Liquid milk sold by three leading companies is contaminated with melamine, tests showed on Thursday, the day when the number of infant deaths caused by the chemical rose to four.

Supermarket staffs remove formula milk products found to be contaminated with melamine off the shelves in Harbin, Northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province, September 17, 2008.

The fourth death was reported from the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region. Two kids in Gansu and one in Zhejiang had fallen victim to contaminated milk earlier. A total of 6,244 infants who were fed contaminated milk food produced by Sanlu Group have been diagnosed with various urinary tract problems, including kidney stones.

Police in Shijiazhuang, where Sanlu is based, said 12 people were arrested yesterday for their alleged involvement in the milk food scandal, taking the total number of arrests to 18.

The State Council has decided to do away with the system of exempting certain food products from inspection. The government began the exemption system in 2000 to help companies that produced high-quality, globally competitive products avoid the hassle of facing repeated tests.

Tests conducted on liquid milk over the past few days showed 24 of the 1,202 batches were contaminated, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) said in a report.

The AQSIQ, however, quoted scientists as saying the contamination level in liquid milk did not pose a big threat to people’s health. Even milk with the highest concentration of melamine is safe for a 60-kg or heavier adult if he or she drinks up to 2 liters a day.

The AQSIQ Thursday said the tainted products came from the Yili and Mengniu groups, both based in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region, and the Shanghai-based Bright Dairy.

It has asked the three companies to recall all their contaminated products.

Eleven of the 121 Mengniu batches that were tested had melamine, a chemical that makes milk appear rich in protein during quality tests, but can also cause kidney problems. Melamine is used to make plates, bowls, mugs and sundry other products but is banned from being used in the food industry.

The highest concentration of melamine was found in Bright Dairy products. Every kg of its liquid milk contained 8.6 mg of melamine.

The three firms’ milk powder products, too, had tested positive for melamine, and they had started recalling those products.

The fourth melamine victim died in a hospital in Bayingolin, the Xinjiang regional health department said on its website.

Read Full Story Here

Scientists from the World Wildlife Fund, who are recording the ice cover over the North Pole, said less ice is predicted in the Arctic this year than in any other.

Experts say this not only means a loss of habitat to species like polar bears and loss of livelihood for indigenous peoples but could speed up global warming as water absorbs heat rather than reflecting the sun’s rays back into space.

Dr Martin Sommerkorn, senior climate change advisor at WWF International’s Arctic Programme, said: “We are expecting confirmation of 2008 being either the lowest or the second-lowest year in terms of summer ice coverage.

“The trend of melting Arctic sea ice is alarming for the rest of the world. The Arctic is a key factor in stabilising the global climate so this is a global problem that demands an immediate and global response.”

The area of ice that is at least five years old has dramatically fallen by more than half since 1985. It comes as the Northwest Passage, over the top of North America and the Northeast Passage, in Russia, are both free of ice for the first time.

Dr Sommerkorn added: “Arctic ice is like a mirror, reflecting the sun’s heat back into space.”

Read Full Story Here

The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica has already surpassed its 2007 size this year, and is set to keep growing for another few weeks, the U.N. weather agency said on Tuesday.

The Antarctic ozone hole appears every year and normally stretches to about the size of North America, reaching its maximum size in late September or early October.

But in 2008, the World Meteorological Organization said the protective layer, which shields the Earth from ultra-violet rays that can cause skin cancer, began to thin relatively late.

“During the last couple of weeks it has grown rapidly and has now passed the maximum size attained in 2007. Since the ozone hole is still growing, it is too early to determine how large this year’s ozone hole will be,” it said in a statement.

Read Full Story Here

New study shows a sharp drop in migratory waterbird populations along main migration routes in Africa and Eurasia.

The report: ‘Conservation Status of Migratory Waterbirds in the African-Eurasian Flyways‘ prepared by Wetlands International for the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), reveals that of 522 studied migratory waterbird populations on routes across Africa and Eurasia, 40 per cent are in decline.

The report is being presented to delegates from over 80 countries at the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) in Antananarivo, Madagascar, today.

Simon Delany, Waterbird Conservation Officer at the Netherlands-based headquarters of Wetlands International and principal author of the report, said: “The main causes of declining waterbird numbers along the African-Eurasian Flyways are the destruction and unsustainable exploitation of wetlands, which are largely driven by poorly-planned economic development.”

The main causes of population decrease include, infrastructure development, wetland reclamation, increasing pollution and hunting pressure.

These impacts are in many cases compounded by impacts of climate change and associated phenomena, such as increased frequency of droughts, sea-level rise and changes in Arctic tundra habitats.

“Climate change… is likely to affect all ecosystems, but wetlands are especially vulnerable because of their sensitivity to changes in water level and susceptibility to changes in rainfall and evaporation.” said Delany.

Sea-level rise threatens coastal and inland wetland areas. These are crucial habitats for millions of migratory waterbirds. Huge numbers of waterbirds also breed in Arctic tundra habitats which too are threatened by climate change.

Read Full Story Here

A new survey by The Clydesdale Bank shows that a third of first-time buyers say they will avoid a property which is not energy efficient. “Households now have to fork out hundreds of pounds more each year to pay for their gas and electricity than they did three years ago,” says Clydesdale Bank manager Steve Reid. “Consequently, Energy Efficiency is now becoming a serious issue for buyers when looking around potential homes. First-time buyers tend to see a higher proportion of their income going on monthly mortgage repayments than other groups, so energy costs are an even bigger issue.”

