Years ago if you saw a photo of a polar bear, the background would almost certainly have been white ice or snow. Pictures like this have become commonplace as some scientists have sought to highlight & dramatise the changing Arctic climate.
For penguins the effects of ice melting in Antarctica are more mixed. Earlier springs mean earlier breeding and more penguins but the increased penguin population is having to swim further to catch fish which are moving to seek colder water.
Rising temperatures may lead to phenomena like algae infesting melting glaciers, as shown here with the Canada Glacier in Antarctica, or bleached coral. Bleaching does not actually kill coral but it does lower its resistance to disease.
The solitary figure in the landscape is in Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost US town, 539kms above the Arctic Circle, where the c. 1,800 residents, mostly Eskimos or Inuit, see no sun from late November to January. The pictured Inuit is from Baffin Island, Canada. Such people are finding food with increasing difficulty because caribou, for example, their staple diet, are falling through the thinning ice cap.
The problem is not confined to polar regions, although they are experiencing the most rapid warming. The picture shows Male, capital of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean. With a maximum elevation of 2.4 metres, the inhabitants have erected a sea wall as protection against a possible rise in sea level.
St Mary's Lake in Montana's Glacier National Park. In 1910 there were 150 glaciers; now there are 30.
Damage caused by Hurricane Ivan in Breeze Point, Florida, 2004. Of course, hurricanes happened before global warming and the tendency to blame all natural disasters, such as the 2005 tsunami, on climaate change are ludicrous.
The greatest natural diasaster of modern times was Krakatoa erupting in 1883, long before anyone dreamt of global warming..
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Problem & solution
Problem & solution
Global warming is widely perceived today, worldwide, as a major problem facing mankind. Simply defined, it is the heating up of the earth's atmosphere due to higher greenhouse gas emissions. The fear is that increased temperatures will lead to melting polar ice-caps, rising sea levels, which could cause flooding affecting millions in densely-poulated low-lying areas of the world, and an increase in the occurrence of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
The film , An Inconvenient Truth. directed by Davis Guggenheim, 2006, presented by Al Gore, dramatically highlights the dangers involved. We watched the movie and read reviews of it, mostly favourable, e.g. Brandon Fibbs, but some critical, e.g. Scott & Eric. The film was very well presented, with lots of statistical information, graphs and charts as well as some very dramatic photographic evidence. In addition we measured our carbon foorprints & mine was 4.1.
The class average for CRC was 3.86.
All this is food for thought, but I have some reservations I don't consider myself to be an extravagant consumer of food or energy & I don't see how becoming vegetarian or vegan will save the planet, yet that was the implicit assumption in some of the questions we answered to obtain our footprint. In addition, how can we find a solution if not everyone agrees about the scope of the problem? Nicholas Stern, in A Blueprint for a Safer Planet, has suggested that controlling global C02 emissions is desirable, achievable & affordable, but Nigel Lawson, in A Load of Hot Air, has refuted this:
'The Stern Review sought to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon dioxide) concentrations could be stabilised at relatively low global cost, and the resulting benefit from preventing much further warming would far outweigh that cost. This analysis has been wholly discredited by pretty well every prominent economist who has addressed the issue. '
If there is no widespread agreement as to the scope of the problem, and the costs involved in dealing with it, then we have a long way to go before we find a solution.
Bibliography:
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006
Lawson, Nigel. "A Load of Hot Air." Rev. of A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change & Create a new Era of Progress & Prosperity, by Nicholas Stern, Bodley Head, 2009. The Spectator 29 Apr. 2009.
Brandon Fibbs, http://brandonfibbs.com/2006/05/24/an-inconvenient-truth/
Scott & Eric http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156,
http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
Global warming is widely perceived today, worldwide, as a major problem facing mankind. Simply defined, it is the heating up of the earth's atmosphere due to higher greenhouse gas emissions. The fear is that increased temperatures will lead to melting polar ice-caps, rising sea levels, which could cause flooding affecting millions in densely-poulated low-lying areas of the world, and an increase in the occurrence of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
The film , An Inconvenient Truth. directed by Davis Guggenheim, 2006, presented by Al Gore, dramatically highlights the dangers involved. We watched the movie and read reviews of it, mostly favourable, e.g. Brandon Fibbs, but some critical, e.g. Scott & Eric. The film was very well presented, with lots of statistical information, graphs and charts as well as some very dramatic photographic evidence. In addition we measured our carbon foorprints & mine was 4.1.
The class average for CRC was 3.86.
All this is food for thought, but I have some reservations I don't consider myself to be an extravagant consumer of food or energy & I don't see how becoming vegetarian or vegan will save the planet, yet that was the implicit assumption in some of the questions we answered to obtain our footprint. In addition, how can we find a solution if not everyone agrees about the scope of the problem? Nicholas Stern, in A Blueprint for a Safer Planet, has suggested that controlling global C02 emissions is desirable, achievable & affordable, but Nigel Lawson, in A Load of Hot Air, has refuted this:
'The Stern Review sought to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon dioxide) concentrations could be stabilised at relatively low global cost, and the resulting benefit from preventing much further warming would far outweigh that cost. This analysis has been wholly discredited by pretty well every prominent economist who has addressed the issue. '
If there is no widespread agreement as to the scope of the problem, and the costs involved in dealing with it, then we have a long way to go before we find a solution.
Bibliography:
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006
Lawson, Nigel. "A Load of Hot Air." Rev. of A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change & Create a new Era of Progress & Prosperity, by Nicholas Stern, Bodley Head, 2009. The Spectator 29 Apr. 2009.
Brandon Fibbs, http://brandonfibbs.com/2006/05/24/an-inconvenient-truth/
Scott & Eric http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156,
http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
Monday, May 4, 2009
Cool City
We watched the Cool City video.
According to the video:
Economic development since the Industrial Revolution has been breathtaking but it has brought with it problems such as population pressure & CO2 emissions.
If we don't act to solve these problems, we'll need another earth, clearly impossible.
We have to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%.
In Japan during the last 30 years, GDP has doubled, while energy efficiency has increased by 37% & oil consumption decreased by 8%.
90% of CO2 emitted into the air comes from buildings & transport.
Cool city is an environmentally friendly green city with minimal CO2 emissions.
It is being built by SDCJ, a group of Japanese companies.
There are 3 main zones: Business; Commercial/Cultural; Residential.
Three types of transport mentioned were light transit rail/monorail; solar water taxis; hybrid cars.
Heat-reducing techniques: tree-planting; waterways; rooftop membranes.
Expected CO2 reductions: for eco-towers 50% & for eco-residences 30%.
Overall reduction of CO2 emissions is expected to be 60%.
How practical/ realistic is the video?
It certainly looks good but I'm personally sceptical as to what % of the Emirates' population will ever live in such a cool city.
It will involve a massive shift in lifestyle & cultural attitudes.
For a corrective viewpoint, see the posting below, A Load of Hot Air.
215 words
According to the video:
Economic development since the Industrial Revolution has been breathtaking but it has brought with it problems such as population pressure & CO2 emissions.
If we don't act to solve these problems, we'll need another earth, clearly impossible.
We have to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%.
In Japan during the last 30 years, GDP has doubled, while energy efficiency has increased by 37% & oil consumption decreased by 8%.
90% of CO2 emitted into the air comes from buildings & transport.
Cool city is an environmentally friendly green city with minimal CO2 emissions.
It is being built by SDCJ, a group of Japanese companies.
There are 3 main zones: Business; Commercial/Cultural; Residential.
Three types of transport mentioned were light transit rail/monorail; solar water taxis; hybrid cars.
Heat-reducing techniques: tree-planting; waterways; rooftop membranes.
Expected CO2 reductions: for eco-towers 50% & for eco-residences 30%.
Overall reduction of CO2 emissions is expected to be 60%.
How practical/ realistic is the video?
It certainly looks good but I'm personally sceptical as to what % of the Emirates' population will ever live in such a cool city.
It will involve a massive shift in lifestyle & cultural attitudes.
For a corrective viewpoint, see the posting below, A Load of Hot Air.
