Clean water and decent public sanitation are things which, we, in the developed world, pretty much tend to take for granted; getting potable water is as simple as turning on a tap, it’s something which most of us do many times a day without even thinking about it.
So, maybe it’s all too easy for us to forget that we are, in fact, extremely fortunate to have such ready access to such a vital luxury!

In the third world it’s a very different story! Approximately 4,000 children die every day from preventable water related diseases

4,000!
That’s more than the combined effects of HIV/AIDS, malaria and measles!

It’s just mind bloggling, that this is still going on in the 21_st century!

Please, if you can take the time to do something, if not today, then tomorrow, or the next day; If you can afford it then even a few quid can make a hell of a difference! Part of what makes water poverty such a huge scandel is that providing clean water doesn’t cost the earth!
Even if you can’t afford to make a donation, then take a few minutes to write something, to help raise awareness, on your own blog, or forums you frequent. Help spread the word, even if it’s just mentioning it to your mates while you’re out having a few this weekend.
For all that it’s a massive problem, the solution is relatively simple & if we all pitch in then it shouldn’t be too much of an imposition, in terms of either time or money, for anybody.

If nothing else, please, take the time to sign the petition below, let the politicians know that this is an important issue!

Hardly a gardener's favourite, will the dandelion, and other wild flowers, soon be nostalgic memories?

Still, with most of the countryside given over to agriculture, the nation’s verges are one of the more common refuges left for the Britain’s wildflowers, and there are concerns that we may see some species disappear altogether if the Danish rampage continues.

If it was just the dandelion I doubt anyone would mind, but it would be a shame if, in the future, the only way to see some of the nation’s flowers was to order them from a florist.

As always though the devil is well and truly in the details. We certainly need the US, along with China, to sign up to any deal that is reached for it to actually have any meaning; without the participation of the world’s two most polluting nations any climate change agreement that is reached is just so much hot air, as we saw with Kyoto.
As of yet China’s president, Hu Jintao, hasn’t made any committment one way or the other as to whether he’ll attend Copenhagen, so even with Obama’s attendance at this stage there are no guarentees that anything substantive or meaningful will come out of Copenhagen. Still, at least one of the big two polluters appears to be prepared to start taking action, undoubtedly a step forward in the battle to mitigate the impact of climate change before it’s too late.

Unfortunately, although Obama seems genuinely committed to taking action on the issue, how much he’ll be able to achieve is another question entirely. Generally Americans are far less concerned about the threat of climate change than he is. Currently the US has a Climate Bill in front of Congress, which aims for a 20% reduction in US CO₂ emissions by 2020. However it’s taking 2005 as it’s base level, whereas Europe and many other countrys are setting their reduction targets based on 1990 emisson levels. Even then it’s looking like Obama’s going to have to reduce his preposed target from 20% in order to get the necessary support to pass the bill through Congress; hence why he’ll only be pledging a 17% cut, by 2020, when he attends Copenhagen.
It also has to be noted that currently he’s only planning to attend the summit for one day, before heading off to Oslo to accept his Nobel Prize, and won’t be returning to Copenhagen for the crucial final days of the summit, when any agreement will be hammered out.

Overall it has to be seen as a positive step, that a US President is finally engaging in the fight to tackle the effects of Climate Change, but it also has to be remembered that he ultimately serves his electorate, and so, even if Obama is on-board with the struggle to reduce the effects of climate change it’s quite clear that his hands will, to an extent, be tied until he’s able to convince more of the US population that climate change is everybody’s problem!

The study in question was carried out by British and Australian academics & investigated the likely effects of global warming on flowers, and other plant species. My first reaction was actually pedantic rage brought on by NASA’s use of the phrase “Global Warming“. All too often this term is used incorrectly as a synonym for climate change, and it’s one of my pet hates, since the label “global warming” implies that climate change will lead to warmer weather globally; whereas the reality of climate change is that some places will get hotter while others get colder, or that specific locations will become hotter in the summers but get colder winters than they’ve previously experienced.

In short, climate change comes down to much more than the idea that everythings going to get warmer, & I believe imprecise use of the term “global warming”, when one is talking about climate change as a whole, only adds confusion to a debate which is already bogged down in misunderstanding, statistical chicanery, &, at times, downright dishonesty.
For a start it implies that everywhere is going to get warmer, which makes some people wonder “What’s the problem, hotter summers would be nice!”, but it also gives especially ignorant anthropogenic climate change sceptics an excuse to crow on about how “global warming” is a myth, whenever it snows badly, or there’s a cold snap. Of course, what the poor fools are missing is that climate change could very well lead to much hotter, wetter summers for us in the UK, but leave us (in worse case scenarios) with winters they’d be more familar with in Moscow; London’s only a few degrees of latitude south of Moscow, and if the Gulf Stream &/or Jet stream were to pack up it’s likely that the UK would become a good deal colder!