According to the survey, new buyers are put off homes that lack the basic Energy Efficiency features such as double-glazing and cavity wall insulation. It also found that almost a third of existing home-owners looking for a new home have a preference for energy-efficient properties.

On 1 August 2007, the Government introduced the first phase of Home Information Packs to reform the process of home buying and selling. These packs give buyers information about a property’s Energy Efficiency. Not surprisingly, buyers will prefer homes that offer the best efficiency as this will save them money on their fuel bills, and be good for the environment. However, until more Inspectors have trained and qualified, these HIPs only apply to four-bed properties.

So you have to decide which measures can save you most, and that will depend on the kind of property you live in. Are your doors and windows draughty, for instance? Or are you planning to install a new boiler? If so, find out which one will cut your fuel costs. Could you even generate your own energy? If you have the space, you could install solar panels or a wind turbine to create electricity. If you generate enough, you could even sell it back to the grid at a profit.

Do you need planning permission?

It all depends on how ambitious you are. Simple measures such as improving insulation or draught proofing won’t require permission. If you are altering the appearance of your home at all, by adding double glazing, for example, or putting solar panels on your roof, and your property is in a conservation area or is listed, then you will need planning permission. And any changes to plumbing or electrical systems - fitting new boilers or underfloor heating, perhaps, - must conform to new building regulations. Talk to your local council or find out more from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s website.

So how much money will it cost?

According to the Energy Saving Trust, low cost improvements such as adding insulation in the loft, draught proofing at doors and windows, and double glazing can all make a difference. Costs start as low as £10 for a pack of draught-proofing seals and only slightly more for a set of three rolls of insulating wool for the loft. On the other hand, adding secondary double glazing to a typical five feet wide window will cost around £350.

And don’t forget your boiler: the best boilers to install are the energy efficient, gas-condensing type which use up to 40 per cent less energy. These will cost from about £2000, but are only worth considering if your old boiler fails and needs replacing. Finally, if your home has cavity walls, injecting insulating foam into the cavity will reduce heat loss. This can cut fuel bills, and make your home more attractive to home buyers, and it could cost as little as £300 to install.

And how much value will it add to my home?

According to the Energy Saving Trust, households can save up to £250 a year on their fuel bill with these simple measures. However the exact value that Energy Efficiency could add to your home is difficult to quantify. Marcus Cox, managing director of Home Information Pack provider mysalepack.com, believes that Home Information Packs will make the Energy Efficiency status of the house more important to buyers. “The Energy Efficiency of your home will have a direct bearing on its marketability,” he says. The presence of improved levels of insulation and the efficiency of heating appliances will be set out in the pack and are expected to influence potential buyers as the issue of saving energy grows. In places where the housing market is booming – in big cities such as London, for example - any advantage that your home has over another similar property can make a big difference to its sale price.

Before you proceed

Draught-proofing is one thing, but don’t begin more ambitious work without careful research. Some energy companies offer free home energy surveys to highlight where you might save the most. Also, the National Energy Foundation offers free energy saving advice and an online survey of your home that will also point to any grants or local schemes that could cut the cost of improving your home’s Energy Efficiency.

The full guide which is essential reading is available at this five star rated website so go and check it out now.

Cutting down on the use of paper is easy enough, but in spite of all your efforts you’ll never become 100% paperless. That’s where tree free paper comes in. Recently launched on the market by GPA, a Chicago paper company, Ultra Green Paper is 100% tree free. And of equal importance; the paper is produced without any water. What more can you ask for? This paper is going to be a massive selling point for business leaders vying for deals. Not to speak of greendesign/advertising.

Ultra Green is made from inorganic mineral powders derived from limestone and calcium carbonate, with a trace amount of non-toxic resin and high density polyethylene (HDPE) as a binding agent. No chlorine is used.

Sounds too good to be true? There’s more! Ultra Green paper is also won’t yellow or become brittle no matter how long it’s exposed to sunlight. The paper is resistant to scuffing, water, grease and oils and can be used outdoors without being at risk from decomposing. Plus it offers antimicrobial protection and conforms to FDA standards for food contact! And due to the water and energy savings made in its manufacturing process, Ultra Green paper is priced 30 to 40% below than regular synthetic paper and film.

Read Full Story Here

The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has grown in recent Septembers in what could be an unusual side-effect of global warming, experts said on Friday.

In the southern hemisphere winter, when emperor penguins huddle together against the biting cold, ice on the sea around Antarctica has been increasing since the late 1970s, perhaps because climate change means shifts in winds, sea currents or snowfall.

At the other end of the planet, Arctic sea ice is now close to matching a September 2007 record low at the tail end of the northern summer in a threat to the hunting lifestyles of indigenous peoples and creatures such as polar bears.

“The Antarctic wintertime ice extent increased…at a rate of 0.6 percent per decade” from 1979-2006, said Donald Cavalieri, a senior research scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

At 19 million sq kms (7.34 million sq mile), it is still slightly below records from the early 1970s of 20 million, he said. The average year-round ice extent has risen too.

Some climate skeptics point to the differing trends at the poles as a sign that worries about climate change are exaggerated. However, experts say they can explain the development.

