The average temperatures have increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. By 2100, the average global temperature will rise a staggering 3.2-7.1 degrees F from what it is today.
As temperatures rise and ice melts around the world, oceans will rise about 3 feet by 2100. This would be drastic as a 3 foot rise in sea levels would displace about 600 million people, or about 10% of today's worldwide population. Highly populated areas like China, Bangladesh, India, and major cities along the east coast of the U.S. would be greatly affected.
But still, people are reluctant to change behaviour whether it be in developed or developing nations. With climate change implications acknowledged, very few are willing to take personal action or ‘sacrifice’. Why? Why is it so difficult to opt for public transport or at the very least, a hybrid, instead of a SUV? Why has it not yet become a habit to shut down the computer when not in use?
An interesting article examines the reasons behind this apathy. One reason is that while our logical reasoning accepts the enormity of the problem, the experiential side is reluctant as it does not sense the effect. As in any other clear and present danger.
Even as 33 percent of a survey of Americans showed they were concerned, they did nothing about it. Not because there is no information available about the problem but because specific solutions are often missing. An energy extension service on the lines of agricultural extensions that provide solutions could help.
That apart, what is required is to mobilize the consensus which is greater than generally believed to be. This can be done through rules and norms as these influence most people. A bigger role can be played by media in its depiction of climate change and change in personal behaviour required.
How planet-friendly is your personal behaviour? Sure, this is important when you consider the energy predictions.
World energy consumption is forecast to increase by 44 percent from 2006 to 2030, with almost two-thirds of that coming from developing countries and fossil fuels that continue to dominate energy supply, according to the Energy Information Administration's 2009 outlook report just released. That increase would mean global emissions would hit 40.4 billion tonnes by 2030, compared to 29 billion tonnes in 2006.
Developing countries are projected to increase demand by 73 percent by 2030 in the outlook's base reference case whereas developed countries will grow by 15 percent, the report says. Oil prices will return to $110 per barrel in 2015 and go up to $130 per barrel in 2030 in the base reference case, although in the high-price reference case they could reach $200 per barrel, depending on supply, EIA said.
What does it take to reverse the present trend? A hefty tax on petrol? Do away with fossil fuel based power subsidies? Save energy? Let us know your thoughts.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Turning an island into diesel
The Maldives premier made it to the headlines when he said he was planning to relocate his country. He was referring to the sea level rise and the threat to his nation.
There is one another island which defies sea levels. And volunteers are pitching in efforts to torpedo the island out of existence. So to say.
Sailing adrift on the Pacific is a ship no one wants to claim ownership of, but all the same it belongs to all of us. This is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, twice the size of Texas and created from six million tonnes of discarded plastic.
Discovered in 1997 it is made of bottle caps, plastic bags and plastic chips. Broken down by sun and waves they become tiny plastic chips with huge potential attracting and poisoning marine life.
An upcoming ocean garbage expedition to the patch, dubbed Project Kaisei will explore the feasibility of collecting and recycling the garbage patch into diesel fuel. With a crew of 30, the expedition, supported by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Brita, the water company, will use unmanned aircraft and robotic surface explorers to map the extent and depth of the plastic continent while collecting 40 tonnes of the refuse for trial recycling.
If the plan sounds too ambitious, a modest derelict fishing net recycling program in Hawaii proves that it is possible.
The Honolulu Derelict Net Recycling Program, in which abandoned fishing nets are brought into port, chopped into pieces, crushed, sorted, and recycled as fuel at HPower, a waste-to-electricity plant. The plant provides electricity to 40,000 homes, and it’s estimated that the recycled nets account for about 280 of them. So far about 660 tons of nets have been sent to HPower since 2006.
Compared to the 4 million tons of debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch this is nothing. But Project Kaisei is relying on sponsorships and donations to get in gear. Want to help?
There is one another island which defies sea levels. And volunteers are pitching in efforts to torpedo the island out of existence. So to say.
Sailing adrift on the Pacific is a ship no one wants to claim ownership of, but all the same it belongs to all of us. This is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, twice the size of Texas and created from six million tonnes of discarded plastic.
Discovered in 1997 it is made of bottle caps, plastic bags and plastic chips. Broken down by sun and waves they become tiny plastic chips with huge potential attracting and poisoning marine life.
