On biomimicry and the answers right in front of us; Photosynthesis & personal power; Urban farming, tropical agroforestry and (eco)system modeling; A carbon negative idea with fertile perks; Population balance

Waiting for diplomats to resolve the global climate crisis may take so long, it won’t matter. So what do we do in the meantime?

At TrackerNews, we have highlighted all kinds of promising green energy ideas, from micro-wind and solar textiles to vast arrays of concentrated solar collectors and giant “sea snakes” harvesting wave energy.

We love them all and their heartening range of ingenuity and resourcefulness. But none of them – or even all of them taken together – can do much to move the global thermostat in the near term, especially without the political will and the investment that results to grow them to scale.

We began to wonder whether there were any ideas that could make a difference, that could actually help stabilize our feverish planet within a matter of years instead of decades. We found five – an encouraging start. Notably, all take their design cues from nature and offer multi-faceted benefits. Nature, notes Janine Benyus of the Biomimicry Institute, relies on technologies that have been field tested for millions of years, the ultimate in iterative design. It works. Every time.

____________________________________________

1) TAKING A LEAF FROM NATURE

MIT chemistry professor Daniel Nocera says he can solve the world’s energy needs with a little bit water – and while he’s at it, make a dent in the water crisis. Although the most theoretical of the four ideas, Nocera’s breakthrough could lead to a quick and decisive global conversion to a hydrogen-based economy.

He began by calculating global energy needs past and future (best case and business-as-usual scenarios), comparing them with the most optimistic projections for energy generated from non-carbon sources (wind, solar, nuclear) and noting the physical limitations that prevent significant improvement in battery storage.  Disturbingly, even if we all did everything possible to minimize per capita energy consumption and the number of “capitas” was kept in check by educating poor women – the fastest way, according to Nocera, to reduce the birth rate, the future looks pretty gloomy.

In the hopes of rosying things up, he studied how plants make energy by splitting water molecules. For years researchers had focused on finding catalysts that could survive the process. Nocera noticed that nature didn’t bother, instead using catalysts that simply reassembled themselves. The system was “self-healing.” Then he came up with a way to do the same thing.

Within  “8.1254 years, ” Nocera envisions homes outfitted with solar panels tied into  inexpensive water-splitting systems (no pricey precious metals such as platinum required – common pvc pipe will do). The resulting hydrogen will be stored on site to take care of the home’s energy needs and recharge electric cars.  Each building will become its own power station, with no grid  – and no coal-powered central power stations – required. As a bonus, the catalyst is hardy enough to handle dirty water, so the system  can be set up almost anywhere. And if you reverse the process, reuniting hydrogen with oxygen, presto, clean water.

____________________________________________

2) AN (ECO)SYSTEMS APPROACH TO URBAN AGRICULTURE

Growing Power, agriculturist and MacArthur fellow Will Allen’s flagship farm in Milwaukee, has become the “go to” lab for urban agriculture. Even in sub-zero, snow-packed dead of winter Wisconsin, the suite of greenhouses spread over 3 acres a few blocks from the city’s largest public housing project produces harvest after bountiful harvest. It is literally a green oasis in the middle of a food desert.

As in nature, there is no waste, only recycling. And the more complex the system, the more robust and stable it becomes. Worms – millions of red wrigglers – convert mountains of municipal waste into castings of remarkable fertility. Fish poo feeds plants that filter water for the fish in closed loop aquaponics set-ups. Rainwater is captured and stored. Compost berms insulate and heat greenhouses. Over 150 crops – vegetables, fruit, poultry and fish – dovetail in dense exuberance, collectively generating from $5 to $30 per square foot, which is super-star status by traditional farm metrics.

Among the climate benefits:

• No petrochemical fertilizers required

• Much shorter “farm to fork” distribution chains, so a significantly reduced carbon footprint

• Growing plants that sequester carbon

Additionally, water is recycled wherever possible, so less is required overall. In regions facing climate change-related droughts (retreating glaciers, shifting rain patterns), this is a significant advantage.

With over half the world’s population now living in cities, urban farming has become a world-wide phenomenon. From small rooftop plots that also help curb the “urban heat island effect” (localized warming caused by the mix of heat absorbing asphalt and auto-exhaust-fueled particulate pollution), to sophisticated integrated greenhouse operations, urban farms offer the benefits of a distributed system: local, modular, adaptable, scalable. Since food is fresher when it reaches the consumer, it is also more nutritious.

____________________________________________

3) TROPICAL AGROFORESTRY

Willie Smits, a Dutch-born forestry scientist working in Indonesia, is, to a certain extent, doing the same thing as Will Allen, only on a rainforest scale.

For the last 30 years, he has focused much of his work in Borneo, which now has the dubious distinction of being the world’s 3rd highest emitter of greenhouse gases, right behind China and the United States. This is due almost entirely to the wholesale destruction of  its rainforests to make way for palm oil plantations. Deforestation has also dealt at crushing blow to the island’s biodiversity, turning great swaths of land into superficially green monoculture bio-deserts. The loss of coastal forests has also led to inland droughts. Trees that transpired massive amounts of water vapor into the air are gone, so oceans winds blow dry and hot.

The scourge of palm oil plantations is now spreading to Africa, where there are plans for a one million hectare (~ 3,800 square mile) operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Smits’ solution? Trade in the oil palm for the polyculture-loving, biodiversity-friendly, marginal land-suited, local economy-boosting, altogether superior sugar palm. He has developed a method to process the notoriously fast-fermenting sap (a.k.a. “juice”) before it begins go alcoholic. The juice, which can be turned either into sugar or ethanol, is only one of series of forest-based products, ranging from food to furniture. The scheme, however, can only succeed with local support to assure a vested interest in protecting the land. It is as much about preserving the stability of human cultures and local economies as it is restoring forests to thriving productivity.