“What’s happening is not unexpected…Climate modelers predicted a long time ago that the Arctic would warm fastest and the Antarctic would be stable for a long time,” said Ted Maksym, a sea ice specialist at the British Antarctic Survey.

The U.N. Climate Panel says it is at least 90 percent sure that people are stoking global warming — mainly by burning fossil fuels. But it says each region will react differently.

A key difference is that Arctic ice floats on an ocean and is warmed by shifting currents and winds from the south. By contrast, Antarctica is an isolated continent bigger than the United States that creates its own deep freeze.

Read Full Story Here

Speaking at a Tokyo seminar, Coca-Cola Chairman Neville Isdell said consumers are looking to companies, not government, to solve issues like pollution, climate change and water and food shortages. Supporting sustainability is now crucial for business profitability, Isdell said, according to The Japan Times.

Jason Gissing, co-founder and CFO of online supermarket Ocado , which delivers groceries to customers’ homes, gave a different view to The Times Online, saying that government needs to create an environmental framework for businesses to work within, outlining the important issues businesses should focus on.

In their discussions, though, both business leaders acknowledged the changing business climate that is making sustainability a core issue in almost all companies.

Isdell argued that businesses need to be worried about the sustainability of the communities in which they are operating, and to stay profitable they need to take up and expand sustainability efforts. However, he said, businesses need to choose strategic, not personal or pet project, issues and provide continual support.

“If we’re only doing them because they are nice, they should be cut in the first place,” he said, pointing out that shareholders and boards will give little support to sustainability efforts that are irrelevant to a company’s operations. As an example, Coca-Cola, which consumes large amounts of water in making its products, is working to provide access to public drinking water in areas it operates by reducing its own water use, recycling water used in manufacturing and harvesting rainwater.

Gissing, though, said the impetus should be on government to tackle the large social responsibility and regulation issues, giving businesses a jumping off point for what issues to focus on. Although he said the ongoing debates on plastic bags use are good because they bring up the issue of individual impact, he said discussions on things like plastic bags can detract from debates on other issues like electricity and nuclear energy.

Read Full Story Here

Six Greenpeace climate change activists have been cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage at a coal-fired power station in a verdict that is expected to embarrass the government and lead to more direct action protests against energy companies.

The jury of nine men and three women at Maidstone crown court cleared the six by a majority verdict. Five of the protesters had scaled a 200-metre chimney at Kingsnorth power station, Hoo, Kent, in October last year.

Greenpeace activists on the painted chimney October 8 2008. The activists admitted trying to shut down the station by occupying the smokestack and painting the word “Gordon” down the chimney, but argued that they were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property around the world. It was the first case in which preventing property damage caused by climate change had been used as part of a “lawful excuse” defence in court. It is now expected to be used more widely by environment groups.

In his summing-up at the end of an eight-day trial, the judge, David Caddick, said the case centred on whether or not the protesters had a lawful excuse for their actions. He told the jury that for this defence to be used it had to be proved that the action was due to an immediate need to protect property belonging to another.

He said allowance for demonstrations did not extend to breaking the law and the jury’s task was to examine the boundary line represented by the lawful excuse and to evaluate whether the defendants had crossed the line. He also warned the jury to put aside any feelings towards Greenpeace, climate change or fuel companies during their deliberations.

John Price, prosecuting, had earlier argued that the protesters’ actions were “not capable of being lawful“. He said: “There are things you can lawfully do in making a protest but there’s a line which has to be drawn. When the defendants caused damage to that chimney, it’s the line that they crossed.”

The court had heard from Professor Jim Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, that the 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted daily by Kingsnorth could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species. Hansen, a Nasa director who advises Al Gore, the former US presidential candidate turned climate change campaigner, told the court that humanity was in “grave peril”. “Somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations.”

It also heard David Cameron’s environment adviser, millionaire environmentalist Zac Goldsmith, and an Inuit leader from Greenland both say climate change was already seriously affecting life around the world. Goldsmith told the court: “By building a coal-power plant in this country, it makes it very much harder [to exert] pressure on countries like China and India” to reduce their burgeoning use of the fossil fuel.

The court was told that some of the property in immediate need of protection included parts of Kent at risk from rising sea levels, the Pacific island state of Tuvalu and areas of Greenland. The defendants also cited the Arctic ice sheet, China’s Yellow River region, the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica, coastal areas of Bangladesh and the city of New Orleans.

The jury was told that Kingsnorth emitted the same amount of carbon dioxide as the 30 least polluting countries in the world combined - and that there were advanced plans to build a new coal-fired power station next to the existing site on the Hoo peninsula.

Greenpeace used the court’s decision to put pressure on the government to abandon plans for a new generation of coal-fired plants. “Today’s acquittal is a potent challenge to the government’s plans for new coal-fired stations from jurors representing ordinary people in Britain who, after hearing the evidence, supported the right to take direct action in order to protect the climate,” said Ben Stewart, the group’s communications director and one of the six acquitted. The others were Will Rose, Kevin Drake, Tim Hewke, Huw Williams and Emily Hall.

“It wasn’t only us in the dock, it was coal-fired power generation as well,” said Hall. “The only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are business secretary John Hutton and the energy minister Malcolm Wicks. It’s time the prime minister stepped in and embraced a clean energy future for Britain.”

Read Full Story Here

Sustainable agriculture was far from farmer Peter Desisto’s mind when he went to an organic farming seminar organised by the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) ten years ago. He and other farmers attended because they heard that PRRM was giving out loans.

