Fifth of the world's plant species under threat of extinction

A recent study by the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and the Natural History Museam has concluded that 22% of all plant species are threatened by extinction, mostly due to human activity.

This is bad news for all of us because plants provide food, water (indirectly), fuel, oxygen, building materials, medicines, and coastal protection (e.g. mangroves), underpin ecosystems that we depend on, and absorb CO2. In short, they are essential.

So far, politicians have only paid lip service to biodiversity (agreeing to targets then missing them by miles), but there now seems to be a sense of urgency. Next month there will be a major conference on biodiversity in Japan. Let's hope governments start taking the subject more seriously and put a halt to the decline in plants AND animals.

See more here about the study. A link for the Nygoya conference.

Face Facts, The Planet is Warming

According to both land and sea based instruments, global temperatures have been rising for decades. Below is a typical graph of the data:

Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art

These surface readings are supported by satellite measurements:

Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art

As the temperature rises, oceans warm up and therefore expand, causing sea levels to rise.......

Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art

....meanwhile, the vast majority of the world's glaciers are melting.....

Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art

....as is the Arctic sea ice.

Image from NASA

Graphs like this are being produced by NASA, the UK Met Office, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and many other reputable organisations. They all contribute to a mountain of evidence that the World's climate is, indeed, warming. 

Climate change is with us already. It's time we finally admit it.

Arrghh!

I'm currently trying to chase 3 carbon footprint reducing ideas at the moment, and I'm being frustrated in all of them:

1) Car sharing/Cycling: As you can read here, I've been working on this for a while now, trying to cut out as many journeys to work as possible. Unfortunately, due to a variety of reasons beyond my control, I've not managed to cut more than 2 journeys a week. And I can't see this changing for months.

2) Changing My Car: Ideally, I'd trade my car in for a hybrid like a Prius or Honda Civic, but an efficient diesel would do. Unfortunately, as I'm the one who has the family car now, suitable (second-hand) replacements within budget, are rare.

3) Loft Insulation: Earlier in the year, only about a third of our loft was insulated, and even that was just 10cm (The recommended minimum is 25 to 30cm). That third is now up to 25cm but the rest remains completely uninsulated. The reason is that it's piled high with our belongings/junk. To get the job done we'd have to move the junk elsewhere (and we have no room for it - That's why it's in the loft!), take up the floor-boards, lay the insulation, raise the level of the floor (because the insulation would be too thick), then put back the floor-boards. Unsurprisingly, I've been putting the job off.

It will get done though, and hopefully before the Winter sets in. Watch this space!

Making Money From Renewable Energy (Eventually)

So you've had a look at solar power, wind power, or air source heating for your home and the figures just don't add up. Generally speaking, if you live in the UK, they all cost so much to install that they'll take many years to pay for themselves if at all.

This kind of puts domestic renewables out of reach of the majority of the population.

The previous government seemed to have spotted this and saw an opportunity to help the UK meet it's  renewables targets: Enter 'Feed in Tariffs' and the 'Renewable Heat Incentive'.

How Does It Work?

The idea with both schemes is as follows: You get your system installed and register it with the government. You then get savings on your energy bills (thanks to the system) plus an annual payment from the government for having installed it, plus a payment from your energy provider if you export any of the electric you generate into the national grid.

Example

I install solar panels that produce 2Kw, of which I use 75% and feed the rest into the grid. For this I would get £175 savings on my annual bill, £14 for exporting the electric, and £744 from the government for generating electric. A total of £933 per year, of which £758 is new money which would shorten the time it would take for the system to pay for itself. Note: I get even more if I use all the electric - £1026 (including £245 fuel savings a year).

How Long Will It Take To Pay For Itself?

Using the above example, the pay-back period works out like this: The system costs £10k to install (based on the Tesco price). Without the scheme, it would take 41 year to recover the cost of the system (£10,000/245); With the scheme, it would take just under 10 years. These periods would be cut if fuel prices increase.....which, of course, they will.

More Information
The Feed in Tariff (which is for electric generation only) started in April 2010 and you can find out more information here. Whilst the cashback calculator is here (Allows you to see if wind power will work for you as well).

