Pengukuran jangka panjang tentang konsentrasi CO2 di atmosfer dimulai pada akhr tahun 1950-an dengan melibatkan pengukuran harian di daerah-daerah terpencil, seperti di Mauna Loa (Hawaii) dan Cape Grim di Pulau Tasmania, Australia.

Sejak tahun 1970-an, banyak pengukuran konsentrasi CO2 dilakukan di berbagai lokasi di seluruh dunia, termasuk di Koto Tabang, Sumatera Barat, Indonesia. Pengukuran dilakukan, baik di darat, dari atas kapal laut, maupun pesawat.

Udara di suatu tempat ditangkap, dimasukan ke dalam botol laboratorium lalu diukur dengan penyerap sinar inframerah untuk mengukur konsentrasi CO2. Proses ini butuh waktu sekitar 30 menit atau kurang.

Proses pengukuran lebih kompleks bagi kandungan CO2 pada radiokarbon untuk mengukur emisi dari bahan bakar fosil yang memberi kontribusi pada variasi konsentrasi CO2 di atmosfer.

Bahan bakar fosil, seperti batu bara dan minyak bumi, tidak memiliki unsur carbon-14, istop yang amat jarang. Penelitian atas perbandingan yang variatif dari berbagai tipe karbon akan membantu untuk membedakan antara CO2 yang alamiah dan yang berasal dari aktvitas manusia.

Beberapa peralatan baru sedang dikembangkan untuk melakukan penghitungan CO2 agar lebih cepat dan lebih murah.

Yang Mengukur CO2

Berbagai lembaga melakukan pengukuran konsentrasi CO2 dan gas-gas rumah kaca lainnya. Beberapa, di antaranya adalah

1.    Badan Kelautan dan Atmosfer Nasional Amerika Serikat – Earth System Research Laboratory dari The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

2.    Divisi Pemantauan Global menerima contoh-contoh udara dari berbagai pelosok dunia untuk mengukur konsentrasi berbagai jenis gas, termasuk CO2, metana (CH4), hidrofluorokarbon (HFCs), dan gas-gas rumah kaca lainnya.

3.    Program CO2 Scripps dari The Scripps Instutution of Oceanography, California, AS. Penelitian dilakukan sejak 1956. Pengukuran dilakukan pada contoh yang diambil dari stasiun-stasiun penelitian di Arktik (Kutub Utara) hingga Antartika (Kutub Selatan).

4.    Pengawasan Atmosfer Global dari Badan Meteorologi Dunia (World Meteorological Agency’s Global Atmosphere Watch).

5.    Ribuan data pengukuran udara dikumpulkan oleh Pusat Data Dunia untuk Gas Rumah Kaca di Badan Meterologi Jepang (Japan Meteorological Agency).

6.    CSIRO Marine dan Divisi Penelitian Atmosfer (Atmospheric Research Division) di Australia.

7.    Pusat Penelitian Atmosfer Nasional (National Center for Atmospheric Research) di Boulder, Colorado, AS. Bagian Laboratorium Pengamatan Bumi (Erath Observing Laboratory) NCAR memiliki program khusus menggunakan pesawat jet swasta yang dikonversi untuk terbang berkali-kali dari kutub ke kutub untuk mencontohkan konsentrasi dari variasi gas rumah kaca pada ketinggian yang berlainan di atmosger.

8.    Pusat Analisis Informasi Karbon Dioksida (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) dari Departemen Energi, AS, yang merupakan pusat data utama untuk konsentrasi gas rumah kaca dunia.

Sumber  :

Beberapa Fakta Tentang Karbondioksida (CO2) | Kompas, 17.11.2009

Według jednych, metan to obok dwutlenku węgla największe zagrożenie dla klimatu. Według innych szansa energetyczna.

Kilka krótki informacji:

Metan wytwarzają bakterie w procesie beztlenowego rozkładu materii organicznej.

Dziś proces ten można  zaobserwować  na bagnach – pęcherzyki gazu, które wydobywają się na powierzchnię, to właśnie metan. Aby powstały hydraty (czyli tzw. klatraty) , musi być dostarczona odpowiednia ilość wody oraz metanu- powstała w ten sposób mieszanka (wodno- gazowa) musi zamarznąć i to pod wysokim ciśnieniem – bowiem tylko wtedy lód krystalizuje w układzie regularnym, tworząc symetryczne “klatki” (-> patrz rysunek obok), w których mogą zostać zamknięte cząsteczki metanu.

Mimo że klatraty teoretycznie mogą tworzyć się prawie wszędzie, to w praktyce największe złoża odkryto: w oceanach, na stokach kontynentalnych i na ladzie (min. w nieckach osadowych wiecznej zmarzliny). Warto przy tej okazji zaznaczyć, że jak dotąd nie znaleziono większej ilości hydratów na otwartym oceanie, z dala od lądu. Głębie Oceaniczne są po prostu zbyt ubogie w materię organiczną, by bakterie metanowe znalazły tam dobre warunki do życia.

Hydraty wyglądem przypominają lód, w odróżnieniu jednak od prawdziwego lodu, nie są zimne, a są za to  łatwopalne- “lód” pali się czerwonym płomieniem, zostawiając po sobie kałużę “wody”. “Kałuża” ta jest skoncentrowanym paliwem – proszę sobie wyobrazić, że z 1 m3 hydratu, po rozpadzie powstaje aż 164 m3 metanu. Hydraty są więc ogromnym nośnikiem energetycznym, a ich wartość energetyczna jest wyższa nawet od węgla kamiennego czy też od ropy naftowej.

“Szansa energetyczna”:

Jak już wspomniałem wcześniej, wartość energetyczna hydratów jest wyższa od węgla kamiennego czy też od ropy. Przypuszcza się, że wartość ta zbliżona jest do wartości LNG, czyli skroplonego gazu ziemnego. I to nie wszystko- Okazuje się również, że zapasy metanu są znacznie większe od wszystkich paliw kopalnych razem wziętych. Nic więc dziwnego, że już teraz rezerwami metanu interesują się min. koncerny.

O ilości i wartości hydratów, niech świadczy poniższy przykład:

” Szacuje się, że w Zatoce Meksykańskiej znajduje się ponad 184 biliony metrów sześciennych hydratu, uwięzionych w piaskowcu. Zdaniem amerykańskiego Minerals Management Service, zatoka jest obecnie najlepszym kandydatem do komercyjnej eksploatacji. Jeśli chociaż 5 proc. tego hydratu można by wydobyć, to i tak byłoby to 8,4 biliona metrów sześciennych. Dla porównania, rezerwy gazu ziemnego Stanów Zjednoczonych szacowane są obecnie na niecałe 6 bilionów metrów sześciennych.”

Jak więc wykorzystać taką okazję? Odpowiedź nie jest prosta. Problemem jest wydobycie.

