Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute has some ideas for transforming our cities from traffic-laden, polluted regions to sustainable places.
Every city has been adding people by ten-fold in less than a decade. Quality of living naturally suffers. In many cities of the developing world, 'the air is so polluted that breathing is equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day'. Jam-packed streets mean commuters spend hours sitting in traffic-congested streets, raising stress levels. Conservative estimates say that traffic congestion in and around New York city costs the region more than $13 billion a year in lost time and productivity, wasted fuel, and lost business revenue.
How many of our cities can do what Bogota did under mayor Enrique Peñalosa? 'Under his leadership, the city created or renovated 1,200 parks, introduced a highly successful bus-based rapid transit system, built hundreds of kilometers of bicycle paths and pedestrian streets, reduced rush hour traffic by 40 percent, planted 100,000 trees, and involved local citizens directly in the improvement of their neighborhoods. In doing this, he created a sense of civic pride among the city’s 8 million residents, making the streets of Bogotá in this strife-torn country safer than those in Washington, D.C.'
'When 95 percent of a city’s workers depend on cars for commuting, as in Atlanta, Georgia, the city is in trouble. By contrast, in Amsterdam 35 percent of all residents bike or walk to work, while one fourth use public transit and 40 percent drive... Even though these European cities are older, often with narrow streets, they have far less congestion than Atlanta.'
Brown suggests some ways like imposing parking fees, encouraging cycling, etc to curb the traffic, while also talking of developing new cities from the scratch instead of straining the existing ones. Cities need to be redesigned for people rather than for vehicles, notes Brown.
Time our city planners took note when hacking trees and widening roads for vehicles. For instance, we need around 20 trees per eprson for oxygen needs. We have right now around 40, and that number is drastically falling!
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Paying to stop deforestation
A significant step forward in the battle against climate change was made this week with agreement from around 50 nations for the rapid deployment of more than $4bn to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) - which is responsible for more CO2 than every motorized vehicle on the planet.
With deforestation accounting for the same amount of global warming pollution as all the cars, trucks, ships, and planes in the world we must turn the corner on this issue if we are to address climate change. Every second that we delay action on deforestation we lose an area the size of two football fields, as the statement says.
In a related move, Indonesia, which has allowed widespread destruction of its tropical forests in recent decades, has announced it will impose a two-year moratorium on new forestry concessions beginning in 2011. In exchange, the Norwegian government — which has played a key role in trying to slow deforestation worldwide — will give Indonesia $1 billion to preserve forests and promote sustainable forestry programs.
Indonesian government recently granted a concession for companies to convert a 4-million-acre forest tract in western New Guinea into palm oil plantations. Indonesia has the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emissions due primarily to forest loss.
With deforestation accounting for the same amount of global warming pollution as all the cars, trucks, ships, and planes in the world we must turn the corner on this issue if we are to address climate change. Every second that we delay action on deforestation we lose an area the size of two football fields, as the statement says.
In a related move, Indonesia, which has allowed widespread destruction of its tropical forests in recent decades, has announced it will impose a two-year moratorium on new forestry concessions beginning in 2011. In exchange, the Norwegian government — which has played a key role in trying to slow deforestation worldwide — will give Indonesia $1 billion to preserve forests and promote sustainable forestry programs.
Indonesian government recently granted a concession for companies to convert a 4-million-acre forest tract in western New Guinea into palm oil plantations. Indonesia has the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emissions due primarily to forest loss.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Tax for eco-services
A key U.N. report on biodiversity will recommend massive economic changes like company fines to help save species and protect the natural world. The study, which is due for publication in the summer, will argue that the economic case for global action to protect biodiversity is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change.
The report will also recommend that companies are fined and taxed for over-exploitation of the natural world, with strict limits imposed on what they can take from the environment, according to the paper.
Alongside financial results, businesses and governments should also be asked to provide accounts for their use of natural and human resources. And communities should be paid to preserve natural environments rather than deplete them.
Titled "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity" (TEEB), the report was launched by Brussels in 2007 with the support of the U.N. Environment Program, after G8 and major emerging economies called for a global study.
The Stern report on climate change had in 2007 claimed that the cost of limiting climate change would be around 1%-2% of annual global wealth, but the longer-term economic benefits would be 5-20 times that figure. The total value of "natural goods and services" like pollination, medicines, fertile soil, clean air, and water will be around 10 and 100 times the cost of saving the species and natural habitats which provide them, says TEEB.
Setting up and running a comprehensive network of protected areas would cost $45bn a year globally, according to one estimate, but the benefits of preserving the species richness within these zones would be worth $4-5tn a year.
"We need a sea change in human thinking and attitudes towards nature," said Indian economist and report author Pavan Sukhdev. The changes will involve a whole revolution in the way humans do business, consume, and think about their lives, he said.
The report will also recommend that companies are fined and taxed for over-exploitation of the natural world, with strict limits imposed on what they can take from the environment, according to the paper.