The Renewable Heat Incentive starts in April 2011 but anyone who's installed a renewable heat system since July 15th 2009 will likely be eligible. More information here.

Ice Anybody?

This Summer, Arctic sea ice was at its third lowest extent since satellite records began in 1979. In those 3 decades, the sea ice has declined by 20 to 25% and shows no sign of reversing. It's predicted that the Arctic Sea will be ice free during the Summer months by 2050. Since dwindling polar ice will, in itself, lead to further warming, this prediction may prove to be conservative.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the world's glaciers are also in decline (According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service). Disturbingly, this effect seems to be accelerating. For example, in Peru, home to 70% of the world's tropical glaciers, they've lost around 22% of them in the last 30 years. They could lose the rest over the next 20 years.

If all this isn't proof global warming is already under-way, I don't know what is.

August 2010 was the 3rd Hottest August On Record

More Here.

Cool Roofs and Polar Ice Caps

The U.S. is pioneering a method of reducing global warming called 'cool roofs'. It basically consists of replacing existing roofs with ones which reflect a high proportion of solar energy that hits them back out into space, and therefore prevents it from adding to climate change.

Sounds weird doesn't it? But it's based on an existing effect that the polar ice caps already provide for us.

Unfortunately, the Arctic ice cap is fast disappearing (20 to 25% lost since 1979). As a result, more solar energy is staying down here and heating up the atmosphere.....which, in turn, leads to more loss of ice, and so on.

So, I guess, the ice caps need a little help until we get round to curbing CO2. Hence, cool roofs.

Strictly speaking, cool roofs come under the heading of 'geo-engineering' which, as you may know, I don't agree with. However, this one seems comparatively harmless and is based on something Nature already does for us.

Cool roofs come with an added bonus: Use them in a hot climate and you'll find that you need less air-con. That's because the roofs prevent your building heating up as much. So they have a dual effect on climate change.

Sadly, I don't think they'd be as good in cooler climates. You'd probably have to turn your heating up in the Winter.

Another, more general, problem, might be trying to keep the roofs reflective. Most of them are white or pale colours, so they'd tend to build up grime and bird mess. What then? I guess the on-going maintenance costs will be more than out-weighed by the savings made on turning down your air-con.

The EU plan on backing a similar scheme to the US in the near future.

Climate Change Scientist Talks To Sceptics

This is an interesting TV program where a leading IPCC climate scientist (Stephen Schneider) talks to an audience of 52 climate sceptics and answers their questions. Thankfully the audience isn't full of deniers but a reasonable cross-section of ordinary people with serious doubts. Stephen comes across as articulate and open-minded.

The whole thing is divided into 3 parts which total about 50 minutes.

Australian Election: Labour Back In Charge

It's been nearly 3 weeks since the Australian electorate voted for a hung parliament. Since then the 2 main parties have been wooing the Independants in an attempt to form a majority. Now, finally, Labour have enough for a 1 seat majority. So Julia Gillard continues to be Australia's first woman PM, just.

The significance of this is that it will allow her to press ahead with plans to cut carbon emissions, something that Labour have long wanted but have been blocked by the opposition. This could mean the introduction of carbon trading.

However, it'll be a race to get the carbon cutting measures in place before Labour almost inevitably lose their slim majority through a bi-election or defection to the other side. Watch this space...

Electric Bikes

Whilst I was looking for ways of cutting down on car journeys to work (I went for a combination car sharing and cycling in the end), one of the options I considered was an electric bike. I thought some of you might like to hear what I found out.

The term 'electric bike' can refer to a bicycle or scooter. I didn't really bother with scooters but they were priced from £1500 to £4000 and look pretty cool (See here for more).

Electric bicycles are useful if you've got hills on your route (as I have), don't want to arrive at work in a sweat, or have a longer journey than you're prepared cycle. You can still get some exercise when you want to though, as you've still got pedals and the motor is under your control.

They're priced at between £390 and £1900. There are plenty of models to choose from and even include folding varieties.

If you want to, you can even adapt your existing bike for around £350. Though I'm not sure how universal the kits are.

They seem to have a range of between 20 to 35 miles on a single charge. Each charge costs around just 5 to 7 pence. The batteries give around 2000 charges and cost about £190 to replace.

