Horror of all horrors!

Just when we had thought we have had enough of major disasters for a while, comes the monster triple whammy for Japan. An 9.0 earthquake bigger than anything experienced in the country followed by a devastating tsunami and then an on-going related series of nuclear “accidents”. It raises the nuclear spectre again and could lead to renewed interest in cleaner renewables.  If you look at Munich Re reports you will be able to see the world is definitely receiving more – and more frequently – disasters or natural catastrophes. The big question is still how many of them are “natural” and how many are man-made, or at least contributed to in some way by what we humans have been doing to the atmosphere, the earth and the climate.  For the last two issues we have had reports of research findings of the link between geological events and a changing climate. No need to labour the point, so we spread the word wider on the food security issue with a new role for Sir John Beddington. The Carbon tax issue in Australia won’t go away, but Dr Frank Jotzo gives it a new slant. Melting ice-sheets come into NASA’s view and the US wants APEC to drive greenhouse gas reductions.An OECD survey puts ten countries into the green spotlight and the UK Guardian looks at the benefits of going green. Then there’s cloud computing with a green tinge, geothermal boldly coming above ground, and ancient treasures under greater threat of climate change. What’s new under the sun? – Ken Hickson

Profile: Sir John Beddington

Extreme weather events have contributed to a level of food price volatility we haven’t seen since the oil crisis of 40 years ago. “Unfortunately, this could be just a taste of things to come because in the next few decades the build-up of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere could greatly increase risk of droughts, flooding, pest infestation and water scarcity for agriculture systems already under tremendous stress.” So says the United Kingdom’s chief scientific advisor  Sir John Beddington, who heads the new global  Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change.

New commission confronts threats to food security from climate change

Experts from 6 continents are set to produce policy recommendations for boosting food production in face of harsher climates, increasing populations, scarce resources

COPENHAGEN (11 March 2011) — Recent droughts and floods have contributed to increases in food prices. These are pushing millions more people into poverty and hunger, and are contributing to political instability and civil unrest. Climate change is predicted to increase these threats to food security and stability. Responding to this, the world’s largest agriculture research consortium today announced the creation of a new Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change.

Chaired by the United Kingdom’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, the Commission will in the next ten months seek to build international consensus on a clear set of policy actions to help global agriculture adapt to climate change, achieve food security and reduce poverty and greenhouse gas emissions.

There is a rich body of scientific evidence for sustainable agriculture approaches that can increase production of food, fibre and fuel, help decrease poverty and benefit the environment, but agreement is needed on how best to put these approaches into action at scale. Evidence also shows that climate change, with population growth and pressures on natural resources, is set to produce food shortages and biodiversity loss worldwide unless action is taken now.

“Extreme weather like the droughts in Russia, China and Brazil and the flooding in Pakistan and Australia have contributed to a level of food price volatility we haven’t seen since the oil crisis of 40 years ago,” Beddington said. “Unfortunately, this could be just a taste of things to come because in the next few decades the build-up of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere could greatly increase risk of droughts, flooding, pest infestation and water scarcity for agriculture systems already under tremendous stress.”

The Commission brings together senior natural and social scientists working in agriculture, climate, food and nutrition, economics, and natural resources from Australia, Brazil, Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia, France, Kenya, India, Mexico, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam.

“I think policymakers are eager for a clear set of recommendations supported by a strong scientific consensus for achieving food security in a world where weather extremes seem to becoming more and more common,” said Dr. Mohammed Asaduzzaman, Research Director of the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies and the Commission’s Deputy Chair. “This Commission is confronting a problem not just of the future but, for places like Bangladesh, a problem of the present. We already are seeing major changes in growing conditions caused by higher temperatures and loss of productive lands to rising sea levels.”

Today, scientists are increasingly concerned that more extreme weather events, especially drought and floods will impede the growth in food production required to avert hunger and political instability as the global population increases to nine billion people by 2050. Even an increase in global mean temperatures of only two degrees Celsius—the low end of current estimates—could significantly reduce crop and livestock yields. Supporting these concerns has been the weather-induced crop losses that contributed to high food prices this year and in 2008.

The World Bank reported in February that the recent rise in food prices—which included a doubling of wheat prices and a 73 percent increase in maize prices—already has pushed an extra 44 million people into poverty. World Bank President Robert Zoellick said food prices have been an “aggravating factor” in the political turmoil in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East and that their destabilizing effect “could become more serious.”

The Commission has been set up by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security program (CCAFS) – a 10-year effort launched by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) – with support from the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development.

“Our ability to deal with the effects of climate change on food security, in both the developed and developing world, will largely determine whether our future is one marked by stability or perpetual food shocks,” said Dr Bruce Campbell, Director of CCAFS. “But there are so many perspectives on the best way for farmers to adapt to climate change—and for farmers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as well—that we have ended up sort of paralyzed by a lack of clear choices.”

The Commission will synthesize existing research to clearly articulate scientific findings on the potential impact of climate change on food security globally and regionally. The Commission will then produce a set of specific policy actions for dealing with these challenges.

The Commission’s findings will be primarily directed to international policy, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Rio+20 Earth Summit, and the Group of 20 (G20) industrialized and developing countries.

###

The Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change is identifying what policy changes and actions are needed now to help the world achieve sustainable agriculture that contributes to food security and poverty reduction, and helps respond to climate change adaptation and mitigation goals. The Commission is an initiative of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), with additional support from the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development.