Borrowing is a way of life for farmers who need to purchase expensive chemical pesticide and fertiliser before they can even plant rice in their fields. Such borrowings, usually from local money lenders who charge high interest, keep farmers perpetually in debt. The harvest gives them little surplus to avoid fresh loans in the next cropping season.

Desisto came out from the PRRM seminar loaded, not with borrowed money, but with new knowledge and a firm conviction that organic farming was the way forward. He gave up chemical-based inputs and instead bought cheaper chicken manure to fertilise the fields, raised ducks that eat the snails that were ruining his rice stalks, and used indigenous herbs to control pests.

Instead of solely relying on rice, Desisto diversified into hog and poultry raising and planting onions for extra income. “I spent more time applying chicken manure and planting other crops. The extra effort paid off,” he said.

Now Desisto is not only free of debt but also able to provide adequately for his family. He is also content that the land he’s renting remains productive, with an annual rice harvest at 90 sacks, which he attributes to the fact that his land is not bombarded with chemicals.

Desisto is one of a growing number of farmers in Nueva Ecija –one of the main rice growing areas in the Philippines — who have abandoned pesticides and synthetic fertilisers in favour of organic farming. “Sustainable agriculture in rice farming addressed the problem of high cost of chemical farming and acted on health, environmental and ecological considerations,’’ the Manila-based Rice Watch and Action Network (R1) noted in its study published last year.

Organic agriculture products trading in the world is increasing by 20-30 percent every year and the Philippines can easily claim a large share of a market that is estimated to be worth 100 billion US dollars. Popular organic products exported from the Philippines include bananas, beef, mangoes, muscovado sugar, papayas, peanuts, poultry, soya milk, vegetables from the uplands, yellow corn and rice.

Introduction of the so-called Green Revolution technology in the 1970s helped increase yields — but at a high cost. The high yielding seeds were also dependent on expensive chemical inputs that poisoned the soil and water sources, hurt land productivity and harmed farmers’ health. This is why NGOs like PRRM have been advocating a return to organic farming, believing that this will not just solve environmental problems but will also ensure food security.

“Organic agriculture is the answer. It won’t only retain soil productivity but it can make farming viable. If farmers will have additional income from their land they will continue to plant rice,” R1 lead convenor Jessica Reyes-Cantos said.

Philippine agriculture officials are now seeing the benefits of organic farming. At a press briefing last month, agriculture secretary Arthur Yap said the department will set aside P800 million (16 million dollars) to encourage rice farmers to engage in organic farming for the September-October planting season.

Yap said he is hoping that this will at least help farmers cut overheads as costs of synthetic fertiliser rise along with global petroleum prices.

The full guide which is essential reading is available at this five star rated website so go and check it out now.

What is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)?

Carbon is emitted into the atmosphere (as carbon dioxide, also called CO₂) whenever we burn any fuel, anywhere. The largest sources are cars and lorries, and non-nuclear power stations - those that burn coal, oil or gas, otherwise known as fossil fuels. To prevent the carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere (possibly causing global warming and definitely causing ocean acidification), we can catch the CO₂, and store it. As we would need to store thousands of millions of tons of CO₂, we cannot just build containers, but must use natural storage facilites. Some of the best natural containers are old oil and gas fields, such as those in the North Sea.

Left, diagram of possible locations for underground storage of CO₂, from IPCC report.

For a world map of current CCS schemes, see the Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage map.

What might Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) look like?

The diagram shows a conceptual plan for CCS in conjunction with a process called “Enhanced Oil Recovery” which is a technology used to increase the oil yield from old oil fields.

Methane gas (also called natural gas) is produced from offshore gas fields, and is brought onshore by pipeline. Using existing oil-refinery technology, the gas is ‘reformed’ into hydrogen and CO₂. The CO₂ is then separated by a newly-designed membrane, and sent offshore, using a corrosion-resistant pipeline. The CO₂ goes to an oilfield, which is near to the end of its normal life of oil production. But, like many fields, more than 30% of the oil is still un-produced. The CO₂ makes the remaining oil easier to produce - partly paying for the operation. The CO₂ is stored in the oilfield, several km below sea level, instead of being vented into the atmosphere from the power station.

The diagram is from a BP news release from the abandoned Miller project, UK North Sea.

What are carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from the UK and worldwide?

The UK emits more than 500 millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. The quantity has steadily increased since the start of the industrial revolution (1800’s) and peaked late in the last century. We are not the country that uses the most CO₂ per member of the population - but our usage is still high. Worldwide, emissions are still rising.

The National Energy Foundation has a good explanation of why some countries emit more CO₂ than others.

UK CO₂ emissions since before the industrial revolution. From National Energy Foundation, data from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Data compiled by G. Marland, T. A. Boden and R. J. Andres of ORNL

How does CO₂ affect the climate ?

How does CO₂ affect the oceans?

About half of the extra CO₂ from the atmosphere will dissolve in the oceans, making the water more acidic.

The acidity is shown as a change in pH units. The effects of this change on marine life is unknown, but could be disastrous.

