state of the planet

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is a powerful article from Nature to kick-start a decade of science-led world-saving. The diagram reproduced below shows nine planetary systems: climate change; rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine); interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidification; global freshwater use; change in land use; chemical pollution; and atmospheric aerosol loading. Safe thresholds for each system are indicated by the green ring and the current state of each system is illustrated by the size of the red wedge. As you can see, we have already exceeded the safe thresholds for biodiversity loss, the nitrogen cycle and climate change.


So there you have it: A concise and heavily evidenced review of the state of the planet in one of the most prestigious journals. Everyone should have to read this. Ignorance is a crime.

trains can be more polluting than aeroplanes says new report

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New Scientist article of considerable import to anyone interested in transport and energy policy. The obvious conclusion is that electric trains fuelled by coal-fired power plants are more carbon intensive than a jumbo jet over the same distance. Similarly, off-peak buses carrying a handful of passengers are less efficient over their entire lives than a Chelsea Tractor.

Slay those demons, people. The facts matter (see preceding post).

Mikhail Chester is awesome.

carbon trading won't stop climate change

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This New Scientist article is just bloody brilliant!

"All these methods of pricing carbon permit the creation of a carbon market that will allow us to pollute beyond a catastrophic tipping point. In other words, they require us to put a price on the final "killing" tonne of CO₂ which, once emitted, tips the balance and triggers runaway global warming. How can we set such a price? It's like saying, how much is civilisation worth? Or, if you needed a camel to cross a desert alive, what is a fair value for the straw that breaks its back?"

"Even if you could price the killing tonne, it is a transaction that should never be allowed. Economics becomes redundant if it can rationalise an exchange that sells the future of humankind."

"Governments are there to compensate for market failure but seem to have a blind spot about carbon markets. They could counteract the impact of low carbon prices by spending on renewable energy as part of their economic stimulus packages, yet they have not done so. The UK, for example, has spent nearly 20 per cent of its GDP to prop up the financial sector, but just 0.0083 per cent in new money on green economic stimulus."

missing the point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve Richards dithers a bit but ultimately makes his point:

"Heathrow will now be a running story, sapping ministerial energy and attention. That is why the whole affair is misjudged. It is not as if the rest of Britain's transport problems are resolved and we have the luxury of moving on. The railways remain an overpriced and chaotic disgrace. Over Christmas we took a sleeper from Euston to Fort William in Scotland. We were kicked out at 3am in Edinburgh because the train was defective. On the way back there was chaos from Glasgow station with Scotrail officials having no idea what Virgin trains were doing. The fragmented monopolies are not delivering. Sorting out the railways is where the intense ministerial focus should be, for economic reasons as well as quality of life ones."

Whereas the UK government (condom machine in vatican) has missed the important details almost completely. Because they are shit.

I love the idea of sleeper trains. I wish they ran to more locations. I remember travelling to Southern Germany when I was young. It was magic. Sleeping in bunks and watching the landscape roll past. Like I said: Magic.

Marc Jacobson is super-awesome

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Word!

"Putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles, and transmission lines would not only create jobs but also reduce costs due to healthcare, crop damage, and climate damage – as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power,"

Energy & Environmental Science

Rajendra Pachauri is a dude

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Google News.

"(Yet) here, you've got agencies, you've got organisations that are not only responsible for their own failure but the failure of the entire economic system, and they get cheques worth 2.7 trillion dollars. I find this amazing... What can you say, what can you do?"

Rajendra Pachauri shared the Nobel Peace Prize along with the rest of the IPCC.

energy insight

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Greenpeace published a review they commissioned on the 2020 renewable generation target. Its got some interesting bits, chief among which is that we won't be experiencing blackouts any time soon, despite what the tabloids say. What it does propose is the eminently sensible idea of a long-range plan for building renewable capacity to replace retiring generation and the establishment of just exactly what comprises "security of supply".

Eon royally suck ass

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Googlebombing session. Please click the following link:

Eon


(From Merrick).

as previously observed, nuclear generation sucks big, floppy donkey dicks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Merrick rules:

"No British nuclear power station has ever been built to budget. The last one, Sizewell B, cost more than twice the estimate. The first of the new generation stations, Olkiluoto in Finland, found itself more than a billion pounds over budget and two years behind schedule at only two and a half years into construction.