Full list of Commissioners

Biographical details are available at http://ccafs.cgiar.org/content/commission/commissioners

• Professor Sir John Beddington, CMG FRS Chief Scientist, Government Office for Science, United Kingdom (Commission Chair)
• Dr Mohammed Asaduzzaman, Research Director, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, Bangladesh
• Dr Adrian Fernández Bremauntz, Senior Consultant, ClimateWorks Foundation, Mexico
• Dr Megan Clark, FTSE, GAICD, Chief Executive Officer, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia
• Dr Marion Guillou, President, Institut Scientifique de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France
• Professor Molly Jahn, Laboratory of Genetics and Department of Agronomy and Special Advisor to the Chancellor and Provost for Sustainability Sciences, the University of Madison-Wisconsin, USA
• Professor Lin Erda, Director of the Research Centre of Agriculture and Climate Change, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China
• Professor Tekalign Mamo, State Minister and Minister’s Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture, Ethiopia
• Dr Nguyen Van Bo, President, Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Science, Vietnam
• Dr Carlos A Nobre, Director of the Center for Earth System Science, National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Brazil
• Professor Bob Scholes, Fellow, Natural Resources and the Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), South Africa
• Dr Rita Sharma, Secretary, National Advisory Council (Prime Minister’s Office), India
• Professor Judi Wakhungu, Executive Director, African Center for Technology Studies (ACTS), Kenya

Key facts on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change from the CCAFS program:

• A 4-degree rise in temperatures will have profound effects on farming, cutting down both the range of potential adaptation options and the efficacy of those options. Different crop models give different estimates, but ensembles of models suggest average yield drops of 19% for maize and 47% for beans, and much more frequent crop failures. (Source: Thornton et. al. 2010 -http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/117.full)
• The first half of the 21st century is likely to see increases in food prices, and increasing demand driven by population and income growth. Even without climate change, prices could rise by 10% (for rice) to 54% (for maize) by 2050. With climate change, price increases more or less double, ranging from 31% for rice in the optimistic scenario to 100% for maize in the baseline scenario. (Nelson et. al. 2010 - http://www.ifpri.org/publication/food-security-farming-and-climate-change-2050)
• Climate change provides a massive and urgent incentive to intensify efforts to disseminate the fruits of past research, to adapt it to farmer contexts in different developing countries, and to put in place the necessary policies and incentives. The benefits of adopting many of the existing technologies could be sufficient to override the immediate negative impacts of climate change. Key messages from the major Foresight project on the Future of Global Food and Farming, lead by Professor Sir John Beddington:
• Addressing climate change and achieving sustainability in the global food system need to be recognised as dual imperatives.
• Ambitious, and in some case legally binding, targets for reducing emissions have been set, which cannot be achieved without the food system playing an important part.

There is a clear case for substantially integrating and improving considerations of agriculture and food production in negotiations on global emissions reductions.

The program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) is a strategic partnership of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). CCAFS brings together the world’s best researchers in agricultural science, development research, climate science, and Earth System science, to identify and address the most important interactions, synergies and tradeoffs between climate change, agriculture and food security. For more information, visit www.ccafs.cgiar.org.

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for sustainable development with the funders of this work. The funders include developing and industrialized country governments, foundations, and international and regional organizations. The work they support is carried out by 15 members of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, in close collaboration with hundreds of partner organizations, including national and regional research institutes, civil society organizations, academia, and the private sector.www.cgiar.org - http://cgiarconsortium.cgxchange.org.

The Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) was established in 2001 to promote cooperation for the integrated study of the Earth system, the changes that are occurring to the system and the implications of these changes for global sustainability. Bringing together global environmental change researchers worldwide, the ESSP comprises four international global environmental change research programmes: DIVERSITAS; the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP); the International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme (IGBP); and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). http://www.essp.org/

The Global Donor Platform for Rural Development is a network of 34 bilateral and multilateral donors, international financing institutions, intergovernmental organisations and development agencies.

Members share a common vision that agriculture and rural development is central to poverty reduction, and a conviction that sustainable and efficient development requires a coordinated global approach.

The Platform was created in 2003 to increase and improve the quality of development assistance in agriculture and rural development. www.donorplatform.org

Source: http://www.eurekalert.org

Biography

Sir John Beddington was appointed as Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) on 1 January 2008. Since being in post, the GCSA has led on providing scientific advice to Government during the 2009 swine flu outbreak and the 2010 volcanic ash incident. The GCSA has also been responsible for increasing the scientific capacity across Whitehall by encouraging all major departments of state to recruit a Chief Scientific Adviser.

Throughout 2008 and 2009 Sir John raised the concept of the “Perfect Storm” of food, energy and water security in the context of climate change, gaining considerable media attention and raising this as a priority in the UK and internationally.

Prior to his appointment as GCSA, he was Professor of Applied Population Biology and headed the main departments of environmental science and technology at Imperial College. His main research interests are the application of biological and economic analysis to problems of Natural Resource Management.

Sir John has previously been advisor to a number of UK Government departments including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office. He has also advised several Governments and international bodies including the Australian, New Zealand and US Governments, the European Commission, the United Nations Environment Programme and Food and Agriculture Organisation.

He was, for six years, a member of the Natural Environment Research Council. In June 1997 he was awarded the Heidelberg Award for Environmental Excellence, in 2001 he became a Fellow of the Royal Society. In 2004 he was awarded the Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George by Her Majesty the Queen and in June 2010 was awarded a knighthood in the Queen’s Birthday Honours.

