Image source: PhotoXPress

According to the recently released yearly study Energy Revolution (conducted by Greenpeace and the EREC – European Renewable Energy Council) Europe could reduce it’s CO2 emissions with 95 percent by 2050. The results of the study show that Europe could achieve this spectacular reduction in CO2 emissions by producing up to 97 percent of its electricity and 92 percent of its total energy needs from renewable energy sources.

But to achieve these numbers a real energy revolution is required. As an example, today’s plans from European countries to build new nuclear power plants needs to be set aside in favor of a very ambitious energy plan. This plan, with a total overhead cost of 1,850 billion euro, not only considers energy production but also energy efficiency. By shifting from road transport to rail transport for instance, Europe’s energy consumption could be reduced with 38 percent by 2050.

The high cost of the energy plan could and would be compensated by saving close to 2,650 billion euro on fuel and uranium.

By 2035, thanks to the reduction of fuel use, the cost of the Energy Revolution scenario would be less than the current business-as-usual scenario.

- Frauke Thies from Greenpeace

But as always, theory and practice lay far away from each other, as Europe first needs to achieve its own 2020 climate plan. Additionally, decisions about energy, transportation and nuclear power plants are still dealt with on national levels. So for now, Greenpeace and the EREC can only advice Europe and its countries, hoping they will listen.

Photo by Jason Gulledge (Flickr Creative Commons)

Since I eat a banana almost every day I admit I’ve dreaded cutting down or giving them up based on the fact that they are not a local food and therefore not environmentally right-on. I naturally assumed they were not energy efficient due to their having to be shipped from Costa Rica or some such far-off tropical place, but at the same time I didn’t really know.

A new book by Mike Berners-Lee entitled ‘How Bad are Bananas?’ attempts to measure the carbon footprint of, yes, bananas, but pretty much everything else too.

Both the Guardian and The Ecologist have been paying Berners-Lee’s book a fair bit of attention. And Bananas, to my relief, fair pretty well by his calculations. They grow in natural sunlight, keep well and don’t need packaging.

From a piece in the Guardian:

For just 80g of CO2e you get a whole lot of nutrition: 140 calories as well as stacks of vitamin C, vitamin B6, potassium and dietary fibre. All in all, a fantastic component of a low-carbon diet.

Some other surprises according to a BBC News article on Mike Berners-Lee’s book:

• Plastic bags, while environmentally horrible, don’t have much of a carbon footprint.
• Apples from New Zealand are another low carbon food.
• Watching TV is a fairly low-carbon activity

Check out the entire ‘What’s the carbon footprint of…?’ series in the Guardian’s Green Living blog, including entries on mobile phones, the World Cup and a cup of coffee.

Also have a look at this cool and informative interactive graphic on the carbon footprints of texting, flying, showeringm cycling and much more from the Ecologist and based on info from ‘How Bad are Bananas?’

Graham Land

photo by Grzegorz Chorus (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

A new campaign by the Japanese government encourages people to go to bed one hour earlier in order to save energy and cut down on CO2 emissions. Not watching TV and having lights on late at night could cut household energy consumption by up to 20%

The campaign, launched by Japan’s Environment Ministry, is called ‘Morning Challenge’ is designed to change morning sunlight for nighttime energy use in the home.

From an article in the Independent:

A study by the Japanese ministry of environment has found that 20 percent of Japan’s electricity is consumed within the final hour before bed. As a result the government is running a campaign encouraging people to go bed and wake up earlier. It is estimated that the average family could reduce their carbon footprint by up to 85kg per year simply by not watching TV late into the night.

Five years ago the Japanese Environment Ministry launched the ‘Cool Biz’ campaign in order to persuade workers to wear short sleeve shirts during summer months to cut down on air conditioner use.

Some environmental campaigners in the UK would like to take this idea a step further and institute a time change. The 10:10 Lighter Later Campaign supports this initiative, which would mean officially moving the clocks back one hour, effectively taking one hour of daylight from the morning and giving it to the evening.

This may pose challenges, for instance children in Scotland having to walk to school in the dark, but perhaps this problem could be solved by simply having school start an hour later where this is an issue.

The proposed benefits of setting the clocks forward an hour in the UK include reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions, increasing road safety, cutting down on crime and boosting tourism.

See lighterlater.org for more information.

