http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
We are living in exceptional times. Scientists tell us that we have 10 years to change the way we live, avert the depletion of natural resources and the catastrophic evolution of the Earth's climate.
The stakes are high for us and our children. Everyone should take part in the effort, and HOME has been conceived to take a message of mobilization out to every human being.
For this purpose, HOME needs to be free. A patron, the PPR Group, made this possible. EuropaCorp, the distributor, also pledged not to make any profit because Home is a non-profit film.
HOME has been made for you : share it! And act for the planet.
Yann Arthus-Bertrand
HOME official website
http://www.home-2009.com
PPR is proud to support HOME
http://www.ppr.com
HOME is a carbon offset movie
http://www.actioncarbone.org
More information about the Planet
http://www.goodplanet.info
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Wastewater produces electricity and desalinates water
University Park, Pa. -- A process that cleans wastewater and generates electricity also can remove 90 percent of salt from brackish water or seawater, according to an international team of researchers from China and the U.S.
Clean water for drinking, washing and industrial uses is a scarce resource in some parts of the world. Its availability in the future will be even more problematic. Many locations already desalinate water using either a reverse osmosis process -- one that pushes water under high pressure through membranes that allow water to pass but not salt -- or an electrodialysis process that uses electricity to draw salt ions out of water through a membrane. Both methods require large amounts of energy.
"Water desalination can be accomplished without electrical energy input or high water pressure by using a source of organic matter as the fuel to desalinate water," the researchers report in a recent online issue of Environmental Science and Technology.
"The big selling point is that it currently takes a lot of electricity to desalinate water and using the microbial desalination cells, we could actually desalinate water and produce electricity while removing organic material from wastewater," said Bruce Logan, Kappe Professor of Environmental Engineering, Penn State.
The team modified a microbial fuel cell -- a device that uses naturally occurring bacteria to convert wastewater into clean water producing electricity -- so it could desalinate salty water.
"Our main intent was to show that using bacteria we can produce sufficient current to do this," said Logan. "However, it took 200 milliliters of an artificial wastewater -- acetic acid in water -- to desalinate 3 milliliters of salty water. This is not a practical system yet as it is not optimized, but it is proof of concept."
A typical microbial fuel cell consists of two chambers, one filled with wastewater or other nutrients and the other with water, each containing an electrode. Naturally occurring bacteria in the wastewater consume the organic material and produce electricity.
The researchers, who also included Xiaoxin Cao, Xia Huang, Peng Liang, Kang Xiao, Yinjun Zhou and Xiaoyuan Zhang, at Tsinghua University, Beijing, changed the microbial fuel cell by adding a third chamber between the two existing chambers and placing certain ion specific membranes -- membranes that allow either positive or negative ions through, but not both -- between the central chamber and the positive and negative electrodes. Salty water to be desalinated is placed in the central chamber.
Seawater contains about 35 grams of salt per liter and brackish water contains 5 grams per liter. Salt not only dissolves in water, it dissociates into positive and negative ions. When the bacteria in the cell consume the wastewater it releases charged ions -- protons -- into the water. These protons cannot pass the anion membrane, so negative ions move from the salty water into the wastewater chamber. At the other electrode protons are consumed, so positively charged ions move from the salty water to the other electrode chamber, desalinating the water in the middle chamber.
The desalination cell releases ions into the outer chambers that help to improve the efficiency of electricity generation compared to microbial fuel cells.
"When we try to use microbial fuel cells to generate electricity, the conductivity of the wastewater is very low," said Logan. "If we could add salt it would work better. Rather than just add in salt, however in places where brackish or salt water is already abundant, we could use the process to additionally desalinate salty water, clean the wastewater and dump it and the resulting salt back into the ocean."
Because the salt in the water helps the cell generate electricity, as the central chamber becomes less salty, the conductivity decreases and the desalination and electrical production decreases, which is why only 90 percent of the salt is removed. However, a 90 percent decrease in salt in seawater would produce water with 3.5 grams of salt per liter, which is less than brackish water. Brackish water would contain only 0.5 grams of salt per liter.
Another problem with the current cell is that as protons are produced at one electrode and consumed at the other electrode, these chambers become more acidic and alkaline. Mixing water from the two chambers together when they are discharged would once again produce neutral, salty water, so the acidity and alkalinity are not an environmental problem assuming the cleaned wastewater is dumped into brackish water or seawater. However, the bacteria that run the cell might have a problem living in highly acidic environments.
For this experiment, the researchers periodically added a pH buffer avoiding the acid problem, but this problem will need to be considered if the system is to produce reasonable amounts of desalinized water.
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia and Ministry of Science and Technology, China, supported this work.
Clean water for drinking, washing and industrial uses is a scarce resource in some parts of the world. Its availability in the future will be even more problematic. Many locations already desalinate water using either a reverse osmosis process -- one that pushes water under high pressure through membranes that allow water to pass but not salt -- or an electrodialysis process that uses electricity to draw salt ions out of water through a membrane. Both methods require large amounts of energy.
"Water desalination can be accomplished without electrical energy input or high water pressure by using a source of organic matter as the fuel to desalinate water," the researchers report in a recent online issue of Environmental Science and Technology.
"The big selling point is that it currently takes a lot of electricity to desalinate water and using the microbial desalination cells, we could actually desalinate water and produce electricity while removing organic material from wastewater," said Bruce Logan, Kappe Professor of Environmental Engineering, Penn State.
The team modified a microbial fuel cell -- a device that uses naturally occurring bacteria to convert wastewater into clean water producing electricity -- so it could desalinate salty water.
"Our main intent was to show that using bacteria we can produce sufficient current to do this," said Logan. "However, it took 200 milliliters of an artificial wastewater -- acetic acid in water -- to desalinate 3 milliliters of salty water. This is not a practical system yet as it is not optimized, but it is proof of concept."
A typical microbial fuel cell consists of two chambers, one filled with wastewater or other nutrients and the other with water, each containing an electrode. Naturally occurring bacteria in the wastewater consume the organic material and produce electricity.
The researchers, who also included Xiaoxin Cao, Xia Huang, Peng Liang, Kang Xiao, Yinjun Zhou and Xiaoyuan Zhang, at Tsinghua University, Beijing, changed the microbial fuel cell by adding a third chamber between the two existing chambers and placing certain ion specific membranes -- membranes that allow either positive or negative ions through, but not both -- between the central chamber and the positive and negative electrodes. Salty water to be desalinated is placed in the central chamber.
Seawater contains about 35 grams of salt per liter and brackish water contains 5 grams per liter. Salt not only dissolves in water, it dissociates into positive and negative ions. When the bacteria in the cell consume the wastewater it releases charged ions -- protons -- into the water. These protons cannot pass the anion membrane, so negative ions move from the salty water into the wastewater chamber. At the other electrode protons are consumed, so positively charged ions move from the salty water to the other electrode chamber, desalinating the water in the middle chamber.
The desalination cell releases ions into the outer chambers that help to improve the efficiency of electricity generation compared to microbial fuel cells.
"When we try to use microbial fuel cells to generate electricity, the conductivity of the wastewater is very low," said Logan. "If we could add salt it would work better. Rather than just add in salt, however in places where brackish or salt water is already abundant, we could use the process to additionally desalinate salty water, clean the wastewater and dump it and the resulting salt back into the ocean."
