Nuclear will produce as much CO2 as fossil fuel plants

This argument, as we have pointed out many times already on this very blog, will run and run.

In an admittedly fairly lengthy video clip from E&ENews On-Point show, Nuclear Policy Research Institute founder Helen Caldicott discusses her new book, and makes a claim that as uranium ore gets scarcer then the equivalent CO2 output of a nuclear plant will increase and eventually equate to the CO2 output of a fossil fuel plant.

At one point she claims that "the nuclear industry lies"! She also claims that terrorists could very easily cause a nuclear plant meltdown!

So what many of us viewed as a stop-gap technology is perhaps as nasty at CO2 emission as fossil fuel power plants?

Now I'm confused even more!

When the best choice is less choice?

The title is taken from an interview with Jonathan Porritt - full detail from NewConsumer.com.

As ever with Porritt, the article is well worth a read, making lots of very salient points on our full blown consumerism and how we may have to change our ways.

"But the truth is that in the rich world very large numbers of us need to get used to consuming less. That’s just inevitable, we will either have to do so because our carbon budgets won’t be big enough to sustain our patterns of consumption – and everything has a carbon price tag attached to it – or because more and more people will recognise that that’s part of the responsibility of living on a shared earth – we have to make the limited resources available to all, not just the lucky ones living in rich countries like ours."

Anybody want to argue with that?

Never let it be said .....

..... that we don't put both sides of the argument.

This from the International Herald Tribune presents counter arguments to the level of zealousy that some believers in anthropogenic climate change have climbed.

It has quite a hefty dig at Sharon Begley, whose article we featured on this very blog recently.

"Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation."

Valid points both, but I would point out in response that empirically measured scientific data, and not just scientific consensus or hypothesis alone, has already largely concluded that man made global warming is almost certainly a reality.

Maybe the argument will never really be over until millions start dying of flooding and starvation. And, of course, by then, perhaps it may well be way too late?
_______________
And according to this from the Salt Lake Tribune, because I worry about climate change and the impact that it may have on my children and grandchildren, then I'm a "global warming fundamentalist" who is "pushing planet worship on us in a manner that would make a jihadist proud"!

This from another using the NASA data correction argument - data which only applies to the central USA (downgrading some years average temperatures by 0.03 degrees C) - he conveniently ignores the fact that the data (and any extrapolation from it) is still perfectly correct for the rest of the planet. (As explained in The Times - 16/8)

I've been called some things in my time, but never a jihadist!

And, just for the sake of argument - here, from SanDiego.com, is some scientific data about Lake Tahoe - especially for those who won't believe that there is any actual empirically measured scientific data.

Recycle your sex toys?

This certainly made me smile, an article about a 'rabbit amnesty' (no, not the cuddly white tailed bunny version!) from 24dash.com.

Better than going to landfill I suppose!

ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Just got my latest issue of The Ecologist. And guess what... there it was! And no reason why not. Hey. we noticed, and shared, it as soon as we stopped giggling. But it does show the mentality all who publish have, and what's going to get exposure ('oh, missus) first these days!

Green Tax On Air Travel?

It must be the season for surveys and public polls.

It would seem that a green tax on flights will probably be applied to all your flights before too long. Oft talked about and partly fudged already, but not genuinely implemented, probably because it has always been regarded as a vote loser, this from today's Indy suggests that public perceptions have changed to such an extent that almost half those polled are now "in favour of a tax on air travel to try to curb harmful the CO2 emissions that cause global warming."

Let's just hope that if (or perhaps when) it is implemented in one form or another that:-

a) It is implemented in a sensible and logical, understandable manner.
b) It isn't a typical bodge job.
c) The monies raised are actually used to help against global warming.

Well ...... its not too much to ask .... is it?
_______________

Meanwhile, on the other side of the big pond, the US FAA is planning to double or triple air traffic capacity by 2025. This from In These Times asks a very pertinent question - "is it [The FAA] giving concerns about aviation’s effects on climate change the attention they deserve?"

Given the political clout of the US aviation industry, I think I can hazard a good guess at what the answer is. Can you?

Climate Change Perceptions Study

Today has seen the publication of a study of people's perceptions of climate change in the NW of England. The study from the Northwest Climate Change Partnership (NWCCP) highlights the differences with which which people regard climate change and it's causes.

For instance:- "56.3 per cent are personally concerned about climate change" So the other 43.7% apparently just don't give a fig?

Yet only "20% of people are doing nothing to address climate change" ... so the numbers just don't add up.

It all just shows that, as Peter has commented many times before, the answers that you get from surveys don't necessarily reflect the actions that people actually take.