Alongside financial results, businesses and governments should also be asked to provide accounts for their use of natural and human resources. And communities should be paid to preserve natural environments rather than deplete them.
Titled "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity" (TEEB), the report was launched by Brussels in 2007 with the support of the U.N. Environment Program, after G8 and major emerging economies called for a global study.
The Stern report on climate change had in 2007 claimed that the cost of limiting climate change would be around 1%-2% of annual global wealth, but the longer-term economic benefits would be 5-20 times that figure. The total value of "natural goods and services" like pollination, medicines, fertile soil, clean air, and water will be around 10 and 100 times the cost of saving the species and natural habitats which provide them, says TEEB.
Setting up and running a comprehensive network of protected areas would cost $45bn a year globally, according to one estimate, but the benefits of preserving the species richness within these zones would be worth $4-5tn a year.
"We need a sea change in human thinking and attitudes towards nature," said Indian economist and report author Pavan Sukhdev. The changes will involve a whole revolution in the way humans do business, consume, and think about their lives, he said.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Exodus
It was yet another Day celebrated but with dire warnings – loss of biodiversity. But even as World Biodiversity Day passed by, not many of us know the significance of the word. A conservative estimate puts the pace of species extinctions today on par with 65 million years ago when 50 per cent of all species went extinct, including the dinosaurs. Commitments made by nations in 2002 to stem the loss of biodiversity has not been upheld.
The UN's third Global Biodiversity Outlook report warned of the dire consequences associated with alarming biodiversity declines and losses of habitats. Since 1970, we've seen a 30 percent decline in wildlife species, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This is, as unconnected as it may seem, harming food sources, intensifying global warming, and harming industry.
Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), said: "Humanity has fabricated the illusion that somehow we can get by without biodiversity or that it is somehow peripheral to our contemporary world: the truth is we need it more than ever on a planet of 6 billion [people], heading to over 9 billion by 2050. Business as usual is no longer an option if we are to avoid irreversible damage to the life-support systems of our planet."
Biodiversity provides the basic infrastructure for all our activities and our survival. Ecosystems offer services worth billions of dollars such as food, water, energy, clean air and medicine. But more than 60 per cent of those services are degraded worldwide and human pressure has accelerated species extinction to 1,000 times the natural rate of loss. Only 48,000 species are assessed on IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species™ out of the 1.9 million known and the millions of others yet to be discovered.
Once a gene, species or ecosystem disappears, it is gone forever. Today, we depend on so many plants and bacteria for our medicine and health. When some ecosystems disappear they take with them the protection they hold against infectious diseases. Some 15,000 species of medicinal plants are globally threatened from, amongst others, loss of habitat, overexploitation, invasive species and pollution.
To conserve this valuable natural resource, IUCN, Plantlife International and TRAFFIC are calling for governments to endorse a revised and updated Global Strategy for Plant Conservation which aims to halt the continuing loss of the world’s plant diversity. The significance of medicinal plants can’t be underestimated. 80% of people in Africa use traditional medicine for primary healthcare. 323,000 households in Nepal alone are involved in the collection of wild medicinal plants to sell for their livelihoods.
India is a biodiversity hotspot, home to an estimated 15,000 plant species - 6 per cent of the world's total - including some 300 trees that are considered threatened by extinction.
In the intricately linked web of life on the planet, every insect or plant has a role to play. Ensuring that this web is intact is the need of the hour, however ‘trivial’ it may seem compared to an oil spill or stocks plunging.
The UN's third Global Biodiversity Outlook report warned of the dire consequences associated with alarming biodiversity declines and losses of habitats. Since 1970, we've seen a 30 percent decline in wildlife species, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This is, as unconnected as it may seem, harming food sources, intensifying global warming, and harming industry.
Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), said: "Humanity has fabricated the illusion that somehow we can get by without biodiversity or that it is somehow peripheral to our contemporary world: the truth is we need it more than ever on a planet of 6 billion [people], heading to over 9 billion by 2050. Business as usual is no longer an option if we are to avoid irreversible damage to the life-support systems of our planet."
Biodiversity provides the basic infrastructure for all our activities and our survival. Ecosystems offer services worth billions of dollars such as food, water, energy, clean air and medicine. But more than 60 per cent of those services are degraded worldwide and human pressure has accelerated species extinction to 1,000 times the natural rate of loss. Only 48,000 species are assessed on IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species™ out of the 1.9 million known and the millions of others yet to be discovered.
Once a gene, species or ecosystem disappears, it is gone forever. Today, we depend on so many plants and bacteria for our medicine and health. When some ecosystems disappear they take with them the protection they hold against infectious diseases. Some 15,000 species of medicinal plants are globally threatened from, amongst others, loss of habitat, overexploitation, invasive species and pollution.
