The Energizer - Amory Lovins
Amory Lovins has a vision: The U.S. economy keeps going and going and going - without any oil
By Cal Fussman
DISCOVER Vol. 27 No. 02 | February 2006 | Environment
AMORY LOVINS is a physicist, economist, inventor, automobile designer, consultant to 18 heads of state, author of 29 books, and cofounder of Rocky Mountain Institute, an environmental think tank. most of all, he's a man who takes pride in saving energy. The electricity bill at his 4,000-square-foot home in Old Snowmass, Colorado, is five dollars a month, and he's convinced he can do the same for all of us. His book winning the oil endgame shows how the United States can save as much oil as it gets from the Persian gulf by 2015 and how all oil imports can be eliminated by 2040. And that's just for starters.
As told to Cal Fussman
When I give talks about energy, the audience already knows about the problems. That's not what they've come to hear. So I don't talk about problems, only solutions. But after a while, during the question period, someone in the back will get up and give a long riff about all the bad things that are happening—most of which are basically true. There's only one way I've found to deal with that. After this person calms down, I gently ask whether feeling that way makes him more effective.
As René Dubos, the famous biologist, once said, "Despair is a sin."
ENERGY
I used to work for Edwin Land, the father of Polaroid photography. Land said that invention was the sudden cessation of stupidity. He also said that people who seem to have had a new idea often have just stopped having an old idea. So I suppose if I bring something unusual to this business, it's that maybe I find it easier to stop having old ideas.
I can't point to any one moment in particular from my past that made me who I am. It's been more like seeing the world through an evolving lens. Gradually, I've learned to ask different questions and look at problems from different angles than most people.
I'm probably best known for having redefined the energy problem in 1976 with a Foreign Affairs article titled "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?"
Until then, the energy problem was generally considered to be: Where do we get more energy? People were preoccupied with where we could get more energy of any kind, from any sources, for any price—as if all our needs were the same. I started instead at the other end of the problem: What do we want the energy for?
You don't generally want lumps of coal or barrels of sticky black goo. You want comfort, illumination, mobility, baked bread, and so on. And for each of these end uses we should ask: How much energy, of what quality, at what scale, from what source will do the job in the cheapest way? That's now called the end-use/least-cost approach, and a lot of the work we do at Rocky Mountain Institute involves applying it to a wide range of situations.
End-use/least-cost analysis begins with a simple question: What are you really trying to do? If you go to the hardware store looking for a drill, chances are what you really want is not a drill but a hole. And then there's a reason you want the hole. If you ask enough layers of "Why?"—as Taiichi Ohno, the inventor of the Toyota production system, told us—you typically get to the root of the problem.
OIL
Let's start with one basic problem. Saudi Arabia has a quarter of the world's oil reserves. It is the sole swing producer with significant capacity to increase output, and therefore it controls the world price.
Two-thirds of Saudi oil flows through one processing plant and two terminals that are in the crosshairs of terrorists. That stuff could go down any day for a long time. And that would presumably crash both the House of Saud and the Western economy. So for the bad guys it's a twofer. They would love to do that, and they've already had a couple of cracks at it.
Now, this should make you uncomfortable. But we don't have to continue on our current path. We can go a different way.
Let's look at oil through a historic analogy. Around 1850, the biggest or second-biggest industry in America was whaling. Most buildings were lit with whale oil. But in the nine years before Edwin Drake struck oil in 1859 in Pennsylvania and made kerosene ubiquitous, at least five-sixths of the whale oil–lighting market had already been lost to competing products made from coal. This was elicited by the relatively high price of whale oil as the whales got shy and scarce.
The whalers were astounded that they ran out of customers before they ran out of whales. They didn't see this coming because they hadn't added up the competitors. Oil fields can be like this today.
The United States today wrings twice as much work from each barrel of oil as it did in 1975. With even more advanced technologies, we can double oil efficiency all over again at a cost averaging $12 a barrel. We can replace the rest of our oil needs with advanced biofuels and saved natural gas at a cost averaging $18 a barrel. Combined, these two approaches average out at a cost of $15 a barrel. That's a lot cheaper than the $61 per barrel oil was the other day or even the $26 that's officially forecast for the year 2025.
How much cheaper than $26 a barrel? Well, about $70 billion a year, plus a million jobs, mostly in rural and small-town America. Plus a million saved jobs now at risk, mainly in the automaking states.
We've got a choice: Either we're going to continue importing efficient cars to help replace foreign oil, or we're going to employ our own people to make efficient cars and import neither the oil nor the car—which sounds like a better idea.
WEIGHT
A modern car, after 120 years of devoted engineering effort since Gottlieb Daimler built the first gasoline-powered vehicle, uses less than 1 percent of its fuel to move the driver. How does that happen?
Well, only an eighth of the fuel energy reaches the wheels. The rest of it is lost in the engine, drivetrain, and accessories, or wasted while the car is idling. Of the one-eighth that reaches the wheels, over half heats the tires on the road or the air that the car pushes aside. So only 6 percent of the original fuel energy accelerates the car. But remember, about 95 percent of the mass being accelerated is the car—not the driver. Hence, less than 1 percent of the fuel energy moves the driver. This is not very gratifying.
Well, the solution is equally inherent in the basic physics I just described. Three-quarters of the fuel usage is caused by the car's weight. Every unit of energy you save at the wheels by making the car a lot lighter will save an additional seven units of fuel that you don't need to waste getting it to the wheels.
So you can get this roughly eightfold leverage (three- to fourfold in the case of a hybrid) from the wheels back to the fuel tank by starting with the physics of the car, making it lighter and with lower drag. And indeed you can make the car radically lighter. We've figured out a cost-effective way to do that so you can end up with a 66-mile-per-gallon uncompromised SUV that has half the normal weight, has a third the normal fuel use, is safer, and repays the extra cost that comes with being a hybrid in less than two years.
PLASTIC
Henry Ford said you don't need weight for strength. If you did need weight for strength, your bicycle helmet would be made of steel, not carbon fiber. And if you want to know how strong a very light material can be, try eating an Atlantic lobster with no tools.
The auto industry needs to move toward ultralight, ultrastrong carbon-fiber composites, almost certainly using thermoplastics that flow when heated and that can be easily molded—instead of the more brittle, expensive thermosets that need chemistry, baking, or some other change to set the resin into its final hard form. Thermoplastics are incredibly tough. They can absorb 12 times as much crash energy per pound as steel. So even though your car will be only half as heavy as it was before, it will still be safer when whacked by a heavier one.
With such materials, you can decouple size from weight. You can make the car big—protected and comfortable. But it won't be heavy—hostile and inefficient. This can save oil and lives at the same time, and it turns out you can greatly improve the economics of making the car because you might have in a carbon SUV only 14 body parts—instead of 140 to 280 in a steel auto body—each needing one low-pressure die set, instead of an average of four high-pressure steel-stamping die sets in the steel body. The parts snap together precisely in the right positions for gluing, like assembling a kid's toy, so you don't need all those jigs and robots. You basically get rid of the body shop this way, and then by laying color in the mold, you get rid of the paint shop too. There go the two hardest and costliest parts of making the car.
New jobs come partly by having a vibrantly competitive car industry rather than a failing one and partly due to the logical evolution of the auto industry toward computerization. Imagine the aftermarket for improved and customized software. The industry structure would be different, but we don't think there would be a net loss of jobs. The jobs would be safer, healthier, and better distributed. And the same revolution that's coming to automaking from advanced materials also applies to anything else that moves.
HYDROGEN
Many automakers are starting to understand that whoever goes ultralight first will take the lead in the hydrogen fuel-cell race.
The winning strategy will be improving the physics of the car. They still need to make a cheap, durable fuel cell. But if they can reduce the fuel cell and the hydrogen storage volume by three times, the cost reduces threefold.
That said, superefficient cars need hydrogen a lot less than hydrogen needs superefficient cars. If you have, say, an ultralight hybrid SUV burning gasoline at 66 miles per gallon, that isn't so bad—at least not compared to a similar one getting 18.5 miles per gallon on the road today.
If you then combine that with E85 fuel, which is 15 percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol, you just got a 320-mile-per-gallon SUV because the efficiency times the biofuel saving of oil multiplies.
For that matter, if every car or light truck on the road in 2025 is only as efficient as the best hybrid cars and SUVs now in the showrooms, that would save twice as much oil as we currently import from the Persian Gulf. So it's not a very ambitious goal—and it doesn't even involve making vehicles ultralight.
Very efficient vehicles can get most of the same benefits without hydrogen by using today's gasoline/hybrid propulsion. However, once you have such vehicles, there is a robust business case for running them on hydrogen. Until you have those efficient vehicles, that business case is not very convincing.
I think hydrogen will be an important if not dominant energy carrier by 2050. In Winning the Oil Endgame, the comprehensive strategy we've developed at Rocky Mountain Institute for ending oil dependence, we see hydrogen as an optional add-on. It would be the most profitable and efficient way to use and save natural gas. But it's not necessary to get the country off oil at a profit; it's just icing on the cake.
ELECTRICITY
A question I ask a lot is, What's the right size for the job? I have a book called Small Is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size. It points out 207 benefits of distributed resources, such as solar and wind power. When I begin to describe them, you'll find them really obvious:
Renewables, such as wind energy, have less financial risk from volatile fuel prices than fossil-fuel power plants because they don't need any fuel.
Small resources like solar cells or wind turbines have less financial risk than giant power plants that take many years to build.
Portable resources like solar panels have less financial risk than stationary power plants, because if the system evolves differently than you'd expected and you'd rather put it somewhere else, you simply stick it on a truck and move it.
This is all blindingly obvious, yet it hasn't been taken into account by the utility industry while buying its half trillion dollars' worth of assets.
Here's what happened: For the first century of the electricity business, the power plants were costlier and less reliable than the grid, so it made sense to build a bunch of big power plants backing each other up through the grid. Well—surprise—over the last 20 years, power plants have become cheaper and more reliable than the grid. Ninety-nine percent of our power failures originate in the grid—mostly in distribution. So now if you want to deliver reliable, affordable electricity, you need to make it at or near the customer's location.
Many people didn't notice this happening. But despite the market's not yet recognizing the benefits, the decentralized low- or no-carbon generators turn out to be greater in capacity and output than nuclear power worldwide. David already beat Goliath, but nobody noticed.
The nuclear advocates frequently state that only nuclear is big and fast enough to deal with global warming. Well, five years from now the official industry forecast suggests that decentralized low- and no-carbon generators will be adding 160 times as much capacity as nuclear will add up to that year. So those who think that the decentralized generators are small, slow, and futuristic or have an unacceptable risk of not being adopted at scale in the market have some serious explaining to do.
WIND
If I could do just one thing to solve our energy problems, I would allow energy to compete fairly at honest prices regardless of which kind it is, what technology it uses, how big it is, or who owns it. If we did that, we wouldn't have an oil problem, a climate problem, or a nuclear proliferation problem. Those are all artifacts of public policies that have distorted the market into buying things it wouldn't otherwise have bought because they were turkeys.
We have more than enough cost-effective wind power just on available land in the Dakotas to meet the United States' electricity needs. We wouldn't necessarily want to do it all in two states, and there are cheaper combinations of other technologies to do the whole job, but it's an enormous resource.
Germany and Spain each install over 2,000 megawatts of wind power every year. That figure exceeds the average global net addition of nuclear power every year in this decade. Denmark is now one-fifth wind powered; Germany, about a tenth.
Wind power is doubling every three years worldwide and solar power every two, and not because some countries subsidize it strongly. In fact, the subsidies are being phased out slowly in Germany and rapidly in Japan because they have achieved their purpose of creating world-class industries that will be able to make it on their own.
If everything competed solely on merit, wind energy in the United States would be a lot better off. It gets subsidized less than its competitors, and its subsidies are temporary, while its competitors' are permanent. In other words, the fossil and nuclear subsidies—nuclear being the biggest—are permanent, while renewable subsidies are temporary.
Congress's brief and irregular renewals of the tax credit for wind power have several times bankrupted wind-turbine manufacturers in the United States. Similar misguided policies have diminished the solar-cell industry. Half of the solar cells sold in the United States a decade ago were domestically made. Now that figure is only 8 percent.
DEFENSE
A major player in our energy future will be the Pentagon. Here's why: Trailing behind every half-mile-a-gallon Abrams tank—a peerless fighting machine if you can get it there—are two unarmored fuel trucks. Guess what the bad guys shoot at?
This is a very teachable moment—when the Pentagon becomes acutely aware of the cost and the risk of delivering fuel on the battlefield. They obviously need much lighter, more agile, radically more fuel-efficient forces.
A military transformation will have a much bigger payoff, in exactly the same way the Pentagon's research and development created the Internet, global positioning systems, the modern microchip industry, and advanced aero engines.
If you align military science and technology investments to capture this enormous improvement at a tactical, operational, and strategic level, guess what? You thereby transform the car, truck, and plane industries to get the country off oil, so we won't need to fight over the oil because we won't be using it. Mission unnecessary.
BANANAS
When we designed the research facilities at Rocky Mountain Institute, we didn't plan on having a banana farm inside. We're up 7,100 feet in the Rockies, and it has gotten as low as –47 degrees in the winter.
We planned about 900 square feet of jungle space with five different kinds of energy collection: heat, hot air, hot water, light, and photosynthesis. The arch that holds it up has 12 different functions, but I paid for it only once. The whole building exemplifies design integration: getting multiple benefits from single expenditures. It saves about 99 percent of the normal need for space- and water-heating energy, about 90 percent of the household electricity, and half the water. All that efficiency paid for itself in 10 months—and that's with 1983 technology! Now we can do a lot better.
Anyway, we weren't planning on growing bananas here, but somebody who owed me something gave me a banana tree to settle the obligation. He said it would grow to six feet and never fruit—but he forgot to tell the tree. When it got 12-year-old horse manure, it went bananas, grew to 25 feet, put out nine crops in the first year and a half, and tried to go through the roof. Then it tried to eat the fishpond.
I was afraid of a hydraulic disaster, so we chopped it down, dug it up, and put a steel fence between what was left of the root-ball and the fishpond. But it grew back and put out another 18 crops. Eventually, a few years ago, it wore out at twice its designed life, so we took it out for good and put in a variety of young banana trees. We've also done mangoes, grapes, papayas, and passion fruit—here in the Rocky Mountains.
The tangled tale of the banana tree offers a very simple lesson: Be open to possibilities.
Read at the original source
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Monday, December 05, 2005
Tangled Strands in Fight Over Peru Gold Mine
Tangled Strands in Fight Over Peru Gold Mine
The Cost of Gold | Treasure of Yanacocha
Tangled Strands in Fight Over Peru Gold Mine
By JANE PERLEZ and LOWELL BERGMAN, The New York Times, October 25, 2005
SAN CERILLO, Peru - The Rev. Marco Arana drove his beige pickup over the curves of a dirt road 13,000 feet high in the Andes. Spread out below lay the Yanacocha gold mine, an American-run operation of mammoth open pits and towering heaps of cyanide-laced ore. Ahead loomed the pristine green of untouched hills.
Then, an unmistakable sign that this land, too, may soon be devoured: Policemen with black masks and automatic rifles guarding workers exploring ground that the mine's owner, Newmont Mining Corporation, has deemed the next best hope.
"This is the Roman peace the company has with the people: They put in an army and say we have peace," said Father Arana as he surveyed the land where gold lies beneath the surface like tiny beads on a string.
Yanacocha is Newmont's prize possession, the most productive gold mine in the world. But if history holds one lesson, it is that where there is gold, there is conflict, and the more gold, the more conflict.
