Holy Solar

Currently the Pope is visiting the UK. Speaking on BCC news after her brief meeting with him in Edinburgh today was Stephanie Hilborne who is the CEO of 47 Wildlife Trusts. She spoke about the importance of the influential catholic church supporting our pressing need to combat climate change whether it be by getting people, businesses, governments to act on reducing carbon emissions or preparing people to accept and adapt to the inevitable changes that lie ahead. Apparently the Vatican has now solar panels on the roof which is indicative of their commitment to fighting global warming and to recognising their role in our plight. Wildlife trusts are particularly concerned about our warming planet and the growing dislocation between people and their environment. For this reason I am delighted to be connected with Wildlife Trusts via Kindnessday UK – a project I founded with David Jamilly to raise awareness of the importance of consideration to others. Of course this begins with taking essential care of the very planet we inhabit and the air that we breath.

There are a million benefits to developing our world materially whether they be greater comforts, life saving medical facilities or increased knowledge of the universe. But one of the downsides would have to be that we have lost touch with essential benefit often by the natural world. Our very existence on earth.

Flash Floods and Hot Cities

A couple of weeks ago I was in sunny La Napoule in France with my husband. Four days later, just up the road, 20 people were killed in the most extreme weather conditions the region has seen for twenty years.

Is this a side effect of global warming? And if it is, what can we do to prepare as it seems that nature has a way of selecting new and unexpected destinations to act out her wrath. Right across the world violent storms claim lives on an almost weekly basis. How many depends on the population.

No surprise city mayors in particular are concerned because of the vast numbers of people living in cities. A couple of years ago at the Institute of Physics we alerted London councillors to the possibility of an extra tropic cyclone hitting our city and the devastation that would cause.

New York has already had experience. In 2007 the Subway was paralysed during morning rush hour when flash floods deposited debris on the tracks; the same thing as happened in 1992.

Our problem? You can't climate-proof anywhere, no campsite, no village, no city.

But what you can do is continue to counter what we believe are the causes of many of these extreme weather incidents. And that’s global warming. Like reducing CO2.And you can also turn a disadvantage into a plus. Take city buildings. Buildings account for 75 % of city emissions. But much of the 150 million square meters of rooftop in New York is black tar. In the summer it bakes under the sun and compounds the heat warming of climate change. Then it the winter it cracks when it freezes. But it is also the perfect landscape for photovoltaic panels which produce clean, much needed city energy. So just one example of a win-win. Let’s hope we can find some more.

Bjorn Lomborg at the RSA

If you want to influence people around to your way of thinking then firstly you have to make some sort of empathetic connection with them. Bjorn Lomberg knows that. He also knows if he talks common sense he will get a favourable response.

For example ask an impoverished mother struggling to survive whether she would rather have food for her children this week or go without for the sake of climate change the answer is obvious. Bjorn Lomberg is right, our current needs take preference over the future.

Talk about how no one wants to give up creature comforts like heated houses, cars and air travel if they can help it and you’ll them nodding their heads. Again Lomberg is right.

But tell a room of environmentalists and activists that you believe like they do that we are responsible however for global warming and we should be investing full speed ahead in sustainable energy like geo-engineering – in fact anything effective and that’s when people get very angry with him. In fact walk out of meetings as they did last night at the RSA event chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh – stormed out without even a backward glance at the Prince.

Why? Because he causes the same sort of irritation as someone who damns with faint praise. 'Global warming is a problem but it is not that much of an issue,' is his view. There, there. Which is probably worse than the declaring himself a global warming sceptic. He sounds so plausible he can actually upset people more.

For example, how their hard earned taxes are being squandered on inefficiencies and green schemes that are useless. And how they are being manipulated and duped into thinking they are doing the right thing.

There is even some common sense in his vision that if people want to do ‘the right thing’ more people in the developing countries could be helped today by doing the opposite to what everyone is banging on about; reducing emissions. Maybe, just maybe he is right and that we are obsessed with this one panacea. Cut carbon, save the world. As he says quite correctly more people may die from heat as a result of global warming, but less perish from cold. So there could be some positive spin to our warming planet. All stuff which is perfectly plausible.

