from Madrid to Málaga in a speed of up to 350 kilometres per hour. The journey will take around 2,5 hours. Before the new railway system the same journey with train would have taken around 4 hours.

The new high-speed railway system is a greener alternative, and in some cases, a faster alternative than by going the same journey by plane.



In April, the next part of AVE that connects Madrid and Barcelona is scheduled to be completed. When finished, people will be able to travel through all of Spain via high-speed trains.

The Spanish Prime Minister, José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero, have praised AVE saying "it’s an effective and environmental friendly means of transportation". Magdalena Álvarez, the Spanish Economic Minister, have said that "AVE opens many doors to the future" and that AVE "is a project that will create wealth and take us [spain] another step towards the society we want to create".

The Spanish government is planning to connect all the major cities in Spain with the AVE high-speed railway system. Year 2020 the whole system is planned to be finished to a total cost of 80,5 billion euros. Over 10000 kilometres of high-speed railways will then have been built across Spain.

Image credit: Mikelo. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.
Simon
Simon
Here is a short summary of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s State of the State Address, which he made in January 8, 2008. You can read the whole speech over at knbc.com. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his speech, pushes for more dams to be built and repeating his promise to sue the Bush Administration for stopping California to get their "clean-car" standards to take effect.





Likewise, on infrastructure, I will continue to push for action. We have a water system built decades ago for 18 million people.

Today we have 37 million people. In 20 years, we will have 50 million people. We have to get going.

Already homes and businesses are facing mandatory cutbacks. Farms are unable to irrigate crops. Building permits are being denied.

And yet raging flood waters run wasted into the sea because they can’t be captured. We must expand water storage. We must build new water delivery systems. We must fix the Delta and restore its ecosystem.
We will also continue to make California the world’s environmental leader.

We are leading on climate change, low carbon fuels, energy efficiency - and on clean, green technology. When it comes to cleaning our air, preserving our oceans, protecting our environment, California will continue to be the foremost advocate for change.

And if we have to sue the federal government to get out of our way, we will do so.

Bill Magavern, senior Representative of Sierra Club California, gives his perspective and views of the speech over at CaliforniaProgressReport.com.



While we had hoped that Governor Schwarzenegger would use the State of the State to roll out important new programs regarding green chemistry and better fire planning, the speech was largely devoid of details.

Image credit: D_vdm. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.
Simon
Simon
Shell, the major oil company, has decided to adopt algae for its diesel production. The company has already begun the construction of a pilot plant in Hawaii.

Growing algae as biofuel will not be taking valuable land areas that are needed to grow food on. Thanks to algaes impressive photosynthesis it will produce 15 times as much oil for a given area compared to other biofuel crops. Algae can also be fed CO2 directly from smokestacks.

So, has Shell finally seen the green light? Far from it actually.



Shell are just protecting their own interests. Now when the food and oil prices have increased, more and more companies are looking into alternative and cheaper ways, such as algae, to produce diesel.

Shell’s chief executive, Jeroen Van der Veer have, recently, criticized Europe’s climate targets saying the 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 are to “overstretched”. He thinks the targets could have “a demotivating effect” on those struggling to reach environmental goals.

So, even if Shell are to produce diesel fuel from algae it still remains an old fossil company that try to do everything it can to ensure a prosperous market for environment un-friendly and carbon-spewing fuels.

Image credit: Sarah Camp. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works license.
Simon
Simon
As a person and consumer you have the power to do something about climate change. Never forget or think otherwise. Sure you may wonder how much you’ll actually help by replacing your CFLs, recycling etc but in the end all small things path up to something bigger and more meaningful, especially when many join in.

This is part three of a series of posts explaining and giving advice on what you can do to combat climate change from your home, in the store, when you travel and on your spare time. All the things listed are easy to do, some things will take a little longer, but most of them will help save you money (besides all the positive effects on our earth).




Your home is your castle!