Newmont, which has pulled more than 19 million ounces of gold from these gently sloping Peruvian hills - over $7 billion worth - believes that they hold several million ounces more. But where Newmont sees a new reserve of wealth - to keep Yanacocha profitable and to stay ahead of its competitors - the local farmers and cattle grazers see sacred mountains, cradles of the water that sustains their highland lives.
The biggest issue is the one looming over every modern industrial gold mine: What happens when the ore that lured the miners here is gone?
Over 13 years, Newmont has moved mountains for gold - 30 tons of rock and earth for every ounce. By the time it is through, the company will have dug up a billion tons of earth. Much of it will be laced with acids and heavy metals.
Three years ago, after Newmont acknowledged that 36,700 fish were missing from a river contaminated by the mine, the World Bank hired an American geochemist, Ann Maest, to study the streams and canals flowing from the mine.
In the short term, she concluded, the water was safe for human use. But long term, she said in an interview, the company's own tests show that all the components are in place for the huge piles of rock to leak acids that will pollute surface and groundwater.
The only preventive, she said, would be 'perpetual treatment.'
Mr. Hinze, who was recently appointed head of Newmont's North American operations, insists that the company's plan for closing the mine will take care of long-term treatment and cleanup.
"We plan on being here a very long time," he said.
Newmont has yet to put aside money for long-term treatment, though it says it will comply with a Peruvian government requirement due to take effect in 2007. But to pay for cleanups, the company needs to keep profits high. To keep profits high, it needs to keep finding and mining more gold. Yet increasingly, the unmovable reality is that to keep mining more gold, it has to make peace with the people who will be here long after the miners leave.
Read the entire article
The Cost of Gold | Treasure of Yanacocha
Tangled Strands in Fight Over Peru Gold Mine
By JANE PERLEZ and LOWELL BERGMAN, The New York Times, October 25, 2005
SAN CERILLO, Peru - The Rev. Marco Arana drove his beige pickup over the curves of a dirt road 13,000 feet high in the Andes. Spread out below lay the Yanacocha gold mine, an American-run operation of mammoth open pits and towering heaps of cyanide-laced ore. Ahead loomed the pristine green of untouched hills.
Then, an unmistakable sign that this land, too, may soon be devoured: Policemen with black masks and automatic rifles guarding workers exploring ground that the mine's owner, Newmont Mining Corporation, has deemed the next best hope.
"This is the Roman peace the company has with the people: They put in an army and say we have peace," said Father Arana as he surveyed the land where gold lies beneath the surface like tiny beads on a string.
Yanacocha is Newmont's prize possession, the most productive gold mine in the world. But if history holds one lesson, it is that where there is gold, there is conflict, and the more gold, the more conflict.
Newmont, which has pulled more than 19 million ounces of gold from these gently sloping Peruvian hills - over $7 billion worth - believes that they hold several million ounces more. But where Newmont sees a new reserve of wealth - to keep Yanacocha profitable and to stay ahead of its competitors - the local farmers and cattle grazers see sacred mountains, cradles of the water that sustains their highland lives.
The biggest issue is the one looming over every modern industrial gold mine: What happens when the ore that lured the miners here is gone?
Over 13 years, Newmont has moved mountains for gold - 30 tons of rock and earth for every ounce. By the time it is through, the company will have dug up a billion tons of earth. Much of it will be laced with acids and heavy metals.
Three years ago, after Newmont acknowledged that 36,700 fish were missing from a river contaminated by the mine, the World Bank hired an American geochemist, Ann Maest, to study the streams and canals flowing from the mine.
In the short term, she concluded, the water was safe for human use. But long term, she said in an interview, the company's own tests show that all the components are in place for the huge piles of rock to leak acids that will pollute surface and groundwater.
The only preventive, she said, would be 'perpetual treatment.'
Mr. Hinze, who was recently appointed head of Newmont's North American operations, insists that the company's plan for closing the mine will take care of long-term treatment and cleanup.
"We plan on being here a very long time," he said.
Newmont has yet to put aside money for long-term treatment, though it says it will comply with a Peruvian government requirement due to take effect in 2007. But to pay for cleanups, the company needs to keep profits high. To keep profits high, it needs to keep finding and mining more gold. Yet increasingly, the unmovable reality is that to keep mining more gold, it has to make peace with the people who will be here long after the miners leave.
Read the entire article
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Pharmaceuticals In Our Water Supplies
Pharmaceuticals In Our Water Supplies
Pharmaceuticals In Our Water Supplies
Are “Drugged Waters” a Water Quality Threat?
By Arizona Water Resource, July-August 2000, Volume 9, Number 1
Developed to promote human health and well being, certain pharmaceuticals are now attracting attention as a potentially new class of water pollutants. Such drugs as antibiotics, anti-depressants, birth control pills, seizure medication, cancer treatments, pain killers, tranquilizers and cholesterol-lowering compounds have been detected in varied water sources.
Where do they come from? Pharmaceutical industries, hospitals and other medical facilities are obvious sources, but households also contribute a significant share. People often dispose of unused medicines by flushing them down toilets, and human excreta can contain varied incompletely metabolized medicines. These drugs can pass intact through conventional sewage treatment facilities, into waterways, lakes and even aquifers. Further, discarded pharmaceuticals often end up at dumps and land fills, posing a threat to underlying groundwater.
Farm animals also are a source of pharmaceuticals entering the environment, through their ingestion of hormones, antibiotics and veterinary medicines. (About 40 percent of U.S.-produced antibiotics are fed to livestock as growth enhancers.) Manure containing traces of such pharmaceuticals is spread on land and can then wash off into surface water and even percolate into groundwater.
Along with pharmaceuticals, personal care products also are showing up in water. Generally these chemicals are the active ingredients or preservatives in cosmetics, toiletries or fragrances. For example, nitro musks, used as a fragrance in many cosmetics, detergents, toiletries and other personal care products, have attracted concern because of their persistence and possible adverse environmental impacts. Some countries have taken action to ban nitro musks. Also, sun screen agents have been detected in lakes and fish.
Researchers Christian G. Daughton and Thomas A. Ternes reported in the December issue of “Environmental Health Perspectives” that the amount of pharmaceuticals and personal care products entering the environment annually is about equal to the amount of pesticides used each year.
Concern about the water quality impacts of these chemicals first gained prominence in Europe, where for over a decade scientists have been checking lakes, streams, and groundwater for pharmaceutical contamination. American officials and scientists are taking note, with two recent U.S. professional organizations — the National Ground Water Associations and the American Chemical Society — addressing the issue at their annual meetings this summer.
What risk does chronic exposure to trace concentrations of pharmaceuticals pose to humans or wildlife? Some scientists believe pharmaceuticals do not pose problems to humans since they occur at low concentrations in water. Other scientists say long-term and synergistic effects of pharmaceuticals and similar chemicals on humans are not known and advise caution. They are concerned that many of these drugs have the potential of interfering with hormone production. Chemicals with this effect are called endocrine disrupters and are attracting the attention of water quality experts.
To some scientists the release of antibiotics into waterways is particularly worrisome. They fear the release may result in disease-causing bacteria to become immune to treatment and that drug-resistant diseases will develop.
Scientists generally agree that aquatic life is most at risk, its life cycle, from birth to death, occurring within potentially drug-contaminated waters. For example, anti-depressants have been blamed for altering sperm levels and spawning patterns in marine life. Most studies of pharmaceutical and pharmaceutically active chemicals in water have mostly focused on aquatic animals.
Read the entire article
Pharmaceuticals In Our Water Supplies
Are “Drugged Waters” a Water Quality Threat?
By Arizona Water Resource, July-August 2000, Volume 9, Number 1
Developed to promote human health and well being, certain pharmaceuticals are now attracting attention as a potentially new class of water pollutants. Such drugs as antibiotics, anti-depressants, birth control pills, seizure medication, cancer treatments, pain killers, tranquilizers and cholesterol-lowering compounds have been detected in varied water sources.
Where do they come from? Pharmaceutical industries, hospitals and other medical facilities are obvious sources, but households also contribute a significant share. People often dispose of unused medicines by flushing them down toilets, and human excreta can contain varied incompletely metabolized medicines. These drugs can pass intact through conventional sewage treatment facilities, into waterways, lakes and even aquifers. Further, discarded pharmaceuticals often end up at dumps and land fills, posing a threat to underlying groundwater.
Farm animals also are a source of pharmaceuticals entering the environment, through their ingestion of hormones, antibiotics and veterinary medicines. (About 40 percent of U.S.-produced antibiotics are fed to livestock as growth enhancers.) Manure containing traces of such pharmaceuticals is spread on land and can then wash off into surface water and even percolate into groundwater.
Along with pharmaceuticals, personal care products also are showing up in water. Generally these chemicals are the active ingredients or preservatives in cosmetics, toiletries or fragrances. For example, nitro musks, used as a fragrance in many cosmetics, detergents, toiletries and other personal care products, have attracted concern because of their persistence and possible adverse environmental impacts. Some countries have taken action to ban nitro musks. Also, sun screen agents have been detected in lakes and fish.
Researchers Christian G. Daughton and Thomas A. Ternes reported in the December issue of “Environmental Health Perspectives” that the amount of pharmaceuticals and personal care products entering the environment annually is about equal to the amount of pesticides used each year.
Concern about the water quality impacts of these chemicals first gained prominence in Europe, where for over a decade scientists have been checking lakes, streams, and groundwater for pharmaceutical contamination. American officials and scientists are taking note, with two recent U.S. professional organizations — the National Ground Water Associations and the American Chemical Society — addressing the issue at their annual meetings this summer.
What risk does chronic exposure to trace concentrations of pharmaceuticals pose to humans or wildlife? Some scientists believe pharmaceuticals do not pose problems to humans since they occur at low concentrations in water. Other scientists say long-term and synergistic effects of pharmaceuticals and similar chemicals on humans are not known and advise caution. They are concerned that many of these drugs have the potential of interfering with hormone production. Chemicals with this effect are called endocrine disrupters and are attracting the attention of water quality experts.
To some scientists the release of antibiotics into waterways is particularly worrisome. They fear the release may result in disease-causing bacteria to become immune to treatment and that drug-resistant diseases will develop.
Scientists generally agree that aquatic life is most at risk, its life cycle, from birth to death, occurring within potentially drug-contaminated waters. For example, anti-depressants have been blamed for altering sperm levels and spawning patterns in marine life. Most studies of pharmaceutical and pharmaceutically active chemicals in water have mostly focused on aquatic animals.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
90 tons of earth and rock must be excavated to extract enough gold to make a 3-ounce ring
Tangled Strands in Fight Over Peru Gold Mine
The Cost of Gold | Treasure of Yanacocha
Tangled Strands in Fight Over Peru Gold Mine
By JANE PERLEZ and LOWELL BERGMAN, The New York Times, October 25, 2005
SAN CERILLO, Peru - The Rev. Marco Arana drove his beige pickup over the curves of a dirt road 13,000 feet high in the Andes. Spread out below lay the Yanacocha gold mine, an American-run operation of mammoth open pits and towering heaps of cyanide-laced ore. Ahead loomed the pristine green of untouched hills.
Then, an unmistakable sign that this land, too, may soon be devoured: Policemen with black masks and automatic rifles guarding workers exploring ground that the mine's owner, Newmont Mining Corporation, has deemed the next best hope.
"This is the Roman peace the company has with the people: They put in an army and say we have peace," said Father Arana as he surveyed the land where gold lies beneath the surface like tiny beads on a string.
Yanacocha is Newmont's prize possession, the most productive gold mine in the world. But if history holds one lesson, it is that where there is gold, there is conflict, and the more gold, the more conflict.
Newmont, which has pulled more than 19 million ounces of gold from these gently sloping Peruvian hills - over $7 billion worth - believes that they hold several million ounces more. But where Newmont sees a new reserve of wealth - to keep Yanacocha profitable and to stay ahead of its competitors - the local farmers and cattle grazers see sacred mountains, cradles of the water that sustains their highland lives.
The biggest issue is the one looming over every modern industrial gold mine: What happens when the ore that lured the miners here is gone?
Over 13 years, Newmont has moved mountains for gold - 30 tons of rock and earth for every ounce. By the time it is through, the company will have dug up a billion tons of earth. Much of it will be laced with acids and heavy metals.
Three years ago, after Newmont acknowledged that 36,700 fish were missing from a river contaminated by the mine, the World Bank hired an American geochemist, Ann Maest, to study the streams and canals flowing from the mine.
In the short term, she concluded, the water was safe for human use. But long term, she said in an interview, the company's own tests show that all the components are in place for the huge piles of rock to leak acids that will pollute surface and groundwater.
The only preventive, she said, would be 'perpetual treatment.'
Mr. Hinze, who was recently appointed head of Newmont's North American operations, insists that the company's plan for closing the mine will take care of long-term treatment and cleanup.
"We plan on being here a very long time," he said.
Newmont has yet to put aside money for long-term treatment, though it says it will comply with a Peruvian government requirement due to take effect in 2007. But to pay for cleanups, the company needs to keep profits high. To keep profits high, it needs to keep finding and mining more gold. Yet increasingly, the unmovable reality is that to keep mining more gold, it has to make peace with the people who will be here long after the miners leave.
Read the entire article
The Cost of Gold | Treasure of Yanacocha
Tangled Strands in Fight Over Peru Gold Mine
By JANE PERLEZ and LOWELL BERGMAN, The New York Times, October 25, 2005
SAN CERILLO, Peru - The Rev. Marco Arana drove his beige pickup over the curves of a dirt road 13,000 feet high in the Andes. Spread out below lay the Yanacocha gold mine, an American-run operation of mammoth open pits and towering heaps of cyanide-laced ore. Ahead loomed the pristine green of untouched hills.
Then, an unmistakable sign that this land, too, may soon be devoured: Policemen with black masks and automatic rifles guarding workers exploring ground that the mine's owner, Newmont Mining Corporation, has deemed the next best hope.
"This is the Roman peace the company has with the people: They put in an army and say we have peace," said Father Arana as he surveyed the land where gold lies beneath the surface like tiny beads on a string.
Yanacocha is Newmont's prize possession, the most productive gold mine in the world. But if history holds one lesson, it is that where there is gold, there is conflict, and the more gold, the more conflict.
Newmont, which has pulled more than 19 million ounces of gold from these gently sloping Peruvian hills - over $7 billion worth - believes that they hold several million ounces more. But where Newmont sees a new reserve of wealth - to keep Yanacocha profitable and to stay ahead of its competitors - the local farmers and cattle grazers see sacred mountains, cradles of the water that sustains their highland lives.
The biggest issue is the one looming over every modern industrial gold mine: What happens when the ore that lured the miners here is gone?
Over 13 years, Newmont has moved mountains for gold - 30 tons of rock and earth for every ounce. By the time it is through, the company will have dug up a billion tons of earth. Much of it will be laced with acids and heavy metals.
Three years ago, after Newmont acknowledged that 36,700 fish were missing from a river contaminated by the mine, the World Bank hired an American geochemist, Ann Maest, to study the streams and canals flowing from the mine.
In the short term, she concluded, the water was safe for human use. But long term, she said in an interview, the company's own tests show that all the components are in place for the huge piles of rock to leak acids that will pollute surface and groundwater.
The only preventive, she said, would be 'perpetual treatment.'
Mr. Hinze, who was recently appointed head of Newmont's North American operations, insists that the company's plan for closing the mine will take care of long-term treatment and cleanup.
"We plan on being here a very long time," he said.
Newmont has yet to put aside money for long-term treatment, though it says it will comply with a Peruvian government requirement due to take effect in 2007. But to pay for cleanups, the company needs to keep profits high. To keep profits high, it needs to keep finding and mining more gold. Yet increasingly, the unmovable reality is that to keep mining more gold, it has to make peace with the people who will be here long after the miners leave.