215 words
A load of hot air
A load of hot air
Wednesday, 29th April 2009
A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a new Era of Progress and Prosperity
Nicholas Stern Bodley Head, 246pp, £16.99
As a general rule, I do not believe in reviewing bad books. Review space is limited, and the many good books that are published deserve first claim on it. But climate change is such an important subject, and — thanks to heavy promotion by that great publicist, Tony Blair — the Stern Review of the economics of climate change has become so well known (not least to the vast majority who have never read it, among whom in all probability is Mr Blair), that anything from Lord Stern deserves some attention.
However, anyone looking for anything new in this rather arrogant book — all those who dissent from Stern’s analysis, his predictions, or his prescriptions are dismissed as ‘both ignorant and reckless’ (the word ‘ignorant’ recurs frequently) — will be disappointed. The first half of the book is a rehash of the original Stern Review, and the second half a rehash of his lengthy 2008 LSE study Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change. This last is an exercise in political naivety which does not improve on its second outing; and the European Union leadership trumpeted by Stern (‘We can expect the EU and its member countries to continue to drive forward action on climate change’) has already collapsed with the back-tracking at the EU climate summit last December, after this book went to press.
The Stern Review sought to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon dioxide) concentrations could be stabilised at relatively low global cost, and the resulting benefit from preventing much further warming would far outweigh that cost. This analysis has been wholly discredited by pretty well every prominent economist who has addressed the issue. For example, Professor Helm of Oxford, probably Britain’s most eminent energy economist, has recently observed that Stern’s implausibly low ‘cost numbers … [are] all but useless for the purposes of policy design and implementation’. So far from seriously addressing the substantial objections Stern’s critics have made, this book essentially just reiterates the original (non-peer reviewed, incidentally) analysis.
The only significant economic support for Stern’s prescription has come from Professor Weitzman, of Harvard, who accepts that Stern’s cost-benefit analysis is all wrong, but maintains that this is an issue where cost benefit analysis is inapplicable: there is an outside chance of a disaster so great that it needs to be averted irrespective of cost. One obvious problem with this approach, however, is that there is an outside chance of all manner of disasters, and we cannot spend unlimited resources on seeking to avert them all. Moreover, one of them is a new ice age, which would be very much worse; and indeed the formidably eminent scientist, Professor Freeman Dyson of Princeton, believes that any warming that might occur might well be helpful in forestalling a new ice age.
Not that there has been any global warming lately. The recorded global temperature trend so far this century (2001-2008 inclusive) has been completely flat, despite the predicted warming of all the computer models in which Stern places uncritical faith and despite (until the onset of the current world recession) a much faster than predicted growth in carbon emissions. This unexpected development, which at the very least demonstrates that the whole issue is both more complex and less certain than he would have us believe, is blithely ignored by Stern, who assures us that ‘the [temperature] trend is clearly upwards’, and that ‘rapid climate change’ is on the way — although he subsequently defines ‘rapid’ as ‘within the next century or two’. His ability to foretell the distant future is remarkable.
But then respect for the evidence is not a strong point of this book. To take just one example (and there are many), as part of his alarmist narrative he tells us that ‘low-lying island states such as Tuvalu are submerging’. This canard, which I believe was first launched by the climate change propagandist Al Gore, is wholly unfounded. In 1993, scientists from Flinders University in Australia, believing that the old float-type tide gauges used in the South Pacific (which were registering an annual sea-level rise of a negligible 0.7 millimetres a year) must be inaccurate, placed new modern ones around a dozen Pacific islands, including Tuvalu. After more than a decade of finding no sign of any significant sea-level rise (in 2006 Tuvalu actually recorded a fall) the project was abandoned.
Clearly concerned that there is still less than total acceptance of his message, Stern warmly commends direct action by Greenpeace and the like, and warns, mafia style, that ‘there are fewer and fewer hiding places for firms wanting to conceal dubious, unsafe or irresponsible practices’. Even the media are blamed for giving ‘similar time to scientists and deniers of the science, when the balance of argument in logic and evidence is 99 (or more) to 1, not 50-50’.
In fact, the media give far from equal time to the two sides in this debate. As I know from my own experience, it is virtually impossible for a dissenting voice to be given a hearing on any flagship BBC programme, either on radio or on television. But what is truly mind-boggling is Stern’s assertion, without adducing a scrap of supporting evidence, that informed opinion is 99 per cent (or more) on his side.
The most thorough survey of the views of climate scientists was conducted by Dr Dennis Bray, a social scientist, and Professor Hans von Storch of the Meteorological Institute at Hamburg University, and published in 2007. Asked whether they agreed with the proposition that ‘climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic [ie man-made] causes’, 66 per cent agreed, of whom 38 per cent ‘strongly agreed’. In other words, a majority well short of Stern’s 99 per cent agreed, and only a minority ‘strongly agreed’.
Moreover, when they were asked what they felt to be ‘the most pressing issue facing humanity today’, which Stern asserts is climate change caused by global warming, only 8 per cent of them placed this first. So it would be closer to the truth to say that probably at least 90 per cent of informed opinion disagrees, one way or another, with Stern’s crude alarmism. If there is one silver lining to the current world recession, it is that it might bring about a dose of realism which will help us to escape from the highly damaging global warming madness which this book epitomises.
Nigel Lawson’s book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, is now available, with a new afterword, in paperback (Duckworth Overlook, £6.99).
Wednesday, 29th April 2009
A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a new Era of Progress and Prosperity
Nicholas Stern Bodley Head, 246pp, £16.99
As a general rule, I do not believe in reviewing bad books. Review space is limited, and the many good books that are published deserve first claim on it. But climate change is such an important subject, and — thanks to heavy promotion by that great publicist, Tony Blair — the Stern Review of the economics of climate change has become so well known (not least to the vast majority who have never read it, among whom in all probability is Mr Blair), that anything from Lord Stern deserves some attention.
However, anyone looking for anything new in this rather arrogant book — all those who dissent from Stern’s analysis, his predictions, or his prescriptions are dismissed as ‘both ignorant and reckless’ (the word ‘ignorant’ recurs frequently) — will be disappointed. The first half of the book is a rehash of the original Stern Review, and the second half a rehash of his lengthy 2008 LSE study Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change. This last is an exercise in political naivety which does not improve on its second outing; and the European Union leadership trumpeted by Stern (‘We can expect the EU and its member countries to continue to drive forward action on climate change’) has already collapsed with the back-tracking at the EU climate summit last December, after this book went to press.
The Stern Review sought to argue that atmospheric greenhouse gas (chiefly carbon dioxide) concentrations could be stabilised at relatively low global cost, and the resulting benefit from preventing much further warming would far outweigh that cost. This analysis has been wholly discredited by pretty well every prominent economist who has addressed the issue. For example, Professor Helm of Oxford, probably Britain’s most eminent energy economist, has recently observed that Stern’s implausibly low ‘cost numbers … [are] all but useless for the purposes of policy design and implementation’. So far from seriously addressing the substantial objections Stern’s critics have made, this book essentially just reiterates the original (non-peer reviewed, incidentally) analysis.
The only significant economic support for Stern’s prescription has come from Professor Weitzman, of Harvard, who accepts that Stern’s cost-benefit analysis is all wrong, but maintains that this is an issue where cost benefit analysis is inapplicable: there is an outside chance of a disaster so great that it needs to be averted irrespective of cost. One obvious problem with this approach, however, is that there is an outside chance of all manner of disasters, and we cannot spend unlimited resources on seeking to avert them all. Moreover, one of them is a new ice age, which would be very much worse; and indeed the formidably eminent scientist, Professor Freeman Dyson of Princeton, believes that any warming that might occur might well be helpful in forestalling a new ice age.
Not that there has been any global warming lately. The recorded global temperature trend so far this century (2001-2008 inclusive) has been completely flat, despite the predicted warming of all the computer models in which Stern places uncritical faith and despite (until the onset of the current world recession) a much faster than predicted growth in carbon emissions. This unexpected development, which at the very least demonstrates that the whole issue is both more complex and less certain than he would have us believe, is blithely ignored by Stern, who assures us that ‘the [temperature] trend is clearly upwards’, and that ‘rapid climate change’ is on the way — although he subsequently defines ‘rapid’ as ‘within the next century or two’. His ability to foretell the distant future is remarkable.
