Archive for the ‘Pollution’ Category

« Older Entries

‘Red Tide’ Strikes Texas Coast

Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

By David L. Brown

“Red Tide.” It may sound like the title for the latest Tom Clancy novel, but it’s a very real phenomenon. I observed its effects today on the Texas Gulf Coast as evidenced by tens of thousands of dead fish littering the beaches of Padre Island.

Beach dunes along the Gulf of Mexico, Padre Island

So-called red tides are caused by blooms of algae that deplete oxygen and in some cases yield toxins that are fatal to fish, birds and other animals living in or near the water. According to locals, the present outbreak began about a month ago and is the first to strike the region in about four years. Red tides develop quickly and dissipate as the algae uses up existing nutrients and oxygen and proceeds to die off. Little is understood about the causes of the blooms, which are named for the discoloration in the water that sometimes takes place, often reddish but sometimes green or brown. Warnings had been posted against consuming oysters and other mollusks that could be contaminated with toxins produced by the algae.

Padre Island is a long barrier island extending along the Texas coast from Corpus Christi south to near the Mexican border. It is a favorite recreational area, and yet when I visited the Padre Island National Seashore headquarters today there were few tourists and a hostess told me it was as quiet as she had ever seen it.

I strolled along the beach observing tiny crabs scuttling for shelter as I approached and seabirds clustering at the water’s edge in search of their lunch. Arrayed in a band near what must have been the previous high water mark were thousands of dead fish of all sizes, from minnows to fairly large mullet. Here is a photo showing some of the dead fish I observed.

Dead fish resulting from red tide, Padre Island

Although algae blooms sometimes result from runoff of agricultural fertilizer, this is by no means the only cause. The phenomenon has been observed for thousands of years and appears in many parts of the world.

Posted in Disease and Pandemics, Ocean Depletion, Pollution | Comments Off

California Stays the Course on Green Energy

Friday, November 12th, 2010

By David L. Brown

Another example of the way in which energy moguls work to block development of sustainable, clean energy was the recent introduction of Prop. 23 in California. This proposition, which came to a vote on November 2, quite simply was aimed at dismantling the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006. Also known as AB 32,  the GWSA calls for the state’s producers of greenhouse gas to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Many initiatives are well under way to replace fossil fuels, create greater efficiency in existing technologies, and move the state toward a cleaner “green” future. Beginning to take effect in 2012, the act will require about a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from present levels by the target date ten years from now.

This seems a moderate goal, perhaps even less than might be hoped. But nonetheless, it had drawn fire from the usual suspects, who organized Prop. 23 to demand that AB32 be suspended until the state’s employment rate dropped below 5.5 percent for a full 12 months. Because this is an unlikely event (that level has been reached only three times in the past 40 years), the proposition in reality was a move to permanently gut the GWSA.

And who was behind this end run to set California up to continue down the dead end path toward oblivion as resource depletion continues to undermine the old economic infrastructure while forward-looking nations such as China and Germany stake their futures on rapid development of alternative energy? Why, the usual suspects, of course. Although the California Republican and Libertarian Parties signed on to support the proposition, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger strongly opposed the proposition and was joined by GOP candidates Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman among others, proving that the party structure is increasingly at odds with its own candidates.

But politicians weren’s the real conspirators behind the proposition. The individuals and corporate entities that acted in support of the proposition wrapped themselves in a cloak of deception, claiming to be concerned with jobs. In fact, they called their effort the California Jobs Initiative. And yet, a look at the list of major donors to the movement tells a different story. Top contributor was a company called Valero Energy ($4.05 million), followed by (among others) Tesoro ($1.525 million), Flint Hills Resources, LP ($1 million; this is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, a major supporter of anti-global warming initiatives); Occidental Petroleum ($300K), National Petrochemical and Refiners Assn. ($100K), Tower Energy Group ($200K); World Oil Corp. ($100K); Southern Counties Oil ($50K); Frontier Oil ($50K);  Murray Energy ($30K); and Berry Petrochemical ($30K).