Graham Land

Additional resources:

Telegraph – Japanese told to go to bed an hour early to cut carbon emissions

Image Source: Stock.Xchng. By: Z_reinhart.

Why underground? Well, consider that a lot of emissions come from power plants—coal plants and the like—so, scientists started investigating underground caverns, fissures and coal beds to find places where those emissions can be stored; thus reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

So, how do they find and track the carbon? They used colorless, non-toxic liquids called perfluorocarbon tracers. These tracers were used to fingerprint CO2 that was injected into a coal seam in New Mexico. By tracking the tracers, they were able to follow the movement of the CO2.

You can find out more about it all here.

By Heidi Marshall

Image Source: Stock.Xchng. By: Juancho17.

There are 3 basic things that are generally considered bad in the green world: plastics, BPA in plastics, and excessive CO2 emissions. Imagine if some of these things could be combined and used for the greater good. It seems unlikely, right? Well, guess what? Scientists are currently working on this very thing and they are making progress.

Researchers at the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology in Singapore have identified classes of organic chemicals that are capable of capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and then be used to make BPA-free plastics. They discovered that “the coupling of epoxide with CO₂ to form carbonates or polycarbonates is one of the most promising technologies in the utilization of CO₂ and that metal catalysts combined with imidazolium salts can be used to promote such a reaction with significant advantages over conventional catalysts”.

So far, you have a plastic that is created from CO2 taken from the atmosphere and it’s also BPA-free, which means a serious reduction in environmental and health risks, but there is one other key point about this plastic that makes it different from others: it doesn’t use petroleum. Much of the plastic we use today has petroleum involved somewhere, but this latest research project completely eliminates that nasty ingredient from the picture. Imagine the impact all of this could have on Climate Change.

Check out this article to find out more.

By Heidi Marshall

Image Source: Flickr. By: Pmorgan.

We’ve all heard of super-heroes and super-villains, but did you know there are also super-greenhouse gases?

Recently, a rather serious issue was brought to my attention and now I am bringing it to yours. Lurking about our world are things known as HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). They are man-made gases used as refrigerants and can be found in a particular appliance that gives us much comfort during those scorching hot days: air conditioners. They are also rapidly increasing and causing much concern among scientists and conservationists. In fact, according to the Fifth US Climate Action Report, these HFCs are predicted to more than double by 2020.

There is some good news, however, and it’s known as the Montreal Protocol. Contained within this protocol is a set of guidelines (or rather, a phase-out management plan) for dealing with HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons). Micronesia is now calling on this treaty to phase out HFCs and Canada, Mexico and the US have also submitted a formal proposal for the very same purpose. Negotiations for this will start in Geneva between June 14th and 18th.

If the HFCs are phased out using similar guidelines as those for the HCFCs, this is what it will entail:

“…Parties to this Protocol agreed to set year 2013 as the time to freeze the consumption and production of HCFCs. They also agreed to start reducing its consumption and production in 2015.”

Also, according to Durwood Zaelke, president of IGSD:

“We have climate-friendly alternatives that can eliminate one of the six greenhouse gases if the US acts aggressively. This would buy the world an insurance policy equal to a delay of a decade worth of CO2 emissions.”

It should be noted that if these HFCs are eliminated, it would be the equivalent of relieving the world of 125 – 209 billion metric tons of CO2 by 2050, or nearly 10% of the total global relief needed to avoid a temperature increase higher than 2˚C. Needless to say, if these HFCs are not aggressively eliminated or phased out, they might make up 1/3rd or more of total global warming.

We are already aware that Global Warming is a serious thing. We are also aware that some luxuries must be replaced with necessities, particularly for survival. The question is: what are you prepared to sacrifice for the survival of this planet?

By Heidi Marshall

photo by bdjsb7 (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Palm oil has made its way into countless processed foods, soaps and cosmetics. It is also used to make ‘biofuel’ and even napalm – the gelled gasoline used to horrifying effect during the Vietnam War.

Now palm oil is engaged in another war – a war of the environment. Palm oil cultivation often destroys vital natural resources via the utilization of slash and burn agriculture and rainforest clearing in Indonesia and Malaysia. This type of cultivation not only results in the loss of habitats for many species including vulnerable Sumatran tigers and orangutans, but the burning of the forests releases high levels of black carbon (soot) and CO2. The palm plantations do not provide the same rich ecosystems nor sequester the same amount of carbon as the rainforests they replace. When peat forests or bogs are drained to make way for palm oil plantations, even more CO2 is released than with rainforest deforestation, not to mention the resultant acidification of local waterways.