Pomysłów na wydobycie jest wiele, część z nich sięga absurdu, są też i jednak całkiem realne, “lód metanowy” można np. podgrzać w otworze wiertniczym, doprowadzając do jego rozpadu (tego typu technologię używa się obecnie np. przy eksploatacji ciężkiej ropy naftowej).

Problemem są też koszty, ale przy szybko rosnącej cenie ropy (i przy kurczących się zapasach) okazać się może, że już za kilka, lub kilkanaście lat metan stanie się opłacalnym źródłem energii.

Problemem kolejnym, są potencjalne zagrożenia..

“Puszka Pandory”

Według wielu, metan jest 25- krotnie lepszym nośnikiem ciepła niż dwutlenek węgla. Jest zatem, z punktu widzenia zmian klimatu- niezwykle niebezpieczny. W mediach co jakiś czas można znaleźć materiały- które sugerują, że stopniowy wzrost temperatury (i generalnie chodzi w tym przypadku głownie o temp. oceanów) doprowadzi do niekontrolowanego i nagłego uwolnienia metanu, powodując tym samym znaczące przyspieszenie efektu cieplarnianego.

Metan podejrzewany jest o spowodowanie w przeszłości wielu katastrof ekologicznych : rozpad hydratów i uwolnienie dużej ilości metanu mogło być przyczyną ogromnego wzrostu temperatury na ziemi w późnym paleolicie i wymarcia wielu organizmów morskich.

Szacuje się, że przy wzroście temperatury planety o 3-5°C może nastąpić wyzwolenie ok. 1000-4000 miliardów ton metanu. A to dodatkowo powinno doprowadzić do jeszcze szybszego ocieplenia (negatywne scenariusze przewidują wzrost temp. nawet o ok. 7°C).

Obecnie największy niepokój wśród badaczy budzą: rosnąca temperatura oceanów, topniejący lód Arktyki oraz wzrost temperatury na obszarze Syberii- czyli generalnie rzecz biorąc na obszarach, na których ilość metanu uwięzionego w hydratach jest olbrzymia.

Kiedy to się stanie? Na pierwszy rzut oka wydawać by się mogło, że cienka linia jest już tuż , tuż a proces “uwalniania” metanu systematycznie przyspiesza, przybliżając nas każdego dnia do klimatycznej zagłady.

Tyle teoria.

“Kubeł bardzo zimnej wody”

Okazuje się jednak, że w praktyce wygląda to już inaczej.. Wbrew temu co sugerują media czy też ekolodzy- wzrost nagromadzenia metanu w atmosferze jest nie tylko znacznie mniejszy od tego co przewidywało IPCC, ale także wzrost ten został w ostatniej dekadzie zminimalizowany, do poziomu “zero”:

Dane te są jeszcze ciekawsze, gdy zapoznamy się z kolejną grafiką (źródło: Dlugokencky et al., 2009. Ekspert zajmujący się badaniami nad metanem w NOAA)- z której wynika jednoznacznie, że wzrost stężenia metanu- nie rośnie, a wprost przeciwnie- spada (chwilowym “skokiem” był rok 2007r).

Takie spowolnienie jest nie tylko kłopotliwe, ale stanowi również  “kubeł” z bardzo zimną wodą dla wszystkich tych, którzy już na wczoraj wieszczyli koniec świata.

Bibliografia:

1.Wstęp: “Hydraty..” artykuł Mirosława Rutkowskiego /geolog, pracownik Państwowego Instytutu Geologicznego w Warszawie/ Wiedza i życie listopad 2002

2. Cytat zaciągnięty z Gazety Wyborczej

Akhir-akhir ini isu perubahan iklim marak sekali dibicarakan, salah satu topik yang sangat berkaitan erat dengan isu tersebut adalah efek rumah kaca.  Namun pernahkah terpikirkan oleh kita dan memahami lebih jauh lagi mengapa efek rumah kaca itu dapat terjadi?, apa sih penyebabnya?, pengaruhnya terhadap manusia?, dan bila ingin berangan-angan lebih jauh lagi apa yang terjadi bila efek rumah kaca itu nyatanya dapat dihilangkan?  Semoga postingan di blog ini dapat mencerahi kita semua dan khususnya bagi penulis dalam memahami efek rumah kaca.

Kita mulai dari pertanyaan umum yang sering ditanyakan, apa itu efek rumah kaca?.  Secara sederhana para pakar iklim dan cuaca mendefinisikan efek rumah kaca sebagai masuknya sinar matahari ke sistem atmosfer bumi hingga mencapai seluruh permukaan bumi, baik itu berupa tanah, air, maupun ekosistem lainnya, setelah itu radiasi ini akan dipancarkan kembali menuju atmosfer, sebagian ada yang lolos ke angkasa luar dan sebagiannya lagi terperangkap di atmosfer untuk selanjutnya dikembalikan lagi ke bumi yang menyebabkan bumi menjadi lebih hangat.

Ilustrasi sederhananya digambarkan sebagai berikut (Gambar pribadi):

Catatan: ilustrasi diatas bersifat sederhana karena untuk kondisi realnya jauh lebih kompleks!.

Lalu dari jawaban yang kita peroleh dari pertanyaan pertama, muncul pertanyaan yang lebih menantang bagaimana caranya radiasi matahari yang terpantulkan dapat menghangatkan udara di atmosfer? Begini, Pada prinsipnya unsur – unsur iklim seperti suhu udara dan curah hujan dikendalikan oleh keseimbangan energi antara bumi dan atmosfer.  Radiasi matahari yang sampai di permukaan bumi (cahaya tampak) sebagian diserap oleh permukaan bumi dan atmosfer di atasnya.  Rata-rata jumlah radiasi yang diterima bumi seimbang dengan jumlah yang dipancarkan kembali ke atmosfer berupa radiasi inframerah yang bersifat panas dan menyebabkan pemanasan atmosfer bumi (troposfer). Gas rumah kaca (GRK) seperti CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, dan H₂O secara alami menyerap radiasi panas tersebut di lapisan troposfer.

Lalu bagaimana dari sisi ilmu Fisika dapat menjelaskan hal tersebut?.  Penjelasannya seperti ini, kita ambil dua contoh GRK, yaitu H₂O dan CO₂.  Uap air (H₂O) menyerap radiasi pada panjang gelombang 5-7 mikrometer dan di atas 12 mikrometer.  Sedangkan CO₂ menyerap radiasi pada panjang gelombang 4-5 mikrometer dan di atas 14 mikrometer.  Seperti yang kita ketahui, radiasi matahari yang datang berupa gelombang pendek, maka sebagian besar radiasi matahari yang diterima bumi dapat melewati udara yang mengandung H₂O dan CO₂.  Akan tetapi, pada saat bumi meradiasikan kembali (berupa inframerah) ke atmosfer, maka akan diserap langsung oleh H₂O dan CO₂.  Hal ini disebabkan radiasi yang telah dipantulkan mempunyai panjang gelombang yang lebih panjang dibandingkan pada saat radiasi matahari datang.