So far, Smith has tested his ideas at two sites, one in Borneo and the other in nearby North Sulawesi. Over the last decade, millions of trees have been planted, thousands of jobs created, local micro-climates stabilized, hillsides stabilized, river health improved, wildlife populations restored and tons upon tons of carbon sequestered. The system is scalable, replicable and could just save the “lungs of the planet.”

____________________________________________

4) GOING (CARBON) NEGATIVE: MAYA-MIMICKING SOIL

If someone were to tell you that there was a way to sequester carbon while improving soil fertility, would you bite?

Biochar, charcoal produced in a low oxygen burn, was first used by Amazonians at least 1,500 years ago as a soil amendment (called terra preta or black earth). Its porous structure attracts microbial colonization, which  attracts other soil life forms, which improves the recycling of nutrients. Little did the Amazonians realize, but biochar is also very good at sequestering atmospheric carbon and nitrous oxide (which molecule for molecule, packs roughly 300 times the greenhouse gas punch).

Tim Flannery (“The Weathermakers“) thinks biochar may be “the single most important initiative for humanity’s environmental future,” while James Lovelock (“The Revenge of Gaia“) suspects it may be our only chance.

It is not, however, without controversy, with some wondering how burning biomass could possibly help the environment. Proponents point out that it also improves soil moisture retention, so crops don’t require as much water – a big plus from regions hit with climate-driven drought – while reducing the need for petrochemical fertilizers.

If entrepreneurs such as Jason Aramburu are right, not only could biochar dramatically improve crop yields in developing world, its production could generate enough energy to power a village. Scaled up globally, it could bring us back from the brink of climate catastrophe. “If we can get two billion tons of CO2, two gigatons out, in year,” says Araburu, “we could roll back emissions to pre-1982 levels in just 10 years.”

Araburu uses plant waste to make biochar – the same material MIT’s Amy Smith and her D-Lab students use to create a clean burning charcoal alternative to cheap cooking oil (ironically, palm oil). Did they reach essentially the same answer for two completely different problems? Very possibly. In which case this virtuous circle just gets better and better.

____________________________________________

5) POPULATION BALANCE

When a population of anything – bacteria, bugs or bunnies – grows beyond its supplies of food, water or shelter, or pollutes its environment to the point it becomes poisonous, there will be die-offs. The species may survive. Or not. This is Nature’s ultimate feedback loop and there is no negotiation.

In 1900, the global human population was 1.65 billion. In 2000, it was just over 6 billion. In another 40 years, the U.N. estimates it will be over 9 billion. And if something isn’t done fast to slow or reverse climate change, at least 250 million of them are expected to be “climate refugees.”  These will be people whose island homes or coastal cities have been submerged by rising seas. Fresh water supplies will have been fatally fouled. Others will have fled drought-scarred lands left dry and desolate by the retreat of glaciers. Still others will find their homelands flooded by ever more frequent and fierce typhoons, hurricanes and tornadoes.

As a species, we are running out of everything: food, water, shelter, clean air and especially time. But we can buy at least a little time if population growth can slowed.

Daniel Nocera is right: Investing in the education of poor women (along with providing ready access to contraceptives) is a critical part of addressing the energy crisis and, by extension, climate change. Women who attend school have fewer children because they are in a better position to make decisions about their families and their futures. According to WHO, there are 51 million unplanned children born in the developing world each year. That’s 1/6 of the population of the United States. Each year.

____________________________________________

NATURE BATS LAST

Each one of five ideas offers the extra bonus of multiple bottom lines: Save the climate and provide energy / clean water / food / jobs / habitat restoration / education. We can either learn from nature and biomimic our way to a more promising future, or defy it and suffer.

The really good news: We don’t have to wait for politicians. We can start to make a difference right now.

____________________________________________

RELATED READING / LISTENING / VIEWING

• “Janine Benyus: Biomimicry in action” (TED talk – video)

• Biomimicry: Nature as Model, Measure and Mentor (Benyus’ website)

• “Chemistry and Personalized Solar Power” (NPR “Science Friday” interview with Daniel Nocera- audio)

• “The Farm Next Door: Urban Agriculture, Biomimicry, Aquaponics, Why Worms are Priceless & How Will Allen Aims to Fix the World” (TrackerBlog post)

• Tapergy: Willie Smits’ business to commercialize the sugar palm and related rainforest products (website)

• “Google Earth Hero: BOS, Borneo rain forest – Willie Smits” (video)

• “The Carbon NEGATIVE Option: Why Tim Flannery & James Lovelock Love Biochar” (TrackerBlog post)

• re:char – Jason Aramburu’s biochar business (website)

• “The Way Forward: Researching the Environment and Migration Nexus” (report by the Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University – pdf)

Since someone uploaded emails and other data from the CRU at East Anglia University there has been a flood of information that has becoming available. One of the first casualties of the whole affair has to be “consensus”.  Ever since Bill Clinton announced that there was a consensus (even though it turns out the 1996 IPCC report had been tampered with prior to publishing), there has been a concerted effort by a small group of climateologists who have gone out of their way to stifle the voices of the dissenters. The funny thing is that the real consensus amongst so many scientists is that there is insufficient data to prove that man has had such a grave impact on the environment.

Each new day seems to bring a new revelation regarding the data used by the CRU and also leads to a further lack of credibility with regard to the Michael Mann hockey stick. In turn this has led to a credibility gap for a number of scientists, including Australia’s Tim Flannery.  At the same time the Lame Stream Media, except for a diligent few in the UK, Australia and the USA have by and large continued with the hype and the scaremongering as if the emails and the data that was released with them do not exist.

The Lame Stream Media does not want people to lose focus on the meeting in Copenhagen, a meeting I might add that is nothing more than a carbon producing gabfest for Communists and Socialists of various stripes. It would seem that the underlying purpose of this GABFEST at Copenhagen is to bring about a massive redistribution of income from “wealthy” nations to “poor nations”, even though in those “poor” nations the leaders have been willfully starving their own people whilst they spend lavishly on themselves, and expend on an arms build-up. Climate Change has become just another excuse for them to get money so that they can continue their own lavish spending.