But then respect for the evidence is not a strong point of this book. To take just one example (and there are many), as part of his alarmist narrative he tells us that ‘low-lying island states such as Tuvalu are submerging’. This canard, which I believe was first launched by the climate change propagandist Al Gore, is wholly unfounded. In 1993, scientists from Flinders University in Australia, believing that the old float-type tide gauges used in the South Pacific (which were registering an annual sea-level rise of a negligible 0.7 millimetres a year) must be inaccurate, placed new modern ones around a dozen Pacific islands, including Tuvalu. After more than a decade of finding no sign of any significant sea-level rise (in 2006 Tuvalu actually recorded a fall) the project was abandoned.
Clearly concerned that there is still less than total acceptance of his message, Stern warmly commends direct action by Greenpeace and the like, and warns, mafia style, that ‘there are fewer and fewer hiding places for firms wanting to conceal dubious, unsafe or irresponsible practices’. Even the media are blamed for giving ‘similar time to scientists and deniers of the science, when the balance of argument in logic and evidence is 99 (or more) to 1, not 50-50’.
In fact, the media give far from equal time to the two sides in this debate. As I know from my own experience, it is virtually impossible for a dissenting voice to be given a hearing on any flagship BBC programme, either on radio or on television. But what is truly mind-boggling is Stern’s assertion, without adducing a scrap of supporting evidence, that informed opinion is 99 per cent (or more) on his side.
The most thorough survey of the views of climate scientists was conducted by Dr Dennis Bray, a social scientist, and Professor Hans von Storch of the Meteorological Institute at Hamburg University, and published in 2007. Asked whether they agreed with the proposition that ‘climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic [ie man-made] causes’, 66 per cent agreed, of whom 38 per cent ‘strongly agreed’. In other words, a majority well short of Stern’s 99 per cent agreed, and only a minority ‘strongly agreed’.
Moreover, when they were asked what they felt to be ‘the most pressing issue facing humanity today’, which Stern asserts is climate change caused by global warming, only 8 per cent of them placed this first. So it would be closer to the truth to say that probably at least 90 per cent of informed opinion disagrees, one way or another, with Stern’s crude alarmism. If there is one silver lining to the current world recession, it is that it might bring about a dose of realism which will help us to escape from the highly damaging global warming madness which this book epitomises.
Nigel Lawson’s book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, is now available, with a new afterword, in paperback (Duckworth Overlook, £6.99).
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Are electric cars really the next big step for mankind?
ELISABETH JEFFRIES
The Spectator
WEDNESDAY, 29th APRIL 2009
If internal combustion is going to be superceded by battery power, says Elisabeth Jeffries, carmakers and governments need to invest on a scale akin to the Apollo space programme.
Putting Lord Mandelson into an electric Mini may not seem to bear much comparison with putting a man on the moon, but there are interesting parallels.
In 1961, the US government embarked on the Apollo space programme, with the ambition of landing astronauts on the moon by the end of the decade. By 1969, it had achieved exactly what it set out to do. But it was a risky project, with no guarantee of success. To land on the moon, scientists had to solve three problems: how to rendezvous and dock with another spacecraft, how to work outside a spacecraft, and how to survive prolonged periods of time in space. In total, the US government spent $20 billion on the project (about $350 billion in today’s money), driven by a desire to upstage and defeat the menace of the age — the Soviet Union.
That world has gone. A new perceived menace has emerged, greenhouse gas, and a new programme is creaking into gear to control it: low-carbon technology. Today’s challenge is to produce an electric car that can travel 200 miles without recharging its battery: a cinch compared to space travel, you might have thought.
Yet governments and vehicle producers are groping in the dark. Back in the 1920s, electric cars briefly commanded a 20 per cent share of the motor vehicle market, but the technology was sidelined as oil supplies became increasingly abundant and manufacturers concentrated on the carbon-fuelled internal combustion (IC) engine. An electric car launched by General Motors in the 1990s was quietly snuffed.
GM had gradually overtaken Ford and become the world’s most successful car producer, but its fortunes were on a long downward slide towards the brink of bankruptcy it faces today. After decades of consolidation across the industry, only a handful of global manufacturers remain, and far too many conventional vehicles are being produced.
Enter the green car. First there was the Toyota hybrid (a petrol-driven vehicle that can use electricity at low speeds). Next is GM’s Chevrolet Volt — due to be launched in the US next year — similar to GM’s Vauxhall Ampera in the UK, the prototype of which was unveiled at the Geneva motor show in March. For trips of up to 37 miles, the Ampera will run only on a lithium ion battery, more commonly used in laptop computers; for longer journeys, it will continue to use electricity, but generated by a small internal combustion engine.
And earlier this year an electric car in a different class altogether was unveiled — the Tesla Roadster, a California sports car that can go 220 miles without recharging, costs E112,000 in Europe, and was hailed by Boris Johnson under the Daily Telegraph headline ‘How to drive fast, have a good time — and still save the planet’.
The puzzle is why the hybrid electric car should be the next big thing, as competing announcements by car manufacturers suggest. It is pricier to develop than more efficient versions of conventional cars or new models using current electric-power technology. But, as Dr Paul Nieuwenhuis of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff University indicates, ‘The industry has hit a brick wall. To become more profitable, in the longer term it would have to change the way it approaches manufacturing and distribution’ — for example by using a greater number of smaller local plants and cutting out the dealers, an unlikely scenario.
Instead, the industry is locked into competing on the ‘power train’ — the parts that drive the car forward — and producing IC engines differentiated according to model or manufacturer. This means their factories are built along a particular format that is expensive to re-engineer for ‘pure’ electric cars. ‘That’s why the industry loves the hybrid,’ says Nieuwenhuis.
GM wants a new hook to compete on, and seems serious about hybrids. ‘This is the start of where we’re going. The way the system is designed it doesn’t have to have an IC alongside it, but there’s the flexibility of having the IC if you need it... we’re already in an advanced stage of development,’ says GM spokesman Craig Cheetham, who predicts that 4,000-5,000 Amperas will be sold in the UK in 2012 — about 1.5 per cent of GM’s UK sales. After that, he says, GM will take the power system and make it available for other models. The mouth-watering improvement in sales and image experienced by Toyota after the launch of the hybrid Prius is the most likely spur to GM’s enthusiasm.
GM says it will make its own battery pack for the Ampera at existing facilities neighbouring its Ellesmere Port plant, if the car is manufactured in the UK. But producers are still some way off solving battery performance, an essential requirement if hybrid and electric cars are to become widespread, allowing customers to feel confident that they can set off on a journey without running out of juice. Batteries still do not last long enough. To achieve its range, the Tesla has to carry thousands of lithium ion battery cells — one reason for its high price.
According to Nieuwenhuis, the main cost of a typical hybrid car is in its battery, amounting to around £15,000 at present — the same cost as producing the rest of the car. Improving the battery and bringing down the cost will take a decade, he thinks. ‘It is probably reasonable to assume that by 2020, battery costs will have halved as a result of mass production — which will begin for plug-in hybrids, but pure battery-electric vehicles will also benefit.’
So the plug-in hybrid (so called because it recharges at the mains), starting off as a lossmaker, could be fully functional and competitive within 11 years — a similar time span as the Apollo moonshot programme.
But there are major snags. GM and other mass carmakers are in deep trouble, pleading for bail-outs and more ‘scrappage’ schemes like the one introduced in last month’s Budget to encourage new car buyers. ‘Production of the Ampera is definitely going ahead regardless. What we are campaigning for is not government funding per se, but a government incentive to encourage customers to adopt the new technology,’ claims Cheetham. The recent photo-opportunity which put the Business Secretary Lord Mandelson and the Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon into an electric Mini on a Scottish race circuit was a partial response, announcing subsidies of up to £5,000 for buyers of electric cars from 2011. But no government has so far committed really big money for this endeavour.
Global government stimuli allocated for low-carbon vehicles have so far amounted to $15.9 billion, according to a study by HSBC. Most of that has been allocated to R&D for developing lighter batteries and plug-in hybrids, as well as tax credits or rebates for customers buying new, low-emitting vehicles. But more is needed. According to Lew Fulton, an expert at the International Energy Agency, plug-in hybrids may eventually cost about $5,000 more than conventional models, so putting two million plug-in hybrids on the road annually by 2020 could cost an additional $10 billion a year. Continuing research into battery and pure electric vehicle development generally could add another $1 billion a year, he suggests.
