| ecology |
wwf
world ecology report 2004 [44-page PDF]
with data tables, charts and graphs.
Warning: in my view,
while this report has its uses, I regard it as driven by a political agenda
at least as much as it is driven by science. Therefore, I cannot convince
myself that this report is very reliable.
You will see that a vast amount of the growth
in ecological footprint is notionally allocated to land dedicated to absorbing
the over-burden of human-produced carbon in the atmosphere. This is hardly
convincing reasoning. (See carbon
in the atmosphere.) The authors have even
allocated an 'equivalent' footprint for nuclear power generation, after
admitting that nuclear power has no such footprint.
On the other hand, the authors appear to have
made no allowance for the probable large increases in land area required
for energy generation.
Further, in this report are unrealistic proposals to
selectively shrink standards of living, but no realistic calculations
relevant to the current steadily rising standards of living.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has just released their “Living Planet
Report 2004”.
In it, the WWF say that the global
ecological footprint is now 2.2 hectares [5.4 acres] per person, whereas
the world can only provide an ecological footprint of 1.8 hectares [4.6
acres] per
person. [2]
This is at present
standards of living. As we run out of fossil fuels, particularly oil,
we will need more land to produce substitute energies [3].
Meanwhile, billions have aspirations to higher living standards.
Advanced nations increasingly are exporting their pollution, as primary
production, to more backward countries. At the same time, the advanced
countries concern themselves with lower-polluting advanced technology.
end notes
- An
“Ecological Footprint measures people’s natural resource
consumption. The footprint can be compared with nature’s ability
to renew these resources. A country’s footprint is the total area
required to produce the food and fibre that it consumes, absorb the
waste from its energy consumption, and provide space for its infrastructure.
People consume resources and ecological services from all over the world,
so their footprint is the sum of these areas, wherever they are on the
planet.”
- This is calculated by sharing 11.3 billion hectares
[27.91 billion acres] of productive land and sea between a population
of 6.1 billion people.
- See also figure 39 in the WWF report.
-
- Primary production:
- Heavy industrial production, such as cars, ships.
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology2004.php#wwf_report |
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer |
large-scale
reducing carbon output: 15 routes
The article suggests 15 ways of reducing carbon each
by 1 billion tonnes per year, and suggests aiming at seven such tranches
to stabilise world emissions.
“So far we have vested interests weighing very heavily in this
debate who think they are going to lose by reducing their greenhouse
gas emissions.
What we need now are vested interests on the other side to add their
voices. For me the smorgasbord of wedges has a number of advantages:
it has the virtue of pragmatism, it has the virtue of lowest cost, and
it has the virtue that it brings together the largest possible coalition.”
The 15 are as follows:
- Doubling fuel efficiency of 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 mpg
- Decreasing the number of car miles travelled by half
- Using best efficiency practices in all residential and commercial
buildings
- Producing current coal-based electricity with twice today’s
efficiency
- Replacing 1400 coal electric plants with natural gas-powered facilities
- Capturing and storing emissions from 800 coal electric plants
- Producing hydrogen from coal at six times today's rate and storing
the captured CO2
- Capturing carbon from 180 coal-to-synfuels plants and storing the
CO2
- Adding double the current global nuclear capacity to replace coal-based
electricity
- Increasing wind electricity capacity by 50 times relative to today,
for a total of 2 million large windmills
- Installing 700 times the current capacity of solar electricity
- Using 40,000 square kilometers of solar panels (or 4 million windmills)
to produce hydrogen for fuel cell cars
- Increasing ethanol production 50 times by creating biomass plantations
with area equal to 1/6th of world cropland
- Eliminating tropical deforestation and creating new plantations on
non-forested land to quintuple current plantation area
- Adopting conservation tillage in all agricultural soils worldwide”
Like so many, the author avoids dealing with
nuclear by using unconvincing arguments.
now we have a suggestion there is another hidden downside:
“Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called
volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset
by the amount of VOCs churned out by trees.