Ban incandescent light bulbs
Whole countries are lining up to ban incandescent light bulbs and replace them with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Maybe your country hasn’t embraced this bright idea yet, but your home can. Switch to low energy efficient light bulbs and help save our environment while you are saving money for yourself.

Choose green energy
If you have the option you should search for a green electricity supplier that can deliver clean and renewable energy. Just be sure that the energy doesn’t come from any nuclear reactors.

Compost and recycle
Today you can recycle everything you consume, from food packages to batteries and old TVs to your old furniture’s and much more. When you have gotten into this thing called recycling you should take the next “big step” and compost your food leftovers. When buying new furniture‘s consider to give away your old furniture’s to friends, relatives or to a charity.

Hot in here?
We usually have it unnecessary hot than we actually need in our apartment. Decreasing the temperature in your home with just one degree lowers the energy usage with around 5%. Put on some clothes or have some fun in the bed with someone instead of increasing the temperature. And when you are away longer periods from your home don’t forget to lower the temperature even more. Here in Scandinavia it’s enough to keep 21 degrees in our living rooms, 18 degrees in the bedroom and around 5-10 degrees in storage spaces and garage.

Fill it!
When doing your dishes or laundry fill everything to the top. Never run half empty dishwashers or washing machines. If you don’t wash the dishes with hot water before, a full dishwasher eats less energy than doing [the dishes] it manually. When doing the laundry use 40 degrees instead of 60 degrees.

Don’t stand-by
Shut off all electric gadgets such as your TV, DVD player etc instead of having it on stand-by mode. Also don’t forget to plug out your chargers when they are not in use.

Low-flow
Install low-flow showerheads and taps in your home. A low-flow showerhead can save up to 50% of your energy usage. Taking a shower is, ordinary, much better than taking a bath.

Old freezer is bad freezer
You can save a lot of energy by replacing your old freezer or/and fridge to a more energy efficient one. Also be sure not to have it to cold in your freezer. Every degree below -18 degrees increases the energy usage with 5%.

Image credit: seier+seier+seier. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution license.
Simon
Simon
Did you know that about 25% of the entire size of Los Angeles is made up of roads, parking places and other areas designed for cars?

Also check out this picture, taken by the Press-Office City of Münster (Germany). It demonstrates the amount of space required to transport the same number of passengers by car, bus or bicycle.

It’s really mind-boggling.

Image credit: Marshall Astor. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.
Simon
Simon
If I say Mars, what do you think of then? No, the planet Mars is the wrong answer. The correct answer is Magenn's Power Turbine MARS.

MARS is a new simple solution to produce wind energy, anywhere. According to Magenn their MARS has all advantages over current existing wind turbines.

But how does it work and why is it better than ordinary wind turbines?

MARS produces its energy 1000 feet up in the air. That means MARS can generate electricity on a regular basis. Another upside with MARS compared to the more ordinary wind turbines is that it can't produce the so called "ground turbulence" and that, according to Magenn, MARS won't kill any birds due to its big compact size.

MARS is bird and bat friendly with lower noise emissions and is capable of operating in a wider range of wind speeds - from 4 mph to greater than 60 mph.

Magenn says MARS is as silent as an air conditioner. No wonder when it's located 100 feet up in the air. But how does it get so high up in the air you might wonder? Well, Magenn's Air Rotor System is filled with helium which makes it lighter than air. Just like how an airship works.






With MARS Magenn is trying to attract developing nations that has a limited or non existent energy infrastructure. MARS will go into production sometime this year.
Green Blog
Green Blog
Libby Rosenthal over at the International Herald Tribune’s Business of Green blog worries, just like me, about the lack of green issues being raised in the US primaries.



Having spent the last week in the United States and having watched all the presidential candidates debate, I’m struck by how little talk there is of climate change and what the United States intends to do about it!

The climate threat that faces us today is the important issue that should be among the top things discussed between the different presidential candidates. Cause the climate threat will affect everything from healthcare to immigration and Iraq to education and welfare.