Read the entire article
Friday, October 07, 2005
Pollution: A life and death issue
Pollution: A life and death issue
Pollution: A life and death issue
By Alex Kirby, BBC News website environment correspondent, Monday, 13 December, 2004
As part of Planet Under Pressure , a BBC News website series looking at some of the biggest environmental issues facing humanity, Alex Kirby considers the Earth's growing pollution problem.
One of the main themes of Planet Under Pressure is the way many of the Earth's environmental crises reinforce one another.
Pollution is an obvious example - we do not have the option of growing food, or finding enough water, on a squeaky-clean planet, but on one increasingly tarnished and trashed by the way we have used it so far.
Cutting waste and clearing up pollution costs money. Yet time and again it is the quest for wealth that generates much of the mess in the first place.
Living in a way that is less damaging to the Earth is not easy, but it is vital, because pollution is pervasive and often life-threatening.
Air: The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel. Most are in poor countries.
Water: Diseases carried in water are responsible for 80% of illnesses and deaths in developing countries, killing a child every eight seconds. Each year 2.1 million people die from diarrhoeal diseases associated with poor water.
Soil: Contaminated land is a problem in industrialised countries, where former factories and power stations can leave waste like heavy metals in the soil. It can also occur in developing countries, sometimes used for dumping pesticides. Agriculture can pollute land with pesticides, nitrate-rich fertilisers and slurry from livestock. And when the contamination reaches rivers it damages life there, and can even create dead zones off the coast, as in the Gulf of Mexico.
Chronic problem
Chemicals are a frequent pollutant. When we think of chemical contamination it is often images of events like Bhopal that come to mind.
But the problem is widespread. One study says 7-20% of cancers are attributable to poor air and pollution in homes and workplaces.
The WHO, concerned about chemicals that persist and build up in the body, especially in the young, says we may "be conducting a large-scale experiment with children's health".
Some man-made chemicals, endocrine disruptors like phthalates and nonylphenol - a breakdown product of spermicides, cosmetics and detergents - are blamed for causing changes in the genitals of some animals.
Affected species include polar bears - so not even the Arctic is immune. And the chemicals climb the food chain, from fish to mammals - and to us.
About 70,000 chemicals are on the market, with around 1,500 new ones appearing annually. At least 30,000 are thought never to have been comprehensively tested for their possible risks to people.
Trade-off
But the snag is that modern society demands many of them, and some are essential for survival.
So while we invoke the precautionary principle, which always recommends erring on the side of caution, we have to recognise there will be trade-offs to be made.
The pesticide DDT does great damage to wildlife and can affect the human nervous system, but can also be effective against malaria. Where does the priority lie?
The industrialised world has not yet cleaned up the mess it created, but it is reaping the benefits of the pollution it has caused. It can hardly tell the developing countries that they have no right to follow suit.
Another complication in tackling pollution is that it does not respect political frontiers. There is a UN convention on transboundary air pollution, but that cannot cover every problem that can arise between neighbours, or between states which do not share a border.
Perhaps the best example is climate change - the countries of the world share one atmosphere, and what one does can affect everyone.
For one and all
One of the principles that is supposed to apply here is simple - the polluter pays.
Sometimes it is obvious who is to blame and who must pay the price. But it is not always straightforward to work out just who is the polluter, or whether the rest of us would be happy to pay the price of stopping the pollution.
One way of cleaning up after ourselves would be to throw less away, designing products to be recycled or even just to last longer.
Previous generations worked on the assumption that discarding our waste was a proper way to be rid of it, so we used to dump nuclear materials and other potential hazards at sea, confident they would be dispersed in the depths.
We now think that is too risky because, as one author wrote, "there's no such place as 'away' - and there's no such person as the 'other'".
Ask not for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee, and for me.
Read the entire article
Pollution: A life and death issue
By Alex Kirby, BBC News website environment correspondent, Monday, 13 December, 2004
As part of Planet Under Pressure , a BBC News website series looking at some of the biggest environmental issues facing humanity, Alex Kirby considers the Earth's growing pollution problem.
One of the main themes of Planet Under Pressure is the way many of the Earth's environmental crises reinforce one another.
Pollution is an obvious example - we do not have the option of growing food, or finding enough water, on a squeaky-clean planet, but on one increasingly tarnished and trashed by the way we have used it so far.
Cutting waste and clearing up pollution costs money. Yet time and again it is the quest for wealth that generates much of the mess in the first place.
Living in a way that is less damaging to the Earth is not easy, but it is vital, because pollution is pervasive and often life-threatening.
Air: The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel. Most are in poor countries.
Water: Diseases carried in water are responsible for 80% of illnesses and deaths in developing countries, killing a child every eight seconds. Each year 2.1 million people die from diarrhoeal diseases associated with poor water.
Soil: Contaminated land is a problem in industrialised countries, where former factories and power stations can leave waste like heavy metals in the soil. It can also occur in developing countries, sometimes used for dumping pesticides. Agriculture can pollute land with pesticides, nitrate-rich fertilisers and slurry from livestock. And when the contamination reaches rivers it damages life there, and can even create dead zones off the coast, as in the Gulf of Mexico.
Chronic problem
Chemicals are a frequent pollutant. When we think of chemical contamination it is often images of events like Bhopal that come to mind.
But the problem is widespread. One study says 7-20% of cancers are attributable to poor air and pollution in homes and workplaces.
The WHO, concerned about chemicals that persist and build up in the body, especially in the young, says we may "be conducting a large-scale experiment with children's health".
Some man-made chemicals, endocrine disruptors like phthalates and nonylphenol - a breakdown product of spermicides, cosmetics and detergents - are blamed for causing changes in the genitals of some animals.
Affected species include polar bears - so not even the Arctic is immune. And the chemicals climb the food chain, from fish to mammals - and to us.
About 70,000 chemicals are on the market, with around 1,500 new ones appearing annually. At least 30,000 are thought never to have been comprehensively tested for their possible risks to people.
Trade-off
But the snag is that modern society demands many of them, and some are essential for survival.
So while we invoke the precautionary principle, which always recommends erring on the side of caution, we have to recognise there will be trade-offs to be made.
The pesticide DDT does great damage to wildlife and can affect the human nervous system, but can also be effective against malaria. Where does the priority lie?
The industrialised world has not yet cleaned up the mess it created, but it is reaping the benefits of the pollution it has caused. It can hardly tell the developing countries that they have no right to follow suit.
Another complication in tackling pollution is that it does not respect political frontiers. There is a UN convention on transboundary air pollution, but that cannot cover every problem that can arise between neighbours, or between states which do not share a border.
Perhaps the best example is climate change - the countries of the world share one atmosphere, and what one does can affect everyone.
For one and all
One of the principles that is supposed to apply here is simple - the polluter pays.
Sometimes it is obvious who is to blame and who must pay the price. But it is not always straightforward to work out just who is the polluter, or whether the rest of us would be happy to pay the price of stopping the pollution.
One way of cleaning up after ourselves would be to throw less away, designing products to be recycled or even just to last longer.
Previous generations worked on the assumption that discarding our waste was a proper way to be rid of it, so we used to dump nuclear materials and other potential hazards at sea, confident they would be dispersed in the depths.
We now think that is too risky because, as one author wrote, "there's no such place as 'away' - and there's no such person as the 'other'".
Ask not for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee, and for me.
Read the entire article
Climate change: Uncharted waters?
Climate change: Uncharted waters?
Climate change: Uncharted waters?
By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent, Friday, 3 December, 2004
As part of Planet Under Pressure , a BBC News series looking at some of the biggest environmental problems facing humanity, Alex Kirby explores the implications of climate change.
Climate change is our biggest environmental challenge, says the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair. His chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, calls it a far greater global threat than international terrorism.
There is wide though not unanimous agreement from scientists that they are right.
It is certainly possible that warming temperatures could take the Earth into uncharted waters, even though nobody can say exactly how fast it may happen and who will be most affected.
Life on Earth exists only because of the natural greenhouse effect, the ability of the atmosphere to retain enough heat for species to thrive (and no more).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consortium of several thousand independent scientists, says rising levels of industrial pollution are unnaturally enhancing this effect, with increasing amounts of heat trapped near the Earth instead of escaping into space.
The main culprits, it says, are the burning of fossil fuels - oil, coal and gas - and changes in land use.
The chief greenhouse gas from human activities is carbon dioxide (CO2).
Before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were about 270-280 parts per million (ppm).
They now stand at almost 380ppm, and have been rising at about 1.5ppm annually.
Rising temperatures
The consequence of increasing CO2 and other pollutant levels, the IPCC says, will be higher average global temperatures, meaning unpredictable weather, rising sea levels, and perhaps runaway heating as the whole climate system slips out of gear.
The IPCC predicts that if we go on as we are, by 2100 global sea levels will probably have risen by 9 to 88cm and average temperatures will be between 1.5 and 5.5C higher than now.
That may not sound very much - but the last Ice Age was only 4-5C colder than today.
The sceptics are unmoved. Some say the human influence on the climate is negligible, and that isolating one small variable, CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels, in an immensely complex natural system is meaningless.
Others insist the IPCC's measurements are flawed and its predictions unreliable. Yet others believe a warmer world would be better for most of us.
They are entirely right to argue that there are still many uncertainties about the climate and any influence we may have on it.
Sobering facts
But many who were once sceptics now accept that enhanced climate change is happening, and that we have to respond - not necessarily by trying to reduce its extent but by adapting to its effects.
Part of the problem is that climate change is now part of the stuff of science fiction, with Hollywood and some campaign groups alike feeding scare stories that owe little, if anything, to scientific fact.
But the facts are sobering enough. We know that average global surface temperatures have risen by 0.6C in the last 140 years.
All of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 1990, including each year since 1997.
The possibilities are sobering too.
Many water-scarce regions now will probably become thirstier.
Some countries may be able to produce bigger harvests, but in others yields will drop. Sea level rise may make many coastal areas uninhabitable.
Weather patterns may change, producing more heat waves, droughts, floods and violent storms.
Aid agencies are warning that these combined effects could seriously jeopardise attempts to lift the world's poorest people out of poverty.
Furthermore, there is also the possibility of "positive feedbacks"- for example, higher temperatures may release more methane from the Arctic tundra and CO2 from peat bogs, which will themselves speed up the warming process.
Then there is the inertia of the atmosphere and the oceans.
Delayed effect
If somehow we could halt all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the heating would continue for decades or centuries.
What we do today may literally determine how long the Greenland icecap survives - even though, at fastest, it will still take a good few centuries to disappear.
And wildlife, less equipped to adapt than humans, could be hit hard. One estimate suggests hundreds of thousands of species may be at risk of extinction by 2050 because of climate change.
Creating worldwide consensus on this global problem is difficult, not least because of the economic cost of cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol, which commits rich countries to reducing emissions, is a small but necessary start on building an international system for tackling climate change, its proponents believe.
But the country responsible for about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, the US, has refused to sign up to it.
The protocol does not require developing countries to cut their emissions, although fast-industrialising countries like China will soon be significant contributors as those in poor nations increasingly demand rich world lifestyles.
For them, emissions cuts could have significant social costs in slowing the growth that feeds economic development, creates jobs and helps lift the poor out of poverty.
A prudent look at the evidence, preliminary though it is, suggests we shall be wise to err on the side of caution.
Dr Geoff Jenkins, of the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said recently: "Over the last few decades there's been much more evidence for the human influence on climate.
"We've reached the point where it's only by including human activity that we can explain what's happening."
And what's happening now could lead to a world beyond our experience.
Read the entire article
Climate change: Uncharted waters?
By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent, Friday, 3 December, 2004
As part of Planet Under Pressure , a BBC News series looking at some of the biggest environmental problems facing humanity, Alex Kirby explores the implications of climate change.
Climate change is our biggest environmental challenge, says the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair. His chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, calls it a far greater global threat than international terrorism.
There is wide though not unanimous agreement from scientists that they are right.
It is certainly possible that warming temperatures could take the Earth into uncharted waters, even though nobody can say exactly how fast it may happen and who will be most affected.
Life on Earth exists only because of the natural greenhouse effect, the ability of the atmosphere to retain enough heat for species to thrive (and no more).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consortium of several thousand independent scientists, says rising levels of industrial pollution are unnaturally enhancing this effect, with increasing amounts of heat trapped near the Earth instead of escaping into space.
The main culprits, it says, are the burning of fossil fuels - oil, coal and gas - and changes in land use.
The chief greenhouse gas from human activities is carbon dioxide (CO2).
Before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were about 270-280 parts per million (ppm).
They now stand at almost 380ppm, and have been rising at about 1.5ppm annually.
Rising temperatures
The consequence of increasing CO2 and other pollutant levels, the IPCC says, will be higher average global temperatures, meaning unpredictable weather, rising sea levels, and perhaps runaway heating as the whole climate system slips out of gear.
The IPCC predicts that if we go on as we are, by 2100 global sea levels will probably have risen by 9 to 88cm and average temperatures will be between 1.5 and 5.5C higher than now.
That may not sound very much - but the last Ice Age was only 4-5C colder than today.
The sceptics are unmoved. Some say the human influence on the climate is negligible, and that isolating one small variable, CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels, in an immensely complex natural system is meaningless.
Others insist the IPCC's measurements are flawed and its predictions unreliable. Yet others believe a warmer world would be better for most of us.
They are entirely right to argue that there are still many uncertainties about the climate and any influence we may have on it.
Sobering facts
But many who were once sceptics now accept that enhanced climate change is happening, and that we have to respond - not necessarily by trying to reduce its extent but by adapting to its effects.
Part of the problem is that climate change is now part of the stuff of science fiction, with Hollywood and some campaign groups alike feeding scare stories that owe little, if anything, to scientific fact.
But the facts are sobering enough. We know that average global surface temperatures have risen by 0.6C in the last 140 years.
All of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 1990, including each year since 1997.
The possibilities are sobering too.
Many water-scarce regions now will probably become thirstier.
Some countries may be able to produce bigger harvests, but in others yields will drop. Sea level rise may make many coastal areas uninhabitable.
Weather patterns may change, producing more heat waves, droughts, floods and violent storms.
Aid agencies are warning that these combined effects could seriously jeopardise attempts to lift the world's poorest people out of poverty.
Furthermore, there is also the possibility of "positive feedbacks"- for example, higher temperatures may release more methane from the Arctic tundra and CO2 from peat bogs, which will themselves speed up the warming process.
Then there is the inertia of the atmosphere and the oceans.
Delayed effect
If somehow we could halt all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the heating would continue for decades or centuries.
What we do today may literally determine how long the Greenland icecap survives - even though, at fastest, it will still take a good few centuries to disappear.
And wildlife, less equipped to adapt than humans, could be hit hard. One estimate suggests hundreds of thousands of species may be at risk of extinction by 2050 because of climate change.
Creating worldwide consensus on this global problem is difficult, not least because of the economic cost of cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol, which commits rich countries to reducing emissions, is a small but necessary start on building an international system for tackling climate change, its proponents believe.
But the country responsible for about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, the US, has refused to sign up to it.
The protocol does not require developing countries to cut their emissions, although fast-industrialising countries like China will soon be significant contributors as those in poor nations increasingly demand rich world lifestyles.
For them, emissions cuts could have significant social costs in slowing the growth that feeds economic development, creates jobs and helps lift the poor out of poverty.
A prudent look at the evidence, preliminary though it is, suggests we shall be wise to err on the side of caution.
Dr Geoff Jenkins, of the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said recently: "Over the last few decades there's been much more evidence for the human influence on climate.
"We've reached the point where it's only by including human activity that we can explain what's happening."