The good news, however, is that "68.8 per cent believe that they are doing something to help slow down climate change but are aware that there is more that they could do".

I find that number quite encouraging ...... well, providing it is a genuine reflection of what people actually meant rather than what they answered.

A Proactive Council That's Getting Things Right

Its not often that I find myself commending a local council initiative, but this one is really worth a mention. This from the Society Of Procurement Officers highlights a scheme introduced by the London borough of Richmond whereby the first 1,000 residents who install cavity wall or loft insulation will be given a £100 rebate on their council tax bill. Even when that particular pot is empty, anyone else will still receive £50 from British Gas.

A typical cost for installing cavity wall insulation in a three bedroomed semi is ~ £250 and for loft insulation ~£275. OK, the rebate's not earth shattering, but its a start, and, as they say, every little helps. And I commend the Richmond councilors for pushing this through.

What a shame that central government doesn't appear to be able to learn something from the initiatives driven by their more local brethren.
_____________

And while central government prevaricates (see 'Coming clean on going green' below), the local councils forge ahead. Now more than 130 local councils have signed up to the Nottingham declaration - as reported in the Plymouth Herald.

Coming clean on going green?

Well, it would seem that our esteemed government has once again shot itself through both bollo ..... errrm, feet. This from The Guardian highlights a leaked internal briefing memo in which they admit that the UK has absolutely no chance of meeting it's 'renewables' targets.

Uncle Tony signed up to the EU target of 20% of energy from 'renewables' by 2020 under a blaze of publicity and a great deal of self congratulatory crowing. Now it appears that we will be lucky to even meet 5% by 2020!

"It said that Britain had achieved 'little so far' on wind, solar or hydroelectric sources of power, and even getting to 9% from the current level of 2% would be 'challenging'. On current policies, renewables would only account for 5% of Britain's overall energy mix by 2020."

And worse, the re-badged DTI (have this lot never read Gaius Petronius?) advised "lobbying EU member states to agree that the target could be interpreted more flexibly by including investment in solar farms in north Africa, or by counting nuclear energy as 'renewable'."

And there's a section in the briefing memo that "asks ministers to examine 'what options there are for statistical interpretations of the target that would make it easier to achieve'."
Good lord! That's an instruction to feel free to make up numbers and tell lies any time you need to!

In summary, it looks now as if the target was an unachievable sham, and while the publicity made our ex-leader look good at the time, the real truth is that our current leadership team are simply looking for ways to prevaricate their way out of the mess by dissembling, skull-duggery, statistical manipulation and even downright cheating.

It's all too reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned - perhaps they could have entitled the piece - 'Coming clean on going Brown'? And of course no-one will get sacked, side-lined, punished or admonished at all, whilst still maintaining their gold plated pensions and salaries; it will all be smoothed over with more bull.

Arse covering, spin and blame deflection seem to be the only things our wonderful government are any good at all, under whatever leader!

The EC might be showing its teeth, but our lot appear to be simply passing lies through theirs!
___________________

More on this story from View London.
"Officials at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform would not comment on the document". Well, there's a surprise!

Ooooh look! We now have an official response from the PMS. See Downing Street Says.
Hmmm, they argued their way out of that one well didn't they?
___________________
Addendum:
Today's Guardian (14/8) has another interesting article from George Monbiot, who can always be relied upon to stir up the angst and ire of the masses. He points out, quite correctly, that back in March this year he questioned the government's 20% target. To be fair to Monbiot, he hardly crows about this at all (just an in passing 'lying bastards'), as the main thrust of his piece is the apparent contradiction that the media portrays whereby an editorial on one page exhorts us to become greener, whilst advertising alongside is for 4x4's and exotic travel holidays. Definitely well worth a read.

Addendum 2:
Well, it seems that the EC is still confident that the UK will meet its 20% emissions reduction target. See this from the International Local Government Association.
Given the chicanery and statistical manipulation that is going on I rather feel that that confidence is spectacularly misplaced!

The EC shows its teeth over vehicle CO2 emissions!

The EC industry commissioner seems to be taking a tough line with the European motor manufacturers.

The EC has been talking about limiting new vehicle CO2 emissions for what seems like years now, and is still nowhere near implementing any enforceable legislation. However, this article from Auto Industry suggests that the let out clause that all the motor manufacturers in Europe assumed that they would be able to use once legislation came in is not going to be available to them.

Essentially, most of the motor manufacturers thought that they would be able to buy their way out of their environmental responsibility for any models they produced with excessive CO2 emissions, (a type of offsetting?), but this looks like it will no longer be a future option for them.