The effects of making the ocean more acid are absolutely inevitable, and are easy to predict, as it relies on simple chemistry, not on complex computer models of climate. The ocean already holds 400 Billion tons of fossil fuel CO₂. Consequently, the ocean is already 0.1 pH units more acid than before industrial CO₂ emissions. This means nutrients for plankton in the North Sea, and all shallow ocean waters, are changing rapidly. This is the base of the food chain for invertebrates, shells and, eventually, economic fishing. By 2050 the ocean will be five times more acid than at any time since glaciation (change pH 8.4 to pH 7.8). More information on ocean acidification

Why is the UK a good place to capture and store CO₂?

The UK has numerous oil and gas fields, many of which are becoming emptied of hydrocarbons. These are perhaps the best places to store CO₂. A study in 1996 estimated that we have space for about 5.3 Gt CO₂ in depleted oilfields (i.e. 5,300,000,000 tonnes), and about 11-15 Gt CO₂ in depleted gas fields. This is about about 10 years of total UK CO₂ emissions in oilfields, and a further 30 years in gasfields. We have the technical expertise to plan the storage (gained from extracting the oil and gas), and an established industry base that could undertake the work.

There is a second type of geological store, known as saline aquifers. These are porous rocks deep below ground that are full of salty water that is of no use for drinking or agriculture. In the UK, the same 1996 study estimated that we could store 19 - 716 Gt CO₂ like this (i.e. up to 716,000,000,000 tonnes) - perhaps sufficient for 500 years of UK emissions. There are more geological problems in using such storage sites, as we know less about the geology. However many of the rocks are similar to oilfields, so there is good reason to suppose that these saline aquifers are well worth investigating in more detail. Infact, the only present day test site for underground CO₂ storage in the North Sea uses a saline aquifer at 1km below the seabed, which is sited above the Norwegian Sleipner Field.

When should we do this?

Now! We should start CO₂ injection immediately, and expect to have to continue until at least 2050. Hopefully by this time we will have developed lower-carbon technology and have reduced CO₂ emissions to levels that are not causing environmental damage.

There is a good reason why we should start CO₂ storage sooner rather than later - at the present almost all of the UK offshore oil and gas fields still have their platforms in place - these are the ‘oil rigs’ that everybody is familiar with from photos in newspapers. These platforms can be modified for CO₂ storage, at a fraction of the cost of building and installing new facilites. By the end of the next decade, many of these platforms will have been removed as the oil and gas supplies run dry. New facilities for CCS would hence have to be built, increasing the costs.

What if we do nothing?

The longer we wait, the worse it gets. You may not believe in climate change, but most scientists believe that the evidence of high CO₂ levels and hot climates in the past is compelling. You may not care if the summers get a few degrees warmer, but the ocean will inevitably become more acid, and the last time that happened it became a layered green soup (about 50 Million years ago). Click here for more information on predicting climate change in the future.

Like all preventive medicine, it’s easier to put off the fateful day. But when that day arrives, it causes you more pain, and costs more, compared to early actions. Its important to realise that, even if we act now, in 2005, the climate will carry on warming for another 3 or 5 degrees Centigrade. That means some parts of the UK may have a climate like southwest France. But where will the Spanish live, and the French, and all the people in North Africa, and all the people in the southern USA, as these areas dry and heat up to become uninhabitable desert?

By acting now, we have a chance to limit that rise to less than 5 Centigrade, by keeping atmospheric CO₂ less than 550 parts per million.

What will it cost?

This will cost money, in more expensive fuel costs. However, it will not cost very much. For the world scale, estimates are commonly about 2% of Global Domestic Product. That is one year of normal growth.

Each individual in the UK is responsible for about 10 tons of CO₂ each year, and estimates of cost for capture, liquefaction and storage in North Sea aquifers are about 20 pounds per ton. So that costs about 200 pounds per person each year. If energy efficiency is also increased, the cost may be only half of this - 100 pounds per person per year. Thats about 1p or 2p on each electricity unit. Will that be a disaster? Well in the winter of 2004 -05, gas prices incresed far more than that, and in the year 2004, the price of crude oil and petrol increased by far more than that. And nothing catastrophic happened to the UK economy. How much is it worth to keep the world habitable, and the oceans alive?

Don’t forget that doing nothing will also cost money, for example in damage caused by rising sea levels and extreme weather events. In a report to the UK Government, Sir Nicolas Stern concluded that it is cheaper to act now, then to wait and pay for the damage (link to short summary of Stern Report).

The full guide which is essential reading is available at this five star rated website so go and check it out now.

The continued expansion of oil palm plantations will worsen the dual environmental crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, unless rainforests are better protected, warn scientists in the most comprehensive review of the subject to date.

Lead author, Emily Fitzherbert from the Zoological Society of London and University of East Anglia said: “There has been much debate over the role of palm oil production in tropical deforestation and its impacts on biodiversity. We wanted to put the discussion on a firm scientific footing.”

Palm oil, used in food, cosmetics, biofuels and other products, is now the world’s leading vegetable oil. It is derived from the fruit of the oil palm, grown on more than 50,000-square miles of moist, tropical lowland areas, mostly in Malaysia and Indonesia. These areas, once covered in tropical rainforest, the globe’s richest wildlife habitat on land, are also home to some of the most threatened species on earth.

The review, published today in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution, singles out deforestation associated with plantation development as by far the biggest ecological impact, but finds that the links between the two are often much more complex than portrayed in the popular press.

Co-author Matt Struebig, from Queen Mary, University of London, explains: “Most land-cover statistics do not allow us to distinguish where oil palm has actually driven forest clearance. Oil palm certainly has directly replaced tropical forest in some areas, but oil palm companies also often have close links with timber or paper pulp companies, giving additional motives for deforestation.”