Hmm, do we see a pattern here? Are these leading supporters of a move to block California from improving its greenhouse gas footprint acting out of concern for the jobs of Californians—or from their own self-interested desire to continue to profit from fossil fuels and the destruction of the environment? It’s rather clear that the answer is the latter, the profit one, the evil one, rather than the charitable desire to protect jobs. for ordinary Californians. In fact, suspending the act would have put paid to at least 50,000 new jobs relating to clean energy initiatives.

To put this in further perspective, let’s take a closer look at some of those supporters of the proposal to block the green act. No. 1 contributor Valero operates two oil refineries in California. No. 2 donor Tesoro is the 24th largest producer of air pollution in the United States. And Koch Industries, the third largest contributor, is one of the top 10 corporate polluters in the nation.

What more can we say, except to applaud the wisdom of California voters who soundly defeated Prop. 23 by a 22 percent margin, approximately 61 percent to 39 percent. The Golden State may face deep and serious problems but at least its people have the courage to stand up against polluters and those that Ayn Rand called “looters,” the corporate highway robbers who want to continue their nasty ways at all costs.

California, and the world at large, needs to vastly expand support of alternative energy programs. It’s not the time to listen to those who advise us to inserting our heads into the sand in ostrich-like denial.

In an editorial written prior to the election, Science magazine editor Bruce Alberts had this to say:

The public and private investment in energy innovation now totals only about 0.3% of U.S. energy expenditures. California’s Proposition 23 needs to be soundly defeated, sending a clear signal to Washington that the people of the United States are ready and willing to mobilize its considerable resources in the vital drive to a sustainable energy future.

To which I add, bravo! And thanks to California voters the message has been sent.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Age of Oil, Climate Change, Conservation Issues, Economics, Energy Technology, Fossil Fuels, Melting Planet, Politics, Pollution | Comments Off

China, India Blow Copenhagen Out of the Water

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

By David L. Brown

One of the most pleasing phrases in the human language (to the speaker, at least), is “I told you so.” Thus, my recent essay on why the upcoming Copenhagen meeting on climate change was unlikely to produce anything important is proven prescient by the following excerpt from an editorial in Investors Business Daily, posted Friday on its web site Investors.com (read it here):

Climate Change: With less than two months to go before the big Copenhagen Conference on global warming, two major nations have said “no thanks” to the no-growth agenda. For that reason alone, so should we.

Following a deal signed late Thursday between China and India, anything we might agree to do in Copenhagen is likely moot anyway. The two mega-nations — which together account for nearly a third of the world’s population — said they won’t go along with a new climate treaty being drafted in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012.

I wrote about this on October 6 in an essay titled “High Hopes for Copenhagen May Be Dashed,” and now I can afford to crow because without China and India — representing the two largest nations in population and among the fastest growing in terms of industrialization — the Copenhagen accords are unlikely to become reality. That’s especially true if, as IBD suggests, “[O]ther developing nations, including Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, will likely reject any proposals as well.”

When the Kyoto Protocol was launched in 1997, developing countries were quick to sign on because the agreement gave them a “get out of jail free card,” by exempting them from limits on CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The idea was to let the “developing” countries continue to develop while the First World nations, and most particularly the United States, were expected to fix the whole problem. The attitude was “You made this mess, you fix it. Meanwhile, it’s our turn.”

Now that it has become crystal clear that climate change is a global problem, and that developing nations may stand the most to lose, the new agreement sets forth a universal effort that would include all nations in a worldwide program to reduce GHG emissions. To which we see the interesting reaction from those who were all too eager to sign on as long as they didn’t have to do anything to slow or reform their own economies. Now, like characters in the story of the Little Red Hen, they are telling us in no uncertain terms, and in the Mandarin and Hindu equivalents: “No way, José.”