“The revelation challenges the notion that planting trees is
a good way to clean up the atmosphere.” [quoted from New
Scientist.com]
As you should be aware, much of the carbon output
is being absorbed be reforestation and similar....this is a sink that
will eventually fill up. See where
is the missing carbon?
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology2004.php#carbon_output |
| italy
wants to tax suvs - maybe
Which comes first, efficiency and environment or German industrial interests?
This
PlanetArk article is recommended for scanning:
“ Environment Minister Altero Matteoli said taxes on the gas-guzzlers
could be used to fund incentives for people to scrap old cars and buy
more environmentally friendly ones.”
—
“ Earlier this year, France proposed raising taxes on them but
put the plan on hold when Germany argued the move protected French companies
that make smaller cars, as does Fiat.”
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology2004.php#italy_suvs |
| trawl
ocean destruction continues
 |
Before:
Crab on sponge at the Davidson Seamount off the coast of California
Image courtesy of NOAA and MBARI |
|
After:
Trawl marks left after deep sea trawling on on Lophelia reef, Norway
Photo credit: Jan Helge Fossaa, IMR |
“95% of the material caught in deep sea bottom trawlers’
steel nets that are dragged along the seabed, are [sic.]
thrown back overboard, dead, destroyed or dying. “These trawls
really do devastate the seabed, destroying everything in their paths,”confirmed
marine biologist Alex Rogers from the British Antarctic Survey.”[1]
“Kelly Rigg of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC) said
deep sea bottom trawling destroyed whole marine communities for the
sake of catching a few fish which fetched premium prices in the world's
top restaurants. "We are advocating a moratorium on all bottom
trawling on the high seas," she told a news conference.
“ "One 15 minute trawl can lay a deep seabed habitat to
waste, destroying cold water corals which have taken millennia to grow,"
she added. "It is fisheries piracy." ”[2]
From a previous press
conference at the UNO:
“ [...] the number of countries involved in deep -sea trawling
was relatively small, at about 11 countries, but those took 90 per cent
of the catch in 2001, with the European Union countries responsible
for approximately 60 per cent, and one country, Spain, responsible for
about 40 per cent. So, it was mostly developed countries out on the
high seas destroying the biodiversity deemed in 1969 to be the common
heritage. And, only a small number were reaping the economic benefit.
“While the actual number of vessels involved was relatively small
-- approximately 200 -- the damage those caused was potentially huge
[...] ”
A short Greenpeace webcast showing how the destruction is being wreaked
is available (in three formats) at the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition
press
release.
end notes
- From the Deep
Sea Conservation Coalition.
- From a PlanetArk
article, but also see the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition press
release.
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology2004.php#trawlers |
lowering
environmental cost of building construction, wood, steel or concrete?
A considerable piece of work, well presented in 13 pages with charts
and graphs. 
“Assessments of material flows and their environmental consequences
are increasingly needed to address an expanding list of environmental
performance issues. An analysis of the flow of mass, energy, and carbon
from resources (such as a forest or mine pit) to products, and ultimately
to disposal in a landfill or by recycling, is a complex undertaking.
Any attempt to identify the environmental consequences of the life-cycle
of houses constructed from alternative materials is burdened by enormous
data requirements in order to characterize each stage of a product’s
life-cycle. The complexity of modern house construction exacerbates
the analysis, because many products made from different materials are
used. In addition, the time element associated with the growth of forests,
the manufacturing of the wood products, and the duration of the useful
life of a house and its many components adds another layer of complexity.”
—
“ [...] the steel-framed house utilized 17 percent more total
primary fuels than the wood-framed house. In Atlanta, the concrete-framed
house utilized about 15 percent more energy than the wood-framed house.“
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology2004.php#construction_costs |
| step
by slow step, the awful truth must penetrate the heads of dumb pseudo-greens
My belief is that, despite the great seriousness of
‘climate change’, this term is being used to force the even
more serious problems of oil depletion and the need for nuclear power
onto the agenda.