Because the salt in the water helps the cell generate electricity, as the central chamber becomes less salty, the conductivity decreases and the desalination and electrical production decreases, which is why only 90 percent of the salt is removed. However, a 90 percent decrease in salt in seawater would produce water with 3.5 grams of salt per liter, which is less than brackish water. Brackish water would contain only 0.5 grams of salt per liter.
Another problem with the current cell is that as protons are produced at one electrode and consumed at the other electrode, these chambers become more acidic and alkaline. Mixing water from the two chambers together when they are discharged would once again produce neutral, salty water, so the acidity and alkalinity are not an environmental problem assuming the cleaned wastewater is dumped into brackish water or seawater. However, the bacteria that run the cell might have a problem living in highly acidic environments.
For this experiment, the researchers periodically added a pH buffer avoiding the acid problem, but this problem will need to be considered if the system is to produce reasonable amounts of desalinized water.
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia and Ministry of Science and Technology, China, supported this work.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Greener Skies 2009
06 October 2009
Keynote Speech by Tony Tyler, Chief Executive, Cathay Pacific Airways at Greener
Skies 2009
Keynote Speech
By Tony Tyler, Chief Executive
Cathay Pacific Airways
Greener Skies 2009
Hong Kong
Ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you, for that very kind introduction.
First, as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong’s home carrier, let me join Edward [Yau]
in welcoming you all to Hong Kong.
We have a lot of meaty issues to get our teeth into over the next day and half. It’s a good thing we are doing it in Hong Kong because this is a place where we like to get things done.
Second, let me congratulate Orient Aviation for organising this, their third Greener
Skies conference, and thank all their sponsors and supporters who have made it
possible.
Third, I want to say what a warrior we have in Giovanni Bisignani. He has shrugged
off his indisposition and donned his battle armor to send us his fighting words by
video link today. We shall raise our glasses at tonight’s dinner to his continued good health and strength in taking forward our case for a more sustainable industry.
Let me repeat those words: a more sustainable aviation industry That has to be our starting – and finishing - point.
As Giovanni has made clear, our future depends on it. All of us in this room know that we are deeply and wholly committed to a sustainable future for aviation. But it’s no good just telling each other about it. We have to get out there and convince
the world that we mean it. Frankly, we haven’t been too good at that in the past.
The recent sustained business slump has highlighted how our industry is in a chronic
state of fragility and vulnerability to economic, and other, shocks. It is against this rather gloomy backdrop that we are fighting a fierce battle on the environmental front.
We continue to be strongly criticized by the environmental lobby who wrongly charge
aviation with being the bogeyman of climate change. There are some on the more
radical fringe of this lobby who seem intent on stopping people flying. Tell that to the emerging middle classes in China and India.
We also face more pressing and complex regulations from government policy makers
who view aviation as a quick-fix target in the face of such criticism – and a cash cow for much-needed revenue as they themselves cope with the global downturn.
But as you know – and the reason why you’re all here at Greener Skies 2009 – this
industry is ready and willing to face up to its environmental impact. We are doing
something about it now - and are committed to doing even more in the future.
This really is a landmark year for our industry. Copenhagen in December provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate that aviation is serious about reducing aviation’s carbon footprint. Copenhagen provides us with the platform to spell this out in loud and clear terms. But will Copenhagen produce the panacea that many in the industry – and the rest of the world - are clearly hoping for? Or will it prove to be yet another false dawn in finding a solution to the challenge of reducing global emissions in a post-Kyoto world?
Let me indulge in a little ‘scenario planning’ and give you my insights into how I see this process playing-out.
Giovanni has already set out what we are putting into Copenhagen. I would like to focus on what we would like to take out. On the face of it, the omens for securing a global climate deal look good. We have a new administration in the US that has already committed to playing a key role in tackling climate change and reducing emissions.
In Europe, governments continue to press the need for deep and significant cuts in
CO2 emissions. And emerging economies are also increasingly aware that with their new growth comes increasing responsibility, both to their people and the environment.
Within the aviation industry, we have reached consensus around the need to tackle our
carbon emissions at a global level. Giovanni has spelled out the basis of that consensus in some detail, so I won’t go into it again. Other than to say that for me, as the current chairman of IATA’s Board of Governors, the IATA AGM in June was the point at which all the necessary elements came together and we started to get real traction that will stand us in good stead as we cast our eyes towards Copenhagen.
So, what would we like to take out of Copenhagen?
Looking ahead to December, there are several key principles that need to be endorsed
by those at Copenhagen and forgive me if I repeat some of Giovanni’s points here, but
it is important that we continue to hammer them home.
First and foremost, we want to see international aviation emissions addressed under a
comprehensive global sectoral approach. There must be a recognition that
international aviation, as a global industry, is best tackled at a global level by a single global sectoral agreement, encompassing all air transport operators. After all, how can the emissions from an international flight be assigned to one
country for measurement, quota and reduction purposes? Which country? The origin?
The destination? Those which are overflown? National or regional solutions are just not practical. And they will only lead to a patchwork of conflicting and overlapping regulation, leading to competitive distortion between carriers and a significant administrative burden. And higher fares for our customers. Or possibly more taxpayer-financed government handouts for those airlines which routinely keep themselves in business that way.
Second, we would like an acknowledgement that our industry, through IATA, has
committed to ambitious emissions reduction targets which should be enshrined in the
Copenhagen outcome. Next, it is essential that emissions from aviation should be accounted for only once and policy measures should not overlap. Duplication is wrong in principle, unfair and burdensome in practice.
Fourth, any global system predicated on economic measures should be cost-effective.
Last, aviation should have access to carbon market instruments to meet its obligations. It should not be part of a ‘closed’ scheme and must be allowed to trade with other sectors in order to pay a fair market price for carbon. In short, we are calling for aviation emissions to be included under a fair, pragmatic and environmentally effective global policy solution which is enforceable and easy to
implement.
The costs of implementation should be kept as low as possible. Targets should be fair, achievable and non-punitive. Most important, we want to be part of a scheme that avoids competitive distortion and the notion of so-called “carbon leakage” where emissions in one part of the world are effectively transferred to another by the poor design of policy instruments.
The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme is a good example of where businesses could set up operations outside of the EU to avoid paying for their emissions inside.
Any scheme must also allow for the sustainable growth of the industry. It must balance aviation’s significant socio-economic contribution aviation makes to the global economy with the urgent need to address climate change. This is our wish list, the deliverables we would ideally like to take away from Copenhagen. But I am enough of a Hong Kong pragmatist to know that to achieve this will not be a walk in the park. There are tough hurdles which must be cleared if a global agreement is to be secured at Copenhagen.
There are political tensions and battles which need to be resolved. One of these is particularly tricky. The principle of ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibilities’ underpins the emissions targeting and reduction regime set up at Kyoto. However, the Chicago Convention – the very cornerstone of our industry – enshrines rather different commitments - the avoidance of discrimination and equality of opportunity for all.
A principle which effectively calls on the developed world to pay more to fund its
share of historical global emissions is hard to square with one which says everyone
must be treated equally.
This split between the so-called ‘Annex 1’ and ‘Non Annex 1’ – that is, rich and poor
- countries has effectively scuppered previous attempts to reach agreement at the UN
level and may well rear its ugly head again in Denmark.