Source: www.bis.gov.uk

Climate Linked to Earthquake, Tsunami & Nuclear

Japan’s nuclear crisis will boost interest in clean renewables such as solar and wind power but may also sharpen demand for coal, oil and gas, whose carbon pollution drives climate change, meanwhile a report says in addition to the earthquake magnitude, global climate change may also have a bearing on the occurrence of tsunamis, with experts from the China Meteorological Administration saying that the 2004 tsunami that struck Southeast Asia was partially linked to the rising sea levels.

Mar 15 2011ago

ninemsn

By Marlowe Hood and Anthony Lucas (AFP) – 12 hours ago

PARIS — Japan’s nuclear crisis will boost interest in clean renewables such as solar and wind power but may also sharpen demand for coal, oil and gas, whose carbon pollution drives climate change, experts said Monday.

Nuclear energy provides around 14 percent of the world’s electricity mix, although this is overwhelmingly concentrated in six countries, and is not going to disappear off the map any time soon, they said.

“The accident in Japan is not a death sentence for nuclear power,” stressed Jean-Marie Chevalier, an economist and energy expert at the Universite Paris Dauphine, pointing to the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in existing reactors and plants under construction.

But the scare surrounding the crippled reactors at the earthquake-struck Fukushima plant means nuclear’s renaissance after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster will be crimped, at least in the short term.

Governments in India, the United States and Europe are under pressure to review safety standards or slap a moratorium on new projects, and Germany and Switzerland have already said they will be on hold plans to extend the operational life of existing plants, pending safety reviews.

“At the very least, we would expect significant investments in nuclear to be delayed, or deferred, for a period of one to two years,” said Rupesh Madlani, renewables analysts at Barclays Capital in London.

In the short run, any energy shortfall in Japan, and elsewhere, will be filled by fossil fuels, said other experts.

“Disruption to the Japanese nuclear industry means that they are going to be relying increasingly on oil and gas for power generation,” said Julian Lee, an analyst at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, a London think tank backed by the oil industry.

Jacques Percebois, head of the Centre for Research on Energy Economy and Law at Monpellier University, agreed the fossil fuel industry would be early beneficiaries as it could provide gigawatts of quick power.

“Those who declare a moratorium on new nuclear energy should understand that the available solution for meeting large-scale energy demands today is not solar panels, it’s gas,” he told AFP.

Burning natural gas contributes to global warming, but less so than oil, and far less than coal.

“The major risk is that, facing an energy shortage, coal-fired reactors with coal imported from Australia are built,” said Cedric Philibert, an analyst in the renewable energy division of the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris.

“Japan’s greenhouse gas emissions would skyrocket.”

At the same time, though, a slowdown in nuclear investment would also steer money into renewable energies, which since the 2008 financial crisis have been struggling to expand their share of the world’s power market, several experts said.

“This should lead to an incremental upside in terms of demand for wind and solar projects,” said Madlani of Barclays.

“It could mean 10 percent more wind and solar being demanded each year for the next couple of years,” he told AFP.

Madlani also pointed to current high oil prices and the increasing cost of oil extraction, especially after the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

For Christiana Figueres, the United Nations’ top climate change official, the meltdown will probably push up the costs of nuclear energy, making renewables more competitive.

“Japan will change mid-term world energy scenarios,” she said in a Twitter message on Sunday from a meeting of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in Berlin.

Source: www.news.ninemsn.com.au and http://www.google.com

From Agencies

Backgrounder: Relationship between earthquakes, tsunamis

Xinhua

Updated: 2011-03-11 21:15:00

Comments(0)  PrintMail                        Large Medium Small

BEIJING, March 11 (Xinhua) — An 8.9-magnitude earthquake struck northeastern Japan on Friday afternoon, the largest temblor ever recorded by the Japanese Meteorological Agency. The earthquake triggered a tsunami that swamped hundreds of kilometers around the epicenter.

The following is a brief introduction of the relationship between earthquakes and tsunamis.

A tsunami is a series of destructive waves, sometimes tens of meters high, caused by the displacement of a large volume of water, usually an ocean. With gigantic energy and fast movement, the waves are catastrophic to the affected coastal areas.

Tsunamis are usually triggered by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and underwater explosions, landslides and other mass movements. Underseas earthquakes have generated nearly all the major tsunamis in history.

Tsunamis can be generated when the sea floor abruptly deforms and vertically displaces the overlying water. Tectonic earthquakes are a particular kind of temblor associated with the earth’s crustal deformation.

When these earthquakes occur beneath the sea, the water above the deformed area is displaced from its equilibrium position.

However, undersea earthquakes do not necessarily lead to tsunamis.

Statistics from the China Earthquake Administration show that of the past 15,000 undersea tectonic earthquakes, only about 100 generated tsunamis. Some experts hold that only earthquakes of above 6.5 magnitude and with a focal depth of less than 25 km underground can cause tsunamis.

Sometimes even strong earthquakes, such as the 8.5-magnitude qukae that occurred near Sumatra in 2005, do not trigger tsunamis because the quake intensity can be largely compromised by the great focal depth, experts say.

In addition to the earthquake magnitude, global climate change may also have a bearing on the occurrence of tsunamis.

According to experts from the China Meteorological Administration, the 2004 tsunami that struck Southeast Asia was partially linked to the rising sea level caused by global climate change.