Uap air sebenarnya adalah GRK paling potensial  yang dampak efek rumah kaca dapat segera dirasakan, misalnya pernahkan teman-teman sekalian merasakan udara yang terasa panas pada saat menjelang turun hujan deras? pasti semuanya merasakan hal yang serupa.  Hal ini disebabkan karena radiasi yang terpantul tertahan oleh uap air yang menggantung di atmosfer.  Biarpun begitu, H₂O tidak diperhitungkan sebagai GRK yang potensial, mengapa? Karena keberadaan atau masa hidup (lifetime) àkayak garansi memory komputer aja J aja H₂O teramatlah singkat (sekitar 9 hari).  Sementara itu, untuk GRK lainnya seperti CO₂, CH₄, dan N₂O masa hidupnya di atmosfer berturut-turut adalah 100, 15, dan 115 tahun.  Masa hidup yang cukup lama bukan dibandingkan dengan H₂O.  Itulah sebabnya mengapa GRK  seperti H₂O, CO₂, CH₄, dan, N₂O memiliki volume yang selalu berubah-ubah pada tabel komposisi gas penyusun atmosfer.

Maka meskipun emisi yang menghasilkan GRK dengan segera dihentikan tidak berarti kita langsung menghilangkan efek rumah kaca ini karena dampak akumulasi GRK masih akan tetap dirasakan untuk jangka waktu puluhan hingga ratusan tahun.  Dari penjelasan tersebut, kita sebenarnya sudah mendapatkan maksud tersirat, yaitu tugas berat untuk menyelamatkan bumi dan atmosfer.

Lalu dari mana saja munculnya GRK tersebut? Sebenarnya semenjak dari bumi terbentuk gas rumah kaca sudah terbentuk secara alami seperti berasal dari letusan gunung berapi dan interaksi lautan-atmosfer.  Namun, sekarang, GRK yang ada saat ini dan akan datang bukan hanya disebabkan oleh peristiwa alam melainkan lebih karena berbagai aktivitas manusia (antropogenik). Hal ini dapat kita pahami mengingat kemajuan pesat pembangunan ekonomi telah memberikan dampak yang serius terhadap iklim dunia, seperti penggunaan energi fosil untuk sumber energi, peningkatan jumlah kendaraan bermotor, dan pembukaan lahan dengan cara membabat hutan besar-besaran.

Dari penjelasan sebelumnya kita telah menyebutkan beberapa kemungkinan penyebab terjadinya peningkatan suhu akibat GRK.  Namun beberapa pertanyaan kemudian muncul lagi.  Apakah benar GRK dari aktivitas manusia adalah penyebab utama efek rumah kaca? Kontroversi ini akhirnya terjawab juga ketika para ilmuwan memisahkan unsur-unsur GRK yang dihasilkan dari aktivitas manusia dengan aktivitas alami.  Didapat produksi GRK terbesar dihasilkan dari aktivitas  manusia semenjak digulirkannya revolusi induatri .

Lalu apa buktinya bila GRK di atmosfer itu berasal dari aktivitas manusia? Dari hasil studi detail tentang inti karbon di laboratorium dan pengamatan di lapang dalam jangka waktu panjang, pertama ditemukan bahwa karakteristik inti atom karbon hasil aktivitas manusia berbeda dengan inti karbon emisi alam.  Karena fosil telah terpendam sejak puluhan juta tahun lalu, maka sifat radioaktif inti karbon sudah hilang, sementara karbon alami memiliki porsi radioaktif yang cukup besar.  Kedua, hasil rekaman yang terdapat pada lingkar pohon menunjukkan fraksi radioaktif karbon-14 (C-14) makin mengecil dalam kurun waktu 1850-1950.  Ketiga, pengamatan jangka panjang dipuncak gunung Mauna Loa, Hawaii dan kutub selatan menunjukkan data konsentrasi CO₂ di atmosfer mengalami peningkatan dari 290-360 ppm.  Kedua tempat tersebut dipilih sebagai lokasi penelitian CO₂ karena tidak mengalami gangguan lonjakan GRK antropogenik secara langsung.

Lalu apakah  mungkin kita harus menghilangkan GRK dari aktivitas manusia dan alami? Untuk GRK yang berasal dari aktivitas alami tentu saja tidak bisa kita hilangkan begitu saja, toh walaupun bisa (namun mustahil) tanpa GRK alami tersebut suhu bumi akan 34⁰ C lebih dingin dari suhu yang kita alami sekarang, suhu yang mustahil untuk kehidupan manusia.  Masalahnya sekarang adalah seiring dengan menigkatnya taraf hidup manusia emisi GRK meningkat tajam karena konsumsi bahan bakar fosil semenjak revolusi industri digulirkan pada pertengahan tahun 1880-an.  Akibatnya suhu atmosfer bumi sekarang menjadi 0.5 ⁰C lebih panas dibanding suhu pada zaman pra-industri.

Lalu apa yang harus kita lakukan sekarang? Mulailah dari diri sendiri setelah itu ajak orang disekitar kita untuk:

1. Menghemat air dan listrik
2. Mempergunakan produk elektronik yang sudah memenuhi standar energy star
3. Selalu menyimpan file dalam bentuk softcopy atau bila tidak bisa pergunakan kertas dua halaman
4. Selalu gunakan transportasi umum untuk bepergian jarak jauh atau sepeda untuk jarak dekat
5. Mengurangi pemakaian plastik, stereofoam, dan busa
6. Selalu memakai ulang untuk barang yang kiranya dapat digunakan lagi
7. Tidak merokok
8. Dan masih banyak lagi usaha kita untuk menyelamatkan bumi ini dari kerusakan yang tidak dapat disebutkan seluruhnya disini

Berat memang usaha kita untuk melakukan semua hal itu.  Tetapi kita dapat melakukannya bila benar-benar ada niat dan dimulai dari hal yang kita anggap paling mudah.  Bagaimana dengan Anda selanjutnya?

Sumber Gambar: http://www.stuffintheair.com/….

John Ch 4 V 1-26

¹The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, ²although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. ³When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.

⁴Now he had to go through Samaria. ⁵So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. ⁶Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.

⁷When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” ⁸(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

⁹The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.^[a])

¹⁰Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

¹¹“Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? ¹²Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?”

¹³Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, ¹⁴but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

¹⁵The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”

¹⁶He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”

¹⁷“I have no husband,” she replied.