As these revelations are being made it is necessary to follow the money to see who it is that has been benefitting from what is quite clearly a scam. There are several names that should be mentioned, including that of the head of the IPCC, an Indian scientist who has been enriching himself through his association with the TATRA (?) group. I will be giving him further attention because there seems to be a lot of trails that need to be followed.

Another person who has enriched himself on the back of this scam is Al Gore, the former vice-President and failed Presidential candidate in 2000. This man made a film titled “An Inconvenient Truth”, but the trouble with the documentary is that it is full of half-truths, such as his information on mosquito infestations in Nairobi. Well Al, I can tell you that mosquitoes also exist in the Canadian Rocky Mountains because I was bitten whilst waiting for a taxi to takes us off the mountain at Jasper. Those mosquitoes were not the kind that cause malaria. The latest half-truth from Al concerns dying trees. Now, I will say here that it is true that there are dying trees and that was in the Rocky Mountains, which was caused by an infestation of the pine-beetle. There are two ways to eradicate the beetle (1) cold and (2) fire. The second way has the benefit of creating new growth.

Who knew that someone from the CRU at East Anglia University would dare to release documents that had been denied for release via Freedom of Information, and that with the release of those documents the whole notion of man-made global warming would begin its own melt-down.  Well, yes it happened and at this point in time we do not know if it really was the work of a hacker, or it was the work of a whistle-blower.

I have been a sceptic for a very long time when it comes to this notion of man-made global warming and especially the way in which everything is being blamed on Climate Change. In recent years the scenarios have been getting more and more “frightening”, and absurd. One of the latest that I read was the scenario where it is claimed that with global warming there would be more cases of malaria (preventable with a good eradication program), Lyme disease and even kidney stones. Such scenarios are used in situations where there is outright ignorance about the causes of such diseases.  In the case of malaria, which is common in tropical regions, there had been success with eradication of the mosquitoes that cause malaria until the program was stopped – DDT was used to spray the areas where the mosquitoes were breeding, but a successful campaign to end the use of DDT put an end to these eradication efforts.) Lyme Disease is caused by getting a bite from a tick that is prevalent in areas where there are deer, and more than likely diagnostic techniques for identifying Lyme Disease are getting better. In the case of kidney stones, I do not know if retaining fluid on hot days helps to bring on kidney stones, but I do know that there is a link with diet….

For years we have been hearing about how there will be a rise in sea levels, that the arctic ice caps are melting, etc. etc.  The most recent expedition to the Arctic circle was not all that successful, yet the people who went on that expedition released a paper that offered conclusions that were probably false about the depth of the ice etc. I am not an expert in this area at all. If anything I rely on my own experience when it comes to climatic changes in my own lifetime. I live in Australia, being brought up in Melbourne. Last summer Melbourne and Adelaide experienced a week of extremely high temperatures over 40C. At the end of the week there was a devastating and deadly bushfire, with a record number of lives being lost.  I cannot preempt the findings of a Royal Commission into the bushfires, so for now all I can say is that blaming Global Warming for the disaster is plain ludicrous. It was not the first time that Victoria had experienced these high temperatures, and in my own lifetime, in 1959 Melbourne had equivalent temperatures over an equivalent period of time. The same thing happened in 1939 before the outbreak of another deadly bushfire known as Black Friday.

When I was in the USA during July, I found that temperatures were lower on the East coast than I expected and higher on the West Coast, with Seattle and Vancouver reaching a record temperature. This was not evidence of Global Warming. It is possible to have a temperature over 100F and be surrounded by glaciers. In fact that was my experience in the Canadian Rockies. It was an amazing sight.

Climate Change is a normal phenomenon, however, what is not normal, and what is not proved, is that the changes are due to the existence of man, including man’s use of fossil fuels. However, the scientists involved in the IPCC, or at least a select group of scientists have been manipulating data in order to try and prove that man-made global warming exists. This has now been exposed.

(To be posted on the University of Western Sydney Communication Arts homepage)

July 2009 paved the way for Powershift, Australia’s first national youth climate summit. The three day event which commenced on the 11th of July saw thousands of young Australians flock from all over Australia and New Zealand to the University of Western Sydney’s Parramatta campus to experience, and most of all be a part of this revolutionary event. “Its the moment where our fast growing youth movement for a safe climate future comes together”.     

If you’re a longtime fan of the San Diego Padres or just an avid baseball fan that likes to view historical shows, the MLB Network hits a grand slam with a special one-hour show on the 1984 Padres.

“Triumph and Tragedy: The 1984 San Diego Padres” is a recently-produced show on the Padres first-ever World Series team (they’ve only had two; the other was in 1998) and is must-see viewing for any Padres’ fan of that era.

The episode covers all the key storylines of the season, including a great segment on the famous beanbrawl day in Atlanta when manager Dick Williams ordered everybody on the pitching staff to throw at Atlanta Braves pitcher Pascual Perez until he was hit by a pitch. One of the most memorable brawls in baseball history occurred that Sunday afternoon but it was one of the things that brought the team together to make its big two-month final push to the postseason.

The Padres’ run to the World Series is portrayed nicely and accurately, complete with scenes of the thousands of fans who went to the stadium (then known as Jack Murphy Stadium) to welcome back the Padres after they were beaten apart by the Chicago Cubs in the first two games of the National League Championship Series. There’s even some rare video of Patrick Henry High alumnus Nick Magro  — also known as the Pa Shrink – cheering on the players as they got off the bus.

As any Padres’ fan knows, that crazy scene began the amazing streak of the Padres winning the next three games to beat the Cubs. Normally quiet Garry Templeton waved his hat frantically at the fans during the Game 3 lineup introductions and the sweep was on. Steve Garvey hit the famous game-winning homer off Lee Smith to win Game 4 and Tim Flannery’s harmless ground ball to first base that went through the legs of Leon Durham started a Game 5 comeback that ended with a ground ball to Graig Nettles, who threw to second baseman Alan Wiggins for the forceout and final out.

