It’s another post about the Aral Sea. Of all the lakes whose name I can never recall the Aral Sea is probably my favourite.

It’s a familiar story, in the 1960’s the Soviet Union diverted the rivers feeding the sea in order to boost cotton production in the region. However by doing so they caused water levels to slowly fall and now the lake is a mere shadow of its former self. The Soviets were aware of the pitfalls and the project did have its intended effect as Kazakhstan is now a major producer of cotton. Still that doesn’t change the fact that the Aral Sea is a modern-day environmental catastrophe.

The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon toured the area this week and had this to say: “It is clearly one of the worst disasters, environmental disasters of the world. I was so shocked, I urge all the leaders to sit down together and try to find the solutions.”

Read the rest of this entry »

I feel like it’s time to address the ‘Climategate’ issue that’s been hanging over the head of the climate change movement for the past few weeks. As most of you know by now, ‘Climategate’ refers to the thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that have been hacked and released into the public domain. [1] The content of these emails have attracted attention from climate change skeptics and have created nothing short of an uproar in conservative circles.

The most controversial of the emails is a 1999 email from the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, and it reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” [2]

Climate change skeptics have seized upon the wording of this email to suggest that climate change data is being manipulated by the scientific community. Jones has since resigned his post at the CRU pending an investigation by the university. [3] Admittedly the email doesn’t look good but there is an explanation and this is what RealClimate had to say:

“The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.” [4]

The reason these emails are important is because of the role the University of East Anglia plays in climate change science. The CRU is one of the world’s leading authorities in reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Not exactly helping the university in these trying times is the news last week that the CRU has ‘thrown away’ most of the raw temperature data on which their predictions are based, leaving only the controlled and homogenized data. [5]

There are other centers doing research similar to the CRU’s, namely NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. However NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has found itself in a bit of hot water recently as well. The agency is being threatened with litigation by a researcher from the ‘Competitive Enterprise Institute’ in an attempt to compel the agency to release data from its Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The researcher, Christopher Horner, has said he suspects the GISS may have ‘manipulated research like East Anglia’s CRU’. The information was requested two years ago under the Freedom Of Information Act and NASA says it’s collecting the information to respond to Horner’s request. [6]

It should be noted that the ‘Competitive Enterprise Institute’ or CEI is a libertarian think-tank dedicated to the principals of a free market economy. Some of the group’s past and present donors include: Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company, and Texaco. [7]

Another big player in the climate change data set is NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration), so far they have managed to remain unscathed by ‘Climategate’ and the CRU has pointed to their data sets in defence of their own conclusions. [8]

The last major player on the climate change data set scene is Britain’s Met Office. While initially downplaying the ‘Climategate’ incident, the Met Office has since changed its stance saying it will release its temperature data to the public and will go through the last 160 years of data to ensure its accuracy. (The original analysis was done by the CRU.) [9]

The ripples from ‘Climategate’ are being felt far and wide. Mudslinging has broken out on Capitol Hill in the United States where Democratic Representative Ed Markey has stepped up to the defence of environmental legislation saying ‘Climategate shouldn’t stand in the way of the US Congress’ swift enactment of cap and trade’. [10] Markey is the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. He is also the co-author of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill) which is an energy bill that would establish a cap and trade system for carbon trading in the United States. The bill was approved by the House in a vote in June 2009, and it now sits waiting for approval from the Senate. [11] Moderate Republicans are crucial to the bill’s success and the scandal surrounding ‘Climategate’ has led to some prominent Republican Senators seeking to distance themselves from the bill with Politico reporting that even John McCain has become a vocal critic of the bill. [12]

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has released a statement chastising the hacker/s and assuring the public that the science behind its panel’s conclusions is sound. [13] Elsewhere in the UN, Yvo De Boer the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has shared similar sentiments saying that while the emails do look bad, the underlying research on global warming is solid. [14]

The timing of the hack, in the run up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference, has raised suspicions as to whodunnit and what their motivations might have been. The Metropolitan Police Service or ‘Scotland Yard’ is currently investigating the incident along with local police in Norfolk. [15]

While it’s easy to get carried away into the intrigue that is ‘Climategate’ it’s best to keep a level head and remain objective. We should remember that climate change is a highly researched issue and one where the scientific community has reached a consensus.

The belief that the scientific community has been driving the climate change debate to serve their own interests is ludicrous at best. Skeptics have often made note of the money that stands to be made by climate change science supporters, but this type of logic ignores the world’s industrialists and their monetary motivations for maintaining the status quo. With that in mind, I would love to read the emails of major oil companies’ CEOs from the past ten years so I could select .001% of them and cite them out of context.

