A new architecture for our environment

Read the article by George Monbiot that inspired this post.

This blog has talked about biofuels before. Not much, but it is an important environmental issue to consider.

The issues around Biofuels highlights why holistic plans are needed that address all aspects that are to be considered. In engineering practices, you ALWAYS gather all known requirements, known risks and known restrictions together (to some level) before making any plans. This Biofuels issue shows an idea has been taken and run with, without considering all requirements.

Engineering plans start by building an architecture that all sub-systems can exist within. The global environmental problems require a new architecture to be built around how our planet operates. We have a bit of time, but we should start now and use this time to get it RIGHT.

Take building a bridge. Some groups of people may want a giant 200 meter tall structure that has 8 lanes. The restriction may be that the geology on the banks will not support such a weight, with the geology only able to support 4 lanes. We have a similar restriction - we can't support the number of cars (and the population) we have at the current resource level consumption.

The architecture we need to build in this case will support all aspects of our environmental problems. I can suggest the following requirements and restrictions that will go towards forming our environmental architecture (and that impact on the choice of biofuels):

• Support for alternate fuels to reduce consumption of fossil fuels
  
• Reduce number of vehicles
  
• Increase transport by walking, cycling etc...
  
• Reduce deforestation
  
• Stop continued growth of world population
  
• Reduce species loss
  
• Reduce water usage
  
• Encourage local farming
  
• Reduce energy use
  
• Increase energy efficiency
  
• Happy and healthy citizens
  

The world cannot keep going at the current pace. And before mother nature bitch slaps us to the ground, we should consider all these requirements and more before building any solutions.

Read More......

Polar Bear SOS

Read More......

Polluters want good deal from Howard

March 26, 2007
From Sydney Morning Herald

AUSTRALIA'S super-polluters want to be rewarded for their existing greenhouse gas emissions at the start of any carbon trading regime.

The country's biggest polluting companies have all accepted that an Australian emissions trading regime is inevitable.

But many, including Qantas, Alumina Ltd and Rio Tinto, say they should be excused from incurring any costs when the regime begins.

Many of the biggest polluters, including Qantas and Alumina Ltd, are represented on the Prime Minister's task group on emissions trading - which will report on May 31 on how it thinks an emissions scheme should be designed.

Qantas said in its submission to the task group: "A workable emissions trading scheme must … grant credits firstly to emitters at no cost."

...

Read the full article.

Read More......

Tech leaders call for 'green' policies

March 14, 2007
From Computerworld

group of technology executives said Wednesday that the world is facing an energy crisis, and they called on U.S. policymakers to embrace a "green tech" agenda focused on encouraging energy conservation and reducing U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources.

Members of TechNet, a network of technology-company CEOs, asked the U.S. government to double its funding for basic energy research, designate a federal agency that would oversee energy research and technologies, and increase tax incentives for new energy technologies. Six high-tech executives were in Washington to push the green tech policy agenda, saying a government partnership is needed to make the U.S. the world leader in new green technologies.

But the group said it also sees profit in new energy technologies. "It's a crisis that's going to bring about huge opportunities," said K.R. Sridhar, CEO of Bloom Energy, a fuel-cell start-up. "New opportunities will make energy abundant, sustainable and available for all mankind."

While some executives compared the predicted energy crisis to the U.S. sending astronauts to the moon, John Doerr, a partner in the venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, said that comparison understates the problem. "We need much more than ... an Apollo Project," he said. "This is no single silver bullet. This is an entire re-industrialization of the planet."
...

Read the full article.

Read More......

Al Gore's Global Warming Testimony to Congress

Highlights of Al Gore's Global Warming Testimony to Congress

Full testimony of Al Gore to the US Congress

Read More......

Polar Bears cartoon

February 19, 2007
From YouTube



Watch the video.

Read More......

Get Up: Our message to Labor (Australian oposition)

From Get Up

The Australian Labor party looks likely to displace the current Australian Coalition of the Liberals and Nationals at the federal elections later this year. The pressure is on to have them form worthwhile policies to address the environmental issues including Climate Change.