The IBD editorial concluded:

Even with their participation, Copenhagen should have been a non-starter for the U.S. Indeed, the main reason for the greenhouse gas deal, all but admitted to by its major participants, is to cripple the U.S. economy — the most successful economy in the world.

True enough, as green critics keep saying, we produce nearly 20% of the world’s CO2 and other greenhouse gases with just 5% of the world’s population. But our GDP of roughly $14 trillion is nearly 25% of the world’s total — in line with our gas output.

As I noted in my previous essay on October 6, the developing nations have attempted to re-cast the argument from a national to a per-capita measuring stick, and while that brings its own problems it’s not entirely unfair. However, a per-GDP approach might make even more sense, and as you can see on that basis the U.S. stands in pretty good stead, producing a quarter of world GDP while emitting only a fifth of greenhouse gas. One could make the argument from this that the U.S. should be allocated less stringent limits while the rapidly industrializing Chinese and Indian economies should be reined in hard. Of course, that most certainly ain’t gonna happen, thus the conclusion that Copenhagen is doomed to failure.

Of course there is the chance that in some form of national suicide in the name of political correctness, our administration might sign onto the program almost unilaterally while the developing nations head for cover. That would be a wonderful moral stand, worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize perhaps, but unfortunately should the U.S. attempt to take on its shoulders the Sisyphean task of rolling the global warming boulder back up the mountain, it will surely share the fate of the original Sisyphus, confronted by unending frustration and woe.

As has been pointed out, every barrel of oil that the U.S. does not consume, someone else will, probably someone in China or India. No matter how much we attempt to reduce GHGs, the new industrialization now running rampant in the developing nations will continue to pour CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and other gases into the air. In the end, we will have beggared ourselves for the benefit of others, and climate change will continue apace.

It is true that in the longer run, anything the U.S. does to reduce its use of non-renewable energy will benefit us. It’s hard to argue about that, but the problem is that the reward is on the other side of a  wide and yawning Grand Canyon of economic cost and commitment, and with the present state of affairs and declining resources, it will be a very difficult journey indeed to get to the other side.

There is one ironic point about all this, and that is that industrial growth is naturally limited thanks to depletion of resources and  the rising costs of developing and applying them. The developing nations already are banging against this metaphorical ceiling. We have entered a yo-yo world economy that is hitting the limits to growth* due to the petroleum supply-demand situation. There isn’t enough oil, and particularly cheap and easily developed oil, to allow the world’s economies to continue to improve themselves as they have in the past through increased use of resources.

The ceiling is there, and it is real.  No matter how hard they try, those “developing” economies will keep hitting it and being knocked back Each time the world economy starts to “grow,” the cost of oil and other natural resources will rise and put on the brakes. We have seen this pattern clearly in the past couple of years, and it is not an anomaly but the new reality. For those who have been observant, the signs of this looming calamity have been apparent for decades.

In a perfect world, every government on the planet would recognize the long-term and even relatively short-term dangers of climate change and the futility of continued industrial growth. Considering the future cost to their people, they would enthusiastically join in to solve the problems before civilization is destroyed.

Reality check: This is not a perfect world. One might say, with considerable truth, that it is a very imperfect world, at least from the perspective of the human race, which seems content to turn the problem over to Nature, or Gaia. She knows what to do. She is doing it now. It will not be pretty.

• Note: “The Limits to Growth” was the title of a book published by the Club of Rome in 1972. It was one of the first clarion calls of warning about what was to occur. Now, 37 years later, we are beginning to learn the lesson the hard way. And, here’s an interesting point: In 1972 nobody even knew about global warming and climate change — that’s another confounding factor altogether, one that has assumed major importance.

Posted in Climate Change, Melting Planet, Politics, Pollution | Comments Off

High Hopes for Copenhagen May Be Dashed

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

By David L. Brown

081204093041Great hope is being placed on the upcoming conference on climate change, to take place December 7*-18 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The meeting has the acronym COP15, which indicates it is the 15th “Conference of Parties” in the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change. Representatives from 170 countries are expected to take part. It is hoped that COP15 can make substantial progress toward a replacement of the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.

