Bones Environment

2011 Durban Climate Conference: No New Ground Broken?

2011-12-12T05:48:00.000-08:00

Might be hailed by pundits as a renewed commitment to renew the global campaign to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions, does the 2011 Durban Climate Conference really offer significant improvement over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set to expire in 2012?

By: Ringo Bones

South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabana who was appointed president of this year’s Durban Climate Conference might had managed to fast track herself for future Nobel Peace Prize nominations if you truly believe the hype surrounding the alleged success of the 2011 Durban Climate Conference. But like most hardcore environmentalists that has been subjected to vituperation by the American Evangelical right since 1995 when it comes to whether climate change is real, I highly doubt it if this year’s climate conference is really a step beyond the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set to expire next year. After all, India, Mainland China, and the United States – today’s top three generators of greenhouse gasses via industrial activity – were never signatory’s of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The only positive outcome of the 2011 Durban Climate Conference is that the “lucrative” business of carbon credits born out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol can still be able to maintain their bottom lines thanks to “token agreements” reached in the very last minutes of the Durban Climate Conference when it comes to how much polluters must pay to continue to pump out carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into our overloaded sewers in the sky in order to maintain their industrial bottom line. After all, we’re technically still in a global economic recession, aren’t we?

The 2010 Nagoya Biodiversity Conference: No New Ground Broken?

2011-01-29T04:41:00.000-08:00

Despite of providing "undocumented" trillions of dollars to the global economy, are the powers-that-be squandering the world’s biodiversity at our own peril?

By: Ringo Bones

2010 has been very much dominated by the US-China Currency War, joblessness issues and the vanishing middle class, not to mention lack of “social mobility” that has always been the hallmark of the post World War II global economy, but is our powers-that-be been ignoring the issue of biodiversity for so long now that it threatens all mankind? Though biopiracy concerns had been seriously discussed – i.e. multinational pharmaceutical companies profiting from herbs used by indigenous folks without cutting them a share of the profit, governments around the world seem to lack the political will to legislate and enforce binding agreements on how to maintain their various countries biodiversity and environmental protection.

A healthy biodiversity probably contributes ¼ of the global GDP – same as the consumer electronics industry – and yet the trillions of dollars contributed by a healthy biodiversity in the agricultural sector had been ignored at everyone’s peril. Most crops are very dependent on various insects for pollination and fruit-bearing, while some can only thrive when the microbiological diversity of the soil they are growing on is at optimal levels. And recent studies have shown that a healthy biodiversity also plays a part in sequestering carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the soil ands out of the atmosphere when they can exacerbate global warming. If the important steps to secure biodiversity are taken in 2010, maybe results – for the better – will start to show in 2011.

Crude Oil Spill Control and Mitigation Technologies: An Arrested Development?

2010-08-30T02:07:00.000-07:00

From the 1979 era “world’s worst” crude oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to the BP Deep Water Horizon spill of April 20, 2010, has crude oil spill control and mitigation technologies moving sideways for over 30 years?

By: Ringo Bones

When it comes to the worst ever industrial accident scenarios with the greatest environmental impact being prophesised by environmentalists during the past 50 years, nobody would have predicted that crude oil spills would claim their title as the top undisputed industrial disaster with the greatest environmental impact. Nuclear fission power plant accidents and chemical spills were predicted as the most probable industrial accidents that could irreparably ruin the environment and drive humanity to extinction. Yet now, it is a toss up between crude oil spills and irreversible global warming and climate change related environmental disasters caused by our insatiable “addiction” to crude oil that may spell the end of mankind. Similar crude oil spills had happened before, but the methods of mitigation and control stayed the same for 31 years despite of the increase of our consumption for the black stuff.

Back in July 3, 1979, a Mexican crude oil well named Ixtoc I began spewing crude oil in the Gulf of Campeche. By the middle of August 1979, millions of gallons of crude stretched nearly 1,000 miles (1,600-km) towards Texas and Louisiana, threatening a number of fragile wildlife habitats and a popular resort area on Padre Island. Attempts to contain the slick with booms continued into the fall of 1979, while crews worked to cap the well. Although relatively little of the crude oil reached the United States back then, more than 5 miles (8-km) of beaches were contaminated, and some of the spill remained adrift. And the full scope of such environmental disaster took years to fully assess.

Back in July 21, 1979, what could have been then the largest crude oil spill in history via supertanker mishap was narrowly averted when two supertankers filled with crude oil collided and burned at the eastern edge of the Caribbean Sea, just north of the island of Tobago. Timely cleanup response and favourable sea currents prevented extensive crude oil contamination of lucrative Caribbean beaches and thus averted what might have been – back in pre Exxon Valdez supertanker accident days – the largest crude oil spill via supertanker in history. Two supertankerfuls worth of crude oil burned at virtually 0 miles per gallon mileage rating.

Prior to the Exxon Valdez crude oil spill of 1989 and the BP Deep Water Horizon spill of April 20, 2010, the Gulf of Campeche - and potentially the Tobago coast collision of two oil supertankers of July 21, 1979 – were considered the worst crude oil spill in history. The Ixtoc I off the Gulf of Campeche contaminated the Gulf of Mexico with more than 100-million gallons (378.5-million liters) of crude oil. Back in 1979, the full environmental consequence of the tragedy was only assessed several years later.

Booms, caps, top kill and controlled burning, it seems that crude oil spill control and mitigation technologies seems to have stayed the same since 1979. And yet we are drilling offshore wells that are even too deep for helium-oxygen mix saturation divers to maintain at ever greater numbers just to satisfy our insatiable demand for crude oil. Due to our failure – and our government’s indifference to energy use conservation programs – we are transporting crude in ever greater quantities via supertankers whose spill control and mitigation measures remained unchanged for over 30 years. No, Mother Nature won’t be killed off via nuclear waste and polychlorinated biphenyls, crude oil will be the death knell for all of us.

The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: A Much Politicized Environmental Issue?

2010-05-19T05:05:00.000-07:00

Dubbed by far-right talk radio pundit Rush Limbaugh as “Obama’s Katrina”, is the Deep Horizons offshore oilrig disaster become a political rather than an environmental issue?

By: Ringo Bones

This particular environmental disaster was supposedly to remind us the urgency of lowering our carbon footprint, but unfortunately it devolved into something that can be used against the fiercest critics of US President Barack Obama. With extreme-right talk radio pundit Rush Limbaugh calling it “Obama’s Katrina”, will this disaster be the start of a conservative right-wing environmental movement in America? Not to mention that a few weeks before the disaster President Obama gave the o.k. for a proposed offshore crude oil exploration in the US East Coast.

With a carbon footprint probably just a notch below that of Paris Hilton without even enjoying the said indulgence, Rush Limbaugh will probably be the oddest environmentalist America has ever seen. Will the former Alaska governor Sarah Palin be starting her very own campaign to save the polar bears? Unfortunately, the last time the conservative far-right of America showed their environmental concerns was probably back around 1987. When they criticized the money spent in the Farm Aid concerts headlined by Guns N’ Roses and Poison would bear better results when used in greenhouse gas emissions reduction research and global warming studies. Or of their critique of McDonalds buying beef raised on the clear cutting of the Amazon Rain Forest just because these cows are 5 US cents cheaper per head than the ones raised in America near the end of the 1980s.

Politics or not, the Deep Horizons offshore oilrig disaster not only resulted in the loss of 11 oilrig workers but also the long-term environmental devastation of the Gulf of Mexico’s fragile ecosystem. With the oil leak ten times more than previously thought, this environmental disaster now threatens the livelihoods of oyster and shrimp fisheries of the state of Louisiana. Even the Biloxi Bay Chamber of Commerce had raised concerns over the livelihood impact of a widespread environmental disaster in slow motion.

During the course of the investigation, British Petroleum – the oil company that owns the Deep Horizons offshore oilrig – points the blame at TransOcean. While TransOcean points the blame at Halliburton – the company that provides the oil drilling equipment, while Halliburton returns the favor by blaming TransOcean. The endless finger pointing has started to peeve President Obama because it might allow BP to get away from paying punitive fines.

On the safety aspect of things, BP has been blamed for lax safety concerns for a Texas oil refinery explosion a few years ago. Unfortunately, the involvement of Halliburton in this latest Gulf of Mexico oil spill that could potentially be bigger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 would probably allow BP to escape scot-free from this investigation. Especially when you consider the way former US Vice President Dick Cheney runs Halliburton like his very own Mafia. The people involved in the fishing industry of the state of Louisiana and Mississippi will be getting a raw deal, just like the fishing folks of Prince William Sound 20 years before.

Earth Hour: An Exercise In Futility?

2010-04-19T04:23:00.000-07:00

Started as a way to spread awareness about climate change, does the observance of Earth Hour nothing more than an exercise in futility?

By: Ringo Bones

Remember that Native American Chief who shed a tear after witnessing drive-by litterbugs that became an environmental awareness icon of the late 1960s and early 1970s? Well, he’ll be crying double after knowing that the most easily “greenable” and “carbon neutral ready” industry – namely electricity generation – has been undermined from becoming truly environmentally friendly by our elected officials who are now beholden by the fossil fuel conglomerate. Knowing this piece of crucial info, is turning our lights for one hour this coming Saturday, March 27, sending the right message to our “carbon enslaved” elected officials that we are serious about climate change and global warming?

The polling precinct would have been a better venue of expressing our stance on climate change and global warming. And yes, I still do freely chose to switch off lights and forego Internet use for an hour this coming March 27 after a couple of weeks of rescheduling my itinerary. But I too have doubts whether turning our lights for one hour during Earth Hour will be seen by our elected officials who are now in too deep with the fossil fuel industry lobbyists as our statement of concern for caring more for our environment.

Since most of my electrical needs for my Internet and entertainment needs are met by off-the-grid power generation with my makeshift solar photo-voltaic and discarded submarine battery power source, I still chose to switch off on Earth Hour. Just because our local elected officials had been dragging their feet when it comes to plans to start carbon neutral electricity generation. But given that climate change skepticism has become intellectually fashionable these days – especially when coupled with neo-Nazism, then maybe we should express our concerns for global warming in other fronts. Not just during Earth Hour but also during election time. If the Australian environment minister, Peter Garret, managed to embroil himself in that Gunns pulp mill debacle, then maybe we should all be electing leaders who are not beholden by polluters.

Is the Climate Change Issue Getting Too Political?

2009-12-09T02:59:00.000-08:00

From cabinet ministers conducting official meetings in odd places to elected global warming deniers getting an ego boost from leaked e-mails purported to reveal global warming as a hoax, is the climate change issue becoming too political?

By: Ringo Bones

Maybe it was the news about The Maldives’ cabinet ministers conducting one of their official meetings 5 meters underwater in scuba gear to highlight the dangers of a sea level rise caused by global warming back in October 16, 2009. Or was it the iconic Nepalese cabinet ministers meeting in the Mount Everest base camp to highlight the dangers of global warming endangering the Himalayan freshwater supply by accelerated glacial melting that lasted just 5 minutes due to hypoxia concerns. Or was it the leaked e-mils purportedly to prove that climate change, global warming, and all that environmental claptrap are nothing more than Marxist-Leninist socialist propaganda out to destroy the White Anglo-Saxon Christian way of life. Whatever it is, it seems like politicians now have the loudest voice when it comes to the climate change issue and its subsequent resolution.

Probably the most damaging to the scientific validity of the overly politically driven climate change debate was those leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia. Where climate researchers Professor Phil Jones and Professor Kevin Tremberth managed to embroil themselves in a climate change scandal over the use of “value-added data. Not surprisingly, the issue of the leaked e-mails suggesting that climate change is a hoax was enthusiastically embraced by that famous climate change and global warming denier Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Boosting the ego of a known climate change denier is probably the last thing everyone on the planet earning less than 25,000 dollars a year of getting a fair deal out of the on-going UN-sponsored Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Given that the coal and crude oil lobbyists of America had managed to fund a “mercenary science” team to deny the existence of global warming for over 30 years due to their almost inexhaustible warchest. Making their demagoguery pass off as legitimate science in the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill. Thus making climate change deniers like the famed Republican Senator of Oklahoma manage to make the consensus of the final agreements reached in the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen tailored more to suit industry. Making the people who live on less than a dollar a day living in climate change prone regions victims of the political demagoguery of Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and their ilk.

Even though the UN-IPCC still defends that the science done on climate change and global warming during the past 20 years still has a valid data. I just don’t think that is still enough to convince the politicians at Capitol Hill to formulate effective measures to tackle the problem of climate change by the world's leading producer of unnecessary greenhouse gases – the United States of America. Worse still, the crude oil and coal lobbyists of America even successfully achieved to make global warming denial a part of Evangelical Christian canon during the Bush Administration, making the global fight against climate change an uphill battle – both literally and figuratively.

Bhopal’s Toxic Legacy

2009-12-04T01:34:00.000-08:00

After becoming synonymous with the corporate world’s callous disregard to environmental and social responsibility, will the victims of the Bhopal tragedy ever get just compensation?

By: Ringo Bones

A quarter of a century has passed since that tragic industrial accident in Bhopal, India back in December 3, 1984, and yet no one has been successfully prosecuted since then. Instead, Union Carbide had managed to conveniently blame the local rank-and-file of their pesticide plant for the tragedy. With the toxic legacy of that tragedy from 25 years ago still posing a health threat to the local inhabitants, will the victims of the Bhopal tragedy ever get the just compensation that they truly deserve?

The Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India has been set up mainly to produce the pesticide Sevin in which India being mainly an agricultural country has a high demand for the product. Unfortunately, the two main chemical precursors of the pesticide Sevin – phosgene gas and methyl isocyanate or MIC – can be very deadly to humans when released in the atmosphere – especially in very large industrial quantities.

As a widely used chemical weapon during World War I that makes people drown in their own mucus on dry land, the safety staff of the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal paid special attention to the safe handling of the phosgene gas during the manufacture of the pesticide Sevin. Though methyl isocyanate can kill humans by interfering with the oxygen-transporting properties of hemoglobin, the safety staff assumed that methyl isocyanate is not as toxic as phosgene gas on a gram-by-gram basis, so they placed a lesser importance on its handling safety in comparison to phosgene. Or is it because phosgene has a more familiar smell akin to a combination of newly mown grass and crushed green tomatoes while no one – prior to the tragedy of Bhopal back in 1984 – knows what methyl isocyanate smells like?

Unfortunately, during the night of that fateful accident, the attending personnel had underestimated the volatility of the methyl isocyanate that are being stored in very large quantities in designated storage tanks. After a mishap with the MIC tanks cooling water system, the volatile chemical created so much pressure that it ruptured the safety valves of their storage tanks. Resulting in the release of 40,000 tons of methyl isocyanate gas windward to the sleeping residents of Bhopal. Thus initiating the most tragic industrial accident in history.

Twenty-five years later, 100,000 inhabitants of Bhopal still experience chronic health problems that resulted from the December 3, 1984 accident. Not to mention a generation of children born with genetic disorders due to their parent’s exposure to methyl isocyanate gas. Even the groundwater of Bhopal has been contaminated with carbon tetrachloride from the abandoned Union Carbide chemical plant at concentrations 1,000 times the allowable limit set by the World Health Organization. Even the cow and breast-milk analysis in Bhopal show carcinogen and teratogen levels higher than that compared to other industrial sites elsewhere in the world. Despite of environmental groups like Greenpeace pressuring the Union Carbide Corporation for just compensation for the industrial accident victims of Bhopal, it seems that the victims of history’s most tragic industrial accident has denied justice yet again. Not to mention the on-going environmental degradation that is still imperceptibly claiming victims.

A (Not So) Brief History of Asbestos

2009-11-13T06:38:00.000-08:00

A somewhat rather indispensable and somewhat unhealthy building block of our modern civilization, has our current industry completely weaned itself from asbestos?

By: Ringo Bones

There are probably only a few times in our history where the health risk of asbestos produced a significant outcry to have it banned from everyday use. One was way back in 1973 when researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York established a link between mesothelioma – a rare form of lung cancer – and workers with long-term asbestos exposure. And the other one was the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center towers highlighting the dangers of old buildings built before the ban on asbestos for architectural use was fully embraced. Even the United Nations headquarters in New York are one of the few remaining buildings containing large amounts of asbestos in its structure. Even though we managed to drastically wean ourselves from asbestos (it wasn’t easy by the way) in such a short period of time, looking back to the history of its use, one could conclude that our present almost asbestos-free technological society would certainly never have happened.

Asbestos is - or was - very useful in our long march to achieve our present state of technological prosperity. Asbestos was known in ancient times. Pliny the Elder even wrote about shrouds of woven asbestos used in the cremation of the nobility. Pausanias’ “Tour of Greece” describes a lamp wick not consumed by flame as being made “Carpasian Linen” a cloth of mineral fiber from Carpasius a district in Cyprus. Plutarch also recorded “perpetual lamp wicks” in the temples of the vestal virgins. Charlemagne is fabled to have amazed guests by tossing an asbestos tablecloth into the fire to be cleansed - While Marco Polo reported a working mine and an asbestos cloth manufacturing facility in Central Asia. The modern asbestos industry began with the working of an Italian mine in 1868. And the large-scale industrial production began with the discovery of asbestos in Quebec, Canada. Thanks to our search for a better steam engine.