The best part of the World Series portion of the show – the powerful Detroit Tigers beat the Padres in five games — was when Williams ordered closer Goose Gossage to intentionally walk Kirk Gibson with first base open and Gossage refused. Williams comes to the mound and they play the conversation and they also show Tigers manager Sparky Anderson yelling out to Gibson in disbelief: “They don’t want to walk you!”

About the time Williams reaches the dugout, Gibson blasts a towering three-run homer off the Goose to finish off the Padres. 

Also, this isn’t just a feel-good piece where hard-line issues and the truth are glossed over. The show goes in-depth on the troubles of two deceased Padres – Wiggins and pitcher Eric Show — and the battle pitcher Dave Dravecky faced with cancer in his left arm, which led to an amputation when his arm broke while pitching for the San Francisco Giants. 

Three people associated with that team are enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown — Gossage, Williams and right fielder Tony Gwynn.

I found an online article that gives a synopsis of the program (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091027&content_id=7559192&vkey=&fext=.jsp). I reiterate that it was a well-done special worthy of an hour of any baseball fan’s time.

By Andrew Bolt

Professor Tim Flannery

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

Professor Tim Flannery  is a Professor at Australia’s Macquarie University, noted Evironmentalist, chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, former Australian Of The Year of 2007, and author of The Weather Makers.

To be honest, I thought – and said – Christopher Monckton was exaggerating a bit in claiming the the United Nation’s Copenhagen meeting on global warming would negotiate the creation of a new world government:

At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed…I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t.

But now Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, on yet another gassy overseas junket, (3 links there) suggests this is indeed the intention – and his most fervent hope for these talks:

We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will infuence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.

Mark Steyn rightly asks;

Did you know every aspect of your life was being negotiated at Copenhagen?

Three questions for (Australian Prime Minster) Kevin Rudd:

1. Which of Australia’s sovereign powers will this treaty take from us?

2. How much will this treaty cost us?

3. Are you really going to sign it?

UPDATE

How Greenpeace, WWF and other NGOs dream of a new world governing body, with a colossal budget of its own.

No, really. Just check the draft Copenhagen treaty they’ve prepared:

To avoid dangerous climate change and build climate resilience, the way society is structured will need to change fundamentally – from investment patterns to development programs. This cannot be accomplished by the fragmented set of existing institutions.

In order to enhance the implementation of the Convention in accordance with the Bali Action Plan and its four building blocks, a new institution, the Copenhagen Climate Facility ( CCF ), is needed.

2. The Facility shall enjoy such legal capacity as is necessary for the exercise of its functions… The Facility shall have:

a ) an Executive Committee, as the supreme body of the Facility, to supervise and monitor the implementation of operational policies, guidelines and administrative arrangements, including the disbursement of resources…

b ) At least four Boards to assist Parties in fulfilling their actions, aims, objectives and commitments… The Boards shall have decision-making power, including the allocation of funding and other support,.. The Executive Committee may only review decisions of a Board in cases where the Board has exceeded its mandated functions pursuant to this Article…

Each industrialized country should be responsible for part of the 160 billion USD per year required to support action in developing countries as part of its binding obligations…

And an example of the powers these NGO’s pray their creation will have over countries such as Australia:

Final plans for both industrialized and developing countries are due on 1 January 2011 in order to ensure enough time for ratification. The Mitigation Board will review these final versions. If it finds that the Party has not properly addressed all of its concerns it shall forward the situation, namely the “questions of concern”, to the Facilitative Branch.

The provisions for dealing with Facilitative Branch are in Article 11. Briefly, if outstanding issues remain after another dialogue with the Party concerned, the Facilitative Branch may issue a statement of concern. This applies to both industrialized and developing countries. In the case of industrialized countries, the Branch may also require the country concerned to post a bond representing a portion of the penalties a country would be required to pay in the case of non-compliance. If at the end of the commitment period, the country is in compliance, the bond is returned. If not, it is forfeited and the remainder of the penalty is due.

To say that Leftist groups are using the global warming scare to further their dreams of world government is not a conspiracy theory but the literal truth, as their very own words prove.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Posted via web from Andrew Colclough

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my oenophile eyes and 30/20 vision (for reals, I have crazy-good eyesight) tell me that’s a bottle of Wolfblass in the photo above, nestled carefully in a grassy knoll. Oh, and that guy next to the bottle of wine is Tim Flannery — environmental author extraordinaire. I can confirm that this guy loves his Australian reds, too, because I sat down with him recently in Toronto and he ordered a glass of shiraz, apologizing for the long-distance selection. He then apologized even more when he ordered a plate of steak frites with it, insisting that he rarely eats meat when in North America. I was dubious about these menu selections, but I must say, by the end of our lunch date I was heartily convinced he is a man who cares about the planet and is very engaged in doing something about it.

His new book is called Now or Never, and it’s out in stores now. I scarfed it down in about two hours because he really is that good at conveying all the scientific this-and-that behind global warming to people like me, who can’t even explain why leaves turn red in the fall (I had to ask my mother, who has four science-related degrees and understands how chlorophyll works). He also provides incredibly concrete solutions that pretty much every single politician in every single country should be adopting immediately. Of course, even if you haven’t read Now or Never, you may know Flannery by his previous book, The Weather Makers, which was a best-seller and led to major environmental policy changes in Australia; he also chairs the Copenhagen Climate Council and is promoting the upcoming UN treaty negotiations that start in December, which is very, very soon (um, Harper? Did you hear that? It’s time to get yer ass out of the tar sands and over to Denmark!).

“When you’ve got as complex an issue as climate change, where no one has all the answers,” Flannery told me, “an ongoing dialogue is essential.”

Indeed, Flannery is such a fan of dialogue that he took a remarkably different approach to Now or Never. Rather than simply publish his own views on the challenges of global warming, he invited a handful of critics to respond to his work. In the end, readers get 107 pages of his initial argument, followed by 45 pages of critique from Bill McKibben, Richard Branson, Peter Singer, Fred Krupp and Peter Goldmark, Gwynne Dyer and Alanna Mitchell, with a final reply from the author. The idea was to make the book resemble a 19th-century political tract, at least in format: a concise, pointed essay meant to both enlighten and provoke readers.