This is what I submitted to this campaign to:

Dear Arch Bevis,

This is it. We can't afford to make mistakes. Full and holistic research, analysis and development needs to be put into the solutions we require to solve the environmental problems we face. Global warming is our most immediate problem. My beliefs on the matter include:

1. Clean Coal may be a solution but the $500 million Labor has currently allocated to it should be put into renewable energy R&D (Labor has no current R&D investments for renewables). Clean coal should only come after all efforts and energies have been allocated to renewables. BTW many think Clean Coal is not only an oxymoron but that it is not feasible for Australia or the world. We CANNOT continue to burn the amount of coal we do;
   
2. Put in programs to reduce the energy dependence of Australians;
   
3. Make our society more energy efficient - public transport being one obvious area.
   
4. Stop logging operations. Those trees soak up carbon. Cutting them down releases carbon. Animals and plants die and extinctions occur. We are part of the web of life and we can longer afford to destroy any more of it
   
5. Work with the rest of the world. Stop all wars and promote peace and diplomacy. Remember, they are your neighbours (http://www.globalcommunity.org/flash/wombat.shtml)
   

...

Read the protest.

Read More......

The Wombat - "This is your home"

Read More......

AMP and climate change role

26th October 2006
From AMP Financial Services

I just received this article in their Connections eZine - weird that their date is last October. It is interesting to read a financial institution emphasising that things are going to change, and that your investing style will need to follow. Unfortunately it is a general 'accept change' message and not ones saying things like:

Do not invest in:

• GUNNS and other forestry industries are perpetuating global warming, and causing general and unnecessary damage to our ecosystem through their logging operations (Tasmanian Old Growth Forests). Morally you shouldn't invest in this company.
  
• Mining companies consume mass amounts of energy extracting the ore they seek from the ground, and in the process help destroy the ecosystems they mine at. Then further energy is required to process that ore and turn it into products. Morally you shouldn't invest in these companies.
  
• Exxon Mobil and many other energy companies paid blood money to discredit global warming and environment destruction. They may purport to be developing alternate energy sources and solutions, though their heart isn't in it - they still rape the land for black gold and will suck every last drop out since that last drop will be worth a million bucks. See George Monbiot on oil, including George on Exxon Mobil,
  
• Some Banks and other financial institutions invest in companies who rape and pillage - be selective with those you invest with. See Barclays Bank exposed.
  

Instead invest in companies that are trying their best to solve the problems:

• Alternate energy companies such as Geodynamics (hot rocks) and
  
• SunCube Technology (solar generation),
  
• Stanwell Corporation (wind), or other
  
• Wind generation companies.
  

Use your money instead to get renewable eneergy for your home, such as:

• through a SunCube
  
• Solar hot water.
  

And with community organisations helping to spread the good word such as:

• Friends Of the Earth,
  
• Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF),
  
• World Society for the Prevention of cruelty to Animals (WSPA),
  
• The Wilderness Society (TWS).
  

Read More......

Earth Hour

Read More......

Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle

On March 8, Channel 4 screened The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that branded as a lie the scientific consensus that man-made greenhouse gasses are primarily responsible for climate change. (See Indy Media summary).

It's amazing to see that denial is still so rife. What do these people achieve? Why can't they accept that shit is happening? Perhaps its a sensationalist position to attract more viewers they have so they can increase their advertising dollar. Maybe they don't really believe the lies they are peddling. Again, another case where the force of capitalism is stronger than the force of the common-good. Or they might believe their tripe and are part of a forming society that denies what is happening; a denial that is starting to show itself as angry.

Rightly, people need to be able to consider all aspects of this science.
I was shocked to read a story titled Scientists threatened for 'climate denial' (Telegraph (UK), 11th March 2007). After reading around I realised it was yet another extreme view on the situation. George Monbiot discussed this in his rebuttal of Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle story. As always he provides excellent referencing supporting good arguments.

I have now experienced the anger first hand.

I had a meeting with a quite senior person in the Company I work for. I'd sent out promotion of Climate Change, Despair and Empowerment roadshow and in it was the sentance:

• (The roadshow aims to:) unveil the false and "business as usual", solutions being touted by the major political parties such as nuclear power and so called "clean coal".
  