However, it is at that point where he becomes offensive by suggesting that all efforts on carbon reduction are futile and that public relations movements like Kyoto agreements are no more than hypocritical and costly gestures. As he goes on to elaborate, if we were interested in saving mankind then we would do so the way he suggests. If we want to stop people dying from heat, we can give them air conditioning. Concerned about malaria, pay for drugs.

But the problem is that he avoids the central issue. That empathising with people’s immediate concerns will only work so far. How no one can accurately foretell the tipping point, when our greed for natural resources drives us too far. How none of us will ultimately benefit from our continued use of irreplaceable natural resources. And if it hadn’t been for these dramatic scenarios – possibly a little overdone - we would not have begun the good trend of environmental concern that is genuinely underway. People the world over are now are aware that we need energy sources other than fossil fuels. The world population is aware that our rainforests are precious, that our coral reefs are poisoned and that sea levels will rise as glaciers melt.

And whatever personal preferences we hold for helping out those in need it should not veer from our focus of stemming climate change.

Hopefully we can continue discussing the way forward with an open mind and an optimistic attitude.

Are you going to Copenhagen?

The trickiest issue to address in global warming is that of burden sharing. We know we all have to address our carbon emissions but which countries must make the biggest cuts is always the sticking point in all discussions. Who should it be? The already developed countries - the US being a prime example - who have profited by using up so much of the world's resources already or the new economies who are just getting going on a modernisation programme. What is fair? Who should cut back first? It's a toughie. And this is where Denmark comes in.

On the 6th December around 15,000 people are expected to arrive in Copenhagen for a climate conference In 2012 the Kyoto Protocol is set to expire and it is at this two week meeting in Denmark that some of the world's leading figures in climate change will get together to discuss just this sort of thing. Copenhagen 2009 is all about getting the momentum up - or keeping the momentum up - driving forward on this vital pact which we all hope can save the planet or rather save the planet from what we are doing to it.

So this lively city with its jazz bands and easy atmosphere has become the centre for anyone wanting to discuss Kyoto global warming and of course all it entails. As far as the Danes are concerned this meeting in December that they are hosting is all about our future.

A wind turbine will generate all the energy or the delegates. That will avoid some of the expected criticism about the large number of people flying in from all over the world to discuss this burning question. We are heating up and we are responsible. What are we going to do about it? And until we arrive at that decision even in Copenhagen it’s just business as usual!

To Russia With Love From Denmark

Russia has begun to work on modernising its inefficient power plants and that's thanks to The Danes. The good news about this is that Russia is one of the world's highest emitters of green house gases. Much of this however is due to antiquated inefficient industrial centres. Supplying heat and hot water for the public sector, accounts for a staggering 45 per cent of Russia’s domestic energy usage. So any clean up operation like the Danish venture in Kirov which will reduce emissions form 100 of these leaky power stations is a step along the right path.

So what's in it for Denmark? Well, they're in fact buying emissions reductions units from Russia which is providing the investment for this venture and this will allow them...Denmark...expansions within their Kyoto agreements.

Now.. not only will this operation reduce CO2 emissions from Russia obviously it will also conserve to some degree some natural gas. Russia is in fact the largest exporter of natural gas in the world. ..but with only about fifty years of supply left ..in the pipeline.. so to speak it is not only in the interests of the Russian people to rejuvenate their plants and so waste less of this precious resource but aso it will keep the cost of gas to Europe at a lower price.

Well... no incentives maybe then for Europeans to cut usage with cheaper gas you, may well say... But surely over all this is a positive move and a sign of Russia's endorsement of initiatives to halt climate change.

High Rivers Run Low

Not only are the rivers at the lowest point on earth that's the Dead Sea - under threat because of global warming but also those that run from higher up ... particularly the Tibetan Plateau. That's the largest, highest area in the world today and the source of many major rivers in Asia .rivers which flow from China to Pakistan.

Over the past 40 years the glaciers on this plateau have been melting. In fact they have receded nearly 200 square kilometres due to rising temperatures. The knock -on effect is that rivers are starting to run lower.

One example is the River Yangtze.... China's longest river. Scientists have calculated a loss of nearly 1 billion cubic metres of water. This is not a short term problem because the melting glaciers actually replenish these rivers. However, long term the effects will become more obvious leading to a change in the ecosystem of the area which is of grave concern to us all.