Although there is much sturm and drang about this issue, my feeling is that any significant progress may be difficult if not impossible to achieve. The problem is that most poor or developing nations want exceptions to the need to reduce emissions of CO², methane and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), in effect pushing the problem onto the advanced nations. The general argument is that the rich nations have been the biggest polluters in the past, and that they should therefore bear the expense of fixing the problem. That particularly targets the United States, which was formerly the No. 1 source of carbon emissions. Unfortunately, in view of the present economic woes, the First World economies are not exactly robust.

Another fact to consider is that the advanced nations have already passed into what is called the Post-Industrial Age, even as developing nations are introducing into the world a new era of industrialization. Thus, the title of the world’s No. 1 source of GHGs has recently passed to China.

Identifying rich nations as the responsible culprits also flies in the face of the fact that developing countries are the main source of rising GHG emissions. For example, the amounts of carbon released by India grew by 103 percent between 1992 and 2007. China did even worse, with carbon emissions growing by 150 percent. As we’ve reported here, China is bringing nearly two coal-fired power plants on-line each week.

How do these figures relate to the global picture? Taking all nations into account, on average GHG emissions increased by 38 percent during that period. In the United States, a rise of just 20 percent was reported. Some EU member nations have done even better, with several including Germany, France and Great Britain among others actually achieving net reductions.

Now I will be the first to point out that to compare statistics in the form of percentages such as those can be extremely misleading, subject to the embarrassing question “percentage of what?” To explain by example: If you have one apple and get one more apple, you have enjoyed a 100 percent increase. A very big increase, right? But it’s relative, you see, for if you have 100 apples and get one more apple you have experienced an increase of only one percent . A very small increase—and yet in both cases the difference was precisely the same, one apple.

India and China were coming from behind, with lower bases against which to measure the increase (fewer apples), so it makes their statistics seem larger. The US had a higher starting point (more apples), thus making that increase seem smaller by comparison. Indeed, according to the World Resources Institute:

Overall, with less than one-twentieth of the world’s population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009), the U.S. currently accounts for about one-fifth of total global emissions of [GHGs].

It is common sense that the world’s largest economies would be the largest sources of carbon emissions, because development has been based on fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. However, the problem of GHG emissions cannot be solved by looking into the past, but by changing future actions everywhere. Unfortunately, the general drift seems to be that the majority of the world’s people, as represented by the governments of populous nations such as India and China, would like for the more advanced nations to contribute most of the hard work and sacrifice of reducing carbon emissions, while leaving the “developing” nations to continue relatively unimpeded on the course of industrialization.

(more…)

Posted in Climate Change, Economics, Fossil Fuels, Pollution | 1 Comment »

The Power of Economic Incentives

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

By David L. Brown

How do  we go about reducing carbon emissions to prevent climate change from spiraling into a global catastrophe? One obvious answer is to slow down the go-go industrial economies that pour CO2 into the atmosphere. Not so easy? Well, actually we’re already doing it, according to this article in today’s New York Times. The story leads off with this:

Global carbon emissions are expected to post their biggest drop in more than 40 years this year as the global recession froze economic activity and slashed energy use around the world.

The decline comes as political leaders are struggling to come up with a common approach to dealing with climate change.

The main factor behind this year’s drop in emissions is the slowdown in industrial activity and trade around the world, according to a study due to be released in November by the International Energy Agency.

But the energy agency, which provides policy advice and research to industrialized nations, found that government actions had also contributed to the drop in emissions. The agency said it expected to see global carbon emissions fall 2.6 percent this year.

So, see, we can do it … all it takes is the economic incentive to decrease the use of fossil fuels. There is no doubt that last year’s spike in oil prices has a lot to do with this.

The Times gives credit to the economic bust and “government actions,” but there is another important aspect to this, perhaps the most important one of all. Millions of individuals have learned to think twice about driving unnecessary miles, leaving the thermostat at extreme settings, or letting the lights burn all over the house 24/7. They’ve made personal decisions to reduce energy use.