Then there’s the complex plethora of individual or state level approaches and a
proliferation of national taxes which don’t actually benefit the environment directly – the UK’s Air Passenger Duty being the worst offender here.
The so-called Green tax that I prefer to call a Brown tax. It will generate GBP 3.1 billion of additional tax revenue when it is increased next month, with not a penny of it going directly to the environment.
We have determined, ideologically-driven detractors in the environmental lobby who
actively support aviation being subject to further charges, perhaps in the form of a
global levy on air passengers.
Frankly, such a levy would simply make us a sitting duck for governments looking to
raise revenue. And show me a government that isn’t.
As citizens we’ve all seen it. What might start off as a six dollar levy, as has been
suggested, could quickly go to 10, then to 12 or … think of a number. That is the nature of taxes. Look what’s happened to the UK APD – introduced in 1994 at 5 pounds a head for short haul, 10 for long haul. From next year it will be as high as 170 pounds for premium long-haul. Once a tax is in place it’s so easy to increase it. We all know that.
Another way the proposed global levy resembles its UK APD cousin is that the money collected won’t go towards reducing emissions, which surely has to be its only
sensible objective. It’s supposed to be targeted at adaptation measures. Call me a cynic, but I wonder how much of it will reach those targets.
No, we need a scheme that addresses the cause, not the symptoms. We need to be sure
that money raised from our industry goes to CO2 reduction. But I have to admit that the politics of it all are eye-watering. Aviation finds itself caught up in a complex and high-stakes geopolitical game. And we need to be right on our game if we are to come through it unscathed. So, what of Copenhagen itself and the outcome of this two-week meeting of national governments, business and NGOs?
Well, the first job we’ll have to do is to cut through the hype and political ballyhoo that will that will turn Copenhagen into Sound Bite City for a fortnight in December. At the end of it all, I see the possibility of three very different scenarios, each with its own impact, good and bad.
Scenario 1 is what we’d all like to see - a landmark moment for aviation with a global sectoral approach for tackling emissions agreed by the UNFCCC, with ICAO’s role in leading the industry preserved. As a result, aviation pays once and once only for its emissions with regional schemes such as the EU ETS scaled back, and taxes such as APD stripped of their phoney environmental veneers.
Scenario 2 is what I call the ‘quick fix’. It’s based on the notion that, having failed to deliver anything meaningful at Copenhagen the parties agree that a global air transport levy represents an easy way to deal with the aviation emissions problem. At the same time, the idea of a global sectoral approach is rejected and further regional or national schemes emerge. Moreover, ICAO loses its emissions management role. I think I have already pointed out why that is a nightmare scenario– one we definitely don’t want to see emerge from December’s talks.
The third scenario represents, well, nothing at all being achieved - political gridlock. If there is no firm agreement at Copenhagen, it could pave the way for more nation states to impose their own arbitrary emissions targets on aviation and lead to the emergence of more regional trading schemes or taxes in an attempt to drive down
emissions.
None of us need reminding that such a scenario would add considerable cost and
complexity to an already struggling industry.
Let me repeat: a global industry such as aviation needs a global sectoral approach to
meet the challenge of climate change. Taxes are blunt instruments that have no direct
benefit to the environment and do little to reduce emissions, while a patchwork of
national and regional schemes would slowly strangle our industry.
It is vital for all of us in the industry to recognize that 2009 is a landmark year for aviation. We simply must capitalize on the opportunity that Copenhagen presents.
As an industry, we have a huge responsibility to persuade politicians and heads of
state not to squander this chance to integrate aviation into a truly global, well
designed solution to the challenge of climate change. We need to fight tooth and nail to win this battle. It is a battle we can’t afford to lose.
I hope we can use Greener Skies 09 to move our case forward and demonstrate that
we are fully seized of the fact that we are part of the problem of climate change, but now have the answers that make us a critical part of the solution.
Thank you.
Keynote Speech by Tony Tyler, Chief Executive, Cathay Pacific Airways at Greener
Skies 2009
Keynote Speech
By Tony Tyler, Chief Executive
Cathay Pacific Airways
Greener Skies 2009
Hong Kong
Ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you, for that very kind introduction.
First, as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong’s home carrier, let me join Edward [Yau]
in welcoming you all to Hong Kong.
We have a lot of meaty issues to get our teeth into over the next day and half. It’s a good thing we are doing it in Hong Kong because this is a place where we like to get things done.
Second, let me congratulate Orient Aviation for organising this, their third Greener
Skies conference, and thank all their sponsors and supporters who have made it
possible.
Third, I want to say what a warrior we have in Giovanni Bisignani. He has shrugged
off his indisposition and donned his battle armor to send us his fighting words by
video link today. We shall raise our glasses at tonight’s dinner to his continued good health and strength in taking forward our case for a more sustainable industry.
Let me repeat those words: a more sustainable aviation industry That has to be our starting – and finishing - point.
As Giovanni has made clear, our future depends on it. All of us in this room know that we are deeply and wholly committed to a sustainable future for aviation. But it’s no good just telling each other about it. We have to get out there and convince
the world that we mean it. Frankly, we haven’t been too good at that in the past.
The recent sustained business slump has highlighted how our industry is in a chronic
state of fragility and vulnerability to economic, and other, shocks. It is against this rather gloomy backdrop that we are fighting a fierce battle on the environmental front.
We continue to be strongly criticized by the environmental lobby who wrongly charge
aviation with being the bogeyman of climate change. There are some on the more
radical fringe of this lobby who seem intent on stopping people flying. Tell that to the emerging middle classes in China and India.
We also face more pressing and complex regulations from government policy makers
who view aviation as a quick-fix target in the face of such criticism – and a cash cow for much-needed revenue as they themselves cope with the global downturn.
But as you know – and the reason why you’re all here at Greener Skies 2009 – this
industry is ready and willing to face up to its environmental impact. We are doing
something about it now - and are committed to doing even more in the future.
This really is a landmark year for our industry. Copenhagen in December provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate that aviation is serious about reducing aviation’s carbon footprint. Copenhagen provides us with the platform to spell this out in loud and clear terms. But will Copenhagen produce the panacea that many in the industry – and the rest of the world - are clearly hoping for? Or will it prove to be yet another false dawn in finding a solution to the challenge of reducing global emissions in a post-Kyoto world?
Let me indulge in a little ‘scenario planning’ and give you my insights into how I see this process playing-out.
Giovanni has already set out what we are putting into Copenhagen. I would like to focus on what we would like to take out. On the face of it, the omens for securing a global climate deal look good. We have a new administration in the US that has already committed to playing a key role in tackling climate change and reducing emissions.
In Europe, governments continue to press the need for deep and significant cuts in
CO2 emissions. And emerging economies are also increasingly aware that with their new growth comes increasing responsibility, both to their people and the environment.
Within the aviation industry, we have reached consensus around the need to tackle our
carbon emissions at a global level. Giovanni has spelled out the basis of that consensus in some detail, so I won’t go into it again. Other than to say that for me, as the current chairman of IATA’s Board of Governors, the IATA AGM in June was the point at which all the necessary elements came together and we started to get real traction that will stand us in good stead as we cast our eyes towards Copenhagen.