“I felt that this was an important book to get out in advance of the Copenhagen meetings,” Flannery said. “Progress is slow right now, and that scares me. I must say, I wake up in the small hours of the night occasionally thinking, ‘What are we going to do on Dec. 19 if we’re faced with a suboptimal outcome?’ ”

He certainly didn’t seem to have high hopes for Canada, either: “This is as bad as a developed country gets… Harper has no friends internationally in this anymore — he used to have [former U.S. president George W.] Bush and [former Australian prime minister John] Howard and they’re gone now, so it’s a real concern … It’s in the government’s interest for the Alberta tar sands to continue, but the rest of the world can’t afford it … The tar sands represent one end of the hydrocarbon spectrum — the really dirty end — and other countries will eventually look at Canada and say, ‘If they, as a wealthy country, can get away with destroying their environment and producing highly polluting petroleum, then why can’t we?’ It’s a corrupting influence on the world.”

Flannery’s words sound harsh, but he also admits there are good things happening here too; part of Now or Never, for instance, looks at an alternative energy system called pyrolysis, of which Vancouver-based firm Dynamotive is one of the world’s leading developers. There are also a number of carbon-neutral or even carbon-positive housing developments being constructed on the West Coast and in Toronto, not to mention countless Canadian environmental NGOs, charities, offsetting organizations, wind and solar companies and more.

“It’s easy to get disillusioned in the West, but the world is moving and there’s still hope,” says Flannery. “Look at what people have done in the banking sector — how we’ve reigned in some of the greediest people in the world and said to them, ‘This isn’t good enough anymore.’ If we can do that for finance, we can do it for greenhouse gases, and we will.”

But what do you think? Is this really achievable, or has Flannery had a few too many glasses of shiraz?

P.S. Exciting news: Green as a Thistle will be in Copenhagen for the first week of the climate negotiations!! Stay tuned for more details on where to find my reports!

Today (2009 October 24) is the International Day of Climate Action where over 5200 events world-wide will take place to lobby governments to stop their dithering and come up with an effective and realistic agreement on climate change at the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December. Now, I’m not one who automatically responds to calls for action for one cause or another. As a writer, I prefer to do my research and take my time judging what causes I should and can afford to support.

However, on climate change, I have been doing my homework for quite a few years now; and as I wrote in my Alberta Outdoorsmen column in February of 2007, “The Politically Correct Climate Debate” , the evidence supporting human-caused climate change is overwhelming. We are in a crisis and we need to get our acts together quickly to stop the deterioration of our environment. (If you doubt the validity of these statements, I strongly recommend you read The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery, followed by Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer.)

What is sad is how many people are allowing themselves be duped by professional climate-change deniers, who are judging the issue not on the merits of the evidence presented but on their political bias and greed. Addressing climate change is going to require governments and large corporations to make difficult decisions they had rather not make (this all despite the many opportunities finding solutions to climate change should bring the economy). It’s much easier to deny than to take responsibility and do something positive for the environment, community and yes, our grandchildren. However, there is no time or room for political bias and dogma to direct what opinion you should have about climate change and global warming. Denying without doing the proper research, helps no one.

Yes, there was a debate over just how much industrialization is responsible for the changes we are seeing every day. Governments rightly questioned what some people were saying. That is why the United Nations struck the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), composed of prominent climate change scientists from around the world, to evaluate the evidence, determine what is valid and come up with recommendations. After long deliberations, where all arguments were heard and evaluated, the panel determined (among others) that 1) climate change is real and is and will have huge effects on the global environment; and 2) much of the change has been caused by the release of so-called greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels for over the past 100 years.

I don’t know how you would be able to convene a more august body of experts than the IPCC. So, despite what you may have heard, the debate is over. Climate change is real, it is here, and it will affect how we will live in the next decades. If we as a world community do not properly address this issue at the Copenhagen conference this December, then we will lose a crucial opportunity to turn the future of the planet in our favor.

It must be remembered that climate change is nothing new. Climate has changed many times over the 3.5 billion+ year history of our planet. However, most climate change has not occurred as fast as it is occurring now. Climate change, whether fast or slow, often means the extinction of many species of both plants and animals that could not cope with that change. The faster the change, the more species that do not adapt in time. Do we really want to risk our future when we have the capability of doing something about this change?

That is why I urge you to take this International Day of Climate Action seriously. If you feel like I do, and want a bright and prosperous future for your children and grandchildren, then contact your government and demand they do all that they can to come to an effective agreement in Copenhagen this December to reduce our carbon emissions and get on with the work that needs to be done.

So, what’s wrong with that?

www.donmeredith.ca

Hard to believe 25 years have passed since Oct. 7, 1984 — the biggest day in San Diego Padres’ history.

On that Sunday afternoon, the Padres completed their comeback from a 2-0 deficit in the best-of-5 NL playoff series against the big, bad, overrated Chicago Cubs team that was supposed to cruise into the World Series.

The Cubs won the first two games of the series in Wrigley Field before heading west to San Diego for the final three games. The Padres breezed in Game 3, won in the bottom of the ninth of Game 4 on Steve Garvey’s famous home run off Lee Smith (I can still see Henry Cotto desperately climbing the right-center field fence) and then smacked the supposedly unbeatable Rick Sutcliffe (16-1 in the regular season) around in the decisive Game 5.

The noise level during that 6-3 victory by the Padres has seldom been matched since at a San Diego sporting event. It was a party time at The Murph (the stadium’s nickname at the time) as the Padres stunned the nation by winning the series.

I recall that things didn’t start well — the Padres starting pitchers were horrible throughout the series — and Chicago was up 3-0 in the second inning and Padres manager Dick Williams was already pulling Eric Show. Yet the San Diego bullpen was unhittable as Andy Hawkins, Dave Dravecky and Craig Lefferts combined for 5 2/3 hitless innings.

