There are an amazing sixty-four countries that rely on fossil fuel for 100% of their nation’s power generation. I’m not going to bore you with all the names, or irrelevant things like “sources”. Let’s just suffice to say that it doesn’t seem like those nations are very environmentally friendly.

Most of the countries are Middle Eastern or island nations where I guess there are not a lot of alternatives. But a few names stick out as countries that should just know better: Hong Kong, Singapore, & Macau. And yes I know that all three of those countries are ‘island nations’ but still, they’re rich, they should build a windmill or something!

Moving a little bit further down statistically some interesting nations appear as fossil fuel stalwarts. Australia, Greece, Ireland, Malaysia, Netherlands, Poland, South Africa, and Thailand all rely on fossil fuel based energy for more than 85% of their electrical needs.

Taking a contrarian stance there are seven nations which don’t use fossil fuel based power generation in their country at all. Also nations like Brazil, France, Norway, Sweden, & Switzerland receive less than 10% of their power from fossil fuels.

Curious about the United States? America’s standing is at 71.4% which is 6% above the weighted average for the world.

Couple of fun facts and I’m out:

• 1 litre of regular gasoline is the time-rendered result of about 23.5 metric tons of ancient organic material deposited on the ocean floor.
• The total fossil fuel used in the year 1997 is the result of 422 years of all plant matter that grew on the entire surface and in all the oceans of the ancient earth.

PS: If you don’t get the headline, the purpose of all life is to die, turn into fuel, thereby allowing me to keep my house warm. So you guys get on that and in several hundred million years, I will use that stuff.

Read the rest of this entry »

The British Meteorological Office recently purchased a new super computer to better calculate how best to fight climate change. But the computer has a dirty little secret, it produces a ton of carbon, or 14,400 tonnes to be exact.

The Met Office says that while the computer’s carbon footprint is unfortunate, it represents only a fraction of the emissions they save through their work.

The problem of course isn’t the actual computer, but instead the way the electricity is produced. Great Britain depends on fossil fuel based power for 74% of their electrical needs. Compare that to France where only 7% of the nation’s power comes from fossil fuel. Therefore the computer’s carbon footprint would be just one-tenth what it is now if it were located in France instead of England.

So my answer to the problem, outsource to France!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5536973.ece?Submitted=true

Read the rest of this entry »

Have you ever heard of the ‘early anthropocene hypothesis’? Well neither had I until this morning when I came across its glory after scouring Wikipedia aimlessly.

It’s generally assumed that human CO2 emissions began in earnest after the industrial revolution brought us the factory line & coal based power. The Early Anthropocene Hypothesis suggests however that the human race first started to have a significant impact on climate much earlier than previously thought. Beginning as early as 8,000 years ago our ancestors participated in destructive farming activities, along with widespread deforestation particularly in Europe.

I’m sure the hypothesis has many detractors, people have a hard enough time wrapping their head around the concept that we can affect the climate in this 21st century let alone that we could have thousands of years ago. Nonetheless I find myself very intrigued. I wonder if being destructive to our environment is innate in our nature, and if we’ll ever be able to correct our actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_anthropocene

Read the rest of this entry »

Time Magazine is exposing the myth of clean coal. Just like those commercials that are airing which also expose the myth of clean coal. So now I have decided to quite inventively expose the myth of clean coal.

‘Clean Coal’ is the term used to describe the current modernisation at many of the nation’s coal fired power plants. Plants all across the country are spending billions of dollars installing scrubbers to limit the amount of sulfur dioxide & mercury emitted. But they’ve not really done anything to limit the amount of CO2 that is produced. That of course being one of the largest concerns over coal power.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870599,00.html

Read the rest of this entry »

I wouldn’t put too much stock into the following article. Firstly the person writing the article seems to ignore the fact that we are currently in an ice age. If anything what he’s trying to reference is a coming glacial period. But to assume that everything is on some sort of timer & every interglacial period lasts an exact amount of years irrespective of outside influence is a pretty absurd idea.

The article also seems to reference vague studies from several decades ago when the prevailing scientific thought was that a glacial period was imminent. New studies however suggest that if current CO2 projections hold up our current interglacial period might last for another 50,000 years. Even if they drop we’re still talking tens of thousands of years.

The suggestion that we should all be frantically preparing for a global ice age has now been rendered moot. I said good day.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0

Read the rest of this entry »

The new European Union president is President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, and he does not believe in climate change. He thinks that it is a dangerous myth.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5430362.ece

I think that it’s dangerous to heed the consult of a few rogue scientists while ignoring the consensus of the majority. You can’t choose which part of science you want to believe in, and which part you don’t. People will depend on science when they fly on a plane, or go to the doctor but once science becomes even a moderate inconvenience the first reaction is to bury ones head in the sand.

I find opposition to environmentalism a little odd. Even if the current scientific consensus turns out to be wrong, what’s the worst case scenario? We have clean air to breathe, our drinking water isn’t contaminated, there are some trees left?

Read the rest of this entry »

Check out this blog on BBC, it’s pretty interesting. It’s a lot like this blog, except factual and with basis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

Read the rest of this entry »

Check out the Arbor Day Foundation’s website where you can have trees planted in the name of loved ones. It’s a gift that gives for a lifetime.

Remember how bad you always felt at the end of ‘The Giving Tree’, well imagine feeling the complete opposite. That’s what it feels like to plant a tree.

http://www.arborday.org/shopping/giveatree/giveatree.cfm

If you need more convincing:

‘As the trees grow and prosper, so does the meaning of your gift.

Over the course of 50 years, a single tree can generate $31,250 of oxygen, provide $62,000 worth of air pollution control, recycle $37,500 worth of water, and control $31,500 worth of soil erosion.

Your trees will be silent sentinels, honorable monuments, and for decades to come, active participants in nature’s plan.’

Read the rest of this entry »

American labor unions have teamed up with environmental activists ahead of this week’s UN Conference on climate change. It seems that big labor is finally coming around to the idea that going green doesn’t mean losing jobs or hurting the economy.

I always hear people say that if stricter carbon emission regulations are enacted the economy will hemorrhage millions of jobs. But that’s simply not true, jobs are created anytime there is a demand.

When the automobile first came about I’m sure there was a voice of opposition from people claiming that jobs would be lost. Carriage manufacturers & horse ranchers most likely went out of business all across the nation, but millions of other people eventually found work in the automobile industry. The same will hold true for the green movement.

http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/site/c.enKIITNpEiG/b.3227091/k.E4AB/Blue_Green_Alliance.htm

Read the rest of this entry »

Good news coming out of Brazil this afternoon. The Brazilian forestry service has announced plans to cut deforestation in the South American nation by 70% over the next decade.  They’re doing this in partnership with a new Amazon fund in which first world nations can contribute financially to the conservation of the rainforest.

I think it’s very good rich countries are finally starting to live up to their monetary obligations. The Amazon rainforest is important to the world and the world should share in the cost of its protection. Brazilians should consider the rainforest an asset to their nation, and not a burden.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7759192.stm

Read the rest of this entry »