That’s called conservation, and without a doubt conservation is the easiest and most effective way to deal with CO2 emissions in the short term. The more people become conscious of their contributions to carbon pollution and take steps to reduce their “footprint,” the better for all of us.

And what is the secret behind all of this? It’s easy. Think Bill Clinton’s campaign theme: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Yes, the high price of oil and its economic effects — from international trade right down to individual household budgets — is the reason why carbon emissions have dropped.

Your ordinary Joe may not understand global warming or even give a hoot about the environment, but he does react when he sees his wallet taking a hit. Like most of us, he’s on a limited budget, so when the cost of profligate energy use starts to hurt, he does what he can to save money. In this case, he stops using as much energy.

A major reason why alternative energy sources have been slow to arrive on the  scene is that petroleum remained relatively cheap for far too long. In their self-interested way, for decades OPEC and major oil companies did everything in their power to hold down costs and stifle alternatives. They did it by using the  power of supply-and-demand, turning up the pumps whenever there was a new spurt of interest in alternatives. They played that game for years, until it became no longer possible.

It is fairly well documented that the Oil Peak has been reached, or at least we are teetering on the top. Beyond lies the downside slope of the Hubbert Curve, leading to a time when demand for oil cannot be met by supply. That means sustained higher costs for petroleum, which will introduce new opportunities for alternatives. We are already seeing voluntary conservation in response to costs, and as time goes on, we’ll undoubtedly see more people embracing alternatives. After all, the human race has been labeled Homo Economicus, “economic man”. Create an economic incentive, and humankind will react accordingly.

There are limits to how much conservation can do to turn around carbon emissions. Of course, none of us want an endless depression to “solve” the threat of climate change. But there are lessons to be learned from the recent experience, and we need to act on them. In fact, the very forces of  economics will make  it almost automatic, because dwindling oil resources will make it difficult or impossible for the world economy to enter a new “bubble” of rising  expectations. Less oil means higher prices, and we have seen that higher prices will put a lid on demand.

We can hope the world economy will begin to edge back from the brink, but we can’t afford to return to the same-old, same-old process of driving economic growth through continued use of fossil fuels. We need to begin to move toward new-style economies that are based on sustainable and environmentally friendly models.

Can we do it? Who knows — but since there’s probably no alternative it would be best if we at least try.

Posted in Age of Oil, Climate Change, Economics, Fossil Fuels, Pollution | Comments Off

A New Era for Automobile Efficiency?

Tuesday, May 19th, 2009

By David L. Brown

The government today announced new fuel economy and pollution standards for automobiles and light trucks. This is excellent if somewhat tardy news, but should be viewed with some reservations. Let’s take a look.

First, I note that according to this report on FoxNews.com, a “senior administration official said the changes (when compared to current pollution and vehicle use totals) will have the effect of removing 900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air, taking 177 million cars off the road, and shutting down 194 coal-fired power plants.”

This sounds too good to be true, and usually when that is the case one should prepare to apply some common logic. Some of these claims are hard to pin down, but the “177 million cars” figure is something we can work with.

According to the Department of Transportation, there are presently about 250 million cars and light trucks in service in the U.S. The 177 million figure mentioned by the administration spokesperson is equal to about 70 percent of the total number of vehicles presently on the road. Thus, to achieve the stated goal would require the outright elimination of 70 percent of all present CO² emissions from cars and trucks. A very optimistic claim indeed.

Let us assume that the new standards ultimately yield new vehicles that produce 50 percent less CO² than the average present cars. That seems pretty generous, but let’s go with that figure. Let’s say we trash 177 million present vehicles and replace them with new, cleaner vehicles yielding 50 percent less CO². Well, even that won’t achieve the stated target, since the new vehicles will still be producing half the emissions of the older cars they replaced. We will have only done away with the pollution equivalent of 88.5 million vehicles.