The manager ('Dave' - not his real name but I want to protect myself), said there had been complaints raised as I'd sent out email with a political agenda. I scratched my head over the weak connection to any political agenda in this statement but agreed that I can see how some may see it this way. There were three complaints. One of them was quite personal in its attack on my email, and the manager asked why they may have come across like this.

I'm starting to think that this is displacement theory in action. People are feeling angry at the reality of climate change. They are displacing their anger on the messengers. I guess anger is caused by despair, and like Al Gore said, "And there are people who go - as I say in the movie - from denial to despair without pausing on the intermediate step and what denial and despair have in common is they both let you off the hook. You don't have to do anything. And actually the mature approach is, that all of us have to take, we have to find our way to it, is to act to solve this. And we can solve it. Despair is completely unjustified."

So these people are those we most need to concentrate on. I'm glad there was only 1.

On a conclusive note, I discussed with Dave that we have to accept that climate change is reality and then, once enough are in agreement with what is causing it, we can start making changes. Although the results of climate change are not going to be good for our civilisation, I remarked that if our company accepts this change now and starts making strategic business plans around this, then we have an opportunity to get well ahead of our competitors.

I of course believe that capitalism is largely responsible for this mess we are in (people value money over anything else - consider the case of someone having a mortgage, they've got to feed the family and need to do whatever they can to make some dollars; Consider that we've been driven to want more and more. So we'll support companies who increase in value and pay us dividends. These same companies may have operations that cause environmental damage, and they often shield the general public and shareholders from this. Can we change the driving values of capitalism - that is keep the good bits whilst making all operations fully sustainable?

We need to change something. We need to first get past the anger, denial and despair.

Read More......

Media Release: Climate Action groups welcome European plans

12th March 2007

Local climate change activists welcome European plans to cap CO2 emissions

Brisbane climate change campaigners have welcomed the agreement reached by European Union leaders on Friday to commit to reducing greenhouse gas levels by 20 per cent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels.

A summit in Brussels concluded with a commitment by the 27-nation bloc to this ambitious target aimed at cutting emission levels. Member states will also have to increase the share of power sourced from renewable energy to at least 20% by 2020.

David White, a spokesperson for Climate Action Brisbane, said that the Federal and State Governments in Australia needed to act urgently to establish similar emission and renewable energy targets.

“If Australia continues to delay taking positive steps to set a target to cut GHG emissions by at least 20% by 2020, we will be left behind in the global ‘clean energy’ stakes, and the climate and our exporters will both ultimately suffer”, he said.

“Europe is showing the way forward with a promise to do even more - to reduce levels by 30% by 2020 if its other trading partners agreed to do likewise.”

The Australian Government’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and to increase its Mandatory Renewable Energy Target [MRET] of 2% of total energy generation means that Australia is becoming increasingly isolated from the energy and climate change forums in the developed world, he said.

Climate Action Brisbane calls on governments and the business community to take all necessary steps to convene a national Climate Change Summit to set new strategies and national targets for greenhouse gas emissions and MRETs for 2020.

“We have the sustainable technologies, we have abundant renewable energy sources, and public opinion polls confirm that Australians want their governments to act now. It’s time for governments and business to show some real leadership in the national interest.”

END


For further information, CAB can be contacted on 0403 871 082 [David]
or 3846 5793 [Emma]

Read More......

PM denies nuclear inquiry linked to big business

From ABC News (Aust)

This article discusses cronyism surrounding managing the climate change problem.

Our Prime Minister, John Howard, was a climate change denier until just before the Walk Against Warming last year (2006). Our group organised the Brisbane (Australia) event for this. It was held on November 4th, a very rainy day. Howard called the news about climate change "sensationalism" or similar. The pressure was too great, especially after the walk was held and he had to change his view to admit that it is true. The difference is that he may understand it to be true, but he doesn't believe it. He is not sincere to the changes that will come about due to it and the changes that need to be made to manage it. A very conservative man.

