Long live the king

March 22nd, 2007

There was a really inspiring edition of Dateline on SBS last night dealing with recycled water, climate change and solar power. It is well worth a look. A podcast of the episode can be downloaded here.

The most interesting story was about the richest man in mainland China, Dr Zhengrong Shi, otherwise known as “the Sun King”. The Chinese-Australian scientist developed cutting edge photovoltaic (solar cell) technology while working on his doctorate at the University of NSW in Sydney and subsequent work with Pacific Solar.

After a lack of Australian industry foresight and support of the technology, he became frustrated and decided to take Suntech Power offshore. Dr Shi has now made a staggering 3 billion dollars in 6 years manufacturing solar electricity panels. He also has grand plans to give fossil fuel giants Shell and BP a run for their money in the future.

No doubt there are a lot of people in the solar power industry in Australia kicking themselves. As he said, if there had been more support, Suntech’s headquarters could have been in Sydney, not Shanghai.

I found this a spectacular example of Australia’s lack of vision for the renewable energy sector and our government’s current coal addiction.
If you do check it out, keep an eye out for the scene of the 3000 strong Suntech staff wolfing down dinner to a Mandarin dub of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth !!

With the Chinese economy set to overtake the USA’s in the coming decade, there is no doubt solar technology will go a long way to reigning in the nation’s carbon pollution. Consequently, this will make a huge difference to us all.

By reducing global carbon emission, we have a better chance of keeping our planet habitable for future generations.

The tide is turning…

March 5th, 2007

First Tim Flannery is awarded 2007 Australian of the year and now Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth wins an Oscar for best documentary. It seems the world has been catching up on the issue of climate change overnight- it’s about bloody time!

In a historic effort to engage billions of people across the globe, Kevin Wall, Al Gore, Pharrell Williams, Maná, Cameron Diaz, and the MSN Network launched Save Our Selves (SOS) – The Campaign for a Climate in Crisis. The plan is to will reach people in every corner of the planet through television, film, radio, the Internet and Live Earth, a 24-hour concert on 7/7/07 across all seven continents that will bring together more than 100 of the world’s top musical acts.

Smart marketers have seized the moment and good for them I say; there is a lot of money to be made. If it takes a movie and a couple of celebs to move the masses on this issue, then so be it. I am glad is it now becoming “cool” to be climate conscious (e.g. see Cool Aid broadcast by Australia’s Network 10, March 4th 2007). Let’s just hope it provides a groundswell of voters at the next American and Australian elections.

Definitely a sign of the times…

Sanity prevails

February 6th, 2007

It was great to see CSIRO’s Paul Fraser’s response to Len Walker’s “Cool heads needed on global warming” (see earlier post) in todays The Age.

The key message being:

It is prudent to constantly question and test the science of climate change. This is a major strength of the panel process, which relies on robust scientific debate. Despite Dr Walker’s misgivings, the best way to debate the science is through the peer-reviewed publication process. The so-called “facts” that Dr Walker cite to question the science of fossil fuel and carbon dioxide-driven climate change do not stand up to critical scientific evaluation, and their foundations cannot be found anywhere in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Music to my ears!!

IPCC Summary for Policymakers out today

February 3rd, 2007

A future of severe storms, crippling drought, soaring temperatures and rising sea levels is inevitable, according to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which released its 1200-page report in Paris last night. The work of 2500 scientists over six years, it is considered the most authoritative evaluation of climate change ever produced. Check out the press release which has a link to a PDF of the report.

The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report describes progress in understanding of the human and natural drivers of climate change, observed climate change, climate processes and attribution, and estimates of projected future climate change. It details six scenarios under which temperatures are predicted to rise from at least 1.1 degrees and possibly as much as 6.4 degrees by 2100. An interesting video clip by Reuters outlines some of the potential impacts in Asia.

ipcc_paris-feb02-2007.jpg

The IPCC report’s findings reinforce some stark messages. The evidence for warming is now unequivocal. There has been a 0.74C rise in global temperatures over the past century, much of this occurring in the last few decades.

The direct link between human activities and global warming is more clearly established than ever. This link can now be drawn not only with global atmospheric temperature, but also with the warming in the oceans, with sea level rise and in the pattern of atmospheric warming. The report confirms that warming resulting from human activity is around 10 times greater than that from changes in the Sun’s activity. We have caused most of the recent observed warming.

In true scientific form, the final text of the report says it is “very likely” that human activities led by burning fossil fuels account for most of the warming in the past 50 years. It puts this at a 90 per cent certainty – a significant ramping up of the language of the last report of the panel in 2001, which said the link was “likely”. Scientists at the final four-day workshop said this was the most important paragraph of the report.

This cartoon in The Age sums up this whole debate nicely I think!

ipcc-cartoon.jpg

As the forum broke up, The Guardian broke a story claiming that scientists and economists had been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies — ExxonMobil — to undermine efforts to gain a consensus on the report.