Now one might argue that the 177 million vehicle figure must be based on replacing the present fleet with completely clean electric vehicles If that were the case (and ignoring the greenhouse gas emissions from power production with the further assumption that it would come from clean solar or wind, which raises still more questions), we would still need to completely eliminate the emissions from 177 million passenger vehicles. (In fact, according to the news report, the targets “will be achieved with only minor modifications to vehicle and engine design,” so a complete switch to electric isn’t what they have in mind.)

It appears that to even come close to achieving the claimed target we would need to completely replace our present fleet—and unless the new vehicles were 100 percent “clean,” that still wouldn’t do the job. With 250 million vehicles emitting one-half the present levels of greenhouse gas, it would have only have replaced the equivalent of the output of 125 million present cars, not 177. This just doesn’t add up unless we make the further assumption that the actual total number of vehicles is significantly reduced. Only then does it start to make sense.

Herbert Hoover ran on the slogan “A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot.” Now it seems the plan is to empty out at least some of those garages. Will chickens be next to go? Well, that’s a subject for another day.

Today’s announcement seems to hint that these marvelous improvements will take place by 2016, or certainly in such a near future as to make a big difference in our present situation vis a vis energy use and pollution. In fact, the changes would be significantly longer-term. At recent rates of auto sales, it would take more than 20 years to replace the present fleet. Since the projections seem to be based on the assumption that everything would remain the same except with better fuel efficiency and lower emissions, we must ask what changes might occur in our nation’s economic, ecological and social future that would make these assumptions invalid. I will leave that to you to ponder, perhaps keeping in mind the failure of Soviet Five Year Plans to ever work out as hoped. Has anyone even tried to project an economic plan 20 or 25 years into the future?

(more…)

Posted in Age of Oil, Energy Technology, Fossil Fuels, Pollution, Transportation | Comments Off

China Prepares for Olympic Disaster

Monday, July 28th, 2008

By David L. Brown

The 2008 Olympics are only two weeks away and China is still struggling with its horrendous smog problem. Many of the teams are staying away until the Games open, and it is for good reason that they are doing their last two weeks of preparation elsewhere. This photograph showing the smog enshrouded National Stadium tells the story:

beijing-smog_782115c.jpg

China has cut automobile traffic by half through an alternate-days program based on license plate numbers and banned heavy polluting vehicles such as older trucks. It has ordered smog-producing factories and power plants to reduce emissions. And still the capital of the Middle Kingdom is sunk in a cloud of noxious smog and hoped-for winds are failing to sweep it away.

According to a story on the web site of The Telegraph, a major British newspaper,

The area where the games will take place failed the government’s own smog targets, even as officials opened the Olympic Village with great fanfare.

The air was “unhealthy for sensitive groups,” the city’s environmental protection bureau said.

The official targets are themselves much looser than those considered “safe” by the World Health Organisation.

“It doesn’t really look so good,” said Gunilla Lindberg, the vice-president of the International Olympic Committee.

I was in Beijing 23 years ago and the pollution problem was bad enough then, even though there were relatively few vehicles. I remember photographing a major intersection during the morning rush hour, and traffic was mostly bicycles and horse or donkey drawn conveyances. There was also the occasional bus, stuffed full of people like enormous sardine cans and belching great clouds of diesel fumes. Today, as I understand it, the problem is far, far worse.

Warning of possible terrorism during the Games, the Red Chinese masters have ordered 100,000 soldiers to encircle the city, setting up checkpoints and patrolling everywhere. They have also emplaced anti-aircraft batteries around the main venues where the games will take place (although an attack by air seems unlikely). In an earlier post I showed a ridiculous picture of black-clad anti-terrorist soldiers riding on Segways while aiming their rifles. There are sure to be protests, and if the authorities crack down with deadly force it will make the Tienenman Square massacre look like a tea ceremony.