Conservation of energy continues to be underplayed
in any article where vested interest lobbies can insert their interest,
like in this article
from Nature.com:
“ Blair is not wrong to see opportunities in climate change:
the goal of reducing fossil-fuel emissions could be a tremendous stimulus
for technology. We want cheaper, more efficient photovoltaic cells,
better thermoelectric materials for harvesting geothermal energy, artificial
photosynthesis and photocatalytic splitting of water, and more compact
and convenient fuel cells. We need better insulators and we need ways
to capture carbon from its gaseous forms.”
—
“ That is surely a coy way to skirt around what may be the key
issue. One can argue endlessly about the cost and efficacy of wind turbines
and other renewable sources, and about the savings achievable by better
efficiencies in energy use, but it's incredibly difficult to see how
the numbers will ever add up to a 60% carbon dioxide cut in 45 years.
Moreover, wind and solar energy are hampered by being intermittent:
their 'capacity factor' (the ratio of total annual power output to potential
output if operating always at full power) is typically around 25%, compared
with 90% for nuclear power.”
See also:
“Green
Alliance is promoting the case for micro-generation - small, affordable,
roof mounted wind turbines, solar panels and heating systems that can
generate renewable, low carbon heat and power at home.
“Micro-generation produces zero or low-carbon heat and power.
New micro-wind turbines, no bigger than a TV aerial or satellite dish
that can be mounted on a roof will be available within the year. They
can supply energy for domestic needs and feed any surplus back into
the national grid. To buy one can cost as little as £990.
“Ground source heat pumps are another form of micro-generation.
They extract stored solar energy from the ground (the sun's heat is
absorbed and stored in the earth) and run the central heating. These
can now cost the same as an oil-fired boiler to install for those 4.5
million households not connected to the gas network, and mean much lower
bills.”
This press release above is either sloppy or
self-serving. Micro-generation does not produce zero carbon. Such devices
must be manufactured, which invariably means carbon use in the present
situation.
Then there are payback costs which go unmentioned
in this release. Nor is it much use to lower heating bills if the capital
cost (and/or manufacturing costs) outweigh the advantages of micro-generation.
(See also energy
economics - extraction efficiency and costs, depletion of fossil fuels.)
A press release promoting micro-generation is either
meaningless or misleading if it does not mention these issues in detail.
Further, feeding back wind-generated electricity, which often will not
be stored, is not convincing, given the following claim in the release:
“According to Fuel Cells UK, it costs $10 million to build new
wires to ship 1MWof power one mile. The costs associated with centralised
power generation also come from electricity being lost as heat from
the grid. Ofgem estimate that nearly $1 billion of power is leaked from
the UK grid each year.
Nor would it be highly efficient to transmit surplus
power and re-transmit it to other users, when there are efficiency losses
at every stage of the process.
But then Green Alliance seem to be trying to
sell micro-generation an alternative to central
power stations, not a complimentary option.
Or at least they were until they reached the muddle of this last comment.
I am unimpressed by this press release and will not
be sending off £20 for the ‘report’.
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology2004.php#greens |
| some
utter nonsense from spain
“ The government hopes the energy-intensive desalination plants
could be powered, at least in part, by renewable energy. After consultation
with the private sector, Narbona said this could require additional
research which could be funded by the government.”
With ever increasing pressure on energy resources,
Spain proposes to use energy intensive desalination to produce 3% of Spain’s
current water supply, and hopes to squeeze much of the cost from other
European Union nations:
“The new program will cost an estimated 3.8 billion euros. Spain's
proposals received a warm welcome from EU Environment Commissioner Margot
Wallstrom and Madrid hopes the European Union will cover up to 1.26
billion euros of its cost.”
I’ll bet they do!
A great part of the cause of Spain’s water problems
is intensive under-plastic production. Presently, Spain’s electricity
production from wind (outside their parliament) is well under 1% of Spain’s
energy production. Every Western nation is going to have to vastly
increase electricity production just in order to stand still. Spain will
have to invest every year most of $US10 billion dollars just to hope to
keep up.