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. ¹⁸The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

¹⁹“Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. ²⁰Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

²¹Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ²²You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. ²³Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. ²⁴God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

²⁵The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

²⁶Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”

When Jesus learned that the Pharisees were beginning to notice Him, He left for a safer place. Even though we as believers should be telling others about God, we should also look out for our safety, pray for protection from harm. When Jesus asked the Samaritan woman for water, she asked why would Jews ask Samaritans for water when they looked down on them. God replied that He could give her the living water. When God speaks to us through the Bible and through signs in our lives, if we are not believers, we would either miss those signs or in the case of the Bible, just think it is a book. If you had not accepted Christ yet, then the Bible will just seem to be a book that teaches good morals. The living water that Jesus offers us is salvation; instead of an eternity in hell because we are sinners, we accept Christ and spend an eternity in heaven with Him.

.  Here the woman either is mocking Jesus or is misinterpreting Him when she asks for the water, so that she will never be thirsty again. This is the same with non-believers, when they hear the news about Jesus, they may accept Jesus for the wrong reasons. These people may believe that if they accept Jesus, their life on earth would have no troubles and they would become wealthy. When these people are going the wrong way, God has to send a message, sometimes it takes drastic measures for us to see that we are going the wrong way. In this case, God had to tell the woman how much of a sinner she was. We are suppose to accept Jesus not to make our lives better, but because we repent that we are sinners. We need Jesus, the sinless sacrifice for all of our sins, to wash our sins away. It is through this acknowledgment, and when we begin to live our lives to glorify God, that our lives will be filled with joy, because we will be living every moment of our lives dedicated to our Lord, the Creator of the universe.

.  The woman sees that Jesus is not a normal person, then asks why the Jews say that people can only worship in Jerusalem? Jesus replies that even though for now salvation is only for the Jews, there will come a time when anyone can be saved. That is after Jesus had died for us, and whoever then believes in His sacrifice and repents, will be saved. After the woman replies that she believes God will come and explain everything, Jesus replies, ” I who speak to you am he.” Jesus is God.

Breaking Bad : Season 1 : Episode 3 : “And the Bag’s in the River”

Walt and Jesse begin the clean-up.

With practical issues (such as last week’s acid disaster clean-up) and character development dominating this episode, science takes a bit of a back seat. In this post, I’ll be talking about the composition of the human body and redox reactions.

You can read more about this episode at AMC, IMDb and the A.V. Club.

The human body

As Walt and Jesse struggle through their clean-up operation (neutralising the acid with baking soda, which is also a good cleaning/scouring agent), Walt has a body-components-inspired flashback. His plan to disassemble the body into its constituent parts worked, more or less, and those parts (according to his assistant and the blackboard) were:

This adds up to 99.980042 mol %. Walt says it’s 99.888042 mol %, proving that it pays to have a calculator around. The remaining 0.019958 mol % (or 0.111958 mol %) thus accounts for the soul (or for elements they missed like potassium and iodine, or for trace elements like manganese and zinc, or for experimental error).

You may have read that the human body is around 65 % oxygen, 18 % carbon and 10 % hydrogen. These values are by mass, whereas the values that Walt writes down are by moles.

For background information on this topic, see the primer on molar quantities.

Redox reactions

If Walt’s students weren’t watching videos about carbon, according to what’s written on the blackboard they’d be exploring redox reactions – very common chemical reactions that have certain characteristics. Redox is an abbreviation for reduction / oxidation, which tells us that one reactant is reduced and another is oxidised:

• Oxidation: Gain of oxygen and/or loss of hydrogen and/or loss of electrons
• Reduction: Gain of hydrogen and/or gain of electrons and/or loss of oxygen

As usual in chemistry, things must balance out. If something is oxidised, something else must be reduced and vice versa. There are a couple of examples on the blackboard – on the left-hand side, we can see:

CH₄ + O₂ → CO₂ + H₂O

This is a chemical equation for the combustion of methane (CH₄) in oxygen (O₂) to give carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water (H₂O), and is a typical example of a redox reaction. Carbon both loses hydrogen and gains oxygen, so it is being oxidised. Oxygen gains hydrogen, so it is being reduced.

As written, the equation shows where the oxygen and hydrogen go from and to, but does not balance. It should be:

CH₄ + 2O₂ → CO₂ + 2H₂O

On the right-hand side, we can see:

H⁺ + Cr₂O₇^2- + C₂H₅OH → Cr³⁺ + CO₂ + H₂O

This is another redox reaction – potassium dichromate (K₂Cr₂O₇ – this is an ionic salt, meaning that the K₂ and Cr₂O₇ components separate in solution to give 2K⁺ and Cr₂O₇^2-) reacts with ethanol (C₂H₅OH) in the presence of acid (H⁺) to give chromium ions (Cr³⁺), carbon dioxide (CO₂) and water (H₂O). Chromium loses oxygen, so it is being reduced. Carbon loses hydrogen and gains oxygen, so it is being oxidised. The potassium (K⁺) is not involved in the reaction, so Walt didn’t bother to write it down.

You may have noticed that the equation above also does not balance (perhaps Walt started it in one class and planned on finishing it before Emilio got in the way). It should be written:

16H⁺ + 2Cr₂O₇^2- + C₂H₅OH → 4Cr³⁺ + 2CO₂ + 11H₂O

For background information on this topic, see the primer on redox.

Elements in the credits

B4S: If you enjoy this work Digg it and to catch more about this blog follow me on twitter -> HERE

What is BioMass?

What Is BioMass?

Biomass, as a renewable energy source, refers to living and recently dead biological material that can be used as fuel or for industrial production. In this context, biomass refers to plant matter grown to generate electricity or produce for example trash such as dead trees and branches, yard clippings and wood chips biofuel, and it also includes plant or animal matter used for production of fibers, chemicals or heat. Biomass may also include biodegradable wastes that can be burnt as fuel. It excludes organic material which has been transformed by geological processes into substances such as coal or petroleum.

Industrial biomass can be grown from numerous types of plants, including miscanthus, switchgrass, hemp, corn, poplar, willow, sorghum, sugarcane[1], and a variety of tree species, ranging from eucalyptus to oil palm (palm oil). The particular plant used is usually not important to the end products, but it does affect the processing of the raw material. Production of biomass is a growing industry as interest in sustainable fuel sources is growing.

Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient biomass, they are not considered biomass by the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that has been “out” of the carbon cycle for a very long time. Their combustion therefore disturbs the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.

Plastics from biomass, like some recently developed to dissolve in seawater, are made the same way as petroleum-based plastics, are actually cheaper to manufacture and meet or exceed most performance standards. But they lack the same water resistance or longevity as conventional plastics.

Environmental Impact

Biomass is part of the carbon cycle. Carbon from the atmosphere is converted into biological matter by photosynthesis. On death or combustion the carbon goes back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens over a relatively short timescale and plant matter used as a fuel can be constantly replaced by planting for new growth. Therefore a reasonably stable level of atmospheric carbon results from its use as a fuel. It is accepted that the amount of carbon stored in dry wood is approximately 50% by weight.