The so called world leaders started banging heads trying to tackle this problem and they amazingly decided that nuclear energy is the way to go. Howard is fully behind it. The article this links to talks about how Howard launched an inquiry into a nuclear powered australia and it just so happens that a mate of his has put together a plan on building a nuclear energy infrastructure in Australia. How convenient.

I agree that in many places in the world there are no valid alternatives, but in Australia we have oodles of sunshine, excessive amounts of wind, a giant coastline with lots of waves, geothermal power from hot rocks and so on. Nuclear does produce energy greenhouse gas (GHG) emission free, however the process also includes these nasties:

• Mining of uranium takes enormous amounts of energy (producing GHG from fossil fuels to drive vehicles and coal) and always results in the poisoning of the local creeks, rivers and watertable;
  
• Uranium processing also takes a lot of energy (GHGs mostly from coal that provides 80% of Australia's energy needs);
  
• Transportation of the ore takes large amounts of energy (GHGs through fossil fueled engines)
  
• In the 50 years that the world has had nuclear energy, NO SAFE METHOD OF DISPOSAL has been found, and the danger from the radiation lasts hundreds of thousands of years
  
• The world is so fearful of terrorists. Surely a dirty bomb that uses nuclear waste is one of the scariest terror mechanism that terrorists could use
  

People need to understand ALL the facts before deciding what they want. I think if ALL the information is given to enough people, then nuclear power will never become a reality in Australia.

Read the article.

Read More......

EU climate deal

Saturday, March 10, 2007
From ABC Television (Aust)

Environmentalists and Europe's wind energy lobby have given a cautious welcome to plans by European Union (EU) leaders to step up action against global warming and accelerate the use of clean energy.

In a two-day summit in Brussels, the 27-nation bloc committed itself to reducing its levels of the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), by 20 per cent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels.

The British Prime Minister Tony Blair says Europe is showing the way to the rest of the world with such bold and ambitious targets.

"It gives Europe a very clear leadership position on this crucial issue facing the world, and it gives us I think the best chance of trying to make sure that when we get to the G8 countries, the G8 countries + 5 process - which is the one we set up at Gleneagles - then we manage to get involved America, China and India as well the European Union in tackling climate change," he said.

The EU would deepen this cut to 30 per cent if "international partners" in global warming negotiations did likewise, said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency.

Member states will also be required to make renewable energies such as solar and wind power account for at least 20 per cent of the total energy consumption across the EU by 2020.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Monbiot: Blair is just a lot of hot air

March 5, 2007
From George Monbiot (will appear in The Guardian also).

George might complain about the British Government and their inbuilt (?) failures to reach their target reductions, however our Australian Government has set NO target reductions. They keep going on about "free market will lead the way" and commit us to nothing but a hatred of the Indians and Chinese because they are building a Coal fired power station every week. The response of the Indians and the Chinese is that we in the West - USA, Europe and Australia, have got the whole world into the Global Warming mess we are in and we should lead the way out. (John) Howard (Australian PM) asks what the point in us killing our coal industry when we release nothing like the pollution that China (or the USA for that matter as the world's number one polluter) does. The point is that we would be taking the lead. One who leads is a leader. One who doesn't is a follower. When it comes time for the Australian Federal election later this year, I know I want to have a leader up at the helm.

And what about the Free Market.

I don't believe the free market can achieve what needs to be done, alone and without legislation and regulations (which piss people off and they end up voting the current party out). It isn't in a capitalist enterprise's interests to do so. Take this example.

On this island, there is one remaining stand of 100 hectares of forest made up of old growth (original) trees. Due to the rarity of these, the price for them felled is now ten times what it was ten years ago when there was a million hectares. Unfelled and left standing it has little economic value. Humans are so stupid that they will keep their logging practices up. Current Economics as was identified by Richard (?) Stern in the Stern report, does not take into account future generations. And anyway, if my suggestion was not the case, then why are so many rare animals hunted to extinction, and why have we not stopped some significant practices such as the logging of old growth forests? Free market suggests people within the market will make the correct choices. I argue that a capitalist market says that the only choices are the ones that make someone more money. We need to change our market - to be driven by things other than money. What about love? That is what religion is meant to be about. Its ironic then that one country with one of the largest installed religious bases is the USA. The USA is also the king of capitalism to the point where their economy is more important than anything else in the world, such that they will start a war in order to protect that system (war is great for business). Capitalism is greater than love (in eyes of zealot capitalists).