Source: www.chinadaily.com.cn

Carbon Price Involves Give & Take

Australian National University’s Dr Frank Jotzo thinks he’s found a way to beat the carbon price impasse, with a strategy respond’s to each of the conflicting interest groups’ key concerns while still producing a scheme that stacks up economically and environmentally. Essentially, it involves give and take, as well as recognition of the global impact of emissions, not just Australia’s alone. His scheme also includes provision to lift the target to a 25% reduction in emissions by 2020, in response to any increase in global ambition.

Sydney Morning Herald

Ross Gittens

A way to tackle carbon and keep everybody happy March 12, 2011

.

As if we needed any reminding, the latest flare-up of politicking over putting a price on carbon shows just how difficult it will be to gain sufficient community agreement to take effective action against climate change.

With a government lacking the numbers in both houses, the Greens demanding a sackcloth-and-ashes scheme and an opposition determinedly putting short-term partisan advantage ahead of the national interest, how are we to reach agreement?

Well, Dr Frank Jotzo, of the centre for climate economics and policy at the Australian National University, thinks he’s found a way. In a forthcoming paper he proposes a strategy that would respond to each of the conflicting interest groups’ key concerns while still producing a scheme that stacks up economically and environmentally.

He starts by ignoring the political parties and identifying four key constituencies. First are environmentally concerned citizens and groups. These are deeply concerned about climate change and convinced of the need to reduce domestic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They’d like to see Australia making a constructive contribution to global action.

Second are the general citizens, who accept that more needs to be done about climate change, but are concerned about the possible effect on their cost of living, thus making them vulnerable to scare campaigns.

Third is the general business community, which is only weakly engaged in the public debate because it doesn’t see climate change as a core concern. But it accepts that something must be done and sees an effective government response as a sign of commitment to reform and good government.

Fourth are emissions-intensive industries, which now seem to have accepted some form of emissions reduction policy is inevitable, but are focused on minimising the financial impacts on major emitters. The success of their lobbying resulted in the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme granting them many free emission permits and much permit revenue.

While some of these businesses would be happy to see policy action delayed, more of them want to reduce the effect of uncertainty about policy on electricity generators’ decisions on new investments. The present hiatus creates a risk of disruption in electricity supply over coming years.

How could you come up with an arrangement that offered enough to each of those groups to achieve their support for action? Jotzo thinks the key to it is the leeway provided by a little-understood feature of the Rudd government’s scheme, or any other plausible scheme.

Australia is a relatively small open economy whose carbon reduction scheme would be part of a global collection of national schemes which, collectively, would significantly reduce global emissions. It’s the level of global emissions, not the efforts of any particular small country, which influences climate change.

Because the problem and the solution are global, the Kyoto Protocol and, no doubt, its eventual successor provide for the trading of emission permits between countries. This helps to minimise the economic cost of reducing emissions by allowing emissions to be reduced in those parts of the world where the cost of doing so is lowest.

If it’s more expensive for me to reduce my emissions than it is for you to reduce yours, let me meet my obligation by paying you to reduce yours on my behalf.

Under the Rudd government’s scheme it was always intended that Australian producers who needed permits to cover their emissions would be free to meet their obligations by purchasing emissions permits from overseas. This means the international price of emissions permits would set a ceiling for the market price of permits in our scheme.

It also means that, until the domestic price of permits reaches the international price, the domestic price and the rate at which it’s set to rise can be detached from the achievement of the target for Australia’s contribution to the reduction in global emissions.

Should the reduction in domestic emissions fall short of the target, the government can simply buy sufficient overseas permits to ensure the target is met. This decoupling allows us to phase in the carbon price – thus making it easier for firms and households to adjust to it – while still setting and achieving an ambitious target.

And this allows Jotzo to propose a strategy that ”has the potential to deliver a worthwhile long-run policy outcome while working within the major concerns and interests of the four interest groups”.

The strategy builds on last month’s agreement between the government and the Greens to set a government-determined carbon price from next July, with provision to shift to a trading-determined price over the medium to long term as international uncertainties are resolved.

The first step is to ensure that, wherever the initial carbon price is set, it should be increased over time so that the price in the medium term (from 2015 to 2020) is high enough to create confidence that Australia’s domestic emissions will begin to trend downwards within the next few years.

Remember, the expected future price of carbon is the major driver of present new investments in the assets – such as power plants, business machinery, transport infrastructure and vehicles, buildings and household appliances – that will shape future energy use and emissions.

The simplest way to achieve this is to legislate the path of the fixed price and then, once the switch is made to an emissions trading scheme, legislate the path of a minimum price below which the market price won’t be allowed to fall.

The second step is to set the initial price at a level low enough to give people confidence the short-run effects on the economy will be manageable and to give households and businesses time to adjust.

This would reassure general citizens and the two business constituencies, demonstrating that a carbon price won’t cause major economic disruption.

The third step is to ensure any assistance to emitters is tightly limited, determined by transparent rules, subject to sunset provisions and, above all, doesn’t reduce their incentive to cut their emissions.

In using the proceeds from the sale of permits, the highest priority should be compensating households – particularly low- to middle-income households – for the rise in their cost of living but, again, this must be done in a way that doesn’t reduce their incentive to cut emissions.

Finally, the scheme should include provision for the government to steepen the path of the carbon price, and lift the target to a 25 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, in response to any increase in global ambition beyond what individual countries promised to achieve following the meeting in Copenhagen.