In anycase misuse of “global warming” to mean “climate change” it’s one of my pet hates, and it especially grates when a source which should know better does it, hence my initial reaction to the piece. However, on reading through it I discovered that I had perhaps been too hasty, as the piece in question appears to be looking at a “global warming” scenario, rather than climate change as a whole; Of course how much validity there is in a study which is predicting an overall warming pattern, rather than considering the possibility that weather will become more extreme, and erractic, all round is another question entirely, and one which I’ll maybe rant about another day.

Think of the flowers! won't somebody please think of the flowers?

“So what’s the problem?” you may be asking; how do flowers appearing earlier in the year have a negative impact on anyone, except for possibly shops which sell flowers losing sales around Valentine’s day. The answer is that, most likely, there wouldn’t be any direct negative effects for humans, but when one thinks about the numbers of other species, particularly insects, whose life cycles rely in some way on flowers, and other species who, in turn, rely on those species, it’s clear that ecologically this could be a pretty big deal.
A great deal of effort is spent on highlighting how climate change might end up directly effecting humans, and while that is definitely a worthy goal, I think that too often it’s wider ecological effects are only vaguely touched upon. The stark truth is that, despite all of our scientific advances, humanity’s welfare is still, very much, tied to the ecosphere which we inhabit, and if other species which play important roles in the ecosystem start to fail then the overall impact of climate change could be far greater than many realise.

Of course the first thing to remember when one considers electric cars or vans is that the electricity has to come from somewhere, and if that’s from a power station which uses fossil fuels then really all you’re doing is obfuscating the vehicle’s carbon footprint, rather than reducing it significantly. Although, saying that, it has to be more practical to employ carbon capture technology in a power station than in a vehicle.

Electric cars and vans actually have a much longer history than most might realise, and in the early days of motorised transport, were far more common then petrol powered vehicles. However, advances in the internal combustion engine (ICE) & petroleum production technology during the early 20th century allowed ICE powered cars to be produced substantially cheaper than equivalent electric vehicles, and as a result electric vehicles pretty much died out for severeal decades.

In some ways it seems ironic to me that we started out on a track we’re now re-embracing, but given the advantages which the ICE had at the time, such as longer range & faster refueling times, it’s hard to blame the people of the time for embracing it, &, I have to wonder whether humanity would have advanced nearly so much as it did during the 20th century without the ICE. Some may argue that less advancement may actually have been a good thing for our species, and the planet in general, and in many ways I have sympathy for that view, but it would feel somewhat hypocritical to get too fervent about it.

In any case the modern generation of electric vehicles do appear to be shaping up rather nicely, and it once again looks like they might be able to give ICE powered vehicles a run for their money. The days when the only electric vehicles on the streets were the old fashioned milk floats are long gone, and although the technology definitely still needs some work, to make it affordable and convenient some of the forerunners of this new generation of electric cars and vans give hope that they may indeed be a viable solution in the very near future.

One of the most impressive is possibly Tesla Motors’ Roadster; A car based on the Lotus Elise which boasts a top speed of 135mph, a 200 mile range, & can go from 0 to 60 in ~4 seconds. Tesla also have plans for a solar powered version which they claim could make the car “carbon positive”, impressive stuff, if it comes about. Even it’s price tag of £90k isn’t that bad if one views it as a luxury sports model, although it is obviously out of many people’s price range. Anyway, take a look for yourself, if you want:

There’s also hope for those who can’t afford that kind of price tag, as more mainstream brands, such as Mitsubishi & Mini, release more affordablle electric vehicles, while others, like volkswagen, clamour to jump on the band wagon. It looks like business is starting to take the idea of electrics seriously too, with some courier companies starting to adopt the use of electric vans, especially around urban areas, where their pollution reducing benefits might be most tangibly felt. Also a number of the big name car and van rental companies are looking at offering electrics as an option, or are already doing so; good news for those who don’t own a car for green principle reasons, but occasionally find the need for something more reliable and flexible than public transport. I suppose it would even give the sceptics, a chance to “try before they buy”.