Lush, a prominent natural cosmetics company based in Dorset, UK, is joining the fight. Though Lush still uses palm oil in some of its products, the environmentally conscious soap-makers have come up with an alternative; a mixture of ’sunflower oil, rapeseed oil and coconut oil with sodium hydroxide and water’. I hope they still smell and look good enough to eat.

Read more about Lush’s new palm-free soap base in the Guardian.

For more on palm oil and its manifold detrimental effects on the environment, check out this article from Greenpeace.

Additional resources:

Rainforest Action Network – Palm Oil

Palm Oil Action

Image Source: Flickr. By: KevinLallier.

You’ve probably heard all the reports about how Climate Change will damage our crops and livelihoods via drought, flooding (from rising sea levels), and so forth. However, I’ll bet you haven’t heard about the latest threat climate change poses to crops: decreased nutritional value.

A study, published in Science magazine, shows that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere could reduce crop protein by 20%. Scientists tested the 2 main types of soil nitrogen available to plants (nitrate and ammonium) and the affect they had on 2 major types of plants (monocotyledons and dicotyledons) that were exposed to an atmosphere with high levels of CO2. The study showed that plants exposed to nitrate had difficulty producing nitrogen-containing compounds (protein, for example) but the ammonium-exposed plants did not.

Study author, Arnold Bloom, explained that the problem is “most crop plants…use nitrate as their main form of nitrogen”. He added that:

“Wheat grain that has been exposed to the conditions that we expect in the next few decades declines about 20%.”

Although plants may eventually adjust to the rising levels of CO2, this study suggests that the reason why the plants might not do as well in CO2-rich environments as expected can be linked to the nitrate (or lack thereof). Wheat physiologist, Marta Lopes, stated:

“This study is alerting us about the need to develop new fertilization techniques and to improve crops’ nitrogen use efficiencies.”

You can read the full study here.

By Heidi Marshall

Image Source: Flickr. By: Dryoptera.

It would seem that scientists have come up with yet another reason to put a stop to whale hunting.

Scientists from the Australian Antarctic Division have discovered that whale fecal matter is an effective, plant-friendly fertilizer for the ocean. The research suggests if whale populations are allowed to flourish, their waste could also help marine plant life to flourish. This would improve the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2.

Most of their bodily waste comes from their consumption of krill and according to scientist, Steve Nicol:

“When whales consume the iron-rich krill, they excrete most of the iron back into the water, therefore fertilizing the ocean and starting the whole food cycle again.”

Some marine plants, such as algae, depend on iron to help them grow. Algae are also known to absorb CO2, but it’s not exactly an abundant source in the Southern Ocean. In fact, chemical oceanographer, Andrew Bowie, explained that “one-third of the world’s oceans are low in trace element iron”.

It should also be noted that while the researchers were rather certain the whale waste would contain iron, they were actually surprised to discover the concentration of it was 10 million times higher than that of Antarctic seawater.

Click here to read the report.

By Heidi Marshall

Image Source: Flickr. By: SarahDepper.

However, it’s also changed a lot. According to the National Research Council, the chemistry of the oceans is changing faster now than it did hundreds of thousands of years ago, because of all the CO2 being absorbed from the atmosphere. These chemical changes are causing the ocean to become more acidic, which is having some negative effects on marine life.

If you are an avid snorkeler or diver—that is to say, if you do those activities on a regular basis—have you noticed any changes in the coral reefs? Maybe you’ve seen less of a certain plant, or perhaps less color? This is one possible side-effect from the increased ocean acidification. The pH of the water has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 since the 18th century, and another 0.2 to 0.3 decrease is expected by the end of this century. That may not seem like a big drop it numbers, but it is clearly big enough to cause some drastic changes.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with pH (or have forgotten your high school chemistry studies), pH (potential for hydrogen ion concentration) measures how acidic or alkaline something is. A measurement of 7 is neutral, while lower numbers are more acidic and higher numbers are more alkaline. The NRC report states that the current rate of change “exceeds any known change in ocean chemistry for at least 800,000 years”. That’s a pretty long time.