What about this one which is a real life situation. My partner channel surfs so we get inflicted by the ads which seem to occupy more and more time these days. I record what I want to watch so can skip over them with only a small amount of crap transferring to my psyche. Car ads, f@cking car ads. You would think in a world so consumed by the threat of climate change that one thing we would do is making major changes to the cars we well. But oh no, under our capitalist system, they are still manufacturing BIG cars and they are still selling them. So of course they are still advertising them. Am I crazy or is the world frickin' organised in the most stupid of ways?

I'm off the track a bit here. Over to George Monbiot ...

Read the article.

Read More......

PM not moved by road pricing petition

I wonder (and doubt) if any Australian cities would feel the need to introduce a congestion tax. London and other cities charge people to come within a certain distance of the city center. Australia is going the complete opposite way and continues to build inner-city units each with atleast one car parking space.

Tuesday February 20, 2007
From Guardian (UK)

Tony Blair will tomorrow tell more than 1.6 million people who have signed an e-petition condemning his road pricing plans that the government intends to reject their views and go ahead with a series of pay-as-you-drive trials.

Downing Street insisted last night the prime minister had no intention of performing a U-turn in the face of complaints in Whitehall that the petition on the No 10 website has obscured rather than illuminated the arguments. "He recognises that there are strong opinions on this issue and that there were strong opinions even before the e-petition," the prime minister's spokesman said.

"Equally, however, he believes that congestion is something you can't do nothing about, you have to do something. The government is proposing the 10 pilot schemes to learn from experience about what is possible and what is not possible." The congestion charge introduced by London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, was "courageous and showed congestion should be challenged", the spokesman said. "Do nothing is certainly not an option. If you look at all the research and all the surveys on this, do nothing equals gridlock."

...

Read the article.

Also see

• Times online (UK)
  
• Scotsman (UK)
  

Read More......

We all can enlist in the war on climate change

February 17, 2007
From Vancouver Sun

An excellent piece on suggested things we can ALL do (and must do) - no exceptions. The ten points are:

1. Be engaged citizens
   
2. Think globally, act locally
   
3. Get educated
   
4. Apply common sense
   
5. Hold ourselves accountable
   
6. Insist on smal
   
7. Attack urban sprawl
   
8. Re-green the world
   
9. Re-think work
   
10. Invest in our genius
    

Read the article.

Read More......

Flannery: Clean coal may not be viable

February 14, 2007
From Sydney Mornign Hearald (Aust)

Australian of the Year and leading scientist Dr Tim Flannery has questioned the viability of clean coal technology, saying it may be made redundant by cheaper and greener energy resources.

Dr Flannery told the Australian Workers Union (AWU) biannual meeting on the Gold Coast there was a need to switch to low emission energy sources.

He was greeted with hearty applause from the 200 delegates - something which surprised the scientist who has been accused in the media of wanting to shut down the nation's coal industry.

He dismissed the claims as entirely untrue but admitted he had some reservations about the viability of clean coal technology, which is Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's preferred option to reduce gas emissions.

He said Australia did not possess the right geological conditions to support the clean coal process, which injected carbon dioxide emissions into the ground rather than releasing them into the atmosphere.

"Globally there has got to be some areas where clean coal will work out, so I think there will always be a coal export industry (for Australia)," he said.

"Locally in Australia because of particular geological issues and because of the competition from cleaner and cheaper energy alternatives, I'm not 100 per cent sure clean coal is going to work out for our domestic market."

Australian of the Year and leading scientist Dr Tim Flannery has questioned the viability of clean coal technology, saying it may be made redundant by cheaper and greener energy resources.

Dr Flannery told the Australian Workers Union (AWU) biannual meeting on the Gold Coast there was a need to switch to low emission energy sources.

