No word for "robin"

Native residents from the arctic are noticing the impacts of warming [via Harvard Science]:

Less snow, less sea ice, freezing rain in winter, and the appearance of mosquitoes and robins, creatures so foreign the native residents have no word for them.

Scary… and the item was posted in Feb 2007.  Since then the northwest passage has opened up [via Guardian Unlimited]:

“Since August 21 the North-West Passage is open to navigation. This is the first time that it happens,” Nalan Koc, head of the Norwegian Polar Institute’s climate change programme, told reporters in Longyearbyen, a town in the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard.

 

Scientists emulate and intensify natural CO2 cleaning

As focus on the climate crisis intensifies, its interesting to see more and more scientists coming up with innovative ideas to help the situation.

One example from Harvard Science.

By electrochemically removing hydrochloric acid from the ocean and then neutralizing the acid by reaction with silicate (volcanic) rocks, the researchers say they can accelerate natural chemical weathering, permanently transferring CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean. Unlike other ocean sequestration processes, the new technology does not further acidify the ocean and may be beneficial to coral reefs.

and they are aiming to produce a process which closely mimics natural weathering to avoid other side-effects, however

The team cautions, however, that while they believe their scheme for reducing global warming is achievable, implementation would be ambitious, costly, and would carry some environmental risks that require further study.

Of course, the way things are going, we’ll probably need technology marvels like this and energy efficiency and non-polluting energy sources and reduced consumption of other resources if we’re really going to have a sustainable future.

Nothing is more important.

 

On frugality

I almost purchased a new computer for home on the weekend. It was a great deal – Q6000 CPU, 4Gb RAM, 500Gb HDD, for $1089 – I assume courtesy of Moore’s Law and the falling US dollar.

I’d like a new computer, no I’d really LOVE a new computer. It would be faster, more reliable and more fun. Of course, it would be a hassle transferring data, and making all our software work under Windows Vista. Now, I’ve spent a lot of money on technology over the years; such as $1,800 on a mobile phone around 20 years ago, and before that $550 on my first 10Mb HDD (yes, megabytes). I’ve felt the pain of buying too early and I hesitate to buy again.

I was ready to buy with just a small amount of trepidation. Then I realised that NOT purchasing was a positive step for the environment. Less purchasing = less waste, less resource use, less greenhouse gases.

Obvious, I know, but I got there in the end. Here’s to being a tight arse!

 

Depressed today…

I was talking with my wife a couple of days ago and she was saying that she finds all this negative environmental news depressing and overwhelming. I try to stay positive but today I feel that I understand her better after listening to a new CSIRO podcast.

CSIRO’s Dr Mike Raupach explains why the Earth is absorbing less carbon dioxide and how it will affect our climate. (6:22)

The short report outlines the results from some new climate research to be published later this month in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Its a good journal, a good piece of research and its more bad news.

There is strong evidence that the environment’s natural carbon sinks (such as the sub-arctic pine forests and the oceans) are becoming less effective at removing our polution. Even if we capped our emissions today the lag built into the Earth’s climate systems means that we’ll still get two to five degrees average temperature increase. Two degrees is bad, five will be very bad.

Is it already too late? Can we turn around this suicidal course we are on? We have to. Because nothing is more important.

 

Labor is at least a bit better

I asked earlier, is labor much better? It seems they are offering a better alternative than our current government.

From ABC Online earlier this week:

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has committed a Labor government to a mandatory 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020.

And now ABC Online:

Prime Minister John Howard has ruled out matching Labor’s proposed 20 per cent renewable energy target for 2020.

Of course, it is still not nearly enough and I’m voting for the Greens. Because nothing is more important.

 

Geothermal energy powering Iceland’s success

In the 1970s, Iceland was one of the poorest countries in Europe. Today it is one of the richest, with a per capita GDP higher than that of Denmark, from which it won full independence in 1944.

How did it accomplish this remarkable transformation? A key element was the shift from imported coal and oil to geothermal energy. Iceland now uses geothermal energy to generate a large portion of its electricity and nearly all of its heating needs.

[via Harvard Science]

 

The coalition don’t deserve to be re-elected

ABC Online tells us this morning that Nationals Leader Mark Vaile and MP De-Anne Kelly still question whether climate change is occurring. Like it or not there is some uncertainty, that’s just the way it is, report researchers from the University of Washington. There is strong evidence that dangerous man made climate change is occurring and the stakes are too high to not act.

But (Mr Vaile) says efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should still be made.

This isn’t the leadership I want. This is not the leadership we need.

… but are Labor much better?

 

Hmmmm… unlimited clean energy

When I was growing up I poured over books discussing space travel and exploration, fiction and non-fiction alike, and I dreamed of being an astronaut. I wasn’t out playing cricket with other boys, I was playing rockets in my imagination.

It’s no wonder I find prospects such as space based solar power extremely attractive. At a visceral level they appeal to my space-based techno lust and at an intellectual level to my desire for a sliver bullet solution to fix the climate problem.