So, what would we like to take out of Copenhagen?
Looking ahead to December, there are several key principles that need to be endorsed
by those at Copenhagen and forgive me if I repeat some of Giovanni’s points here, but
it is important that we continue to hammer them home.
First and foremost, we want to see international aviation emissions addressed under a
comprehensive global sectoral approach. There must be a recognition that
international aviation, as a global industry, is best tackled at a global level by a single global sectoral agreement, encompassing all air transport operators. After all, how can the emissions from an international flight be assigned to one
country for measurement, quota and reduction purposes? Which country? The origin?
The destination? Those which are overflown? National or regional solutions are just not practical. And they will only lead to a patchwork of conflicting and overlapping regulation, leading to competitive distortion between carriers and a significant administrative burden. And higher fares for our customers. Or possibly more taxpayer-financed government handouts for those airlines which routinely keep themselves in business that way.
Second, we would like an acknowledgement that our industry, through IATA, has
committed to ambitious emissions reduction targets which should be enshrined in the
Copenhagen outcome. Next, it is essential that emissions from aviation should be accounted for only once and policy measures should not overlap. Duplication is wrong in principle, unfair and burdensome in practice.
Fourth, any global system predicated on economic measures should be cost-effective.
Last, aviation should have access to carbon market instruments to meet its obligations. It should not be part of a ‘closed’ scheme and must be allowed to trade with other sectors in order to pay a fair market price for carbon. In short, we are calling for aviation emissions to be included under a fair, pragmatic and environmentally effective global policy solution which is enforceable and easy to
implement.
The costs of implementation should be kept as low as possible. Targets should be fair, achievable and non-punitive. Most important, we want to be part of a scheme that avoids competitive distortion and the notion of so-called “carbon leakage” where emissions in one part of the world are effectively transferred to another by the poor design of policy instruments.
The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme is a good example of where businesses could set up operations outside of the EU to avoid paying for their emissions inside.
Any scheme must also allow for the sustainable growth of the industry. It must balance aviation’s significant socio-economic contribution aviation makes to the global economy with the urgent need to address climate change. This is our wish list, the deliverables we would ideally like to take away from Copenhagen. But I am enough of a Hong Kong pragmatist to know that to achieve this will not be a walk in the park. There are tough hurdles which must be cleared if a global agreement is to be secured at Copenhagen.
There are political tensions and battles which need to be resolved. One of these is particularly tricky. The principle of ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibilities’ underpins the emissions targeting and reduction regime set up at Kyoto. However, the Chicago Convention – the very cornerstone of our industry – enshrines rather different commitments - the avoidance of discrimination and equality of opportunity for all.
A principle which effectively calls on the developed world to pay more to fund its
share of historical global emissions is hard to square with one which says everyone
must be treated equally.
This split between the so-called ‘Annex 1’ and ‘Non Annex 1’ – that is, rich and poor
- countries has effectively scuppered previous attempts to reach agreement at the UN
level and may well rear its ugly head again in Denmark.
Then there’s the complex plethora of individual or state level approaches and a
proliferation of national taxes which don’t actually benefit the environment directly – the UK’s Air Passenger Duty being the worst offender here.
The so-called Green tax that I prefer to call a Brown tax. It will generate GBP 3.1 billion of additional tax revenue when it is increased next month, with not a penny of it going directly to the environment.
We have determined, ideologically-driven detractors in the environmental lobby who
actively support aviation being subject to further charges, perhaps in the form of a
global levy on air passengers.
Frankly, such a levy would simply make us a sitting duck for governments looking to
raise revenue. And show me a government that isn’t.
As citizens we’ve all seen it. What might start off as a six dollar levy, as has been
suggested, could quickly go to 10, then to 12 or … think of a number. That is the nature of taxes. Look what’s happened to the UK APD – introduced in 1994 at 5 pounds a head for short haul, 10 for long haul. From next year it will be as high as 170 pounds for premium long-haul. Once a tax is in place it’s so easy to increase it. We all know that.
Another way the proposed global levy resembles its UK APD cousin is that the money collected won’t go towards reducing emissions, which surely has to be its only
sensible objective. It’s supposed to be targeted at adaptation measures. Call me a cynic, but I wonder how much of it will reach those targets.
No, we need a scheme that addresses the cause, not the symptoms. We need to be sure
that money raised from our industry goes to CO2 reduction. But I have to admit that the politics of it all are eye-watering. Aviation finds itself caught up in a complex and high-stakes geopolitical game. And we need to be right on our game if we are to come through it unscathed. So, what of Copenhagen itself and the outcome of this two-week meeting of national governments, business and NGOs?
Well, the first job we’ll have to do is to cut through the hype and political ballyhoo that will that will turn Copenhagen into Sound Bite City for a fortnight in December. At the end of it all, I see the possibility of three very different scenarios, each with its own impact, good and bad.
Scenario 1 is what we’d all like to see - a landmark moment for aviation with a global sectoral approach for tackling emissions agreed by the UNFCCC, with ICAO’s role in leading the industry preserved. As a result, aviation pays once and once only for its emissions with regional schemes such as the EU ETS scaled back, and taxes such as APD stripped of their phoney environmental veneers.
Scenario 2 is what I call the ‘quick fix’. It’s based on the notion that, having failed to deliver anything meaningful at Copenhagen the parties agree that a global air transport levy represents an easy way to deal with the aviation emissions problem. At the same time, the idea of a global sectoral approach is rejected and further regional or national schemes emerge. Moreover, ICAO loses its emissions management role. I think I have already pointed out why that is a nightmare scenario– one we definitely don’t want to see emerge from December’s talks.
The third scenario represents, well, nothing at all being achieved - political gridlock. If there is no firm agreement at Copenhagen, it could pave the way for more nation states to impose their own arbitrary emissions targets on aviation and lead to the emergence of more regional trading schemes or taxes in an attempt to drive down
emissions.
None of us need reminding that such a scenario would add considerable cost and
complexity to an already struggling industry.
Let me repeat: a global industry such as aviation needs a global sectoral approach to
meet the challenge of climate change. Taxes are blunt instruments that have no direct
benefit to the environment and do little to reduce emissions, while a patchwork of
national and regional schemes would slowly strangle our industry.
It is vital for all of us in the industry to recognize that 2009 is a landmark year for aviation. We simply must capitalize on the opportunity that Copenhagen presents.
As an industry, we have a huge responsibility to persuade politicians and heads of
state not to squander this chance to integrate aviation into a truly global, well
designed solution to the challenge of climate change. We need to fight tooth and nail to win this battle. It is a battle we can’t afford to lose.
I hope we can use Greener Skies 09 to move our case forward and demonstrate that
we are fully seized of the fact that we are part of the problem of climate change, but now have the answers that make us a critical part of the solution.
Thank you.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The real crisis - Global Dimming Part 5/5
Global Dimming Documentary Part 5/5 Want to save the earth Please Visit http://smallstepsatatime.blogspot.com/ it will give you some tips on global warming and how to prevent it!!
also please join the forums at http://preventglobalwarming.net23.net...
I Do NOT own this video (Global Dimming Documentary) it was created by or broadcasted on
BBC.
The real crisis - Global Dimming part 1
Please watch the self explanatory video... this is part 1 of 4.
