The researchers at Electrawinds have announced that, they have test driven a heavily modified Audi A4 diesel model for 24 hours on fuel made entirely of animal fats. The all new experiment has proven that, animal fat can in fact be used an alternative to petrol, gasoline and diesel, the fuels that drive our current vehicles and contribute enormously to the Global Warming phenomenon.

The team of Electrawinds, that was led by the manager of the company collected animal fats from places like slaughter houses etc. and ran only on animal fats and consumed zero bio diesel, making the world’s first automotive ever to run entirely on animal fats. Electrawinds is Belgium’s premier and the largest renewable energy plant has two operational installations in the cities of Ostend and Mouscron. It specializes in in extracting pure energy by burning animal fats and has been supplying clean and green electricity to 85,000 families in the region.

According to a company spokeswoman,

“Our aim was to show that renewable energy is more than just wind turbines and solar energy.”

Via Green Diary.

In the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December, African countries are boycotting climate change conferences. They allege that ‘the world’s rich nations must do more to cut emissions.’ This is just one of the hurdles being encountered by the controversial climate deal negotiations whose final agreements hope to be signed next month. ‘Talks over how to cut back global carbon emissions to ease the effects of climate change have broken down, with African nations arguing that rich nations are not doing their fair share.’

In Barcelona on November 2-6, climate talks ‘aimed at looking into a number of natural remedies that might help manage the rise in global emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the main by products from the burning of oil, coal, and other fossil fuels in electrical power plants and heavy industries.’ The conference saw adverse reaction from African countries, thereby stalling climate negotiations. According to South African delegation head Alf Wills, “They’re saying let’s focus on the real issues, which is targets for developed countries. Richer nations are using “delaying tactics” rather than talking about how Europe and the industrial nations can share the burden more fairly in cutting back on carbon emissions.”

Climate change, however, is a grave issue for Africa that is touted to be the biggest victim of global warming. Its vast arid areas and its poorer population’s reliance on subsistence farming make the continent the most vulnerable to climate change.

According to Christian Lambrechts, a policy coordinator for the United Nations Environment Program in Nairobi, “Africa is heavily impacted by climate change.  Africa has experienced some of the world’s highest warming trends, and its relatively poor citizens are living so close to the very edge of subsistence that when major climate changes occur, large numbers are unable to adapt, and must simply move to other areas.”

The current argument from African nations involves the notion of who has the greater responsibility in global warming. These countries argue that ‘it is the richer nations that have been producing greenhouse gases for decades. It is richer nations, too, that have the financial resources to clean up their acts, and it is the richer nations that need to make greater sacrifices.’

Via The Christian Science Monitor

Geologists prefer to call the past two centuries as ‘the anthropocene period, a time when humans have reshaped about half of the Earth’s surface. We have dictated what plants grow and where. We’ve pocked and deformed the Earth’s crust with mines and wells, and we’ve commandeered a huge fraction of its freshwater supply for our own purposes.’

Humans can go even beyond that and ‘deform the Earth intentionally, as a way to engineer the planet either back into its pre-industrial state, or into some improved third state.’  This move is called “geo-engineering” whose components are already being frighteningly considered today to combat the ills of climate change. Imagine a Blade Runner future, aimed to undo the excesses of man’s dependence on carbon.

Geo-engineering, seen by scientists as a last-ditch option to prevent the catastrophic rise in Earth’s temperature, is both powerful and ‘so easily implemented’ in terms of technology. It is also relatively cheap. All it takes is one superwealthy individual ‘to change the climate all on its own.’ The downside is that a ‘Greenfinger’ could arise. This is a rich madman, obsessed with the environment. ‘There are now 38 people in the world with $10 billion or more in private assets, according to the latest Forbes list; theoretically, one of these people could reverse climate change all alone.’

‘$100 billion could reverse anthropogenic climate change entirely, and some experts suspect that a hundredth of that sum could suffice. To stop global warming the old-fashioned way, by cutting carbon emissions, would cost on the order of $1 trillion yearly.’

While a prolonged love affair with carbon dioxide will end disastrously, geo-engineering might just be ‘the biggest and most terrifying insurance policy humanity might buy—one that pays out so meagerly, and in such foul currency, that we’d better ensure we never need it.’

The caveat is for us to ‘keep investigating geo-engineering solutions.’ The choice is ours, really. Do we want a future full of Prius or to have a zeppelin as the alternative? Do we see a future with millions of wind turbines and policing consumption or aerosols pumping and injecting sulfur in the sky much like man-made volcanoes, forests of carbon-eating trees engineered to suck carbon more hungrily, painting the clouds white, installing space shades, and blooming massive areas in the oceans with carbon dioxide-ingesting plankton?