Even with the taxpayer coughing up for a load of British Energy's debts, it couldn't stay afloat on its own. In 2002, just six years after privatisation, the government bailed it out with over £5bn of taxpayer's money.

These days, our government assures us that the owners will pay for all the decommissioning. They are lying. In order to get the industry and investors to sign up, the government agrees a set maximum price for waste disposal and decommissioning when it gives approval for the station. Any over-runs in cost (and when has the nuclear industry not delivered those?) will be paid for by the taxpayer."

Labour rebels try to save the world

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Needless to say all here at punkscience hope they succeed.

READ THIS ~ READ THIS ~ READ THIS ~ READ THIS ~ READ THIS ~ READ THIS ~ READ THIS ~ READ THIS ~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"As humanity teeters on the brink, the corporate media are sure to give increasing coverage to these dubious and risky "technofixes." Influential business lobbyists will make ever-greater efforts to push for lucrative, but diversionary, "solutions" to climate chaos. We need to be alert to such self-serving manoeuvres and willing to expose them.

This much is clear: after more than twenty years of ever more urgent scientific warnings, and government and corporate obstructionism, we really have arrived at the edge of the climate abyss."

Fucking WORD!

a challenge to climate change denialists

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is primarily aimed at the racist CCD David Duff and the CCD Bishop Hill but I'm happy for anyone to chip in. I might regret this but we'll just have to see.

Duff et al, I invite you to post a peer-reviewed reference supporting your position of denial. I'll make a special exception for it. That's a promise.

However- and do take note of this Duff as your cherry-picking of references makes me very wary of offering you any sort of licence to abuse others' ignorance- your reference cannot simply be methodological critiques a la McIntyre & McKitrick (2005). I am talking about original, peer-reviewed research that demonstrates that anthropological forcings are negligible in comparison to natural ones.

I'm actually interested to see what you come up with.


Addition:

Anyone interested in entering the discussion should focus on this paper, as preferred by Duff.

Pure Energy Systems Wiki

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you're as fascinated by renewable generation as I am then you should love this Wiki. I found my way there through their algal biofuels page, which is awesome!

today's statistic of interest

The Lazy Environmentalist quoting Phil Woolas MP.

""UK economic activity accounts for 15% emissions worldwide" . . . (note: this is a rarely alluded to fact by our government . . .), "2% of which comes directly from within our shores.""

UK government buries head further in sand over climate change

The government refuses to adopt meaningful targets- even the lproposed increase from 60 to 80% emissions reductions by 2050 is useless. They have no power on the international stage to push others to adopt similar emissions becuase they have lost all credibility over Iraq. And the closing paragraph to this article states this:


"Department for the Environment officials said the bill had been 'strengthened quite significantly' by the amendments, but 'remains largely unchanged', both raising and dashing hopes that they have accepted some or all the changes. Some campaigners fear the government, under pressure over rising oil prices not to introduce what are seen as expensive 'green' policies, are not ready to bow to the demands in full."

You see? Head In Sand. The government still fears to take effective action because it might cost a lot. Its as if the Stern Report had never been produced.

high oil prices are awesome!

People are driving less- even Americans, business class only airlines are going bust (woohoo!) and public appeals for efficient public transport as an alternative to private are growing. Sweet.

George knows it too.


Addition:

So does Johann.

ecohackers 2 - the revenge

Someone's managed to do something decent with all the wondrous technology we've developed. Its simple enough to be practical and theoretically viable. Watch this space . . .

Dominic Lawson is a climate change-denying cockweasel

For someone who writes for the Indy he's remarkably stupid. He has utterly failed to contemplate the trend for rising fuel prices that will make renewable generation profoundly competitive within a few years. He is stupid enough to not have learnt anything from The Stern Report. He also makes no consideration of the apocalyptic consequences of rejecting sustainable development and renewable generation. In fact, this article misses so many glaring chances to point opinion in progressive directions- that is, directions which would lead to progress- that you have to wonder at the man's motives for essentially advocating the end of our society as we know it.