To conserve this valuable natural resource, IUCN, Plantlife International and TRAFFIC are calling for governments to endorse a revised and updated Global Strategy for Plant Conservation which aims to halt the continuing loss of the world’s plant diversity. The significance of medicinal plants can’t be underestimated. 80% of people in Africa use traditional medicine for primary healthcare. 323,000 households in Nepal alone are involved in the collection of wild medicinal plants to sell for their livelihoods.
India is a biodiversity hotspot, home to an estimated 15,000 plant species - 6 per cent of the world's total - including some 300 trees that are considered threatened by extinction.
In the intricately linked web of life on the planet, every insect or plant has a role to play. Ensuring that this web is intact is the need of the hour, however ‘trivial’ it may seem compared to an oil spill or stocks plunging.
Computer gives birth
Scientists last week created life as “the first self-replicating species… whose parent is a computer.”
The single cell of yeast with a complete set of artificial DNA functions and looks exactly like a natural cell of yeast. The team assembled a set of DNA one million units in length that directly mirrored an actual strand of yeast DNA. They then replaced a regular yeast cell’s DNA with the artificially created DNA.
Spearheaded by Dr. Craig Venter and his team of scientists at the J Craig Venter Institute, the project has far reaching implications in the field of science and ethics. However, this breakthrough could revolutionize not only the medical but also energy industry.
Using the knowledge and controlling the entire genome of the cells, it would be possible to create and engineer a cell that builds an extremely high yielding biofuel, or create a cell that could suck up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Even guzzle oil spills maybe! All it requires is designing an organism for a specific function.)
Synthetic Genomics was founded back in 2005 to commercialize Venter’s work, and has been focusing on a variety of applications for its genetic technology, including creating algae-based biofuel. The startup is claimed to have successfully engineered algae to secrete hydrocarbons similar to intermediary strains in a [oil] refinery.
But like all revolutionary inventions, this one too has ethical implications. What guarantee does one have that these artificial life forms wont turn into Frankensteins? For instance, what if they gobble up all the carbon leaving nothing for plants?!
All that will come later. For now, we can just chew on that bit of DNA – are we fit as creators?
The single cell of yeast with a complete set of artificial DNA functions and looks exactly like a natural cell of yeast. The team assembled a set of DNA one million units in length that directly mirrored an actual strand of yeast DNA. They then replaced a regular yeast cell’s DNA with the artificially created DNA.
Spearheaded by Dr. Craig Venter and his team of scientists at the J Craig Venter Institute, the project has far reaching implications in the field of science and ethics. However, this breakthrough could revolutionize not only the medical but also energy industry.
Using the knowledge and controlling the entire genome of the cells, it would be possible to create and engineer a cell that builds an extremely high yielding biofuel, or create a cell that could suck up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Even guzzle oil spills maybe! All it requires is designing an organism for a specific function.)
Synthetic Genomics was founded back in 2005 to commercialize Venter’s work, and has been focusing on a variety of applications for its genetic technology, including creating algae-based biofuel. The startup is claimed to have successfully engineered algae to secrete hydrocarbons similar to intermediary strains in a [oil] refinery.
But like all revolutionary inventions, this one too has ethical implications. What guarantee does one have that these artificial life forms wont turn into Frankensteins? For instance, what if they gobble up all the carbon leaving nothing for plants?!
All that will come later. For now, we can just chew on that bit of DNA – are we fit as creators?
Thursday, May 20, 2010
China's Solar Valley
The ratrace sometimes is good! Especially when the competition happens in a clean energy arena.
If India has its solar mission aiming at 20 GW of soalr power in a decade, China is not far behind. Even if it is up there among the top polluters, its efforts to redouble on renewable energy have been the envy of many western nations.
And now, China has started work on “The Biggest Solar Energy Production Base in the Whole World”. The ambitious plans for the park were launched by Himin Solar Energy, whose headquarters is located at the Sun-Moon Mansion, which is currently the largest solar powered office building in the world. The planned development outside of Dezhou, China is expected to cost $740 million.
Himin Solar Energy, started by Huang Ming, the ‘Sun King’ of China, is already the main tenant of Solar Valley and their large office building is completely powered by the sun. The clean energy epicenter will help propel China’s development of renewable energy technology and installation.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Too much carbon not good for plants
Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could reduce the protein content of crop plants by as much as 20 percent, according to a new study. Researchers at the University of California, Davis say high CO2 levels interfere with the ability of plants to convert nitrate into proteins, and thus reduce their quality as food.
The findings, the researchers say, suggest new fertilizers may be needed to counteract rising levels of atmospheric CO2 in the coming decades. The scientists tested how two major forms of soil nitrogen — nitrate and ammonium — affected wheat and the mustard plant, Arabidopsis, that were exposed to elevated CO2 levels. Those crops exposed to CO2 had a reduced ability to produce nitrogen-containing compounds, including proteins. Increased CO2 levels predicted for the next 20–50 years could reduce the amount of protein in crops by up to a fifth because of this phenomenon.