Ross Gittins is the economics editor

Source: www.smh.com.au

NASA: Rapid Ice Sheet Melting

The pace at which the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting is “accelerating rapidly” and raising the global sea level, according to findings of a study financed by NASA, suggesting that the ice sheets – more so than ice loss from Earth’s mountain glaciers and ice caps – have become “the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted”.

In the Age March 9, 2011 – 3:19PM

AFP

The pace at which the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting is “accelerating rapidly” and raising the global sea level, according to findings of a study financed by NASA.

The findings suggest that the ice sheets – more so than ice loss from Earth’s mountain glaciers and ice caps – have become “the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted”.

This study, published on Tuesday, the longest to date examining changes to polar ice sheet mass, combined two decades of monthly satellite measurements with regional atmospheric climate model data to study changes in mass.

Advertisement: Story continues below

“That ice sheets will dominate future sea level rise is not surprising – they hold a lot more ice mass than mountain glaciers,” said lead author Eric Rignot, jointly of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine.

“What is surprising is this increased contribution by the ice sheets is already happening,” he said.

Under the current trends, he said, sea level is likely to be “significantly higher” than levels projected by the United Nations climate change panel in 2007.

Isabella Velicogna, co-author of the study, told AFP that the ice sheets lose mass by melting or by breaking apart in blocks of ice, which float into the ocean.

“It’s related to the warming of the planet but that was not the point of the paper. We just observed the changes,” said Velicogna, a professor at UC Irvine. “It’s losing mass – much more than was expected many years ago.”

The study showed that in 2006, a year in which comparable results for loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps are available, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost enough mass to raise global sea level by an average of 1.3mm per year.

The year-on-year acceleration rate of loss on mountain glaciers and ice caps was three times smaller than that of the ice sheets, the study said.

“The authors conclude that, if current ice sheet melting rates continue for the next four decades, their cumulative loss could raise sea level by 15cm by 2050,” the report said.

“When this is added to the predicted sea level contribution of 8cm from glacial ice caps and 9cm from ocean thermal expansion, total sea level rise could reach 12.6 inches (32 centimetres),” it said.

The findings were published the March edition of Geophysical Research Letters.

Source: www.news.theage.com.au

By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY ( 8 March 2011)

American skepticism about whether the world’s weather is changing depends partly on wording. More believe in “climate change” than “global warming,” a new study by the University of Michigan shows.

Three of four people, or 74%, thought the problem was real when it was referred to as climate change, while 68% thought it was real when it was called global warming, according to questions posed by U-M psychologists on a RAND-conducted survey of 2,267 U.S. adults..

“Wording matters,” study co-author Jonathon Schuldt said in announcing the findings, which will be published in the upcoming issue of Public Opinion Quarterly. “While global warming focuses attention on temperature increases, climate change focuses attention on more general changes,” he said. “Thus, an unusually cold day may increase doubts about global warming more so than about climate change.”

The study found the differences were due almost entirely to participants who identified themselves as Republicans. While 60% of Republicans said they thought climate change was real, only 44% said they believed in the reality of global warming. In contrast, 86% of Democrats thought climate change was a serious problem, regardless of wording.

“It might be a ceiling effect, given their high level of belief,” co-author Sara Konrath, a U-M psychologist, speculated. “Or it could be that Democrats’ beliefs about global climate change might be more crystallized, and as a result, more protected from subtle manipulations.”

The good news, the study says, is that Americans may not be as polarized on the issue as previously thought. “When the issue is framed as global warming, the partisan divide is nearly 42 percentage points. But when the frame is climate change, the partisan divide drops to about 26 percentage points.” said the third author, Norbert Schwarz, who is also affiliated with the U-M Ross Business School and the Institute of Social Research.

As part of the study, the researchers also analyzed the use of the two terms by political think tank websites. They found that conservative groups tend to call the phenomenon global warming, while liberal ones call it climate change.

Source: www.content.usatoday.com

Greening Home Survey of  Ten Nations

The latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) comparison of the environmental behaviour of households puts Australia at or near the bottom on most questions asked. The Greening Household Behaviour survey covered 10,000 people across 10 countries – Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Almost 80% of Czech and Italian households have installed energy-efficient appliances in the past 10 years, compared to 30% in Korea and 40% in Sweden.

Peter Martin in Sydney Morning Herald (10 March 2011):

AUSTRALIANS are in love with cars, leave electric appliances on standby, don’t like drinking the tap water and can’t see that much point in saving the environment.

The latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development comparison of the environmental behaviour of households in 10 member nations puts Australia at or near the bottom on most questions asked.

Entitled Greening Household Behaviour, the survey excludes the US and Britain but includes countries similar to Australia such as Canada and France as well as less similar nations such as Mexico and South Korea.

When it comes to concern, Australians are among the most worried. Between 40 and 50 per cent of Australians are ”very concerned” about a range of issues from waste generation to air pollution to climate change. By contrast in the least concerned nations, the Netherlands and Norway, the ratings are between 20 and 30 per cent.

But Australians are relatively unprepared to believe we can do anything about it. Almost 5 per cent think there’s no point in taking action as an individual or a household, more than in any nation surveyed, and twice the 2.5 per cent in Canada and 2 per cent in Mexico.

In homes Australians use more water than anyone apart from Canadians. Australians buy homes paying the least amount of attention to energy costs, with only 20 per cent making such calculations compared to 30 per cent of Italians and 50 per cent of Czechs.

Australians are most likely to leave appliances on in standby mode and are among of the least likely to turn down the heat. But Australians are most likely to recognise an energy efficiency label, but are middle of the range when it comes to installing energy efficient products.