Though biomass is a renewable fuel, its use can still contribute to global warming. This happens when the natural carbon equilibrium is disturbed; for example by deforestation or urbanization of green sites. When biomass is used as a fuel, as a replacement for fossil fuels, it still puts the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. However, when biomass is used for energy production it is widely considered carbon neutral, or a net reducer of greenhouse gases because of the offset of methane that would have otherwise entered the atmosphere. The carbon in biomass material, which makes up approximately fifty percent of its dry-matter content, is already part of the atmospheric carbon cycle. Biomass absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere during its growing lifetime, after which its carbon reverts to the atmosphere as a mixture of CO2 and methane (CH4), depending on the ultimate fate of the biomass material. CH4 converts to CO2 in the atmosphere, completing the cycle.

Energy produced from feces residues displaces the production of an equivalent amount of energy from fossil fuels, leaving the fossil carbon in storage. It also shifts the composition of the recycled carbon emissions associated with the disposal of the biomass residues from a mixture of CO2 and CH4, to almost exclusively CO2. In the absence of energy production applications, biomass residue carbon would be recycled to the atmosphere through some combination of rotting (biodegradation) and open burning. Rotting produces a mixture of up to fifty percent CH4, while open burning produces five to ten percent CH4. Controlled combustion in a power plant converts virtually all of the carbon in the biomass to CO2. Because CH4 is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, shifting CH4 emissions to CO2 by converting biomass residues to energy significantly reduces the greenhouse warming potential of the recycled carbon associated with other fates or disposal of the biomass residues.

The existing commercial biomass power generating industry in the United States, which consists of approximately 1,700 MW (megawatts) of operating capacity actively supplying power to the grid, produces about 0.5 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. This level of biomass power generation avoids approximately 11 million tons per year of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. It also avoids approximately two million tons per year of CH4 emissions from the biomass residues that, in the absence of energy production, would otherwise be disposed of by burial (in landfills, in disposal piles, or by the plowing under of agricultural residues), by spreading, and by open burning. The avoided CH4 emissions associated with biomass energy production have a greenhouse warming potential that is more than 20 times greater than that of the avoided fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Biomass power production is at least five times more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions than any other greenhouse-gas-neutral power-production technology, such as other renewable and nuclear.

Currently, the New Hope Power Partnership is the largest biomass power plant in North America. The 140 MWH facility uses sugar cane fiber (bagasse) and recycled urban wood as fuel to generate enough power for its large milling and refining operations as well as to supply renewable electricity for nearly 60,000 homes. The facility reduces dependence on oil by more than one million barrels per year, and by recycling sugar cane and wood waste, preserves landfill space in urban communities in Florida.

The amount of biomass available is usually not as great as stated in the example above. Many times, especially in Europe where large agricultural developments are not usual, the cost for transporting the biomass overcomes its actual value and therefore the gathering ground has to be limited to a certain small area. This fact leads to only small possible power outputs around 1 MWel. To make an economic operation possible those power plants have to be equipped with the ORC technology, a cycle similar to the water steam power process just with an organic working medium. Such small power plants can be found in Europe.

Despite harvesting, biomass crops may sequester (trap) carbon. So for example soil organic carbon has been observed to be greater in switchgrass stands than in cultivated cropland soil, especially at depths below 12 inches. The grass sequesters the carbon in its increased root biomass. But the perennial grass may need to be allowed to grow for several years before increases are measurable.

Using biomass as a fuel produces the same air-pollution challenges as other fuels. In 2009 a Swedish study of the giant brown haze that periodically covers large areas in South Asia determined that it had been principally produced by biomass burning, and to a lesser extent by fossil-fuel burning. Researchers measured a significant concentration of 14C, which is associated with recent plant life rather than with fossil fuels.

—Suggested Links—

Visit Bixby by clicking Here!

Every day some news story contains information on global warming and greenhouse gases – what they are, where they come from, and what their impact is. Despite all the coverage, people are still in the dark about many of the culprits of global warming. Let’s explore my favorite greenhouse gas and an offender responsible for it’s production. 

CH4 is a greenhouse gas most commonly called methane. When we hear the word methane, most people either think of natural gas, cows, global warming or it stinks. Termites aren’t even on the radar, yet some scientists believe that between 7-20% of the worlds methane emissions come from some species of these tiny insects.

 Just like in cows, methane in termites is a natural byproduct that is part of the normal digestion process. Plant matter like grasses and wood are hard to digest, so many animals have special bacteria in their guts to help break down food, the result – Methane.

While 60% of global methane emissions are thought to be a result of human activities, there are many natural sources that contribute to global warming as well. Besides termites, wetlands, oceans, the rain forest and soils are all natural sources of soils. 

So next time you’re listening to the news and someone is talking about global warming and greenhouse gases, ask yourself, ‘are they only talking about the most common human impacts or are they considering the natural contributions too?’ 

Megan Richards

Photo Credit: cartoonstock.com

I am neither a scientist nor a historian of science, but I have been told that the fuel cell was “invented” about 170 years ago — before there was any such thing as a battery.  That said, fuel cells have been the unicorns of energy, much talked about and never quite there. 

First of all, what is a fuel cell?  It is a device that contains a chemical reaction that directly generates electricity.  Did I hear someone in the back of the room say “methane”?  Yes, fuel cells are commonly associated with methane, or CH4, which is the largest component of natural gas (a fossil fuel), and can also be made artificially in a variety of relatively expensive ways and from a variety of carbon-based or organic substances.  Not ALL fuel cells are methane-based, however heretical it is to say that.  But back to that in a minute.

The unicornlike aspect of fuel cells is that no one has actually manufactured them in quantity in that 170 years, unlike the gazillions of batteries that are turned out all the time.  Well, one company has made some of them, and you’ve most likely never heard of them: Medis Technologies, based in New York City with labs and scientists in Israel (Nasdaq: MDTL, http://www.medistechnologies.com).  Medis has had a checkered record of fits and starts, but as far as we can find out, they are and remain the only company that has ever designed and manufactured a portable fuel cell in commercial quantities. Their stock is trading for $0.50, down from $10.49, for a market cap of about $22 million, which reflects an expectation of very poor financial performance for 2008, mos t likely.

The prairies are littered with the bleached bones of investors in companies that staked everything on fuel cells.  Probably the best known of those is Ballard Power Systems, based in Burnaby, BC (TSX: BLD & Nasdaq: BLDP, http://www.ballard.com).  The dizzying heights of Ballard back in 2000 was when their stock was at US$129.00, and the stomach-churning parachute drop since then has left their shares trading at 1/100th of that price, or $1.30.  When I say bleached bones, that is the sort of thing I am talking about.   They have been developing fuel cells for two decades and their website says they are a leader in that development effort.  According to their March 3 news release on their 2008 YE results, they shipped 802 fuel cells in the fourth quarter.  That’s not missing any zeros: 802.  These are big stationary units, not pocket-sized portable units.