With Tibet the only true source of fresh water to Asia China’s is responding by building a range of reservoirs to catch the glacial melt..the precious, needed water that would otherwise run off into the desert and be wasted…. but long term it seems that global cooperation on solutions to halt climate change by reducing emissions now....is imperative for all of us.

Canada softened by US

Canada is ready to talk with the US on tackling global warming which is fantastic news because it seems that President Obama's commitment to go all out to 'green' America may encourage this other great nation to do the same.

The history behind this is that Canada had agreed years ago to reduce CO2 to 6.0 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012 But instead and recently in particular emissions have increased quite enormously. In 2007 Canada revised their previous target saying that their levels were unattainable and the expectations of a former adminstration were not realistic. In fact this reversal of attitude stemmed more from the US position at the time than anything because Canada and the US are the world's largest trading partners and with America's refusing to comply with Kyoto Canada..not wanting to be disadvantaged .. pulled back a bit.

However with the change in US administration has come a softening of position from Canada and a fresh and more optimistic approach to tackling this problem of their emissions which is good news because Canada is in fact one of the greatest consumers of energy per capita. Much of their energy goes to driving cars...heating homes...operating factories but there are also huge emissions from Alberta's energy intensive tar sands...and the effects of global warming on Canada are many as there are ...right across the world. With Canada it is possibly wildland fires... Their fires have been trending up over the past forty years as temperatures have been rising. Now not only do these wildfires reap human devastation We saw this past week in Melbourne the terrible, terrible loss of life when fires broke out in temperatures of 46.4 degrees and heard of 100 kmh hot winds spreading the fire Canada has similar problems to face..it certainly has had these problems in the past.

Deforestation..however it happens... whether it be by logging... or by these wildfires which are caused by increasing temperatures...the global environmental implications are huge. As we are all in this together, the spirit of the cooperation emerging from North America..to the global problem we face is very encouraging indeed.

Yes We Can!

Yes we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions says the Obama administration in the States. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu, if his position is confirmed next week, says he is going to pursue all policies to address just that.

Firstly Mr Chu is committed to reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil which is good news indeed for most Americans (for reasons of economy and security as well) but this fact alone has provoked a conflict of opinion. Senators from states with oil and gas reserves see this– that’s cutting back on foreign oil - as a fine opportunity to increase home production. Currently the US produces around 4 per cent of the world’s oil but that apparently doesn’t take into account potentially untapped resources. But Mr Chu’s focus is on weaning Americans off oil and gas altogether. There has been some concern that the effect the credit crunch has had in reducing the costs of cars combined with the drop in the price of oil has been reviving for example the market for gas guzzlers. But the new administration is intent on promoting more energy efficiency as part of their measures to reduce oil imports as well as encouraging the use of bio fuels and solar energy.

The US oil producers are therefore unhappy about the proposed cap-and-trade system in which oil refineries and industrial facilities that have high emissions will have to pay more than those that invest in technologies that curb emissions.

Two Giants Compare

What do the two highest carbon emitters - US and China – have in common apart from both being dependent on imported oil for their transport and using domestic coal to generate power and both being reluctant to reduce emissions? Well very little it would appear. Their energy expenditure patterns are completely dissimilar and reflect two totally different cultural habits. In the US more than 70 per cent of the emissions come from consumerism – as Americans are more inclined to borrow money if needs be and spend it on their homes and cars where as in China 70 per cent of the emissions come from factories making goods which are then exported. Because their citizens spend less on gas guzzling items. Steel production emits twice as much as Chinese households. Aluminium production takes up another large chunk.
Therefore if the US concentrates on consumer reductions such as upgrading the electricity grid, improving fuel economy and weatherizing homes to reduce their 70 per cent and China on reducing its energy-intensive manufacturing and moving to lighter services to reduce their 70 per cent then maybe both super nations will emerge from the global financial crisis with a greener perspective on our world future.

US Takes on Europe!

Competition is afoot and I guess that's good news for global warming activists. America - currently seen as the worlds second biggest producer of carbon dioxide - is setting out to trump Europe as a model green nation.

At a bipartisan conference on climate recently – which was sponsored by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - President Elect Barack Obama repeated his campaign pledge to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

He also plans to invest $15 billion a year—despite the economic melt-down on energy-saving technologies.

So popular is Obama now with environmentalists they’ve forgiven him his planned armour-plated car, which gets less than 10 miles to the gallon.