Unlike other man-made products that were later on found out to be serious carcinogens, asbestos is neither man-made nor derived via the chemical processing of crude oil. It occurs as a natural mineral. Asbestos occurs in the form of veins and lenses within rock bodies as a byproduct of geologic metamorphism. And there are two main types of asbestos minerals, namely: serpentine and amphibole. Quite ironic for a serious environmental pollutant that is 100% natural.

Serpentine asbestos is also known as chrysotile whose chemical makeup is a hydrated form of magnesium silicate. Chrysotile makes up about 95% of the asbestos commercially mined making it the most important variety in terms of extraction and usage. Its fibers are of superior length, flexibility, fineness, and tensile strength. Chrysotile is found in rock as lustrous greenish veins. Its fibers are so fine that a single pound of this mineral provides almost six miles of asbestos thread. The fiber has a tensile strength that equals some grades of steel – i.e. 80,000 to 100,000 lb. per sq. in. Chrysotile asbestos possesses excellent resistance to heat, but turns progressively more brittle as temperature rises to about 400ºC.

Amphibole asbestos varieties that are commercially useful are crocidolite, anthophyllite, amosite, tremolite, and actinolite. Crocidolite asbestos is a soda-iron amphibolite and is also known as blue or Cape Blue asbestos because of its dull-blue color. Its fibers are of higher tensile strength (100,000 to 300,000 lb. per sq. in.) than those of chrysotile asbestos but crocidolite asbestos fuses at relatively lower temperatures.

Anthophyllite asbestos has a chemical makeup of magnesium-iron silicate type of asbestos that is composed of long coarse fibers of low tensile strength, while amosite asbestos is an iron-rich variation of the anthophyllite asbestos with a gray to brown color.

Tremolite asbestos, a calcium-containing magnesium silicate variant of chrysotile asbestos, is composed of fine silky fibers with a gray to white color. Tremolite asbestos is also the first form of asbestos that was widely used. While actinolite asbestos is a variant of tremolite asbestos where iron substitutes for as much as 2% of the magnesium in its chemical composition.

Asbestos is both quarried in open pits and mined in tunnels. The asbestos is initially removed manually from large pieces of quarried or mined rock matrix with the aid of a small hammer in an operation called cobbing. In later stages of the mining process, the asbestos fibers are removed from the crushed and screened matrix by air streams.

Crude asbestos is graded according to fiber length, fineness, flexibility, tensile strength, and infusibility. The longer fibers are carded and spun, sometimes with the addition of cotton thread. The spun fiber is woven into asbestos fabrics of varying thickness and densities. The smallest fibers, along with the rock dust from the matrix, are used to make asbestos cement. The amphibolite asbestos varieties all possess excellent resistance to chemical action, and are used to make filter pads and pipe-joint packing in chemical plants. They are also used as fillers in welding rods and plastics.

Asbestos board, a construction or insulating material is made of asbestos and portland cement molded into sheets by pressure. Asbestos paper is composed of thin sheeting of asbestos fibers bonded usually with a solution of sodium silicate. It is white, flexible and fireproof.

Belts of asbestos woven with fine brass wire are used as brake linings and to convey blast furnace slag, cement clinker, and other hot materials. Spun asbestos is made into fireproof ropes. Asbestos threads are woven into fireproof theater curtains and are also made into gloves for workers who must handle hot materials.

Given the myriad uses of asbestos in our modern technological society before it was banned in such a short period of time, it is quite a miracle that we even achieved a ban of over 90% when it comes to asbestos use. But with the looming threat of mesothelioma that first came to light in the early 1970s, the United States was among the first countries to achieve an almost total ban – greater than 90% - in the industrial and architectural use of asbestos. Even the visionary architects of the Sears Tower in Chicago decided not to use any form of asbestos during the start in its construction. After the preliminary reports of a rare form of lung cancer – i.e. mesothelioma – was uncovered by Mount Sinai Medical Center researchers during their study of workers exposed to high levels of asbestos fibers.

Given the health and environmental safety concerns of asbestos, there are even some towns in various isolated parts across the planet that were rendered as no-go areas after they were found out to contain too much free-floating asbestos particles. Such is the long-term legacy of our flirtation with asbestos – not to mention the probable long-term health concerns for workers involved in jobs with high asbestos exposure; Especially ship-breaking and working in old buildings with large amounts of old asbestos insulation.

Copenhagen Climate Conference: An Environmental New Deal?

2009-11-10T04:28:00.000-08:00

As the final make-or-break deal on establishing climate change mitigation treaties, will the world dealers finally chose the environment over easy but carbon intensive corporate profits?

By: Ringo Bones

Unlike the end of Communism in Europe and the fall of the Berlin Wall, which inspired Francis Fukuyama to write The End of History. When it comes to curbing our global industry’s output of harmful greenhouse gas emissions, environmentalism seems to have been left by the curbside in comparison to other movements aimed to improve civil liberties around the world. But compared to the excesses of Marxist-Leninist Socialism – where anyone could have just been easily imprisoned if he or she voiced out that this is not what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels intended socialism to be. Environmentalism seems to have been trampled underfoot for over 30 years or so by that supposed bastion of democracy called Western Capitalism.

While the Barcelona Climate Conference – dubbed both as the precursor and “dress rehearsal” for the upcoming UN Climate conference in Copenhagen in December 16, 2009 – failed to established binding targets when it comes to setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions by newly-industrialized countries like China and India. UN Climate chief Yvo de Boer now has doubts whether the upcoming “bigger” UN Climate conference in Copenhagen will achieve anything substantial in establishing a replacement treaty for the aging and largely ineffective Kyoto Protocol.

As far back as February of 2009, the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Conference was dubbed as the “Now and Forever” agreement. Because it was billed to establish binding treaties on greenhouse gas emissions that would minimize the worse effects of climate change like sea level rise and droughts for the next 50 to 100 years or so. Sadly, the corporate giants that built their edifices via the burning of coal, crude oil, and other fossil fuels had always found the political and economic clout to trump their profit earnings over the needs of our environment. Recession is no longer an excuse in placing our environment in peril.

Will the upcoming UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen in December 16, 2009 offer something different and more substantial in comparison to previous climate conferences? Well, I hope so because a lot has been riding on it. If corporate profits manage to trump environmental needs yet again, we might just kiss the Maldives and Tuvalu goodbye. Because these little pieces of paradise will vanish beneath the waves if global warming continues unmitigated. While former US Vice President Al Gore has been very busy doing his part in convincing everyone to do their part in lowering our carbon footprint in the hopes of convincing the policymakers around the world that our environment still matters. Which I just hope that this would convince the world leaders attending the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen would favor the needs of our environment and the common people this time around. Lest everyone forgets that climate change caused by global warming is already a global problem. Who knows, this might be the environmental movements “End of History” moment.

Ozone and Climate Friendly Air-Conditioning Units Anyone?

2009-09-14T18:08:00.000-07:00

Will increased consumer demand of supposedly ozone-friendly HCFC-based air-conditioning unit causes it to become a new threat to our still recovering ozone layer?

By: Ringo Bones

There has been an increasing demand for air-conditioning units, especially in emerging economic powerhouses like China and India during the past few years. Even though HCFC-based air conditioning units which are supposedly twenty times less damaging than the CFC-based units that they replaced become our ozone layer’s latest threat due to the sheer number of units being sold?

HCFC-based refrigerants - like R22 – is the refrigerant currently being used in air conditioning units is less damaging to the ozone layer than its CFC-based predecessors – which were phased out during the late 1980s in compliance with the Montreal Accord. Unfortunately due to its high specific heat rating, R22 is a very potent greenhouse gas – which also made it to be phased out by the latest revision of the Montreal Protocol by either the year 2020 or 2030.

Fortunately, some air conditioning unit manufacturers due have a sense of corporate social responsibility. Like GREE of China whose R&D engineers are busy searching for alternatives to produce a truly environmentally friendly air-conditioning unit.
Under evaluation of GREE’s R&D engineers is the refrigerant R410A which is much less ozone depleting than R22. Unfortunately, R410A is a more potent greenhouse gas than the HCFC-based R22 and is currently used as a stop gap measure before more ozone and climate friendly alternatives can be found.

Another refrigerant evaluated for air conditioning use is R290 – which for all intents and purposes is propane – a cooking range fuel. It is totally ozone layer friendly, but it has some greenhouse effect causing properties like its cousin methane. The primary caveat of R290 is its flammability, but since it is already produced on an industrial scale, it also has an advantage of relative cheapness in comparison to other refrigerants.

Existing / conventional air conditioning unit technology that’s currently being sold on the market still uses refrigerant gases that has a specific heat much higher than that of liquid water to make them work efficiently. All of them have greenhouse effect causing properties, and halogen-based refrigerants – especially those containing chlorine and fluorine in their molecular structure – will certainly deplete our still recovering ozone layer. There are other air conditioning unit technologies that doesn’t use refrigerant gases that has ozone and greenhouse effect potential. Like air conditioning units that cools a room using ultrasonic sound far above the audible range of our hearing. It has been proven to work. If only some major appliance manufacturers start making them to be sold at a keen price.

Of Piracy and Environmental Degradation

2009-04-27T18:08:00.000-07:00

Though it is already common knowledge that most of our on-going conflicts have environmental causes, is the scourge of piracy in the Gulf of Aden have their roots in environmental degradation?

By: Ringo Bones

Ever since it became fashionable – or just right – to award worthy eco-activists the Nobel Peace Prize, the world-at-large has now become more aware the strong link between most of our on-going military conflicts and of environmental degradation. Even though at present eco-activists like the 2004 Nobel Peace laureate Wangari Maathai and 2007 Nobel Peace laureate Al Gore are too busy to point out the environmental roots of the on-going scourge of piracy in the waters of the Gulf of Aden. The question now is, is the on-going scourge of piracy in the Gulf of Aden can be traced to environmental degradation?

Even though it was the dramatic rescue of the Maersk Alabama skipper Capt. Richard Phillips by the US Navy SEAL team that grabbed the headlines. The lesser-known environmental scourge off the coast of Somalia – namely the illegally dumped hazardous toxic chemical and radioactive wastes – has been largely ignored for more than a decade.

During the past few years, proof have started to emerge that points out that the waters of the Gulf of Aden had been used as an illegal toxic hazardous waste dump. The United Nations envoy for Somalia Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah said that there is “reliable information” that European and Asian companies are dumping toxic wastes, including nuclear wastes, off the Somali coastline for over 20 years. Which could explain why a majority of the Somali pirates are former fisherman who can no longer eke out a living from their ancestral fishing grounds due to the environmental devastation caused by the illegal dumping of these hazardous toxic chemical and radioactive wastes.

It was primarily the tsunami of December 26, 2004 that literally dumped the evidence of such illegally dumped toxic and radioactive wastes on the beaches of northern Somalia. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) reported that that the tsunami had washed up rusting containers of illegally dumped toxic wastes in the shores of Puntland.

UNEP spokesman Nick Nuttall states that when the barrels were smashed open by the force of the waves, the containers exposed a “frightening activity” that has been going on for more than a decade. The bad news is that the UNEP cannot simply send scientists to collect evidence and various data of the illegally dumped hazardous wastes on the shores of Puntland in Somalia so that it can be fully vetted and peer approved. Because of the on-going conflict there poses a clear and present danger, which the scientists could be, kidnapped and held for ransom by lawless elements. Worse still, given the UN-style bureaucracy, the peer approval and vetting process of the data proving the existence of the illegally dumped hazardous toxic wastes and radioactive wastes in the Gulf of Aden could take a long while.

Even though there has already been talks in the UN to bolster the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Somali government in order to effectively tackle the scourge of piracy. In the long-term solution would be to tackle the issue of environmental degradation – which is the root cause of the scourge of piracy in this region – should be addressed. And given that the commercial shipping traffic can – and would eventually – just find an alternative route whenever the insurance premiums exceed the fuel expenditure and length of travel time, the environmental problems faced by Somalis could easily be swept under the rug.

Earth Day: Strange Days Through The Years?

2009-04-12T20:27:00.000-07:00

Ever since everyone around the world began celebrating Earth Day as a show of concern for the world environment, has it been more rhetoric than action?

By: Ringo Bones

Ever since its start in America back in April 22, 1970, the annual observance of Earth Day – which has since become a global phenomena – was always seen by the skeptical as a prime example of an exercise in futility. After all, what good does it accomplish if citizens recycle and adopt a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle while their elected officials are “beholden” by the highly-polluting conglomerates who are empowered to keep their environmentally destructive industries as long as the government gets some of the profits.

Although the growing environmental awareness since that fateful day back in 1970 eventually prompted then US president Richard M. Nixon to sign the Clean Water Act of 1972. But the clouds of speculation hangs on whether his adoption of a “green conscience” was merely a reflection of his guilt of doing a bad job while serving as the leader of the free world has always been a subject of speculation. But all things considered, is our annual Earth Day celebrations that had came before only serve to highlight the uneasy relationship between those in power and the growing cadre of the environmentally-aware multitude?

Our annual observance of Earth Day did manage to get across the message of environmental awareness through the years. Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, news about the extent of illegal toxic waste dumps and the resulting groundwater and wetland contamination did manage to get printed on the front page – if not headline status. As opposed to being relegated to an obscure column on page 26. News about finding ways to efficiently harness renewable energy sources and finding alternatives to greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuel-burning energy sources started to be seen as factual progress in science, rather than mere science fiction stories published by the liberal press. So too does the search for less dangerous alternatives to our current nuclear fission power plants.

While the start of the 1990s did hold promise when then US president George H.W. Bush – or President Bush Senior – signed the Executive Ban on crude oil exploration on the continental United States, which provided both incentive and urgency to search for more environmentally friendly alternatives to crude oil - thus proving that the US Government is not “beholden” to the crude oil lobby back then. Add to that the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm which highlighted the high cost of America’s over-dependence on imported crude oil not only in environmental terms, but also politically as well.

But it all went downhill when the Republican Party managed to gain control of US legislature in a 1995 mid-term election. The “Think globally, act locally” mantra of Clinton Administration-era environmentalism was starting to become an object of ridicule of those in the extreme Christian Right. Thus paving the way for President George “Dubya” Bush and his Neo-Conservative Cabal to roll back every progress made with regards to environmental law legislation of the past 30 years. Probably the weirdest thing that the Bush Administration’s Neo-Conservative Cabal managed to do to undermine environmentalism is their success in labeling it as a “heathen ideology” and “not part of Christendom”, while allowing the petroleum / crude oil lobby free reign on Capitol Hill.

But the Bush Administration’s disregard for environmental concerns did eventually create a backlash. It made former US presidential candidate Al Gore’s Myspace-and-personal-You-Tube-site-made-into-a-movie called The Inconvenient Truth a global blockbuster success, and probably the only documentary film that is pirated in Southeast Asia. So does Leonardo DiCaprio’s 11th Hour. All of which made environmentalism fashionable again like it was during the late 1960s Flower Power revolution.

Even though the Bush Administration / Republican Party “stuck to their guns” when it comes to the rhetoric about their take on the environmentalism versus America’s economic security issue, their hackneyed rhetoric literally backfired on them during the height of the 2008 US Presidential Campaign when the Republican Party constituents failed to save Lehman Brothers in spite of giving the oil and coal lobby free reign on Capitol Hill. Thus denying them a “third term” and securing the victory of Barack Obama as America’s next president.

While the positive results of the Obama Administration’s overhaul of the Bush Administration’s profits over the environment policies are yet to be seen, crucial steps are now made to truly tackle the problem of global warming after it has been swept under the rug during the past eight years. And we have also learned something from the eight-year environmental nightmare of the Bush Administration that to save our environment effectively, the almost 40-year mantra of: reduce, reuse, and recycle should also include conscientious choices that should be made in the polling place. Remember that politicians now play a major part in our ability to protect our environment. Setting aside April 22 as Earth Day back in 1970 is a good thing, but everyone should be reminded to protect our planet everyday of the year, especially now where our environmental problems affects us globally.

Hormone-Mimicking Plastic Softeners: Killing Every Living Thing?

2009-04-07T02:22:00.000-07:00

Are plastic softeners – a convenience item of our overly industrialized society – inexorably killing every form of life on the surface of the Earth?

By: Ringo Bones

Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund had been calling for a ban on plastic softeners for a number of years, because of their deleterious effects on biological reproduction as a hormone mimic. The two leading environmental groups were concerned of the effects of plastic softeners on developing infants because these chemicals are usually found in babies’ teething rings. And when these plastics break down, they don’t only release hormone mimics, which can lead to future developmental and fertility problems. But also significant levels of dioxins as these plastics age.