Clearly there are sexy aspects to fuel cells.  Unlike batteries, they create energy on the spot (when they work).  If they are methane-based, they create carbon dioxide.  If they are sodium borohydride-based, they have no carbon footprint at all.  And they are so cool, so self-contained that they inspire people to lofty dreams.  Look at this Mercedes Benz F-Cell Roadster:

Mercedes Benz F-Cell Roadster

It took 150 students and interns to design and build it.  Probably not something you are going to see on the Autobahn, but there is a certain unicorn-ity about it (http://www.porhomme.com/2009/03/the-f-cell-roadster-concept-built-by-mercedes-benz-trainees/).

Or check out this improbable announcement from Toshiba: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/toshiba-starting-mass-production-of-fuel-cells.php. Mass production of fuel cells to start right away, possibly available next year.  Oh, by the way, they will cost between $100 and $500 EACH.  You may want to wait to turn in your old-fashioned plug-in phone charger until a bit later in the pricing curve.  It is that sort of announcement that makes people snicker when fuel cells are mentioned.  For comparison purposes, the Medis 24/7 Power Pack cellphone or PDA-charger is available at Amazon for about $30. 

Nonetheless, DOE is tossing some coins into the pot: http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=10575 and this is not the only federal stimulus money that is available for fuel-cell development.  Renssalaer Polytechnic is no slouch, and one assumes that the materials they are developing will be important to the future of fuel cells.

Las Vegas-based SymPowerCo Corp (OTC: SYMW, http://sympowercocorp.com/) said that it is entering into negotiations with unnamed third parties to bring its methanol-based fuel cell to commercialization, possibly for automotive uses.  The same small company said that its first EV would be a golf-cart-type vehicle, possibly to use to replace pedicabs in the Far East, but no ETA was given.  SYMW trades at an impossibly low $0.0003 per share, for a full-company market cap of $65,000 or so. 

For a more uptown view, look at Mississauga, ONT-based Hydrogenics (Nasdaq:HYGS, http://www.hydrogenics.com/).  HYGS is trading for $0.41, down from a high of $2.45, for a market cap of $38 million, just a hair over its recently announced 2008 revenues of $36.9 million, with a loss of $14 million. 

Two prominent alternative energy companies seem to have de-emphasized their fuel-cell operations.  One is Energy Conversion Devices (Nasdaq: ENER, http://www.ovonic.com) , which started as a battery company and was responsible for inventing the NiMH battery,  then went into the H2 fuel-cell business, but is now largely seen as a solar energy company; its shares are selling for $13.35, down from $83.33 for a market cap of about $611 million.  The other is Ener1 Inc (Nasdaq: HEV, http://www.ener1.com), which cast its lot with its li-ion operations in Indiana and Asia, and seems to be one of the charge-leaders in its niche.  HEV is selling for $5.98, down from a high of $9.24, for a market cap of about $679 million.  Not bad in a market like this one.

There are lots of companies fiddling with fuel cells, just as there are lots of companies fiddling with li-ion batteries.  There is an implied assumption that both fuel cells and li-ion batteries will win some portion of the potentially huge automotive markets currently served by by NiMH batteries in HEVs.  But there are very few production models running on li-ion, and there  are very few portable electronics being powered by fuel cells.  At least at the moment.  Still, it may be worth a follow, or even a bet, if you believe that we need these clean alternative energy sources for our grandchildren’s world.

The Arctic region has been a store of organically produced methane for tens of millennia. The methane was formed by rotting vegetation but locked into the ice sheets and ground covered with ice. The ground is frozen soil – the permafrost – which is rapidly becoming in danger of being the unpermafrost, if there is such a word. Over the past ten years scientists have worried that global warming would unlock the methane – far more dangerous as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (about twenty five times more potent) but fortunately less long lived in the atmosphere – which would then warming the planet even faster than we would imagine, sending the climate beyond the point of recovery, as far as humans are concerned.

Russian scientists have been analysing the content of Arctic sea water and in 2007 found two separate but connected disturbing facts. The amount of methane dissolved in Arctic sea at the Siberian ice shelf was at least twice as much as anything previously recorded, and in some cases ten times as much, indicating the start of methane seepage. They then observed rings of methane trapped in ice and in other place methane bubbling out of the ice into the atmosphere.

Of course these observations may simply be a missing piece of a jigsaw of observations; scientists have not been taking measurements for thousands of years and these observations were taken two years after previous measurements. There could be nothing to worry about, but there is a big “but”.

Atmospheric methane concentration has increased by 150%, in so far as we can measure, in the past two hundred and fifty years, but that increase is insignificant compared with the increase in atmospheric methane that melting at the Arctic region would release.

I have already written about methane hydrates which might be mined and usefully used as a fuel source, but most of the trapped methane is simply unusable by humans. All it can do is leak into the air, creating a thicker blanket to trap heat in without deflecting any radiation back into space. It is not merely useless, it is dangerous.

There is a lot of methane locked up in the Arctic. Methane is composed of one molecule of carbon and four of hydrogen – CH4. It is the same gas that we burn in our boilers and in our power stations. In burning it we release the carbon. It is estimated that the methane deposited millennia ago in the Arctic’s Siberian Ice Shelf contains twice as much carbon as is stored in all the trees and vegetation on the planet.

It is feared, but I hasten to add not proved, that the methane presently being released comes from the permafrost that is being destabilised by a warmer climate.

If you travel a little further south of the Arctic region you come across thousands of square miles of land in Siberia and Canada and Alaska once permanently frozen. The land is slowly warming and the permafrost layer is leaching its methane into the atmosphere. Again proof is not available except that it has been noticed that where the land thaws there are higher concentrations of methane.

Although the theory is unproved, doubters may take scant comfort from the known facts about atmospheric methane; the amounts of atmospheric methane have been more or less stable for seven or eight years until 2007, when the concentration rose significantly from 1770 parts per million to 1785 parts per million. If the methane did not come from melting permafrost, where we know methane exists, where did it come from?

There is even more methane stored in the deep oceans, but the release of this methane is unlikely within the foreseeable future. The threat (again I stress it is unproven) is from the melting shallow permafrost.

The Pleistocene period lasted from nearly two million years ago until about 10,000 years ago. This was the time of the woolly mammoth, when large parts of the Northern hemisphere were covered with ice. The Pleistocene period came to end and rapidly, in geological time, and many geologists think that this rapid planetary warming was due to the release of methane under the ice in the shallow permafrost and the shallow frozen lakes and seas.  That warming gave us the benign climate in which we have multiplied and prospered. A further warming will not be so kind.