This study is alerting us about the need to develop new fertilisation techniques and to improve crops' nitrogen use efficiencies.
Perhaps organic farming is the solution. Kerala in India has officially announced a new farming policy which aims to covert all agriculture in the state to organic methods over the next ten years. Recently, the state of Sikkim, in the northeast part of the country, announced that it had converted 6,000 of its 70,000 hectares of agricultural land to organic agriculture, on way to converting it all by 2015.
Organic farming advocates also claim it reduces carbon emissions in farming. In the long run, dependence on fertilisers and chemical pesticides is a good thing for the soil.
The findings, the researchers say, suggest new fertilizers may be needed to counteract rising levels of atmospheric CO2 in the coming decades. The scientists tested how two major forms of soil nitrogen — nitrate and ammonium — affected wheat and the mustard plant, Arabidopsis, that were exposed to elevated CO2 levels. Those crops exposed to CO2 had a reduced ability to produce nitrogen-containing compounds, including proteins. Increased CO2 levels predicted for the next 20–50 years could reduce the amount of protein in crops by up to a fifth because of this phenomenon.
This study is alerting us about the need to develop new fertilisation techniques and to improve crops' nitrogen use efficiencies.
Perhaps organic farming is the solution. Kerala in India has officially announced a new farming policy which aims to covert all agriculture in the state to organic methods over the next ten years. Recently, the state of Sikkim, in the northeast part of the country, announced that it had converted 6,000 of its 70,000 hectares of agricultural land to organic agriculture, on way to converting it all by 2015.
Organic farming advocates also claim it reduces carbon emissions in farming. In the long run, dependence on fertilisers and chemical pesticides is a good thing for the soil.
Grand designs
A NASA-sponsored competition to design futuristic, fuel-efficient airplanes has led to a jet prototype that would burn roughly 70 percent less fuel than current aircraft. Engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology designed what they called a D-series “double bubble” jet, which features a wide fuselage composed of two partial cylinders fused together in an aerodynamic shape.
The prototype also has a smaller tail, skinnier wings, and engines mounted on the rear of the fuselage instead of the wings, which allows the engines to suck in slower-moving air and increase efficiency. These changes and use of lighter materials help the plane burn 70 percent less fuel, according to the team. And that's something!
In addition to designing this subsonic model, the MIT team designed a supersonic model, as well, that they said would also sharply cut fuel consumption.
On the innovation beat, two enterprising engineering students from the Nirma University of Ahmedabad, India have designed a handy wind and solar powered bike helmet that lets the user power the cell phone for almost free! Pragnesh Dudhaiya and Aalok Bhatt put together the useful new headgear, which is capable of charging a cell phone using energy generated from a 40-minute ride – and they did it in just 3 days!
The world sure needs more such innovations on the small and big scale. Have an idea? Share it with us.
The prototype also has a smaller tail, skinnier wings, and engines mounted on the rear of the fuselage instead of the wings, which allows the engines to suck in slower-moving air and increase efficiency. These changes and use of lighter materials help the plane burn 70 percent less fuel, according to the team. And that's something!
In addition to designing this subsonic model, the MIT team designed a supersonic model, as well, that they said would also sharply cut fuel consumption.
On the innovation beat, two enterprising engineering students from the Nirma University of Ahmedabad, India have designed a handy wind and solar powered bike helmet that lets the user power the cell phone for almost free! Pragnesh Dudhaiya and Aalok Bhatt put together the useful new headgear, which is capable of charging a cell phone using energy generated from a 40-minute ride – and they did it in just 3 days!
The world sure needs more such innovations on the small and big scale. Have an idea? Share it with us.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Turning deserts green
Fuel security or food security, which will be more crucial in the days to come? Of course, we know the vital role plays today in our economy, food included. Without the fuel there is no fertilizer, nor irrigation. But, when it comes to what we can be without, what will the answer be?
No wonder, the Middle East is taking food security seriously. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait are in the midst of a massive project to re-landscape their deserts and transform them into fertile farmland, providing food security for their future. The countries are utilizing a mixture of microbes and soil — called mycorrhiza — that allows plants to absorb more nutrients than they can alone.
By researching areas that have significant amounts of water and soil fertility and harnessing mycorrhiza they have already been able to convert 4,000 square meters of “hyper-saline waste-land” into a vegetable and grain producing farm.
Abu Dhabi hopes to find enough arable land to increase their domestic food production up to 70% higher than current levels. The Gulf won’t be able to find enough land to support 100% of their food needs but no arguing that it is a better choice to grow local as against the growing practice of buying arable land in faraway US to produce food.
Will natural desert ecosystems take kindly to this intervention? Where will water come from? Like in the US southwestern region which is naturally desert and irrigation is slowly draining the Colorado River, will some such scheme be devised? In the short-term they may provide relief, but in the long-term it could end up a disaster. Should natural ecosystems be preserved or geo-engineered? What do you think?