Plastic softeners are now so ubiquitous in the industrialized world that incidents of infertility on us humans are on the rise. Plastic softeners can even be found in flexible PVC – i.e. polyvinyl chloride – floor tiles, which release the hormone-mimicking plastic softeners every time they are washed. Over time, these hormone-mimicking plastic softeners wind up in the marine ecosystem. Tests done on marine animals like fish, mollusks, and crustaceans show substantial amounts of these hormone-mimicking plastic softeners. Not only affecting these animals’ reproductive health, but given they form a significant portion of our diet, but also the reproductive health of people as well.

These hormonally potent plastic softeners has a robust enough chemical structure to survive their journey into the Arctic regions. Biologist studying the Arctic wildlife recently discovered male polar bears with multiple penises during the past few years. While infertility of the female polar bear population is on the rise. Given that global warming is already affecting the polar bear’s food supply, the effects of hormone-mimicking plastic softeners only hasten the polar bear’s journey into extinction.

Even though widespread data now document the deleterious effects of hormone-mimicking plastic softeners, policymakers are very reluctant in legislating laws banning these chemicals. Not because they are ignoring the scientifically verifiable data that’s available, but it is because most of them are already “beholden” by these multi-billion dollar multinational petrochemical corporations. Plus, plastic manufacturers say that finding substitutes cost time and vast sums of money, which will have to be eventually passed to us – the consumer as higher-priced goods. But given what’s at stake, it seems like inaction will only do more harm. Not only to our ever-diminishing wildlife, but to our future generations as well.

Earth Hour: Symptoms of Our Bad Energy Policy?

2009-03-23T08:13:00.000-07:00

Does a call to suspend our electrical energy use for one hour can mean a vote against the policy maker’s bad and environmentally unsustainable energy policies?

By: Ringo Bones

Saturday, March 28, 2009 has been earmarked as this year’s Earth Hour as the 80 or so countries around the world pledge to make a stand against global warming. Whatever time zone your country belongs to, when it hits 8:30 in the evening, you have the option to show your solidarity to protest against our policymaker’s bad and environmentally unsustainable energy generation policies. By switching off your domestic lighting – or other high-powered electrical appliance – by one hour, you can vote in favor of our environment and the adoption of alternative energy programs. But is this all in the end just an exercise in futility?

During the 2008 US Presidential Elections, the American people voted for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party due to their more environmentally friendly energy policies. Americans probably got fed-up with the strong-arm lobbying tactics of the coal and crude oil / petroleum industry in Capitol Hill that the voting results of the 2008 US Presidential Election’s showed a “green theme”. Politicians who promised environmentally sustainable energy policies won over those who favored profits and short-term gains. If this trend continues, then this year’s Earth Hour could be an overwhelming success.

Even though I have a 10,000 watt-capable solar photovoltaic / rechargeable lead-acid battery power generating system. It only serves as an energy bill saving measure. Since our local mains electricity is still unfortunately 100% coal-fired – or other forms of greenhouse gas generating fossil fuels. Even though it is – according to the utility company – clean coal technology, it doesn’t produce acid rain anymore (?). There are still concerns that it produces billions of tons of carbon dioxide annually that our local electricity consumption’s contribution to global warming and climate change can’t simply be overlooked.

As the energy conservation side of curbing our civilization’s greenhouse gas generation, Earth Hour could serve to remind us about the inconvenient truth behind our strives for an ever more convenient lifestyle using our current carbon dioxide emitting infrastructure is not doing our planet any good at all. Even the hype behind carbon capture and sequestration now looks suspect if we won’t take steps now in outgrowing our greenhouse gas emitting technological infrastructure.

Cloud-Seeding: A Geo-Engineering Tool?

2009-02-11T06:45:00.000-08:00

Since its first field-test in 1946 to it’s most recent press exposure during the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics as a means of pollution control, can cloud-seeding be used to curb global warming?

By: Ringo Bones

As of late, the on-going drought that plagued farmers of Northern and Central china have the Beijing Government yet again resigned their fate to the “somewhat unreliable” technology of cloud-seeding – i.e. artificial rain. The Chinese military – under the unblinking gaze of extensive press coverage – are now using all available means at their disposal to make it rain so that their farmers can have water to irrigate their crops.

Every conceivable method was used from silver iodide / potassium iodide laden anti-aircraft artillery projectiles being fired at rain-bearing clouds to surface-to-air missiles carrying silver iodide / potassium iodide dispensers being flown into rain-bearing clouds in the hopes of creating enough rain for viable farming. Despite of its relative unreliability, can cloud-seeding still be a viable geo-engineering tool to lessen the impact of global warming?

The Bergeron-Findeisen Theory of Rain or the ice-crystal theory of rain has led to our most hopeful attempts to influence the behavior of clouds since primitive man danced his first rain dance. The artificial seeding of rain-clouds – or cloud-seeding – was first developed in 1946 by General Electric’s Vincent J. Schaefer and Irving Langmuir. The principle behind it seems to be a model of logic and simplicity: to introduce into a cloud formation of super-cooled droplets a substance or agent that promotes the formation of ice crystals in which it can fall back to the ground as precipitation or rain.

Two substances proved promising. One was silver iodide (as of late was frequently substituted with the much-cheaper potassium iodide), whose crystalline structure is similar to that of natural ice crystals and therefore provide a hospitable nuclei on which ice crystals can readily form. The other one is solid carbon dioxide - or dry ice – which is so cold that it causes atmospheric water vapor to solidify into enormous numbers of tiny ice crystals. Tiny pellets of dry ice are usually sown into a cloud from airplanes, while silver iodide or potassium iodide is released as smoke, sometimes from an airplane and sometimes from the ground. In both cases, precipitation should follow according to the Bergeron-Findeisen Theory.

Even though our present cloud-seeding efforts either via aircraft dispensing very fine particles of silver iodide / potassium iodide or solid carbon dioxide (dry ice) doesn’t always result in precipitation or rain. Cloud-seeding also has a very promising geo-engineering and weather control potential in slowing down the catastrophic impact of global warming.

The process can help the formation of clouds that can help reflect the incoming infrared spectrum of the solar radiation back out into space. These clouds can be induced to form by seeding cool, moist but cloudless air with very fine silver iodide crystals via dispenser-bearing aircraft. Manufactured clouds like these could also be used to help farmers by preventing the formation of frost over acres of farmland by trapping heat that would otherwise be radiated back out into space. Given these potential benefits, why aren’t cloud-seeding efforts being done more often?

The problem is flying large fleet of aircraft to create the necessary cloud formation needed to lessen the incoming infrared radiation from the Sun also creates a very large carbon footprint in the form of carbon dioxide. The very greenhouse gas we are also minimizing in order to lessen the catastrophic impact of global warming. Though solar-powered / photovoltaic unmanned aircraft are already being tested, these are carbon neutral enough to do the job in the future because there are still too few of them at the present. But who knows what tomorrow might bring even though we are racing against time in lessening the catastrophic impact of global warming and climate change via our yet untested methods of geo-engineering.

The Hidden Dangers of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration

2009-01-07T06:43:00.000-08:00

In an effort to stave-off global warming due to the excessive carbon dioxide by-product of coal-fired power plants, is carbon dioxide capture and sequestration really a sensible environmental solution?

By: Ringo Bones

The relative abundance and cheapness of coal means we’ll be using this fossil fuel for a few centuries more given our current use for electric power generation. But they do have one serious drawback: excessive carbon dioxide output. Given that carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas generated by our industrial processes – namely electricity production. Science has recently devised a scheme to allow us to generate cheap electricity from burning coal while “supposedly” avoiding the harmful consequences of the global warming effects of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide via carbon dioxide capture and sequestration.

The concept is by no means an ideal solution even though most coal-fired power plants built after the year 2000 are already doing it, but is carbon dioxide capture and sequestration – usually shortened in the mainstream press as “carbon capture and sequestration”. Especially when injecting the gas underground or deep into the ocean floor for long-term storage (hopefully forever) really good for our environment?
Though global warming is primarily caused by excessive carbon dioxide being dumped into our atmosphere as a by-product of our current industrial activity. The gas can only do harm when it is in our atmosphere. Devise a method to capture it from the flue gases of the coal-fired power plant’s chimney and store it somewhere away from our atmosphere is one brilliant solution to minimize our contribution to global warming. Power loss aside, is carbon dioxide capture and sequestration absolutely safe for our environment?

A reminder of what can possibly go wrong in carbon capture and sequestration schemes is the Lake Nyos tragedy that occurred in Cameroon back in August 21, 1986. A Limnic eruption of the crater-lake of Lake Nyos resulted in the sudden release of a large cloud of carbon dioxide gas. The incident caused the suffocation of 1,700 people inhabiting on several nearby villages’ downhill from the lake and also resulted in the death of 3,500 head of cattle and other livestock. Though not completely unprecedented, it was the first known large-scale asphyxiation caused by a natural event.

Even though the capture of the carbon dioxide gas by-product from the coal-fired power plant’s flue gases via amine-based separation solvent is a proven technology. Regenerating the solvent for the next cycle after extracting the carbon dioxide gas and its transport and storage into a supposedly safe long-term storage area requires energy. The solvent separation and regeneration part usually from the coal-fired power plant itself, so it is an energy intensive process resulting in the generation of extra amounts of carbon dioxide gas.

Then there’s the problem of where to store the sequestered carbon dioxide. The site selected for long-term storage should be geologically stable or there will be a repeat of the Lake Nyos incident to those people living downwind and downhill from the storage facility – given that carbon dioxide is 1.5 times denser than air. Plus detectors that trigger alarm bells when carbon dioxide gas levels in the atmosphere rises to lethal levels are not exactly cheap – nor are they commonly available.
Given our future energy demands are likely to increase, using carbon capture and sequestration to offset the carbon dioxide being thrown into our atmosphere by the new coal-fired power plants is an exercise in futility. Geologically stable sites for long-term carbon dioxide storage are not exactly dime a dozen and the increasing output of carbon dioxide by coal-fired power plants are only going to increase in the future if the coal lobbyists get their way.

For our long-term future, carbon dioxide capture and sequestration from coal-fired power plants should only be seen as a stop gap measure. Before we can develop energy sources and electricity generation schemes that doesn’t generate excessive amounts of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that will surely exacerbate the effects of global warming.

2008: The Year of the Embattled Frog?

2008-12-14T07:21:00.000-08:00

Long thought of as the canary in the mine – or the indicator species - of the outside world, are all of the world’s species of frogs in danger of extinction?

By: Vanessa Uy

According to the Chinese Zodiac, 2008 is the Year of the Rat. But given the sorry state of our natural environment, 2008 might be remembered in retrospect as the year of the embattled frog since many of them are dying as a sign that our natural environment is in peril. As an indicator species, frogs dying in record numbers could be one of our most reliable indicators that our wasteful lifestyle is inevitably destroying our planet.

Frogs of temperate regions like in Northern Europe are now at risk of the cytrid fungus, which has managed to spread to previously colder climes due to global warming. Even though some scientists still blame the spread of the cytrid fungus in the industrialized West to the importation of the African clawed frog from 1935 to 1950 for use as a pregnancy test. European Frogs are unusually susceptible to the cytrid fungus since the fungus is an invasive species and European Frogs have not yet developed immunity to the cytrid fungus.

A native of Continental Africa, the cytrid fungus only exists in very limited numbers in its pristine and undisturbed environment, but widespread environmental destruction throughout Africa. Like illegal logging and slash-and-burn farming methods had upset the balance of biodiversity that existed for millions of years. This not only endangered Africa’s native frog species, but it also sent the cytrid fungus into a population explosion plus with the help of global warming allowed the fungi to gain a foothold in the European continent via globalization-oriented trading and shipping practices.

If the current environmental destruction continues, zoos and aquariums of private collectors might be the only places in the near future where we can see a live frog. These zoos and aquariums are even now already doing their part via captive breeding program of frog species that are seriously endangered. But there is one minor snag, given that heavily industrialized European countries that can afford such programs have a naturally dry climate. Certainly an ill suited home for frogs that are designed by Mother Nature to live in the Amazon Rain Forest. Though professional breeders had managed to breed rare frogs in captivity by increasing the relative humidity of their frog enclosures and also managed to control the cytrid fungus via over the counter aquarium fungicides.

Is a Meat-Free Diet Good for the Planet?

2008-12-01T07:20:00.000-08:00

Given that our current food production methods had a very large carbon footprint and extensive fresh water usage – especially meat production. Will vegetarianism and / or going vegan be good for our planet?

By: Ringo Bones

Current studies suggest that if Americans reduce their annual meat consumption by 10%, enough grain would be saved / freed that can provide nourishment to 60 million people. Imagine being able to help humanitarian organizations like the UN’s World Food Programme just by reducing your annual meat consumption. Plus livestock, like cattle, are significant contributors of greenhouse gasses like methane being discharged into the atmosphere. Given that methane has 20% more heat trapping capability than carbon dioxide, this does spell good news for our planet. What is good for our planet is also indeed good for our health – i.e. a reduced meat diet.

Despite the late 20th Century clarification of nomenclature, vegetarianism had been supplanted by the word vegan to mean someone who consumes only plant-derived food products. Looks like eating your vegetables with eggs, milk, and fish doesn’t make you a vegetarian anymore. Semantics aside does consuming chiefly vegetables be doing a lot of good for our planet’s environment? The legalese and rigmarole surrounding the issue could surprise you.

The good news is that it does, but given our current methods of agriculture – especially when it comes to growing food crops like grain and vegetables on an industrial scale – does not exactly pass muster as being truly Earth-friendly, especially when it comes to land and water usage. On a land area basis, it takes 8.9 square meters of arable farmland to grow 1 kilogram of corn grain. While the land area required in raising one kilogram of meat is equal to 20.9 square meters. This is due to the fact that livestock, on average, usually consume close to 10 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of meat.

Since drinkable water / freshwater has over the years slowly became a very precious indispensable natural resource due to our systemic mismanagement of it. It would be noteworthy to also mention that it takes on average 1,000 liters of water to produce a kilogram of wheat. While to produce 1 kilogram of meat consumes 10,000 liters of water. Basing on these figures alone - by consuming less meat while our assembly-line agricultural system maintains its water-wasteful practices, we can still do a lot of good to our environment by just cutting out the amount of meat that we consume. Every little bit counts.

Is Organic Agriculture Still Profitable?

2008-11-24T07:25:00.000-08:00

Even though the organic farming / agriculture industry is now worth several billion US dollars worldwide, there are many who question it’s profitability when compared to mass produced low retail cost rivals. Is it just mere marketing ploy?

By: Ringo Bones

More that just a “If we build it, they will come” kind of industry, organic farming or organic agriculture is more than just a profit-driven business. It started out due to increasing ethical concerns over the negative side effects of conventional intensive chemical pesticide and chemical fertilizer dependent agricultural methods born out of post World War II Green Revolution. Even though the first Green Revolution kept our less fortunate brethren from starving for most of the 20th Century, many now question if our current industrialized food production systems is slowly but inexorably doing irreparable harm to our environment.

When European settlers first came to the New World, their then environmentally compatible method of agriculture made them wealthy plus the bonus of a safe and secure supply of food. Years later when these small settlements grew into big cities, most of the money was still made in the countryside farms rather than the banks and the brokerage firms within walking distance from the ports. So “armchair economists” at the time with a disdain for the old fashioned Protestant Work Ethic tested out their rigmarole-driven money making schemes which sadly became the groundwork for futures trading and commodities trading. Their “new economic model” was the major factor that caused farmers to adopt high-volume high-profit farming methods with inherently questionable environmental sustainability. Given that Mother Nature seriously abhors such ecologically perverted practices thus making the large-scale use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers a necessity, rather than as a corrective measure.

The folly of this system manifested itself during the early part of 2008 when the move from futures trading to commodities trading of agrarian produce caused the skyrocketing food prices. Causing food riots in various parts of the world. But is there a way out of this somewhat conundrum?

Currently, the organic farming / organic agriculture industry only provides a quarter of the food that’s currently available on the market. In my opinion, the money being spend on agricultural research and development should be spent on improving or increasing the yield capacity of organic farming methods, rather than on genetically modified organisms with questionable effects on our environment and ecosystem. Given that the corporate entities that manufacture these genetically modified crops and their support chemicals had been devoid of any semblance of corporate social responsibility for the past 40 years or so (remember the Agent Orange fiasco) only gives credence to everyone clamoring for agricultural industry reforms.

EU ’s Environmental Commitment: A Breath of Fresh Air?

2008-10-26T07:49:00.000-07:00

Despite the daunting global financial crisis, the European Union pledges to stick with their plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions to combat global warming. Will they make it?

By: Ringo Bones

Maybe it was during 2007 when German Chancellor Angela Merkel proverbially sticking to her guns by proposing stricter emission and fuel economy quotas on cars manufactured in the European Union despite of the extremely limited legislative powers posed by such laws. Luckily, not only being green became “unexpectedly fashionable” throughout the EU for the rest of 2007. But the world’s most famous environmentalist Al “An Inconvenient Truth” Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, further reinforcing the link between global climate stability with global political stability.