Libby Rosenthal acknowledges this and put weight on America's most foolish decision to attempt to disrupt the climate actions that needs to be done around the world by not signing the Kyoto Protocol.



But from the world’s perspective, the issue of whether America will join with other countries in controlling global warming is a key issue, and one that should be discussed in front of the American public: The United States is, after all, the major developed nation that has not signed the Kyoto Protocol.

After the Australian federal election last year were decided on the climate change inaction by John Howard, Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol and left USA alone.

Libby Rosenthal continues by adding that "the most disturbing thing in some ways is not what the candidates think, but how little this important issue is being discussed, despite 24/7 television coverage. That means the candidates have not had to explain how they will handle tough questions like how to get U.S. car makers to participate in emission reductions; how to discourage Americans from driving gas guzzlers; and whether the United States will step up to the plate to control its emissions, even if China does not."

Unfortunately, at the moment, it doesn't seem like the USA elections will be decided upon the different candidates "green" credentials and ideas any day soon.

Image credit: Alexdecarvalho. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution license.
Simon
Simon
SLU, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, have started a rather massive campaign against global warming deniers. The message that: “without proper facts anyone can say anything” about climate change and its effects, will be advertised using the site http://ww.koldioxidensvänner.se (roughly translated to “the friends of co2).

The message will be advertised in the largest newspapers in Sweden. They will also fill Stockholm's (the Swedish capital) subway with print ads (see image example below) and web advertisements on Aftonbladet.se, a large newspaper in Sweden (where you could probably find many global warming deniers).





I don’t really understand why they need to spend money on a campaign targeted against the very small minority of global warming deniers, mostly old men who votes for right wing parties, in Sweden. But I hope the people who see the advertisements will see/understand the whole message and not only the “satire” slogans like “co2 is our future” or “the greenhouse effect is fake”.

Here are three videos from “the friends of co2” that are parts in the advertisement campaign:

">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355">

">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355">

">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355">
Simon
Simon
A new study by Kenneth Vogel from the University of Nebraska shows that farming switchgrass as biofuel will produce 540% more energy than is required to grow and manufacture it.

This can be compared to 25% for corn ethanol and 93% for soybean ethanol. But one of the more interesting and positive result from the study was that the emissions created by switchgrass would be around 94% lower than the emissions from petrol. That means switchgrass would be almost carbon neutral.



Another positive thing with using switchgrass as biofuel is that it does not need to take up valuable land areas. Kenneth Vogel explains that switchgrass only needs to be grown on secondary croplands. And the switchgrass only needs to be planted once as it returns year after year.

Rainer Zah, head of the Life Cycle Assessment & Modelling group of the Swiss Materials Science and Technology research institution, EMPA, in Saint Gallen, acknowledges that switchgrass seems to be a very promising fuel but he worries about its dinitrogen oxide emissions, a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Image credit: AdsitAdventures. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works license.
Simon
Simon
Here is a rather old, but good, documentary about Greenpeace’s famous Rainbow Warrior.

The documentary tells the story about the very first Rainbow Warrior who were sunk by the French foreign intelligence agency (DGSE) while docked in Auckland harbour, New Zealand, on 10 July 1985.

Video after the jump.


Link to video: The Rainbow Warrior: what really happened
Simon
Simon
The 30 December 2007 the 82 year old Bert Bolin, a Swedish meteorologist who served as the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), passed away.

He was one of the people who played a key roll in the launch of UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He served as its chairman during 1988 to 1998.

Many people believe he was the single most important person when it comes to our understanding and knowledge about the climate, even more important than Al Gore.



During his lifetime Bert Bolin earned many awards and honours for his work in climate research. In 1984 he was rewarded the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal. 1988 he was honoured with the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement. 1995 Bert Bolin.

Near his ending year’s first chairman of IPCC he was in 1995 rewarded with, what many consider as the nobel prize for environmental sciences, the highest atmospheric science award of the American Meteorological Society and the Blue Planet Prize.