Overall, I think this technology does have an awful lot of potential; it may not be quite “there” yet, but I think over the next few years it’s likely to become more and more commonplace. The Govt announcement that they’ll support the construction of the required infrastructure has to be a big step forward- An easily accessed, widespread, network of charging points will surely only help encourage people that electrics are more than just an eccentric fad. As I said at the start of the piece, I do have some concerns about the source of the electricity that powers these vehicles, but, in terms of transport, I think we may well be looking at the shape of things to come.

This article on the BBC site caught my attention today; It not only appeals to my inner tree-hugger, but also to my geeky science streak too.

A prototype of Dr Lackner's artificial trees. A valuable weapon in the fight against climate change?

The theory behind the artificial trees is that a large surface area is coated in a substance which will readily react with atmospheric CO₂ to form a solid compound, thus removing it from the air. The chemistry behind the process is pretty simple, in fact anyone who remembers using Lime Water as a test for CO₂ in science at school has used exactly the kind of process that we’re talking about here. (The cloudiness which one sees when CO₂ is bubbled through lime water is due to the formation, & precipitation, of insoluble calcium carbonate.)

Dr Klaus Lackner, the man behind the idea, reckons that each of these artificial trees could capture up to 90,000 tonnes of CO₂ each year, the equivalent of the 15,000 cars’ exhaust fumes, and if the idea is adopted it’s best use might very well be to line the sides of busy roads. Industrial plants have other options for carbon capture, and possibly more efficient ones than removing CO₂ which has already made it’s way into the atmosphere.
With motor vehicles though it’s simply impracticle to try and capture CO₂ as it’s produced. For a start burning 14g of petrol produces 44g of CO₂, meaning that any carbon capturing vehicle would get heavier during the course of a journey, and as a result loose fuel efficiency. Clearly a non-starter.

Before you all rush out and start buying shares in artificial tree companies, it’s only fair to point out that it’s not likely to be a panacea for all our climate change woes. The biggest sticking point at the moment seems to be the question of renewing the “trees” once the CO₂ binding chemicals have been used up; This in itself could be a logistical nightmare, and could potentially make the idea a non-starter, unless a cost effective, carbon neutral, method of collecting and cleaning the artificial trees’ foils can be found.

Obviously, Dr Lackner and his team continue to work on these details, and personally I hope they do manage to find a viable way to implement this technology. In theory it seems like it could be one of our best approaches to tackling excessive atmospheric CO₂ levels in the time frame we have.
If you want to know more about the theory behind Dr Lackner’s artifical trees this BBC article goes into a bit more detail than the one I linked to at the top of the page, or if you wanted to get into serious levels of detail you could read his paper on Capturing CO₂ from Air.

It highlights a small company with lofty goals; They aim to change, through example, the way that the free market operates, and all via the medium of fairtrade pants! Pants to Poverty are attempting to carve out a niche for themselves by selling quality underwear sourced from fair trade cotton grown without the use of pesticides, and, in the process, demonstrate that it is possible to run an ethical, & profitable, business. It may seem like an ambitious, maybe even eccentric, plan, and with a price tag of £8 on their undies they’re clearly going to have trouble winning over the Primark, £1 a pair, brigade, but, then again, anyone shopping at Primark probably doesn’t have ethical sourcing of their clothes as a top priority.

Pants to Poverty's ethical undies, as modelled by the invisble man

Personally I wish them all the best, I doubt they’ll catalyse the change in global business practice they’re aiming for, but it’s great to see people of principle put their money where their mouths are and give it a go.

Of course cynic that I am I do wonder, if it turns out that there is a market for ethical undies, whether one of the big names won’t just jump on the bandwagon and use their economies of scale to out-compete the small guy. I hope not, but sadly that seems to be the way that business works.

Although there’s been a lot of talk in the news about the this year’s late monsoons, and the consequences this will have for India’s agricultural sector, it’s still looking like Bangladesh is going to be subject to it’s normal annual flooding over the next few months.
Last week I caught this video report from the BBC, part of a series which highlights the plight of Bangladesh’s poor as they prepare for the annual deluge. It not only gives some insight into the terrible conditions which these people have to endure as part of their day-to-day lives, but also highlighted, for me, how vulnerable the residents of Bangladesh are to the effects of global warming; With ~50% of the country lying at 3m above sea level, or less, it’s easy to see how even a modest rise in sea levels would render much of the country uninhabitable. This would be a disaster for any nation, but with Bangladesh being a relatively poor nation, yet at the same time being the world’s 7th most populous (~150 million people), it’s quite clear that it’s people stand to suffer more than most if climate change predictions are correct.