Australian recycling services are among the world’s best, but residents are the least likely of the nations surveyed to recycle household plastic, paper and glass and the second-least likely to recycle metal. When it comes to hazardous waste Australians are the least likely to dispose of batteries properly and the second-least likely to dispose of medicines properly.

The OECD finds that Australians are among the least satisfied with tap water of the 10 nations surveyed (only Mexico and South Korea think less of their water) but also are among the least ready to reach for the bottle. An extraordinary 88 per cent of Canadians drink bottled water compared to 30 per cent of Australians.

And Australians adore our cars, with 2.6 per family, beaten only by Italy, which has 2.7. Some 85 per cent of Australians use cars to get to shops, more than anyone else.

Source: www.smh.com.au

Source: www.oecd.org

Is Low Carbon Consumerism “Smart, Fun or Green Hedonism”?

British Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne has called on business leaders to revamp the way they promote green products in order to shift their messaging away from ethical considerations and towards the benefits low-carbon products and services can bring, as “the smart choice, the fun choice”, even urging them to deliver low-carbon products that encourage “green hedonism”. The new CBI report, which is based on a survey of nearly 2,000 people, reveals that energy efficiency and environmental impacts remain a relatively low priority when consumers are considering making a purchase, warning that despite growing concerns about climate change “we are seeing limited change in consumer purchasing behaviour”.

The Guardian (9 March 2011):

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne has today called on business leaders to revamp the way they promote green products in order to shift their messaging away from ethical considerations and towards the benefits low-carbon products and services can bring.

Speaking at the launch of a new CBI report that reveals widespread consumer indifference to many green and energy-efficient products, Huhne said the onus was on businesses to position low-carbon products as “the smart choice, the fun choice”, even urging them to deliver low-carbon products that encourage “green hedonism”.

The new CBI report, which is based on a survey of nearly 2,000 people, reveals that energy efficiency and environmental impacts remain a relatively low priority when consumers are considering making a purchase, warning that despite growing concerns about climate change “we are seeing limited change in consumer purchasing behaviour”.

Huhne said that both businesses and government needed to step up efforts to “make it easier for people to make green choices and ensure they are thinking green at the critical decision point”.

“We need to change the story so that rather than [green products being] a sacrifice we take to feel better about ourselves, it is clear the green choice is the smart choice… the fun choice,” he said.

His comments were echoed by CBI director-general John Cridland, who argued “business has yet to make a compelling enough case to our customers about the benefit of the low-carbon economy”.

“When people do their weekly shop, they don’t walk down the supermarket aisles looking for low-carbon products,” he observed. “They want to know how something is going to give them value for money.”

Huhne said the government was keen to work with businesses to make it easier for consumers to make green purchasing decisions, calling for the creation of a “simple, consistent, voluntary labeling scheme” modeled on the successful A-G labels for fridges that clearly display the energy costs associated with different products.

The CBI report, entitled Buying into it – making the consumer case for low carbon, revealed that while 83 per cent of people think businesses have a responsibility to provide energy-efficiency information, only 16 per cent trust manufacturers to provide accurate information and just nine per trust retailers to do the same.

Cridland admitted too many firms were guilty of using green labels to confuse customers, warning that companies “need to drop the spin and bowl straight” if they are to produce an effective standardised labeling scheme.

To accompany the launch of the report, the CBI today announced plans for a new joint business-government taskforce designed to promote policies and initiatives that will help build a mass market for green goods.

Cridland said that it would work on developing more consistent energy labeling for a wider range of green products, as well as investigating ways to improve green marketing and better promote upcoming government campaigns, such as the Green Deal and the smart meter rollout.

He also offered some thinly veiled criticism of the government’s Green Deal proposals, reiterating CBI concerns that the coalition has not put in place sufficient incentives to encourage people to take advantage of the energy-efficient loan scheme.

“When we present the Green Deal, we shouldn’t be talking about lofty ambitions and targets that we have to hit – we should be selling,” he said. “The people who will deliver the Green Deal – the people who will finance it, or who will be putting in the insulation, the double-glazing – they tell me they’re really up for the potential for this scheme, but they’re also worried we’re not exciting the public enough to get them to take it up.”

Despite reports that this month’s budget could include some form of stamp duty tax break for households that take advantage of the Green Deal, Huhne failed to provide further details on how the government will promote the scheme. But he reiterated the coalition’s commitment to its flagship energy-efficiency policy, arguing that it will represent the “biggest intervention in home energy since the birth of the national grid”.

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Spur Green Growth with Lower Trade Barriers in Asia Pacific

The United States, taking the helm of the APEC forum, hopes to spur green growth in the Asia-Pacific region by knocking down trade barriers on environmental goods. Senior officials from the 21-member Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meet in Washington to kick off a year that will culminate in a November summit in Hawaii and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will address the forum on Wednesday to outline the US strategy. Muhamad Noor, executive director of APEC, said that the United States wanted to produce “deliverables.”
AFP March 9, 2011, 8:00 am

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States, taking the helm of the APEC forum, hopes to spur green growth in the Asia-Pacific region by knocking down trade barriers on environmental goods, a senior official said Tuesday.

Senior officials from the 21-member Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum are meeting this week in Washington to kick off a year that will culminate in a November summit in Hawaii. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will address the forum on Wednesday to outline the US strategy.