Within countries, oil palm is usually grown in a few productive areas, but it looks set to spread further. Demand is increasing rapidly and ‘its potential as a future agent of deforestation is enormous’, the study says.

Most of the suitable land left is within the last remaining large areas of tropical rainforest in Central Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. Where oil palm has replaced tropical forest the impact on wildlife depends on what species survive in the new oil palm habitat.

The study confirmed that oil palm is a poor substitute habitat for the majority of tropical forest species, particularly forest specialists and those of conservation concern.

Emily Fitzherbert continues: “By compiling scientific studies of birds, bats, ants and other species, we were able to show that on average, fewer than one-sixth of the species recorded in primary forest were found in oil palm. Degraded forest, and even alternative crops such as rubber and cocoa, supported higher numbers of species than oil palm plantations.”

Even this estimate is likely to be optimistic, because forest habitats are more difficult to survey and some species inhabit plantations briefly before going extinct.

There is little potential to help wildlife within plantations, so ensuring that new plantations do not replace forest and protecting what is left of native forest in and around plantations are the only real options for protecting the majority of species, the researchers say.

International policies demanding evidence of environmental responsibility, in particular that land of high conservation value is not converted to oil palm, can help.

“There is enough non-forested land suitable for plantation development to allow large increases in production without further deforestation,” said co-author Ben Phalan, from the University of Cambridge.

However, in identifying these areas, there needs to be a careful distinction between degraded land that is of low conservation value, such as imperata grasslands, and partially logged or degraded forest areas which can still harbour relatively high levels of biodiversity and bring greater wildlife and carbon storage benefits if restored.

Read More Here.

Genetically modified (GM) foods are food products that have had their DNA directly altered through genetic engineering. Unlike conventional genetic modification that is carried out through time-tested conventional breeding and that have been consumed for thousands of years, GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. The most common modified foods are derived from plants: soybean, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil.

Many major controversies surround genetically engineered crops and foods. These commonly focus on the health and safety effects on human children, long-term health effects for anyone eating them, environmental safety, labelling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, environmental conservation, and potential disruption or even possible destruction of the food chain. The multi-national corporations and governments engaged in the genetic engineering of food claim the technology to be a boon for the human race, while many health-conscious people believe it to be a potential and/or actual disaster.

Development

The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was the tomato (called Flavr Savr), which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian company Calgene. Calgene was allowed to release the tomatoes into the market in 1994 without any special labelling. It was welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at two to five times the price of regular tomatoes. However, production problems and competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the product from becoming profitable. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste, which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996. The labelling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment, which proved, at the time, that European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods.

The attitude towards GM foods would be drastically changed after outbreaks of Mad Cow Disease weakened consumer trust in government regulators, and protesters rallied against the introduction of Monsanto’s “Roundup-Ready” soybeans.[citation needed] The next GM crops included insect-resistant cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybeans both of which were commercially released in 1996. GM crops have been widely adopted in the United States. They have also been extensively planted in several other countries (Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) where the agriculture is a major part of the total economy. Other GM crops include insect-resistant maize and herbicide-tolerant maize, cotton, and rapeseed varieties.

Growing GM Crops

Between 1995 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km² (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were Brazil.

Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2005 the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops (soybeans) were in Brazil (94,000 km² in 2005 versus 50,000 km² in 2004.) There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) It is predicted that in 2006/7 32,000 km² of GM cotton will be harvested in India (up more than 100 percent from the previous season). Indian national average cotton yields of GM cotton were seven times lower in 2002, because the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered was not well suited to the climate of India and failed. The publicity given to transgenic trait Bt insect resistance has encouraged the adoption of better performing hybrid cotton varieties, and the Bt trait has substantially reduced losses to insect predation. Though controversial and often disputed, economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented.

In 2003, countries that grew 99 % of the global transgenic crops were the United States (63 %), Argentina (21 %), Canada (6 %), Brazil (4 %), China (4 %), and South Africa (1 %). The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75 % of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient. In particular, Bt corn, which produces the pesticide within the plant itself is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These constitute “input-traits” are aimed to financially benefit the producers, have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers.

In the US, by 2006 89 % of the planted area of soybeans, 83 % of cotton, and 61 % maize was genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensis Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002 to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant maize also increased in sown area.
However, several studies have found that genetically modified varieties of plants do not produce higher yields than normal plants.

What Are The Economic and Political Effects

Some opponents of current genetic engineering realize that increasing use of GM in major crops has caused a major power shift in agriculture towards Biotechnology companies, which are gaining more control over the production chain of crops and food, and over the farmers that use their products, as well.
Many proponents of some current genetic engineering techniques claim that it will lower pesticide usage and has brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those in developing nations. A few genetic engineering licenses allow farmers in less economically developed countries to save seeds for next year’s planting.
In August 2003, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN’s World Food Programme. This left a famine-stricken population without food aid.
In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize. However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying “We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods.”
In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in Venezuela.
In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, although these were agreed authorized by the EU.
On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly due to accidental cross-pollination with conventional crops. The U.S. government has since declared the rice safe for human consumption, and exports to some countries have since resumed, but in the past years more crops have started to cross-pollinate which leaves a problem that is yet to be solved

Future Developments

Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also at the same time be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development. Plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.