Red Riding

As previously discussed, Red Riding Ch4 9pm Thurs, had a bit of a problem. Unsure if it wanted to be a movie or a T.V. programme it fell soundly between the two posts.

Both the second and third episodes, based on the last two books in David Peace’s Yorkshire Noir quartet, both were over long and over assumptive – casually expecting the viewer to take on board a host of inconsequential characters haphazardly woven into the screen play at the cost of the narrative.

It cannot be denied that the final half hour of each of the three episodes were strong, but it was pure torture getting there.

Red Riding Episode 3

Brevity, it would seem, was not part of the producers brief.

Red Riding Episode One

More T.V. Blogs

Jack grieves the loss of a friend

1.  While General Juma takes a potty break, President Taylor (who is now resembling The Joker with the smudge of red blood on the corner of her lips) takes a moment to hear Olivia apologize for being a bitty during the campaign and grovel for forgiveness.  When Juma re-enters the room and closes the book he began in the bathroom, no one has the nerve to ask, “Did everything come out okay?”

2.  Jack reveals to Bill his plan to explode natural gas with a stray bullet.  To Bill’s surprise, he learns that Jack and the Prez have been releasing gas ever since they left the safe room.  Bill was thinking it was Senator Foreman working through the Bean Soup from the White House cafeteria they had earlier in the day.  By the way, doesn’t natural gas include an odor that smells like rotten eggs so if there is a leak, you notice it?  Apparently Juma’s men think it’s the business that Juma did in the bathroom.

3.  The VP is reminding me of Billy Bob Thornton.

4.  The Prez is advised that she needs to move to Andrews AF Base but she says that would cost more money in sets for the network, so she’ll just stay right there in the heavily damaged White House.

5.  A Secret Service agent informs the Prez that the VP is ready for her on a secured line… is there really such a thing on this show?

6.  Jack finishes grieving for Bill and jumps up and asks Agent Moss if he can get back into the interrogation game with Burnette because that always makes him feel better.  He tells Moss that he’s gotten so good at torture that he won’t even have to touch Burnette to get the information he needs out of him.  He’ll just release some more “natural gas” on Burnette.

7.  Ethan and his posse are walking down the hall of the darkened White House when the lights come back on.  Immediately, Ethan and his posse look all around and then they look at each other like they’ve never seen light before.  A little overacting there.

8.  Agent Moss gives Renee “out of school” suspension.

9.  Agent Moss is upset that he has to share his special helicopter with Jack.

10.  Moss comments that he’s known Renee for 9 years and he’s never seen her do the things she’s done in the last 9 hours.  While Jack is trying to keep his smile inside, Moss thinks to himself, “I really like using the number 9 in sentences.”

11.  The agent at the hospital informs Jack that they’ve locked down the entire floor.  By the way, lock down in real life and lock down on 24 are two totally different things.  All you need is a swiss army knife to open the ceiling tile.  So much for the lock down.

12.  Jack gives the order to go into the room to talk with Burnette.  Larry puts his hand on Jack’s chest and tells him to not touch Burnette or it’s over.  Jack looks down at Larry’s hand and responds “right.”  Larry, I know you liked that answer, but don’t start jumping up and down quite yet, I think Jack was speaking sarcastically.

13.  After inhaling nerve gas and then being setup, Jack crawls through the ceiling, finds the security surveillance room, and grabs the security camera guy’s i-phone and computer drive.  How did he find him so quickly?  If that were you or me, we’d be up there for hours just trying not to fall through.

14.  Jack calls Larry to assure him that he was set up.  Larry says, “right.”  Um, Jack, bad news.  That was said sarcastically.

Until next week ……………………..

A Not So Functioning Alcoholic

I know this blog is jokingly entitled The Functioning Alcoholic,  but real alcoholics who abuse those that love them don’t deserve the steam off our collective piss.

I’ve spent the last hour and a bit watching a Channel4 documentary detailing the trauma that Paul Gascoine is subjecting his family to, and I loathe him for it.

But, and there is a but, I don’t get why Israel is bombing the shit out of him every evening.

I accept that he is a really horrible individual, but it seem a bit much that a sovereign nation would take it upon themselves to amass an entire army,  surround him & attempt to take him out.

Surely incarceration in some “Priory” would suffice.

Politics, sometimes I just don’t get it.

More Stuff

Wow, blogging again. I always think when new year comes around that I am not a Hogmanay fan, and I’m still not certain I am but this year it turned out to be really lovely and definitely did not give me cause to be grumpy. I guess sometimes I think that New Year can be over rated and actually it is just another day but after much thought, I think maybe that it is good to look back upon the year that has passed and look forward to the new one and it gives a chance for a fresh start although I guess this can happen at anytime in the year, not just New Year.

2008 has been a funny little year. It’s been full of little events that maybe didn’t seem much at the time but when you look back on them as part of “your year” then they all seem to add up and you are able to see what has changed since 2007, ways you have changed, ways people have changed and ways the world has changed.

2008 had loads of exciting little moments and I think quite a lot of these were down to people. I met so many new people, strengthened friendships, lost people, loved people. I laughed so much with people: face jokes, meatloaf singstar, eating pie on pi day, excessive hand washing, getting ripped because of my accent in tutorial, ear chat, nominating committee banter and sex bombing.(that sounds wrong. that’s probably because it is.) The list is endless. Laughter is good. I also realised how much I loved people and I also experienced being loved even if I couldn’t and still cannot understand why. My heart was, and still is, broken from missing someone; someone that had such a profound impact on my life that things just don’t seem right without them near. There are so many people who have been part of, have made, my year. I let people in more they have changed who I am.

“So much of me
Is made of what I learned from you
You’ll be with me
Like a handprint on my heart
And now whatever way our stories end
I know you have re-written mine
By being my friend.” (“For Good” from Wicked the musical)

I didn’t think I would write about what I am next going to mention but it seems to be important for some reason. I have been really fortunate this year with being able to be at university and have time to study whilst having a job(or two) that I really, really love. One has given me amazing friends, laughter and space to study and the other has given me the opportunity to be involved in something I really care about even if it means researching Broughty Ferry’s non existent train service. It also allows me to sit and listen to FMQ’s with a cup of tea and a lot of non selling your soul banter. It’s very sad that I will probably have to leave them both at some point this year. It will definitely leave a massive hole when the time comes and I’m not totally sure what will fill it…

A small breakthrough this year has been with university. It has never been a horrific experience but the whole of first year was full of panic that I was studying the wrong subject and that I was in the wrong city. Second year has so far made it clear that I love the subject I am studying. I have no idea what will happen after university and although that may not be helpful it doesn’t take away from the fact that I love being and learning at university. I guess I am just really rubbish at decisions and I am unsure how to fix this but a lot has been clearer after knowing that is actually ok to not be a lawyer, or in fact be one and it’s ok to hate company law. I am scared of what will happen but I am also really excited. I am scared of possibly going away for a year in September and being away from so many people and places for such a long time. But i am equally scared of missing an opportunity like that because of fear. I feel like I need to grab it and go but at the same time I don’t currently want to and that is really confusing but could potentially be amazing.