Geo-engineering is scary because it can be done.

Via The Atlantic

With those clamoring for greener energy options and cleaner energy sources constantly keeping their focus fixed on solar power, there is no doubt that wind energy has taken a back seat for sometime now. But with the help of creative new engineers who are altering the traditional perception of windmills and some help from Mother Nature herself, the Windfarm in Spain has managed to create a record that might be hard to beat for sometime now. With strong winds that battered the Iberian Peninsula, Spain’s huge network of windfarms jointly poured the equivalent of 11 nuclear power stations’ worth of electricity into the national grid. The astounding performance over the weekend saw 53% of total national power being supplied by windfarms alone!

This not only has seen a sudden spurt in interest when it comes to wind energy but has given further boost to many Windfarm projects that are taking shape across the globe. Spain’s officials themselves are hoping to increase the national wind energy output from the current 17Gw to 40 GW by 2020 and that ambition seems all too modest after this weekend’s blitz. Of course, with wind’s fiddle nature, it is always better to be cautious than overconfident… Let’s just hope Spain’s performance is repeated elsewhere as well.

Guardian

Science and Technology is ever advancing. Today some European scientists launched a satellite called “Smos Spacecraft”, which will make flood prediction easier by tracking water flows around the Earth. The satellite will also provide better weather forecasts and estimate the impact of climate change including drought. The satellite was lifted into space from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in northern Russia.

Smos also monitors photosynthesis and plant growth besides, being able to measure moisture to a depth of up to 7 feet. Apart from these, the satellite’s second job is to measure the changes in the salt content of the sea surface waters. This will provide a better understanding about what drives global ocean circulation patterns. Smos is set to conduct its mission over three years with a possible two year extension. Another ESA satellite called “Proba-2″ has been lifted today as well. It is designed to demonstrate in-orbit technologies.

Considering that the world is under a constant threat of “Global Warming” we need more such satellites to protect our environment. However, we must not always depend on these satellites to protect the world from dangerous catastrophes; rather we must be careful enough not to harm the environment by exploiting it for our momentary convenience.

Via: DailyMail

A recent study on the drastic effects of global warming has stated that, the ice covered mountain peaks of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, Africa are rapidly melting and could be completely eroded in the next 20 years. The study has blamed the green house gasses and the exponential increase in global warming for the continuing meltdown. Since the year 2000 till date, mount Kilimanjaro has witnessed a 26% increase in the rate of meltdown and if the current conditions prevail, the entire ice covered region could disappear in not more than two decades.

According to Lonnie Thompson (Professor, Earth Sciences, Ohio State University),

“In a very real sense, these glaciers are being decapitated from the surface down. The Kilimanjaro glaciers are indicators for a larger-scale process. It’s not just Kilimanjaro, it’s every tropical glacier in Africa, in the tropical Andes of South America, it’s the glaciers in New Guinea. We are losing all those glaciers in today’s world.”

The recent study was conducted by a group of scientists including Lonnie Thompson for the National Academy of Sciences and unlike the previous researches, where overhead flights were used to determine the deterioration of the ice levels, this time around, the scientists climbed the 19,331-foot peak and drilled into the glaciers to measure the ice levels.

The research team stayed at the mountain peak for two months, during which ice sample and other samples were taken for study. The scientists were accompanied by the local residents acting as guides for the region and the team carried over 6 tons of equipment for the research. The study has also revealed that, the Furtwangler Glacier has been reduced by 50% in the last nine year, portraying a disastrous future for all mankind.

Via CNN.

Cleantech depends on energy policy. US President Obama deals with two core climate issues: meeting the larger goal of reducing carbon emissions, and finding a way of rescuing the renewables industry from Wall Street’s collapse. The benchmark of 450 ppm is a crucial figure issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ‘Limiting concentration to 450 ppm requires halting emissions at current levels.’ This needs tremendous policy structure.

But Obama is unflinching and relentless in his pursuit of cleantech. He believes that clean energy is not only the path to the future but also the key to economic revival. He says, “To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.”

He puts the money where his mouth is. ‘The stimulus alone dumped $167 billion in grants and loan guarantees for clean-energy and other projects onto the Department of Energy, dwarfing its $27 billion annual budget to such a degree that its inspector general frantically warned that the department could buckle under the strain. There’s even talk of refitting the White House with solar panels.’