He was greeted with hearty applause from the 200 delegates - something which surprised the scientist who has been accused in the media of wanting to shut down the nation's coal industry.

He dismissed the claims as entirely untrue but admitted he had some reservations about the viability of clean coal technology, which is Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's preferred option to reduce gas emissions.

He said Australia did not possess the right geological conditions to support the clean coal process, which injected carbon dioxide emissions into the ground rather than releasing them into the atmosphere.

"Globally there has got to be some areas where clean coal will work out, so I think there will always be a coal export industry (for Australia)," he said.

"Locally in Australia because of particular geological issues and because of the competition from cleaner and cheaper energy alternatives, I'm not 100 per cent sure clean coal is going to work out for our domestic market."

However, Dr Flannery said Australia possessed the right conditions to make geothermal technology, using underground energy to produce electricity, while solar power was becoming increasingly viable.

The cost of geothermal-produced electricity would be similar to that of electricity produced by coal-fired power stations, Dr Flannery said, but he dismissed claims of a cost blow-out linked to alternative energy.

Dr Flannery agreed with the sentiments of British scientist Dr David King that climate change was a bigger global threat than terrorism and called on the Australian government to act immediately.

"They need to be getting a war footing using some of the budget surplus to start the building infrastructure to get on the transition path to lower emissions energy as soon as possible," Dr Flannery said.

"Economists may tell you that it will take 20 years but when there is a war on you get it done in a few years so we need to act quickly."

Read the article.

Read More......

Flannery tells industry: climate change can be slowed

14 February , 2007
From ABC National "PM" (Aust)

MARK COLVIN: The Australian of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery, has told members of the Australian Workers Union that it's still not too late for their industries to slow the pace of climate change.

The AWU represents workers from many of the country's highest energy users, including steel, gold and aluminium mines among them.

Today at the AWU's national conference on Queensland's Gold Coast, Professor Flannery described how chances to arrest the effects of climate change have been lost in the past, and recommended ways that the unionists could make a difference in the future.

Among his possible solutions, investing in Australia's untapped resources of geothermal and solar energy.

Alison Caldwell reports.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Festivals and sporting events need to clean-up

17th February 2007
From Sunday Herald (Scotland)

Edinburgh festivals told to clean up or risk losing everything

EDINBURGH'S WORLD-FAMOUS festivals,whichfrequently featureenvironmental themes, have come under fire for failing to curb the huge amounts of waste and pollution they create.

Someenvironmentalistsareeven suggesting that international festivals may have to be abandoned to help save the planet from the disasters threatened by global warming. Major cultural and sportingeventsare"unsustainable", theyargue,becausetheyencourage thousands of people to travel by air.

Though the Edinburgh festivals are not about to accept their own demise, they have all been prompted to start thinking about their green credentials. And some are thinking harder than others, an investigation by the Sunday Herald has revealed.
advertisement

The Edinburgh International Festival (EIF), the Fringe and the Edinburgh International Film Festival (EIFF) said they were taking environmental issues seriously.Buttheyprovidedfew examples of their commitment, beyond a little recycling.

The Edinburgh International Book Festival(EIBF)insistedithadgone further, but it has nevertheless attracted some strong criticism. As a major forum for innovative environmental thinking, it should be taking the lead in greening the festivals, critics argued.

"Progress on environmental issues beyond recycling is poor," said Les Wallace, who was the book festival's recycling co-ordinator for the past four years. Although the festival had been "very supportive" of recycling schemes for paper, bottle and cans, it had done little else, he added.

Wallace is so frustrated by the lack of progress on reducing the use of energy, water and other resource that he has told the festival's organisers that he will not work with them again this year. "It could take the leading role in greening the world's largest arts festival," he argued.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Warming towards a new Kyoto

February 17 2007
From The Herald (UK)

The decision could not have come at a better time. On the day scientists said carbon dioxide levels had reached a new record high, world leaders have laid plans for a new global agreement on climate change to succeed the Kyoto protocol.