Muhamad Noor, executive director of APEC, said that the United States wanted to produce “deliverables.” Last year’s summit in Yokohama, Japan, called for progress on a long-mooted idea of a trans-Pacific free trade zone.

Noor, a veteran Malaysian trade negotiator, said that President Barack Obama’s administration was putting a priority on green growth and on helping both sides of the Pacific to “transition to a clean energy future.”

“APEC will accelerate efforts to address barriers to trade in environmental goods and services,” Noor told reporters.

“It will also seek to remove barriers related to the importation of advanced technology demonstration products such as vehicles and remanufactured and recycled goods,” he said.

APEC includes China and the United States, which are by far the world’s two biggest emitters of carbon blamed for the planet’s steadily rising temperatures.

Noor said that APEC, sometimes criticized as a talking shop, did not intend to supplant the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which is leading talks on an elusive successor to the Kyoto Protocol, but would seek to boost trade.

“If you are able to make this technology available to the developing nations, I think it will be a major contribution to the environment,” Noor said.

“APEC will continue to work in our traditional way, building consensus on this,” he said.

Most nations agree on the need for technology transfer, but the details have been controversial during climate negotiations.

Wealthy nations want assurances that developing economies will respect intellectual property rights. Many developing states, meanwhile, say climate assistance should not be a substitute for wealthy states curbing carbon emissions.

UN-led talks in December in Cancun, Mexico, made headway, with nations agreeing to set up a new fund under the World Bank to administer billions of dollars in climate assistance.

Source: www.au.news.yahoo.com

Coming to the Surface Near You: The Hottest Rock Band!

Did you know that Australia has the hottest known near-surface rocks outside of volcanic areas anywhere in the world? The team at Hot Dry Rocks knows, and it wants to spread the word. The Australian geothermal outfit announced it has signed a memorandum of understanding with three European companies to form EGS Global Group, an alliance aimed at building awareness and development of engineered geothermal systems (EGS), and to provide Australia with world-class opportunities for EGS energy developments. Climate Spectator has this and other clean energy stories.

Sophie Vorrath in Climate Spectator 10 March 2011

Did you know that Australia has the hottest known near-surface rocks outside of volcanic areas anywhere in the world? The team at Hot Dry Rocks knows, and it wants to spread the word. The Australian geothermal outfit announced yesterday it has signed a memorandum of understanding with three European companies to form EGS Global Group, an alliance aimed at building awareness and development of engineered geothermal systems (EGS), and to provide Australia with world-class opportunities for EGS energy developments.

Not only do EGS resources exist in vast quantities within 5 km of the earth’s surface, but according to HDR, decades of international research has established proven techniques for safely extracting the heat energy by pumping water through the earth’s hot rocks and back to the surface where the heat is used to drive turbines and generate electricity. “EGS has the potential to be the cleanest, most reliable, and one of the cheapest sources of renewable energy available,” says HDR’s technical director Graeme Beardsmore. “Now that we have a carbon price mechanism on the government’s agenda, providing more certainty for developers, investors and power consumers alike, this is the ideal time to increase efforts to promote EGS as the future energy alternative and the EGS Global Group allows us to take this lead.”

A spokesman for EGS Energy – leading UK geothermal player and one of the founding companies of the EGS Global Group; along with HDR, Germany-based BESTEC GmbH and GPC Instrumentation Process SARL of France – Guy Macpherson-Grant says a shared understanding between the four countries’ leading geothermal specialists will help develop the sector responsibly. “The respective business interests, experience and skill sets of the partner agencies fit well together, and by supporting one another to develop the sector, the EGS Global Group is paving the way for increased geothermal exploration and development,” he said.

Guardian angels

Obviously, the feeling out there in the cleantech world is that more help is required to really get the industry moving. Another announcement this week heralds the launch of The CleanTech Angels Network – a group whose purpose will be to link cleantech companies seeking funds with Angel investors seeking investments in the sector; a symbiotic process that is not, it seems, happening spontaneously. “Australia is lacking the drivers that are seen elsewhere in the world,” says John O’Brien, managing director of Australian CleanTech, the research and advisory firm behind the development of the Network. “The government stimulus is fragmented and small, the regulatory measures are providing only some assistance and the venture capital industry is under-funded.”

Meanwhile, says O’Brien, there is increasing demand from industry and the wider community for technology and business solutions that have environmental and economic benefits. And thought there are many solutions being developed, there’s a lack of accessible investment to bring them to market. “We are approached by many emerging cleantech companies that require between $100,000 and $300,000 to bring their ideas to market. Many of these are very promising concepts and ones that would also benefit from the expertise of an experienced angel investor,” says O’Brien. “It is very hard for many of these companies to even get passed first base with any investors that they are able to easily access.”

Indeed, such companies are already lining up for help. The Network’s inaugural list of technologies seeking developmental support includes: an integrated solar system that provides hot water, power, heating and air conditioning; a building construction system with a patented super-insulated, low labour, construction methodology that reduces home energy use by up to 80 per cent; a DVD material solution that claims to reduce the cost and carbon footprint of DVD production by 52 per cent; two wave energy technologies; an integrated food production system that profitably produces freshwater fish and organic vegetables; a solar module production facility that plans to produce panels especially adapted for the Australian market; and a micro-algae biofuels project that plans to build decentralised rural industries.