Some Basics in Forestry
A glimpse in the mind of Mr. C., another Earth Rescuer:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some basics in plant physiology.
Consider a plant, or a tree which has a rich folliage of leaves. During the daytime, the plant makes use of sunlight and water to manufacture its food (for growth). This process is known as photosynthesis. The process involves "absorption' of nutrients from the soil and the ambient air (which is probably laden with toxic gases). At night, the stomata underneath the leaves' surface opens up to give off oxygen. Familiar with the scent of dama de noche? There we are.
If we have many trees, as in a forest, we have an effective atmospheric 'cleanser'. That is why, we foresters, are emphatic about the need to plant more trees! Apart from the role of the forest as atmospheric cleanser, it acts as a sort of sponge to cushion the impact of rainfall which could otherwise erode a bare soil surface. In effect, rainwater seeps deeper into the earth's aquifer layer to 'enrich' the volume of our springwaters and fountains.
There is the familiar refrain, FORESTS PREVENT FLOODS. Let it be said that this may not be true all the time, because, UNDER ABNORMAL METEOROLIGAL CONDITIONS, like what we are experiencing now. excessive rainfall leads to oversaturation of the forests and so the ineveitable happens, floods in downstream communities.
We need forests to restore ecological balance. The government and the private sector can work together to attain this objective. (Sadly enough, most tree planting activities done everywhere nowadays are turning out to be mere 'palabas'. I have visited a lot of tree planting sites and found the survival rates of planted seedlings frustratingly dismal). If I have my way, the forestry program I want to see implemented is one that is truly SINCERE.
Sometime in 1973, I was in Japan on a technical training in forestry. I have seen how they cared very much for their forest resources. Most of the forestry practices they adopted are copied from European countries. How sad it is that upon my return, my humble observations and recommendations were not 'noticed' by the very institution that sent me abroad. I did not stay long in the forestry bureau. I transferred to another goverment agency then retired early. But I got another sheepskin from a local university.
I joined the geomatics professional group as a geodetic engineer. Upon graduation, I taught for a while and handled higher surveying subjects like remote sensing. Today, I am active in private practice. But the call to save the environment is something that we should heed and that's where we need to wage the crusade to promote the use of facilities to mitigate the effects of toxic carbon emissions.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Pepeng typhoon philippines
Super Typhoon Parma hits Northern Luzon.
Many still take climate change for granted until its too late...
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Virtually ZERO Emission Old Motorbike
If the technology to cut Carbon emissions by more than 90% is already available?
And if the sector that is really contributing more to the greenhouse gases is also the sector that cannot afford it...
Then we can only hope that all the big corporations who are really true to their statements that they are environmentally responsible - to go out and make this technology reachable by the masses.
Accumulation of profits is not everything in this life... It is how are we using these profits for the benfit of mankind and his planet.
And if the sector that is really contributing more to the greenhouse gases is also the sector that cannot afford it...
Then we can only hope that all the big corporations who are really true to their statements that they are environmentally responsible - to go out and make this technology reachable by the masses.
Accumulation of profits is not everything in this life... It is how are we using these profits for the benfit of mankind and his planet.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Tinkerers turn to hydrogen for fuel use efficiency
By Reid Wright
Current-Argus Staff Writer
Posted: 10/03/2009 01:06:41 AM MDT
CARLSBAD — While the major automotive companies lag on production of hydrogen fuel-cell hybrid vehicles, some locals have joined a grassroots movement to develop hydrogen systems for their own vehicles, which they build out of parts from the hardware store.
Charles Goodwin was the winner of a fuel efficiency competition held Saturday in Carlsbad. He said the purpose of a hydrogen hybrid system is not to replace gasoline, but to make it burn more efficiently in the engine.
"The purpose of hydrogen is to form a more complete combustion of gasoline than the one that is there," he said. "It does this by a faster burn speed, which allows burning to take place before the exhaust valve opens."
Most standard engines burn about 20 percent of the gasoline pumped into the cylinder, Goodwin said. With the addition of hydrogen to the mixture, about 80 percent of the fuel is burned. Hydrogen hybrids have cleaner emissions and using hydrogen cleans out engines, making them more efficient, he said.
Goodwin's winning assembly uses household glass jars filled with sodium hydroxide. Stainless steel plates are submerged in the fluid and electrical current from the car's battery is run through the plates, causing a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen — called "Brown gas" — to bubble up. Through pressure created by the expansion of the gas, it is pushed through a bubbler and into the air intake of his Ford camper van.
Five vehicles competed in the race for the best improved gas mileage improvement over the EPA rating for each vehicle. Competitors drove the posted speed limit throughout a 30-mile course and their gas mileage was calculated upon return.
The lowest improvement in fuel efficiency over the EPA rating at the event was 24 percent and the best improvement was Goodwin's van at 93 percent.
"More than a race, it's about sharing information," Goodwin said.
Seminars were held after the competition in the Walter Gerrells Performing Arts Centre, in which tinkerers exchanged tips and tricks for fine-tuning their systems. Some were producing and selling their devices commercially.
Steven Gooch, who placed second in the event, said he did not patent his design because he didn't want to deal with government bureaucracy.
Gooch said he once drove from Carlsbad to Lovington on a single gallon of gas.
He said the internet sites such as Youtube are a good resource for those interested in building their own hydrogen systems. He stressed safety, warning that hydrogen gas is flammable and can even be explosive.
Further, Gooch said sodium hydroxide is corrosive and first time users should use a solution of baking soda and distilled water instead.
He said he drives his hydrogen hybrid car daily and only has to add about an inch of fluid to his jars every few months.
If done properly, Gooch said, the system does not put added strain on a vehicle's electrical system. He said that if a system is drawing more than 30 amps of power, it is probably doing more harm than good.
Goodwin said his system was built out of less than $100 in parts, and took him about 10 hours to build. However, he said it took him a couple years to develop and perfect the design.
Goodwin's reason for using hydrogen is simple.
"Just to get better gas mileage. I get better performance," he said.
250 dead, 2.5m homeless in India floods
About 2.5 million people have crammed into temporary relief shelters after floods triggered by torrential rains tore down their homes in southern India over the last week and killed some 250 people, officials have said.
Most of the deaths were reported from Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh state where rivers topped or breached their embankments. Some deaths occurred in the western Maharashtra state.
The flooding, described by officials as worst in many decades in south India, swamped millions of hectares of cropland, including sugarcane plantations, prompting worries of a fall in sugar output in Karnataka, the country's third-biggest producer.
Officials and relief agencies said more than five million people had been affected by the flooding and were now sheltered in over 1,200 temporary camps.
They included about 2.5 million people from Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh who lost their homes.
"These are the worst floods in 100 years," said Dharmana Prasada Rao, Andhra Pradesh's minister for revenue and relief.
HV Parashwanath, a Karnataka disaster management official overseeing relief operations, says some two million people had been made homeless in the state.
Relief officials used helicopters and boats to drop off rations and plastic sheets to hundreds of marooned villagers in the two states.
While rains had subsided in Karnataka, overflowing rivers and dams in Andhra Pradesh threatened to inundate Vijayawada, a city about a million people and an important trading centre.
Authorities used hundreds of thousands of sandbags to fortify weakening embankments and evacuated more than 200,000 people living close to the Krishna river.