No wonder, the Middle East is taking food security seriously. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait are in the midst of a massive project to re-landscape their deserts and transform them into fertile farmland, providing food security for their future. The countries are utilizing a mixture of microbes and soil — called mycorrhiza — that allows plants to absorb more nutrients than they can alone.
By researching areas that have significant amounts of water and soil fertility and harnessing mycorrhiza they have already been able to convert 4,000 square meters of “hyper-saline waste-land” into a vegetable and grain producing farm.
Abu Dhabi hopes to find enough arable land to increase their domestic food production up to 70% higher than current levels. The Gulf won’t be able to find enough land to support 100% of their food needs but no arguing that it is a better choice to grow local as against the growing practice of buying arable land in faraway US to produce food.
Will natural desert ecosystems take kindly to this intervention? Where will water come from? Like in the US southwestern region which is naturally desert and irrigation is slowly draining the Colorado River, will some such scheme be devised? In the short-term they may provide relief, but in the long-term it could end up a disaster. Should natural ecosystems be preserved or geo-engineered? What do you think?
Shortage of metals predicted
Not just Peak oil, we are entering an era of Peak everything. Peak water, Peak metals! Failure to advance metal recycling, especially of rare metals used in high-tech products, could produce a global shortage of many metals within two decades, according to a series of reports by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Thomas Graedel, a member of UNEP’s International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management and a Yale University professor, cited the example of indium, a metal used to create transparent electrodes used in liquid crystal displays, touch screens, semiconductors, and photovoltaic cells. Global demand for the metal is expected to grow from 1,200 tons this year to 2,600 tons next year, he said. Yet, like most specialty metals, recycling rates for the metal are below 1 percent, he said.
Graedel cited information from microchip maker Intel Corp. that the number of elements it used for computers rose from 11 in the 1980s to around 60 now, indicating that it would be hard to maintain current levels of computer performance if newer specialty metals became unavailable.
Other metals whose recycling rates the panel said needed to be improved included neodymium, used in wind turbine magnets, and gallium, used for light emitting diodes in indicator lamps and lighting.
In a separate report, the U.N. panel detailed what it said was a substantial shift in metals stocks from underground ores to existing products. "These 'mines above ground' have growing potential for future metals supply," it said.
Above-ground copper amounts to about 50 kg (112 pounds) for every person on earth, compared with more than two tons of iron, the panel said. The recycling rate for steel is about 75 percent but for copper between 25 and 50 percent, it found.
After the frenzied discovery of the magic materials has come the discovery that everything is limited. Reduce and reuse has to become more than a fad. A dedicated workforce for recycling could be among the major changes in the way we do sustainable business in future.
Thomas Graedel, a member of UNEP’s International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management and a Yale University professor, cited the example of indium, a metal used to create transparent electrodes used in liquid crystal displays, touch screens, semiconductors, and photovoltaic cells. Global demand for the metal is expected to grow from 1,200 tons this year to 2,600 tons next year, he said. Yet, like most specialty metals, recycling rates for the metal are below 1 percent, he said.
Graedel cited information from microchip maker Intel Corp. that the number of elements it used for computers rose from 11 in the 1980s to around 60 now, indicating that it would be hard to maintain current levels of computer performance if newer specialty metals became unavailable.
Other metals whose recycling rates the panel said needed to be improved included neodymium, used in wind turbine magnets, and gallium, used for light emitting diodes in indicator lamps and lighting.
In a separate report, the U.N. panel detailed what it said was a substantial shift in metals stocks from underground ores to existing products. "These 'mines above ground' have growing potential for future metals supply," it said.
Above-ground copper amounts to about 50 kg (112 pounds) for every person on earth, compared with more than two tons of iron, the panel said. The recycling rate for steel is about 75 percent but for copper between 25 and 50 percent, it found.
After the frenzied discovery of the magic materials has come the discovery that everything is limited. Reduce and reuse has to become more than a fad. A dedicated workforce for recycling could be among the major changes in the way we do sustainable business in future.
Home or hotel?
That average global temperatures on the rise won’t suddenly stop despite any measures taken is pretty well known to those following the climate change issue. Now, Australian and US scientists in a study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reaffirm that up to half of the planet would become uninhabitable by the 2300s with an average global temperature rise of 21.6 degrees Fahrenheit. No need to mention that most species on the planet will not survive with most regions turning into deserts. (Global average temperatures comprise the sum of increases and decreases in different regions.)
That’s another 8-10 generations down the line, so why should we bother? That could well be the unsaid comment by anyone reading this. True. It is only if we care about what we leave behind that we will do anything about it. Pretty much like the way many of us use a hotel service – on the day we leave, we are not really bothered about the mess we leave behind. This is not the attitude we observe at home.