And what's happening now could lead to a world beyond our experience.
Read the entire article
Can the planet feed us?
Can the planet feed us?
Can the planet feed us? The challenge of feeding the world without destroying the planet.
By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent, Wednesday, 24 November, 2004
More of us are eating more and better than ever before.
World cereal consumption has more than doubled since 1970, and meat consumption has tripled since 1961.
The global fish catch grew more than six times from 1950 to 1997.
None of this happened by magic, though, but only by giving Nature a massive helping hand.
The World Resources Institute said in 1999 that half of all the commercial fertiliser ever produced had been applied since 1984.
So one question is whether the world can go on increasing its harvests at this rate - or even faster, to cater as well for the extra 75 million people born annually.
Crop increases
Our recent achievements are impressive - while global population doubled to 6 billion people in the 40 years from 1960, global food production more than kept up.
The proportion of malnourished people fell in the three decades to the mid-1990s from 37% to 18%. But we may not be able to go on at this rate.
For a start, much of the world's best cropland is already in use, and farmers are having to turn to increasingly marginal land. And the good land is often taking a battering - soil degradation has already reduced global agricultural productivity by 13% in the last half-century.
Many of the pesticides on which the crop increases have depended are losing their effectiveness, as the pests acquire more resistance.
A key constraint is water. The 17% of cropland that is irrigated produces an estimated 30-40% of all crops, but in many countries there will be progressively less water available for agriculture.
Many of these are poor countries, where irrigation can boost crop yields by up to 400%. There are ways to improve irrigation and to use water more effectively, but it's not clear these can bridge the gap.
Biotechnology, in principle, may offer the world a second Green Revolution, for example by producing drought-resistant plants or varieties that withstand pest attacks.
But it arouses deep unease, not least because of fears it may erode the genetic resources in thousands of traditional varieties grown in small communities across the world.
Nobody knows what the probable impacts of climate change will be on food supplies.
Modest temperature increases may actually benefit rich temperate countries, but make harvests even more precarious across much of the tropics.
Too little space
Another question concerns the huge cost to other forms of life of all the progress we've made in securing our own food supply.
The amount of nitrogen available for uptake by plants is much higher than the natural level, and has more than doubled since the 1940s.
The excess comes from fertilisers running off farmland, from livestock manure, and from other human activities. It is changing the composition of species in ecosystems, reducing soil fertility, depleting the ozone layer, intensifying climate change, and creating dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and other near-coastal seas.
The sheer amount of the Earth we need to produce our food is having an enormous impact.
Globally, we have taken over about 26% of the planet's land area (roughly 3.3 billion hectares) for cropland and pasture, replacing a third of temperate and tropical forests and a quarter of natural grasslands.
Another 0.5 billion ha has gone for urban and built-up areas. Habitat loss from the conversion of natural ecosystems is the main reason why other species are being pushed closer to the brink of extinction.
Food security comes at a high price. In any case, it is a security many can only envy.
Increasing hunger
At the moment we are not on course to achieve the Millennium Development Goal of halving world hunger by 2015.
Although the proportion of hungry people is coming down, population increase means the actual number continues to rise.
In the 1990s global poverty fell by 20%, but the number of hungry people rose by 18 million. In 2003, 842 million people did not have enough to eat, a third of them in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Hunger and malnutrition killed 10 million people a year, 25,000 a day - one life extinguished every five seconds.
The world does produce enough to feed everyone. But the food is often in the wrong place, or unaffordable, or can't be stored long enough. So making sure everyone has enough to eat is more about politics than science.
But whether we can go on eating the sort of diet we've grown used to in developed countries is far from clear.
Much of it travels a long way to reach us, with the transport costs adding hugely to the "embodied energy" it contains. There's a lot to be said for eating local, seasonal food where we can.
And meat usually demands far more than grain - water, land, grain itself (34% of world grain supplies are fed to livestock reared for meat). Yet, worldwide, the richer we grow the more we turn to meat.
Something's got to give - and not only our waistbands.
Read the entire article
Can the planet feed us? The challenge of feeding the world without destroying the planet.
By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent, Wednesday, 24 November, 2004
More of us are eating more and better than ever before.
World cereal consumption has more than doubled since 1970, and meat consumption has tripled since 1961.
The global fish catch grew more than six times from 1950 to 1997.
None of this happened by magic, though, but only by giving Nature a massive helping hand.
The World Resources Institute said in 1999 that half of all the commercial fertiliser ever produced had been applied since 1984.
So one question is whether the world can go on increasing its harvests at this rate - or even faster, to cater as well for the extra 75 million people born annually.
Crop increases
Our recent achievements are impressive - while global population doubled to 6 billion people in the 40 years from 1960, global food production more than kept up.
The proportion of malnourished people fell in the three decades to the mid-1990s from 37% to 18%. But we may not be able to go on at this rate.
For a start, much of the world's best cropland is already in use, and farmers are having to turn to increasingly marginal land. And the good land is often taking a battering - soil degradation has already reduced global agricultural productivity by 13% in the last half-century.
Many of the pesticides on which the crop increases have depended are losing their effectiveness, as the pests acquire more resistance.
A key constraint is water. The 17% of cropland that is irrigated produces an estimated 30-40% of all crops, but in many countries there will be progressively less water available for agriculture.
Many of these are poor countries, where irrigation can boost crop yields by up to 400%. There are ways to improve irrigation and to use water more effectively, but it's not clear these can bridge the gap.
Biotechnology, in principle, may offer the world a second Green Revolution, for example by producing drought-resistant plants or varieties that withstand pest attacks.
But it arouses deep unease, not least because of fears it may erode the genetic resources in thousands of traditional varieties grown in small communities across the world.
Nobody knows what the probable impacts of climate change will be on food supplies.
Modest temperature increases may actually benefit rich temperate countries, but make harvests even more precarious across much of the tropics.
Too little space
Another question concerns the huge cost to other forms of life of all the progress we've made in securing our own food supply.
The amount of nitrogen available for uptake by plants is much higher than the natural level, and has more than doubled since the 1940s.
The excess comes from fertilisers running off farmland, from livestock manure, and from other human activities. It is changing the composition of species in ecosystems, reducing soil fertility, depleting the ozone layer, intensifying climate change, and creating dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and other near-coastal seas.
The sheer amount of the Earth we need to produce our food is having an enormous impact.
Globally, we have taken over about 26% of the planet's land area (roughly 3.3 billion hectares) for cropland and pasture, replacing a third of temperate and tropical forests and a quarter of natural grasslands.
Another 0.5 billion ha has gone for urban and built-up areas. Habitat loss from the conversion of natural ecosystems is the main reason why other species are being pushed closer to the brink of extinction.
Food security comes at a high price. In any case, it is a security many can only envy.
Increasing hunger
At the moment we are not on course to achieve the Millennium Development Goal of halving world hunger by 2015.
Although the proportion of hungry people is coming down, population increase means the actual number continues to rise.
In the 1990s global poverty fell by 20%, but the number of hungry people rose by 18 million. In 2003, 842 million people did not have enough to eat, a third of them in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation.
Hunger and malnutrition killed 10 million people a year, 25,000 a day - one life extinguished every five seconds.
The world does produce enough to feed everyone. But the food is often in the wrong place, or unaffordable, or can't be stored long enough. So making sure everyone has enough to eat is more about politics than science.
But whether we can go on eating the sort of diet we've grown used to in developed countries is far from clear.
Much of it travels a long way to reach us, with the transport costs adding hugely to the "embodied energy" it contains. There's a lot to be said for eating local, seasonal food where we can.
And meat usually demands far more than grain - water, land, grain itself (34% of world grain supplies are fed to livestock reared for meat). Yet, worldwide, the richer we grow the more we turn to meat.
Something's got to give - and not only our waistbands.
Read the entire article
Energy: Meeting soaring demand
Energy: Meeting soaring demand
Energy: Meeting soaring demand
By Alex Kirby, BBC News website environment correspondent, Tuesday, 9 November, 2004
The first problem with energy is that we are running short of traditional sources of supply.
The International Energy Agency says the world will need almost 60% more energy in 2030 than in 2002, and fossil fuels will still meet most of its needs.
We depend on oil for 90% of our transport, and for food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and the entire bedrock of modern life.
But oil industry experts estimate that current reserves will only last for about 40 years.
Views vary about how much more will be found or made economically viable to use.
Pessimists predict production will start declining within 15 years, while optimists say we won't have to worry for a century - though rising prices are likely to push us towards alternative energy sources anyway.
Gas, often a suitable replacement for oil, won't last indefinitely either.
There's plenty of coal, but it's still usually hard to use without causing high pollution.
Worrying signs
Not everyone depends on the fossil trio, though. Nearly a third of today's world population (6.1bn people) have no electricity or other modern energy supplies, and another third have only limited access.
About 2.5 billion people have only wood or other biomass for energy - often bad for the environment, almost always bad for their health.
That's the second problem - understandably, they want the better life that cheap and accessible energy offers.
But if everyone in developing countries used the same amount of energy as the average consumer in high income countries does, the developing world's energy use would increase more than eightfold between 2000 and 2050.
The signs are already there. In the first half of 2003 China's car sales rose by 82% compared with the same period in 2002.
Its demand for oil is expected to double in 20 years.
In India sales of fuel-guzzling sports utility vehicles account for 10% of all vehicle purchases, and could soon overtake car sales. And the developed world is not standing still.
In the last decade, US oil use has increased by almost 2.7 million barrels a day - more oil than India and Pakistan use daily altogether.
Crossing continents
Where our energy comes from is a third problem - energy sources are often long distances from the point of consumption.
Centralised energy generation and distribution systems are fairly new.
A couple of centuries ago virtually everyone would have depended on the fuel they could find within a short distance of home.
Now, the energy for our fuel, heat and light travel vast distances to reach us, sometimes crossing not only continents but political and cultural watersheds on the way.
These distances create a whole host of challenges from oil-related political instability to the environmental risks of long-distance pipelines.
But even if we could somehow indefinitely conjure up enough energy for everyone who wants it, without risking conflict and mayhem in bringing it back home, there would still be an enormous problem - how to use the energy without causing unacceptably high levels of damage to the natural world.
Counting cost
The most obvious threat is the prospect that burning fossil fuels is intensifying natural climate change and heating the Earth to dangerous levels.
But forget the greenhouse effect if you want. There are still real costs that go with the quest for and use of energy: air and water pollution, impaired health, acid rain, deforestation, the destruction of traditional ways of life.
It's one of the most vicious circles the planetary crisis entails.
Cheap, available energy is essential for ending poverty: ending poverty is key to easing the pressures on the planet from the abjectly poor who have no choice but to eat the seed corn. But the tank is running dry.
It doesn't have to be like this. Our energy use is unsustainable, but we already know what a benign alternative would look like.
All we have to do is decide that we will get there, and how.
It will make vastly more use of renewable energy, from inexhaustible natural sources like the Sun and the seas.
Nuclear power?
One key fuel may well be hydrogen, which is a clean alternative for vehicles and is in abundant supply as it is a chemical component of water.
But large amounts of energy are needed to produce hydrogen from water, so it will not come into its own as a clean alternative until renewable energy is widely available for the process.
Some analysts suggest that nuclear power will be needed to bridge the gap between now and the renewable future.
Many environmentalists (but not all) are deeply unhappy with the idea - fission technology has been in use for a generation, but concerns remain about radioactive waste disposal and the risk of accidents.
Nuclear fusion - a new form of nuclear power which combines atoms rather than splitting them apart - could be ready by around 2040, but that is too long to wait.
However, we can also get energy to do several jobs at once, as combined heat and power plants do. And we can use less of it by becoming energy-efficient.
The British government estimates that 56% of energy used in UK homes could be cut using currently available technologies - yet the original Model T Ford did more miles to the gallon than the average Ford vehicle produced today in the US.
We can install power stations on our roofs by covering our houses with solar tiles, or buying miniature wind turbines the size of a satellite dish.
Practically, the energy crisis is soluble. But reaching the broad sunlit uplands will mean a drastic mental gear change for policy-makers and consumers alike.
Read the entire article
Energy: Meeting soaring demand
By Alex Kirby, BBC News website environment correspondent, Tuesday, 9 November, 2004
The first problem with energy is that we are running short of traditional sources of supply.
The International Energy Agency says the world will need almost 60% more energy in 2030 than in 2002, and fossil fuels will still meet most of its needs.
We depend on oil for 90% of our transport, and for food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and the entire bedrock of modern life.
But oil industry experts estimate that current reserves will only last for about 40 years.
Views vary about how much more will be found or made economically viable to use.
Pessimists predict production will start declining within 15 years, while optimists say we won't have to worry for a century - though rising prices are likely to push us towards alternative energy sources anyway.
Gas, often a suitable replacement for oil, won't last indefinitely either.
There's plenty of coal, but it's still usually hard to use without causing high pollution.
Worrying signs
Not everyone depends on the fossil trio, though. Nearly a third of today's world population (6.1bn people) have no electricity or other modern energy supplies, and another third have only limited access.
About 2.5 billion people have only wood or other biomass for energy - often bad for the environment, almost always bad for their health.
That's the second problem - understandably, they want the better life that cheap and accessible energy offers.
But if everyone in developing countries used the same amount of energy as the average consumer in high income countries does, the developing world's energy use would increase more than eightfold between 2000 and 2050.
The signs are already there. In the first half of 2003 China's car sales rose by 82% compared with the same period in 2002.
Its demand for oil is expected to double in 20 years.
In India sales of fuel-guzzling sports utility vehicles account for 10% of all vehicle purchases, and could soon overtake car sales. And the developed world is not standing still.
In the last decade, US oil use has increased by almost 2.7 million barrels a day - more oil than India and Pakistan use daily altogether.
Crossing continents
Where our energy comes from is a third problem - energy sources are often long distances from the point of consumption.
Centralised energy generation and distribution systems are fairly new.
A couple of centuries ago virtually everyone would have depended on the fuel they could find within a short distance of home.
Now, the energy for our fuel, heat and light travel vast distances to reach us, sometimes crossing not only continents but political and cultural watersheds on the way.
These distances create a whole host of challenges from oil-related political instability to the environmental risks of long-distance pipelines.
But even if we could somehow indefinitely conjure up enough energy for everyone who wants it, without risking conflict and mayhem in bringing it back home, there would still be an enormous problem - how to use the energy without causing unacceptably high levels of damage to the natural world.
Counting cost
The most obvious threat is the prospect that burning fossil fuels is intensifying natural climate change and heating the Earth to dangerous levels.
But forget the greenhouse effect if you want. There are still real costs that go with the quest for and use of energy: air and water pollution, impaired health, acid rain, deforestation, the destruction of traditional ways of life.
It's one of the most vicious circles the planetary crisis entails.
Cheap, available energy is essential for ending poverty: ending poverty is key to easing the pressures on the planet from the abjectly poor who have no choice but to eat the seed corn. But the tank is running dry.
It doesn't have to be like this. Our energy use is unsustainable, but we already know what a benign alternative would look like.
All we have to do is decide that we will get there, and how.
It will make vastly more use of renewable energy, from inexhaustible natural sources like the Sun and the seas.
Nuclear power?
One key fuel may well be hydrogen, which is a clean alternative for vehicles and is in abundant supply as it is a chemical component of water.
But large amounts of energy are needed to produce hydrogen from water, so it will not come into its own as a clean alternative until renewable energy is widely available for the process.
Some analysts suggest that nuclear power will be needed to bridge the gap between now and the renewable future.
Many environmentalists (but not all) are deeply unhappy with the idea - fission technology has been in use for a generation, but concerns remain about radioactive waste disposal and the risk of accidents.