Officials said vast areas of agricultural land, including sugarcane and paddy fields, were under water in the state.
-Reuters
Deadly floods swamp southern India
msnbc.com news services
updated 9:50 a.m. PT, Mon., Oct . 5, 2009
HYDERABAD, India - Rescue workers used sandbags to stop a raging river from breaching its embankment near a southern Indian city on Monday. Floods triggered by heavy rains over the last week have left 2.5 million people homeless.
The flooding, described by officials as the worst in many decades in south India, has killed more than 220 people, mostly in the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. It has disrupted transportation and communication links and forced whole villages to seek shelter in crowded government-run relief camps.
Floodwaters swamped millions of acres of cropland, including sugarcane plantations, prompting worries of a fall in sugar output in Karnataka, the country's third-biggest producer.
Traders also estimated the flooding would hit corn output by at least 1 million tons in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, which account for about 35 percent of India's total corn production.
Officials said 300,000 heavy sandbags were being used to fortify weakening embankments of the Krishna river that flows close to Vijayawada, a city of about a million people in Andhra Pradesh and an important trading center.
Rescue workers also moved more than 200,000 people living close to the river. An alert had been sounded in about 100 villages situated along the Krishna.
"These are the worst floods in 100 years," said Dharmana Prasada Rao, Andhra Pradesh's minister for revenue and relief.
Villagers marooned
Relief officials used helicopters and boats to drop off rations and plastic sheets to hundreds of marooned villagers in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.
Officials and relief agencies said flood victims were now sheltered in over 1,200 temporary camps. They included about 2.5 million people from Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh who have lost their homes.
H.V. Parashwanath, a Karnataka disaster management official overseeing relief operations, told Reuters that some two million people had been made homeless in the state.
Sonia Gandhi, the head of India's ruling Congress party, and federal Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram inspected the devastation.
"About two-thirds of the 54 sugar mills in the state have been forced to delay crushing by a week to 10 days as cane fields are submerged," Govind Reddy, a secretary of the Southern Indian Sugar Mills Association, told Reuters over the phone from Bangalore, the capital of Karnataka.
Just weeks ago, most parts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka were suffering from severe drought. Weather officials say an area of low pressure in the Bay of Bengal has caused the sudden, torrential rains.
India Flooded as Monsoons Follow Drought
A mosque was submerged from flooding in Bagalkot district in North Karnataka, about 379 miles from Bangalore, India on Monday.
By HARI KUMAR
Published: October 5, 2009
NEW DELHI — More than 240 people have died, and hundreds of thousands have been left homeless in southern India after four days of heavy rainfall at the end of the monsoon season, the government said Monday.
The sudden rains, coming after a severe drought, deluged villages and caused widespread disruption in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Floodwaters are now thought to be receding, officials said, but reports have also indicated that crops are ruined, thousands of cattle dead, and hundreds of thousands of homes destroyed.
V. S. Prakash, director of the Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Cell, said rainfall was catastrophically heavy during the past four days.
Flooding is an annual event in India, which depends on monsoon rains for agriculture, but it often causes loss of life and property. The contrast has been especially marked this year, with many of the districts now deluged after a drought that had badly damaged the summer crop.
The 240 deaths reported in recent days in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh represented only a fraction of the deaths attributed to flooding during the monsoon season. According to government statistics, 1,184 such deaths have been reported in 127 Indian districts this year.
Wind Power Could Supply Global Electricity Needs 40 Times Over
ISIS Report 05/10/09
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Wind power could electrify the world or provide its energy needs many times over, not necessarily with big turbines and wind farms
The enormous potential of wind power
Wind turbines on land could provide more than 40 times the world’s current electricity consumption or over five times its total energy needs. That’s the latest assessment using wind data from meteorological sources [1]. A network of 2.5-megawatt (MW) turbines on land restricted to non-forested, ice-free, nonurban areas operating at as little as 20 percent of their rated capacity would do the trick; allowing for the fact that the wind does not blow constantly. To put this into perspective, wind turbines installed in the US in 2004 and 2005 operate on average 36 percent of rated capacity.
For the United States, the central plain states could accommodate enough wind turbines to provide as much as16 times its total current demand for electricity.
Wind power is on a steep ascent. It accounted for 42 percent of all new electrical capacity added to the US in 2008; but it is still only a tiny fraction of the total capacity, 25.4 GW out of 1 075GW. The Global Wind Energy Council projected a 17-fold increase in wind-powered generation of electricity globally by 2030.
Simulating global wind fields based on state-of-the-art data Xi Lu and Michael McElroy at Harvard University, Cambridge Massachusetts in the United States and Juha Kiviluoma at the Technical Research Centre of Finland based their study on a simulation of global wind fields from version 5 of the Goddard Earth Observing System Data Assimilation System (GEOS-5 DAS) that includes global meteorological data from a wide variety of sources including surface and sounding measurements, measurements and observations from aircraft, balloons, ships, buoys, dropsondes (radio probe dropped by parachute) and satellites; the gamut of data that can provide the world with the best possible meteorological forecasts enhanced by application of these data in a retrospective analysis.
The land-based turbines are assumed to have a rated capacity of 2.5 MW with somewhat larger turbines, 3.6 MW, deployed offshore, to take account of the greater cost of
construction and the economic incentive to build larger turbines to capture the higher wind speeds available there.
In siting turbines on land, the study excluded densely populated regions and areas occupied by forests and environments distinguished by permanent snow and ice cover
(notably Greenland and Antarctica). Turbines located offshore were restricted to water depths less than 200 m and to distances within 92.6 km off shore.
Optimal spacing of the turbines in an individual wind farm involves a trade off between various costs: turbines, site development, laying power cables, routine operations and maintenance. Turbines must be spaced to minimize interference in airflow and requires a compromise between maximizing power generation per turbine and maximizing the number of turbines sited per unit area. For example, restricting overall power loss to < 20 percent requires a downstream spacing >7 rotor diameters, and a cross-wind spacing of > 4 diameters.
The power yield is assumed to be only a fraction (20 percent) of the maximum potential to account for the variability of the wind over the course of a year.
In this way, a world map of the annual wind power potential (W/m2) is obtained; and the country by country potential for both on land and off shore wind power also represented.
You may read the rest of this document here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/windPowerElectricity.php
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The Illussion of Overpopulation
Overpopulation panic's eternal return
Ronald Bailey | July 28, 2004
The world has never been overpopulated with humans in any meaningful sense. It seems, though, that it is overpopulated with theoretical fears of overpopulation.
The appeal of the overpopulation myth is obvious-who doesn't love a simple, easily graspable idea that seems to explain a great deal? One such idea is the central biological insight that all animals aim to turn food into offspring. When a species' food increases, then its population grows as well; and when the food supply declines, so too do its numbers. This applies to everything from paramecia to parakeets.
Since humans are also animals that reproduce, biologists have extended that insight to us as well. This is the source of the overpopulation fears that have haunted learned experts from Thomas Robert Malthus 200 years ago to Paul Ehrlich today.
An extensive literature critiques the concept of human overpopulation. But it's apparently an idea whose time comes again, and again, and again, in all sorts of strange places. For instance, the 1990s saw a bad novelization of the concept in Ishmael, in which a telepathic gorilla recycles Malthusianism.