So, do we treat the planet as our home or a hotel?
India has meanwhile announced plans to set up a climate adaptation fund to assist South Asian countries to adapt to the challenges of the changing climate. At the 16th South Asian Association on Regional Cooperation (SAARC) held recently at Thimphu, Bhutan with its theme ‘Towards a Green and Happy South Asia’, the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh spoke of the ‘India Endowment for Climate Change in South Asia’ fund as a ‘gift’ to the member nations. He also proposed to set up regional climate innovation centres in South Asia in order to stimulate research and development in clean and sustainable energy technologies.
That is the way ahead. The wealthy nations will have to lead the way and share the spoils for global good. Or else, nobody will be willing to change their polluting lifestyles.
That’s another 8-10 generations down the line, so why should we bother? That could well be the unsaid comment by anyone reading this. True. It is only if we care about what we leave behind that we will do anything about it. Pretty much like the way many of us use a hotel service – on the day we leave, we are not really bothered about the mess we leave behind. This is not the attitude we observe at home.
So, do we treat the planet as our home or a hotel?
India has meanwhile announced plans to set up a climate adaptation fund to assist South Asian countries to adapt to the challenges of the changing climate. At the 16th South Asian Association on Regional Cooperation (SAARC) held recently at Thimphu, Bhutan with its theme ‘Towards a Green and Happy South Asia’, the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh spoke of the ‘India Endowment for Climate Change in South Asia’ fund as a ‘gift’ to the member nations. He also proposed to set up regional climate innovation centres in South Asia in order to stimulate research and development in clean and sustainable energy technologies.
That is the way ahead. The wealthy nations will have to lead the way and share the spoils for global good. Or else, nobody will be willing to change their polluting lifestyles.
IEA sees big potential for solar power
Solar power is expected to provide almost a quarter of the world's electricity supplies by 2050, according to a new report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA). "The combination of solar photovoltaics and concentrating solar power offers considerable prospects for enhancing energy security while reducing energy-related CO2 emissions by almost six billion tonnes per year by 2050."
Eleven percent of total supplies are predicted to come from solar panels on homes and offices while a further 11 percent will be provided by central solar power stations feeding clean electricity to populous areas.
The IEA expects North America to be the largest producer of CSP electricity, followed by India and North Africa -- which will likely export half of its output to Europe.
Solar power currently accounts for 0.5 percent of total electricity supplies, but this will need to rise if cuts in carbon emissions are to be achieved, according to the IEA.
The future success of solar power stations (known as Concentrating Solar Power or CSP) will depend on the development of "dedicated transport lines," but the IEA predicts that it could become competitive with coal and nuclear power plants by 2030.
With the right policies in place, the IEA says that solar panels on residential and commercial buildings could compete with traditional electricity supplies by 2020 in many regions. By 2030 the IEA anticipate solar panels will provide five percent of global electricity.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Introspection time
On the energy and environment, it is the biggest story that continues to be highlighted for a fortnight. And why not, considering that as much as 5,000 barrels per day are escaping into the Gulf after Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and collapsed, letting oil from the well gush into the ocean. Some say the number is closer to 1.1 million gallons—approximately 26,500 barrels—per day. A barrel of crude equals about 42 gallons. The large element of doubt is because this is based on guesswork based on a cascade of satellite images and thickness estimates derived from visual descriptions of the slick. So far, somewhere between 4 million gallons and 21 million gallons have spilled.
BP's attempts to contain the spill using two huge domes to catch and siphon the oil have failed. The next tactic is going to be something they call a junk shot. They're actually going to take a bunch of debris, shredded up tires, golf balls and things like that and under very high pressure shoot it into the preventer itself and see if they can clog it up and stop the leak. What better use for garbage??!
The final hope is in a relief well that will be dug or a series of them nearby to take the pressure off the spilling well. But that will take 2-3 months and meanwhile the oil spill continues spreading (as shown in the picture taken by NASA.
The spill has made international bodies sit up and take note of a lack of regulations regarding offshore drilling which can cause untold pollution and environmental problems. With many nations eyeing the melting Arctic region with a view to tapping the seafloor, the world seems set for another 'cold' war. The erstwhile Soviet Union has made quite a mess of the Arctic with abandoned fuel barrels strewn around. Putin has pledged funds to its geographical society for 'developing' the Arctic.
The region's potentially enormous oil and gas reserves are becoming more accessible, prompting what Agence France-Presse called "a diplomatic tug-of-war" between the five countries that border the area -- Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the United States. Even China has shown more than passing interest. After all, the Arctic belongs to all!
The Arctic region also sits on what is believed to be tons of peat that keep a close lid on methane gas. If drilling is to proceed merrily, what can happen is a nightmare. Peak oil or not, looks like it is time we got unhooked from oil. What do you think? Or is it simply a matter of lax regulations?