Nuclear fusion - a new form of nuclear power which combines atoms rather than splitting them apart - could be ready by around 2040, but that is too long to wait.
However, we can also get energy to do several jobs at once, as combined heat and power plants do. And we can use less of it by becoming energy-efficient.
The British government estimates that 56% of energy used in UK homes could be cut using currently available technologies - yet the original Model T Ford did more miles to the gallon than the average Ford vehicle produced today in the US.
We can install power stations on our roofs by covering our houses with solar tiles, or buying miniature wind turbines the size of a satellite dish.
Practically, the energy crisis is soluble. But reaching the broad sunlit uplands will mean a drastic mental gear change for policy-makers and consumers alike.
Read the entire article
Water scarcity: A looming crisis?
Water scarcity: A looming crisis?
Water scarcity: A looming crisis?
By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent, Tuesday, 19 October, 2004
The world's water crisis is simple to understand, if not to solve.
The amount of water in the world is finite. The number of us is growing fast and our water use is growing even faster.
A third of the world's population lives in water-stressed countries now. By 2025, this is expected to rise to two-thirds.
There is more than enough water available, in total, for everyone's basic needs.
The UN recommends that people need a minimum of 50 litres of water a day for drinking, washing, cooking and sanitation.
In 1990, over a billion people did not have even that.
Providing universal access to that basic minimum worldwide by 2015 would take less than 1% of the amount of water we use today. But we're a long way from achieving that.
Pollution and disease
Global water consumption rose sixfold between 1900 and 1995 - more than double the rate of population growth - and goes on growing as farming, industry and domestic demand all increase.
As important as quantity is quality - with pollution increasing in some areas, the amount of useable water declines.
More than five million people die from waterborne diseases each year - 10 times the number killed in wars around the globe.
And the wider effects of water shortages are just as chilling as the prospect of having too little to drink.
Seventy percent of the water used worldwide is used for agriculture.
Much more will be needed if we are to feed the world's growing population - predicted to rise from about six billion today to 8.9 billion by 2050.
And consumption will soar further as more people expect Western-style lifestyles and diets - one kilogram of grain-fed beef needs at least 15 cubic metres of water, while a kilo of cereals needs only up to three cubic metres.
Poverty and water
The poor are the ones who suffer most. Water shortages can mean long walks to fetch water, high prices to buy it, food insecurity and disease from drinking dirty water.
But the very thing needed to raise funds to tackle water problems in poor countries - economic development - requires yet more water to supply the agriculture and industries which drive it.
The UN-backed World Commission on Water estimated in 2000 that an additional $100bn a year would be needed to tackle water scarcity worldwide.
This dwarfs the $20bn which will be needed annually by 2007 to tackle HIV and Aids, and, according to the Commission, it is so much it could only be raised from the private sector.
Even if the money can be found, spending it wisely is a further challenge. Dams and other large-scale projects now affect 60% of the world's largest rivers and provide millions with water.
But in many cases the costs in terms of population displacement and irreversible changes in the nearby ecosystems have been considerable.
Using underground supplies is another widely used solution, but it means living on capital accumulated over millennia, and depleting it faster than the interest can top it up.
As groundwater is exploited, water tables in parts of China, India, West Asia, the former Soviet Union and the western United States are dropping - in India by as much as 3m a year in 1999.
Technical solutions
New technology can help, however, especially by cleaning up pollution and so making more water useable, and in agriculture, where water use can be made far more efficient. Drought-resistant plants can also help.
Drip irrigation drastically cuts the amount of water needed, low-pressure sprinklers are an improvement, and even building simple earth walls to trap rainfall is helpful.
Some countries are now treating waste water so that it can be used - and drunk - several times over.
Desalinisation makes sea water available, but takes huge quantities of energy and leaves vast amounts of brine.
The optimists say "virtual water" may save the day - the water contained in crops which can be exported from water-rich countries to arid ones.
But the amounts involved would be immense, and the energy needed to transport them gargantuan. And affordable, useable energy will probably soon be a bigger problem than water itself.
Climate change
In any case, it is not just us who need water, but every other species that shares the planet with us - as well all the ecosystems on which we, and they, rely.
Climate change will also have an impact. Some areas will probably benefit from increased rainfall, but others are likely to be losers.
We have to rethink how much water we really need if we are to learn how to share the Earth's supply.
While dams and other large-scale schemes play a big role worldwide, there is also a growing recognition of the value of using the water we already have more efficiently rather than harvesting ever more from our rivers and aquifers.
For millions of people around the world, getting it right is a matter of life and death.
Read the entire article
Water scarcity: A looming crisis?
By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent, Tuesday, 19 October, 2004
The world's water crisis is simple to understand, if not to solve.
The amount of water in the world is finite. The number of us is growing fast and our water use is growing even faster.
A third of the world's population lives in water-stressed countries now. By 2025, this is expected to rise to two-thirds.
There is more than enough water available, in total, for everyone's basic needs.
The UN recommends that people need a minimum of 50 litres of water a day for drinking, washing, cooking and sanitation.
In 1990, over a billion people did not have even that.
Providing universal access to that basic minimum worldwide by 2015 would take less than 1% of the amount of water we use today. But we're a long way from achieving that.
Pollution and disease
Global water consumption rose sixfold between 1900 and 1995 - more than double the rate of population growth - and goes on growing as farming, industry and domestic demand all increase.
As important as quantity is quality - with pollution increasing in some areas, the amount of useable water declines.
More than five million people die from waterborne diseases each year - 10 times the number killed in wars around the globe.
And the wider effects of water shortages are just as chilling as the prospect of having too little to drink.
Seventy percent of the water used worldwide is used for agriculture.
Much more will be needed if we are to feed the world's growing population - predicted to rise from about six billion today to 8.9 billion by 2050.
And consumption will soar further as more people expect Western-style lifestyles and diets - one kilogram of grain-fed beef needs at least 15 cubic metres of water, while a kilo of cereals needs only up to three cubic metres.
Poverty and water
The poor are the ones who suffer most. Water shortages can mean long walks to fetch water, high prices to buy it, food insecurity and disease from drinking dirty water.
But the very thing needed to raise funds to tackle water problems in poor countries - economic development - requires yet more water to supply the agriculture and industries which drive it.
The UN-backed World Commission on Water estimated in 2000 that an additional $100bn a year would be needed to tackle water scarcity worldwide.
This dwarfs the $20bn which will be needed annually by 2007 to tackle HIV and Aids, and, according to the Commission, it is so much it could only be raised from the private sector.
Even if the money can be found, spending it wisely is a further challenge. Dams and other large-scale projects now affect 60% of the world's largest rivers and provide millions with water.
But in many cases the costs in terms of population displacement and irreversible changes in the nearby ecosystems have been considerable.
Using underground supplies is another widely used solution, but it means living on capital accumulated over millennia, and depleting it faster than the interest can top it up.
As groundwater is exploited, water tables in parts of China, India, West Asia, the former Soviet Union and the western United States are dropping - in India by as much as 3m a year in 1999.
Technical solutions
New technology can help, however, especially by cleaning up pollution and so making more water useable, and in agriculture, where water use can be made far more efficient. Drought-resistant plants can also help.
Drip irrigation drastically cuts the amount of water needed, low-pressure sprinklers are an improvement, and even building simple earth walls to trap rainfall is helpful.
Some countries are now treating waste water so that it can be used - and drunk - several times over.
Desalinisation makes sea water available, but takes huge quantities of energy and leaves vast amounts of brine.
The optimists say "virtual water" may save the day - the water contained in crops which can be exported from water-rich countries to arid ones.
But the amounts involved would be immense, and the energy needed to transport them gargantuan. And affordable, useable energy will probably soon be a bigger problem than water itself.
Climate change
In any case, it is not just us who need water, but every other species that shares the planet with us - as well all the ecosystems on which we, and they, rely.
Climate change will also have an impact. Some areas will probably benefit from increased rainfall, but others are likely to be losers.
We have to rethink how much water we really need if we are to learn how to share the Earth's supply.
While dams and other large-scale schemes play a big role worldwide, there is also a growing recognition of the value of using the water we already have more efficiently rather than harvesting ever more from our rivers and aquifers.
For millions of people around the world, getting it right is a matter of life and death.
Read the entire article
Biodiversity: The sixth great wave
Biodiversity: The sixth great wave
Biodiversity: The sixth great wave
By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent, Friday, 1 October, 2004
All the creatures we share the Earth with are important in some way, however unprepossessing or insignificant they may appear. They and we are all part of the web of life.
From the dawn of time, extinction has usually progressed at what scientists call a natural or background rate. Today the tempo is far faster.
Many scientists believe this is the sixth great wave - the sixth mass extinction to affect life on Earth.
We were not here for any of the previous mass extinctions, but this time our sheer preponderance is driving the slide to oblivion.
LIVING PLANET INDEX
The index tracks the size of specific populations of selected species
It shows them as a percentage of the 1970 populations
It shows falling population levels in all three ecosystem types studied
We have more than doubled our numbers in half a century, and that is the most obvious reason why there is less room for any other species.
We are taking their living room to grow our food, their food to feed ourselves. We are exploiting them, trading in them, squeezing them to the margins of existence - and beyond.
Often the choice is hard: conserve a species or feed a community, tourists' dollars or turtles' nests.
In 2003 the World Conservation Union's Red List said more than 12,000 species (out of 40,000 assessed) faced some extinction risk, including:
one bird in eight
13% of the world's flowering plants
a quarter of all mammals.
That gives you a ballpark figure. Science has described 1.75 million species, some experts estimate that there may be 13 or 14 million in the world in total - but until they are catalogued, nobody knows.
FIVE MASS EXTINCTIONS
Cretaceous (About 65 million years ago)
Triassic (About 208 million years ago)
Permian (About 245 million years ago)
Devonian (About 360 million years ago)
Ordovician (About 438 million years ago)
Our pillage of the natural world has been likened to burning down the medieval libraries of Europe, before we had even bothered to catalogue their contents.
Many species keep us alive, purifying water, fixing nitrogen, recycling nutrients and waste, and pollinating crops.
Plants and bacteria carry out photosynthesis, which produces the oxygen we breathe. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas given off by human activities.
Pandas and microbes
Some years ago, when the global annual gross product was about $18 trillion, US researchers calculated the value of the goods and services provided by the Earth to the world economy: $33 trillion.
Tropical cone snails contain toxins which show promise for treating some forms of cancer and heart irregularities. One toxin may be a thousand times more potent than morphine for pain relief.
But millions of cone snails are now killed annually for their shells, and their habitats are under pressure.
That is the argument for utility. But the creatures we can see, and those we can use directly, are just the start of the story.
Lord May, president of the Royal Society (the UK's national academy of sciences), has said: "Most conservation effort goes into birds and mammals - creatures like the panda, a dim, dead-end animal that was probably on the way out anyway.
"Yet arguably it's the little things that run the world, things like soil microbes. They're the least-known species of all."
Complex network
And we continue to tug at the loose threads of the web of life, thinking we can split it into its separate parts.
Brazil nuts are a lucrative harvest in the Amazon. But an experiment to produce them in plantations failed, because the trees bear a good crop in the forest, but are barren in isolation.
We are not removing individual species from the Amazon: we are destroying the entire forest. US researchers estimate that by 2020 less than 5% of it will remain in pristine condition.
Within 15 years, about a fifth of central Africa's forests will have gone, by one estimate. And the forests of Indonesia are in headlong retreat.
Some species are bucking the trend towards extinction. In 1953 there were about 2.5bn people: today there are 6bn.
Ensuring other species keep their living space is not sentimental. It is the only way we shall survive.
Extinction, whatever Steven Spielberg says, really is for ever. The web is unravelling.
Read the entire article
Biodiversity: The sixth great wave
By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent, Friday, 1 October, 2004
All the creatures we share the Earth with are important in some way, however unprepossessing or insignificant they may appear. They and we are all part of the web of life.
From the dawn of time, extinction has usually progressed at what scientists call a natural or background rate. Today the tempo is far faster.
Many scientists believe this is the sixth great wave - the sixth mass extinction to affect life on Earth.
We were not here for any of the previous mass extinctions, but this time our sheer preponderance is driving the slide to oblivion.
LIVING PLANET INDEX
The index tracks the size of specific populations of selected species
It shows them as a percentage of the 1970 populations
It shows falling population levels in all three ecosystem types studied
We have more than doubled our numbers in half a century, and that is the most obvious reason why there is less room for any other species.
We are taking their living room to grow our food, their food to feed ourselves. We are exploiting them, trading in them, squeezing them to the margins of existence - and beyond.
Often the choice is hard: conserve a species or feed a community, tourists' dollars or turtles' nests.
In 2003 the World Conservation Union's Red List said more than 12,000 species (out of 40,000 assessed) faced some extinction risk, including:
one bird in eight
13% of the world's flowering plants
a quarter of all mammals.
That gives you a ballpark figure. Science has described 1.75 million species, some experts estimate that there may be 13 or 14 million in the world in total - but until they are catalogued, nobody knows.
FIVE MASS EXTINCTIONS
Cretaceous (About 65 million years ago)
Triassic (About 208 million years ago)
Permian (About 245 million years ago)
Devonian (About 360 million years ago)
Ordovician (About 438 million years ago)
Our pillage of the natural world has been likened to burning down the medieval libraries of Europe, before we had even bothered to catalogue their contents.
Many species keep us alive, purifying water, fixing nitrogen, recycling nutrients and waste, and pollinating crops.
Plants and bacteria carry out photosynthesis, which produces the oxygen we breathe. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas given off by human activities.
Pandas and microbes
Some years ago, when the global annual gross product was about $18 trillion, US researchers calculated the value of the goods and services provided by the Earth to the world economy: $33 trillion.
Tropical cone snails contain toxins which show promise for treating some forms of cancer and heart irregularities. One toxin may be a thousand times more potent than morphine for pain relief.
But millions of cone snails are now killed annually for their shells, and their habitats are under pressure.
That is the argument for utility. But the creatures we can see, and those we can use directly, are just the start of the story.
Lord May, president of the Royal Society (the UK's national academy of sciences), has said: "Most conservation effort goes into birds and mammals - creatures like the panda, a dim, dead-end animal that was probably on the way out anyway.
"Yet arguably it's the little things that run the world, things like soil microbes. They're the least-known species of all."
Complex network
And we continue to tug at the loose threads of the web of life, thinking we can split it into its separate parts.
Brazil nuts are a lucrative harvest in the Amazon. But an experiment to produce them in plantations failed, because the trees bear a good crop in the forest, but are barren in isolation.
We are not removing individual species from the Amazon: we are destroying the entire forest. US researchers estimate that by 2020 less than 5% of it will remain in pristine condition.
Within 15 years, about a fifth of central Africa's forests will have gone, by one estimate. And the forests of Indonesia are in headlong retreat.
Some species are bucking the trend towards extinction. In 1953 there were about 2.5bn people: today there are 6bn.
Ensuring other species keep their living space is not sentimental. It is the only way we shall survive.
Extinction, whatever Steven Spielberg says, really is for ever. The web is unravelling.
Read the entire article
Local food 'greener than organic'
Local food 'greener than organic'
Local food 'greener than organic'
BBC News, Wednesday, 2 March, 2005
Local food is usually more "green" than organic food, according to a report published in the journal Food Policy.
The authors say organic farming is also valuable, but people can help the environment even more by buying food from within a 20km (12-mile) radius.
The team calculated a shopping basket's hidden costs, which mount up as produce is transported over big distances. The study found "road miles" account for proportionately more environmental damage than "air miles".
Therefore, the researchers' message to consumers is this: it is not good enough to buy food from within the UK - it is better if it comes from within your area, too.
However, they admit that consumers are prevented from "doing the right thing" because of inadequate labelling.