A Conclusion?

Although the reasons against Genetically Modified foods are obvious and numerous, it is still hard to shake the idea that in times of crisis, GM foods could be the little white lie that would help millions? Please let us know what you think using the talk back feature below, it would be great to hear your views.

To read the full article please click here.

BedZED zero energy housing in the UKA zero energy building (ZEB) or net zero energy building is a general term applied to a building with a net energy consumption of zero over a typical year. Zero energy buildings are gaining considerable interest as a means to cut greenhouse gas emissions and conserve energy. Buildings use 40% of the total energy in the US and European Union.[1][2]

Overview

This can be measured in different ways (relating to cost, energy, or carbon emissions) and, irrespective of the definition used, different views are taken on the relative importance of energy generation and energy conservation to achieve energy balance. Although zero energy buildings remain uncommon in developed countries, they are gaining in importance and popularity. The zero-energy approach is promoted as a potential solution to a range of issues, including reducing carbon emissions, and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Most ZEB definitions do not include the emissions generated in the construction of the building and the embodied energy of the structure which would usually invalidate claims of reducing carbon emissions.

A building approaching zero energy use may be called a near-zero energy building or ultra-low energy house. Buildings that produce a surplus of energy during a portion of the year may be known as energy-plus buildings. An energy autarkic house is a building concept where the balance of the own energy consumption and production can be made on an hourly or even smaller basis. Energy autarkic houses can be taken off-the-grid.

Definitions

Despite sharing the name zero energy building, there are several definitions of what ZEB means in practice, with a particular difference in usage between North America and Europe. [3]

Net zero site energy use - In this type of ZEB, the amount of energy provided by on-site renewable energy sources is equal to the amount of energy used by the building. In the United States, “zero energy building” generally refers to this type of building.
Net zero source energy use - This ZEB generates the same amount of energy as is used, including the energy used to transport the energy to the building. This type accounts for losses during electricity transmission. These ZEBs must generate more electricity than net zero site energy buildings.
Net zero energy emissions - Outside the United States and Canada, a ZEB is generally defined as one with zero net energy emissions, also known as a zero carbon building or zero emissions building. Under this definition the carbon emissions generated from on-site or off-site fossil fuel use are balanced by the amount of on-site renewable energy production. Other definitions include not only the carbon emissions generated by the building in use, but also those generated in the construction of the building and the embodied energy of the structure. Others debate whether the carbon emissions of commuting to and from the building should also be included in the calculation.
Net zero cost - In this type of building, the cost of purchasing energy is balanced by income from sales of electricity to the grid of electricity generated on-site. Such a status depends on how a utility credits net electricity generation and the utility rate structure the building uses.
Net off-site zero energy use - A building may be considered a ZEB if 100% of the energy it purchases comes from renewable energy sources, even if the energy is generated off the site.
Off-the-grid - Off-the-grid buildings are stand-alone ZEBs that are not connected to an off-site energy utility facility. They require distributed renewable energy generation and energy storage capability (for when the sun is not shining, wind is not blowing, etc).

Design and construction

The most cost-effective energy reduction in a building usually occurs during the design process.[4] To achieve minimal energy use, zero energy design departs significantly from conventional construction practice. Zero energy building designers typically use sophisticated 3D computer simulation tools to take into account a wide range of design variables such as building orientation (relative to the daily and seasonal position of the sun), window and door type and placement, overhang depth, insulation type and values of the building elements, air tightness (weatherization), the efficiency of heating, cooling, lighting and other equipment, as well as local climate. These simulations help the designers predict how the building will perform before it is built, and enable them to model the economic and financial implications on building cost benefit analysis.

Zero Energy Buildings are usually built with significant energy-saving features. The heating and cooling loads are often drastically lowered by using high-efficiency equipment, added insulation, high-efficiency windows, passive solar techniques, and other techniques. These features can vary drastically between buildings in different climate zones. Water heating loads can be alleviated by using heat recovery units on waste water, and by using high-efficiency water heating equipment. In addition, lighting energy use can be lessened by daylighting, fluorescent and LED lighting, and miscellaneous electric loads can be lessened by choosing efficient appliances and minimizing standby power. Zero energy buildings are often designed to make use of energy gained from other sources including white goods; for example, use refrigerator exhaust to heat domestic hot water, ventilation air and shower drain heat exchangers, office machines and computer servers, and even body heat from rooms with multiple occupants. These buildings make use of heat energy that conventional buildings typically exhaust outside. They may use heat recovery ventilation, hot water heat recycling, and absorption chiller units. They are normally optimised to use passive solar heat gain, use thermal mass to stabilise diurnal temperature variations throughout the day, and in most climates are superinsulated. All the technologies needed to create zero energy buildings are available off-the-shelf today.

Other unique energy-saving strategies include using absorption chillers, daylighting, combined heat and power, and Passive cooling.

Energy generation

ZEBs generate their own energy to meet their electricity and heating needs. In the case of individual houses, various microgeneration technologies may be used to provide heat and electricity to the building, using solar cells or wind turbines for electricity, and biofuels or solar collectors linked to seasonal thermal stores for space heating. To cope with fluctuations in demand, zero energy buildings are frequently connected to the electricity grid, export electricity to the grid when there is a surplus, and drawing electricity when not enough electricity is being produced. Other buildings may be fully autonomous.

