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
Sunday, April 26, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)