The total bill will run into hundreds of billions over the next two decades — more than the moon landings in real terms — if plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles are to become commonplace. And there will be much more existing clutter to clear away; for instance, a network of plug-in or battery-pack replacement points for cars needs to be set up in parallel with petrol stations. The widespread use of electric cars probably also involves adding to electricity generating capacity — though of course it also reduces demand for petrol distribution.
The auto industry can take electric cars in two directions. Nieuwenhuis suggests it can create a high-value market for them: ‘Historically, battery electric vehicles are usually sold to well-to-do ladies in urban areas who use them to do a bit of shopping, do lunch, visit friends. If such niches can be identified, there is a future for electric vehicles even with their existing limited range — as long as we don’t expect them to do the same things as our internal-combustion cars,’ he says.
Alternatively, it can try to sell them more widely and ramp up performance. Today’s governments should read the history of the Apollo programme: find a vision, set a deadline, put your money where your mouth is. But make no mistake, launching the age of the electric car will be tougher than going to the moon.
The Spectator
WEDNESDAY, 29th APRIL 2009
If internal combustion is going to be superceded by battery power, says Elisabeth Jeffries, carmakers and governments need to invest on a scale akin to the Apollo space programme.
Putting Lord Mandelson into an electric Mini may not seem to bear much comparison with putting a man on the moon, but there are interesting parallels.
In 1961, the US government embarked on the Apollo space programme, with the ambition of landing astronauts on the moon by the end of the decade. By 1969, it had achieved exactly what it set out to do. But it was a risky project, with no guarantee of success. To land on the moon, scientists had to solve three problems: how to rendezvous and dock with another spacecraft, how to work outside a spacecraft, and how to survive prolonged periods of time in space. In total, the US government spent $20 billion on the project (about $350 billion in today’s money), driven by a desire to upstage and defeat the menace of the age — the Soviet Union.
That world has gone. A new perceived menace has emerged, greenhouse gas, and a new programme is creaking into gear to control it: low-carbon technology. Today’s challenge is to produce an electric car that can travel 200 miles without recharging its battery: a cinch compared to space travel, you might have thought.
Yet governments and vehicle producers are groping in the dark. Back in the 1920s, electric cars briefly commanded a 20 per cent share of the motor vehicle market, but the technology was sidelined as oil supplies became increasingly abundant and manufacturers concentrated on the carbon-fuelled internal combustion (IC) engine. An electric car launched by General Motors in the 1990s was quietly snuffed.
GM had gradually overtaken Ford and become the world’s most successful car producer, but its fortunes were on a long downward slide towards the brink of bankruptcy it faces today. After decades of consolidation across the industry, only a handful of global manufacturers remain, and far too many conventional vehicles are being produced.
Enter the green car. First there was the Toyota hybrid (a petrol-driven vehicle that can use electricity at low speeds). Next is GM’s Chevrolet Volt — due to be launched in the US next year — similar to GM’s Vauxhall Ampera in the UK, the prototype of which was unveiled at the Geneva motor show in March. For trips of up to 37 miles, the Ampera will run only on a lithium ion battery, more commonly used in laptop computers; for longer journeys, it will continue to use electricity, but generated by a small internal combustion engine.
And earlier this year an electric car in a different class altogether was unveiled — the Tesla Roadster, a California sports car that can go 220 miles without recharging, costs E112,000 in Europe, and was hailed by Boris Johnson under the Daily Telegraph headline ‘How to drive fast, have a good time — and still save the planet’.
The puzzle is why the hybrid electric car should be the next big thing, as competing announcements by car manufacturers suggest. It is pricier to develop than more efficient versions of conventional cars or new models using current electric-power technology. But, as Dr Paul Nieuwenhuis of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff University indicates, ‘The industry has hit a brick wall. To become more profitable, in the longer term it would have to change the way it approaches manufacturing and distribution’ — for example by using a greater number of smaller local plants and cutting out the dealers, an unlikely scenario.
Instead, the industry is locked into competing on the ‘power train’ — the parts that drive the car forward — and producing IC engines differentiated according to model or manufacturer. This means their factories are built along a particular format that is expensive to re-engineer for ‘pure’ electric cars. ‘That’s why the industry loves the hybrid,’ says Nieuwenhuis.
GM wants a new hook to compete on, and seems serious about hybrids. ‘This is the start of where we’re going. The way the system is designed it doesn’t have to have an IC alongside it, but there’s the flexibility of having the IC if you need it... we’re already in an advanced stage of development,’ says GM spokesman Craig Cheetham, who predicts that 4,000-5,000 Amperas will be sold in the UK in 2012 — about 1.5 per cent of GM’s UK sales. After that, he says, GM will take the power system and make it available for other models. The mouth-watering improvement in sales and image experienced by Toyota after the launch of the hybrid Prius is the most likely spur to GM’s enthusiasm.
GM says it will make its own battery pack for the Ampera at existing facilities neighbouring its Ellesmere Port plant, if the car is manufactured in the UK. But producers are still some way off solving battery performance, an essential requirement if hybrid and electric cars are to become widespread, allowing customers to feel confident that they can set off on a journey without running out of juice. Batteries still do not last long enough. To achieve its range, the Tesla has to carry thousands of lithium ion battery cells — one reason for its high price.
According to Nieuwenhuis, the main cost of a typical hybrid car is in its battery, amounting to around £15,000 at present — the same cost as producing the rest of the car. Improving the battery and bringing down the cost will take a decade, he thinks. ‘It is probably reasonable to assume that by 2020, battery costs will have halved as a result of mass production — which will begin for plug-in hybrids, but pure battery-electric vehicles will also benefit.’
So the plug-in hybrid (so called because it recharges at the mains), starting off as a lossmaker, could be fully functional and competitive within 11 years — a similar time span as the Apollo moonshot programme.
But there are major snags. GM and other mass carmakers are in deep trouble, pleading for bail-outs and more ‘scrappage’ schemes like the one introduced in last month’s Budget to encourage new car buyers. ‘Production of the Ampera is definitely going ahead regardless. What we are campaigning for is not government funding per se, but a government incentive to encourage customers to adopt the new technology,’ claims Cheetham. The recent photo-opportunity which put the Business Secretary Lord Mandelson and the Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon into an electric Mini on a Scottish race circuit was a partial response, announcing subsidies of up to £5,000 for buyers of electric cars from 2011. But no government has so far committed really big money for this endeavour.
Global government stimuli allocated for low-carbon vehicles have so far amounted to $15.9 billion, according to a study by HSBC. Most of that has been allocated to R&D for developing lighter batteries and plug-in hybrids, as well as tax credits or rebates for customers buying new, low-emitting vehicles. But more is needed. According to Lew Fulton, an expert at the International Energy Agency, plug-in hybrids may eventually cost about $5,000 more than conventional models, so putting two million plug-in hybrids on the road annually by 2020 could cost an additional $10 billion a year. Continuing research into battery and pure electric vehicle development generally could add another $1 billion a year, he suggests.
The total bill will run into hundreds of billions over the next two decades — more than the moon landings in real terms — if plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles are to become commonplace. And there will be much more existing clutter to clear away; for instance, a network of plug-in or battery-pack replacement points for cars needs to be set up in parallel with petrol stations. The widespread use of electric cars probably also involves adding to electricity generating capacity — though of course it also reduces demand for petrol distribution.
The auto industry can take electric cars in two directions. Nieuwenhuis suggests it can create a high-value market for them: ‘Historically, battery electric vehicles are usually sold to well-to-do ladies in urban areas who use them to do a bit of shopping, do lunch, visit friends. If such niches can be identified, there is a future for electric vehicles even with their existing limited range — as long as we don’t expect them to do the same things as our internal-combustion cars,’ he says.