Scientists are particular concerned about how this changed chemistry will affect ocean life. We are already aware of the growing issue of coral bleaching, but further studies have yet to determine how this will impact photosynthesis, growth, reproduction, and general survival of many sea creatures. The EPA plans on considering ways states can address the rising ocean acidity levels.

You can read the full report here.

By Heidi Marshall

Image Source: Flickr. By: John Biehler.

Residents of Canada and the US can expect some changes in future vehicles and their emissions.

What kind of changes? Well, check this out:

• All cars and trucks are required to have an average of 35.5 miles per gallon (15 km per liter) by 2016.
• Average vehicle emissions will be limited to 295 grams of CO2 per mile by 2012 and then down to 250 grams by 2016.
• The US will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and 960 million tons of CO2 emissions over the life of the vehicles—that would be like taking 58 million cars off the road for one year.
• Vehicle manufacturers are expected to create more hybrids and all-electric cars, plus improve the efficiency of traditional combustion engines.
• Drivers can expect more for their dollar and once the rules go completely into effect drivers will also save up to $3,000 over the course of the vehicle’s life.

Both countries are expected to share the same common standards and there are also plans to work on new standards for tractor-trailer trucks, too. The US portion of these new rules is part of Obama’s goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% under 2005, within the next 10 years. According to EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson:

“We’ve developed a clean cars program that is a win for automakers and drivers, a win for innovators and entrepreneurs, and a win for our planet.”

Click here to find out more information.

By Heidi Marshall

photo by Bruce Marlin (source: Wikimedia Commons)

East Midlands Airport in the United Kingdom will be partly powered by a biomass boiler fueled by willow trees. The trees have already been planted on a 26-hectare farm next to the airport’s runway.

This is the first project of its kind in the UK and part of the East Midlands Airport’s goal of making its ground operations carbon neutral by the year 2012. According to a Press Association report, the willow farm should annually produce around 280 tons of wood fuel, saving 350 tons of CO2 emissions.

Some environmental activists expressed criticism of the project as more of a publicity stunt than a real attempt to go green, citing the environmental impacts of air travel.

From an article in the Telegraph:

They boast that their willow farm will save 350 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year but this pales in comparison to the CO2 that flights from the airport pump into the atmosphere every year.

– Vicky Wyatt, Greenpeace

Willow trees’ advantages as a renewable resource include their high yield, genetic diversity and easy cultivation. In addition to being burned as biomass, willow can be used to make biofuel and biodegradable plastics.

by Graham Land

Additional resources:

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry – The Willow Biomass Project

methane gas capture – photo by meaduva (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

A new article in The Ecologist shines a light on methane, the often-ignored greenhouse gas that is produced from both natural and human sources. Methane’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is estimated to be about 18% compared to CO2’s 63%. Yet it is also 20-30 times more potent than CO2 and has only one tenth the atmospheric life span. This means that methane emission reduction could have a significantly more immediate effect on curbing climate change than cutting CO2, which hasn’t happened yet on a global level anyway.

Man made methane emissions can be reduced in among the following ways:

• Better waste disposal and methane capture from landfills
• Changing livestock diets (and human diets by consuming less livestock)
• Better management of rice cultivation
• Capturing methane released from mining

There are a number of ideas within the field of geo-engineering that deal with the problem of excessive naturally produced methane, which is mostly emitted by wetlands. However, none of the ’solutions’ sound that great. For example, sulfur pollution in acid rain actually reduces natural methane production. But then of course you have to make more acid rain.

The uncertainties about biomass and wetlands pale into relative insignificance when it comes to the vast methane reservoirs locked up in Arctic tundra – methane that scientists are convinced was a factor in previous de-glaciations.

–The Ecologist

Methane and carbon are both locked in permafrost in the Arctic regions. If warming temperatures melt the permafrost, this releases vast amounts of carbon and methane into the atmosphere in a short time, thereby theoretically contributing further to the greenhouse effect and global warming/climate change. This creates a positive feedback loop where continued warming causes more greenhouse gas emissions and vice versa.

For a clear explanation of how methane is emitted from wetlands and melting permafrost check out this video by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. It’s pretty fun in a ’scientific research meets Bevis and Butthead’ kind of way.