"The most political act we do on a daily basis is to eat, as our actions affect farms, landscapes and food businesses," said co-author Professor Jules Pretty, from the University of Essex, UK.
"Food miles are more significant than we previously thought, and much now needs to be done to encourage local production and consumption of food."
Clean-up costs
Professor Pretty and his colleague Tim Lang, from City University, UK, painstakingly estimated the environmental price tag on each stage of the food production process.
That price might reflect, for example, the clean-up costs following pollution, or the loss of profits caused by erosion damage.
"The price of food is disguising externalised costs - damage to the environment, damage to climate, damage to infrastructure and the cost of transporting food on roads," Professor Lang told the BBC News website.
The authors calculated that if all foods were sourced from within 20km of where they were consumed, environmental and congestion costs would fall from more than £2.3bn to under £230m - an "environmental saving" of £2.1bn annually.
They pointed out that organic methods can also make an important contribution. If all farms in the UK were to turn organic, then the country would save £1.1bn of environmental costs each year.
Consumers can save a further £100m in environmental costs, the authors claim, if they cycle, walk or catch the bus to the shops rather than drive.
Each week, the average person clocks up 93p worth of environmental costs, the report concludes.
These costs should be addressed by the government, companies and consumers, the authors believe.
Read the entire article
Local food 'greener than organic'
BBC News, Wednesday, 2 March, 2005
Local food is usually more "green" than organic food, according to a report published in the journal Food Policy.
The authors say organic farming is also valuable, but people can help the environment even more by buying food from within a 20km (12-mile) radius.
The team calculated a shopping basket's hidden costs, which mount up as produce is transported over big distances. The study found "road miles" account for proportionately more environmental damage than "air miles".
Therefore, the researchers' message to consumers is this: it is not good enough to buy food from within the UK - it is better if it comes from within your area, too.
However, they admit that consumers are prevented from "doing the right thing" because of inadequate labelling.
"The most political act we do on a daily basis is to eat, as our actions affect farms, landscapes and food businesses," said co-author Professor Jules Pretty, from the University of Essex, UK.
"Food miles are more significant than we previously thought, and much now needs to be done to encourage local production and consumption of food."
Clean-up costs
Professor Pretty and his colleague Tim Lang, from City University, UK, painstakingly estimated the environmental price tag on each stage of the food production process.
That price might reflect, for example, the clean-up costs following pollution, or the loss of profits caused by erosion damage.
"The price of food is disguising externalised costs - damage to the environment, damage to climate, damage to infrastructure and the cost of transporting food on roads," Professor Lang told the BBC News website.
The authors calculated that if all foods were sourced from within 20km of where they were consumed, environmental and congestion costs would fall from more than £2.3bn to under £230m - an "environmental saving" of £2.1bn annually.
They pointed out that organic methods can also make an important contribution. If all farms in the UK were to turn organic, then the country would save £1.1bn of environmental costs each year.
Consumers can save a further £100m in environmental costs, the authors claim, if they cycle, walk or catch the bus to the shops rather than drive.
Each week, the average person clocks up 93p worth of environmental costs, the report concludes.
These costs should be addressed by the government, companies and consumers, the authors believe.
Read the entire article
Monday, September 19, 2005
Building in Green - William McDonough
Building in Green
"Building in Green
Can China move 400 million people to its cities without wreaking environmental havoc? Eco-urban designer William McDonough says yes—and Beijing is listening.
By Sarah Schafer and Anne Underwood, Newsweek International, Sept. 26 - Oct. 3, 2005
When American architect and industrial designer William McDonough visited the dusty Chinese village of Huangbaiyu, the villagers greeted him and his entourage of U.S. executives with a marching band, red carpet and fake red flowers to pin on their lapels. One anxious county official wearing a new blue dress shirt, still creased from the packaging, ordered volunteers to
hold up an inflatable rainbow arch that had begun to sag. Foreign delegations often swing through rural towns, but McDonough is not just another big shot looking for a glimpse of "ordinary Chinese life." He's co-chair—together with Deng Xiaoping's daughter, Deng Nan—of the China-U.S. Center for Sustainable Development. And he plans to change life in Huangbaiyu—and, for that matter, across China. "We hope whatever we do will make you happy," he announced to the curious crowd.
Huangbaiyu is set to become an experiment in ecologically balanced living, and McDonough is the visionary behind it. He and a team of Chinese and Americans have been charged with turning the village into a model of environmentally sound living. The team has begun construction on the first two demonstration homes and expect to build about 50 more by November to house some of the town's 400 families. If all goes as planned, families will move into a town center, increasing the amount of land available for farming, rather than live scattered about as they are now.
It's a challenge, to say the least. McDonough's team can spend only $3,500 per house. To pull it off, they're using local labor and local materials, all of which will either biodegrade safely or be completely recyclable. To avoid the pollution that is released during the firing of bricks, the walls are made of pressed-earth blocks. Between the blocks is straw, a byproduct of the local rice harvest that would otherwise go to waste. Walls are a half-meter thick, so houses are well insulated and won't need a lot of heating. Solar panels on the rooftops provide electricity and heated water. "We're doing everything with nothing," McDonough says.
China has a lot riding on the Huangbaiyu experiment—and so does the rest of the world. Beijing is now orchestrating an industrial revolution, hoping to telescope into a few decades what it took Western countries a century or two to accomplish. The plan is to move 400 million people—about half the rural population—into urban centers by 2030. Doing so will require expanding towns into cities and even building new metropolises from scratch. That also means creating education, security and economic policies to help the masses adjust to the speedy transition from an agrarian to an urban society. How China manages this transformation will have a huge impact on the country's—indeed, the world's—environment, and its social stability. McDonough's projects in the village of Huangbaiyu and six major cities are China's biggest experiment in ecologically sound development. If all goes well, his brand of ecodesign could serve as a model for China's new urbanism. "China wasted 200 years already," says Nie Meisheng, president of the China Housing Industry Association. "We have to catch up."
It's too early, of course, to say whether the plan will succeed or fail. McDonough has completed designs for the six new districts in cities such as Beijing and Guangzhou plus the village, but he's so far built mainly parks, waterways and roads. The goal is to have the first of the city sites ready for habitation in a few years. Although his plan has won the support of China's leaders—President Hu Jintao likes to repeat phrases from the Chinese translation of McDonough's book, "Cradle to Cradle"—the project relies on funding that is being raised by local governments and is not assured. And McDonough must first overcome a thousand gritty realities of life in China that could sidetrack his vision.
It makes a certain sense that China is turning to McDonough for an urban design vision. He believes that industrial cities could be far more efficient than they are now if they were designed from the ground up with ecological principles in mind instead of taking shape piecemeal. This notion would be impractical in most countries but could work in China, where the government has the wherewithal to impose its plans on citizens.
Efficiency is also key to relieving one of China's biggest roadblocks to modernization—its demand for energy. The Chinese use three times more energy per square meter to heat and cool buildings than Europeans and Americans, according to professor Yuan Bin at Beijing's Tsinghua University school of architecture. China is already the second largest energy consumer in the world, after the United States. Although only 23 million Chinese own cars, China produces 16 percent of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions and is set to overtake the United States as the world's biggest producer of CO2 within 30 years. If each person in China used as much energy as an average American, they would swallow up the world's entire current supply of petroleum. "China cannot consume energy like the U.S. because we have 1.3 billion people," says Yuan Bin.
If McDonough's method could be summed up in a phrase, it might be to leave nothing to chance. In each of the six cities, he is starting with a thorough examination of the land to be developed. He figures out how rainwater runs off and enters aquifers, how animals migrate, what plants grow where. He studies sunlight angles and wind patterns. Then he sketches in parks, which interconnect so citizens can walk or ride bicycles from one to the next and wildlife can carry on without disruption. Next comes the plan for the infrastructure, beginning with the angle of the streets. He slants them at a 15-degree angle to the winds in order to break up cold winter blasts and help keep city air clean. And orienting them on a diagonal rather than a rigid east-west grid also maximizes the sunlight that reaches apartments year-round. The cities are zoned for mixed residential, commercial and industrial use to ensure that transportation connects residences to the workplaces. Shops will be on the ground floor, residences above, and the rooftops will have farm plots. Bridges over the streets will connect the plots. The farmers will live downstairs.
Energy efficiency will be maximized through new types of building materials and a solar-powered energy grid. McDonough has begun by developing a polystyrene made by BASF without ozone-depleting chloro-fluorocarbons but with excellent insulating qualities. "Buildings can be heated and cooled for next to nothing," he says. "And they'll be silent. If there are 13 people in the apartment upstairs, you won't hear them." He's also working on new toilet bowls that are so slippery you can flush them with a light mist. Bamboo wetlands nearby would purify the waste, and the bamboo could be harvested and used for wood.
McDonough would like to see China's cities powered chiefly by solar panels. China, he says, is uniquely qualified to get solar power off the ground by virtue of its scale. "We're not talking about dinky solar collectors on roofs," he says. "Think of square miles of marginal land covered with them. This could drop the cost of solar energy an order of magnitude. And for every job making solar panels, there are four jobs putting them in place and maintaining them."
McDonough's ideas have worked well, albeit on a smaller scale, in the United States. He's designed green developments for communities and corporations, including the Gap and Ford. The headquarters for the clothing retailer the Gap in California has a roof with vegetation on it, a raised floor for better heating and cooling, and makes good use of daylight. The building exceeds California's energy requirements by 30 percent; Pacific Gas and Electric named it the second most energy-efficient building in the state.
In China, McDonough's plans for all six city districts have passed the government's standards test; three have gotten the green light. In Zhejiang province, the group has integrated the city of Ningbo's water system, creating wetlands that help conserve rainwater and protect animal and plant life. In Jinan, McDonough and his team are trying to clean up land contaminated by toxins from a steel plant. Outside Chengdu, in Sichuan province, they're trying to preserve an ancient landscape with old trees that would otherwise be leveled to make room for buildings and roads. "We're just at the beginning," McDonough said. "If you really want to see something, give us a few years."
Many prominent companies have gotten involved. Vermeer Manufacturing Co. of Iowa contributed an earth-block press for Huangbaiyu. Hewlett-Packard is donating computers for the schools. BP has given solar collectors. Intel is sponsoring an American anthropology Ph.D. student, Shannon May, to live in the model village for 14 months. May will study local habits and report back to Intel so it can figure out how to design products for rural Chinese. She'll also work on her dissertation, which will explore "the dissonances between what the Americans hope to accomplish here and what actually happens on the ground." The whole world will be eager to see the results.
Read article at the original source
"Building in Green
Can China move 400 million people to its cities without wreaking environmental havoc? Eco-urban designer William McDonough says yes—and Beijing is listening.
By Sarah Schafer and Anne Underwood, Newsweek International, Sept. 26 - Oct. 3, 2005
When American architect and industrial designer William McDonough visited the dusty Chinese village of Huangbaiyu, the villagers greeted him and his entourage of U.S. executives with a marching band, red carpet and fake red flowers to pin on their lapels. One anxious county official wearing a new blue dress shirt, still creased from the packaging, ordered volunteers to
hold up an inflatable rainbow arch that had begun to sag. Foreign delegations often swing through rural towns, but McDonough is not just another big shot looking for a glimpse of "ordinary Chinese life." He's co-chair—together with Deng Xiaoping's daughter, Deng Nan—of the China-U.S. Center for Sustainable Development. And he plans to change life in Huangbaiyu—and, for that matter, across China. "We hope whatever we do will make you happy," he announced to the curious crowd.
Huangbaiyu is set to become an experiment in ecologically balanced living, and McDonough is the visionary behind it. He and a team of Chinese and Americans have been charged with turning the village into a model of environmentally sound living. The team has begun construction on the first two demonstration homes and expect to build about 50 more by November to house some of the town's 400 families. If all goes as planned, families will move into a town center, increasing the amount of land available for farming, rather than live scattered about as they are now.
It's a challenge, to say the least. McDonough's team can spend only $3,500 per house. To pull it off, they're using local labor and local materials, all of which will either biodegrade safely or be completely recyclable. To avoid the pollution that is released during the firing of bricks, the walls are made of pressed-earth blocks. Between the blocks is straw, a byproduct of the local rice harvest that would otherwise go to waste. Walls are a half-meter thick, so houses are well insulated and won't need a lot of heating. Solar panels on the rooftops provide electricity and heated water. "We're doing everything with nothing," McDonough says.
China has a lot riding on the Huangbaiyu experiment—and so does the rest of the world. Beijing is now orchestrating an industrial revolution, hoping to telescope into a few decades what it took Western countries a century or two to accomplish. The plan is to move 400 million people—about half the rural population—into urban centers by 2030. Doing so will require expanding towns into cities and even building new metropolises from scratch. That also means creating education, security and economic policies to help the masses adjust to the speedy transition from an agrarian to an urban society. How China manages this transformation will have a huge impact on the country's—indeed, the world's—environment, and its social stability. McDonough's projects in the village of Huangbaiyu and six major cities are China's biggest experiment in ecologically sound development. If all goes well, his brand of ecodesign could serve as a model for China's new urbanism. "China wasted 200 years already," says Nie Meisheng, president of the China Housing Industry Association. "We have to catch up."
It's too early, of course, to say whether the plan will succeed or fail. McDonough has completed designs for the six new districts in cities such as Beijing and Guangzhou plus the village, but he's so far built mainly parks, waterways and roads. The goal is to have the first of the city sites ready for habitation in a few years. Although his plan has won the support of China's leaders—President Hu Jintao likes to repeat phrases from the Chinese translation of McDonough's book, "Cradle to Cradle"—the project relies on funding that is being raised by local governments and is not assured. And McDonough must first overcome a thousand gritty realities of life in China that could sidetrack his vision.
It makes a certain sense that China is turning to McDonough for an urban design vision. He believes that industrial cities could be far more efficient than they are now if they were designed from the ground up with ecological principles in mind instead of taking shape piecemeal. This notion would be impractical in most countries but could work in China, where the government has the wherewithal to impose its plans on citizens.
Efficiency is also key to relieving one of China's biggest roadblocks to modernization—its demand for energy. The Chinese use three times more energy per square meter to heat and cool buildings than Europeans and Americans, according to professor Yuan Bin at Beijing's Tsinghua University school of architecture. China is already the second largest energy consumer in the world, after the United States. Although only 23 million Chinese own cars, China produces 16 percent of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions and is set to overtake the United States as the world's biggest producer of CO2 within 30 years. If each person in China used as much energy as an average American, they would swallow up the world's entire current supply of petroleum. "China cannot consume energy like the U.S. because we have 1.3 billion people," says Yuan Bin.
If McDonough's method could be summed up in a phrase, it might be to leave nothing to chance. In each of the six cities, he is starting with a thorough examination of the land to be developed. He figures out how rainwater runs off and enters aquifers, how animals migrate, what plants grow where. He studies sunlight angles and wind patterns. Then he sketches in parks, which interconnect so citizens can walk or ride bicycles from one to the next and wildlife can carry on without disruption. Next comes the plan for the infrastructure, beginning with the angle of the streets. He slants them at a 15-degree angle to the winds in order to break up cold winter blasts and help keep city air clean. And orienting them on a diagonal rather than a rigid east-west grid also maximizes the sunlight that reaches apartments year-round. The cities are zoned for mixed residential, commercial and industrial use to ensure that transportation connects residences to the workplaces. Shops will be on the ground floor, residences above, and the rooftops will have farm plots. Bridges over the streets will connect the plots. The farmers will live downstairs.