Zero-energy neighborhoods, such as the BedZED development in the United Kingdom, and those that are spreading rapidly in California and China, may use distributed generation schemes. This may in some cases include district heating, community chilled water, shared wind turbines, etc. There are current plans to use ZEB technologies to build entire off-the-grid cities, such as the photovoltaic-powered Huangbaiyu Sustainable Village, and the planned Dongtan Eco-City near Shanghai.
A benefit of such localized energy generation is the elimination of electrical transmission and electricity distribution losses. These losses amount to about 7.2%-7.4% of the energy transferred.

Occupant behavior

The energy used in a building can vary greatly depending on the behavior of its occupants. Studies of identical homes in the United States have shown dramatic differences in energy use, with some homes using more than twice the energy of others.[11] Occupant behavior can vary from differences in setting and programming thermostats, varying levels of illumination and hot water, and the amount of miscellaneous electric devices used.

Advantages and disadvantages of ZEBs

“ZEB advantages”

Isolation for building owners from future energy price increases

Increased comfort due to more-uniform interior temperatures

Reduced requirement for energy austerity

Reduced total cost of ownership due to improved energy efficiency

Reduced total net monthly cost of living

Improved reliability

Photovoltaic systems have 25-year warrantees

Seldom fail during weather problems

The 1982 photovoltaic systems on the Walt Disney World EPCOT Energy Pavilion are still working fine today, after going through 3 recent hurricanes

Extra cost is minimized for new construction compared to an afterthought retrofit

Higher resale value as potential owners demand more ZEBs than available supply the value of a ZEB building relative to similar conventional building should increase every time energy costs increase

Future legislative restrictions, and carbon emission taxes/penalties may force expensive retrofits to inefficient buildings

“Potential ZEB disadvantages”

Initial costs can be higher

Effort required to understand, apply, and qualify for ZEB subsidies
very few designers or builders have the necessary skills or experience to build ZEBs [34]
possible declines in future utility company renewable energy costs may lessen the value of capital invested in energy efficiency.

New photovoltaic solar cells equipment technology price has been falling at roughly 17% per year - It will lessen the value of capital invested in a solar electric generating system.

Current subsidies will be phased out as photovoltaic mass production lowers future price challenge to recover higher initial costs on resale of building

Appraisers are uninformed - their models do not consider energy climate-specific design may limit future ability to respond to rising-or-falling ambient temperatures (global warming) without an optimised thermal envelope embodied energy and resource usage is higher than needed

To read the full feature please click here.

Householders are missing a chance to share in the results of huge profits generated by the soaring value of recyclable domestic rubbish, The Times has learnt.

The price of recyclable plastic, newspaper and cardboard has doubled in 18 months, giving councils a source of “green gold” that could be spent on improving local services. Many are locked into 20 to 30-year contracts with recycling companies and are unable to cash in on the higher cost of plastic and copper.

As the cost of commodities rises it increasingly makes sense for manufacturers to retrieve materials from rubbish instead of buying them new. Town hall leaders have toldThe Times that the sector is missing out on millions of pounds that would come from trading commodities themselves or negotiating better contracts. They said that such profits could go to improving local services and even cutting bills.

Such is the concern over the complicated waste contracts that the Audit Commission is looking at the length and cost of the deals as well as the financial risks. The value of raw materials and the inequity of council returns are being examined as part of the inquiry. It reports next month.

Local authorities such as Kent County Council admit that they could make up to £1 million a year by selling recyclable materials if the 25-year deal could be renegotiated. Westminster council, which has a seven-year contract to share profits as prices rise, believes that town halls are sitting on a fortune. “Where there’s muck there’s brass,” Mark Banks, Westminster’s waste strategy manager, said. Any profit made will be ploughed back into services or to lower council tax rises, he said.

This year alone the rising cost of oil – used to make plastic – has pushed prices of domestic rubbish even higher. The sale price of mixed plastic bottles has nearly tripled to £230 a tonne in the past six months. Six years ago it was £10 per tonne.

With plastic processing advances in coming months, yoghurt pots, bags, food packaging and any plastic containers will be even more sought after as manufacturers recycle plastic to avoid buying oil. Newspapers and cardboard now sell for £100 a tonne, double what they were fetching early last year. Metal from cans was £80 a tonne at the start of 2007 and has risen to £200. A tonne of copper now sells for more than £3,000, compared with a tenth of that in 2002.

The sharply rising prices give councils an added incentive to boost recycling – apart from having to meet EU landfill targets – and many are keen to cash in. But the fixed-term deals negotiated by many authorities, set at the prices of recyclable materials several years ago, allow the contractor to reap the reward.

Paul Bettison, the chairman of the Local Government Association’s environment board, said that councils had tightly judged decisions:

He admitted that in a few years, recycled goods could be traded on the futures market like other commodities. “The markets will be making money out of the sale of recyclables and some councils will too. Not all are negotiating long-term deals.”

Mr Bettinson wants the Government to make plain that councils are sitting on a goldmine. “We need to get the message to our authorities and say, ‘Let’s see what we can get out of this without taking silly risks.’ ” Mr Banks said: “Many councils locked into fixed-price contracts may be missing out on tens of thousands of pounds of revenue from rising prices of recyclable materials. Westminster takes a commercial approach to contracts so that we benefit in rising market situations but with a safety net in place when markets inevitably turn.”

Read Full Story Here