When the Credit Crunch finally reared it’s ugly head throughout Europe after slowly devastating the US economy since it’s start near the end of July 2007. Many nations around the world similarly affected by the credit crunch began to wonder if they could keep to their commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Especially since renewable energy systems are currently still very expensive due to the low volume of production. But during their meeting on how to tackle the global economic crisis brought about by the US credit crunch, EU leaders surprisingly reached a consensus to stick with their previous commitments on gradually reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by introducing the wide scale use of renewable energy systems. By not conceding to abandon their pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the EU is indeed sending a message throughout the world of their leadership role in tackling climate change.

Though the environmental movement for a cleaner industry started in the United States, even the spin-off of the Sierra Club called Blue Green Alliance has been promoting environmentally friendly industries that provide jobs for blue collar workers. Like the United Steelworkers – the largest industrial union in North America - back in June 2006. The Blue Green Alliance managed to thrive despite of the Bush Administration’s anti-environment Neo-Conservatives running the government and fiercely lobbying at Capitol Hill only for their own interests.

To me, this is quite a “breath of fresh air” both figuratively and literally. Given that the Bush Administration was unabashedly pro crude oil when it comes to their energy policy. Even their energy independence plans are still crude oil lobbyist driven. For the European Union to pursue the more Earth-friendly path of renewable energy – despite of the high initial cost – is really commendable. Looks like the moral ability to lead has now moved on to the EU. Will the next US administration prove better when it comes to legislating laws that would protect the world’s environment?

Green Revolution Version 2.0

2008-09-29T07:34:00.000-07:00

Despite growing concerns over high food prices due to current agricultural practices unable to meet demand, can we ever redesign our global agricultural industry to be more Earth-friendly while increasing yields to meet future demands?

By: Ringo Bones

The first quarter of 2008 will probably forever be remembered for incidents of food riots that occurred in various parts of the world due to escalating food prices. A number of factors are to blame like the NYSE ‘s shift from futures trading of food crops to commodities trading which made food prices open to speculative trading “abuse”. Then there’s the recently increased food demand from China and India due to a growing middle class that’s recently blessed with increased purchasing power ready to outbid their poorer brethren. The largely ill conceived biofuels industry backed up by the vested interest of political lobbyist has also been diverting food crops from the world’s poor to the rich man’s car. Unfair and price distorting trade practices like agricultural subsidies are also to blame. But most of all, the root cause of our agricultural industry unable to meet growing demand and keeping food prices reasonable is the lack of farming investments since 1998. Agricultural science has since languished due to lack of investment funds, not to mention the funds just needed to upgrade the agricultural technology that we already have just to maintain global food security.

Farming and agricultural science has always been perceived as “unsexy”, that’s why scientists that had great contributions to the science of food production had been denied the fame they rightfully deserved despite getting accolades like Nobel Prizes and such. This is the reason why George Washington Carver (pioneering research made America one of the world’s largest potato producer) and Norman Borlaug (father of the post-WWII Green Revolution) are about as well known as Nikola Tesla (invented AC mains electricity) and Alfred Wegener (first to theorize about continental drift). Especially in most American public schools. But can we make our existing food production practices more Earth-friendly by making it less mechanized and dependent on agricultural chemicals while increasing yields? And the thorniest question of all, should we abandon genetically modified crops because they’re use is too risky for the environment despite their manufacturer’s claim of safety?

Maybe its high time for agricultural science to develop agricultural technologies that require little or no use of farm chemicals that have an adverse effect on the environment. Nutrient-bloom inducing fertilizers that contaminate rivers and groundwater tables are a case in point. Not to mention pesticides and weed killers that are lethal to both pests and symbiotic organisms. Though genetically engineered food crops might seem a sensible choice, it’s the company that’s presently has a monopoly on them – namely the Monsanto Company – that might prevent GM crops from ever becoming commonplace. The reason behind the overwhelming majority of people resisting GM crops is mostly due to Monsanto’s “sins committed during the Vietnam War” by producing the defoliant Agent Orange whose unforeseen side-effects on both people and the environment still linger till this day. Thus making Monsanto currently one of the most hated companies on the face of the planet.

Despite of the daunting obstacles, we can always be optimistic because science had always rescued us from impending doom, even ones that are of our own making. If we haven’t developed ways to extract heating oil from crude oil, whales would have been hunted virtually to extinction long ago. But now, the race is on to end our addiction to crude oil from ruining our delicate climate.

Without the first “Green Revolution” which was spearheaded by Norman Borlaug, billions of people would have died unnecessarily during the 20th Century. And yet the race to technologically develop the next Green Revolution that’s kinder and gentler to our environment while keeping the whole or humanity reasonably fed has just reluctantly been started. Like in the various organic agriculture / organic farming schemes throughout the world.

Genetically Modified Food Crops: Too Good To Be True?

2008-08-29T04:52:00.000-07:00

After experiencing several “food riots” from the poor regions of the globe over the skyrocketing prices of staple foods during the start of 2008, is the global community deliberately resisting genetically modified foods at their own peril?

By: Ringo Bones

Often referred to as “Frankenstein Foods”, foodstuffs derived from genetically modified or GM crops never fully gained widespread acceptance outside of the United States. Especially in Europe, where their resistance of anything with a semblance of genetic tinkering being passed of as fit for human consumption, unexpectedly made the organic food industry – which started supposedly as a fad in the middle of the 1990’s - into a multi-billion dollar leviathan that it is today. Despite of selling food that’s too expensive for those people living on less than 2 US dollars a day.

The issue surrounding the debate between GM crops versus their organically (grown without the aid of pesticides and factory-produced chemical fertilizers) produced counterparts have become the de facto herald of every pro-environment / anti-globalization / anti-capitalist movement in search of “Imperial Ambitions” in legislating their various agendas as legally-binding laws. An ambition that’s ruled mostly by political demagoguery – rather than scientific rationality – for citing the rationale of these various “pressure groups” in resisting the large-scale production of GM crops. Unfortunately, political demagoguery can work in anyone’s favor when it comes to publicly admonishing large corporations – especially ones with very terrible sins in the past like Monsanto.

Monsanto’s sordid avarice for profit over corporate social responsibility had bequeathed to the world products and services that not caused only unprecedented negative social upheaval during the 20th Century. But also, those said products and services’ negative repercussion, are still continued to be felt till this day. Take for instance polychlorinated biphenyls or PCB s. Developed near the end of the 1920’s, PCB s are sold to other manufacturing concerns, like the electrical manufacturing company GE, without thorough understanding of the human health and environmental impact of that particular product. Given that PCB production and use in the United States was banned around 1977, its hormone-mimicry effects still wreak havoc of the endocrine systems of humans and animals around the world. On Monsanto’s “patriotic duty” of bolstering the US Military-Industrial Complex battle against the spread of Marxist-Leninist Socialism in South East Asia, it provided defoliants to be used in Operation Ranch Hand during the 1961 to 1971 period of the Vietnam War. This resulted not only causing undesirable health defects to Vietnamese civilians near the defoliant-sprayed sites but also unusual forms of cancer to US servicemen who happened to be exposed. Monsanto later divulged that the Agent Orange defoliant batches used in Operation Ranch Hand contained high levels of dioxin – a very aggressive carcinogen – due to the hasty manufacture. Given Monsanto’s lack of corporate social responsibility, why should we – the consumers – trust this somewhat untrustworthy company to provide us with our daily bread? Does this lead to a compromised global food security? Especially to those people living on less than 2 US dollars a day.

When Monsanto became the sole monopoly of genetically modified crops, the company was hailed by the technocorporate elite for its pioneering efforts of spearheading a new economic venture – namely the marketing of crops that are genetically designed to be better than Mother Nature’s. Throughout the 1990’s, Monsanto was poised to rival – by fair means or foul – the market dominance of the world’s leading computer software company Microsoft. But the general public’s concerns over the “terminator gene” aspect of Monsanto’s GM crops has denied the company’s dreams of market dominance. Given the company’s “spotty” track record, no amount of scientific study backing the safety of their GM crops to both human health and the environment can calm the general public’s furor over “Frankenstein Foods”.

But it seems that Monsanto never learned lessons from its past sins. Many environmental pressure groups are vehemently criticizing Monsanto’s Mafiosi-style business practices. Like small family farmers being sued by Monsanto for using their “patented” GM technology without permission just because these small farmers live downwind from Monsanto-owned fields and their crops are “accidentally” cross-pollinated with Monsanto’s Roundup-ready crops. Even His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales have recently joined in the resistance movement against Monsanto’s GM crops citing the product’s yet unproven possible negative side-effects on biodiversity. Given that Prince Charles is also busy campaigning for the protection of the albatross in the Southern Ocean, this high-level support of resistance against GM crops has further bolstered the movement against widespread cultivation.

Maybe it’s just bad luck that Monsanto’s GM crops safety concerns manages to coincide with the yet unproven safeguards against BSE / mad cow disease contaminated beef could be the products undoing. After all, testing for prion misfolded proteins via protein misfolding cyclic amplification or PMCA test for prion proteins in only just a few years old. Yet, we don’t yet have reliable test studies that prove GM crops are 100% harmless against human health or our ecological biodiversity.

OCS Crude Oil Exploration: Economic Bottom Line versus the Environment?

2008-07-25T07:39:00.000-07:00

As our wildly swinging global crude oil prices finally retreats back to a somewhat manageable level, shouldn’t we be moving away from our crude oil incumbent industry and commerce instead of looking for more illusory “cheap oil”?

By: Vanessa Uy

A few years after Al Gore’s “environmental shocker” called An Inconvenient Truth finally convinced governments around the world to take the issue of global warming caused by industrially created greenhouse gasses much more seriously, the “Industrial West” is still a few decades away from being weaned from crude oil “addiction”. Sadder still, the current Bush Administration has initiated the process to repeal the executive domestic crude oil exploration ban established by then president George Bush, Senior.

This domestic crude oil exploration ban which specifically sites the Outer Continental Shelf or OCS regions in United States’ sovereign territory was initiated in part due to the overwhelming disdain of Americans back in 1989 of the negative impact of the petroleum industry on the environment. Add to that the Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster, thus making patriotism indistinguishable from environmentalism during that time. Plus – as a politician – then president George Bush, Senior was very desperate to distance himself from the inane statements of his predecessor Ronald Reagan who said that trees are more polluting than automobiles. Despite of Bush Senior’s attempt to appease the growing American environmental fervor, he wasn’t elected for a second term in office.

Fast forward almost twenty - or so years later, current incumbent president George W. Bush has set to put into motion plans to repeal what his father had legislated with regards to the US domestic oil exploration ban, especially on American Outer Continental Shelf or OCS regions. The question now is, Is this a logical – even attainable – solution to America and the rest of the world’s problem of high crude oil prices? Never mind the ensuing future environmental consequences of the Industrial West’s Quixotic quest for a cheap and abundant source of crude oil.

Famed theoretical physicist and science documentary consultant Michio Kaku states that in order to maintain our current crude oil demand, an oil field of similar yield to that found on Saudi Arabia must be discovered and developed every ten years. Add to that the realistic assessment of petroleum company insiders citing that a viable crude oil field, once found, usually takes 5 to 10 years to develop into a commercially viable crude oil producing facility. Sadder still the 5 - to -10 year figure are somewhat optimistic at best. Which now begs into question whether petroleum companies who advertise on major news media outlets like the BBC or CNN really are telling the truth by stating that they are currently working alternatives to replace crude oil. When the truth is that they must spend their time eternally searching for crude oil just to keep their company running.

The current petroleum lobbyist controlled Bush Administration probably sees the repeal of the executive ban on oil exploration as a godsend because the Outer Continental Shelves in the US are usually located 50 to 200 miles off shore which can be somewhat hard to be picketed by environmental protestors. Except maybe by dinghy-equipped adventurous Greenpeace activists. Which for all intents and purposes is an environmental activism made out of sight and out of mind by sheer luck of the crude oil conglomerates’ latest praxis on greed. But the question now is, will every citizen of planet Earth be willing just to stand by as the insatiable greed for crude oil continues to compromise our planet’s ecosystem?

The issue of the US Government repealing the ban on domestic crude oil exploration is by no means just an issue that affects inhabitants of the North American continent. Nations bordering the Arctic Circle are setting their sites on the yet untapped crude oil fields found in there which was made more easily accessible due to the inexorable progress of global warming. Even though the Arctic Circle crude oil fields are estimated to only meet our current demands for just 3 years, the site has currently become too tempting to pass up despite of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. USGS geologist David Gautier has stated on a July 25, 2008 interview on the BBC that crude oil exploration in the Arctic Circle region is a particularly risky exercise at best. This is so because of the United States Geological Survey’s lack of thorough understanding with regards to the environmental and geological dynamics of that region. Add to that the environmental impact studies that had yet to be undertaken in the Arctic Circle region, not just for crude oil exploration but also for mining concessions as well.

Given the environmental challenges, I wonder if it is high time for the Industrialized World to wean itself away from their crude oil incumbent systems for the sake of our environment. And also to end the needless deaths of our young men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice just to keep Halliburton and their ilk in business.

Should We Be Creating Our Food from Crude Oil?

2008-05-06T02:52:00.000-07:00

A certain UN top official has recently called our ill-conceived use of food crops as automotive fuel a crime against humanity. Would it surprise the same UN official that 50 years ago we tried to get cheap food from crude oil?

By: Vanessa Uy

Currently, the whole world is burdened by sky rocketing food prices in which our poorly planned bio-fuels program is mostly to blame. What if – in the mother of all ironic twists – we can derive food cheaply from where we get almost all of our automotive fuels, namely crude oil? But more importantly: is this even possible?

During the 1950’s through the 1960’s, a chemist working for the Société Française des Pétroles BP in Lavera, France had experimented with a process of deriving edible protein from crude oil. Chemist Alfred Champagnat added fertilizers to a batch of crude oil and air is bubbled through. This set-up resulted in a crop of yeast, which is about 50% edible protein. Though at the time other oil companies had also experimented with this method, the experiment showed very promising results. One pound of crude oil yielded about half a pound of protein. Amazingly, the process is very efficient because it creates edible protein several times faster than farm animals can synthesize protein from their feed or fodder. Though the crude oil derived protein resembled a tasteless and odorless powder in it’s raw state it can readily be turned into a meat-like concentrate and aromatic Far-Eastern style fish sauces. This crude oil derived protein has a tremendous potential as a source of low cost source of edible protein for the world’s poor during the time of the experiment. Alfred Champagnat estimated that only about 3% of the annual world output of petroleum / crude oil would be needed to produce 20 million tons of pure protein - –ore than three times the protein supplied by the world’s annual fish catch during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Champagnat’s experiment really showed promise back then, but will it be a viable solution today to our ever increasingly difficult quest to provide low-cost food for the world’s poor?

Even though the circa 2008 price for crude oil is now teetering near the 120 US dollar-per-barrel mark, it is still considered by experts – especially scientists employed by oil companies – to be one of the cheapest natural resources available. Sadly, it’s so very true. A liter of gasoline is costs even cheaper compared to some brands of bottled water of the same volume. Even the experts working for the crude oil conglomerates continually tell us that the cause of the present sky high fuel prices is due to increased demand in China and India and not because the world’s entire supply of crude oil is running out.

Environmental concerns aside – isn’t it a disturbing thought that we might be actually using more crude oil per unit volume than we are using plant derived cooking oil? And is this might be the reason why all of the used cooking oil derived bio-diesel schemes are - at present – doomed to failure? Our current transport, electricity generation and other industrial processes are heavily dependent on crude oil and other fossil fuels. Because of this, the greatest problem of shifting to cleaner sustainable energy technologies like hydrogen and fuel cell technologies is technological infrastructure incumbency. We cannot easily –at present - adopt hydrogen-based systems because we built our industrial infrastructure around fossil fuels for almost a century that we can even produce crude oil derived fuels far more cheaply than their plant derived counterparts. It’s the hydrocarbon technology incumbency problem that tied us down. Not to mention that we have invested billions in the crude oil industry for nearly a century in making gasoline almost as cheap as bottled water.

But what if the petrochemical conglomerates manage to make edible protein more cheaply than our current farming and fishing methods by using Alfred Champagnat’s method scaled-up to industrial levels. Would this grant them absolute power since these conglomerates now control not only our energy supply, but also our food supply as well? These are profit-driven corporations and helping our planet’s hungry and poor inhabitants probably ranks last when it comes to their day to day corporate practices. It’s a brave new world.

The Rich Man’s Car

2008-04-17T04:39:00.000-07:00

First it was the proverbial “rich man’s cow” that deprived the world’s poor from much needed staple grains, then came the bio-fuel industry making the “rich man’s car” the latest threat to the world’s poor. Will the injustice ever end?