The stellar relief outings kept the Padres in sight of the Cubs, a good thing since Sutcliffe allowed just two hits over the first five innings. But in the bottom of the sixth inning, the Padres loaded the bases with none out — Alan Wiggins’ leadoff bunt single was the instigator — and plated two runs on sacrifice flies by Graig Nettles and Terry Kennedy.

Then came the bottom of the seventh, the most exciting half-inning in Padres’ annals. Carmelo Martinez was on second base with one out when pinch-hitter Tim Flannery hit a routine groundball toward Cubs first baseman Leon Durham. But instead of an easy second out, the ball went right through Durham’s legs and Martinez scored the tying run.

Meanwhile, Sutcliffe was tiring on the hot October afternoon and the already-frenzied crowd somehow made more noise. Wiggins followed with another single and then Tony Gwynn put the Padres ahead with the hard-hit, bad-bounce double that almost took off the head of Cubs second baseman Ryne Sandberg. Two runs scored and the Padres knocked Sutcliffe out of the game when Garvey singled in Gwynn with a line single to center.

The Padres brought in closer Goose Gossage in the eighth inning (yeah, closers weren’t babied all the time 25 years ago) and the Cubs had two on with two out before Gossage stuck out Gary Matthews to end the threat. In the ninth, the Cubs got a man on base and Jody Davis came up with two outs and hit a one-hopper to Nettles at third, who threw to Wiggins at second for the force .

Radio announcer Jerry Coleman let fly with one of the loudest Oh, Doctors! of his long broadcasting career while Padres’ fans deliriously sung the song “Cub Busters” (written to the tune of Ghostbusters) over and over again.

Most of the nation seemed stunned at the Padres’ dramatic comeback (the Chicago columnists took homerism to a new level, particularly the hated Mike Royko) and were saddened that the dominant Detroit Tigers would be playing the Padres in the 1984 World Series.

Not surprisingly, the Tigers won the World Series in five games (Detroit would have pounded the Cubs in similar fashion — the Tigers were a team for the ages) but it really wasn’t that big of a disappointment to Padres’ fans. And the ‘84 Padres are still talked about fondly and viewed as the most favorite team in the franchise’s not-so-gloriously history.

Hard to believe that 25 years have passed since Oct. 7, 1984. And perhaps that afternoon isn’t remembered at all if Leon Durham doesn’t let an easy five-hop grounder go right through his legs. Durham’s error opened the floodgates and allowed the Padres to win their first NL pennant.

The Padres have made only one other World Series appearance (swept in 1998 by the New York Yankees) but you always remember your first more than your second, no matter what the topic or the memory.

That’s why Oct. 7, 1984 remains the most memorable day in franchise history.

Robert Downey Jr

While on the bus the other day an old long-haired man jumped on. I caught his eye, searched his face and suddenly, ‘soy latte’ dropped into my head. I then debated on whether or not I should smile, I didn’t, as it is usually met with a blank face for my memory works in mysterious ways, I will never remember a customer’s name but I will always remember their drink.

 Most customers are completely surprised when I say their order before it is placed, they exchange a slightly embarrassed smile as if they’ve just realized that buying three coffees in one day is over the top.

“Hey there, skinny cappuccino?” I look at the customer, pen and cup in hand, with a Cheshire cat grin.

 “Well yes, how did you know?” The customer inquires once the shock wears off.

 “I have a good memory,” I announce proudly, as if it was actually my memory and not the fact that they frequent the shop four times a day.

“Oh, I must come in here too often,” a sheepish yet thoughtful reply.

 Back on the bus and after the customer sighting, I decided to recall the most interesting customers I’ve come across (I didn’t have a book and the guy next to me grabbed the MX, jerk). Here they are, in no particular order:

 Robert Downey Jr. – This was in California, not La Trobe University. He ordered a medium latte, was very nice, extremely quiet and undeniably gorgeous.

 Tim Flannery – The former Australian of the year was partaking in a conversation with Robert Manne. He ordered a Mint Mix T2, in a takeaway cup, guess he missed my ‘Green Ranter’ post.

 Bobby Morley – Former Home and Away star and current La Trobian, he orders a large skinny latte. I’m happy to accommodate this humanitarian because according to Wikipedia he “rescue[d] Minister Tim Holding when he was lost on Mount Feathertop in the Victorian Alps.”

 Meg Ryan – What a treat, she actually didn’t order a coffee she got a zucchini-walnut muffin. Meg was wearing sunglasses, I nearly missed the sighting but thankfully I recognized her lips (California).

 Jason Biggs – The American Pie star ordered a medium cappuccino, very friendly, but the movie was fresh in my mind and all I could think about was the pie scene, it was an awkward encounter (California).

 Ok, the above customers are either splashed all over the tabloids or a prominent figure in science, it was a little easier to remember their names and drinks. As for the regulars, I see you every day, make the same coffee for you every day, it shouldn’t be too surprising that I can recall your order, it is after all my job.

“I’m going to talk about Tim Flannery.

Before anything else, I have to say that Tim Flannery is a leading (importante) Australian scientist, explorer and conservationist.

He is also the author of several bokks on ecological and other issues. His latest, ” the weather Makers“, talks abouth climate change.

He is a loyal to his principles and therefore he lives in a house which only electricity from solar panels.

He has a little hybrid car, a Toyota car. He usually travels by plane but to offset (contrarrestar) all off his emissions from travel, his carbon emissions, he pay a company to invest in wind power or something.

He also travels by aircraft instead of airplane, and generally tries to do things like eat local food, instead of food that’s been transported halfway around the world, using fossil fuels.

But it isn’t very common. Normally, people don’t know anything of this issue because of frightened to know the truth, and therefore they haven`t got a good lifestyle to the world’s healthy (salud).