Its rare for me to say this, but, for once, a big up to the EC. (If they carry it through!)

Met Office Prediction - Heatwaves

The latest UK meteorological office weather predictions provide an interesting set of long term 'forecasts', although I think I prefer the term predictions. This from The Guardian provides a concise summary.

"Powerful computer simulations used to create the world's first global warming forecast suggests temperature rises will stall in the next two years, before rising sharply at the end of the decade."

So the prediction for the next few years is that temperature increases will plateau at current levels until 2009/2010; something to do with natural shifts in climate canceling out the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. After that though, we are in for steadily climbing temperatures, increasingly warmer summers and increasingly heavy rainfall periods.

"From 2010, they warn, every year has at least a 50% chance of exceeding the record year of 1998 when average global temperatures reached 14.54C."

Weather forecasting is an inexact science, and they often cannot even get it right a few days ahead, so many may question the accuracy of their powerful computer simulations. But if they are correct, then perhaps now is the time to stock up on sunscreen, brollies and sandbags?

There's a fuller article with perhaps better explanation on the National Geographic News site.

Hmmmm, even the Daily Mail has picked up on this story.
___________________

Meanwhile, in a rather worrying move, Ol' Golden Brown seems to have downgraded the status of the cabinet committee on climate change - see this article from EDIE. And we all thought that he considered climate change a 'major challenge to mankind'!
___________________

"One giant leap backward for life on Earth"

Further to the post on the potential riches hidden on the sea bed under the arctic ice cap comes a second article, this time from the LA Times, which provides another set of alarming information.

Apparently, geologists believe that something like 25% of the planet's as yet undiscovered oil and gas may lie under the arctic ice, so its no real surprise that the Russian two miles deep flag planting stunt took place last week. And now "Norway, Canada and Denmark (through its possession of Greenland) are all using the continental-shelf argument to claim the Arctic seabed as an extension of their own sovereign territories".

OK, not specifically alarming in its own right, though the geo-political arguments that will ensue as these and other major world powers start to argue about just how to divvy up the arctic's riches are the sort of thing that has caused major conflict throughout human history. No, this worry concerns something else that is locked up under the ice, and in the permafrost in the surrounding continental land masses.

"While governments and oil giants are hoping the melting ice will allow them access to the world's last treasure trove of oil and gas, climatologists are deeply worried about something else buried under the ice that, if unearthed, could wreak havoc on the biosphere, with dire consequences for human life."

The big worry is the release of CO2 and, more importantly, methane, which scientists have long known to be the most potent of the greenhouse gases, as organic matter locked up in the permafrost and on the seabed decays when warming occurs. I'll let these quotes from the article make the key points.


" ... researchers warned of a tipping point sometime within this century, when the release of methane could create an uncontrollable feedback effect, dramatically warming the atmosphere, which would in turn warm the land, lakes and seabed, further melting the permafrost and releasing more methane. Once that threshold is reached, there will be nothing humans can do. Scientists suspect that similar events have occurred in the ancient past, between glacial periods."

"A global tragedy of monumental proportions is unfolding at the top of the world, and the human race is all but oblivious to what's happening. "

I've always found some human behaviour very strange, and this is no exception. Here we have climatologists warning of an atmospheric methane injection tipping point that may cause runaway global warming; yet all the various governments appear to worry about is how to grab as much of the arctic's potential resources as possible.

It was ever thus.

So does it eat cheese?

Every now and again along comes a gadget that makes you think 'what a great idea'. This is one such, from Product-Reviews.Net, a solar powered wireless computer mouse.

However, most computer mice are in heaviest use during the daytime, and it does need direct sunlight to gain sufficient charge; so perhaps the only solution might be to buy two and alternate their use, using mouse 1 whilst mouse 2 is on charge on the windowsill? (Clever bit of marketing or what?)

Don't leave it charging while the cat's about though!

The Truth About Denial

I recommend an eye-opening article from Sharon Begley in Newsweek Science & Technology which attempts to show just how much effort Big Oil and its friends and cohorts have put into supporting the 'climate change isn't man made' club.

"the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion."

"There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided"

The article describes a good deal of the politics and chicanery that has gone on at top level in the US; including how several attempts to pass legislation on CO2 emissions have been strangled etc. All in all, well worth a few minutes perusal.

"It's enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is."

Quite!

Addendum: 7/8/2007

According to this article from Canada.Com, the media isn't helping too much either. It would seem that the US and Canadian media have quite a strong tendency to tone down any climate change article in comparison with their brethren in Europe.
I just loved this example - "the New York times ran an article noting that 'global warming is an unequivocal fact likely to make summers hotter and winters warmer for the next few centuries, with potentially dire consequences for the ecosystem' -- then spent the next 17 paragraphs discussing the likely effect on groundhogs."