Washout: the topography clearly shows why Bangladesh floods so regularly

In the mean time, spare a thought for the poor of Bangladesh who, over the next couple of months, are going to be dealing with the floods; Think about that next time you’re cursing the wet British summer, by comparison we have it easy… for the moment!
The BBC report also mentioned the work which Oxfam, amongst other charities, are doing to help preparations for this years Bangladesh Floods, so if you can afford to spare more than just a thought for Bangladesh’s poor take a look at Oxfam’s campaign page to see how you can get involved!

Too many cooks? Oxfam members dress as world leaders to highlight the need to address climate change

Ban, and I aren’t the only people who sceptical about the G8′s commitments, the, so called, G5, developing nations, weren’t too impressed by the 2050 pledge either, if their response is anything to go by. They’ve refused to sign up to a global target for a 50% reduction in CO2 emission by 2050, apparently wanting to see more action, and assistance, from the developed world before they’re willing to commit to such targets. On one hand I can see their point entirely, they shouldn’t have to forego the benefits that becoming a developed economy generally offers, just because they started this development later than America & the European nations, but I also have reservations. Currently a great deal of the West’s manufacturing is farmed out to these developing nations, because production is generally both cheaper, and less regulated, than it is in developed nations; for big business, with an eye only for the bottom line, it’s a no-brainer!

My concern is that this arrangement effectively gives everyone license to do very little about climate change now, while we still, maybe, have a chance of making a difference.

The West still gets to farm out a load of it’s manufacturing to third world countries, who refuse to take action on climate change, because the West isn’t doing more itself. So, we still get our cheap socks, and other little bits & pieces which keep us in the lifestyle we’ve all become accustomed to, while being able to feel that the developing world is still the problem, that they’re the ones who aren’t doing enough. When, in reality, a large part of their manufacturing is aimed at our consumers, & wouldn’t be happening but for the western demand for cheap goods.
I’m not sure there is an easy answer, but ultimately I think I large part of starting the ball rolling has to happen here in the West; We need to accept that cheap consumer goods come at a greater overall price, a toll that’s being stored up for our old age, and for our children. We need to be willing to pay a decent price for goods, so that wherever they’re produced it’s done with an eye to environmental costs, as well as mere unit cost and profit margin. Whether that means producing our goods here in the West, where environmental considerations are, to an extent, legislated for, or paying more to the developing world to have them produce our consumer toys in a more environmentally friendly manner.

Overall, although this week’s meeting has undoubtedly a positive step forward, in the sense that it has further raised awareness of the climate change, and acceptance that it is an important issue which will effect us all, I’m not sure that it’s actually managed to achieve very much of any susbstance. Lets hope the politicians show a little more willingness to commit to meaningful short term action when the UN meets in Copenhagen, in December, to discuss a strategy for reducing carbon emissions between 2012 and 2050.
I won’t be holding my breath, but here’s hoping!

I do actually have some sympathy for that last arguement, as long as it’s not being used as an excuse for in-action. I mean, lets be honest, the fact that Western companies have outsourced a great deal of manufacturing to poorer, and less regulated, countries like China has undoubtedly helped our own apparent carbon footprint, while, quite literally, dumping a load of the dirty work on the third world. A point which Rob Newman makes in his video about Climate Change (at about the 3 minute mark, but, go on, watch it all, IMO he has some interesting ideas.)

Being the cynic that I am I’m not terribly inclined to take politicians on their words, especially when they might have PR, or other agendas at heart. Even so, I do find the fact that China’s Govt is even coming out and making these kinds of statements extremely encouraging, and hopefully a positive step forward in terms of starting to tackle the threat of anthropogenic global warming.

Afterall, China’s previous refusal to get on board with fighting climate change has allowed many nay-sayers to use the arguement that, if an industrial economy the size of China isn’t bothering to reduce their carbon footprint then everybody else’s efforts are largely in vain.

I also find it encouraging that a nation which has previously hidden behind the excuse of being a “third world” country, has begun to take the threat of global warming seriously, and has commited to not only meet it’s 2020 target for renewable energy production (15%), but actually exceed it. In fact they’re talking about generating at least 18% of the nation’s energy from renewable sources, but are aiming to hit the 20% mark; The target that the rich western nations have been set, and one, incidently, which some commentators are doubting Britain will be able to achieve based on the action our Govt’s currently taking.

I find it especially heartening that a nation with so many poor citizens is taking such an enlightened and forward thinking stance! Afterall it is now widely accepted that Global Warming will have the greatest effect on the World’s poor; On the whole they will be the ones who’ll be effected first, and most severely!

I won’t be holding my breath over any of this, but maybe China’s initiatives might actually shame the West into taking this issue more seriously ourselves?