Exxon have reported “a net profit for 2006 of $US39.5 billion ($51.1 billion), its second consecutive annual record. Once again, it was the largest profit reported by any American company in history, though fourth-quarter profit actually declined slightly”.

As my friend Jen put it:

How can Exxon, a company that caused so much environmental damage when one of its supersize oil tankers vomited oil into the North Sea several years ago AND one that continues to get its product from unstable, poverty-stricken third world countries, be allowed to make so much money in the current environment?

Already there is some interesting discussion starting up…

Take a look at the International Herald Tribune and The Guardian blogs. For Australian opinion on direct action, see the Sydney Morning Herald on the switching greenpower.

For an excellent insider’s perspective, take a read through the Real Climate discussion.

An article by David King in The Observer has eloquently summed up the societal implications of these finding:

The message for policy-makers is clear: climate change is not a passing fancy for environmentalists. It represents a challenge on a scale that will affect societies and economies across the world…

As individuals, we can make adjustments that together can have a big impact. As consumers, we can transform markets through our purchasing choices. And as concerned citizens, we can encourage governments, nationally and locally, to show leadership…

It is important to remember that, beyond the next two decades or so, the future severity of climate change and its impacts lies in our hands. We have the knowledge, technologies and capability to transform our economies, if we have the commitment to do so…

The IPCC’s work is vital in providing a solid foundation of evidence on which these crucial decisions can be made. We have lost 17 years since Kyoto. Now we have to act.

Dr. Jo in the Sydney Morning Herald

February 1st, 2007

Today some of the research I was involved with in New Zealand was featured in the Sydney Morning Herald. Check out the feature article called A spot of time travel finds a golden result”.

For me it was really nice to have the opportunity to publicise this incredible story. Working on the New Zealand kauri record was a rare privilege. Definitely a personal and professional highlight to date.

misty-ent.jpg

The story also just featured across the Tasman in the New Zealand Herald (2/2/07) “Kauri help build picture of El Nino variations”. Excerpts of Anthony’s wisdom included this time.

Cool heads needed on global warming

January 20th, 2007

After reading “Cool heads needed on global warming” in the Business section of Melbourne’s The Age, I got the final boot I needed to get this site up and running.

The author of this post, Dr Len Walker a civil engineer and fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, describes his views on the “near-hysteria” surrounding global warming and why the global share-market should have no fear.

Walker’s inaccuracies begin with the spurious “fact” that the earth has cooled slightly since 1998. This is a misleading statement taken out of its scientific context. The slight cooling Walker refers to temperatures has occurred in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere, at 14-22km). According to NOAA’s 2005 climate assessment report, this is consistent with the depletion of ozone in the lower stratosphere, compounding evidence of the severity of recent climate change. It seems the link between global warming and ozone depletion is lost on Walker.

Closer to home, global surface temperatures in the troposphere have increased at a rate near 0.6°C/century, accelerating over the past 25 to 30 years to a striking rate of 1.8°C/century. Put simply, rises in global temperatures seen in Figure 1 are undeniable, rapid and unrelenting.

gtc2005.jpg

Figure 1. Global air temperatures, 1850-2005.

Source: University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

According to NASA climatologists, global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that “most global warming occurred before 1940″. More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade until present. These trends are anything but “trivial”.

According to the UK’s University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, widely recognised as one of the world’s leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change, the 1990s were the warmest decade in the observational temperature records.The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.548°C above the 1961-90 mean.

According to NASA, 2005 was year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century. Australia also officially recorded its warmest year on record in 2005. Ten of the eleven warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past eleven years (1995-2005). The only year in the last eleven not among the warmest eleven is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). Worldwide, the provisional figures for 2006 using data from January to November, place the year as the sixth warmest year. 2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the UK’s Met Office.

global-and-hemispheric-temp.jpg

Figure 2. Global and hemispheric temperature trends.

Source: University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

It is misleading to cite changes in the Earth’s long-term, natural climate variability as evidence that current conditions are no cause for concern. Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from tree-rings, corals, ice-cores and historical records) shown in Figure 3, indicate that the 1990s is the warmest decade of the millennium and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the millennium was likely 1998, and the coldest was probably A.D. 1601 (but with much greater uncertainty).

jones-mann-2004-large.jpg
moberg-2005-large.jpg
osborn-briffa-2006-large.jpg
Figure 3. A number of palaeoclimatic reconstructions of past global temperatures using natural climatic data from tree-rings, corals, ice-cores and documentary records.

Source: NOAA’s World Data Center for Palaeoclimatology

Walker vaguely referred to evidence from Greenland ice-cores that temperatures have increased in the past by up to 7°C. It is worth noting that during this time, approximately 4-5 million people are estimated to have inhabited the earth in simple tribal groups. This is in no way analogous to the conditions were currently face.