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Do not ignore what science says
Do we believe in science anymore? There seems to be a general air of disbelief in what the scientists say, all thanks to one goof-up, or call it an oversight.
But 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, have just published a stunning “Lead Letter” in the journal Science (May 2010). The letter, titled, “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” starts off: “We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular…
“All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet…
“Scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong.
Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.”
They go on to identify fundamental conclusions about climate change – warming from increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases; warming largely anthropogenic in nature; the consequences such as sea level rise, alterations of hydrological cycle which in turn will affect food and water supplies, etc.
“We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.
“Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively.”
But 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, have just published a stunning “Lead Letter” in the journal Science (May 2010). The letter, titled, “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” starts off: “We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular…
“All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet…
“Scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong.
Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.”
They go on to identify fundamental conclusions about climate change – warming from increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases; warming largely anthropogenic in nature; the consequences such as sea level rise, alterations of hydrological cycle which in turn will affect food and water supplies, etc.
“We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.
“Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively.”
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Money is not a problem anymore
In what could be a leading initiative, State Bank of India plans to help farmers buy fuel-saving equipment that could generate as many as 25 million carbon credits, potentially one of the country’s biggest offset projects to date, according to a Bloomberg report. State Bank has agreed to lend Rs 17 crore to 20,000 farmers for plants that convert cow dung and kitchen waste into clean cooking gas, reducing their need to burn fossil fuels.
The scheme will be expanded to 500,000 farmers over the next three years.
Soot is believed to be the biggest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide, according to the Worldwatch Institute. About 60% of households in India burn wood, manure and crop waste for cooking and heating.
The farmers will receive income from selling UN-certified emission reduction credits generated by the project to pay back their loans. The project may earn as many as 2.5 million credits annually for 10 years.
UN CER credits traded at around 13 euros on the European Climate Exchange.
The State Bank project is under validation by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the last step before approval. More banks can join to finance many other clean energy programmes and demand side management programmes. Finance issues can be sorted out this way!
In the US, a social enterprise Energy in Common facilitates individuals to provide small loans to the poor who plan to go green. The EIC calculates the carbon offset from the loan and sells the same to the lenders. They plan to extend green energy access to 15 million people in 5 years!
It is the right time for innovations in financing.
The scheme will be expanded to 500,000 farmers over the next three years.
Soot is believed to be the biggest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide, according to the Worldwatch Institute. About 60% of households in India burn wood, manure and crop waste for cooking and heating.
The farmers will receive income from selling UN-certified emission reduction credits generated by the project to pay back their loans. The project may earn as many as 2.5 million credits annually for 10 years.
UN CER credits traded at around 13 euros on the European Climate Exchange.
The State Bank project is under validation by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the last step before approval. More banks can join to finance many other clean energy programmes and demand side management programmes. Finance issues can be sorted out this way!
In the US, a social enterprise Energy in Common facilitates individuals to provide small loans to the poor who plan to go green. The EIC calculates the carbon offset from the loan and sells the same to the lenders. They plan to extend green energy access to 15 million people in 5 years!
It is the right time for innovations in financing.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Gasp!
The carbon lungs of the world stands to be cut by half by 2050! A study led by Brazil's National Institute of Special Research found that the size of the Amazon could be reduced 50 percent by 2050, the 'tipping point' for when it will slowly wither away entirely. The research found if the regions of the Amazon most crucial to maintaining the biome's climate are lost, large sections of the once lush rainforest may be reduced to a virtual desert.
According to a report from Globo Amazônia, the study conducted by Gilvan Sampaio of National Institute of Special Research (INPE) found that the vegetation of the Amazon will be particularly impacted by rising global temperatures in the years to come, in addition to the continued threats posed by deforestation and fires. But because the Amazon rainforest itself plays a crucial role in regulating the climate worldwide, the rate of vegetation loss will gradually accelerate as there's less forest to maintain it.
The study found that the cycle of forest loss will be most pronounced if the forests in eastern Amazon continue to be lost.
Once fires caused by these droughts and continued deforestation have reduced the Amazon's size by half, says Sampaio, desertification will slowly transform the terrain into a 'tropical savanna'. The report projects that this 'tipping point' level of forest loss could occur as shortly as 2050.
Although Brazil has made great strides in reducing deforestation in recent years, development and logging in restricted areas remains a problem throughout parts of the Amazon. It is in the interest of the world to keep the Amazon forests intact, but who will compensate for Brazilians seeking ‘progress’?
As to the state of climate and carbon emissions, in which large rainforests play a big role, the continuing argument on per capita versus total emissions threatens to overlook the runaway emissions rate. Energy Collective does some simple calculations to show the grim truth!
Worldwide CO2 emissions in 1990, the baseline year used for most guidelines that seek “80% reduction by 2050″ were 21.5 billion tons, and current emissions are about 30 billion tons. The 2025 target, using a linear reduction from 2010 to 2050 requires us to be at or below roughly 20 billion tons.