The latest iteration of this two-century-old idea comes from Duke University consultant Russell Hopfenberg, in an article called "Human Carrying Capacity Is Determined by Food Availability", in the November 2003 issue of the journal Population and Environment. Hopfenberg writes, "[T]he problem of human population growth can be feasibly addressed only if it is recognized that increases in the population of the human species, like increases in the population of all other species, is a function of increases in food availability."
Hopfenberg backs his argument by showing that global food supplies and human numbers both rise from 1960 to 2000. In 2001, Hopfenberg, writing with Cornell University ecologist David Pimentel in Environment, Development and Sustainability, further asserts that "if food production continues to increase, the world population is projected to increase to 12 billion in the next 50 years (based on current growth rates)." Hopfenberg's solution to skyrocketing human numbers is simple: "Cap the increases in food production and thereby halt the increases in population by means of a reduced birth rate."
So has the Malthusian case finally been proven? No. Hopfenberg's analysis makes the mistake of considering only global numbers. This hides a great deal of information. If we look on the regional level we see a very different picture than one of a relentlessly rising tide of human babies. Fertility does not correlate with food availability.
The countries with greatest access to food are, in fact, the countries with the lowest fertility rates. As the United Nations reports, 14 developed countries have fertility rates lower than 1.3 children per woman. (Replacement fertility is 2.1 children per woman.) The fertility rates in practically all developed countries are below the replacement rate. Clearly, food availability does not mean more children. More generally, as food security has increased around the world, instead of increasing as Hopfenberg's theory would suggest, global average fertility rates have dropped from 6 children per woman in 1960 to 2.6 today. And the rates continue to plummet. Sadly, in Africa, which has the highest current fertility rates, food production per capita has been declining for nearly 30 years.
If food availability really determined human reproductive capacity, Illinois farmers should have the highest fertility rate in the world. Instead, they have one of the lowest. Hopfenberg would reply that excess food produced in North America and Europe fuels population growth in the rest of the world. In some sense that is trivially true, but the strictly biological model that he says applies to people does not account for such phenomena. For example, deer in Virginia don't sacrifice their chances to produce fawns and ship their food to deer in Arkansas, nor do sparrows in New York forego nesting in order to supply food to Floridian sparrows. Individuals, not populations, reproduce.
The notion that capping food supplies will halt population growth is also trivially true, but not by the gentle means which Hopfenberg and Pimentel suggest, e.g., reducing human birth rates. Food shortages no doubt reduce fertility, but they also shrink population much more quickly by simple starvation.
Finally, Hopfenberg and Pimentel's projection that world population will reach 12 billion by 2050 is off. They simply extrapolate current levels of fertility, yet as we've seen, fertility rates are rapidly declining. The 2002 revision of the United Nations' World Population Prospects' median variant trend projects a world population of 8.9 billion by 2050. Given the rapidly falling global fertility rates, the low variant trend is more likely-and that projects a world population topping out at 7.5 billion by 2040, then beginning to decline. Perhaps Malthusianism will finally decline along with fertility rates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Take on this:
by: ehnriko
In my Honest Observations...
Overpopulation can be concluded as merely a myopic perception of a broader problem caused by Inefficient human density distribution.
If you will notice how many people overcrowding an urban location in contrast with how much less people are staying in rural locations... the difference is too obvious.
If we follow the blaming arrow where it ends... we will only find the usual suspects behind them.
It is the same all over the world. People tend to go where the crowd leads. This is a sort of herd or flock instinct - driven by the fact that Man is a social being.
Modern Technology offers an alternative social venue for people to crowd... the internet. Making this technology wireless and less dependent on power from the grid will allow a more less dense physical demographic landscape for the urban and suburban spots.
However, poverty needs to be addressed first using a dynamic approach driven with enthusiasm from the leaders. Nothings ever gets done without enthusiasm... The enthusiasm needs to be genuine... and not the normally mistaken enthusiasm; i.e., The greed driven passion for more money, power and control.
More to come.
The world can be 100 percent renewable by 2050
“A must-read for saving the climate”
ISIS Report 30/09/09
Announcing ISIS/TWN Special Report
Green Energies 100% Renewables by 2050
#################################
By Mae-Wan Ho, Brett Cherry, Sam Burcher & Peter Saunders
What Green Energies says; The world can be 100 percent renewable by 2050
• A variety of truly green and affordable options alreadyexist, and more innovations are on the way
• Policies that promote innovations and stimulate internal market for decentralized distributed generation are key
In 2008, for the first time, more renewable energies capacity was added globally than conventional energies, and the trend continues
Wind energy alone can supply 40 times the world’s electricity or 5 times its total energy consumption. PV technologies are improving by leaps and bounds, and electricity from solar panels is already as cheap as electricity from the grid. Biogas from wastes has transformed rural China, and waste-incinerating community cookers poised to do the same in Africa. Air condition and energy from deep water, saline agriculture for food and
fuel, and estuarine reef for tapping tidal energy are further options in addition to well established micro-hydroelectric and geothermal energies.
Promising developments on the horizon include thermoelectrics for recycling waste heat into electricity, artificial photosynthesis for harvesting and storing solar energy, and the potential for solving our nuclear waste problem by low temperature transmutation.
These are exciting times. All we need to save the planet is for our leaders to follow the way of nature and the will and wisdom of the people.
PREFACE
350 PPM THE NEW TARGET
Global warming is happening much faster than the IPPC (Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change) predicted in its latest 2007 report. For one thing, its climate models failed to account for the rapid summer melting of the polar ice caps that’s been making headlines several years in a row.
The IPCC helped set the target of 450 ppm maximum of atmospheric CO2, which they thought would limit the global temperature rise to below 2 °C, and prevent “dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
But top climate scientists Jim Hansen and colleagues, using more realistic climate models and key data from the remote history of the earth, showed that 450 ppm is well beyond the danger zone, and we must even reduce the current 385 ppm atmospheric CO2 down to 350 ppm, or else face “irreversible catastrophic effects”. And the head of IPCC Rajendra Pachauri now agrees.
The good news is that we can still do it. It is not too late. All it takes is to stop burning fossil fuels in order to bring 385 ppm back down to 350 ppm within the next decades. But we must act now, because 385 ppm is already within the danger zone, and we cannot afford to let it remain there for too long, or we push the planet past the point of no return.
That is why we need to commit ourselves to truly green energies as a matter of urgency
Read the rest of this announcement for the full executive summary and contents
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GreenEnergies.php
ISIS Report 30/09/09
Announcing ISIS/TWN Special Report
Green Energies 100% Renewables by 2050
#################################
By Mae-Wan Ho, Brett Cherry, Sam Burcher & Peter Saunders
What Green Energies says; The world can be 100 percent renewable by 2050
• A variety of truly green and affordable options alreadyexist, and more innovations are on the way
• Policies that promote innovations and stimulate internal market for decentralized distributed generation are key
In 2008, for the first time, more renewable energies capacity was added globally than conventional energies, and the trend continues
Wind energy alone can supply 40 times the world’s electricity or 5 times its total energy consumption. PV technologies are improving by leaps and bounds, and electricity from solar panels is already as cheap as electricity from the grid. Biogas from wastes has transformed rural China, and waste-incinerating community cookers poised to do the same in Africa. Air condition and energy from deep water, saline agriculture for food and
fuel, and estuarine reef for tapping tidal energy are further options in addition to well established micro-hydroelectric and geothermal energies.