Alternatively, it can try to sell them more widely and ramp up performance. Today’s governments should read the history of the Apollo programme: find a vision, set a deadline, put your money where your mouth is. But make no mistake, launching the age of the electric car will be tougher than going to the moon.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Traditions weigh heavy on China's women, BBC June 19th 2006
Summary:
In this article, Christopher Allen examines the suicide rate in China, where 1.5M women attempt suicide every year, 10% succeeding, according to WHO figures. The problem is worse in rural areas, where poisonous pesticides are more readily available. Some suicides are impulsive but many are due to traditional arranged marriages. Bought brides leave their own homes to enter an alien environment, where resentment can often lead to violence, and where the young wife is isolated. In rural areas particularly, wives are expected to play a subservient role. Furthermore, sons are preferred to daughters and widespread abortion of female foetuses means more boys than girls are born which could lead to a serious shortage of women in the future. There are fears this will lead to more female trafficking, prostitution, sexual violence & rape.
The Government has passed laws banning arranged marriages but traditional attitudes are hard to change. The Suicide Prevention Project at the Beijing Cultural Development Centre is attempting to help rural women by establishing village-based support groups. Early signs are encouraging and there are hopes of a national network
Young women in cities often face poor working conditions & sexual harassment but there are signs that, gaining in experience, such women are becoming more independent & confident than their rural counterparts.
206 words
Main idea:
Chinese women in rural areas, forced by tradition into arranged marriages where they are expected to be totally subservient, are seeking escape through suicide. Young women in urban areas face difficulties too but seem to be gaining more in confidence & self-reliance.
Comment:
I feel that this is an important topic and highly relevant to those of us who work here in the Middle East, where arranged marriages are also the norm. It will be interesting to see to what extent, if any, attitudes change in China and whether such change, if it comes, will be reflected here in the Gulf.
In this article, Christopher Allen examines the suicide rate in China, where 1.5M women attempt suicide every year, 10% succeeding, according to WHO figures. The problem is worse in rural areas, where poisonous pesticides are more readily available. Some suicides are impulsive but many are due to traditional arranged marriages. Bought brides leave their own homes to enter an alien environment, where resentment can often lead to violence, and where the young wife is isolated. In rural areas particularly, wives are expected to play a subservient role. Furthermore, sons are preferred to daughters and widespread abortion of female foetuses means more boys than girls are born which could lead to a serious shortage of women in the future. There are fears this will lead to more female trafficking, prostitution, sexual violence & rape.
The Government has passed laws banning arranged marriages but traditional attitudes are hard to change. The Suicide Prevention Project at the Beijing Cultural Development Centre is attempting to help rural women by establishing village-based support groups. Early signs are encouraging and there are hopes of a national network
Young women in cities often face poor working conditions & sexual harassment but there are signs that, gaining in experience, such women are becoming more independent & confident than their rural counterparts.
206 words
Main idea:
Chinese women in rural areas, forced by tradition into arranged marriages where they are expected to be totally subservient, are seeking escape through suicide. Young women in urban areas face difficulties too but seem to be gaining more in confidence & self-reliance.
Comment:
I feel that this is an important topic and highly relevant to those of us who work here in the Middle East, where arranged marriages are also the norm. It will be interesting to see to what extent, if any, attitudes change in China and whether such change, if it comes, will be reflected here in the Gulf.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
European initiative
Will Hutton, in How Europe can save the world, The Observer 11.03.07, says that the EU has committed itself to reduce its CO2 emissions by 20% from their 1990 level, by 2020. This will be achieved, he says, mainly through the use of renewable energy such as water, air & biofuels. Although France is heavily dependent on nuclear power, this will now be classified as clean. There will be strict limits on carbon emissions, with every new power station in Europe after 2010 having to have 'carbon capture and storage capacity'.
There are, however, problems. Renewable energy is expensive and European business will complain that Indian, Chinese and American competitors will continue to use cheaper fossil fuels.
But Hutton says that there is growing worldwide conviction that that action must be taken to prevent global warming and climate change. Clearly pro-European, he praises Europe's politicians, particularly German Chancellor Angela Merkel, supported by Tony Blair, for taking the lead over carbon emissions. With forthcoming UN talks over a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, Hutton says that the European initiative is of worldwide significance and he's optimistic it will be successful.
189 words
There are, however, problems. Renewable energy is expensive and European business will complain that Indian, Chinese and American competitors will continue to use cheaper fossil fuels.
But Hutton says that there is growing worldwide conviction that that action must be taken to prevent global warming and climate change. Clearly pro-European, he praises Europe's politicians, particularly German Chancellor Angela Merkel, supported by Tony Blair, for taking the lead over carbon emissions. With forthcoming UN talks over a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, Hutton says that the European initiative is of worldwide significance and he's optimistic it will be successful.
189 words
Thursday, April 16, 2009
My carbon footprint
I measured my carbon footprint at
http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
& it was 4.10.
Most of the students had similar figures. The average figure for CRC was approximately 3.86. The main factors which contributed to my figure were classified as:
a) travel
b) stuff
c) home
My individual carbon footprint is the GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions that I personally am responsible for. However, companies, institutions, e.g. ADMC, and countries all have carbon footprints. The UAE's carbon footprint per capita is the highest in the world.
What can I do to reduce my carbon footprint?
I don't spend a lot on consumer goods, or bathroom products.
Travel is the largest contributor to my carbon footprint but I'm not sure what I can do to make meaningful change. Admittedley, I drive a large petrol vehicle but I can't switch to the train here in Abu Dhabi because there aren't any. I could use the bus but I can't see that it would make much difference as my journey to work is only a few minutes. My car has been well serviced and I've had it for 12 years. I suspect it pollutes a lot less than most of the local buses I've seen, which also happen to be very dangerous in my experience.
With regard to air travel, I have to fly AD-UK-AD once a year, if I'm to carry on working here.
With regard to food, my diet is extremely healthy and I can't see what I can do to improve it apart, presumably, judging from the quiz, from becoming vegetarian or vegan. I play squash every day, eat only once a day during the week and so I don't over-consume food.
http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
& it was 4.10.
Most of the students had similar figures. The average figure for CRC was approximately 3.86. The main factors which contributed to my figure were classified as:
a) travel
b) stuff
c) home
My individual carbon footprint is the GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions that I personally am responsible for. However, companies, institutions, e.g. ADMC, and countries all have carbon footprints. The UAE's carbon footprint per capita is the highest in the world.
What can I do to reduce my carbon footprint?
I don't spend a lot on consumer goods, or bathroom products.
Travel is the largest contributor to my carbon footprint but I'm not sure what I can do to make meaningful change. Admittedley, I drive a large petrol vehicle but I can't switch to the train here in Abu Dhabi because there aren't any. I could use the bus but I can't see that it would make much difference as my journey to work is only a few minutes. My car has been well serviced and I've had it for 12 years. I suspect it pollutes a lot less than most of the local buses I've seen, which also happen to be very dangerous in my experience.
With regard to air travel, I have to fly AD-UK-AD once a year, if I'm to carry on working here.
With regard to food, my diet is extremely healthy and I can't see what I can do to improve it apart, presumably, judging from the quiz, from becoming vegetarian or vegan. I play squash every day, eat only once a day during the week and so I don't over-consume food.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Reviews of 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Brandon Fibbs, http://brandonfibbs.com/2006/05/24/an-inconvenient-truth/ , in a favourable review, points out that Al Gore is right and the climate debate is effectively over. Scientific opinion overwhelmingly supports the view that global warming is principally man-made and time is running out for us to find solutions. He says that Gore has a mass of scientific data, charts, diagrams & photographic evidence, enough to convince even the most hardened sceptic. What he finds most alarming is the time-lapse photos of Patagonia, Kilimanjaro, etc. He ends his review by praising the fact that the movie is not pessimistic but rather closes with practical advice as to how we can get emissions back to the levels of 1950.
Scott Nash, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156, in a more negative review, says that the film is about Al Gore & his political ambitions, rather than about global warming. He goes on to complain that, with his references to his son's car accident & his sister's death from lung cancer, Gore is being emotionally manipulative. He also criticises the movie for making political digs at Bush & the Republicans. He feels that this will only alienate a lot of people Gore is trying to win over to his point of view. Eric, in a review at the same address, questions the before & after photographs, pointing out that many of the old photos could have been taken in winter & the latest ones in summer.