This will be an Olympic Games to remember. If things really go awry, it may be the last one ever held. Coming up is London in 2012, and with the infusion of Islamic hatred of the west in Jolly Olde England there will surely be Paradise to pay. A survey of British Muslim university students last week revealed that one-third of them openly admitted that they felt it was OK for Muslims to kill in defense of their faith. One can assume that many of the other two-thirds may have felt the same, but been too canny to admit it to survey takers. No, Britain is not a safe venue for a future Olympics, not at all.

Posted in Politics, Pollution | Comments Off

Solving That Emissions Problem

Monday, March 24th, 2008

by Val Germann

Those ever-resourceful Japanese have finally figured out how to fix the world’s emissions problem. Yes, it’s true, and it was pretty easy to do, too, their “solution” featuring just about zero cost. The quote below, from an article appearing on today’s TERRADAILY web site, gives the general drift:

A senior Japanese official said Monday that 2005 would be fair for a base year in a new deal on slashing greenhouse gases . . .

Now, see there, look how easy that was! Yes, indeed, that IS “thinking outside the box” to the benefit of everyone. Who would have thought that all one had to do was change that pesky baseline and, voila, the problem instantly would become only a fading memory. What a concept!

I think that the EU will fall into line with this way of thinking pretty soon, too, because that would get them out of their current “fix” concerning emissions:

The European Union has set a self-binding target of cutting the bloc’s overall greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent by 2020, compared with 1990 levels.

As has been reported here at Star Phoenix Base, that requirement is going to chafe quite a bit if the EU actually intends to live up to it, which has always been doubtful. But with the Japanese showing the way there seems to be little problem with the Europeans changing a few digits in their mission statment and gaining almost instant compliance! After all, it is “self-binding.”

Finally, one hopes that this will at last put to rest all the doom and gloom over world emissions of CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases.” As the Japanese have shown, all of that is a matter of definition, something for the lawyers and bean counters to decide while the rest of us get on with business as usual.

It’s all going to work out fine after all, isn’t it?

Posted in Fossil Fuels, Politics, Pollution | 1 Comment »

Smogfest In Store for 2008 Olympics

Wednesday, August 8th, 2007

By David L. Brown

We have written before about the rising problem of air pollution in China, raising concerns that the increasing smog problem in Beijing could threaten the success of next year’s Olympic Games.

The point is well made by this photograph from Reuters today showing a celebration marking the one-year countdown to the opening of the Games next year. The view of celebrants in Tiananmen Square, against a backdrop of thick smog, clearly demonstrates the terrible problem of air pollution that is plaguing China as it continues to bring on line one or two new coal-fired power plants each week.

artbeijingdancersap.jpg

When I visited China in 1985 air pollution was already a problem in the capital city, even though there were relatively few vehicles. I remember watching buses lurching through the streets packed with so many people that they made a sardine can seem spacious, each one belching huge quantities of thick, greasy diesel smoke. My photographs at the nearby Summer Palace and even the distant Great Wall were marred by gray skies, the result of smoke and smog. And come to think of it, my visit to Tiananmen Square took place under atmospheric conditions similar to what is pictured above.

According to Chinese authorities things have gotten better in recent years, which means that they must have gotten a lot worse since I was there over 20 years ago. It is all relative. The Chinese have seen an improvement, but to our Western eyes the clouds of smog are startling. We have largely forgotten what it is like to experience significant smog conditions. The days of London’s “pea soup fogs,” Pittsburgh’s once smoke-engulfed steel mills, and the Los Angeles skyline looming from a haze of smog are long gone.

The last time I witnessed anything like what is shown in the picture above was about a decade ago during a driving trip to the Yucatan region of Mexico. As we drove near to Mexico City to the East, from 50 miles away we could see a vast cloud of dirty air hovering above the over-populated city.

How is a worldwide audience going to react to the sight of Olympic contenders wheezing and coughing, cameras peering through murky air to record the Games, and clouds of smoke rolling across the city? I suppose those who live in Mexico City and other Third World places will not see anything out of the ordinary, but to those of us who are accustomed to relatively clean air it will provide a revelation about the state of affairs in the Middle Kingdom.