He thinks the worst case that might happen is that the North Polar ice cap will melt (derretirse) and we will have a very rapid rise in sea level, and perhaps 500 million people will be displaced by the rising sea  level. We won`t be able to transport foods around the world, and the airports will become unfunctional. Then the people will start trying to protect their own little patch (parcela), and the 3rd World War probably will be able to begin. It would be a dark age, because now the world is full of nuclear weapons. He thinks that the most people living on the world will die, and it could be 5 years, 15 years or 30 years away, but that is his nightmare scenario.”

Well, it is my speak when I was in the EOI of Deusto in the ends of 2007.

I can add now that he had been named Australian of the Year 2007, and that  The Weather Makers, debuted on the New York Times bestseller list and won the 2006 NSW Premier’s Book of the Year Award.

From the Zazoo blog:

Kermit the Frog was wrong: It is easy being green! Our most recent projects for Toyota Australia, created with HotHouse, have revolved around this month’s launch of the new model Prius hybrid car in Australia. The “Prius People” vodcast project employs a social media-oriented relationship-building approach, presenting a slice of life with interesting Australians. We got the chance to work with some inspiring and remarkable people including environmentalists Tim Flannery and Tanya Ha, Eye Foundation CEO Belinda Sullivan, Today Show nutritionist Joanna McMillan Price, and technology experts Peter Blasina and Nick Broughall. Three of the videos launched this week and you can see them here.

Also with HotHouse, Zazoo implemented a blogger engagement program for Toyota as part of the Prius launch, organising information sessions for several of Australia’s top bloggers. For more information see Zazoo’s Our Work page.

I am going to weigh in and take on the tropical issue of Global Warming and give my humble opinion on the issues and not the science because the last time I was in science I snorted some wizz fizz we made, set a coil of magnesium on fire with the bunsen burner and threw a rats head at a bird who I was keen on.

Timothey Flannery discovered Global Warming in Australia first. The LAte nite Live host caught wind of it and talked about it on Radio National. A few bloggers found out about it who are from the Liberal PArty. Tim Blairs was one and became against Global Warming because he didn’t like Timothey Flannery and he thought that Phillip Adams was fat and because their politics were left wing therefore making global Warming not real even though science thought it was.

Andrew Bolt a popular Melbourne paper editor and opinion maker who wanted to start a blog so he started copying Tim Blairs popular style (that is not popular anymore) and he did not like Timothy Flannery because Flannery was left wing and on the ABC more than Bolt was and he was jealous so he attacked Flannery via his local rag too.

Soon The earth started cooling because Bolt and Blair were pointing out with graphs and fat jokes that Flannery flew on a plane and Phillip Adams was fatter than Tim Blair and so on and so on. And it lead to fanatical followers of Bolt and Blair writing their own blogs about the issue except they also didn’t have a cluw what they were talking about.

But the cooling only lasted for the winter then we had hot temperatures again and the debate on their blogs went adnauseum like Wayne when he is pissed and depressed.

The truth about the matter of the Global Warming is that only the scientists are really qualified to make the call on it even if the are left winged or right wing. In the political spectrum or ’scrotom’ as I like to refer to it at the breakfast table (with many laughs from wayne) is that their are two balls. One ball is full of sperm and so is the other. Depending how cold it is the ball sack with pull itself closer to the body enabling the owner of the balls to do “the roast chicken’ dick trick. This is called Global Cooling. (it should be called warming but I can’t argue with the science behind it)

If it is too hot the balls will hang out from the body to get more air for the sperm to swim around in so they can shoot out when called for. But if it is too hot the sperm will die.

At the moment the earth is like a pair of hot balls (with left and right testicales arguing the toss of weather they are cold or hot). This enables the owner of the ball to do the “Windsurfer” which is called Global Warming (warm enough to wind surf all day because the ice caps have melted and it is now Water World).

But it is the body (science) which knows where the balls should be.And at the moment they are “freeballing” and need to be closer to the body to make more sperm to shoot out and make more life. Yin and Yang: Roast Chicken or Windsurfer? I know where the best positition for my balls is. Do you?

I Don’t Know why we accept the myth of “public debate”.

I do know, the purpose of debate is not Truth by Inquiry, but Converts by Sophistry.

I am going to enjoy my sweet ‘n sour.

I Don’t Know why some insist on a “need” to reduce human population.

I do know, these never offer to go first.

I am going to enjoy whatever comes today.

Permaculture is first and foremost a system of ethics related to sustainability – “enough for all forever.”

Here’s food for thought from Australia’s most prominent green thinker, Tim Flannery, from an article in the May edition of “The Monthly.”

It is also vital to recognise that addressing climate change is not only an industrial problem: we must foster an ethic of conservation, rather than one of unbridled consumerism. Earth’s carbon balance is profoundly influenced by living things. Plants, for example, capture 8% of all atmospheric CO2 every year; to store a proportion of that in growing forests, healthier soils and charcoal would make a big contribution to solving the problem. Policies that improve ecosystem health, that improve the sustainability of farms, rangelands and commercial forests, and that embed carbon accounting in such enterprises are important, and in all these areas regulation is likely to be at least as successful as market-based mechanisms.

In other words, by putting the ethics of permaculture into practice, we become part of a multi-faceted approach to addressing climate change. Well, we knew that already but it’s still nice encouragement to see where the practice of permaculture fits into the bigger picture and supports our other efforts such as seeking to affect policy change in a number of areas.

So keep up the good work, permaculturists!

Alf has just had an encounter of the turd kind with biochar and found it isn’t a form of Chinese cuisine.

Fair enough, had he been paying attention to climate change and what’s being done to beat it, he probably would be well acquainted with biochar and how it can do good things for effluent.

But he hadn’t and he isn’t.

Not until now, when he happened to be browsing through the BBC’s news of the day and found himself being asked whether the hype about biochar is justified.

Because the hype had bypassed him, or somehow he had evaded it, he didn’t know. So he read further and learned:

Green guru James Lovelock claims that the only hope of mitigating catastrophic climate change is through biochar – biomass “cooked” by pyrolysis.

It produces gas for energy generation, and charcoal – a stable form of carbon.