When the latest IPCC report was released Bert Bolin urged for action. But not action based on an “all-knowing” scientific research but from what we already know about our climate. But Bert Bolin foresaw that no real actions would take place until 2008. Hopefully he is correct.
Simon
Simon
In our latest web poll here on Green Blog we asked if you thought the Bali Climate Conference would be a success. Here are the results:

A majority of the people said yes. They thought that the climate conference would be a success but that the result probably wouldn’t be enough.

Around 25% of you thought that the conference would be a failure. But on the same time you wished it would turn out to be a success.

13% hadn’t really any idea how the outcome would be. And just as many thought that world leaders would fail once again making the climate conference a total failure.

None of you thought that world leaders would come together and “do the right thing”.

Our new web poll question: Is nuclear energy "green"?

Cast your votes!
Simon
Simon
Are you a frequent RSS-reader? Yes? No? It doesn’t matter! Now you don’t just have to read to get your weekly dose of green news, blogs and rants. It’s time to start listen. It’s time to discover the green podcasts.

The folks over at iTunes have collected some of the best environment related podcasts from around the web in one nice, free, corner.

You will find green podcasts from the famous Grist and TreeHugger to the Lazy Environmentalist and The Sierra Club.

To be able to subscribe to any of the podcasts you will need to download and install iTunes. It’s free and works on both Windows (XP or Vista) and Mac OS X.
Simon
Simon
In December last year Italy decided to join Australia and Ireland to ban incandescent light bulbs. The Italian budget committee voted in favour of an incandescent light bulb ban from the Green MP Angello Bonelli. The ban will take place in 2011.

More European countries are planning on following Irelands and Italy’s “bright” decision in a, very, near future.

The European Lamp Companies Federation plans for a incandescent light bulb phase out by year 2019. This just shows that government guidelines and actions do make more difference than what the private sector could accomplish.

Image credit: So It's Come To This. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works license.
Simon
Simon
Do you remember, when Al Gore said he would do everything in his powers to influence the American people and politicians to value the climate issue much higher, placing it among the other top issues that would be heatedly discussed among the president candidates and the, hmm, two(!), political parties?

Well, I am no US political expert. Heck, I am not even an US citizen. But from what I’ve heard and seen so far the discussions and talks about the climate threat have gone pretty much un-noticed.



Sure you can say to the defence that USA hasn’t yet decided which two(!) persons who are eligible to fight for the presidency. But aren’t you, as an American and Earth citizen interested in where the different presidential contenders stand on climate and energy issues? Especially when you consider that USA is THE country that pollutes the worst, uses the most of earths resources and fuels the ignorant standpoint on climate change.

Luckily Gristmill has made a table with the candidate’s stances on fuel-economy standards, renewable energy, and coal.

John McCain is said to be the greenest of the Republican presidential candidates. But how green is he when he supports coal? Or maybe you should ask how bad (for the environment) the other Republican presidential candidates are?

On a poll on Msnbc.com where you could “choose Iowa's biggest winners, losers”, from yesterdays Iowa caucus. One of the questions where:

"Going forward from Iowa, what is the most important issue for all candidates to address with clear policies and new ideas?".

Msnbc.com had listed six different options that you could choose from:



Family values
War in Iraq
Illegal immigration
Health care
Taxes and the economy
Terrorism

I can't see "Climate Change" as an option. And none of them were directly related to the environment. Only four of those where in some way related to the climate threat and it’s effects (can you guess which ones?).

So maybe it’s no wonder that Al Gore haven’t, yet, succeeded with his hopes to influence the American minds and politics when “Family Values” seems, for the majority of the American people, be much more important than the end of the civilization?

Maybe Al Gore could put pressure on the climate issue by running for president? I do hope he will. Sure, he might not win, but he will sure shake things up.

And like Michael Moore said this Wednesday; "Where are you, Al Gore? You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world."
Simon
Simon

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from. To find out more, please read our Privacy Policy. By choosing I Accept, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.