Promising developments on the horizon include thermoelectrics for recycling waste heat into electricity, artificial photosynthesis for harvesting and storing solar energy, and the potential for solving our nuclear waste problem by low temperature transmutation.
These are exciting times. All we need to save the planet is for our leaders to follow the way of nature and the will and wisdom of the people.
PREFACE
350 PPM THE NEW TARGET
Global warming is happening much faster than the IPPC (Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change) predicted in its latest 2007 report. For one thing, its climate models failed to account for the rapid summer melting of the polar ice caps that’s been making headlines several years in a row.
The IPCC helped set the target of 450 ppm maximum of atmospheric CO2, which they thought would limit the global temperature rise to below 2 °C, and prevent “dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
But top climate scientists Jim Hansen and colleagues, using more realistic climate models and key data from the remote history of the earth, showed that 450 ppm is well beyond the danger zone, and we must even reduce the current 385 ppm atmospheric CO2 down to 350 ppm, or else face “irreversible catastrophic effects”. And the head of IPCC Rajendra Pachauri now agrees.
The good news is that we can still do it. It is not too late. All it takes is to stop burning fossil fuels in order to bring 385 ppm back down to 350 ppm within the next decades. But we must act now, because 385 ppm is already within the danger zone, and we cannot afford to let it remain there for too long, or we push the planet past the point of no return.
That is why we need to commit ourselves to truly green energies as a matter of urgency
Read the rest of this announcement for the full executive summary and contents
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GreenEnergies.php
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Weather Forecast Update on "SUPER" Typhoon "PARMA". Thursday CNN
Weather Forecast Update on "SUPER" Typhoon "PARMA". Thursday CNN
SUper Typhoon Pepeng... much worse than Ondoy...
Signal No. 1 hoisted over 6 provinces
Latest DOST-PAGASA MTSAT-EIR Satellite Image (timestamp on image is UTC; add 8 hours to convert to Philippine Standard Time)
MANILA - Weather bureau PAGASA on Thursday said typhoon Pepeng (international codename Parma) is forecast to bring more rains and very strong winds in Northern Luzon including Metro Manila once it makes landfall Saturday afternoon.
In a press conference Thursday afternoon, PAGASA said Pepeng has intensified further, now packing winds of 195 kilometers per hour near the center, and gusts of up to 230 kph.
As of 5 p.m., PAGASA weather branch chief Nathaniel Cruz said the typhoon was sighted 440 km east of Catarman, Northern Samar and is moving 24 kilometers per hour in the general direction of Northern Luzon and the Taiwan area.
Typhoon Pepeng (Parma): Forecasts
Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services (PAGASA): Tropical Cyclone Update
Manila Observatory
Japan Meteorological Agency
Taiwan Central Weather Bureau
Hong Kong Observatory
World Meteorolgical Organization (WMO) Severe Weather information Centre
US Navy: Joint Typhoon Warning Center
The typhoon is expected to be 100 km northeast of Virac, Catanduanes or 300 km southeast of Baler, Aurora by Friday afternoon.
Cruz said the typhoon is forecast to make landfall over Aurora-Isabela by Saturday morning or afternoon. He said the typhoon will bring occasional rains over the eastern section of Luzon and Visayas and more frequent rains in Samar and Bicol Thursday afternoon.
Gale-force winds are also forecast over Visayas and Mindanao.
Storm Signal no.1 has been hoisted in Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Albay, Quezon (including the Polilio Islands), and Aurora.
"Residents in low-lying areas and near mountain slopes under signal #1 are advised to take all the necessary precautionary measures against possible flashfloods and landslides," the PAGASA weather bulletin stated.
"The public and the disaster coordinating councils concerned are advised to take appropriate actions and watch for the next bulletin to be issued at 11 P.M. today (Thursday)," it added.
Stronger than Ondoy, similar to Reming
Cruz, in an earlier press conference, said Pepeng is much stronger than last Saturday's tropical storm Ondoy (international codename Ketsana), which brought record amounts of rainfall and triggered the worst flooding in Metro Manila in 40 years.
"In terms of wind intensity, Ondoy was only half of the strength of Pepeng. When it made landfall, Ondoy only had winds of 85 kph while Pepeng is 175 kph. However, we cannot really compare the two because it was the rain that was really destructive about Ondoy," he said.
He added: "Our major concern with Pepeng is the disastrous winds - 175 kph to 210 kph. We expect typhoon Pepeng to intensify further as it moves towards northern Luzon."
He said the weather bureau will give a forecast on the typhoon's estimated rainfall intensity before it makes landfall.
Cruz also likened typhoon Pepeng to super-typhoon Reming (international codename Durian), which killed at least 734 people in the country in 2006.
"This could be like Reming. We are not just talking here about Metro Manila. We are talking of the entire Luzon area where there is probability of devastation in terms of flooding...and wind," he said.
Dams to release water
Dr. Susan Espinueva, assistant weather services chief of the Hydro Metrological Division of PAGASA, said major dams in Northern Luzon have been releasing water before Pepeng hits.
"All major dams in Northen Luzon wll be releasing water to lower the water level so that when the storm hits, there will be a buffer of storage capacity in our dams and the spillover will not be as severe,' she said.
Among the dams that have released water are the Angat Dam in Norzagaray, Bulacan; Binga Dam in Itogon, Benguet Province; Ambuklao Dam in Bokod, Benguet; Magat Dam in Ramon, Isabela province; and Pantabangan Dam in Nueva Ecija.
Espinueva said Angat Dam started releasing water since 10 a.m. Tuesday to lower the water level from 214 to 212 meters. She said maximum outflow of 500 cubic meters per second was released from the dam.
She said that as of 3 p.m. Friday, the Caliraya Dam in Lumban, Laguna also started releasing water. "Water coming from the dam will affect the towns of Lumban and Pagsanjan," she said.
The government has started preparing more evacuation centers as it anticipates more people to be displaced by the new storm.
Disaster officials fear more rains spawned by the typhoon could trigger another massive flood as streets and drainage systems remain clogged from the tons of debris left by the previous deluge caused by tropical storm Ondoy (international codename Ketsana).
As of 6 a.m., the National Disaster Coordinating Council said more than half a million families of 2.50 million individuals have been affected by Ondoy in 11 regions, including Metro Manila and the Calabarzon area in southern Luzon.
It said that a total of 686,699 people are now staying in 726 evacuation centers. It said Ondoy’s death toll has reached 277 and 42 were still missing.
The storm, which also devastated Vietnam and Cambodia, damaged crops and infrastructure worth at least P4.80 billion.
Coast Guard limits sea travel
Coast Guard commandant Vice-Adm. Wilfredo Tamayo said he has placed all Coast Guard units in affected areas of the new storm on heightened alert.
He said all sea vessels below 1,000 gross tonnage have been barred from sailing in Catanduanes, Camarines Sur and Camarines Norte as of Thursday morning.
"If Storm Signal no. 2 is hoisted, no vessel will be permitted to sail. We are warning fishing bats and smaller vessels not to venture out to sea. Maritime travelers going to the affected areas are advised to delay their trips," he said. . With a report from the Agence France-Presse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)