The charcoal is then buried in the ground, making the process “carbon negative”.

Researchers say biochar can also improve farm productivity and cut demand for carbon-intensive fertilisers.

Say no more. Anything that can improve farm productivity, cut demand for carbon-intensive fertilisers and mitigate catastrophic climate change has gotta be good for the good people who farm around Eketahuna. Doesn’ it?

As Alf further learned, during his online voyage of discovery, work is being done on biochar in this country. In Marlborough. But we’ll come to that…

The BBC item focussed on Bingen, Germany, and the conversion of effluent into glittering black granules.

In a flash of eco-alchemy, they are turning sewage into charcoal.

The charcoal is then buried to lock the carbon into the ground and prevent it entering the atmosphere.

Proponents of the technology say it is so effective at storing carbon that it should be included in the next global climate agreement.

Burying the biochar can also improve soil fertility, say experts.

Field trials are about to begin at Rothamsted, south-east England, to assess the benefits to soil structure and water retention.

Experiments in Australia, US and Germany are showing great results, too, apparently, especially on otherwise poor soils where the honeycomb granules of biochar act as a reservoir for moisture and fertilisers.

A growing worldwide movement is now bringing together the soil scientists fascinated by the benefits of biochar, which was first discovered in Pre-Columbian Amazonia, and the engineers devising new ways of making the char.

They are being backed by activists who are concerned about climate change.

One big problem for Alf is getting to grips (as they are doing at the Bingen biochar plant) with “pyrolysis equipment” to overcome the problem of ash from sewage waste choking conventional boilers. His eyes glaze, on hearing words like that, and he is tempted to move on to his favourite on-line comics.

But pyrolysis seems to be a force for good, rather than evil.

Normally, sewage treatment is a significant source of greenhouse gases. The waste is usually incinerated (with more emissions) and the resulting ash is used in the building industry.

At Bingen, 10% of the sewage stream is being diverted to the prototype pyrolysis plant, where it is heated with minimum oxygen.

Carbon monoxide and methane are driven off and burned to heat the pyrolysis process.

The process is said to radically cut the fuel costs and carbon emissions needed to treat the sewage, and an estimated 60% of the carbon from the sewage is locked up in the char.

The buried carbon will be kept from entering the atmosphere for a projected 1,000 years or more.

And as the sewage was originally created from plants, which removed CO2 from the atmosphere, the total process is described as carbon negative.

The pyrolyser at Bingen – like others being developed elsewhere – can transform any carbon-based substance, including some plastics, the BBC says.

That means pyrolysis can get energy from agricultural waste, food waste and biomass.

But the catch is that it creates less energy than burning biomass in a conventional way.

The BBC then drew attention to the substantial barriers to the progress of biochar.

Perfecting and disseminating the technology at an affordable price will be an issue.

Moreover, current financial systems reward energy production from biomass and waste – not carbon storage. Biochar would need clear global incentives.

One key to its progress will be ongoing research into the soil benefits.

The porous biochar attracts worms, apparently. It also captures nutrients that would otherwise run off the land, which reduces the need for carbon-intensive fertilisers.

Alf was somewhat dismayed to find research on biochar began back in 1947 (which means he should have heard about it long before now). But it was forgotten until the 1980s, and only recently– it seems – is there a lot of excitement about what it might achieve.

Wikipedia gave Alf a helping hand. It says

Biochar is a way for carbon to be drawn from the atmosphere and is a solution to reducing the global impact of farming (and in reducing the impact from all agricultural waste). Since biochar can sequester carbon in the soil for hundreds to thousands of years[3], it has received considerable interest as a potential tool to slow global warming.

Oh, and things are bubbling on the biochar front in this country.

About a year back, Rural Delivery pointed out that

New Zealand produces millions of tones of wood waste, which could be converted into biochar, or finely ground charcoal, and incorporated in the soil like lime for a range of benefits. Carbonscape of Picton is developing one of the first portable pyrolysis units for producing charcoal.

The company was founded by Nick Gerritsen, former Christchurch mayor Vicky Buck, olive industry pioneer Hamish Macfarlane, and others.

It had recently hired its first manager, who is overseeing the building of the pilot plant, with chemistry contracted elsewhere.

Six months later, the Herald reported:

A New Zealand company which says it has patented world-first industrial technology to microwave forest waste is planning to offer charcoal to farmers and horticulturists who want to boost the quality of their soils.

The technology can capture significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and hold it for 10,000 years by putting the charcoal into topsoils, and at the same time improve plant growth.

The company, Carbonscape, has begun initial batch scale production of the “biochar” at its Marlborough plant.

Forestry Minister Jim Anderton officially opened the plant today and said the technology “appears to be a huge breakthrough in charcoal development”.

Much more recently, Carbonscape announced that Tim Flannery, Australian of the Year (2007), author of The Weather Makers and international campaigner on climate change, is joining the team as a board director.

“I’m delighted to be joining Carbonscape” says Tim,

“The technology developed by Carbonscape is exciting and promises to make a dent in carbon dioxide levels. We have to get greenhouse gas levels down and fast. Carbonscape offers the possibility of doing that.”

The company statement quoted director Professor Chris Turney as saying Flannery brings enormous expertise in fighting climate change to Carbonscape.

“Climate is changing and we need to do something fast. Tim will help us identify the best way Carbonscape’s technology can be most effectively used internationally. We’re over the Moon he has agreed to come on board.”

MAF has been on the case, too. It is setting up an information network to share knowledge on the application of biochar to New Zealand soil as an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The objectives of the project are to:

1. Transfer knowledge on NZ biochar research and technology developments and relevant international research to NZ stakeholders with a focus on the application of biochar to reduce GHG emissions.

2. Provide a mechanism to discuss biochar issues and stakeholder needs with regard to the operational application of biochar.

Mind you, this work could fall under the Government chopper. It was instigated when the Government aimed to make New Zealand carbon neutral by 2020.

We aren’t in such a rush now, eh?