Arctic Lake Methane Ignited by Katey Walter Anthony

by Graham Land

Additional resources:

Global Carbon Project – Vulnerability of Permafrost Carbon to Climate Change: Implications for Global Carbon Cycle

Methane even worse greenhouse gas than we thought

photo by Shreyans Bhansali (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Since 1979 China has more or less followed a government enforced policy of one child per family. It is a policy which dictates that urban couples are allowed only one child, whereas those in the countryside may have two – so long as the first child is a girl. Ethnic minorities, those with dangerous jobs and couples who give birth to a disabled child are also exceptions.

Has China’s radical one child policy – enacted by then chairman of the communist party Deng Xiaoping – been a global disaster or boon? Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) and member of the Chinese delegation at the Copenhagen climate summit, claims that it has helped. From an article in China Daily:

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.

One result of this drastic law is that it has given China – and the world – 38 million more men than women. For every 100 girls born in China there are 120 male births.

In traditional Chinese society girls are generally valued less than boys and therefore often receive poorer care than their male counterparts. An official study during the 1990s estimated that this results in the deaths of 39,000 girls under the age of one year annually. Furthermore, many families pressure their daughters or daughter-in-laws into aborting their female fetuses, despite laws prohibiting this practice.

But China’s one child policy may be in for a rethink, due not only to the imbalance in population between men and women, but also concerns that an increasingly aged population will bring. From an informative article from 2006 in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled ‘The Effect of China’s One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years’:

In China this problem has been named the “4:2:1″ phenomenon, meaning that increasing numbers of couples will be solely responsible for the care of one child and four parents.

Despite some obvious short-term benefits, such draconian measures and both their intended and unintended consequences are difficult to put a positive spin on – however many tons of CO2 emissions they may have saved.

by Graham Land

*This article is partly based on an article in the Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan.

photo by simplerich (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Longer growing seasons and higher concentrations of CO2 may encourage faster growth rates in trees, according to a 22-year scientific study of mixed hardwoods in the eastern United States. During the study average temperatures increased by 0.3 degrees while the growing season was extended by 7.8 days. Furthermore, the CO2 concentration in the forest air went up 12%.

Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and extended growing seasons could be favourable for agriculture in some parts of the world, mainly in the northern hemisphere. The study in Maryland suggests that the extra growth in trees could help to act as a more efficient carbon “sink”, which could offset the carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

–The Independent

These results were unexpected by scientists, but the conclusions – based on 250,000 measurements since 1987 carried out by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) in Maryland – are drawn from exhaustive research.

That’s the good news concerning northern forests and global warming as reported in The Independent. But a similar story by the AFP gives a wider scenario, including some bad results the rising temperatures might bring.

If temperatures rise by four degrees Celsius, parts of the North American prairie will become too dry for waterfowl and other parts will have too few functional wetlands and nesting habitat to support historical levels of wetland species, W. Carter Johnson, one of the authors of the study, said.

–AFP

Another recently published study by the United States Geological Survey and South Dakota State University suggests that climate change may dry up many of North America’s wetlands. The study found that wetlands – important breeding grounds for duck, waterfowl and amphibians – are more vulnerable to climate change than previously believed.

by Graham Land

Additional resources:

How will rise in greenhouse gases impact forests?

Supply and Demand. It’s a common thing amongst businesses and consumers. We demand something, they supply it. They demand something and some other company, manufacturer, or what-have-you supplies it. Such a common thing is about to take a bit of an unexpected turn.

Image source: screen capture from report .pdf file

The world of supply and demand is changing and it’s coming to the point that, if suppliers do not take better steps (or any steps) to managing their greenhouse gas emissions, they could lose clients. There are already about 56% of large firms that would stop doing businesses with suppliers if they failed to meet specific CO2 emissions managing criteria.

According to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Supply Chain Report (.pdf file), 6% of its members would stop doing business today with suppliers that did not manage their carbon emissions. Some of these members are quite well-known, including Dell, Google, and PepsiCo.

CDP head, Paul Dickinson, stated:

“This is no longer a ‘nice to have’ for leaders, it is becoming a ‘need to have’ and we expect to see this trend growing across the whole business sector.”

A further breakdown of the survey shows that 44 member companies contacted 1,402 of their suppliers on the matter. More than half of the suppliers responded; 42% did not respond and 7% declined. Out of these companies, only 20% reported figures for supply chain emissions; which is comparable to the 90% that have created a plan to work with suppliers on climate change and also have executives responsible for environmental affairs.