What is my opinion? I agree with the first review insofar as the mass of evidence, incidentally very effectively & colourfully presented, is, if nothing else, food for thought. It would seem impossible to refute the fact that global warming is a dangerous threat to the planet. I personally don't mind the personalising of the movie as I feel Gore is effectively pointing out that his & our personal tribulations are as nothing to the threat to the whole of mankind. With regard to Eric's point about the photographic evidence, there may be some validity to it, but surely not with regard to Kilimanjaro where there is little, if any, seasonal alteration. The political point made by Scott is more interesting because, in both the film & its trailer, Gore emphasises that the issue is moral, not political, but he concludes the film by saying that only political will can solve the problems created by climate change & that political will is a renewable source in the USA.
Scott Nash, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/articles/156, in a more negative review, says that the film is about Al Gore & his political ambitions, rather than about global warming. He goes on to complain that, with his references to his son's car accident & his sister's death from lung cancer, Gore is being emotionally manipulative. He also criticises the movie for making political digs at Bush & the Republicans. He feels that this will only alienate a lot of people Gore is trying to win over to his point of view. Eric, in a review at the same address, questions the before & after photographs, pointing out that many of the old photos could have been taken in winter & the latest ones in summer.
What is my opinion? I agree with the first review insofar as the mass of evidence, incidentally very effectively & colourfully presented, is, if nothing else, food for thought. It would seem impossible to refute the fact that global warming is a dangerous threat to the planet. I personally don't mind the personalising of the movie as I feel Gore is effectively pointing out that his & our personal tribulations are as nothing to the threat to the whole of mankind. With regard to Eric's point about the photographic evidence, there may be some validity to it, but surely not with regard to Kilimanjaro where there is little, if any, seasonal alteration. The political point made by Scott is more interesting because, in both the film & its trailer, Gore emphasises that the issue is moral, not political, but he concludes the film by saying that only political will can solve the problems created by climate change & that political will is a renewable source in the USA.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Shell, March 2009
Shell
From The TimesMarch 18, 2009
Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment
Robin Pagnamenta
Energy and Environment EditorRoyal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing.He said that instead Shell would focus its remaining renewable energy investments on biofuels, where it is conducting research into “second generation” fuels, so far with little commercial success.Linda Cook, who heads Shell's gas and power business, said that wind and solar power “struggle to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio”.
The announcement, which comes as Shell is fighting to maintain its commitments on dividends (which it will increase by 5 per cent this year) and its core oil and gas business in the face of a more than $100 slide in the price of crude since last summer, triggered a furious response from green groups.John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said that Shell had “rejoined the ranks of the dirtiest, most regressive corporations in the world ... After years of proclaiming their commitment to clean power, they're now pulling out of the technologies we need to see scaled up if we're to slash emissions.”A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: “We believe renewables have a strong future as part of the UK and global energy mix in the fight against climate change.”
Shell has invested $1.7billion on alternative energy in the past five years, compared with total capital expenditure of $32billion this year. It holds stakes in 11 wind power projects, mostly in the United States, with the capacity to generate 1,100 megawatts of electricity. It also operates research programmes into thin-film solar and hydrogen technology.Shell also said that it will maintain its spending on carbon capture and storage projects in Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Australia and America - most of which also receive state support.
Oil and gas ARE the future. Shell is just smarter then most to recognize the facts. Facts: global warming is a myth check the data no warming since '98, Fact: China/India are the growth engines of the future as the west fights myths and stupidity. China/India will run on fossil fuel.Dan, Boise Idaho , USA.
They should be developing methods for separating hydrogen out cheaply and efficiently, so that the next generation of hydrogen fuel cell cars can be developed. Of course that won't happen until all the oil has run out and they are forced to go into this market. Chris, Adelaide.
If the green power is so great why does Green Peace not invest time and resources. I am sure lots of supporters could be called upon to help with technical issues and suggest ways forward. If 1000 scientists get together on a project and have some financial backing then these projects should work. Joe, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Only way to get companies investing in "clean energy" is to offer govenment incentives. Easy choice if I was PM - tax oil companies HEAVILY, and provide tax breaks/incentives for the "green coys". Let market forces take over - I can't believe that a litre of petrol costs less than bottled water! Dan Carroll, Brisbane, Oz.
The real problem is that there are no green energy solutions that are anywhere near commercially competitive. If governments want companies to invest in improving the technology they're going to have to make it worth their while. Green energy development will need tax driven support. Patrick, London.
The programmes for investigating renewable energy are expensive and produce low power output considering the expense. In addition, there is little world market for using them, except for western governments to postulate their green credentials. Wise choice from Shell. US Exxon wouldn't even bother. Peter, Twickenham.
The problem is liquid fuels. Shell is making the right investment choice in this financial climate. Ben Saunders, London, UK.
From The TimesMarch 18, 2009
Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment
Robin Pagnamenta
Energy and Environment EditorRoyal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing.He said that instead Shell would focus its remaining renewable energy investments on biofuels, where it is conducting research into “second generation” fuels, so far with little commercial success.Linda Cook, who heads Shell's gas and power business, said that wind and solar power “struggle to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio”.
The announcement, which comes as Shell is fighting to maintain its commitments on dividends (which it will increase by 5 per cent this year) and its core oil and gas business in the face of a more than $100 slide in the price of crude since last summer, triggered a furious response from green groups.John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said that Shell had “rejoined the ranks of the dirtiest, most regressive corporations in the world ... After years of proclaiming their commitment to clean power, they're now pulling out of the technologies we need to see scaled up if we're to slash emissions.”A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: “We believe renewables have a strong future as part of the UK and global energy mix in the fight against climate change.”
Shell has invested $1.7billion on alternative energy in the past five years, compared with total capital expenditure of $32billion this year. It holds stakes in 11 wind power projects, mostly in the United States, with the capacity to generate 1,100 megawatts of electricity. It also operates research programmes into thin-film solar and hydrogen technology.Shell also said that it will maintain its spending on carbon capture and storage projects in Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Australia and America - most of which also receive state support.
Oil and gas ARE the future. Shell is just smarter then most to recognize the facts. Facts: global warming is a myth check the data no warming since '98, Fact: China/India are the growth engines of the future as the west fights myths and stupidity. China/India will run on fossil fuel.Dan, Boise Idaho , USA.
They should be developing methods for separating hydrogen out cheaply and efficiently, so that the next generation of hydrogen fuel cell cars can be developed. Of course that won't happen until all the oil has run out and they are forced to go into this market. Chris, Adelaide.
If the green power is so great why does Green Peace not invest time and resources. I am sure lots of supporters could be called upon to help with technical issues and suggest ways forward. If 1000 scientists get together on a project and have some financial backing then these projects should work. Joe, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Only way to get companies investing in "clean energy" is to offer govenment incentives. Easy choice if I was PM - tax oil companies HEAVILY, and provide tax breaks/incentives for the "green coys". Let market forces take over - I can't believe that a litre of petrol costs less than bottled water! Dan Carroll, Brisbane, Oz.
The real problem is that there are no green energy solutions that are anywhere near commercially competitive. If governments want companies to invest in improving the technology they're going to have to make it worth their while. Green energy development will need tax driven support. Patrick, London.
The programmes for investigating renewable energy are expensive and produce low power output considering the expense. In addition, there is little world market for using them, except for western governments to postulate their green credentials. Wise choice from Shell. US Exxon wouldn't even bother. Peter, Twickenham.
The problem is liquid fuels. Shell is making the right investment choice in this financial climate. Ben Saunders, London, UK.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Wanted: natural residents
In 'Wanted: Natural Residents'. Carolyn Fry describes the new Western Harbour development in Malmo, Sweden. It is located on reclaimed industrial land and is designed to promote sustainable urban living. The first phase of 1,300 new apartments, Bo01, was planned not only to showcase new green methods of waste management, renewable energy and sustainable transport, but also to promote biodiversity.
Developers have to choose 10 green features from a list of 35 to incorporate into their designs. As a result, wildlife is flourishing in Bo01. Extra green features are planned for the next 2 phases of the development. The aim is to further raise awareness so that people buy the new houses because of their green credentials, rather than because of their fashionability.