Read the rest of this entry »

A study released by Public Citizen, an environmental advocacy group, has concluded that the entire state of Texas’ power generation needs could theoretically be met by solar power. (I would like to stress the theoretical part.) Heat concentrating solar power was found to have a potential capacity of 148,000 MW in Texas alone, and the report says a 30×30 mile field of photovoltaic solar panels could meet the entire state’s needs.

A separate study by the University of Texas at Austin says that the state could create 123,000 jobs in the manufacturing industry if it were to become a global leader on solar panel production. (The study did not address how many jobs would be created if Texas magically became the world’s leader in production of anything else.)

However before we get carried away with the good news, there are some pretty clear obstacles in the path. Namely the water doesn’t exist to make such large scale solar power generation a reality.

Heat concentrating solar power requires large amounts of water. Unlike other power generating methods solar power plants in their need of sun and vast open spaces do not have the luxury of placing themselves next to sufficiently large bodies of water. You can read about the dilemma of solar power generation and water shortages here: http://wwcpd.org/2009/solar-power-or-solar-death-power-you-be-the-judge/

As for the photovoltaic technology it admittedly needs a lot less water, however it still does require a meaningful amount of water to be trucked in to keep the panels clean. As dust will significantly reduce the panels’ efficiency. The panels are also very expensive so it’s quite unrealistic to expect there to ever be a 30×30 mile field of the panels. That’s 900 square miles, which is over three times the size of the nation of Singapore.

Stepping back into the real world for a moment. Texas is the leading state in terms of wind power generation with a capacity of over 4,000 MW, with the Texas Public Utility Commission saying they could possibly deliver 25,000 MW of wind power to urban centers by 2012. Texas is also home to the world’s largest wind farm, producing 735 MW, and consisting of 430 wind turbines spread over 47,000 acres. [1]

Unlike solar power, wind turbines do not need large amounts of water, and with the immense size of Texas the power generation possibilities are endless. The Texas State Legislature has set a goal of 6,000 MW of renewable energy by 2015, about 5% of the state’s demand, and 10,000 MW by 2025. Including 500 MW of renewable energy excluding wind power. [2]

While those figures pale in comparison to California’s pledge for 33% of its power to be renewable by 2020 (California is currently at 22% [3]), it’s still a step in the right direction for Texas. A large number of leading Texan politicians aren’t exactly known for their belief in climate change, as opposed to say California’s, however there is still a lot to be said about the desirability of meeting your power needs in-house.

Read the rest of this entry »

For a city that prides itself on convenience and being cutting edge, it is surprisingly hard to recycle in Hong Kong! There’s no recycling service that you can sign up for at your residence, so I’ve been forced to carry my recyclables three-blocks to some sidewalk recycling bins. It’s also not easy to find said bins, luckily I happen to live near some.

It might also be hard to recycle where you live, but don’t be discouraged as there are other things you can do to minimize your impact. You can try buying biodegradable plastics whenever possible, for instance it’s quite easy to find biodegradable garbage bags. You can also try to lessen your usage of aluminium by making drinks like lemonade or Kool-Aid instead of buying soda pop.

Hong Kong really needs to get in on the green movement. They’re currently trying to implement a recycling service, however, I find it hard to believe it takes the SAR years to do such a thing when they can reclaim the harbour in about ten minutes.

UPDATE: I recently spent some time in Beijing so I thought I would share with everyone an observation on the Chinese capital. Taking a contrarian stance to Hong Kong, in Beijing every trash can also has a separate bin for recycling. I was told this started last year around the time of the Olympics, but it seems to still be going strong. And there you have it, Beijing managing to beat out Hong Kong on such an important environmental issue. PRC FTW!

Read the rest of this entry »

I know this is my umpteenth post on the issue of plastic bag levies, however I’ve never been one to resist a catchy headline.

Straight from the land of $7 Dollar coffee, voters in Seattle have just struck-down a city imposed tax of 20 cents per plastic bag. The city council had ordered the tax to begin in January, however the plastics industry bankrolled a lobbyist effort to have the issue put before the voters in a citywide referendum. Well played sir.

The outcome of the vote will probably be attributed to the frugality of recession, however it also says a lot on how people regard environmental issues. In voter opinion polls the environment is often ranked last on the list of concerns.

Read the rest of this entry »

The US Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa, spoke recently to press the importance of forest conservation and stressed his agency’s commitment to its future in the United States. His comments sought to point out that forests are crucial in supplying clean water, sheltering wildlife, and mitigating the effects of climate change. He went on to say that the sky might in fact be blue.