However its not worth betting on any single solution because the stakes are too high if we’re wrong. We need to pursue all real technology options (such as solar micro power generation) along with emission mitigation (for example, carbon geo-sequestation) and reduction strategies (such as energy efficiencies lighting).

This is urgent and complex and difficult. There’s no lone ranger coming to save us. We need to save ourselves and each other.

Nothing is more important.

 

I’ve got a few ideas

Looking back on my posts it seems like I’ve enjoyed a rant or two. It’s easy to stand on the sidelines giving unwanted criticism but its a lot harder to make sustained changes.

In an earlier post I asked “what’s next?” and listed a couple of decisions I’d made. Now I want to make explicit some of those other random ideas bouncing around inside:

• Develop this blog more as a resource store and less as a personal journal.
• Change all our light bulbs over to the compact florescent type.
• Assess our current greenhouse gas emissions and plan to make changes together with my wife.
• Set improvement goals, even a ‘carbon neutral’ goal.
• Carbon offset to some level.
• Walk more.
• Cut down on air travel.
• Donate to environmental causes.
• Promote this blog to work colleagues, friends, my family.
• Move my investments to more ethical and environmentally appropriate options.
• Install another water tank and link it to the en suite toilet.
• Grow veggies.
• Get a worm farm.
• Get a good composter rather than the ineffective one we have now.
• Use less paper by going digital as much as possible (eg digital bank statements).
• Get water efficient shower heads – there are some good ones now.
• Consider sustainability when making purchases big and small.
• Set annual donation amount and give the kids the responsibility to invest some in causes they care about.
• Donate time to a social cause.
• Eat less, exercise more.
• Get outstanding health matters investigated.
• Buy with an eye to the source material and environmental impact.

What else should I add to this list?

 

Deniers and sceptics among educated nerds

Ars Technica has just published a “climate change mega-post“.

This week there seems to be a lot of climate news around, some good, some bad, and some that is just ugly. Rather than putting up a plethora of posts and getting accused of being Ars Climactica, we thought we would combine them into a single mega post for your consumption.

I like Ars Technica because of their bias towards explaining real science at a level that the average educated nerd like me can understand. This particular article references two articles from Science magazine and one from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Despite its title the Ars Technica article is worth reading.

Reading through the comments on the Ars Technica article you get a real variety of views, iincluding this beauty:

There are more immediate and important things that are getting far less attention than this issue. War, education, the apathy of our youth, etc.

WTF? Ars Technica readers are usually smarter than this. Lets take this point by point.

War? Climate change will increase global conflicts over resources (e.g., water and land).

Education? The economic impacts of climate change (for example through increases in the number and severity of adverse climatic events) will reduce our capacity to provide education.

The apathy of our youth? Youth aren’t getting more apathetic, they’re getting justifiably angry that older generations are stuffing up the environment. (Sure, we and they don’t really understand all the implications of change to a sustainable stance but most youth I know understand the need.)

Everything we care about depends on our environment. Nothing is more important.

 

More worrying news

[More details at PhysOrg.com]

Human activities are releasing carbon dioxide faster than ever, while the natural processes that normally slow its build up in the atmosphere appear to be weakening. These conclusions are drawn in a new study in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 22-26. The report states that “together, these effects characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected climate forcing sooner than expected.”

 

Maybe they should think about the environmental impact

[Via ABC Online]

Motorcyclists say a plan to ban motorcycle parking on the footpaths of narrow city streets, will worsen Melbourne’s parking problems.

From the little I’ve read on this issue it seems nobody is mentioning the environmental (greenhouse gas) angle. It seems self evident that use of a motorcycle is a greener option than use of a car. But these things are complex and maybe introducing this measure will lead to an overall reduction in CO2 emissions and that would be a good thing.

 

Where’s the science behind this?

[Via ABC Online]

Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has defended a Coalition election promise to spend $10 million trialling a radical new rainfall catching technique.

Apparently the technology “uses electromagnetic waves to harvest water in the atmosphere”. Sounds like voodoo to me. Where’s the scientific rationale? Yes, minister, $10m is indeed a lot of money and I’d prefer it (and a lot more) was spent on projects backed by scientific rationale and evidence.

I guess its lucky that the coming Labour government won’t be funding this.

 

It’s worse than we thought (part II)

More on the coming intergovernmental report that I mentioned earlier. Tim Flannery was interviewed by Katie O’Tool on Triple J. It’s worth listening to, just 6min. But I haven’t seen anything in the national papers about this.

KO’T: The intergovernmental panel on climate change is going to release a report next month saying the situation is worse than they thought. There is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now to cause a 2 degree increase in global temperatures. Before this report scientists thought that we wouldn’t get to this point for 10 years. Australian of the Year Tim Flannery says this means we need to radically change our approach.

TF: What scientists generally believe is that once the greenhouse gas level gets to whats called 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent then we now have a 20% risk of precipitating dangerous climate change. Until this report came out we thought we had about a decade before we got to that point but this new data makes it clear that we passed that threshold in 2005 so we’re now living with a, you know, much elevated risk.

KOT: So what does that mean for us? What are the implications for us of this information?