Gone, but not forgetting

There is something rather sad that on this, the first day of my annual (well, first in 5 years) holiday, here I am logging on to see what's what on the blog!

Already a rich seam of commentary from the new papers I am reading, but my wife says that I can keep the cuttings but can forget more than a few minutes a day online to do more than check emails.

But I may just sneak a few in.

Yet another international conference

Today's announcement that Dubbya has invited a host of the planet's leaders to a september climate conference may well be seen by many as a signal that the USA is finally getting involved.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Me, I'll reserve judgment for now until I hear something genuinely concrete coming from the US Pols. Perhaps I shouldn't be overtly cynical, but surely the time for talking is over and its now the time for actually doing something about it?

Oh well, at least they now seem to be saying that they will support something if it is mandated by the UN.

Meanwhile, Lake Superior appears to be slowly going down a hidden plughole somewhere, as this from Yahoo News explains.

Some blame global warming, some blame a lack of rain (errrrm, wasn't that one of the things that global warming was predicted to do, as in alter weather and precipitation patterns?), others blame hidden water extraction to other states.

Whatever the real underlying reason, it does seem to be a major cause for concern. Worse still, [with my Friday afternoon smiling head on], this is the really shocking bit!, some of the pleasure boaters can no longer dock at many of the lake's moorings! Bless.

Addendum:
It looks as if there is now a growing consensus within the UN too. This from BusinessWire says that more than 100 countries speaking at the UN General Assembly have "signaled strong support for negotiations on a new international deal to tackle global warming."

Good stuff, a growing global consensus is what is desperately needed.

Oh. That's soured it a little for me - they're all having a two week jolly to Bali to discuss it.

There's gold under them there bergs!

It has not taken very long for some to realise that as global warming takes hold, and the Arctic ice disappears, there is a huge gamut of potentially useful resources that will become accessible for exploitation.

An article from Economist.com signals the starting gun for the race for the Arctic's available riches; as they headline it - The Gold Rush Under The Ice.

Amongst others, at stake are potentially huge mineral, oil and gas resources.

"They may include 10 billion tonnes of oil and gas deposits, tin, manganese, gold, nickel, lead, platinum and diamonds, plus fish and perhaps even lucrative freight routes. Exploiting them will be technically tricky, and is probably decades away. But as the ice melts, the row is hotting up about who owns what’s underneath it."

Although it may yet be a few decades yet before these resources become feasibly accessible, our Soviet friends are already attempting a massive geo-political annexation of an enormous portion of the Arctic area.

I wonder just how long it will be before the world's super powers get together to divvy up this untouched region amongst themselves?

Resource greed seems to have become the primary driving factor for mankind. And, not for the first time, I feel ashamed at being a member of our resource ravenous human race.
____________________

And the next islands going under are?

First to start disappearing under the sea were the islands of Tuvalu, now it looks like the next in line are the Torres Straits islands where rising sea levels are threatening to eradicate centuries old communities.

This report from the Australian Daily Telegraph provides another graphic example of what we will probably be seeing increasingly more of over the next few decades.

"Roads have been swallowed whole, buildings washed out, graveyards swamped and houses flooded in six of the most vulnerable low-lying island communities."

Try telling the people of the Torres Straits and Tuvalu islands that global warming and rising sea level is a load of bull!

Addendum:
Literally within a few days of this post a report comes out that predicts the projected rises in sea level are being seriously under-estimated. See this from the Free Internet Press for details.
It looks to me like the list of disappearing islands might be growing too fast to keep up with in a couple of decades time. Oh well, perhaps governments around the planet will actually start to act once the water's lapping around their feet.

No We Don't Need Nuclear Power!

Oh yes we do! Oh no we don't!

Remember our much discussed post on nuclear power generation development and the problems of disposing of nuclear waste?

Well, a response from emeritus professor Keith Barnham appears in today's Guardian. He argues that we just don't need nuclear power at all, and proposes that solar, especially, and wind technology, will rapidly make the suggested expansion of nuclear power generation facilities a non-starter.

The usual clutch of comment posters have already been busy, most falling in to diametrically opposing camps, as usual, but there are some very interesting comments, facts (well, some, maybe, and some a bit questionable....ish) and figures quoted.

Interestingly, there are a few posters who, (maybe with some justification?), question the veracity of an author who is a founder of a solar panel development business.