An upcoming ocean garbage expedition to the patch, dubbed Project Kaisei will explore the feasibility of collecting and recycling the garbage patch into diesel fuel. With a crew of 30, the expedition, supported by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Brita, the water company, will use unmanned aircraft and robotic surface explorers to map the extent and depth of the plastic continent while collecting 40 tonnes of the refuse for trial recycling.
If the plan sounds too ambitious, a modest derelict fishing net recycling program in Hawaii proves that it is possible.
The Honolulu Derelict Net Recycling Program, in which abandoned fishing nets are brought into port, chopped into pieces, crushed, sorted, and recycled as fuel at HPower, a waste-to-electricity plant. The plant provides electricity to 40,000 homes, and it’s estimated that the recycled nets account for about 280 of them. So far about 660 tons of nets have been sent to HPower since 2006.
Compared to the 4 million tons of debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch this is nothing. But Project Kaisei is relying on sponsorships and donations to get in gear. Want to help?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
More Ailas to come?
More than 100 in the Asian sub-continent have lost their lives and much damage wrought by Aila. Cyclones like Aila could be the rule rather than exception if global warming continues unabated.
Intensification of storms is directly linked to ocean temperatures. Ocean warming has penetrated to a considerable depth. One of the ways that hurricanes/cyclones are weakened is the upwelling of colder, deeper water due to the hurricane’s own violent action. But when the deeper water is also warm, it doesn’t weaken the hurricane but intensifies it.
Global warming heats both the sea surface and the deep water, thus aggravating the hurricane in its journey from tropical depression to high category storms.
A 2005 study, “Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceans,” led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography compared actual ocean temperature data from the surface down to hundreds of meters (in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans) with climate models and concluded that a warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years.
The signal is complex, and cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models.
Tropical cyclones are more closely linked with sea surface temperatures and do not form unless the temperature goes above a certain number. Is that reason enough for nations to combat climate change?! And do it not by lukewarm guidelines but mandatory rules across all sectors. Agree?
Intensification of storms is directly linked to ocean temperatures. Ocean warming has penetrated to a considerable depth. One of the ways that hurricanes/cyclones are weakened is the upwelling of colder, deeper water due to the hurricane’s own violent action. But when the deeper water is also warm, it doesn’t weaken the hurricane but intensifies it.
Global warming heats both the sea surface and the deep water, thus aggravating the hurricane in its journey from tropical depression to high category storms.
A 2005 study, “Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceans,” led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography compared actual ocean temperature data from the surface down to hundreds of meters (in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans) with climate models and concluded that a warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years.
The signal is complex, and cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models.
Tropical cyclones are more closely linked with sea surface temperatures and do not form unless the temperature goes above a certain number. Is that reason enough for nations to combat climate change?! And do it not by lukewarm guidelines but mandatory rules across all sectors. Agree?
The low-carbon platform
The Wall Street Journal reports that energy ministers from the world's eight richest nations said on May 24 they would work to create a common low-carbon technology platform as solution to climate change and energy security. And in that scheme of things, nuclear will be given a big role!
The oil-producing nations are also concerned that a future run up of the price of oil could tank global demand and with it their own investment strategies.
The meeting, held in Rome, saw the energy ministers from the Group of Eight leading nations, plus the European Commission, say, "In the opinion of a growing number of countries, the use of nuclear energy can contribute to energy security while reducing greenhouse emissions."
The group called for international collaboration among countries interested in the civil use of nuclear energy. The G8 statement was endorsed by Saudi Arabia, India and China, all fast developers of nuclear energy.
Contrast this with the recent statement of Jon Wellinghoff, the new chairman of the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Wellinghoff said that the U.S. will never need to build another coal or nuclear power plant. He claims that all of the new capacity that is required could be delivered by new wind, solar, and biomass plants.
Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive. A new nuclear power plant costs $7,000 a kilowatt, which is more than solar energy. Coal plants are sort of in the same boat, although they are not quite as expensive, as an expert put it.
To the common refrain that renewables cannot provide the baseload energy, Wellinghoff retorted that the 'baseload' concept comes from the time when we had cheap but inflexible nuclear and coal plants, and flexible but expensive natural gas plants. But when wind is the cheapest source, it will be dispatched first, and that requires a completely different approach. We will have 'distributed generation' just like we have 'distributed computing'.