By: Vanessa Uy

For over fifty years, the threat of starvation has always seemed unthinkable in affluent countries that benefited most from the post-World War II “Green Revolution”. But as more and more people manage to reach the upper echelons of the socio-economic ladder, they started to drastically affect the food supply of the entire world. As people get richer, they start to eat less grain. But they make up for this dietary paradigm shift by consuming more meat, and ironically that dietary lifestyle requires the consumption of enormous quantities of grain – by livestock.

Livestock – on average – must consume 10 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of meat. Thus the rich man consumes the equivalent of 10 kilograms of grain every time he consumes a kilogram of meat. In doing so, he disproportionately reduces the amount of grain available to feed the rest of humanity. And if there is not enough grain to go around, the rich man can easily outbid his less fortunate fellow human beings. As one United Nations food expert has succinctly put it more than thirty years ago, “The poor man’s grain is being siphoned off to feed the rich man’s cow.”

Then came the ill-conceived bio-fuel industry. Even though it is barely over three or so years old, it gained widespread acceptance with utter disregard for the ensuing environmental and social consequences. Thus the problem of the security of our global food supply has been greatly exacerbated. The rich man’s cow and the rich man’s car is now in competition – albeit unfairly when it comes to purchasing power – with the world’s poorer inhabitants when it comes to access to the world’s grain supply.

Thirty years ago when the bio-fuel industry was not yet the “logical alternative” to energy conservation measures. The world’s affluent society that embraced the American-Blue-Collar-Protestant-Work-Ethic-As-Ideology chose to harbor the perception that vegetarianism and energy conservation as a part of the Marxist-Leninist Socialism that threatens their Calvinist avarice. Even though reality seem to defy the socio-political construct of their perception like avarice should be a “God-given right”, or so it seems.

Inhabitants of underdeveloped Asian countries eat an average of 250 kilograms of grain per person per year. The average American – or anyone who can afford the “American Lifestyle” – consumes more than a metric ton of grain per person per year, and that’s before bio-fuels are added to the equation. The typical American eats 75 kilograms of grain annually as bread and breakfast cereals; The rest is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens to produce the meat, milk and eggs that serve as staples like grains do for the world’s poorer people. If we include the corn diverted to produce ethanol, our typical “American” is now consuming two metric tons of grain annually. Can all of us afford with a clear conscience the price we pay in maintaining our “American Dream” of freedom of mobility?

The recent food riots that happened in Egypt and Haiti is somewhat reminiscent to what happened back in the early 1970’s when droughts reduced global grain harvests and the oil crisis caused a sharp rise in staple food prices. It seems like our unquestioning faith to the energy intensive, chemically dependent agricultural methods of the Green Revolution has been betrayed. Even our current World Bank president Robert Zoellick has voiced alarm over spiraling prices of staple foods that could trigger more political unrest and even wars.

The impact of our current ill-conceived bio-fuel programs needs to be further examined since it is one of the main contributors to our current food shortage. Despite its touted “Green Credentials” many are finding out that the supposed “eco-friendliness” of a majority of our bio-fuel programs is a sham. What used to be a primeval tropical rainforest two years ago is now a bio-fuel plantation is more of a rule – rather than the exception when it comes to the bio-fuel industry. Will the inner environmentalist inside all of us be willing to just sit back and relax every time we’re enjoying the joyride in our bio-fueled “Sport Utility Vehicles”? Or will our policymakers be forced to fastrack bio-fuel programs that don't use staple food or the land used to grow them like India's Jatropha Bio-Fuel program which sadly is still in it's small scale / pilot stage?

The moral pressure over everyone jumping into the natural resource wasteful Western Industrial / American lifestyle has been around for over thirty years. Back then it was over increased meat consumption by both the rich man and his pet dog. Now, his car has joined into the picture. There’s even an increasing popularity being discussed on how Paris Hilton’s pet chihuahua has a bigger carbon footprint compared to the average working class Chinese. As more and more of us become affluent, will we ever adopt a less wasteful lifestyle? To me, not very likely because energy and natural resource conservation has been often touted as an anathema by those who have bought and sold the Calvinist / Protestant Work Ethic Avarice Driven ideology. They see vegetarianism and energy conservation as a very dangerous Left – Wing ideology. It looks like Conan O’Brien spoofing about Jesus Christ being a “NASCAR fan” has a kernel of truth in it. Or will it someday become part and parcel with the “Holy Scripture”?

Of Salinization and Agricultural Land Mismanagement

2008-03-07T04:45:00.000-08:00

Despite the 5,000 year –or so – history of agriculture, does our contemporary agricultural community take heed on the lessons learned from the past on the causes of agricultural topsoil salinization?

By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy

The serious – though preventable – problem of agricultural topsoil salinization is as old as the practice of agriculture itself, it seems like we at the present are not trying as hard as we should in preventing such problems. Especially by ignoring on what we had learned in the past about the phenomena of salinization and doing it in our peril. Is the problem still relevant in 2008 given we had learned so much before?

The Girsu Documents of southern Iran, which dates back 4,300 years, showed accounts on the progressive salinization of cultivated lands. The documents mentioned how the rich farmlands of Mesopotamia, in what is now Iraq, were ruined by irrigating them using the brackish water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Wheat was once cultivated on a large scale but by 2,400 BC farmers turned to barley, which is more salt tolerant, as an alternative crop. Seasonal floods, which raised the water table, increasingly salted the topsoil. By 2,000 BC, even barley began to fail. Eventually the land was abandoned and the water table dropped, leaving a salt saturated desert where no crops can grow.

Typical of the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia and the rest of the Middle East, as in any dry area, there is relatively prodigious amount of salt in the ground because rain water, or even water in the surface soil, evaporates before the salty minerals has a chance to leach out. Therefore, any rise in the water table will lift up the salty water up to the surface soil. Seasonal floods, which cover large areas with standing water, can also cause such a rise. Our “start up” farming methods of centuries past has actively created such a situation in arid regions for centuries by digging a number of irrigation canals which continually silt up and overflow onto the surrounding land. Furthermore, in very hot and arid lands, the thirsty soil can actually suck up salty water from below via capillary action during the long, dry spells.

Despite the great havoc wreaked on the land before we learned better agricultural management, there is still hope that some areas – seemingly beyond salvation – may yet be brought back to full productivity via proper irrigation. A cause for hope is the fact that in most arid regions, rain has not yet leached the valuable surface minerals from the topsoil. At the same time, however, there is a concern that conventional irrigation methods will raise the water table and in doing so bring increasing amounts of harmful salt to the fertile surface through capillary action.

Years ago, a program was tried in Afghanistan (this was before the Soviet invasion and the subsequent Taliban takeovers) to combat and reverse salinization by flushing the fields with water to wash out the crystallized salt. And also deep drainage ditches were dug to assure that the water table stays below a safe minimum. Additionally, tamarisk trees were also planted. Tamarisk trees are salt tolerant plants and are being used to restore Afghan soil and these trees also sop up excess water thus guarding against further salinization.

The agricultural regions surrounding the Aral Sea and the Aral Sea itself was also a relatively recent victim of agricultural farmland mismanagement. Several rivers that fed the Aral Sea were diverted by the then Soviet Union to cotton fields used in the large scale production of nitrocellulose or guncotton (smokeless powder) to beef up the nation’s Cold War era arsenal. It was only in the last couple of years or so that existing programs were seriously involved in restoring the Aral Sea and the surrounding communities. Like the International Aral Sea Rehabilitation Fund – have shown favorable progress. But their work won’t be easy because the agricultural lands surrounding the Aral Sea not only suffer from salinization, but also contaminated with toxic pesticide residue left over from the chemically intensive Soviet era agricultural methods.

Jatropha: Kick Starting Terraforming Technology?

2008-03-07T04:40:00.000-08:00

With Jatropha’s ability to thrive in arid regions and it’s ability to stabilize and even reverse the effects of desertification. Will Jatropha cultivation be a baby – step towards the development of knowledge to be used in terraforming technology?

By: Vanessa Uy

With global warming now increasing the rate of desertification that’s poised to ruin the croplands of relatively arid developing nations. Even a “recently developed” country like China is loosing 54 billion yuan annually to desertification. In short, do we have to resort to a technology that only exists in science fiction literature in order to save humanity and our environment? But before delving any deeper, let us examine existing ideas in current use or will be used in making a certain piece of land suitable for farming and or returning it to its more naturally bio diverse state.

The concept of land reclamation is broadly defined by two distinct practices. One of which involves creating new land from the sea or riverbeds. Recently the most famous example is the one’s being demonstrated in the coastal region of Dubai, UAE – namely Palm Jumeirah or “The Palm Island” as the project is widely known in the West. The other practice of land reclamation involves restoring an area to a more natural state usually when an open pit mine is resealed, the topsoil returned so that the area can either be farmed or turned into an arboretum. Or recovering the chemical pollutants / contaminants from the topsoil and groundwater. Or reversing the effects of salination to make the land useable again. The last two are currently used to rehabilitate agricultural lands in the Aral Sea region, which was rendered useless due to irrigation and agricultural mismanagement that resulted in desertification compounded by salination and excessive amounts of pesticide contamination.

Did you know that even in dry climates, a typical virgin / undisturbed land is able to support considerable vegetation if not disturbed (the woodlands found in the Israel – Lebanon border for example). The roots of trees and plants secure the soil and hold water, thus preserving the area from erosion. But poorly managed cultivation / farming practices of the plains and timber cutting on the slopes removes roots and expose the land to wind and water erosion, which flushes away deposits of gravel from the lower slopes down to the plain. Further overcultivation destroys the productivity of the plains. Which is now set aside for grazing by herds of cattle. Agricultural activities of the area are forced to move up to the low slopes, where the hazard of rapid soil erosion of the topsoil is much greater. The ensuing loss of fertility of the steeper hillsides caused by topsoil runoff renders the area useless for further cultivation, and cattle grazing move up to the slopes, accelerating the process of erosion by constant grazing. If further “destruction” of the already barren landscape is left unchecked especially when there is no longer enough to browse for cattle. The area is then turned over to sheep and goats to be stripped clean. This results in the total desolation of a once fertile landscape and this stage is marked by the disappearance of all the topsoil and large sections of bedrock are exposed on the hill and plain. The resulting dusty land can no longer support life and could enlarge in area during times of scant or nonexistent rainfall. Thus accelerating the spread of desertification, like the one currently happening in China that’s costing the Beijing Government 54 billion yuan annually from farming revenue losses.

The man-made desertification described previously is now threatening to affect small villages in the South Sumatra region of Indonesia were the Palm Oil industry, driven by the bio-fuel boom, resorted to slash and burn methods of agriculture. Even ancestral lands of marginal economic value in the South Sumatra region are now starting to be affected by the hastily planned Palm Oil plantation expansion whose “green credentials” have recently been found of dubious value to say the least.

In evaluating the available solutions to halt the spread of desertification, Large scale Jatropha cultivation is probably one of the best – if not the best – way of stabilizing and even stopping the spread of desertification because Jatropha is not a genetically modified organism. Remember our bad experiences with genetically modified organisms back in the late 1990’s when Monsanto made a large scale trial cultivation of their genetically modified soybean crop. The genetically modified soybean was said to be pest and weed resistant, but quite a large number of people developed allergies when they consumed Monsanto’s genetically modified soybean.

Using Jatropha to make desertificated land arable can be compared that to the concept of terraforming. Terraforming as a concept is a staple in science fiction stories where an alien planet’s environment is made to be more hospitable to humans by using technology like large bio - reactors filled with genetically engineered blue-green algae to make the atmosphere breathable to humans. By turning excess atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen like the oft shown planned terraforming of the planet Venus and Mars. Desert environments are somewhat hostile to us humans especially if you take into account that you can’t grow any food crops there. As large scale Jatropha cultivation continues as a pioneering species, the leaves being shed as the plants continue to grow plus the waste pulp from bio-fuel production can be used as an organic fertilizer thus steadily increasing the fertility of the arid lands in which the Jatropha are planted. When it comes to the growing concern about increasing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere threatening the stability of our climate, large scale Jatropha plantations can also serve as a “carbon sink”. Jatropha can do this by absorbing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and depositing it into the plant’s own cellular structure as carbohydrates, sugars, and cellulose where it no longer contributes to the increased greenhouse effect. This is like hitting to birds with one stone since the increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is primarily responsible for the increased trend in desertification. This project could be the first step in making terraforming a practical environmental engineering reality, not just an esoteric / recondite intellectual exercise in science fiction novels.

Will Jatropha Revolutionize the Bio-Fuel Industry?

2008-02-22T04:29:00.000-08:00

With crude oil prices poised to reach the one hundred US dollar – per – barrel mark. Will a Jatropha based bio-fuel industry be a more eco-friendly and socially responsible alternative to food crops now currently used?

By: Vanessa Uy

With the controversy surrounding the use of staple food crops as a source of bio-fuels increasingly becoming a focus of a "media frenzy” for some time now. There might be a more Earth-friendly alternative without the unforeseen ecological impacts of genetically modified crops and the current “mono culture” based practice of intensified cultivation of a few species of staple food crops.

Jatropha, scientific name Jatropha podagrica also known as the physic nut, coral plant, gout plant, Buddha belly plant, is a plant which may hold such promise. Due to the plant’s ability to tolerate arid climates, fast growing and it’s usefulness for a variety of products, Jatropha can yield up to two tons of bio-diesel fuel per year per hectare. Put it another way, Jatropha can yield about 1,000 barrels of oil per year per square mile.

Basing on such relatively scant yield figures, Jatropha like other bio-fuels in general, is not yet an economically viable replacement to crude oil as a tradable commodity. But the plant’s other redeeming qualities like minimal requirement for irrigation and chemical fertilizers. And also a large field of Jatropha has the ability to stabilize or even reverse the effects of desertification means that growing the plant as a source of bio-fuel will not only be very eco-friendly but it will also not be in competition with staple food crops. And the plant is also a source of other products after the bio-fuel is extracted. Moreover, even diesel fuel from crude oil will cause far less pollution if bio-diesel additives are added. Not to mention the resulting revenue savings to those countries, which now don’t have to buy imported crude oil but instead develop their local agricultural industry by growing their own bio-fuel.

Currently, large - scale cultivation of Jatropha for bio-fuel purposes is still limited to some parts of India. But the plant’s hardy nature of thriving on land that’s too arid for staple food crops makes the large scale cultivation of Jatropha for the bio-fuel industry and other uses makes it a very eco-friendly enterprise. The practice is also socially responsible since Jatropha won’t be in competition with staple food crops. Thus staple food crop prices would remain stable. And Jatropha’s potential to reverse the effects of desertification could be tried in China where the effects of desertification is costing the country over 54 billion yuan annually. And a Jatropha bio-fuel industry in China could also help alleviate China’s chronic fuel shortage.

Is There an Alternative to the Heiligendamm G8?

2008-01-15T03:29:00.000-08:00

With the somewhat failed promise of the Gleneagles G8 back in 2005 on African aid, will the current G8 be better?

By: Vanessa Uy

Aside from Sir Bob Geldof’s and Bono’s anti-poverty campaigns, nobody today seems to remember – or feign interest – about the hollow rhetoric of the Gleneagles G8. With its failed promise to provide a 50 billion dollar- a- year aid package for Africa. Do we really need an alternative to G8? Since it’s inception back in 1975, G8 – or was it called G7 back then – has always been perceived globally as a “promise formulating” rather than a “problem solving” summit.

Groups who are opposed to G8 range from riot inciting “anarchists” who are not that far removed from your typical European “soccer hooligans”, to legitimate anti-G8 groups like ATTAC, Justice Now, Interventionist Left, and the most famous of them all: Greenpeace. ATTAC with its battle cry of “The world is not for sale!” appeal to those who are disenfranchised with the overly bureaucratic organizations like G8. To me, G8 is a fundamentally flawed organization due to its extremely limited legislative powers. Especially now, with the vastly differing views on how to tackle climate change between the United States and the European Union.

As the United States continues to “hog” the Heiligendamm G8’s proceedings with rhetoric on the justification of the Bush Administration’s “Missile Defense Program” that has increased the tension between Washington and the Kremlin not seen since Cold War days. An alternative summit has started in Rostock to discuss issues that the powers-that-be of the G8 summit are too squeamish to discuss like AIDS, global poverty, fair trade, and human rights to name just a few. Organized by Tillmann Günter, the Alternative Summit 2007 in Rostock serves to empower cause- oriented groups who are voicing their concerns that the global powers- that- be seem – or choose – to ignore.

The Albatross: The 21st Century’s Canary in the Mine?

2008-01-15T03:23:00.000-08:00

Thanks to the support of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the world –at-large is now more aware of the plight of the albatross.

By: Vanessa Uy

In our celebrity obsessed popular press, concern for animal welfare seldom make it to page two while the impact of human activity on rare and endangered species will be lucky to make it to page 14. But thanks to the support of HRH the Prince of Wales (a.k.a. Prince Charles) the world’s policy makers will be made more aware on the plight of the albatross. An orchestrated campaign was already set up to protect these endangered birds which about 100,000 are needlessly killed annually as a consequence of long line fishing. Also the “Save the Albatross” sailing race was held to spread awareness that the albatross-even in their home territory in the “roaring 40’s”- still need our help.