Energy efficiency will be maximized through new types of building materials and a solar-powered energy grid. McDonough has begun by developing a polystyrene made by BASF without ozone-depleting chloro-fluorocarbons but with excellent insulating qualities. "Buildings can be heated and cooled for next to nothing," he says. "And they'll be silent. If there are 13 people in the apartment upstairs, you won't hear them." He's also working on new toilet bowls that are so slippery you can flush them with a light mist. Bamboo wetlands nearby would purify the waste, and the bamboo could be harvested and used for wood.
McDonough would like to see China's cities powered chiefly by solar panels. China, he says, is uniquely qualified to get solar power off the ground by virtue of its scale. "We're not talking about dinky solar collectors on roofs," he says. "Think of square miles of marginal land covered with them. This could drop the cost of solar energy an order of magnitude. And for every job making solar panels, there are four jobs putting them in place and maintaining them."
McDonough's ideas have worked well, albeit on a smaller scale, in the United States. He's designed green developments for communities and corporations, including the Gap and Ford. The headquarters for the clothing retailer the Gap in California has a roof with vegetation on it, a raised floor for better heating and cooling, and makes good use of daylight. The building exceeds California's energy requirements by 30 percent; Pacific Gas and Electric named it the second most energy-efficient building in the state.
In China, McDonough's plans for all six city districts have passed the government's standards test; three have gotten the green light. In Zhejiang province, the group has integrated the city of Ningbo's water system, creating wetlands that help conserve rainwater and protect animal and plant life. In Jinan, McDonough and his team are trying to clean up land contaminated by toxins from a steel plant. Outside Chengdu, in Sichuan province, they're trying to preserve an ancient landscape with old trees that would otherwise be leveled to make room for buildings and roads. "We're just at the beginning," McDonough said. "If you really want to see something, give us a few years."
Many prominent companies have gotten involved. Vermeer Manufacturing Co. of Iowa contributed an earth-block press for Huangbaiyu. Hewlett-Packard is donating computers for the schools. BP has given solar collectors. Intel is sponsoring an American anthropology Ph.D. student, Shannon May, to live in the model village for 14 months. May will study local habits and report back to Intel so it can figure out how to design products for rural Chinese. She'll also work on her dissertation, which will explore "the dissonances between what the Americans hope to accomplish here and what actually happens on the ground." The whole world will be eager to see the results.
Read article at the original source
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
We Need To Cool It - Even without federal leadership on global warming, states and businesses are starting to take action
We Need To Cool It
"We Need To Cool It
Even without federal leadership on global warming, states and businesses are starting to take action. A leading advocate for clean energy explains.
By Anne Underwood, Newsweek, July 11, 2005
In 1997, Eileen Claussen, a former assistant secretary of State and onetime EPA official, received an intriguing call from officials at the Pew Charitable Trusts: if they wanted to spend a lot of money to address global warming, how should they spend it? Claussen drew up a blue-print—collect scientific data, search out practical solutions, get businesses onboard, work with policymakers. In May 1998, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change was launched with Claussen as president. Since then, she has been a forceful advocate for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and has reached out to corporations, states, cities and members of Congress to help develop clean-energy policies. Claussen spoke recently with NEWSWEEK's Anne Underwood.
UNDERWOOD: Is there any doubt now that global warming exists?
CLAUSSEN: Let me put it this way. A few determined skeptics don't accept it, but the overwhelming majority of scientists do. When President Bush took office, he asked the National Academy of Sciences to study the issue. The report they issued was very balanced. They noted some uncertainties—for example, when and where impacts might be felt and to what degree. But the conclusion was that the Earth is warming, this change is induced by human activity, and it will get worse.
Do a few degrees of warming really matter?
The Earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years—more in some places, like the Arctic, where there has been an increase of 4 to 5 degrees since the 1950s. Polar bears are having a ter- rible time there and may be extinct by the end of this century. Already we're seeing changes in Alaska, where roads are buckling in places and some major pipelines no longer fit together. Coldwater fish that used to be found off the Alaskan coast are no longer there, because the waters are too warm.
Do you expect a similar amount of warming in the next century?
Estimates range from 2.5 to 10.4 degrees.
What will the effects be here in the United States?
As the sea level rises, some areas, particularly in Louisiana, could be submerged because of their low-lying coastal plains. There will be more floods. But some regions [that are already parched] will have even less precipitation, so drought in the Southwest would likely increase. There are theories—and I would keep them in the category of theories—that ocean currents will change, as fresh water from melting ice in the Arctic mixes with salt water, slowing circulation of ocean currents. While most of the Earth would get warmer, Europe would get colder from the disruption of the Gulf Stream.
Do we have enough information now to take action?
Given what we know now, it would be irresponsible not to act. The costs are not huge, but the downside of not acting is potentially enormous.
Can a new energy policy help?
Energy policy is climate policy, since fossil fuels are the main source of greenhouse gases. So the question becomes, where do we get our energy? In the United States, 51 percent of electricity comes from coal; 20 percent, nuclear; 16.5 percent, natural gas; 7 percent, hydroelectric; 3 percent, oil, and the rest, renewables—geothermal, wind and solar.
How much power can we realistically expect to derive from renewable sources?
Ten percent by 2020 is realistic—or, with a concerted effort, 30 percent by 2050. Without major breakthroughs, it's hard to get beyond a third, because most renewables are intermittent. You need better ways of storing the energy.
Do we need to increase reliance on nuclear energy?
It's hard to imagine getting to zero carbon emissions without some nuclear. But it's expensive. The issue of dealing with radioactive waste has not been resolved. And I worry about proliferation overseas.
So, if a major portion of energy will continue to come from coal, how do we reduce emissions?
Gasification of coal—technically known as the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)—could lead to cleaner burning. But the plants themselves are expensive, and it's not clear if states will allow companies to build them, given that costs would be passed on to the consumer. American Electrical Power and Cinergy both want their next plants to be IGCC, but they need to get it through their public-utility commissions. The other necessary ingredient is developing the technology for carbon capture and sequestration. That involves removing the carbon from emissions, using a chemical process for gas separation, and then piping it someplace or injecting it underground. Some experiments show that it can be done. In Norway, where there's a carbon-dioxide tax, one com- pany does it to avoid the tax.
It seems businesses are ahead of the government on this issue.
There are 39 companies working with us in our Business Environmental Leadership Council. Most of these are major multinational firms. Outside the United States, even in developing countries, there is a demand for cleaner technology, so it makes sense for them. Others have said that if they didn't have a forward-looking policy, they couldn't attract the best and brightest talent.
How does the council work?
We meet four times a year. These companies walk the walk; they don't just talk the talk. The most ambitious target was set in 1999 by DuPont, which set a goal of reducing emissions 65 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. They actually reached 67 percent by 2002 by reducing emissions from nylon manufacturing. They also brought down their energy consumption, even while growing the business. None of these companies found it cost them money to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, because in the process, they became more energy-efficient.
But our primary focus is policy. What kind of legislation do we want nationally and at the state level? If a bill comes up, we share that with the companies, so we get the best product.
Are the states out ahead of the federal government on this?
It's an interesting picture on the state level. The California effort on auto emissions is being challenged by the automotive industry and may or may not survive. But if it does, New York and other states will follow. Then you will almost have de facto national limits on greenhouse gases from cars.
In the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, nine states, led by Gov. George Pataki of New York, are trying to fashion a program of trading between states to get the most cost-effective measures for reduction of emissions taken first.
Nineteen states plus the District of Columbia have requirements for renewable energy. For example, Montana passed a law calling for 10 percent of energy to come from renewables by 2010.
The states are motivated by different things. North Carolina is worried about the barrier islands [being submerged]. Arizona is starting to figure out what will happen with droughts and forest fires. The Western Governors' Association is studying this. We're starting to see some real momentum, and it's a nonpartisan effort.
Even cities seem to be getting into the act.
Seattle took the lead. There are now 165 cities who have said they will meet the targets of Kyoto—reducing emissions 7* percent below 1990 levels.
Are you encouraged by recent actions in the Senate?
[Last month] the Senate voted on four climate amendments to the energy bill. The strongest—from Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman—did not pass. But a nonbinding resolution did, urging the Congress to enact mandatory, market-based limits to slow, stop and reverse the growth of emissions. Though it's nonbinding, the fact it passed with the word "mandatory" in it is encouraging. Most important, Pete Domenici, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, voted for it. I don't know if I'd call it a turning point. If I were making predictions—which is maybe not a business I should be in—I would say it will take another House and another president to see real changes. But we're about to enter a phase where the debate will not be about whether to deal with climate change, but how. "
Read the entire article
"We Need To Cool It
Even without federal leadership on global warming, states and businesses are starting to take action. A leading advocate for clean energy explains.
By Anne Underwood, Newsweek, July 11, 2005
In 1997, Eileen Claussen, a former assistant secretary of State and onetime EPA official, received an intriguing call from officials at the Pew Charitable Trusts: if they wanted to spend a lot of money to address global warming, how should they spend it? Claussen drew up a blue-print—collect scientific data, search out practical solutions, get businesses onboard, work with policymakers. In May 1998, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change was launched with Claussen as president. Since then, she has been a forceful advocate for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and has reached out to corporations, states, cities and members of Congress to help develop clean-energy policies. Claussen spoke recently with NEWSWEEK's Anne Underwood.
UNDERWOOD: Is there any doubt now that global warming exists?
CLAUSSEN: Let me put it this way. A few determined skeptics don't accept it, but the overwhelming majority of scientists do. When President Bush took office, he asked the National Academy of Sciences to study the issue. The report they issued was very balanced. They noted some uncertainties—for example, when and where impacts might be felt and to what degree. But the conclusion was that the Earth is warming, this change is induced by human activity, and it will get worse.
Do a few degrees of warming really matter?
The Earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years—more in some places, like the Arctic, where there has been an increase of 4 to 5 degrees since the 1950s. Polar bears are having a ter- rible time there and may be extinct by the end of this century. Already we're seeing changes in Alaska, where roads are buckling in places and some major pipelines no longer fit together. Coldwater fish that used to be found off the Alaskan coast are no longer there, because the waters are too warm.
Do you expect a similar amount of warming in the next century?
Estimates range from 2.5 to 10.4 degrees.
What will the effects be here in the United States?
As the sea level rises, some areas, particularly in Louisiana, could be submerged because of their low-lying coastal plains. There will be more floods. But some regions [that are already parched] will have even less precipitation, so drought in the Southwest would likely increase. There are theories—and I would keep them in the category of theories—that ocean currents will change, as fresh water from melting ice in the Arctic mixes with salt water, slowing circulation of ocean currents. While most of the Earth would get warmer, Europe would get colder from the disruption of the Gulf Stream.
Do we have enough information now to take action?
Given what we know now, it would be irresponsible not to act. The costs are not huge, but the downside of not acting is potentially enormous.
Can a new energy policy help?
Energy policy is climate policy, since fossil fuels are the main source of greenhouse gases. So the question becomes, where do we get our energy? In the United States, 51 percent of electricity comes from coal; 20 percent, nuclear; 16.5 percent, natural gas; 7 percent, hydroelectric; 3 percent, oil, and the rest, renewables—geothermal, wind and solar.
How much power can we realistically expect to derive from renewable sources?
Ten percent by 2020 is realistic—or, with a concerted effort, 30 percent by 2050. Without major breakthroughs, it's hard to get beyond a third, because most renewables are intermittent. You need better ways of storing the energy.
Do we need to increase reliance on nuclear energy?
It's hard to imagine getting to zero carbon emissions without some nuclear. But it's expensive. The issue of dealing with radioactive waste has not been resolved. And I worry about proliferation overseas.
So, if a major portion of energy will continue to come from coal, how do we reduce emissions?
Gasification of coal—technically known as the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)—could lead to cleaner burning. But the plants themselves are expensive, and it's not clear if states will allow companies to build them, given that costs would be passed on to the consumer. American Electrical Power and Cinergy both want their next plants to be IGCC, but they need to get it through their public-utility commissions. The other necessary ingredient is developing the technology for carbon capture and sequestration. That involves removing the carbon from emissions, using a chemical process for gas separation, and then piping it someplace or injecting it underground. Some experiments show that it can be done. In Norway, where there's a carbon-dioxide tax, one com- pany does it to avoid the tax.
It seems businesses are ahead of the government on this issue.
There are 39 companies working with us in our Business Environmental Leadership Council. Most of these are major multinational firms. Outside the United States, even in developing countries, there is a demand for cleaner technology, so it makes sense for them. Others have said that if they didn't have a forward-looking policy, they couldn't attract the best and brightest talent.
How does the council work?
We meet four times a year. These companies walk the walk; they don't just talk the talk. The most ambitious target was set in 1999 by DuPont, which set a goal of reducing emissions 65 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. They actually reached 67 percent by 2002 by reducing emissions from nylon manufacturing. They also brought down their energy consumption, even while growing the business. None of these companies found it cost them money to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, because in the process, they became more energy-efficient.
But our primary focus is policy. What kind of legislation do we want nationally and at the state level? If a bill comes up, we share that with the companies, so we get the best product.
Are the states out ahead of the federal government on this?
It's an interesting picture on the state level. The California effort on auto emissions is being challenged by the automotive industry and may or may not survive. But if it does, New York and other states will follow. Then you will almost have de facto national limits on greenhouse gases from cars.
In the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, nine states, led by Gov. George Pataki of New York, are trying to fashion a program of trading between states to get the most cost-effective measures for reduction of emissions taken first.
Nineteen states plus the District of Columbia have requirements for renewable energy. For example, Montana passed a law calling for 10 percent of energy to come from renewables by 2010.
The states are motivated by different things. North Carolina is worried about the barrier islands [being submerged]. Arizona is starting to figure out what will happen with droughts and forest fires. The Western Governors' Association is studying this. We're starting to see some real momentum, and it's a nonpartisan effort.
Even cities seem to be getting into the act.
Seattle took the lead. There are now 165 cities who have said they will meet the targets of Kyoto—reducing emissions 7* percent below 1990 levels.
Are you encouraged by recent actions in the Senate?
[Last month] the Senate voted on four climate amendments to the energy bill. The strongest—from Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman—did not pass. But a nonbinding resolution did, urging the Congress to enact mandatory, market-based limits to slow, stop and reverse the growth of emissions. Though it's nonbinding, the fact it passed with the word "mandatory" in it is encouraging. Most important, Pete Domenici, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, voted for it. I don't know if I'd call it a turning point. If I were making predictions—which is maybe not a business I should be in—I would say it will take another House and another president to see real changes. But we're about to enter a phase where the debate will not be about whether to deal with climate change, but how. "
Read the entire article
Friday, June 24, 2005
Can China Go Green?
Can China Go Green?
"CAN CHINA GO GREEN?
Fortune, June 27, 2005
When China's ministry of Science and Technology decided to build a new headquarters in Beijing, the government sought help from an unlikely partner - the Natural Resources Defense Council, best known for litigating and lobbying for stricter environmental rules in the U.S. The resulting green building uses the best available technology to save energy and water; since it opened last year, it has been toured by 2,000 local officials, designers, and architects. 'In terms of environmental innovation, China's going to kick our ass within a decade unless we wake up,' says Rob Watson, a senior scientist with the NRDC who works on China projects.
At least on paper, China is matching, if not exceeding, environmental standards set in the West. To curb its dependence on imported oil, China has adopted fuel-economy rules for automobiles that are more stringent than those in the U.S. or Europe. That is putting pressure on GM and Volkswagen, the leading foreign carmakers in China, to find ways to profit from selling small, fuel-efficient vehicles. The Chinese government is also investing in fuel-cell technologies for motor scooters, cars, and buses, hoping to invent an entirely new kind of auto industry. 'They've set the policy stage for innovation,' says Watson.