It is definitely great to see businesses, companies and so forth step up and take climate change seriously. Many of them have been getting more involved with environmental projects, green initiatives, and even trying to get employees into the habit of living a more eco-friendly lifestyle.

What steps has your workplace taken to fight climate change, help the environment, or become more green?

By Heidi Marshall

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

Lawn care is becoming more of an obsession these days. Most of us will do some lawnmowing, spray some weed killer and call it a day. However, there are people who go to extreme lengths of making sure their lawn is perfectly green. They will use fertilizers, pesticides, sprinkler systems, leaf blowers, branch chippers, and a vast number of other products, machines and methods—all for the sake of lawn care. While having a healthy lawn is a good aspiration, it can also cause trouble for the environment.

You see, previous studies have shown that turfgrass lawns have the potential to act as carbon sinks—a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. However, a more recent study shows that certain, excessive lawn maintenance practices can generate even more greenhouse gas emissions—4 times greater than the amount of carbon a lawn is capable of storing.

According to study co-author, Amy Townsend-Small:

“Lawns look great—they’re nice and green and healthy, and they’re photosynthesizing a lot of organic carbon. But the carbon-storing benefits of lawns are counteracted by fuel consumption.”

The study—to be published in Geophysical Research Letters—involved researchers taking grass samples from 4 parks in the Irvine, California, area. These parks either contained athletic field turf or ornamental lawn turf. Then, samples were taken from the soil, as well as the air above the turf. These samples were analyzed to measure carbon separation and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. The analysis data was then compared to the amount of CO2 emissions that came from maintenance of the turf, including fertilizer production and irrigation.

Results from the study were not pretty: they showed that lawn N2O emissions were similar to those from agricultural farms. These farms are considered to be among the largest nitrous oxide emitters in the world. As for how the different turf samples measured up:

• N2O emissions from fertilization of ornamental lawns only offset 10% to 30% of the separated carbon; and regular maintenace of these lawns created 4 times more CO2 than the turf could absorb.
• The athletic fields did much worse, being unable to trap even the small amount of CO2 that the ornamental lawn did; and they require the same amount (if not more) of maintenance, thus generating more emissions than they can handle.

If you absolutely must take care of your lawn, check out this site for some tips on how to do so in a more organic, eco-friendly way.

By Heidi Marshall

More Information:
SafeLawns.org
Natural Lawn Care
Easy Organic Lawn Care
Organic Lawn Care Guide
Lawn Care: Pesticide Hazards and Alternatives

Image Source: ICARE

Those of you who followed GreenFudge last year may remember a story about the Biotruck Expedition: an old, salvaged school bus that traveled to Asia on french fry (chip) fat and biodiesel made from cooking oil. Why? They were (or actually, still are) trying to travel around the world without emitting more than 2 tons of CO2. Unfortunately, a mishap occurred in India and expedition leader, Andy Pag, was arrested.

Now, it seems another person wants to take on a similar world-traveling task. Swiss engineer, Mark Muller, plans to make a 40,000 km (24,855 miles) trip in a vehicle powered by only the sun and wind. The ICARE Project is supported by the Yverdon engineering school and has a bigger goal than the Biotruck Expedition—some would say even impossible. Yes, Muller will certainly travel a great distance; but he plans to complete his mission without emitting a single gram of CO2.

How in the world can this be possible? Quite easily, it would seem: by day, the electric motor of the car will be powered by solar panels; by night, a wind power generator will be raised to re-charge the batteries. Muller and his co-driver will be traveling across 30 countries, reporting from sustainable developments. If they succeed, it will be the first time that a solar and wind powered car ever made such a voyage.

There are still a few kinks to get out of the way before the trip begins. The trailer carrying all the equipment, for example, was specifically built for the project and they must have it inspected and approved for travel before the expedition can start. Muller also stated:

“There are lots of uncertainties because even getting this far has been difficult and has taken a long time, and then there’s the journey and all the things that could go wrong: theft, accident, break-down…lots of things.”

Muller hopes to be on his way by spring. Multimedia reports from the trip will be posted on the official ICARE Project website. You can also get involved with the project by sponsoring miles (km) or buying a piece of solar cell from the vehicle once the journey is complete.