Vilsack is perhaps best known for his strong support of biofuels and while serving as governor was a strong supporter of Ethanol additives. I’m still not sure how I feel about biofuels as it seems a little shortsighted to take two things as vital as energy and food and combine them into one item of such importance.

Back to the issue at hand. Key among Vilsack’s policies is reversing former president Bush’s forest planning rule of 2008 and also seeking to reinstate former president Bill Clinton’s ‘Roadless Rule’ which had imposed halts on road construction, among other development, on 58 million acres of national forests.

I firmly believe that deforestation is one of the largest threats facing the world today. And it’s great to see a member of the presidential cabinet taking such a strong stance. Smokey would be proud.

Read the rest of this entry »

Obesity has been in the headlines a lot recently, with health care dominating discussions in Washington most of the focus has been on the health considerations and how it seems to be permeating American culture. There was even some controversy when President Obama named Dr Regina Benjamin, a clinically obese woman, to be the nation’s Surgeon General.

And while the health considerations are important, especially if the US adopts some sort of single-payer health care system, I’m here to talk about the environmental impact of an obese population.

A report out of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (man I wish I had a more prestigious sounding source) claims that a lean population such as that of Vietnam would consume 20% less food and produce fewer greenhouse gases than a country with a 40% rate of obesity. The report went on to say that if taken into account, the lessened energy costs of transporting thin people as opposed to overweight individuals could save 1 gross ton per person in annual carbon emissions.

The news that a heavy person has a larger carbon footprint than a normal person has made a few waves in the media, leaving some to question whether we should really be ‘trying to make them feel even guiltier than they already do’. I will make sure to use that excuse the next time I fire up the G4.

Michael Moore should make a documentary about this. Oh that’s right.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Indian minister of the environment recently rejected scientific claims that the country’s Himalayan glaciers are melting saying things like ’science’ and ‘facts’ couldn’t replace the knowledge gained by local experience. The scientific community however is maintaining its stance asserting that a large number of the glaciers may disappear entirely by the year 2035 [1]. To stress the importance of the issue, in total the Himalayan glaciers feed rivers that supply water to about 40% of the world’s population.

This comes as the developed world continues to push for more action from developing nations to curb emissions. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, recently appealed to India to embrace a low carbon future and not repeat the mistakes of the developed world in seeking fast industrialization. India has so far rejected the first world’s overtures, joining Brazil and China in refusing to agree to any cuts or curbs to the growth of future emissions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Many of you know the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, as one of the nation’s most progressive leaders on the environment. His crusades have seen him squaring off against everything from smoking to street congestion.

Earlier this year he strengthened the city’s anti-idling laws to restrict cars from idling for longer than three minutes, however the AP claims that Bloomberg routinely violates his own policies and leaves his official city SUVs idling for hours at a time. See whenever Bloomberg travels around the city he either uses his official SUVs or is trailed by said vehicles. So even when the mayor takes the subway in an attempt to seem in touch with the working man, he’s still trailed by the SUVs. And thanks to the AP’s stalking it would seem that whenever the mayor gives a speech or stops at an official function, his vehicles stay idling.

Hopefully after getting slammed by the AP all of this idling business will stop. I still like Bloomberg for all he’s done, however if hypocrisy were a crime he would be in jail along with the rest of us, and Al Gore.

Read the rest of this entry »

The U.S. Energy Secretary is currently in China in an attempt to encourage the nation to set 2050 emission standards. The US wants China and other developing nations to join the US and Europe in efforts to significantly decrease emissions by the mid-century mark. China for the most part has rejected these demands on grounds that developing countries started polluting first. Now while that sounds like an air-tight argument, keep in mind, this would also justify slavery and nuclear warfare.

Meanwhile this is all taking place as China seeks to develop the world’s largest green industry, albeit while using some market protectionism. China already lays claim to the world’s largest solar panel industry and is fast on Europe’s tail in the wind turbine market. However when China has authorized renewable energy projects in its own country they have sought to exclude European and American companies from the bidding, either outright or through various technicalities. This has elicited cries of protectionism from the west.

China has countered the claims saying their nation wouldn’t make such a large investment in renewable energies, which are more expensive than coal, if it didn’t also mean significantly building up their own local green industries.

To me it seems as if the west would like China to become a greener country, but if their companies can’t make any money off the transition their enthusiasm quickly dissipates. Personally I’m ok with market protectionism if that’s what China needs to man up and start taking responsibility for its own emissions.

Read the rest of this entry »