Biologically, albatross have comparable life span to humans. At 10 years, the albatross can breed. Their slow rate of reproduction at one chick every other year means that they cannot easily recover a population crash.

During the past few years, various researchers have noted a decline in albatross population. Ben Sullivan of Birdlife International notes that the census on albatross population decline over the past few years implies that someday the albatross will become extinct if current trends will continue.

One of the main culprits of the albatross population decline are the long line fishing boats that operate in the southern ocean i.e. "the roaring 40’s.” Equipped with lines up to 120 kilometers long and baited with thousands of fish- hooks. These serve as deathtraps to the albatross that are attracted to the bait. Unable to surface after being trapped, they drown by the thousands. The fishermen manning these vessels are concerned not only on the consequential reduction of catch quotas but also of the needless waste of albatross dying as a result. To avoid albatross by catch, long line fishing reforms such as the use of various mitigation measures like weighing the lines to allow it to sink quickly out of reach of the albatross. Streamers attached to the lines to scare away the albatross are also a success. Since the albatross are diurnal i.e. are active only during daylight ours, laying the lines after sundown are a good way of avoiding an albatross by catch.

Despite of the conservation efforts, albatross still continue to die needlessly due to “pirate fishing vessels.” These “pirate fishing vessels” flying under “flags of convenience”, were responsible for a quarter or more of annual albatross deaths. Currently, they are still very hard to catch/prosecute since albatross protection laws are only heavily enforced in South Georgia waters. Illegal unregulated fisheries (pirate fishermen) are killing the albatross as by catch with impunity.

One solution to stop this carnage is via consumer moral pressure. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) together with the consumers can exert moral pressure to our policymakers to make albatross protection legally binding like the “dolphin friendly tuna campaign” of the 1980’s. Under their mandate, the Marine Stewardship Council also monitors if a batch of fish that enters the market were taken from their point of origin in a sustainable manner.

The relationship between the albatross and mariners are “romanticized” in Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem “The Rime of an Ancient Mariner.” In the poem, a sailor kills an albatross. An act that later brought misfortune to the crew. In the 21st Century our concern for the welfare of the albatross goes beyond environmentalism, literary sentimentality or even superstition. This “canary in the mine” so to speak serves also to measure our humanity and on how civilized we are. Can all of us safely say that we are really more civilized today compared to when Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote “The Rime of an Ancient Mariner” when it comes to taking stewardship of our planet? Will the albatross someday –like the dodo- only exist in humanity’s collective memory?

Vietnam’s Mangrove Restoration Program

2008-01-15T03:20:00.000-08:00

The Vietnamese Government’s pro- active approach to disaster prevention is an ideal model that should be followed by her neighbors.

By: Vanessa Uy

Over the past 30 years, climate disasters like floods, droughts and hurricanes have increased three- fold. This trend concerns Vietnam, which climatologists had found out to be one of the countries most vulnerable to natural disasters. The reason for this is that most of the Vietnamese population and agricultural industries are cited in coastal areas that are only a few feet above sea level.

In 1994, Vietnam’s Red Cross adapted a pro-active approach to against storm surges by launching a program of mangrove tree reforestation and management. Existing mangrove forests in parts of Vietnam are well known for their ability to protect low lying rice fields against tidal surges caused by increasingly powerful storms. The root complexes of these mangrove trees buffers the forces exerted by storm waves and extend the useful lives of the earthen dikes that for years served as scant protection to these vital agricultural areas.

Mangrove tree reforestation also benefits Vietnam’s fishing industry. The fishes, shrimps, prawns, and crabs that populate the coastal areas now have an increased number of secure spawning areas to rear their young. Despite these benefits, mangrove roots can easily be damaged by careless fishing practices. So mangrove fields should be designated as a no fishing zone. Illegal harvesting of mangrove trees for firewood and charcoal production is also a problem. Since Vietnam has a very long coastline, the program still has quite a long way to go in order for all coastal communities to reap the benefits and receive increased protection against storm surges.

Despite the programs documented successes, there was no mention of the effects of defoliants used by U.S. Armed Forces back in the late 1960’s. Chemical defoliants like “agent- orange” were used to reveal the camouflaged positions of the communist rebel fighters. In 1975, the publication of the three- year investigation of the 17-member National Academy of Science’s Committee on the Effects of Herbicides in Vietnam released their report in February of that year. Their major conclusions: The military use of herbicides may have had ill effects on the human population of the then South Vietnam and inflicted long-term damage on the country’s environment and supplies of timber. The “Committee’s” findings on the effects on the local vegetation were considerably more definite in comparison to the effects on human health. Coastal mangrove forests “suffered greater damage than any other type of vegetation.” Even where they were sprayed only once, they were destroyed. Time for total recovery of the mangrove forests: “at least 100 years.”

Thirty years on, Vietnam’s mangrove forests seems to be thriving. To what extent does the past herbicide and defoliant use affect the mangrove reforestation program, nobody knows? Maybe, we just got lucky that mangrove forests are more resilient than we thought they are.

Thames River Threatens London

2008-01-15T03:17:00.000-08:00

No, this is not an episode of Dr. Who. But a portent on what could happen to London if the global warming trend continues.

By: Vanessa Uy

The Thames Flood Control Barrier, the Jewel of the British Crown when it comes to flood defence is quite an engineering marvel. Ever since her Christening by Queen Elizabeth II back in 1982, this flood control barrier was once believed not to require any upgrades until 2030. But the various threats brought about by climate change had now called that into question.

As far back as recorded history can remember, the Thames River had brought prosperity to London. The river made possible for England to achieve superpower status in the last 200 years by providing easy access to all of the world’s oceans. But if climate change has its way, the Thames could turn London into an underwater city.

Back in January 21, 1953, a terrible flood caused by the North Sea storm surge wreaked havoc on the village of Jaywick. Many people lost their lives as a result not to mention the property damage. This terrible disaster was the Thames Flood Control Barrier’s raison d’être.

But many experts have criticized the British Government’s reactive approach to disaster mitigation. These experts are suggesting to the policy makers to adapt a more proactive approach to disaster mitigation. Like upgrading the Thames Flood Control Barrier in response to the projected trend of climate change. Even then, this didn’t stop the on going housing development on the Thames Gateway Region and being earmarked as a prime real estate location. Even though this area is designated as a flood plain during storm surges, and the expected sea level rise will probably ruin every homeowner’s property value.

Thailand’s Birth Control Program: A Model for the Rest of Southeast Asia

2008-01-15T03:13:00.000-08:00

Thanks to “Mighty Mechai,” Thailand’s birth/population control program has been a resounding success.

By: Vanessa Uy

Despite of the “American Media’s” perception of 1980’s Bangkok as the world’s largest red-light district. Thailand is generally quite a conservative country, especially in the open discussion of sex education and birth control. But thanks to public health activist Mechai Viravaidya also known as “Mighty Mechai.” He is also dubbed as the “condom king” because of his campaign of freely handing out condoms almost everywhere especially in large social gatherings-except on funerals, which in doing so is a cultural faux pas in Thailand.

As an economist, Mechai Viravaidya was concerned that an unchecked booming birth rate is something that Thailand’s economy just can’t support. His population control program has been considered a resounding success despite of the Thai society’s reluctance to openly discuss birth control and sex education issues. When the AIDS scare of the mid -1980’s came along, the Thai society’s perception of sex education issues change from taboo to a public health issue. At the same time, “Mighty Mechai’s” condom distribution program has an added benefit of curbing the spread of AIDS in Thailand. Since then, Mechai Viravaidya has been credited for raising the conscience of the Thai populace about “human welfare” that an overpopulated country simply just can’t provide. To me, this raises the question why Buddhists-in general-have a more pragmatic view about “human welfare” compared to the Vatican?

Despite of the fame that he earned due to the success of his birth control program, Meccai Viravaidya just wants to be remembered as a self-effacing man. Maybe Mechai Viravaidya should spread his message of birth control here in the Philippines.

China’s Coal Dilemma

2008-01-11T05:13:00.000-08:00

China has recently been building coal- fired power plants at a rate of one a week, does this make the country at risk for more powerful typhoons?

By: Vanessa Uy

Diminishing crop yields due to shifting rainfall patterns in rural China’s urban migration rate has increased in the past few years. This urban migration demands an expedient improvement of China’s urban infrastructure namely electricity generation. This is reason number one why the Chinese Government is building coal- fired power plants at a rate of one a week to meet the rising energy demands. China can afford this since they have an abundant supply of coal, but are there any hidden dangers?

If China's many coal-fired power plants keep on dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it can only exacerbate the effects of global warming. And a warmer planet would not be of China’s best interest because it can result to more powerful typhoons. It’s a well-known scientific fact that typhoons get their energy from the heat stored in the ocean water. The warmer the ocean, the more powerful the typhoon. And since most of China’s urban centers are not very far from the world’s sea- lanes. They could expect flooding caused by storm surges. Surely, an environmentally friendly solution must be sought.

Renewable Energy: Made in Germany?

2008-01-11T05:11:00.000-08:00

Is the German industry “putting their money where their mouth is” when it comes to renewable energy?

By: Vanessa Uy

As manufacturer of a third of all the world’s solar photo voltaic cells and half of the world’s wind turbines, Germany – or more specifically – the German industry is very serious indeed when it comes to the industrial utilization of renewable energy. NORDEX, a German wind turbine manufacturing company is currently setting up an assembly plant in Beijing, China. In full operation, the Beijing NORDEX plant can produce 400 wind turbines a year. With the attendant technological transfer, wind turbines work very well in China due to large tracks of windswept plains just in the outskirts of every major city there. And wind turbines could serve as a viable alternative to China’s reliance on greenhouse gas producing coal-fired power plants.

As Germany is currently developing ever more efficient solar photo voltaic cells, a day will come when all of our electricity generating systems will not produce even a gram of carbon dioxide. Thus newly industrialized countries like China and India can develop their industry freely without endangering the environment.

Japan versus the International Whaling Commission

2008-01-11T05:06:00.000-08:00

Is Japan making the International Whaling Commission unable to execute its mandate in maintaining the welfare of the worlds shrinking whale population?

By: Vanessa Uy

The International Whaling Commission’s venue this year: 59th Annual IWC Meeting Anchorage Alaska 2007- promises to improve the present conditions of the world’s whales. Except they had not been able to stop Japan from hunting whales with impunity-all in the name of “scientific research.” Since the 1986 whaling moratorium, Japan has been steadily increasing “scientific catch” quotas that present day quotas are double that of 10 years ago. Japan has been able to do this because of some legal loophole of the IWC “Article 8” which permits scientific whaling. Whaling is never humane though because it results in the whale dying a slow painful death, which usually lasts 90 minutes on average.

Japan’s plea to the International Whaling Commission to restart whaling in the name of tradition only generates worldwide condemnation. This is quite paradoxical because almost all of Japanese youths no longer follow the tradition of eating whale meat. Because of this increasingly large quantities of whale meat now languish in Japan’s cold storage facilities. The Japanese chapter of Greenpeace has been appalled by the Japanese government’s planned resumption of large scale whaling despite of the huge whale meat surplus.

Various environmental groups like Greenpeace are increasingly concerned on the IWC allowing the subsistence whaling of indigenous groups because these groups use vessels intended for large scale industrial whaling. This oversight needs to be reevaluated by the IWC.

Today only 36,000 sperm whales remain in our oceans and the humpback whale-the favorite of whale watchers due to their acrobatic leaps-are only 10,000 strong. And remember; humpback whales are featured in the movie “Star Trek: The Voyage Home.” This movie is considered a beginner’s guide to whale conservation by most environmentalists. The only species of whale whose numbers is on the rise are the minkie whale. Even then, environmental groups doubt that their present population can support the scale of industrial whaling that prevailed in the last century. Japans desperation to restart her whaling industry has forced her to resort to vote buying on poor member countries of the IWC via development aid.

How Legitimate is G8 2007?

2008-01-11T05:03:00.000-08:00

This year’s G8 summit concerns primarily on climate protection issues, but there are other pressing issues that need discussion too.

By: Vanessa Uy

The 2007 incarnation of G8, dubbed “G8 Plus 5” has very lofty goals that it promises to achieve. Formulating a binding agreement on climate change protection and a cap on greenhouse gas emissions are on the top of the agenda won’t be easy. And the issue of sustainable development and “carbon credits” need more than good intentions to formulate a binding resolution that the global community would find equitable. The somewhat esoteric issue about “hedge funds” should also be discussed by the conference. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has shown concern over the issue of “hedge funds.” She even proposed a code of conduct on “hedge funds” and a discussion on minimum private quotas. If all goes well, this could make globalization more equitable for the world’s poor.

Germany’s current G8 presidency might result in a significant progress on climate protection issues because Germany-like most of the European Union-is staunchly pro environment and probably the only ones with the political will to meet the 2012 Kyoto Protocol targets on greenhouse gas emissions. This caused howls of protests from the US and China who perceives that Angela Merkel’s pro environment policies-like the rest of the EU states-undermines the economic well being of American and Chinese industries.

While anti-globalization activists defend their view that the G8 lacks legitimacy because it puts first the interests of rich industrialized countries like the US above those of the needs of developing nations. This is the reason why every annual G8 summit draws in it’s fair share of angry demonstrators and activists. And “G8 Plus 5” will be no different because it takes more than good intentions to solve the pressing problems of global warming and extreme poverty.

Paradise Lost: Global Warming Threatens Tuvalu

2008-01-11T05:00:00.000-08:00

Al Gore has been warning us in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” about “climate change refugees,” Tuvalu can be a case in point.

By: Vanessa Uy

If you want proof on the realities of global warming, look no further than Tuvalu. This small Pacific Island nation of about 12,000 inhabitants have already been trying to cope with the effects of sea level rise caused by global warming. Sea- water is already seeping into vulnerable parts of Tuvalu’s ground water table, damaging the nation’s corn and sugarcane farms. As the world’s 4th smallest nation, Tuvalu’s 25 square kilometer land area is principally composed of 9 atolls that barely rises more than 4 meters above sea level. Even during the normal high tide cycle threaten this country with sea- water encroachment, let alone during storm surges of tropical cyclones. Even back in 1989, the UN identified Tuvalu as a nation most likely at risk when global sea levels rise.

Economically, not so much has changed since Tuvalu was granted independence by Great Britain in 1968. Despite having signed a trade deal with Australia and New Zealand back in 1980, the average annual income hovers at around US$1,000 a year. If industrialized nations won’t do their part to combat global warming, Tuvalu’s citizens might become the first batch of “climate change refugees” in search of a new homeland. The two closest nations that have the resources to provide sanctuary to Tuvalu’s citizens if the sea level rise gets worse are Australia and New Zealand. Since Australia and New Zealand has stringent immigration laws which require anyone applying for citizenship should earn on average US$12,000 a year to be safely admitted, or has a bank account with an average daily balance of US$10,000. Unless Australia and New Zealand will amend the rules regarding their immigration policy, this rules out the majority of Tuvalu’s citizens.

Maybe it’s time for the West to give back what they have taken from the Pacific Islanders during the last 500 years or so of oceanographic exploration and colonization. Even during World War II, the Pacific Islanders were instrumental in making possible the Allied victory against the Imperial Japanese expansion. There’s more here at steak than electoral votes when the politicians of industrialized nations adopt a stronger stance on climate protection which might not be popular to the “industry lobbyists.” Or do the world’s top polluters need to wait for international opinion to exert moral pressure.

Oil Companies versus the Kyoto Protocol

2008-01-11T04:57:00.000-08:00

Majority of petroleum companies at present doesn’t agree on the Kyoto Protocol’s plea of carbon dioxide sequestration, but that’s about to change.

By: Vanessa Uy

The Kyoto Protocol is seen as Bolshevism by most of the existing petroleum companies who don’t have the fiscal incentive to find an effective and low cost method of storing the carbon dioxide by-products of oil and gas extraction process. The emphasis here is on the effective method of carbon dioxide storage/sequestration since future legislation might impose stiff fines on the companies who aren’t in line with the Kyoto Protocol.

Natural gas is by far the cleanest fossil fuel in current use, but it contains up to 10% carbon dioxide as it is extracted from the well/mine. Today, only a handful of environmentally conscious petroleum companies extract this carbon dioxide that’s mixed with the natural gas and return the carbon dioxide back to the mine in sandstone formations underground so that it won’t contribute to global warming.

The Insala Gas Plant in Nigeria has been doing carbon dioxide capture and storing them back underground since 2004. That’s way before precedents are agreed upon by the Kyoto Protocol. Although petroleum companies that does this on a voluntary basis are still the exception rather than the rule. Norway’s STATOIL also practices carbon dioxide capture/sequestration of their petroleum extraction by products and they posses the most sophisticated underground carbon dioxide storage facility to date as recognized by the IPCC, the inter government panel on climate change.