Solar and wind electricity systems have been seen as disadvantageous as they must be backed-up 100 percent by other forms of energy to ensure against blackouts. But, is that true?
Big nuclear and coal plants require more 'back-up' than wind farms, say some. The spinning reserve on the grid must indeed be tuned to the size of the biggest single generator. If that generator unexpectedly drops out, back-up should still be provided. If wind farms are spread over a large enough geographical area, they are less likely to drop out all at once and thus require less back-up.
Is nuclear being given undue prominence? Is the ‘clean’ aspect of its zero emissions balanced out by its costs and timeframes?
The oil-producing nations are also concerned that a future run up of the price of oil could tank global demand and with it their own investment strategies.
The meeting, held in Rome, saw the energy ministers from the Group of Eight leading nations, plus the European Commission, say, "In the opinion of a growing number of countries, the use of nuclear energy can contribute to energy security while reducing greenhouse emissions."
The group called for international collaboration among countries interested in the civil use of nuclear energy. The G8 statement was endorsed by Saudi Arabia, India and China, all fast developers of nuclear energy.
Contrast this with the recent statement of Jon Wellinghoff, the new chairman of the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Wellinghoff said that the U.S. will never need to build another coal or nuclear power plant. He claims that all of the new capacity that is required could be delivered by new wind, solar, and biomass plants.
Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive. A new nuclear power plant costs $7,000 a kilowatt, which is more than solar energy. Coal plants are sort of in the same boat, although they are not quite as expensive, as an expert put it.
To the common refrain that renewables cannot provide the baseload energy, Wellinghoff retorted that the 'baseload' concept comes from the time when we had cheap but inflexible nuclear and coal plants, and flexible but expensive natural gas plants. But when wind is the cheapest source, it will be dispatched first, and that requires a completely different approach. We will have 'distributed generation' just like we have 'distributed computing'.
Solar and wind electricity systems have been seen as disadvantageous as they must be backed-up 100 percent by other forms of energy to ensure against blackouts. But, is that true?
Big nuclear and coal plants require more 'back-up' than wind farms, say some. The spinning reserve on the grid must indeed be tuned to the size of the biggest single generator. If that generator unexpectedly drops out, back-up should still be provided. If wind farms are spread over a large enough geographical area, they are less likely to drop out all at once and thus require less back-up.
Is nuclear being given undue prominence? Is the ‘clean’ aspect of its zero emissions balanced out by its costs and timeframes?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Touch Me Not
From The World is Flat, globalised view of the world of trade and commerce, and the level playing field it advocated for all players to stay in the contention, to the Why Your World is Going to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, and the end of Globalisation, that focuses on protectionism, it has been a brief flirtation indeed with the global village!
Where Friedman saw immense possibilities in a globalised market, economist Jeff Rubin now sees the beginning of regionalism and shrinking markets. Thanks to oil prices that the IEA predicts will skyrocket when demand picks up, and supply can’t match.
The ‘incredible appetite the Chinese have for oil’ (look who’s talking!), ultra-cheap cars to appear in India and spread globally, excessive consumption and local subsidies in the Middle East, are among reasons cited by Rubin for the crunch. Oil price will be so high that few can afford, suburbs will suffer and cities get denser, local agriculture will sprout, domestic manufacturing will override cheap foreign labour, and all this will start happening in 18 months!
Carbon tariffs are absolutely necessary, says Rubin and are the first thing countries like Canada and the United States should put in place if they’re going to impose carbon caps on their own industry. Stern, who warned against tariffs as a protectionist measure, is living in a fantasy land if he thinks we have to time to negotiate international agreements, adds Rubin. ‘We have no time, he said, adding that it’s time to start playing hardball with countries like China.’
This is exactly the kind of language that will vitiate the international climate of co-operation. Is equity important or equal commitments? Can the west afford to play ‘hardball’ when it has been the perpetrator of climate change? How come protectionism that was once a dirty word is no more so?
Talking of carbon tariffs on products and services, and focusing on licence fees from new technologies rather than facilitating tech transfer to the poor nations, is tantamount to bullying. A people that have refused to ‘compromise on their lifestyle’ except when depression forced it upon them, is asking a people who never had a lifestyle to talk about, to start paying up!