There is also a school with its own recycling 'Sopstation', where the children are taught to understand ecology. Developers of Bo02 and Bo03 are being asked to install rooftop wind turbines and to promote even greater biodiversity. The green points system in Western Harbour is now being adopted in Malmo's city-wide environmental building programme.
Developers have to choose 10 green features from a list of 35 to incorporate into their designs. As a result, wildlife is flourishing in Bo01. Extra green features are planned for the next 2 phases of the development. The aim is to further raise awareness so that people buy the new houses because of their green credentials, rather than because of their fashionability.
There is also a school with its own recycling 'Sopstation', where the children are taught to understand ecology. Developers of Bo02 and Bo03 are being asked to install rooftop wind turbines and to promote even greater biodiversity. The green points system in Western Harbour is now being adopted in Malmo's city-wide environmental building programme.
Riches await as Earth's icy north melts, by Doug Mellgren
This article discusses the international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes in the Arctic. The polar ice cap is melting faster than anywhere on earth, due to greenhouse gases. This is catastrophic for both wildlife and the native inhabitants, who depend on frozen waters. But some see the transformation of the Arctic ecosystem as an opportunity to make lucrative profits.
This has motivated governments and businesses to scramble for control of the area. Norway is already planning to tap for oil and gas in the Barents sea. In addition, Arctic warming could open up new sea routes from Europe to the Far East and to Alaska. The possibility of a new north-west passage has focussed attention on Hans Island, a half-square mile rock which, for strategic reasons, is being claimed by both Denmark and Canada. As well as this dispute, Norway and Russia have issues in the Barents Sea, the USA and Russia in the Beaufort Sea and the US and Canada over the north-west passage.
The scramble is exacerbated by the fact that the ice cap could melt in 10-15 years, not 100 as previously thought. Furthermore, fish stocks are moving further north to colder waters and Norway and Russia have already clashed over fishing rights.
Finally, the article highlights, firstly, the environmental concerns, from the risk of oil spills to the introduction of alien organisms, associated with the Arctic melt, and, secondly, concern over the rights of the Arctic's indigenous peoples.
246 words
This has motivated governments and businesses to scramble for control of the area. Norway is already planning to tap for oil and gas in the Barents sea. In addition, Arctic warming could open up new sea routes from Europe to the Far East and to Alaska. The possibility of a new north-west passage has focussed attention on Hans Island, a half-square mile rock which, for strategic reasons, is being claimed by both Denmark and Canada. As well as this dispute, Norway and Russia have issues in the Barents Sea, the USA and Russia in the Beaufort Sea and the US and Canada over the north-west passage.
The scramble is exacerbated by the fact that the ice cap could melt in 10-15 years, not 100 as previously thought. Furthermore, fish stocks are moving further north to colder waters and Norway and Russia have already clashed over fishing rights.
Finally, the article highlights, firstly, the environmental concerns, from the risk of oil spills to the introduction of alien organisms, associated with the Arctic melt, and, secondly, concern over the rights of the Arctic's indigenous peoples.
246 words
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Al Gore
An Inconvenient Truth
There were several plus points about the film, viz:
(1) The graphics, in general, were excellent, e.g.
(a) fitting the east coast of S. Amerca onto the west coast of Africa;
(b) cartoon of Mr Sunbeam & greenhouse gases;
(c) graphics of Lake Chad & stranded ships in Aral Sea;
(d) pictures of Kilimanjaro & various glaciers around the world very powerful;
(e) graphs showing 1,000 years of CO2/global warming & 650,000 years of CO2 & temperature very telling;
(f) dramatic use of Gore’s contraption;
(g) graphics of possible effects of rising sea levels on Florida, San Francisco, Beijing,Shanghai, Calcutta/Bangladesh, Manhattan very dramatic.
(2) The emphasis on hard data was most impressive, e.g.
(a) Roger Revelle’s insistence on hard data re. the 1st measurements of CO2 in theatmosphere;
(b) Statistics on coal mining in China.
(3) The film was well photographed, directed & presented. Good use of humour to emphasise points.
(4) The final analysis of the causes of global warming was clear. According to Gore, the problem is due to:
(a) population growth – 2bn to 9bn in one lifetime;
(b) technology – in many ways wonderful, e.g. medical advances, but now so powerful that it’sbecome a force of nature in itself;
(c) ways of thinking; the frog in the water was a clever analogy. The Economy v Environmentissue was cleverly presented.
(5) The film was effectively personalized, with reference to Gore’s son’s accident, his loss of thepresidential election in 2000 & the death of his sister Nancy from lung cancer. Each of theseepisodes was used to highlight the greater long-term significance of global events.
(6) The film had a positive ending, with examples of how exactly we can get back to below the level of 1970s emissions.
Postscript: it is interesting that Gore, a politician, mentions at least twice, and particularly when he talks about his personal setbacks, that the problem we face is a moral, not a political, issue. Yet his final message is that what is lacking, and what is most needed, is political will, without which the problems associated with climate change & global warming cannot be solved.
There were several plus points about the film, viz:
(1) The graphics, in general, were excellent, e.g.
(a) fitting the east coast of S. Amerca onto the west coast of Africa;
(b) cartoon of Mr Sunbeam & greenhouse gases;
(c) graphics of Lake Chad & stranded ships in Aral Sea;
(d) pictures of Kilimanjaro & various glaciers around the world very powerful;
(e) graphs showing 1,000 years of CO2/global warming & 650,000 years of CO2 & temperature very telling;
(f) dramatic use of Gore’s contraption;
(g) graphics of possible effects of rising sea levels on Florida, San Francisco, Beijing,Shanghai, Calcutta/Bangladesh, Manhattan very dramatic.
(2) The emphasis on hard data was most impressive, e.g.
(a) Roger Revelle’s insistence on hard data re. the 1st measurements of CO2 in theatmosphere;
(b) Statistics on coal mining in China.
(3) The film was well photographed, directed & presented. Good use of humour to emphasise points.
(4) The final analysis of the causes of global warming was clear. According to Gore, the problem is due to:
(a) population growth – 2bn to 9bn in one lifetime;
(b) technology – in many ways wonderful, e.g. medical advances, but now so powerful that it’sbecome a force of nature in itself;
(c) ways of thinking; the frog in the water was a clever analogy. The Economy v Environmentissue was cleverly presented.
(5) The film was effectively personalized, with reference to Gore’s son’s accident, his loss of thepresidential election in 2000 & the death of his sister Nancy from lung cancer. Each of theseepisodes was used to highlight the greater long-term significance of global events.
(6) The film had a positive ending, with examples of how exactly we can get back to below the level of 1970s emissions.
Postscript: it is interesting that Gore, a politician, mentions at least twice, and particularly when he talks about his personal setbacks, that the problem we face is a moral, not a political, issue. Yet his final message is that what is lacking, and what is most needed, is political will, without which the problems associated with climate change & global warming cannot be solved.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Task 2
Global warming is certainly happening and to deny the seriousness of the problem of climate change would be ostrich-like. It is, however, important to keep things in perspective.
There is a tendency nowadays, in certain circles, to blame all of the world's woes on global warming.
Natural disasters are not all due to global warming. The tsunami , for example, which devastated parts of Sri Lanka and other areas in S.E. Asia at the end of 2004 was not caused by global warming. It was caused by a volcanic eruption in Indonesia. Probably the most devastating natural phenomenon of recent centuries, the eruption at Krakatoa, west of Java, occurred long before anyone had ever even remotely considered the concept of global warming.
Its best-known eruption culminated in a series of massive explosions on August 26–27, 1883, which was among the most violent volcanic events in modern times. With a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 6, the eruption was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT—about 13,000 times the yield of the Little Boy bomb (13 to 16 KT) that devastated Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II and four times the yield of the Tsar Bomba (50 MT), the largest nuclear device ever detonated.
The 1883 eruption ejected approximately 21 cubic kilometres (5.0 cu mi) of rock, ash, and pumice. It also generated the loudest sound reported in recorded history—the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Western Australia, nearly 2,000 (over 3,000 kms) miles away, and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, about 3,000 miles (5,000 kms) away. (Wikipedia, 2009).
Food shortages are also often blamed on global warming but there is enough food in the world to feed all of its inhabitants. Where food shortages occur, as in present-day Zimbabwe, they are almost always the result of political mismanagement, as is clearly the case with President Mugabe.