Spain would be far better looking to conserve water
rather than to waste more energy.
“The first water under the new scheme is expected to flow in
2005, the minister said. To accompany the plan, the government will
launch a campaign to educate Spaniards on the importance of conserving
water.
“It will also attempt to classify more accurately how water is
used in Spain [...].”
Interesting to see they don’t even know, yet
are seeking this ridiculous and expensive project.
Who on earth is passing projects like this?
related material
replacements
for fossil fuels—what can be done about it?
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology2004.php#spain |
very
useful against erosion, and it even smells great!
“Native to India, vetiver is taking root in a growing number
of tropical countries, where it is used as an engineering tool to solve
problems from soil erosion to pollution cleanup.
“Key to the plant's performance: It grows a thick and seemingly
impenetrable tangle of roots that plunge 13 feet (4 meters) straight
into the ground. The roots essentially form a wall of steel that prevents
erosion-prone slopes from slipping away.
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology2004.php#vetiver |
| alaska
burning - well, some of it
“ In a typical summer, 500,000 to 1.5 million Alaska acres burn,
according to statistics from past years. And usually, fire is part of
the natural cycle that clears black spruce and white spruce, slender,
fast-growing conifers with high levels of flammable resin, out of the
way for slower-growing hardwood trees like birch and aspen.”
And it ain't over yet, but as so often Reuters have their figures wrong.
“Six hundred fires have burned during the summer, topping the
4.94 million acres charred in 1957, the previous record Alaska wildfire
season.”
Better figures are available from the National
Interagency Fire Center, which indicate that Reuters appear to have
confused figures for all of the United States with Alaskan figures. As
you will see, at over 6 million acres, this year’s United States
burn is currently running at twice the ten-year average.
Here is a
god-like view of the fires in Alaska.
Image courtesy of MODIS Rapid
Response Project at NASA/GSFC
And here is a false-colour image showing the
result of burning around the Yukon River in Central Alaska.
Image courtesy of MODIS Rapid
Response Project at NASA/GSFC
“The image is a false-color image, which means that vegetation
is bright green and burn scars are reddish brown. We did this to make
the burn scars stand out more distinctly. In this color combination,
clouds are light blue and snow is dark blue. The blue wedge in the image
is probably cloud.”
Go here for similar
image, marked with place-names, together with additional information
about the fires that caused the burn scars.
This item developed with assistance from NASA’s
Earth Observatory.
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology2004.php#alaska |
| indicator
frogs show careless humans using the world for a rubbish tip
Indicator species act as mine
canaries did in the past.
“ In their paper, Johnson and Chase show the links between phosphorus,
snail biomass, the number of amphibians with the parasite, the number
of parasites and how likely it is that the frogs will be deformed. They
combined data from their studies of ponds in several Midwestern and
Western States. In an ongoing experiment started in the spring of 2004,
Chase thinks they'll nab the 'smoking gun.'
“He and Johnson poured phosphorus and nitrogen into experimental
ponds in Wisconsin and will see if they get a higher incidence of ramshorn
snails, the parasites, and deformed frogs, compared to experimental
ponds without those nutrients.
“Johnson and Chase's finding adds to the growing list of wrongs
human activities have visited upon frogs.
- Studies have shown that certain pesticides cause frogs and toads
to become hermaphrodites, impairing reproduction.
- Others have shown that the depletion of the ozone layer, caused
by industrial pollutants, exposes frogs and frog eggs to excessive
ultraviolet radiation, which can slow growth rates, damage the immune
system and create other bodily malformations.
- "We're showing that humans have probably created more deformed
frogs through eutrophication by way of a series of complex interactions
in the pond food web," Chase said.
- "Add habitat destruction to all of these other concerns and
there's no question that humans are messing up frogs left and right."
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/ecology2004.php#frogs |