Big breakthrough, small technology

A new method for the production of catalysts used in the manufacture of super-strong, super-lightweight technologies known as nano-carbon products, has been developed by the US-based arm of Australia’s ASX- listed Eden Energy Limited. The company announced the breakthrough this week, saying it would make the production of the catalysts – an essential manufacturing step to producing such nano-carbon products as carbon nanotubes and nanofibers – 15X faster, as well as cheaper and more productive. “The new process works for a variety of catalyst compositions, reduces the quantity of chemicals needed, is easily scalable for higher production and eliminates the majority of the time and labor needed for previous catalyst production methods,” said Eden’s executive chairman Greg Solomon.

“For the production of nano-carbon with specific structure and physical properties, the composition and atomic-level crystalline structure of the elements in the catalyst is critical. In addition, the catalyst particle size and surface area can have significant effects on the total nano-carbon production yields and the stability of carbon growth on the catalyst,” Solomon said. “Hythane Company has reduced the particle size range from approximately 100 micron down to about 1 micron. …(and) the bulk densities of the catalyst powders have been reduced by a factor of about five, an indication of the micro-porous structure and much higher surface area created by the new method.”

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Microsoft Says Sustainability Can Comes Out of the Clouds

Cloud computing is all the rage. In its simplest terms, it means outsourcing your company’s information technology (IT) needs, from data and storage to software. All the servers and applications sit elsewhere in the Internet “cloud,” but more literally in a data centre. A recent study from Microsoft (with Accenture and WSP) called “Cloud Computing and Sustainability”  found that by outsourcing, companies can reduce the energy use and carbon footprint of computing by up to 90%

Andrew Winston

Founder, Winston Eco-Strategies; Author, ‘Green to Gold’ and ‘Green Recovery’

Posted: March 9, 2011 04:48 PM

Cloud computing is all the rage. In its simplest terms, it means outsourcing your company’s information technology (IT) needs, from data and storage to software. All the servers and applications sit elsewhere in the Internet “cloud,” but more literally in a data center or centers.

A recent study from Microsoft (with Accenture and WSP), “Cloud Computing and Sustainability“, compared the environmental footprint of running business software internally or with an outsourced provider (in this case, Microsoft). The study showed that, compared to running their own applications, by outsourcing companies can reduce the energy use and carbon footprint of computing by up to 90 percent!

This is very good news. IT is one of the fastest growing energy hogs, accounting for at least 2 percent of global energy use. In my last book, Green Recovery, I focused on IT as one of five operational areas where green initiatives help companies save money quickly (the others were facilities, distribution, telework, and waste).

In the book, I cited statistics from IBM showing that less than 4 percent of the energy going into a data center is used to process something.

While the IT world has gotten a lot more efficient lately, there’s still much room for improvement. And apparently moving your applications to the cloud can help immensely.

According to the Microsoft report (see page 6), cloud computing drives energy reductions in four related ways, which boil down to a few key leverage points:

• Reducing excess capacity
• Flattening peak loads
• Employing large-scale “virtualization” software
• Improving data center design.

Using the cloud addresses all three of the major energy-loss areas in the IBM chart: data center design tackles room and server cooling, while the other scale benefits mainly address the absurd waste, in percentage terms, from server underutilization (the far right bar).

Rob Bernard, Microsoft’s Chief Environmental Strategist, likens the cloud to mass transit: “A data center essentially gets computing applications to carpool or take the bus instead of sitting in their own individual servers… but unlike mass transit vs. private vehicles, there is no tradeoff for convenience and on-demand availability.”

So all of this is pretty logical. Scale is more efficient and allows for better resource planning. But I’d offer a few points worth thinking about, and one note of caution.

1. The centralization of computing power should look familiar. To get some perspective on the study, I spoke with Mark Monroe, the new Executive Director of Green Grid, an organization dedicated to making IT more energy and carbon efficient. He compares the cloud to the electric grid, citing Nicholas Carr’s book, The Big Switch, which Monroe says “compares utility computing development to the emergence of centralized electrical generation in the early 20th century.” Like electric plants, Monroe says, central computing “utilities” benefit from scale and high utilization.
2. In this case, outsourcing is another word for “servicizing,” or turning a product into a service offering. In theory, a service provider will strive to keep its costs down, thus using as little energy and resources as possible. Cloud computing fits this model well (and fits a general transition to helping customers use less). As Monroe says:

Cloud providers want to provide an hour of CPU time, a Gigabyte-month of storage, a CRM transaction, an email, or a web page for as little cost and as high a margin as possible. That just has to lead to higher efficiency than someone focused on delivering a feature internally.

1. Small companies get the biggest bang for their cloud bucks. The study’s most fascinating finding is that the larger IT users get less benefit out of working with Microsoft’s cloud. For organizations with more than 10,000 users, the reduction in GHG emissions is a healthy 30 percent. But that pales in comparison to the 90-percent reduction firms with just 100 users can attain.
2. Smart outsourcing, scale, and technology can help other parts of the business be more efficient also. For example, I talk in Green Recovery about the benefits of telecommuting and telepresence, and in distribution, larger carriers can ensure fuller, more efficient trucks, rail cars, and ships.
3. But, keep one thing in mind when outsourcing an energy-using function: the footprint is still yours. Technically, a company’s main footprint includes only its own facilities (in wonky terms, that’s “Scope 1 emissions”). But I believe that anyone doing contract work for you — which is not really the same as traditional suppliers — should count toward your footprint.

In short, finding providers and partners that can take some of your energy-using operations to scale, and manage them in a shared capacity, is good for your footprint and your bottom line.

This post first appeared at Harvard Business Online

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com