Clean technology is based on the principle that ‘the growing scarcity and higher cost of fossil fuels, coupled with environmental concerns, will drive society toward alternative sources of energy, with enormous wealth accruing to whoever can supply them.’ It is still a capitalistic venture for the sake of economy. Along with conjuring up images of ‘towering wind turbines, sleek electric cars, and acres of mirrors shimmering in the desert’ is the strategic viability of having these commercially available.

Only the commercial readiness of cleantech can transform it from advocacy campaign to green economy.

Via The Atlantic

The Kyoto Protocol is an obvious failure in its mandate to enjoin countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, and quite ironically, ‘global carbon-dioxide emissions have grown by 25% since the protocol was adopted in 1997.’

There are glaring reasons why the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocol did not succeed. This treaty left out of the roster of considerations such a huge problem as deforestation. Also, ‘potential participants were put off by the idea of internationally binding commitments.’

The Copenhagen climate deal that is supposed to be signed by countries in December 2009 is touted to be a more effective replacement or follow up to the failed Kyoto Protocol. After all, it has the benefit of hindsight.

Some are starting to suspect that the much awaited climate deals in Copenhagen will not be closed. The aims of the summit deal in terms of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions targeted at specific years will come at huge economic costs to economies that are still dependent on fossil fuels. A crash is, in fact, anticipated at Copenhagen. The participants just might not buy into the details, thereby creating an incohesive deal. For starters, developing countries already fear that ‘internationally binding commitments could be used as justifications for imposing tariffs on them.’

Some have forwarded diplomatic strategies to avoid the impending crash through ways and means in getting the climate negotiations on the right track for the desired successful deal. The trick, some say, is ‘moving the negotiations onto a different diplomatic track.’

Salient suggestions have come from Australia. ‘All countries would come up with a “national schedule” of programmes, such as cap-and-trade and low-carbon regulations. Developed countries would also specify an amount by which they mean to reduce their emissions. These commitments would have the force of domestic law, but would not be subject to international sanctions. And measures that have the force of domestic law are more likely to stick than those signed up to in a treaty under diplomatic pressure.’

Via Economist.com

According to Phil Edwards, a researcher from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, “We need to do a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness. It is a key factor in the battle to reduce carbon emissions and slow climate change.”

Edwards’ research found that ‘the average overweight person is responsible for an extra ton of carbon dioxide emissions a year, compared with a person of healthier weight.’ Cumulatively, that amounts to an extra one billion tons per year, to use World Health Organization estimates. Fact is ‘food production accounts for about one fifth of greenhouse gases.’

A big chunk of this extra one billion tons per year ‘comes from the fossil fuels required to produce the food needed to sustain a larger person.’ Bigger demand, all the way. Meat, a logical staple in an obese person’s diet, is said to be ‘highly fossil fuel intensive.’ In 2007, the United Nations asserted that ‘animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, more than all forms of transportation combined.’

Obesity is all about overconsumption. Overconsumption is also a mark of richer countries. For the emerging economies such as China and India, the trend has been on increased demand for meat. ‘Researchers are increasingly warning that the obesity epidemic is contributing to global warming, with potentially devastating consequences for people and habitats around the world.

Image

Via Natural News

China has become the world’s largest producer of household garbage. The country has produced a lot of junk in packaging, old electronics, newspaper, bottles, etc. ‘Beijing officials warned in June that all of the city’s landfills would run out of space within five years.’

Japan has little spaces for practically everything. For its trash, it has no more space left. ‘Japan has virtually no space for new landfill sites and so ends up burning nearly 50 million tons of solid garbage each year, leading to dioxin emissions six to seven times higher than in Europe.’

One solution that big economies have been depending on is incinerating their trash, which is all the worse for global warming. Some experts believe, though, that ‘the incinerators take up less real estate, they can do double duty by generating electricity, and they reduce the amount of planet-warming methane that’s emitted by trash decaying in landfills.’ These arguments may make no sense to developing countries that host foreign-owned incinerators.

China has been burning its garbage in highly toxic incinerators that emit mercury and dioxins, all detrimental to the health of living things. But most of China’s incinerators are actually not located in China, but rather ‘all the way across the Pacific.’ Thus, the modern day dilemma of having no space left for a country’s trash has given birth to the phenomenon of dumping garbage abroad. Japanese waste exports to Thailand have grown from 54 tons a year to 350,000. Ironically, China had also been a dumping ground of foreign waste for many years.

Image

Via The New Republic