Another problem in 2009 is the global economic recession. Many green projects are expensive and it must be doubted whether many ambitious schemes, such as Masdar City in the UAE, will remain entirely unaffected by the worldwide economic downturn.
There is a tendency nowadays, in certain circles, to blame all of the world's woes on global warming.
Natural disasters are not all due to global warming. The tsunami , for example, which devastated parts of Sri Lanka and other areas in S.E. Asia at the end of 2004 was not caused by global warming. It was caused by a volcanic eruption in Indonesia. Probably the most devastating natural phenomenon of recent centuries, the eruption at Krakatoa, west of Java, occurred long before anyone had ever even remotely considered the concept of global warming.
Its best-known eruption culminated in a series of massive explosions on August 26–27, 1883, which was among the most violent volcanic events in modern times. With a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 6, the eruption was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT—about 13,000 times the yield of the Little Boy bomb (13 to 16 KT) that devastated Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II and four times the yield of the Tsar Bomba (50 MT), the largest nuclear device ever detonated.
The 1883 eruption ejected approximately 21 cubic kilometres (5.0 cu mi) of rock, ash, and pumice. It also generated the loudest sound reported in recorded history—the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Western Australia, nearly 2,000 (over 3,000 kms) miles away, and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, about 3,000 miles (5,000 kms) away. (Wikipedia, 2009).
Food shortages are also often blamed on global warming but there is enough food in the world to feed all of its inhabitants. Where food shortages occur, as in present-day Zimbabwe, they are almost always the result of political mismanagement, as is clearly the case with President Mugabe.
Another problem in 2009 is the global economic recession. Many green projects are expensive and it must be doubted whether many ambitious schemes, such as Masdar City in the UAE, will remain entirely unaffected by the worldwide economic downturn.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Task 1 blog project
My CRC students have to write 150-250 words describing themselves and this blog project.
I'll do the same.
I started my professional career in 1971 as a history teacher in Leicester, England. I then lectured in Education for a year in Worcester, before becoming Head of History at a large school in Wolverhampton. My last full-time job in England was as Head of Faculty/Head of Year at a school in Rochdale.
We (my wife, Mary, our elder daughter, Kate, and I) then decided to work abroad. We arrived in Brunei on New Year's Day 1980. I taught History & English there for nearly 10 years, at the Puusat Tingkaten Enam ( 6th Form Centre). My wife worked at Brunei International School, where Kate and her sister Emma, born in 1981, were pupils. In 1982 Kate left Brunei for boarding school in England.
When we left Brunei, I worked for 2 years in Hong Kong, accompanied by my family, followed by a year, single-status, in KSA & 2 years here in Abu Dhabi. In 1994, while woring at a summer school at Etob College, I was asked to go for 11 weeks to Qatar and ended up staying there for 9 years. I returned to Al Ain in March 2003 to work at the Air College for 6 months, before transferring to ADMC in October of the same year. At the same time my wife returned to Al Rabeeh School, where she had worked 1993-4, as a kindergarten teacher.
Our elder daughter currently lives here in Abu Dhabi with her American husband Adam and two children, Louisa & William. Younger daughter Emma is a nurse in England, where she lives with her husband Andy and young son Harry; they have visited us several times here in Abu Dhabi.
The aim of this blog is to examine the concepts of global warming and climate change, to try to understand what they mean and to do so in a critical, sceptical & analytical fashion. I have already posted re. the importance of critical thinking and will do so again as one of our later tasks. For the moment, suffice it to say that I feel there is a tendency nowadays to blame everything, from tsunamis to food shortages, on global warming. This is nonsense, because tsunamis are natural phenomena, with natural causes, while food shortages, as in Zimbabwe, are due almost always to political mis-management.
I'll do the same.
I started my professional career in 1971 as a history teacher in Leicester, England. I then lectured in Education for a year in Worcester, before becoming Head of History at a large school in Wolverhampton. My last full-time job in England was as Head of Faculty/Head of Year at a school in Rochdale.
We (my wife, Mary, our elder daughter, Kate, and I) then decided to work abroad. We arrived in Brunei on New Year's Day 1980. I taught History & English there for nearly 10 years, at the Puusat Tingkaten Enam ( 6th Form Centre). My wife worked at Brunei International School, where Kate and her sister Emma, born in 1981, were pupils. In 1982 Kate left Brunei for boarding school in England.
When we left Brunei, I worked for 2 years in Hong Kong, accompanied by my family, followed by a year, single-status, in KSA & 2 years here in Abu Dhabi. In 1994, while woring at a summer school at Etob College, I was asked to go for 11 weeks to Qatar and ended up staying there for 9 years. I returned to Al Ain in March 2003 to work at the Air College for 6 months, before transferring to ADMC in October of the same year. At the same time my wife returned to Al Rabeeh School, where she had worked 1993-4, as a kindergarten teacher.
Our elder daughter currently lives here in Abu Dhabi with her American husband Adam and two children, Louisa & William. Younger daughter Emma is a nurse in England, where she lives with her husband Andy and young son Harry; they have visited us several times here in Abu Dhabi.
The aim of this blog is to examine the concepts of global warming and climate change, to try to understand what they mean and to do so in a critical, sceptical & analytical fashion. I have already posted re. the importance of critical thinking and will do so again as one of our later tasks. For the moment, suffice it to say that I feel there is a tendency nowadays to blame everything, from tsunamis to food shortages, on global warming. This is nonsense, because tsunamis are natural phenomena, with natural causes, while food shortages, as in Zimbabwe, are due almost always to political mis-management.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Critical Thinking
Extracts from an article by Lisa Hilton in The Spectator, 04.02.09
Is it not irresponsible to deny children the capacity to assess information for bias, distortion and inaccuracy in a world of unsupervised, unfiltered internet access? Good history teaching provides a confident perspective from which to dismiss, as much as absorb, the massive amounts of information with which children will be daily bombarded on the web. Huxley’s Bernard Marx claims that 62,400 repetitions equal one truth; not an implausible figure in the age of Google... In denying children the thrill of our own epic historical narrative we also deny them the option to compare, to judge, above all to refuse. Surely the point of all humanities teaching is not the regurgitation of whichever facts the government deems appropriate, but the ability, quite simply, to think? Orthodoxy is the absence of thought.
Is it not irresponsible to deny children the capacity to assess information for bias, distortion and inaccuracy in a world of unsupervised, unfiltered internet access? Good history teaching provides a confident perspective from which to dismiss, as much as absorb, the massive amounts of information with which children will be daily bombarded on the web. Huxley’s Bernard Marx claims that 62,400 repetitions equal one truth; not an implausible figure in the age of Google... In denying children the thrill of our own epic historical narrative we also deny them the option to compare, to judge, above all to refuse. Surely the point of all humanities teaching is not the regurgitation of whichever facts the government deems appropriate, but the ability, quite simply, to think? Orthodoxy is the absence of thought.
An Inconvenient Truth
Global warming
My CRC students are creating blogs containing not only their own personal details but also their views on climate change and global warming. The starting point is Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The main thesis presented, it must be admitted very impressively, at the outset of the film is that climate change and global warming are inextricably linked to human activity. Gore presents a mass of statistical evidence, backed by impressive graphic displays and photographic evidence, to back up his argument. The film footage is colourful, dramatic and well-matched to Gore's commentary. The movie is well directed and very thought-provoking, whether or not one accepts all of Gore's arguments.Over the coming weeks the students will post blog entries on their views of the movie, definitions of global warming, its causes and possible solutions.
My CRC students are creating blogs containing not only their own personal details but also their views on climate change and global warming. The starting point is Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The main thesis presented, it must be admitted very impressively, at the outset of the film is that climate change and global warming are inextricably linked to human activity. Gore presents a mass of statistical evidence, backed by impressive graphic displays and photographic evidence, to back up his argument. The film footage is colourful, dramatic and well-matched to Gore's commentary. The movie is well directed and very thought-provoking, whether or not one accepts all of Gore's arguments.Over the coming weeks the students will post blog entries on their views of the movie, definitions of global warming, its causes and possible solutions.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Global Warming Project
We are now about to start our blog project, which is about climate change & global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)