The bikes are limited by law to 15 mph. Kids under 14 are not allowed to use them.

Disadvantages: They don't usually go up hills without some help via the pedals (so no free ride there!); The battery makes the bike noticeably heavier than the non-electric equivalent; Relatively short range per charge; Relatively expensive way to buy a bicycle; Because of their relatively high price, they may be a preffered target of bike thieves.

Ideal for the commute to work. A possible cheap alternative to buying a moped.

More to look at here.

Are Carbon Footprints Just A Middle Class Luxury?

It often occurs to me that being green is only really of interest to those who can afford it. For the rest of the population, organic food, free-range meat, local produce, hybrid and electric cars, solar panels, and Segways are off the radar. When money's tight, you just don't have the luxury of buying free-range, organic chicken.

So aren't we getting a bit precious about carbon footprints if there are all these people out there who can't do anything about it? Well, actually, no.

You see, the way I look at it, those who can't afford to be green aren't the problem, it's those of us with a disposable income who are.

How so? Well, it's us that have the 4x4s, the multiple cars per family, who buy the latest gadgets, chuck stuff out the moment it looks a bit used, take several flights a year, and rarely use public transport. In short, we're the ones who have the huge carbon footprints, so it's only right we sort ourselves out.

"This Will Change The World"

About 10 years ago there was intense speculation on the internet about a certain project Ginger. Something amazing was about to be revealed to the World. Something, so monumental that even Steve Jobs, boss of Apple, described it as important as the PC.

Then, after literally months of frenzied Web chatter, the something was finally revealed: The Segway.

It was a 2 wheeled, self-balancing, electric vehicle for one (See picture). A very clever form of personal transport that used a gyro to keep it upright regardless of the terrain.

So what's happened to it since? Well, it's still around, believe it or not, although it's hardly the World changer it was promised to be. There are several reasons for this lack of impact: The first is that you look a bit...odd on one. Like someone saying "Hey! Look at me!". Yes, it certainly gets you noticed. Just not in the way driving a Ferrari might; The second issue is the price. At the time of writing, a basic version will set you back £4795! So they're basically the playthings of the wealthy (JK of Jamiroquai has got some).

To date, only about 50,000 have been sold.

I kind of hoped that they might come down in price like many 'gadgets', but no chance there: They seem to be steadily getting more expensive.

I guess the technology makes the Segway so pricey (The gyros; a clever battery; robust design; etc.), but imagine if these things were priced like mopeds? Then they really might be a world changer: Eco-friendly transport for the masses.

Imagine that.

Who are the IPCC?

The Background
Earlier this year, a 'scandal' broke out over the inaccurate claim made by an influential body called the IPCC that, due to global warming, the Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035. Fast-forward to August 29th and a review committee set-up by the UN in the wake of that scandal, issues a report that recommends many reforms for the IPCC but also praises them for their work generally.

So who are the IPCC?
IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was set-up by the UN in 1988 to look at the risks of climate change and publish reports detailing the potential impacts, options for adaptation and/or ways to lessen the impact. It doesn't actually do any research itself but has the know-how to gather together anything relevant from the research going on around the world.

The reports are used by many governments to form their policies towards climate change like planning flood defences and setting carbon emission targets.

The mistake
The last major report was published in 2007 and was 3000 pages long with an 'executive summary' for people who haven't the time to read the main report. It was this main report that contained the gaff about those glaciers, but this was based on a comment made by a single scientist in a magazine interview back in 1999! The IPCC's own rules should have ensured that the comment was checked before inclusion but it slipped through. The prediction was not only wrong, it was badly wrong: It has been calculated that it would actually take at least 300 years before the glaciers disappeared, not 30 or so.

An embarassing mistake for sure. Particularly from such an influential organisation.

The Politics
Climate change deniers hate that influence and want the IPCC disbanded. They were no doubt hoping that this mistake would be their downfall. Instead, they have to be content with the review group's list of criticisms.

In truth, this review will probably do the IPCC a lot of good: In today's new reality, they and their work need to be above reproach. They have now been presented with the framework to do just that. Put it in place and they're likely to come out stronger and even more influential.

That is just what the World needs for the challenging times ahead.