Mauritius’ Renewable Energy Future

2008-01-11T04:53:00.000-08:00

Mauritius’ policy of increasing renewable energy utilization should serve as an initiative that can be passed on to other countries that are poor in petrochemicals but rich in biodiversity.

By: Vanessa Uy

The Mauritius government program of promoting the increased utilization of renewable energy sources like solar power and biomass was driven in part by the constant rise of petrol prices over the past few years. Also, government revenue that can be saved from reduced dependence on imported petrol could be put to better use in improving the social development programs in Mauritius. As opposed to just using the said funds to allow Middle-Eastern despots to continually build-up their own military might. Contributing further to the instability in the region.

Parts of the sugarcane that’s left over after sugar production is a good source of biomass that Mauritius has in abundance. By using this biomass as a “feed” for biogas digesters can provide 25% more energy than by burning the same biomass directly in an incinerator-type power plant. Currently, 20% of Mauritius’ electricity is generated from renewable biomass systems. Also the Mauritius government are finding ways to make photovoltaic/solar powered electricity production fiscally viable whether in large industrial installations or just small domestic set-ups used to meet typical household needs. A lot is riding on the success on this program because Mauritius doesn’t have local petrol, and a 100% renewable energy source could allow the nation to develop without increasing the effects of global warming.

Fighting Bugs with Bugs

2008-01-11T04:51:00.000-08:00

Almost anyone of us has probably heard the phrase: natural is best, the empirical and scientific evidence really does speak for itself.

By: Vanessa Uy

For more than thirty years, it’s well known that fighting one insect with another is a more effective and infinitely less destructive to the local wildlife community than the wholesale application of pesticides. A good example of this is the Japanese beetle infestation in the United States back in the 1960’s. The infestation was effectively checked when some 34 species of predatory and parasitic insects, all of which the Japanese beetle’s natural enemies, were imported from the Orient after favorable results from small-scale field trials.

The female wasp of genus Tiphia vernalis proved deadly effective. This wasp instinctively searches a Japanese beetle grub (i.e. young offspring) and lays a single egg into the grub. Upon hatching, the larval (i.e. young) wasp devours the Japanese beetle grub from the inside out.

An even more effective and efficient method of controlling the Japanese beetle population is the method of injecting into the soil a bacterial disease that infects the beetle’s grubs. The method is inherently safe since the pathogen evolved over time to only infect the Japanese beetle’s grubs while it is harmless to earthworms, crops, other beneficial insects and pollinators like ladybugs and honeybees, and warm- blooded animals.

Using biological methods of controlling pest population is more effective and it works out to be cheaper in the long run since it doesn’t harm the environment. Unlike the previous methods of using chemical pesticides in the DDT family which affected avian physiology. As described in Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.”

A Hotter France

2008-01-11T04:48:00.000-08:00

A majority of French citizens view the 2003 Paris heat wave as a definite sign of global warming, but some politicians think it’s a load of hot air.

By: Vanessa Uy

As the 2003 Paris heat wave claim the lives of the elderly, it sparked a national crisis over the governments apparent inaction to mitigate such a tragedy. Even the neighboring countries have criticized the French government’s poor planning and pitiful response when faced with such a tragedy. Even the installation of air conditioning units on old people’s homes will only exacerbate the effects of global warming on a later date.

Global warming is also wrecking havoc on the French ski resorts especially in the Pyrénées Region. This stop- gap measure of using a battalion of energy hungry snow machines will only exacerbate the effects of global warming in the long run.

Several promising solutions include adopting a “greener” architecture both figuratively and literally. A number of environmentally conscious French citizens had upgraded the thermal insulation of their homes to save heating bills during the winter. This also has another positive effect of lessening the amount of heating fuel to be burned thus minimizing carbon dioxide emissions. Also rooftop gardens can have a cooling effect especially during the summer months. Plants like bamboo has a very effective cooling effect on its surroundings. The electricity saved can also lessen the “carbon footprint” of individual homes.

Burning Water in an Oil Furnace

2008-01-11T04:45:00.000-08:00

Of all the outlandish thing’s people do when driven to desperation, lets examine the method of this madness that promises lower fuel consumption.

By: Vanessa Uy

During my research on patented inventions that can help us beat the high oil prices, nothing seems more outlandish than mixing water to heating oil as what's been done by a British inventor. Eric Cottell has invented a device that emulsifies both oil and water in an ultrasonic reactor-a refinement of a device he patented back in 1952-which uses high frequency sound waves far above the human audibility range to break up liquid particles. It was originally used in commercial applications to mix the ingredients for Worcestershire sauce, catsup, cosmetics and paints. In an oil burner’s combustion chamber, a water-oil emulsion is fed into the flame; the water droplets explode into steam, shattering the surrounding layer of oil and exposing its maximum surface area. This provides more efficient and complete combustion.

Cottell tested the process in his very own home furnace and reduced his fuel consumption by 25%. A scaled up demonstration in Long Island’s Adelphi University’s heating plant during winter saved more than 3,500 gallons of oil a week-about a 25% reduction- and it cut down soot emissions by 98%. Despite of the fuel savings and a dramatic reduction in pollution, there was no apparent reduction in energy output. Cottell plans to produce his ultrasonic reactor units for household oil burners. This would be no larger than a telephone handset and costs between US$200 to US$450.

I wonder if Cottell’s invention works on gasoline powered cars, then the world could beat a path to his front door.

Fruity Biogas Variant

2008-01-11T04:42:00.000-08:00

A variation on the domestic biogas system that uses rotting fruits as the biomass to be digested may serve as a viable alternative to petroleum based cooking fuels.

By: Vanessa Uy

A conventional biogas system that uses cow manure as a biomass or starting material for methane generation is somewhat hard to maintain for everyday domestic use. Why? Because to achieve continuous methane generation, conditions in the biogas digester must be met like the optimum temperature, the absence of oxygen or anaerobic conditions and the steady constant supply of biomass/ organic material to be converted to methane.

In principle, biogas digesters produce methane by mimicking the workings of the stomach of ruminant animals like cows. As of late, herds of farmed cattle are blamed for contributing to global warming since they emit so much methane gas which is more than 4 times as effective a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Since methane can be used as a cooking and heating fuel, it’s better to use it as such than allowing it to be released into the atmosphere.

A novel biogas system being tested in Pune, India that uses rotting fruits and vegetable peels/trimmings might serve to overcome this problem. Developed by a firm called ARTI or Appropriate Rural Technologies Institute, this biogas digester is compact and is ideal for urban applications where cow manure or other animal wastes are scarce. This biogas generating system consists of 3 main parts: the gas/methane output accumulator at the top, the main digester in the center where the rotten fruit or vegetable peelings enters, and lastly the bottom-part where the slurry/effluent of the biogas digester exits. As a bonus, the slurry/effluent can be used as a free organic fertilizer.

The business end of this biogas digester is a type of bacteria that originally dwells in the stomachs of ruminant animals like cattle. A substantial amount of these bacteria is expelled by the cow and can be found in fresh cow manure. The ARTI biogas system only uses the cow dung as a starting material. Since the ruminant stomach bacteria is not fussy about what it is going to digest as long as sugars are present, rotting fruits and vegetables are an almost perfect “biomass meal” for the bacteria. Beside the biogas system’s compact size, it can also be scaled up for increased biogas/methane output in communal situations.

As a viable alternative to purchasing tanks of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas), biogas digesters demands more attention than a sundial. Rotting fruits and vegetables should be mashed up and mixed with water to the same consistency as a cow does to grass or other vegetation that its eating as “food” for the biogas system. This should be done regularly like once a day or the bacterial colony responsible for methane production in the digester will die out.

Germany: Spearheading the Solar Future

2008-01-11T04:40:00.000-08:00

Lately, Germany’s pulling all the stops in an attempt to make solar energy use mainstream.

By: Vanessa Uy

Either by legislation or innovation, Germany is going solar with hopes that her neighbors gain the initiative to do the same. In the innovation front, Oliver Schultz, a 31 year- old German physicist from Freiburg’s Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Research had developed a photovoltaic solar cell whose efficiency is greater than 20%. This is much greater than existing off-the-shelf solar photovoltaic cells. By using multi crystalline structured silicon photovoltaic cells, Oliver Schultz was able to coax the cells to have an efficiency rating greater than 20%. This type of silicon crystals are much cheaper to manufacture because the purity issue is not very critical when compared to the majority of photovoltaic solar cells in current use. There’s one disadvantage though, multi crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells are high temperature sensitive which could become a problem during fabrication stage – especially if you want to maintain the consistency of it’s high-efficiency characteristic.

Recently, Oliver Schultz has developed an improved low temperature manufacturing and fabrication process for multi crystalline silicon solar photovoltaic cells. These new “class” of multi crystalline silicon cells have efficiencies approaching close to 30%. These crystals - were recently evaluated by independent US laboratories, and their efficiency claims are substantiated. If these new - generation of multi crystalline silicon solar photovoltaic cells gain widespread use, the “carbon footprint” of industrialized nations would further be reduced.

How Green is Nuclear Fission?

2008-01-11T04:37:00.000-08:00

After hearing the news from the BBC and Germany’s DW-TV that the EU is strongly considering building fission-type nuclear power plants to lessen carbon dioxide emissions prompts everyone to ask: How green is nuclear fission?

By: Vanessa Uy

This is by far one of the most controversial proposals of the European Union: Evaluating the idea of increasing the number of fission-type nuclear power plants to meet the European Unions growing demand for energy while limiting the carbon dioxide produced by this activity. Even since commercial use of nuclear energy began in the 1950’s, scientists are already concerned that there comes a time in the future that carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels can increase the green house effect causing global warming. The Chernobyl nuclear plant incident back in April 26, 1986 caused the cancellation of any proposed nuclear power plants due to safety concerns.

Commercial fission-type nuclear power plants have always been targeted by picketing and protesting environmentalists for all the good reasons; radioactive wastes. This is one of the inevitable by - product of generating electricity via nuclear power and they can stay dangerously radioactive for up to a million years. “Radwastes” need a safe storage space where they can’t cause any harm for that length of time. Also, fission-type nuclear power plants generate excess heat and this is usually released in nearby large bodies of water wreaking havoc on the local estuarine ecosystem.

Nuclear power plants have their obvious benefits ever since Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” spoke of the dangers of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere via industrial processes causing global warming. Day by day, nuclear fission gained legitimacy because it doesn’t generate carbon dioxide once in full operation. A very attractive process despite concerns on safety, radioactive waste storage and the threat of terrorists and rogue states acquiring weapons grade material.

Another problem that the experts haven’t discussed or are reluctant to is that the mining and refining of uranium or other similar fissionable material is very energy intensive. I’d be amazed that there is a nuclear fuel refinery in existence that uses renewable energy like wind or solar (photo voltaic or thermal) to process pitchblende and similar ores into yellow cake concentrate to uranium slugs.

“What about breeder reactors?” They can continually generate their own fuel so radioactive wastes will not be a problem and the energy intensive refining of uranium would be minimized. But, and it’s a very big one: the problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that gets recycled back into fuel is plutonium which is very easy to use as a weapons grade material. The problems of terrorist groups and rogue states probably stymied the widespread use of breeder-type reactors. These breeder-type nuclear fission reactors can only be found in easily defended and secure sites and the ones found in the US, Japan and France are the only ones freely talked about in the press.

Breeder reactors are green and eco-friendly in its own way, but like the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre implies in his philosophical views: “Hell is other people.” If you want to know more about the carbon cycle and view detailed diagrams check out “enviropedia.org.uk”.

Hybrid Cars versus Electric Cars: Vying for Green Credentials?

2008-01-11T04:34:00.000-08:00

The “Two Major Roads” that lead to a more environmentally friendly motoring are clamoring for our votes, which one will win and which one will you vote for?

By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy

The two emerging technologies that serve to power a new generation of environmentally friendly cars – namely “hybrid power plant cars ” and “pure electric powered cars” – are now clamoring to prospective customers who vote with their wallets and / or checkbooks. Marketing success hinges more on which of the two technologies will be adopted by the major auto- makers. Irreproachable “green credentials” is now a major issue that determines which of the two will sell, and to a more or lesser extent; simplicity of operation and running costs. So here are the merits and faults that accompany the two different technologies.

Ever since the conspiracy theory surfaced to the mainstream media surrounding the “demise” i.e. product recall of GM’s EV1. The theory states that General Motors was under behest by the “1996 Republican Majority Congress” in collusion with “Big Oil Companies” to “kill” the EV1 because it’s “miraculous” performance could end America’s dependence on “Middle Eastern Petroleum.” Back in 1996, GM’s EV1 was the first pure electric car produced in commercial quantities by a major automobile company. It had pretty good credentials under its belt despite being powered by heavy and “inefficient” lead-acid batteries that could pose it’s own environmental problems. Fully charged, the EV1 has a range of 65 miles.

A lot has happened since then, today, a car that was referred to as the spiritual descendent of the EV1 is the TESLA Roadster. The TESLA Roadster is made by TESLA Motors a small automotive start-up company in San Francisco, California. One advantage that the TESLA Roadster has over GM’s EV1 is weight – or the lack of it. The TESLA Roadster is constructed out of carbon fiber that’s modeled after the Lotus Elise so it’s five times lighter than ordinary steel cars and also five times stronger due to the carbon fiber construction. The TESLA Roadsters claim to fame is it’s advanced lithium ion / lithium polymer battery that’s not only several times lighter than the one’s used in the EV1, it is also more efficient allowing the TESLA Roadster to have a range of 250 miles on a single charge. Because of the carbon fiber construction and lithium batteries, the TESLA Roadsters high power –to – weight ratio allows it to accelerate like a high- end conventional internal-combustion-engine-powered-gasoline-fueled racecar.

In the other camp, hybrid cars i.e. cars whose both powered by a fossil-fueled internal combustion engine and storage batteries that drive the electric motors. The environmental merit of hybrid cars is that the internal combustion engine can be made smaller than that of “conventional” cars because it’s primarily used to recharge the batteries, thus generating lower emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Hybrid cars also have better “mileage” than “conventional” cars because only in demanding situations i.e. going uphill and/or when quick accelerations are required that the two power plants is used in conjunction with each other. The most famous and highly advertised make/model of a hybrid car is the Toyota PRIUS.

While hybrid cars are praised because theoretically they could never ran out of “juice” while on the road due to the current ubiquity of gas / petrol stations over electrical charging stations. Pure electric cars – especially ones using the latest generation of lithium ion batteries – have better performance due to their high power –to – weight ratio compared to current hybrid cars. Also -if major auto makers will start mass producing them again- pure electric cars have the advantage over hybrids in terms of environmental friendliness because it’s much easier and cheaper to place air pollution mitigating devices at the power plant as opposed to every tailpipe of every car that’s running. Borrowing from the “transistor- principle” that a system with fewer moving parts is less prone to breakdown. Pure electric cars has this advantage because it uses only simple electric motors as a primary “engine” as opposed to the hybrid car that still has a conventional internal combustion engine with an inherently inefficient –in energy terms- clutch and gear drive systems. Also pure electric cars can easily tap electricity that’s produced from sustainable and / or non-carbon dioxide generating power plants like wind farms, solar photovoltaic power plants, fuel cell based power plants, etc. Also in the not-so-distant future, carbon offsetting might be legislated to include the transportation sector. Your carbon dioxide generating hybrid car could be singled out by the taxman in the coming years. Also, hybrid cars have “dubious” resale value as reported by Jeremy Clarkson in the 2003 – 2004 season of “Top Gear” an automotive TV show reviewing budget and high-end cars. On one episode, he advises against buying a hybrid car and to choose instead on a conventional car with a better mileage because this fuel- efficient conventional car is not likely to end up lying idly on some junkyard compared to it’s “hybrid” competition.

How Green is Coco Diesel?

2008-01-11T04:31:00.000-08:00

After watching a series of documentaries presented by the BBC in their climate watch series, I think its about time that we reevaluate coco diesel’s green credentials.

By: Vanessa Uy

Coco diesel is a bio fuel derived from the coconut fruit that can run conventional diesel engines with varying degrees of very minor modifications. At first, anyone, including the experts will testify that this is a very good way to limit our technological society’s continuous adding of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, which is the main cause of global warming. Note: that coconut trees are continually growing and producing fruits and every time it does this it removes the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere where the gas increases the greenhouse effect to the coconuts various parts where the carbon dioxide is converted to cellulose. This is the idea behind “carbon capture” where excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is removed from where it causes the most harm to where it can be stored safely like the coconut tree’s cellulose structure. As we already know, excess carbon dioxide produced by our technological society is contributing to the greenhouse effect that’s warming up our planet thus increasing the strength of new hurricanes causing widespread damage.

This carbon capture solution via the widespread planting of coconut trees for use in bio fuel production seems like hitting two birds with one stone. Since coconut trees are sustainable because it continually bears fruits where the coco diesel can be processed unlike “fossil fuel” sources like petroleum in which the gasoline or diesel fuels derived from this doesn’t revert back to petroleum as opposed to a bio fuel like coco diesel.