Take the economic point Lawson makes: That the economic downturn turns people's concerns away from environmentalism and towards economic stability. What he has missed completely is that the economic system itself is sick and in dire need of reform. The banks, whose idiocy and greed produced the economic crisis, aren't mentioned at all. Neither is any proposed changes to the system that might allow economic concerns to be mitigated.

That's just one example of an elephant in Dominic's room. Another would be his justified assault upon micro-generation. Damning David Cameron's poxy little turbine is entirely correct and Dominic throws some good figures in there. But this is after he has slated the EU's proposals for renewable energy generation, observing that they will cost the consumer £10 billion in total. The fact that such capacity will produce essential reductions in carbon emissions, increase energy security, generate thousands of jobs, shield us from subsequent rises in fuel costs and another million good reasons also pass mention, as does the fact that we should not be footing the bill for it- the government should be using our tax money to stabilise our economy and energy security!

But the worst piece of misdirection is Lawson's observation that "the British public . . . need educating about [the inconsistency of wind generation]" using the Texan example. His tone implies that, if the public knew about this flaw in the technology's reliability to generate electricity, they would reject such technology whole heartedly.This implication that renewable generation is flawed, uneconomic and inappropriate runs through the whole article. And, of course, it is entirely incorrect. As I have demonstrated time and again on this blog, renewable generation is perfectly capable of powering the world as long as it is applied intelligently.

Finally, and most damning of all, Lawson fails to extrapolate from his condemnation of renewable generation and covert endorsement of unsustainable development to the future: If we don't move to a sustainable society then catastrophic climate change will be inevitable and millions will die, our society will be crippled by food-poverty and mass migration of climate refuges and the economy will collapse. Dominic seems to imply that this is an acceptable alternative.

He is, clearly, a fucking cockweasel.



Addition:

Case closed:

“The burning of fossil fuels sends about seven gigatons of CO₂ per year into the atmosphere, which sounds like a lot. Yet the biosphere and the oceans send about 1900 gigatons and 36000 gigatons of CO₂ per year into the atmosphere – ... one reason why some of us are sceptical about the emphasis put on the role of human fuel-burning in the greenhouse gas effect. Reducing man-made CO 2 emissions is megalomania, exaggerating man’s significance. Politicians can’t change the weather.”

A dirty little propagandist cockweasel.

"Its costly having a carbon conscience" - NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!

The Guardian ran this story. "Fucking weak as fuck!", I thought. Not a mention of any need for government legislation to drive people toward the serious changes in life style that any meaningful assault upon climate changing emissions demands.

A personal example: I have to be on an island in the Netherlands next month for a research cruise. I could get there by flying with FlyBe (£30) direct from the city I work in . . . OR I could get the train to London, Eurostar to Brussels, Thalys train to Amsterdam, a local train to a coast town, a bus to the ferry port, a ferry to the island and a taxi or bus to the ship. Guess which I chose?

Ha! BOOOOOOM, sucker!

I am the ultimate responsible citizen, because I chose the train marathon. Actually its only a full day's travelling, leaving on a 5am train and getting there as the sun sets. But the cost? A cool £250. I really can't crow about this too much because the money comes from my budget but I really do try and get everywhere I can these days via the Eurostar. Its not just that I hate airports and flying generally- besides the trauma to my conscience its a god-awful mess standing in lines to be patronised by blank security robots with hand-held metal detectors- but I just hate the process of taking off and flying over hundreds of miles of obscured countryside. I'd rather have my soul connected to the land I'm traversing through the medium of my eyes.

Anyway, this is not a first. In the past couple of years I have only flown to Lanzarote. I have been on the Eurostar to the continent twice. If I have to go anywhere other than Europe- I will fly and I will make the most of the experience. But if I am heading into the civilisation of the continent, where trains, trams and efficient bus services exist in abundance, why scorn it? Why not experience life as it should be!

barrels, kilos and comments

A very interesting comment on an even more interesting post.

Hmmmm, I might do sum fag-packet sums of my own . . . .