Me? Well, I'm still confused. I still harbor doubts that 'renewables' technology can develop fast enough to fill the gap that carbon based power generation will surely hit in the future. And I still believe that storing nasty nuclear waste for when future generations can dispose of it safely and securely with a workable industrial scale transmutation technology is not really the correct thing to do.

As ever, there seem to be more questions than answers; and more 'facts'(?) flying about than you can shake a stick at. I'm open to persuasion either for or against nuclear, especially as it does seem to offer the most obvious stop-gap solution. But I think I'll stay sitting on the fence for now.

Anybody want to persuade me to drop down one side or the other?

Addendum:
Well, interestingly, despite Italy banning nuclear power station construction years ago, some at The Vatican do seem to be in favour of nuclear power! Plus they intend to become the planet's first carbon neutral sovereign state! See article from USA Today. Pity that it appears that most of this is to be achieved via offsetting.
____________________

Your tax £ at work

I am grateful to Dave of Solarventi for forwarding this: Recycling body hunts direct agency

This... 'its £40m marketing programme to tackle climate change' is a lot of money. However, in light of what we are facing, large sums are needed to tackle huge issues. But what about the ROI to derive a worthwhile enviROI?

My views on 'not-for-profit' as a model are well known (basically a good way to not make a profit is to blow as much internally as possible - real estate, staff, satellites, trips, conferences, pensions, bonuses, etc), especially when 'backed' (what does that mean?) by the Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).

The aims - to encourage businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more often, helping to minimise landfill, reduce carbon emissions and improve the environment - are laudable, but I simply question the methods and accountability.

Like the BBC (you hold those near and dear to a higher standard), I actually think a lot of what is being done by some departments is very good indeed, and probably more than worthwhile, but when it comes to comms and marketing, which I do know a bit about, the whole thing gets a lot murkier. And I still think there has to be some conflict in getting bonuses (why are public servants and guys like these, and the Environment Agency, on bonuses simply to do their jobs anyway? And it seems you get them even if you foul up) when they are based on targets and rates that will inevitably increase if your throw enough public money at them with awareness campaigns.

I ask a lot, but do intend to try and find some answers out if I can. But if anyone can help with deriving figures for what we spend vs. what we get back (they must be around surely, as a publicly accountable body?) with this mob, I'd be grateful.

Maybe they are worth every penny. But at the moment, I'm am not feeling the benefits of £40M.

And let's remember the vast number of other such entities getting similar amounts to play with, and which often seem, to me at least, to be overlapping if not actually confusing the issue with different messages all the time.

Joined up at the HIPS?

Today sees the Home Information Packs kick in, and the Housing Minister is on BBC Breakfast to explain why they are 'dead good'.

I sent in the following questions which, if asked, the BBC editors will hopefully not 'enhance for greater truth' this time:

1) If this is largely to address environmental impacts and not a social penalty, what is the proportion of 4+ bedroom houses as a % of the total, energy consuming housing market?

2) If older properties are inevitably going to be less 'efficient', is this grading just to enable market force choices, or is there an intention to use this information as a factor in future levies imposed by central and/or local government on the householder?

3) Are issues such as risk of flooding included as this would obviously represent a huge negative in terms of protections and/or clear ups with new builds no matter how eco?

These are, as stated, questions, but they do raise certain issues.

I suspect that the of 4+ housing I am asking for is not that high, and hence one wonders what impact targeting this sector will have on the planet.

Then there is the actual use of this rating system. I can get my head around one on a fridge, but a house? Choosing a white box that keeps things cold is pretty much just down to the op costs... to me at least. But if I fall in love with a property am I really going to reject that stone cottage (on a hill, 'cos the old folks figured that living where it gets wet is daft) and buy that 90's newbuild (on a flood plain, 'cos all that is left) because it is a few ratings lower? I doubt it. And hence one wonders what value this information ultimately has, and to whom?

And speaking of (well alluding to) those who would use green as a stealthy way to tax us without much explanation as to how those taxes get ploughed back, I do finally wonder if other environmental issues such as being built on a flood plain will score badly. Versus the lack of a cavity wall, one can only imagine that digging up the floors of a soaked property and renovating the whole thing will not offer the greatest global enviROI.

But maybe it's more a matter of boxes being ticked and grabbing some quick green dosh?

I just watched (How street cred is she? All bob and yoof speak!!?) and there was a bunch of... nothing. The key questions (just one was asked - nice one, BBC! I have to share this I read on a less than favourable blog as to their abilities: 'Double standards but half the quality') were almost all avoided or 'future mysteries' alluded to without being tasked to actually answer.

Indy - How ministers turned a help into a hindrance - like everything else they touch
Guardian - Home information packs are dealt new blow by lenders - Hmnnn