What do you think? Let us know. Lifestyle apart, there are other questions too.
Is the developing world aware of what is happening or expected to happen in the west? How prepared is it to go self-reliant? Do governments realize the growing significance of domestic market and do they have a game plan in mind?
Have we had enough of globalisation? Can we survive as small, isolated entities?
Where Friedman saw immense possibilities in a globalised market, economist Jeff Rubin now sees the beginning of regionalism and shrinking markets. Thanks to oil prices that the IEA predicts will skyrocket when demand picks up, and supply can’t match.
The ‘incredible appetite the Chinese have for oil’ (look who’s talking!), ultra-cheap cars to appear in India and spread globally, excessive consumption and local subsidies in the Middle East, are among reasons cited by Rubin for the crunch. Oil price will be so high that few can afford, suburbs will suffer and cities get denser, local agriculture will sprout, domestic manufacturing will override cheap foreign labour, and all this will start happening in 18 months!
Carbon tariffs are absolutely necessary, says Rubin and are the first thing countries like Canada and the United States should put in place if they’re going to impose carbon caps on their own industry. Stern, who warned against tariffs as a protectionist measure, is living in a fantasy land if he thinks we have to time to negotiate international agreements, adds Rubin. ‘We have no time, he said, adding that it’s time to start playing hardball with countries like China.’
This is exactly the kind of language that will vitiate the international climate of co-operation. Is equity important or equal commitments? Can the west afford to play ‘hardball’ when it has been the perpetrator of climate change? How come protectionism that was once a dirty word is no more so?
Talking of carbon tariffs on products and services, and focusing on licence fees from new technologies rather than facilitating tech transfer to the poor nations, is tantamount to bullying. A people that have refused to ‘compromise on their lifestyle’ except when depression forced it upon them, is asking a people who never had a lifestyle to talk about, to start paying up!
What do you think? Let us know. Lifestyle apart, there are other questions too.
Is the developing world aware of what is happening or expected to happen in the west? How prepared is it to go self-reliant? Do governments realize the growing significance of domestic market and do they have a game plan in mind?
Have we had enough of globalisation? Can we survive as small, isolated entities?
Friday, May 22, 2009
A price for ideas - fair?
The United Nations’ first draft of a new treaty to stem global warming suggests ways for countries to stem global warming also by sharing clean-energy technology. Richer nations were urged to aid developing economies in adapting to effects of rising temperatures. The text will now be refined by 192 countries in negotiations to forge a new deal.
As has been noted in our blog earlier, technology transfer has not been happening at the desired pace and between the desired parties. A large portion of it has been between developed nations.
Is there a reluctance to part with technology? Is it linked to the price of innovation? An interesting debate in the west today is on the same topic.
The United States Chamber of Commerce is expressing growing concern that moves to spread new energy technologies to developing countries could erode the intellectual property rights that have driven commercial efforts to innovate for generations.
The group and representatives of General Electric, Microsoft and Sunrise Solar gathered in Washington to launch the Innovation, Development & Employment Alliance, or I.D.E.A. The initiative is aimed at pressing Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that global climate-treaty talks don’t weaken protections on who can profit from new technologies that provide abundant energy without abundant pollution.
This issue came up in a recent question-and-answer session by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, in which he proposed that — at least on vital large-scale technologies like systems for capturing and storing carbon dioxide — intellectual property rights issues might best be dropped to foster international cooperation.
That didn’t go over well at the time with a top official from General Electric.
Should profits come first, or the larger benefit to the planet? Will innovation happen only if there is assured incentive?
As has been noted in our blog earlier, technology transfer has not been happening at the desired pace and between the desired parties. A large portion of it has been between developed nations.
Is there a reluctance to part with technology? Is it linked to the price of innovation? An interesting debate in the west today is on the same topic.
The United States Chamber of Commerce is expressing growing concern that moves to spread new energy technologies to developing countries could erode the intellectual property rights that have driven commercial efforts to innovate for generations.
The group and representatives of General Electric, Microsoft and Sunrise Solar gathered in Washington to launch the Innovation, Development & Employment Alliance, or I.D.E.A. The initiative is aimed at pressing Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that global climate-treaty talks don’t weaken protections on who can profit from new technologies that provide abundant energy without abundant pollution.