By Heidi Marshall

village in Fed Rep of Micronesia - photo by tata_aka_T (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

In an unprecedented and audacious move to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, the Federated States of Micronesia – a small nation of islands in the western Pacific Ocean – have appealed against the refitting of a coal plant in far off Prunerov, Czech Republic. Prunerov – owned by the utilities conglomerate CEZ – is one of the largest coal-fired power stations in the EU and the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the Czech Republic. According to the Norwegian environmental NGO Bellona, the Czech plant emits 40 times as much yearly CO2 as the entire Federated States of Micronesia. Much like the Maldives and Tuvalu, Micronesia feels threatened by the impacts of climate change, particularly rising sea levels.

‘The Federated States of Micronesia is a small island state in the Pacific Ocean composed of 607 islands, of which 65 are populated and most of which are low lying atolls. As a result, it is a country deeply exposed to various effects of global climate change including rapid sea level rises, freak weather events or acute water insecurity. The Federated States of Micronesia lay to the west of the Marshall Islands and east of the Philippines.’

–Bellona.org

Though logically, the closure of one plant in the Czech Republic isn’t going to save Micronesia or any other island, the tactic of using local laws may offer some recourse in the fight to reduce global emissions, rather than relying on shaky international treaties like what was attempted in Copenhagen.

‘The failure of nations at the Copenhagen conference to agree to a timetable for a binding agreement on curbing climate change or to agree on a target for reducing emissions by midcentury appears to have lent new urgency to anti-coal campaigns.’

–New York Times

Despite wide support among environmentalists for the coal plant’s closure – including the Czech Republic’s chapter of Greenpeace – CEZ believes that the refitting of the plant in will lower emissions enough to gain approval from the Czech Ministry of Environment. On the other hand, if Micronesia’s attempt were to be successful, it would set a new precedent in international law and likely encourage similar actions as a way of combating global emissions.

by Graham Land

Resources:

Bellona.org – Micronesia challenges Czech coal plant extension

New York Times – A Pacific Island Challenge to European Air Pollution

Times Live – Micronesia takes on giant Czech power plant

UPI – Micronesia challenges Czech coal plant

Image Source: Flickr

The time frame for possible action against global warming has changed yet again. Researchers are now giving world leaders up to 40 years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible.

During a recent study (and the first of its kind), analysts used a detailed energy system model to compare the potential 2050 emission levels with the chances of achieving the end-of-century goal of 2 or 3 degrees C (3.5 or 5.5 F) above the pre-industrial average.

The study—published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences—included researchers from IIASA and the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands. Portions of the study showed that if certain critical 2050 targets were not met, it could severely complicate any end-of-century goals that may use current energy sources.

One possibility shows that global emissions would have to be reduced by 20% below 2000 levels, by 2050 in order to meet the goal. Another possibility accounted for a higher demand for land and energy, boosting the 2050 target to 50 percent. Either way, the authors of the study claimed these kind of targets were “barely feasible” with known energy sources.

Study co-author and IIASA researcher, Keywan Riahi, stated:

“Even if we do everything possible to reduce emissions between now and 2050, we’d only have even odds of hitting the two-degree target—and then only if we also did everything possible over the second half of the century, too.”

These certainly aren’t very encouraging statements or results, but all hope is not lost. Brian O’Neill, lead co-author of the study, explained that as long as an effective, long-term strategy is employed, emissions could be higher in 2050 but still reach the 2 degree goal in the long run.

I suppose that may be a tad bit reassuring to hear, though they might want to figure things out sooner than later. The Doomsday Clock is set to change yet again. Yes, there is an official Doomsday Clock.

It was introduced in 1947 by The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. The clock symbolizes certain threats to the world, including nuclear weapons, terrorism and global warming. The clock is always set within a few minutes of midnight, indicating that if things get bad enough, it could mean the ultimate destruction of the human race.

This week—January 14^th at 10 am EST (1500 GMT) to be exact—the minute hand of the clock will be moved again. The last time it was moved was in 2007, from seven to five minutes before midnight (11:53 pm to 11:55 pm, or 23:53 to 23:55). Also, for the first time ever, anyone with internet access will be able to witness the changing of the clock at TurnBackTheClock.org.

By Heidi Marshall