TF: We have to set very aggressive targets now to remain safe from dangerous climate change, the sort of things that the Californian’s are talking about, 80%+ emission reduction in the next forty years. It makes the urgency of brokering the new global treaty that much greater, we’ve got no time to waste, so we need to ratify Koyoto, get the Americans on side and start working towards some very aggressive emissions reductions. We need to make the most of the tropical forests and also some of the other technologies.

And, at the finish:

KOT: Do you think people are going to hear this wake up call?

TF: If we don’t hear it now I don’t know what would cause people to hear it. We simply have to succeed with this, we must, as a world.

Because nothing is more important.

 

Anyone for a Toyota Prius?

Company policy means that I was driving a Toyota Prius when I was in Canberra for the last couple of days.

Pros – good feeling to be reducing emissions especially when waiting in traffic, good acceleration, visibility and interior space is pretty good, instrumentation is OK (although I still don’t know what gear ‘B’ is).

Cons – luggage area is OK but not large. I could see that being an issue.

The Prius a good car but the next generation of hybrids should be even better. We’re not quite in the market for a new car yet but the Prius will be on our list.

 

Labour’s climate-friendly pitch

Labour is wooing the climate-conscious voters with a new advertisement. I think there is little doubt that Kevin 07 will be in charge. Let’s hope he delivers and delivers quickly.

Opposition moves to highlight climate change differentials, via ABC Online

 

Rising Seas Threaten 21 Mega-Cities

Cities around the world are facing the danger of rising seas and other disasters related to climate change.

from Associated Press (via PhysOrg.com)

 

Vote 1 “Dr Karl”

I’ve been a long time fan of Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, geeky science communicator extraordinare. Dr Karl is running for a NSW senate seat. It’s a pity I don’t live there.

 

Its worse than we thought

Just heard a brief but worrying science news item on StarStuff (ABC News Radio) via podcast. (Thanks again Australian Broadcasting Commission Corporation – I’m definitely getting my 8 cents a day.)

Tim Flannery, scientist and communicator, Australian of the Year informs us that an intergovernmental panel on climate change is about to report that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already higher than the level that most climate models consider safe. Further, the level is higher than that programmed into the existing models.

I’ll try to find out more on this.

 

Another $40 in your pocket?

Would you rather some more money in your pocket each week or would you like to see your kids grow up in a safer, cleaner, happier world?

What, you want the better world?!?

Well, sorry but you’re out of luck… both major political parties are offering major tax cuts ($34B Liberals, $31B Labour). But neither of them are taking the sort of leadership decisions that the global climate crisis requires. $30B would go a long way towards some addressing some major sustainability issues:

- Consumer incentives for energy efficient
- Buying back water rights
- Accelerated investment in renewable energy options
- Preparation (of the supportive rather than protective kind) for the inevitibale arrival of climate change refugees from the pacific region
- Reducing the carbon footprint of Australian government operations

 

The great global warming debate

There’s an episode (transcript only I’m afraid) of ABC Radio National’s “Ockham’s Razor” program in which Dr Bob Hunter, the National President of Scientists for Global Responsibility, discusses the debate rationally with a scientific context I admire. To a large part I’m

The contrasts somewhat with what Jeremy Leggett railed about as being the damage that skeptics are doing. I’ve got a lot of sympathy with that because we need to move to action.

I don’t have a problem with the fact that climate change skeptics exist (I hope they’re right!). The problem is mass media’s so called ‘balanced’ reporting that gives weight to both sides and this leads to people being misled into thinking that the debate is significant and so to inaction.

The stakes are too high for that!! Nothing is more important.

 

The other recent trigger for action

I was moved by this TED Talk:

John Doerr, Silicon Valley’s legendary moneyman, is afraid of eco-apocalypse.

“I don’t think we’re going to make it,” John Doerr proclaims, in an emotional talk about climate change and investment. Spurred on by his daughter, who demanded he fix the mess the world is heading for, he and his partners at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers embarked on a greentech world tour — surveying the state of the art, from the ethanol revolution in Brazil to Wal-mart’s (!) eco-concept store in Bentonville, Arkansas. KPCB is investing $200 million in green technologies to save the planet and make a profit to boot. But, Doerr fears, it may not be enough.

What will I be able to say to my children?

 

A trigger for action

There was a very interesting issue of The Science Show (15th September 2007)  that I was listening to a couple of days ago on my mp3 player. (BTW – I LOVE podcasts of ABC Radio National programs. Thank you ABC!!)

Anyway this talk with Jeremy Leggett was one of the recent triggers for me to move from thinking about sustainability to actually doing something about it.

Solar technology and alternatives ready to replace fossil fuels – Jeremy Leggett

Jeremy Leggett is CEO of the company Solarcentury in London and author of the book Half Gone, about peak oil. In this forum Dr Leggett shows how we may just survive global warming and the end of fossils fuels by embracing solar technology and other alternatives. He also talks of SolarAid, a venture in Africa and South America aimed at bringing affordable and clean technology to the poor. SolarAid, based on solar lanterns costing a mere $6 each, is led by Leggett with Cate Blanchett as patron.

The idea of carbon offset through SolarAid is very attractive.