This issue came up in a recent question-and-answer session by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, in which he proposed that — at least on vital large-scale technologies like systems for capturing and storing carbon dioxide — intellectual property rights issues might best be dropped to foster international cooperation.
That didn’t go over well at the time with a top official from General Electric.
Should profits come first, or the larger benefit to the planet? Will innovation happen only if there is assured incentive?
Charging licence fees would bring in the profits for the developer but can the poor nations afford do? The better choice to them will seem to be that of using the existing technology and keep polluting.
Is this debate a typical reflection of the growth-profit-motive vision of capitalism that expects rewards for contributions to society? Is there a need to focus on the moral compass in the issue of global warming where the west cannot deny its role as the main cause?
Can the developing nations arm-twist technology and economic aid out of the rich world?
The posturing begins
China has asked for the world's wealthiest nations to cut their 1990 emissions by 40 percent. And do it by 2020. In a document written by the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), which handles the country's climate change policy, the NDRC document called for the same nations to give 0.5 to 1.0 percent of their annual economic worth to combat climate change.
China, which is the biggest emitter now, plans to have 35% of its power come from clean energy sources by 2020. The country’s electricity capacity would double by 2020 to about 1,600 gigawatts, and 35% of that would come from “low-emission” power sources.
China would boast about 570 gigawatts of “clean energy” by the end of the next decade, said Liu Zhenya, head of China’s state electricity network operator.
But as WallStreet Journal puts it, there is a missing 100 GW somewhere! ‘We know China plans to have 300 gigawatts of hydroelectric power by then. And we know the official targets for wind power have been raised to 100 gigawatts. Nuclear optimists in Beijing now talk about 60 gigawatts by 2020. Solar enthusiasts talk of a target between 2 and 10 gigawatts of capacity by 2020. Being generous, that’s 470 gigawatts of low-emissions electricity capacity. There’s 100 gigawatts missing somewhere.’
Meanwhile, what is causing the nightmares is the 65 percent of China’s energy mix. Around 1000 GW of coal-fired electricity!
Figures may not be that important in what is now building up into a strategy game, with Copenhagen closing in. Each player is pitching his bait and threats. Who will win? Hopefully ,the planet.
The United Nations’ first draft of a new treaty to stem global warming suggests goals such as the near elimination of greenhouse-gas emissions by mid-century in developed countries including the U.S. and Japan.
China, India and other emerging economies would have to aim for a 25 percent reduction of heat-trapping gases, under a separate option that would mark the first-ever target for developing nations.
The 53-page text, posted on the Web site of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will now be refined by 192 countries in negotiations to forge a new deal to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol climate-protection treaty.
China, which is the biggest emitter now, plans to have 35% of its power come from clean energy sources by 2020. The country’s electricity capacity would double by 2020 to about 1,600 gigawatts, and 35% of that would come from “low-emission” power sources.
China would boast about 570 gigawatts of “clean energy” by the end of the next decade, said Liu Zhenya, head of China’s state electricity network operator.
But as WallStreet Journal puts it, there is a missing 100 GW somewhere! ‘We know China plans to have 300 gigawatts of hydroelectric power by then. And we know the official targets for wind power have been raised to 100 gigawatts. Nuclear optimists in Beijing now talk about 60 gigawatts by 2020. Solar enthusiasts talk of a target between 2 and 10 gigawatts of capacity by 2020. Being generous, that’s 470 gigawatts of low-emissions electricity capacity. There’s 100 gigawatts missing somewhere.’
Meanwhile, what is causing the nightmares is the 65 percent of China’s energy mix. Around 1000 GW of coal-fired electricity!
Figures may not be that important in what is now building up into a strategy game, with Copenhagen closing in. Each player is pitching his bait and threats. Who will win? Hopefully ,the planet.
The United Nations’ first draft of a new treaty to stem global warming suggests goals such as the near elimination of greenhouse-gas emissions by mid-century in developed countries including the U.S. and Japan.
China, India and other emerging economies would have to aim for a 25 percent reduction of heat-trapping gases, under a separate option that would mark the first-ever target for developing nations.
The 53-page text, posted on the Web site of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will now be refined by 192 countries in negotiations to forge a new deal to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol climate-protection treaty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