“I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean
Whenever one door closes I hope one more opens
Promise me that you’ll give faith a fighting chance
and when you get the choice to sit it out or dance,
I hope you dance, I hope you dance”(“I Hope You Dance”- Ronan Keating)

I think as every year passes there is always this horrible fear of getting older. It’s something you cannot control and you cannot rewind time and go back to any time you want. It’s good to look back on good times that have passed but it’s also good to look to the future and be filled with that same happiness. It’s a harder task sometimes but hope makes it easier and there are many people from 2008 who make the future feel exciting be it in the worldwide sense, for writing a song, for providing opportunity or even just for making me laugh.

As I keep writing this, and I am taking many days, I am very aware that there were points of the year where I made mistakes, sometimes small ones, sometimes big ones. Everyone makes them and sometimes it’s really hard to let go of them. There is a lot of “if only…” chat and it’s hard to see why I would cling onto it. I know I don’t have to but it’s still there. The mistakes have made me who I am so it’s the after product I should cling onto but it’s really odd. Forgiving yourself is sometimes harder than forgiving other people.

“Take the tiredness of my days,
take my past regret,
letting your forgiveness touch
all I can’t forget” (Take This Moment-CH4 (ayeeee) 501)

I think it would be impossible to go through a 2008 blog without mentioning General Assembly and Youth Assembly, however, I am not going to say a lot about them. There is an earlier blog about Youth Assembly so I would possibly just repeat myself but the impact these events have had has been huage. I’ve experienced grace, community, love and learning in huge proportions and I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to express how grateful I am for that.

I feel this may be a good time to stop but 2008 has been good, if a little bit funny. I’m really excited about 2009 and hopefully I’ll choose to dance like Ronan Keating.

Jeg kommer til å skrive noe om klimakrisen straks jeg orker. Inntil videre: Boken Six Degrees av Mark Lynas gir en innføring i konsekvensene av en oppvarming på – henholdsvis – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 og 6 grader – en innføring som ikke er pakket inn i løgn eller virkelighetsfjernhet for å få deg til å føle deg glad når du har lest boken. Jeg har lest eller skummet gjennom de fleste av de populærvitenskapelige bøkene som har kommet ut om temaet, og denne er den som tør å ta bladet fra munnen og kutte vekk alt det mindre relevante. Boken har et faglig utgangspunkt, det er referert til nærmere tusen vitenskapelige artikler.

Den passer fint som julegave, selvfølgelig bortsett fra at den kanskje vil ødelegge julen for den som får den. Send derfor kanskje heller noen juleeksemplarer til status quo-fundamentalistene på Stortinget.

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, av Mark Lynas. Den koster fem engelske pund hos Amazon.co.uk, klikk på lenken. Boken finnes også på norsk under tittelen Seks grader, og finnes kanskje i din lokale bokhandel.

Jeg håper å komme med noen tankevekkende sitater fra denne boken snart. Eller kanskje “panikkvekkende” er mer presist.

The UK has taken a great step forward in allowing for the first time locally-generated British carbon credits to be officially reconised for carbon offsetting. Initially the credits will only be permitted for reductions in anthropogenic methane emissions arising in residential and commercial environments. The initiative will endeavour to reduce avoidable CH₄ emissions through dietary influence and cultural shift away from the current common behavioural trait of unrestricted personal methane production in public spaces. It is expected that projects will follow a novel programmatic approach for carbon credits, whereby a framework programme of activities is certified and allows many repeated smaller credits to be qualified in the same mould. Project developers are confident that the UK marketplace offers an ideal environment for successfully verifying such credits to international standards because there are clear-cut additionality and sustainable development benefits. The problem has never before been tackled and it is clear that without projects of this nature, anthropogenic methane emissions will continue to rise unabated. Aside from assisting the climate change mitigation effort there will be marked local air quality improvements in line with other recent initiatives such as the London Low Emission Zone. Good quality carbon credits must have measurable social sustainable development benefits and this is demonstrably the case here, with reduced marital strain topping the list thanks to a decrease or even total abolition of nocturnal horizontal captive methane emission.

The progress has been made possible thanks to a recent change of tack by the UK Government on domestic offsets. The UK’s tough reduction target from the Kyoto Protocol has hitherto led the Government to nationalise all UK carbon savings as contributing to reductions in the national inventory. A statement from the Department for Energy and Climate Change, incoporating the UK’s Designated National Authority for the UNFCCC, said that although the UK national greenhouse gas accounting system has in the past made it near impossible to generate credible UK-based offsets, they see the methane problem as a pivotal issue worthy of a change of direction. “We appreciate how long the nation has suffered from this scourge of anthropogenic methane production in commercial and residential environments and until now have been at a loss on how to deal with it. The carbon market provides just such a solution and we are proud to be at the forefront of this programmatic approach. There is no better way to demonstrate the new DECC’s commitment to forward thinking than to address this all-pervading British problem”.

The proposals have not met with universal approval. A Tory spokesperson retorted, “The Government’s stance in this area is simply not credible; a market mechanism cannot be relied upon to solve an environmental externality of such pressing national and international concern. To be frank, this stinks. We in the Conservative party have a long history of first-hand experience in this area and are pushing for an outright ban on methane generation in confined public spaces. Prolific methane producers can take advantage of the recent increase in outdoor smoking areas to enjoy their pleasures out of doors. Furthermore the concentration of methane in these areas will serve as localised air-heating, thereby reducing the need for patio heaters and lowering consumption of fossil methane. As usual with environment measures, our party Leader will be leading the way with his behind.”

The Government is calling for volunteers from around the country to act as methane monitors in this trend-setting wind-breaking initiative. Elements of the dietary campaign will involve a verifiable quantitative shift in the bean sector, beginning with a switch from the baked to the green. In response to this suggestion, a large bean producer boasting a little more than 56 varieties has pulled out of a trial product carbon-labelling programme and has started arguing strongly against full life-cycle emissions labelling for consumable products, citing “questionable bias in the life-cycle approach”. This marks a stark turn-around in CSR policy for the company after their recent strong commitments to encourage climate change mitigation across all business areas. A spokesperson for the Brick Lane Restaurants Association was unavailable for comment.

As we move into this time of festive seasonal vegetables, might you be in a position to make hard-hitting sacrifices in this area to help the climate change effort? Your local methane capture office will be only too happy to hear you.

Starting tonight on E4 @ 10pm is Charlie Brooker’s new Zombie series Dead Set, which takes place in the Big Brother House. Rumoured to be a gore fest, it will be interesting to see what Davina McCall looks like without any make up.

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3