The per capita emissions, now: China: 4.6 tons/person, India 1.2, the US: 20, (and from a separate source) the EU: 9.0. Considering population projections for 2025: China: 1.47 billion, India: 1.35 billion, the US: 0.35 billion China’s total emissions in 2025 will be 13.2 billion tons (1.47 billion people * 9 tons/person), India’s will be 2.7 billion tons (1.35 billion * 2), and the US’ will be 3.15 billion tons (0.35 billion * 9), totalling 19.05 billion tons. Adding the rest from the EU, Japan, Africa, Canada, Mexico, Russia, et al. at more than a billion, we will have crossed the 20 bn tons target. If we lose half the Amazons in such a scenario, god forbid the extra carbon that goes up.
The high emitters have to reduce their emissions very quickly, and the developing nations have to avoid higher emissions levels. Seems inevitable if we are to ever take studies seriously as also the effects we are beginning to witness. Per capita is something which scientists are questioning, given that in a country like India, more than half do not have access to electricity!
According to a report from Globo Amazônia, the study conducted by Gilvan Sampaio of National Institute of Special Research (INPE) found that the vegetation of the Amazon will be particularly impacted by rising global temperatures in the years to come, in addition to the continued threats posed by deforestation and fires. But because the Amazon rainforest itself plays a crucial role in regulating the climate worldwide, the rate of vegetation loss will gradually accelerate as there's less forest to maintain it.
The study found that the cycle of forest loss will be most pronounced if the forests in eastern Amazon continue to be lost.
Once fires caused by these droughts and continued deforestation have reduced the Amazon's size by half, says Sampaio, desertification will slowly transform the terrain into a 'tropical savanna'. The report projects that this 'tipping point' level of forest loss could occur as shortly as 2050.
Although Brazil has made great strides in reducing deforestation in recent years, development and logging in restricted areas remains a problem throughout parts of the Amazon. It is in the interest of the world to keep the Amazon forests intact, but who will compensate for Brazilians seeking ‘progress’?
As to the state of climate and carbon emissions, in which large rainforests play a big role, the continuing argument on per capita versus total emissions threatens to overlook the runaway emissions rate. Energy Collective does some simple calculations to show the grim truth!
Worldwide CO2 emissions in 1990, the baseline year used for most guidelines that seek “80% reduction by 2050″ were 21.5 billion tons, and current emissions are about 30 billion tons. The 2025 target, using a linear reduction from 2010 to 2050 requires us to be at or below roughly 20 billion tons.
The per capita emissions, now: China: 4.6 tons/person, India 1.2, the US: 20, (and from a separate source) the EU: 9.0. Considering population projections for 2025: China: 1.47 billion, India: 1.35 billion, the US: 0.35 billion China’s total emissions in 2025 will be 13.2 billion tons (1.47 billion people * 9 tons/person), India’s will be 2.7 billion tons (1.35 billion * 2), and the US’ will be 3.15 billion tons (0.35 billion * 9), totalling 19.05 billion tons. Adding the rest from the EU, Japan, Africa, Canada, Mexico, Russia, et al. at more than a billion, we will have crossed the 20 bn tons target. If we lose half the Amazons in such a scenario, god forbid the extra carbon that goes up.
The high emitters have to reduce their emissions very quickly, and the developing nations have to avoid higher emissions levels. Seems inevitable if we are to ever take studies seriously as also the effects we are beginning to witness. Per capita is something which scientists are questioning, given that in a country like India, more than half do not have access to electricity!
From the oil to the fire
Ever since the explosion of April 20 aboard the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling platform, oil has been oozing into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of at least 5,000 barrels per day. And now, adding to the woes is a rain of chemicals meant to control the spill.
BP and the U.S. Coast Guard are dumping large amounts of "dispersants" both on the surface and underwater. Dispersants are surfactants that break oil down into small droplets that sink into the water. They are dumping almost a third of the world’s supply of dispersants!
Emergency workers dropped 100,000 gallons of the stuff into the Gulf. But what precisely is being dumped is surprisingly being kept a secret!
However, an agency did manage to identify one product currently being used, called Corexit, which includes 2-butoxyethanol, a "compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses." To take the sting off one deadly bite, yet another bite!
Serious questions remain about the wisdom of using dispersants to treat spills. The possibility of photoenhanced toxicity and particulate/oil droplet phase exposure is generally not considered. A number of laboratory studies have indicated toxicity due to PAH increases significantly (from 12 to 50,000 times) for sensitive species in exposures conducted under ultraviolet light (representative of natural sunlight), compared to those conducted under the more traditional laboratory conditions of fluorescent lights.
Toxicity aside, what dispersants do is to remove the oil from the surface and send it deep into the waters where it stays undisturbed for long, causing untold misery to many species.
Yet another reason to phase out fossil fuels and shift to renewables, would you say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