Desperation is driving the initiatives: Like so much in China, the scale of environmental problems is mind-boggling. China is home to five of the world's ten most polluted cities in terms of air quality. It burns dirty coal in more than 2,000 plants, generating clouds bearing mercury, soot, and sulfur dioxide that have been tracked all the way to the Oregon coast. China's industry is wasteful, requiring three to ten times more energy than industry in the U.S., Western Europe, or Japan to produce a dollar of economic output. Water is in short supply and deserts are expanding rapidly, according to Elizabeth Economy, the author of The River Runs Black, a book about China's environmental crisis.
Global companies are poised to capitalize. Immelt says that GE's investments in clean coal technology, wind power, nuclear energy, and fuel cells are being made with China in mind. "While Europe has been a driver for innovation in cleaner technologies, China promises to be its market," he says.
Because China relies so heavily on coal, for instance, it is likely to become the biggest buyer of a cleaner coal technology called IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle, if you must know) that converts coal to natural gas, which generates fewer pollutants. The technology can be combined with a process in which carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming, can be captured and buried deep in the earth. David Hawkins, an expert on climate change with the NRDC who has consulted in China, says, "I think we'll see the technology move forward there faster, conceivably, than in the U.S."
Bill McDonough, the architect and industrial designer, predicts that China will become a seedbed for environmental innovation. "The Chinese are very practical," he says. "They are asking what mistakes have been made in the rest of the world and how they can avoid them." McDonough, who is chairman of a nonprofit called the China-U.S. Center for Sustainable Development, says new building materials will be developed for China—he is working with the chemical industry giant BASF to develop a strong, lightweight, insulating poly- styrene to replace brick—as armies of Chinese people move to the cities. He foresees solar-power farms on a vast scale. "China is the place where the costs of solar collectors will drop once they go into mass production," he says. "It's a massive gift that China will give to the world."
Read the entire article
"CAN CHINA GO GREEN?
Fortune, June 27, 2005
When China's ministry of Science and Technology decided to build a new headquarters in Beijing, the government sought help from an unlikely partner - the Natural Resources Defense Council, best known for litigating and lobbying for stricter environmental rules in the U.S. The resulting green building uses the best available technology to save energy and water; since it opened last year, it has been toured by 2,000 local officials, designers, and architects. 'In terms of environmental innovation, China's going to kick our ass within a decade unless we wake up,' says Rob Watson, a senior scientist with the NRDC who works on China projects.
At least on paper, China is matching, if not exceeding, environmental standards set in the West. To curb its dependence on imported oil, China has adopted fuel-economy rules for automobiles that are more stringent than those in the U.S. or Europe. That is putting pressure on GM and Volkswagen, the leading foreign carmakers in China, to find ways to profit from selling small, fuel-efficient vehicles. The Chinese government is also investing in fuel-cell technologies for motor scooters, cars, and buses, hoping to invent an entirely new kind of auto industry. 'They've set the policy stage for innovation,' says Watson.
Desperation is driving the initiatives: Like so much in China, the scale of environmental problems is mind-boggling. China is home to five of the world's ten most polluted cities in terms of air quality. It burns dirty coal in more than 2,000 plants, generating clouds bearing mercury, soot, and sulfur dioxide that have been tracked all the way to the Oregon coast. China's industry is wasteful, requiring three to ten times more energy than industry in the U.S., Western Europe, or Japan to produce a dollar of economic output. Water is in short supply and deserts are expanding rapidly, according to Elizabeth Economy, the author of The River Runs Black, a book about China's environmental crisis.
Global companies are poised to capitalize. Immelt says that GE's investments in clean coal technology, wind power, nuclear energy, and fuel cells are being made with China in mind. "While Europe has been a driver for innovation in cleaner technologies, China promises to be its market," he says.
Because China relies so heavily on coal, for instance, it is likely to become the biggest buyer of a cleaner coal technology called IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle, if you must know) that converts coal to natural gas, which generates fewer pollutants. The technology can be combined with a process in which carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming, can be captured and buried deep in the earth. David Hawkins, an expert on climate change with the NRDC who has consulted in China, says, "I think we'll see the technology move forward there faster, conceivably, than in the U.S."
Bill McDonough, the architect and industrial designer, predicts that China will become a seedbed for environmental innovation. "The Chinese are very practical," he says. "They are asking what mistakes have been made in the rest of the world and how they can avoid them." McDonough, who is chairman of a nonprofit called the China-U.S. Center for Sustainable Development, says new building materials will be developed for China—he is working with the chemical industry giant BASF to develop a strong, lightweight, insulating poly- styrene to replace brick—as armies of Chinese people move to the cities. He foresees solar-power farms on a vast scale. "China is the place where the costs of solar collectors will drop once they go into mass production," he says. "It's a massive gift that China will give to the world."
Read the entire article
Sunday, June 12, 2005
The incredible shrinking aquifer - Ecocreto porous concrete
The incredible shrinking aquifer - ecological paving material called Ecocreto
"The incredible shrinking aquifer
BY ELIZA BARCLAY/The Herald Mexico, El Universal, Lunes 21 de febrero de 2005
For most Mexico City residents, the circulation of water is an obvious element of daily urban life, be it a projectile coursing down from the sky during the rainy months, a weekly task to replace or refill large plastic jugs of purified drinking water, or as a biweekly gift from the faucet for those marginalized communities whose utility service remains irregular.
As generations have built layer upon layer of structures to create the massive urban jungle that the city is today, it has become easy to forget that the city is sagging atop an enormous underground aquifer, where it has rested since the Aztecs built Tenochtitlan in the Valley of Mexico in the 14th century.
As the city's population has swelled to 18.5 million people, the pressure on the aquifer has become critical as the city's consumption of water has risen to 10,500 cubic feet per second, according to the city government's water division. Estimates of the aquifer's size and its ability to continue to sustain Mexico City vary considerably. Some local hydrologists say it could be fully depleted in as few as 10 to 20 years, while some government officials expect it to last 70 more years at minimum.
But the issue that is of concern to nearly everyone is insuring that the aquifer recharges properly as a means of avoiding full depletion. Though the city gets an average of 40 inches of rainfall per year, groundwater pumping exceeds the natural recharge by 50 to 80 percent. This overuse has resulted in declining groundwater levels, compression of the aquifer, subsidence of the land, and damage to buildings and other structures on the surface -- some parts of the Historic Center have dropped 30 feet.
An effort to recharge the aquifer has emerged from the private sector, in the form of an ecological paving material composed of aggregate grains that allow water to seep through straight into the ground. This porous concrete, called Ecocreto, has been employed in the construction of street pavement, sidewalks, parking lots, and bikepaths at more than 50 sites around the city, including the Televisa headquarters in Santa Fe and the National Museum of Antropology.
Developed by a team of Mexican engineers and architects in 1994 who were distressed by the looming water crises of Mexico City and Guadalajara, Ecocreto is similar to hydraulic concrete but manufactured without sand, which permits as much as 80 percent of rainwater to pass through into the subsoil.
"Our product is 100 percent permeable concrete additive that will help to recharge groundwater resources in Mexico and other parts of the world where water is scarce," said Néstor de Buen Unna, Ecocreto's general director. Ecocreto's popularity has bloomed in the past few years and the company now has distributors in Mexico, Canada and the United States.
Though initiatives like Martínez Santoyo's and Buen Unna's are steps forward in respecting the limits of the aquifer and finding ways to recharge it, the city still faces significant challenges in getting a grip on its water use. As the aquifer remains invisible to the eye above ground, it may be caught in losing tug-ofwar with the city's 18.5 million residents."
Read more about Ecocreto
Read the entire article
"The incredible shrinking aquifer
BY ELIZA BARCLAY/The Herald Mexico, El Universal, Lunes 21 de febrero de 2005
For most Mexico City residents, the circulation of water is an obvious element of daily urban life, be it a projectile coursing down from the sky during the rainy months, a weekly task to replace or refill large plastic jugs of purified drinking water, or as a biweekly gift from the faucet for those marginalized communities whose utility service remains irregular.
As generations have built layer upon layer of structures to create the massive urban jungle that the city is today, it has become easy to forget that the city is sagging atop an enormous underground aquifer, where it has rested since the Aztecs built Tenochtitlan in the Valley of Mexico in the 14th century.
As the city's population has swelled to 18.5 million people, the pressure on the aquifer has become critical as the city's consumption of water has risen to 10,500 cubic feet per second, according to the city government's water division. Estimates of the aquifer's size and its ability to continue to sustain Mexico City vary considerably. Some local hydrologists say it could be fully depleted in as few as 10 to 20 years, while some government officials expect it to last 70 more years at minimum.
But the issue that is of concern to nearly everyone is insuring that the aquifer recharges properly as a means of avoiding full depletion. Though the city gets an average of 40 inches of rainfall per year, groundwater pumping exceeds the natural recharge by 50 to 80 percent. This overuse has resulted in declining groundwater levels, compression of the aquifer, subsidence of the land, and damage to buildings and other structures on the surface -- some parts of the Historic Center have dropped 30 feet.
An effort to recharge the aquifer has emerged from the private sector, in the form of an ecological paving material composed of aggregate grains that allow water to seep through straight into the ground. This porous concrete, called Ecocreto, has been employed in the construction of street pavement, sidewalks, parking lots, and bikepaths at more than 50 sites around the city, including the Televisa headquarters in Santa Fe and the National Museum of Antropology.
Developed by a team of Mexican engineers and architects in 1994 who were distressed by the looming water crises of Mexico City and Guadalajara, Ecocreto is similar to hydraulic concrete but manufactured without sand, which permits as much as 80 percent of rainwater to pass through into the subsoil.
"Our product is 100 percent permeable concrete additive that will help to recharge groundwater resources in Mexico and other parts of the world where water is scarce," said Néstor de Buen Unna, Ecocreto's general director. Ecocreto's popularity has bloomed in the past few years and the company now has distributors in Mexico, Canada and the United States.
Though initiatives like Martínez Santoyo's and Buen Unna's are steps forward in respecting the limits of the aquifer and finding ways to recharge it, the city still faces significant challenges in getting a grip on its water use. As the aquifer remains invisible to the eye above ground, it may be caught in losing tug-ofwar with the city's 18.5 million residents."
Read more about Ecocreto
Read the entire article
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Our Grass Could be Greener
Nationwide, we’ve planted enough lawn to cover the state of
A gas-powered mower pollutes as much in one hour as a car driven for 350 miles, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. About 30 million tons of fertilizer and pesticides, many containing chemicals known to cause birth defects, cancer and damage to the reproductive system, are dumped annually on residential lawns. The runoff from those lawn treatments pollutes groundwater and nearby lakes, bays and oceans.
Want to make your lawn a kinder, gentler part of the landscape? Start here:
- Switch to electric or battery-powered mowers, or, for a smaller lawn, use a reel mower.
- If you use a gas-powered mower, opt for a four-stroke model rather than a two-stroke one. They emit about half the carbon monoxide and one-tenth the hydrocarbons.
- Reduce mowing time and watering demands. Grow low-maintenance, slow-growing grasses. Or convert part of your lawn to ornamental native plants.
- Switch to organic fertilizers – naturally occurring animal and plant byproducts such as manure, fish, bone and blood meal, and fruit scraps. A good buying guide: If the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium ratio equals more than 15, or if one of the numbers is higher than 8, then it’s not likely organic.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Atlas reveals global devastation
Atlas reveals global devastation
"Atlas reveals global devastation
Saturday, June 4, 2005
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- The devastating impact of mankind on the planet is dramatically illustrated in pictures published on Saturday showing explosive urban sprawl, major deforestation and the sucking dry of inland seas over less than three decades.
Mexico City mushrooms from a modest urban center in 1973 to a massive blot on the landscape in 2000, while Beijing shows a similar surge between 1978 and 2000 in satellite pictures published by the United Nations in a new environmental atlas.
Delhi sprawls explosively between 1977 and 1999, while from 1973 to 2000 the tiny desert town of Las Vegas turns into a monster conurbation of one million people -- placing massive strain on scarce water supplies.
"If there is one message from this atlas it is that we are all part of this. We can all make a difference," U.N. expert Kaveh Zahedi told reporters at the launch of the "One Planet Many People" atlas on the eve of World Environment Day.
Page after page of the 300-page book illustrate in before-and-after pictures from space the disfigurement of the face of the planet wrought by human activities.
U.N. Environment Program chief Klaus Toepfer has chosen efforts to make cities greener as this year's theme for World Environment Day on Sunday on the basis that the world is becoming increasingly urbanized.
"Cities pull in huge amounts of resources including water, food, timber, metals and people. They export large amounts of wastes including household and industrial wastes, wastewater and the gases linked with global warming," he said in a statement.
"Thus their impacts stretch beyond their physical borders affecting countries, regions and the planet as a whole.
"So the battle for sustainable development, for delivering a more environmentally stable, just and healthier world, is going to be largely won and lost in our cities," Toepfer added.
The destruction of swathes of mangroves in the Gulf of Fonseca off Honduras to make way for extensive shrimp farms shows up clearly in the pictures.
The atlas makes the point that not only has it left the estuary bereft of the natural coastal defense provided by the mangroves, but the shrimp themselves have been linked to pollution and widespread damage to the area's ecosystem.
And images of the wholesale destruction of vital rainforest around Iguazu Falls -- one of South America's most spectacular waterfalls -- on the borders between Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay evoke comparisons with a bulldozer on a rampage.
"These illustrate some of the changes we have made to our environment," Zahedi said. "This is a visual tool to capture people's imaginations showing what is really happening."
"It serves as an early warning," he added.
Read at the original source
"Atlas reveals global devastation
Saturday, June 4, 2005
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- The devastating impact of mankind on the planet is dramatically illustrated in pictures published on Saturday showing explosive urban sprawl, major deforestation and the sucking dry of inland seas over less than three decades.
Mexico City mushrooms from a modest urban center in 1973 to a massive blot on the landscape in 2000, while Beijing shows a similar surge between 1978 and 2000 in satellite pictures published by the United Nations in a new environmental atlas.
Delhi sprawls explosively between 1977 and 1999, while from 1973 to 2000 the tiny desert town of Las Vegas turns into a monster conurbation of one million people -- placing massive strain on scarce water supplies.
"If there is one message from this atlas it is that we are all part of this. We can all make a difference," U.N. expert Kaveh Zahedi told reporters at the launch of the "One Planet Many People" atlas on the eve of World Environment Day.
Page after page of the 300-page book illustrate in before-and-after pictures from space the disfigurement of the face of the planet wrought by human activities.
U.N. Environment Program chief Klaus Toepfer has chosen efforts to make cities greener as this year's theme for World Environment Day on Sunday on the basis that the world is becoming increasingly urbanized.
"Cities pull in huge amounts of resources including water, food, timber, metals and people. They export large amounts of wastes including household and industrial wastes, wastewater and the gases linked with global warming," he said in a statement.
"Thus their impacts stretch beyond their physical borders affecting countries, regions and the planet as a whole.
"So the battle for sustainable development, for delivering a more environmentally stable, just and healthier world, is going to be largely won and lost in our cities," Toepfer added.
The destruction of swathes of mangroves in the Gulf of Fonseca off Honduras to make way for extensive shrimp farms shows up clearly in the pictures.
The atlas makes the point that not only has it left the estuary bereft of the natural coastal defense provided by the mangroves, but the shrimp themselves have been linked to pollution and widespread damage to the area's ecosystem.
And images of the wholesale destruction of vital rainforest around Iguazu Falls -- one of South America's most spectacular waterfalls -- on the borders between Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay evoke comparisons with a bulldozer on a rampage.
"These illustrate some of the changes we have made to our environment," Zahedi said. "This is a visual tool to capture people's imaginations showing what is really happening."
"It serves as an early warning," he added.
Read at the original source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)