I have read that the Chinese are proposing to shut down power plants in the Beijing area during the Games to reduce the smog. That seems to me to be a vain hope on two counts. First, the city requires vast amounts of electricity just to operate, and that will be particularly true during the Games. If the Chinese attempt to bring in electricity from far-flung locations and shut down the nearby plants, that will mean that many other parts of the country could be left without power. Second, as we know the air pollution problem over South Asia is widespread and far from just a local effect.

Here are a few of our previous posts related to the pollution problem in China: “China Becomes World Leader in Carbon Emissions,” posted June 20, 2007; “The Trouble with China, The Great Squanderer,” posted September 7, 2006; “China’s Pollution Rising Amid Signs of Concern,” posted August 15, 2006; and “China’s Massive Air Pollution Crossing Pacific,” posted August 2, 2006.

Clearly, the Chinese race to attempt to attain First World status through copying the 19th Century path of the Industrial Revolution is fraught with problems. Considering that the troubles of greenhouse gas and air quality pollution have been identified as unsustainable in the West, how is it that the Red Chinese believe they can create an entire new Industrial Revolution in the 21st Century based on the burning of vast quantities of fossil fuels?

As is so often the case, there are no easy solutions to environmental problems and certainly not in this instance. It seems that China is going to lose face on this issue in a huge way when the eyes of the world turn to Beijing twelve months from now. I suspect that hosting the 2008 Olympics will not turn out to be the public relations coup for which the Chinese are hoping.

Posted in Fossil Fuels, Pollution | Comments Off

Canada’s Tar Sands Oil: Environmental Disaster

Saturday, June 23rd, 2007

by Val Germann

As Star Phoenix Base readers know, Alberta has passed Texas as an oil-producing region and the North American petroleum pipelines are running north-to-south today instead of the other way around. Alberta is producing more than one million barrels of oil per day, on the way to three milion barrels per day by 2015. But the cost is high and getting higher, and not just in monetary terms, as this quote from a TERRADAILY article indicates:

Open pits now dot the northern part of Alberta province where vast tracts of the Boreal Forest once stood, and giant mechanical shovels now devour black oil-encrusted soil day and night.

Oil from tar sands is an environmental disaster, to say the least. The TERRADAILY article quotes Al Gore on the new Canadian crude:

“For every barrel of oil they extract there, they have to use enough natural gas to heat a family’s home for four days,” Gore [said]. And they have to tear up four tonnes of landscape, all for one barrel of oil. It is truly nuts.”

Yes, it is truly nuts, but it’s making piles of money for a lot of people, none of whom are interested in having U.S. consumers change their lifestyles or driving habits, not with petroleum spot prices at $65-70 US per barrel. There is simply too much money in it, regardless of any environmental downside. The Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Harper, summed up the general general attitude of his administration:

This government isn’t going to implement any measures that would do severe damage to Canadian jobs or to the Canadian economy,” Harper told reporters at the close of the spring parliamentary session. “We will continue implementing our (own) national system of regulations.”

This statement, from another current TERRADAILY article, was made in the wake of the Canadian Senate voting to force Harper’s government to abide by the Kyoto protocol, now a truly dead letter, world-wide. There is little doubt that oil from tar sands has ended any chance Canada ever had of living up to that agreement. The quote below quickly tells the sad tale:

A previous Liberal administration had agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but a 2006 government environmental audit found emissions had instead increased by 35 percent.

And they are going to keep on increasing, too, because the intention is, as outlined above, to double tar sands oil output over the next decade or so, with devastaing effects for Canada’s CO2 emissions.

So, add Canada to the list of CO2 deadbeats, along with China, India and Brazil. Deliberate govenment policies have been put in hand that have made impossible any decrease in emissions from those countries. –

Posted in Age of Oil, Climate Change, Forest Destruction, Pollution | Comments Off

« Older Entries