More recent evidence from ice-core records drilled from Dome C in Antarctica, the closest we get to finding carbon dioxide somewhat similar to present is close to 800,000 years ago (the Pleistocene). Currently, the planet is in what scientists’ term a ‘non-analogue’ state. That is, the environmental conditions being witnessed today have no historical counterpart any time in our geologic past. During that period, world population was nowhere near the 6.6 billion people the Earth houses today, much less with the technological capacity to alter ecological systems on such as vast scale.

The Stern Review, led by Prof. Sir Nicholas Stern is the most comprehensive ever undertaken on the economics of climate change. The first sentence of the executive summary states that “the scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response.”

The report goes on to suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and most widespread market failure ever seen, and it provides prescriptions including environmental to minimise the economic and social disruptions. He stated that “our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century”.

Claiming that the information on climate change is “claimed by an exclusive few” is a fallacy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) to “assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”.

The IPCC will deliver the first volume of its Fourth Assessment Report on February 2 2007. It has utilised more than 2500 expert scientific reviews, 850 contributing authors, 450 lead authors from at 130 countries over the past six year to produce four volumes that will make up the forthcoming IPCC report. The reports are freely available for download and are translated into all the UN languages.

This could hardly be referred to as “restrictive sources” of an “exclusive few”. In contrasts to decisions made in CEO boardrooms, the scientific community is built upon rigorous peer review, transparency and objective critique. At best, Walker contributes to the “sound and fury” clouding the rational assessment of the seriousness of global climatic change.It is dangerous views as those held by the likes of Walker that “urgently need to be challenged and discussed in an open forum”.

In terms of films such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth “stirring emotions” that inaction on cutting fossil fuel use will bring disaster, this reaction is long overdue. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere currently stands at roughly 380 parts per million (ppm), an increase of more than 35 percent over pre-industrial levels, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. At the current rate of increase, the world could reach 550 ppm well before the end of the century, with severe implications for human well-being and the Earth’s natural systems.

Due to the phenomenon of environmental inertia, even when anthropogenic emissions do begin to decrease, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise for up to as much as a century. Global temperatures will continue to increase for an even longer period, locking the world into continuous feedback of unforeseen climatic change. Effective management of the Earth system under such conditions will depends on early and consistent actions. Action needed now, not in some vague, distant future.

There is simply too much at stake to keep muddying the waters.

Nuclear power- no solution to climate change

August 5th, 2006

There has been a lot of media lately aimed at persuading Australians that nuclear power is the “silver bullet” solution to global warming. Yet another blatant attempt to propagate myths about the safety and necessity of the nuclear industry.

The real issue is that Australia is home to 40% of the world’s uranium reserves. In 2003, there were five companies exploring for Australian uranium; now there are over 70. Bottom line, there is a lot of money to be made in the corporate sector. We are in the grip of greedy, dangerous forces who care little about Australia’s future.

Nuclear power is NOT ‘clean and green’ as the industry claims. Vast amounts of traditional fossil fuels (and water) are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, construct the massive concrete reactor buildings and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste generated by the nuclear process.

The nuclear industry has had its entire history to provide permanently safe solutions to the fundamental issue of radioactive waste. To date, they have not come up with anything more sophisticated than storing it in a big, deep hole far, far away. This translates into the transferal of significant risk to our already disenfranchised indigenous communities.

This is completely inadequate and utterly reprehensible. How can we entrust our future to a gravely carcinogenic industry that places profits over inter-generational public health?

This is not to mention the threat of terrorist attacks, accidental meltdowns and the accumulation of thousands of tonnes of solid radioactive waste that concentrate in water and food supplies and are known to cause a plethora of cancers. Depleted uranium is lying around in thousands of leaking, disintegrating barrels at enrichment facilities the world over.

In addition to carbon dioxide, large amounts of the now banned Chloroflurocarbons gas (CFCs) are emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient as an atmospheric heat trapper (or ‘greenhouse gas’) than carbon dioxide, but it is a classic pollutant and potent destroyer of the ozone layer. Like fossil fuels, global supplies of usable uranium are finite.

It is sobering to think if the entire world’s electricity production were replaced by nuclear energy, there would be less than 10 years worth of accessible uranium.

Following this, it will be necessary to use huge amounts of fossil fuels to mine and enrich the remaining poor grades of uranium. At best, we are talking about a 50 year band-aid solution to our pending energy crisis. Nuclear power is exorbitantly expensive and notoriously unreliable. Every billion dollars spent on the supremely misguided attempt to revive the nuclear industry is a theft from the production of cheap renewable energy and innovations in coal efficiency.

Global warming and the energy crisis is an an issue from which we can run but no longer hide. The real solution to climate change lies in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Australia is endowed in natural, clean alternatives such as solar, wind and geothermal energy. The ingenuity of our scientists has vast potential to make Australia world leaders in this area. Why should we commit to an outdated, dirty and dangerous technology when we know much better?

This is an immense social and technological call-to-action. It is one we cannot afford not to heed.