After a two-day meeting in Washington, lawmakers from some 20 nations, including the US, agreed a long-term goal to stabilise concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

But their target range - 450-550 parts per million - was described as "catastrophic" by environmental groups, because the resulting temperature rise of 2-4C would be enough to melt the polar ice sheets and leave two billion more people without water.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Difficulties of Carbon Offsets

February 17, 2007
From Guardian (UK)

As has been discussed in this blog (and many other sources) many times, carbon taxes are NOT THE SOLUTION to climate change. It is a step on the way and this article discusses the confusion punters must have when trying to do something positive by buying carbon offsets.

Why it's harder than you think to pay for a carbon guilt trip

Stumping up to compensate for environmentally costly air travel is a complicated business. Patrick Collinson investigates

Offset schemes promise to ease the eco-conscience of air travellers by neutralising the global-warming effects of trips for just a fraction of the cost of a flight. But when Guardian Money put the offsetters to the test, we found carbon calculations for the same flight varied by 200%, and the most expensive offsetters cost nearly 10 times as much as the cheapest.

Buying an offset for a flight looks relatively simple. A quick search on Google throws up large numbers of offset companies. Just enter your journey details, press the button and you are instantly provided with a read-out of the amount of carbon emitted and how much it will cost to offset. For the test, I gave details of a recent return flight from London to Cape Town which I am keen to offset.

But as the test progressed, peculiarities began to emerge. The first company I tested, Carbon Neutral, told me my flight emitted 2.1 tonnes of carbon. But at Climate Care, I was told the figure was 2.82 tonnes. Over at EasyBeingGreen the figure was 5.75 tonnes, while Atmosfair (Germany's biggest offset company) said I need to offset 7.04 tonnes. Yet on each site I had entered precisely the same details.

When it came to pricing, some charged as little as £5 a tonne to offset my emissions, while others went as high as £20 a tonne. But when I checked the "spot price" of carbon offsets on the EU's emission trading scheme, the market is quoting just £1.34 a tonne. And there was also the small matter of VAT. Carbon Neutral said I had to pay it, while Climate Care said I did not.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Peak Oil is Here, and Conservation is Nowhere in Sight

From Blog: How to save the world

I try to reference only news items, though this blog stands out and worthy of alerting people to.

The amount of energy needed to produce each barrel of oil has increased from the equivalent of 0.04 barrels at the start of the oil boom (when we were busy converting our economy to be oil-powered) to over half a barrel today. If this trend continues (and there is nothing to lead us to believe it won't), by 2030 we will be using more than a barrel of oil equivalent energy to produce every barrel of oil. If that sounds crazy, it is, but consider this:

• The oil consortium building the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline has acknowledged that their passion for this project isn't to deliver more natural gas to consumers, but to use the relatively clean natural gas (setting aside the potential ecological disasters the Mackenzie Valley project promises for Canada's Arctic) plus nuclear power to power the extraction machinery for Canada's eco-holocaust, the Alberta Tar Sands, which are now being counted on by oil analysts to produce ten times the volume of dirty oil (and environmental destruction) they are currently producing, and which are already consuming vast amounts of energy and water at current production levels.
  
• The Russian energy department is proposing to build underwater nuclear plants to power underwater deep-sea oil drilling platforms (reported on CBC radio news today, report not yet online).
  

So to slake our insatiable thirst for the liquid stuff, we're prepared to construct colossally expensive and dangerous nukes and vulnerable gas pipelines through fragile permafrost, to produce less energy than the projects that power them consume. Just so we can get it in a form we can dump in our gas tanks.

Read the article.

Read More......

eWaste Fee

Thursday March 01 2007
From Slashdot

"A bill in Congress would add a recycling charge to the cost of laptop PCs, computer monitors, televisions and some other electronic devices, according to a story at Computerworld. The effort to control what's called e-waste could lead to a national 'e-fee' that would be paid just like a sales tax. Nationwide the cost could amount to $300 million per year. Already, California, Washington, Maryland and Maine have approved electronics recycling laws, and another 21 states plus Puerto Rico, are considering them."

Read the article.

Read More......