So, what’s the problem? After watching those BBC documentaries on their climate watch series, so far, the scientists haven’t yet conducted studies on the extent on how truly carbon neutral (i.e. doesn’t contribute carbon dioxide into the atmosphere) plant derived bio fuels are from all levels of production to usage. After the coco diesel is burned in an internal combustion engine either for transport or electricity generation, the resulting carbon dioxide gas lingers in the atmosphere for a while. No study yet exists if how long should this carbon dioxide be allowed to linger in the atmosphere before it becomes a problem. It takes a relatively long time for this carbon dioxide to be absorbed into the coconut tree’s cellulose structure compared to the length of time coco diesel is produced from the coconut fruit. Also, the process of husking the coconut fruit and producing coco diesel takes energy at present, this energy is likely being generated by burning fossil fuels.

Also, using crops which are originally intended as food so that affluent people could continue to drive around their cars without being penalized by upcoming stricter environmental laws might do more harm than good. Coconut based food products would skyrocket, increasing the burden of the poor on their daily meals.

Another problem that hinders coco diesel from becoming fiscally competitive to petroleum derived diesel is the government-concerned-dragging-of-heels in legislating tax cuts and issuing grants to those start up companies who are making coco diesel.

Fortunately until a newer study of this nature is presented, bio fuels like coco diesel might only be a bit cleaner than their fossil fuel derived counterparts. The BBC, CNN, Discovery Channel, National Geographic or any other environmentally concerned media corporation are not likely to run out of ideas for documentaries about how to take better care of our planet.

If you like to know more about the carbon cycle and view detailed diagrams, check out “enviropedia.org.uk”.

How Eco Friendly is Corn Derived Ethanol?

2008-01-11T04:27:00.000-08:00

After watching a series of documentaries presented by the BBC in their climate watch series, I think its about time that we reevaluate corn- derived ethanol’s green credentials.

By: Vanessa Uy

Corn-derived ethanol is a bio fuel derived from fermenting corn syrup that can be mixed with varying amounts of gasoline or petrol that can run conventional gasoline engines with varying degrees of very minor modifications. At first, anyone, including the experts will testify that this is a very good way to limit our technological society’s continuous adding of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, which is the main cause of global warming. Note: that corn plants are continually growing and producing fruits and every time it does this it removes- the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere where the gas increases the greenhouse effect- sending it to the corn’s various parts where the carbon dioxide is converted to cellulose. This is the idea behind “carbon capture” where excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is removed from where it causes the most harm to where it can be stored safely like the corn’s cellulose structure. As we already know, excess carbon dioxide produced by our technological society is contributing to the greenhouse effect that’s warming up our planet thus increasing the strength of new hurricanes causing widespread damage.

This carbon capture solution via the widespread planting of corn crops for use in bio fuel production seems like hitting two birds with one stone. Since corn plants are sustainable because it continually bears fruits where the corn-derived ethanol can be processed unlike “fossil fuel” sources like petroleum in which the gasoline or diesel fuels derived from this doesn’t revert back to petroleum as opposed to a bio fuel like corn-derived ethanol.

So, what’s the problem? After watching those BBC documentaries on their climate watch series, so far, the scientists haven’t yet conducted studies on the extent on how truly carbon neutral (i.e. doesn’t contribute carbon dioxide into the atmosphere) plant derived bio fuels are from all levels of production to usage. After the corn-derived ethanol is burned in an internal combustion engine either for transport or electricity generation, the resulting carbon dioxide gas lingers in the atmosphere for a while. No study yet exists if how long should this carbon dioxide be allowed to linger in the atmosphere before it becomes a problem. It takes a relatively long time for this carbon dioxide to be absorbed into the corn’s cellulose structure compared to the length of time ethanol is produced from the corn. Also, the process of harvesting the corn and fermenting it into ethanol takes energy at present, this energy is likely being generated by burning fossil fuels. And another thing, fermenting the sugars in corn syrup to ethanol produces carbon dioxide that eventually escapes into the atmosphere. Whether this amount of carbon dioxide is more or less than the one generated by the corn-derived ethanol when burned in an internal combustion engine is yet to be studied.

Also, using crops which are originally intended as food so that affluent people could continue to drive around their cars without being penalized by up and coming stricter environmental laws might cause more harm than good. Back in 2005, Mexican corn growers marched in protest against using corn as fuel because this might increase corn prices increasing the burden on the poor who are most likely to use corn as food as opposed to using corn to fill up their cars.

Fortunately until a newer study of this nature is presented, bio fuels like corn-derived ethanol might only be a bit cleaner than their fossil fuel derived counterparts. The BBC, CNN, Discovery Channel, National Geographic or any other environmentally oriented media corporation are not likely to run out of ideas for documentaries about how to take better care of our planet.

To know more about the carbon cycle and view detailed diagrams check out “enviropedia.org.uk”.

Toilets for the Third World: Necessity or Extravagance?

2008-01-11T04:24:00.000-08:00

The chronic lack of clean and safe drinking water coupled with the ever- growing spread of water – borne diseases. Will the ubiquitous “modern” toilet be the solution to the Third World nation’s water problems?

By: Vanessa Uy

When I heard about the Inaugural World Toilet Summit 2007 and Expo discuss their plans to alleviate the sanitation problems of 2.6 billion people who don’t have access to proper –i.e. hygienic – toilet facilities, I asked myself Why did the “affluent” West took so long in addressing this problem? Is it hard to figure out the link between keeping the communal groundwater safe by keeping the communal toilet hygienic by modern standards? Nonetheless I just hope that the summit achieve it’s “lofty goal” of providing toilets for the Third World “poor”.

One of the problems that needs to be tackled in the World Toilet Summit 2007 so that their goal would succeed is the design of a low-cost toilet design that uses less water than typical toilets used in the “Industrialized West”. A typical Western toilet uses 1.6 gallons of water to flush 250 grams of fecal matter safely. But this kind of toilet needs to be supported by an existing sewage system which most Third World countries don’t have or existing ones are in need of repair. A “modern” toilet that uses the fraction of the water for flushing than a typical “Western” toilet is in the pipeline. And with a cost of US$30 or less, this could well be the “appropriate technology” needed to meet the demands of Third World conditions.

In the past, the peasants of the Orient had used their rice paddies as the communal toilet. Even though this practice has the advantage of using human fecal matter as a source of free organic fertilizer, in densely populated communities the practice could easily initiate cholera epidemics or other water borne diseases. Composting type toilets had since been in current use in some parts of Vietnam and China, but it safely works only in sparsely populated communities.

In affluent societies, we frequently take the humble modern toilet for granted. Since it’s a necessity when it comes to a vital –albeit relatively disgusting – part of human metabolism, toilets are somewhat a taboo topic in the industrial world. The industrialized world’s Victorian-era perception of the ubiquitous toilet had made the affluent citizens of our planet had forgotten that the humble toilet could be a lifesaver in the Third World.

The Inconvenience of Nuclear Power

2008-01-11T04:20:00.000-08:00

Despite nuclear fission’s promise as a power source that doesn’t exacerbate our planet’s greenhouse effect, we need to take a step back and focus on safety issues.

By: Vanessa Uy

Of all the incidents that fuel the passions of anti-nuclear activists, there’s none greater than the incident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station of April 26, 1986 that changed the entire world’s views on nuclear energy. Unknown to most of the world, the incident at the GKSS Nuclear Research Center in September 12, 1986 serves as a reminder to all of us the issue of safety on the commercial applications of nuclear power. Located in the Elbmarch Region of Schleiswig-Holstein along the Elba River near Hamburg has been dubbed as “Germany’s Chernobyl” due to the increased incidence of childhood leukemia in that region 4 years after the September 12, 1986 incident. A nearby nuclear facility, Krümmel Nuclear Power Station was later ruled out as the source of the radioactive contamination in Schleiswig-Holstein.

The two nuclear facilities are somewhat convenient scapegoats as the main cause of the “leukemia clusters” but there are evidence supporting this. Back in the late evening hours of September 12, 1986 eyewitnesses saw an eerie looking fire coming from the GKSS Nuclear Research Center facility which was described to be changing colors from blue to green to yellow.

In 1991, the Leukemia Action Group was established and with the help of the local government of Schleiswig-Holstein and some benefactors raised 5 million euros in funds to investigate the extent of the radioactive contamination of the region. Soil samples were collected around the area then send to be analyzed in various European laboratories accredited with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). The soil samples show the presence of strange microscopic metallic beads that doesn’t occur naturally in the region. The readings of the soil for ionizing radiation were five times above normal levels. Household dust particles taken from low traffic parts of the house like attics were collected around the Schleiswig-Holstein region. After being analyzed, the presence of transuranic elements like plutonium and americium were detected.

Some government officials point the source of the contamination to the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant incident. But the experts later concluded that the mysterious metallic beads found near the GKSS Nuclear Research Center are core fragments from a fission reactor and can only be found in the immediate vicinity of a serious nuclear accident since they are too heavy to be carried by the wind. To this day, suspicions of a cover up / conspiracy persists on the true extent of the accident.

Sustainable Tropical Hardwoods Anyone?

2008-01-11T04:18:00.000-08:00

While the global powers-that-be wrangle in the Heiligendamm G8 over how the Kyoto Protocol threatens their “industry”, some entrepreneurs are saving the planet via sustainable business practices.

By: Vanessa Uy

Tropical hardwoods harvested by sustainable means and have ecological certification has been in vogue lately with top- notch European furniture designers. These woods are priced by the designers not only for their exquisite quality but also the fact that you can purchase one guilt-free. Finally, we can now experience the pride of ownership of beautiful tropical hardwood furniture in our own homes without the guilt that used to come with these items like deforestation and/or swindling indigenous tribes from an honest and fair transaction.

A German company called Unique Wood imports rare tropical hardwoods from Paraguay that are grown and harvested by sustainable means with the attendant certification. As you know, the concept and practice of sustainable forestry was invented in Germany in the 19th Century. So it’s only right for her to set an example for the rest of the world.

A German business consulting firm, GTZ train the local Paraguayan wood suppliers on sound business practices while maintaining the environmentally friendly ethos that keeps the tropical hardwood supply sustainable. Just as well because the demand in Europe for tropical hardwoods has increased over the past few years. At present, only 5% of Paraguay’s original forest remain today. When Unique Wood’s suppliers harvest tropical hardwoods, nothing is wasted. The excess limbs and branches are turned into charcoal with ecological certification in keeping in line with sustainable development so that the biodiversity of the local forests are preserved. Sadly, not all –if enough- of Paraguay’s forest resources are harvested and managed in a sustainable manner.

Rock Against Global Warming

2008-01-11T04:15:00.000-08:00

Will Al Gore score another “first” by holding a Rock concert like “Live Earth” to spread awareness on the dangers of global warming?

By: Vanessa Uy

Al Gore is indeed a pioneering figure. He’s the first politician to use his influence to spread awareness on the possible harm global warming can cause to our planet and to our civilization. Despite of the Bush Administration/Oligarchy’s stance on the contrary, Al Gore successfully influenced most of the world’s policymakers to legislate climate protection laws.

“Live Earth” is a Rock concert slated across seven continents to spread awareness of global warming to the next generation. As of June 20, 2007, Al Gore was reportedly meeting with Madonna to strike a deal for a performance highlighting the seriousness of his efforts.

In the past 20 years, Rock concerts for a cause like Sir Bob Geldof’s “Live Aid” - were held for famine relief and humanitarian efforts for Ethiopia and various “needy” parts of Africa. As does the 2005 “Live 8” as a form of moral pressure to keep the powers-that-be in the Gleneagles G8 to make serious of their sincerity to make poverty history not just in Africa but for the rest of the world.

If it succeeds, “Live Earth” could go down in history – as the 1969 Woodstock does- as a unique musical event. I hope “Live Aid” does to our environment as the 1969 Woodstock did to a generation of young people back then i.e. a revolutionary cultural advancement. Back then Jimi Hendrix made white suburban white teens more aware of Dr. Martin Luther King’s message. Which artist or performer will do the same for the urgency of current environmental causes on this coming “Live Earth” concert

Silent Spring Revisited

2008-01-11T04:12:00.000-08:00

Way before Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” became the environmental rally point for the “Generation Next”, Rachel Carson had a dire warning on the wanton use of pesticides in the 1960’s.

By: Vanessa Uy

To me, environmentalism gained a foothold in the Western psyche in the intervening years after World War II. Even though it’s roots could be traced back to the 19th Century by the ideals of most sensitive, reflective and most observant of folks like Henry David Thoreau whose nature-is-best treatise “Walden” inspired environmental consciousness in America. While John Muir, the Californian naturalist and writer pioneered in protest against man’s rape of the wilderness.

I first learned of Rachel L. Carson’s “Silent Spring” from an educational animated film where the music teacher lectured on how Ludwig Van Beethoven was inspired to compose his then famous Fifth Symphony after listening to the singing of springtime birds. Then the teacher elaborated to her class what would be left to inspire our future musicians and artists if the ongoing environmental destruction continues unabated. To me, those gifted renaissance persons whose skills made the internet into the present very user friendly incarnation that we use today, if I dare presume, must have been inspired by reflecting on nature’s beauty. If they are rather inspired by staring at leaking corroded pipes in home basements and big city alleyways, then I’ll be very much surprised.

Back in 1962, when marine biologist Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring”, she rallied a battle cry for a generation of environmentalists. Carson made the issue of the harmful effects of environmental pollution more than a mere academic abstraction for graduate school ecologists. At the time, extensive research had found out that DDT-type insecticides (aromatic chlorinated hydrocarbons) can interfere with the ability of most wild birds to produce a hard protective shell for their eggs. Thus shedding the light on the cause of the slowly dwindling population of springtime birds in the continental United States hence the title of Carson’s book: “Silent Spring.”

Is environmentalism a lost cause simply because only the environmentally conscious heed the warnings of environmentalists and put it upon themselves to take the necessary steps in protecting our environment? To me, this might have been true for the past 40 or so years, but thanks to the efforts of a new generation of environmentalists like Al Gore, Rachel Carson’s crusade for a better planet is still very much alive.

Beyond the Rhetoric: The Philippine Anti-Blast Fishing Campaign

2008-01-11T04:08:00.000-08:00

No longer the “toothless law” it once was, will the Philippine anti-blast fishing law work this time around?

By: Vanessa Uy

Ever since the post World War II economic reconstruction period, blast fishing – a fishing method that’s all but outlawed throughout the civilized world – gained notoriety here in the Philippines. It seems like anyone who can cobble up an ammonium nitrate based IED (improvised explosive device) is “good to go” for blast fishing, despite of the possible fatal injury to the fisherman and the long term damage that’s inflicted to our fragile coral reef systems. Even after years of illegal blast fishing, studies revealed that the seas surrounding the Philippine islands – especially in the Visayan region – are deemed more bio diverse than Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. According to Nygiel B. Armada a FISH fisheries manager, the Visayan seas contain more than 26 tons of fish per square kilometer. Despite of this apparent abundance, marine resources –like fish- need to be managed to maintain sustainability. Illegal fishing methods like blast fishing threaten the sustainability of our fish stocks. The damage caused by blast fishing goes beyond the crater formed by the explosive device, ultra-fine coral fragments created from the resulting blast can smother the surrounding coral bed causing long term damage that can drastically affect the local fishing industry.

Recent anti-blast fishing campaigns- especially those being spearheaded by Jojo de la Victoria and Tony Oposa are seen by local environmental pressure groups as a long-awaited “White Knight” that will eliminate the problem of illegal fishing in one fell swoop. While setting up patrols to police the relatively lawless Visayan seas. Jojo de la Victoria and Tony Oposa’s program of penalizing perpetrators to the full extent of the law, market denial of fish caught by illegal means coupled with an educational campaign explaining to the communities dependent on the fishing industry the follies of blast fishing. Their program proved to be very effective because blast fishing seems to have vanished almost overnight. Unfortunately, this angered the lawless elements that are involved in the illegal blast fishing industry.

Sadly, Jojo de la Victoria was assassinated in a desperate attempt by the organized crime elements involved in the illegal fishing industry to stop the very successful anti-blast fishing campaign that he and Tony Oposa had started. The anti-blast fishing campaign was not daunted by the murder of one of the founders. Instead, it gained the much- needed impetus to stop blast fishing once and for all. Bantay Dagat patrols with the help of NBI personnel equipped with M-16 rifles conduct raids on known blast fishing hot spots/strongholds, and confiscating paraphernalia used for blast fishing. At the same time educating these communities that blast fishing can deprive them of their livelihood by destroying the coral reefs that fishes need to spawn.

Unlike the Marcos-era Bantay Dagat of yore, which are no more than mere rhetoric aimed to please the local and international environmental pressure groups. The campaign established by Jojo de la Victoria and Tony Oposa is more likely to succeed and last because the police action is backed by an effective educational campaign. As Tony Oposa said on the environmental effects of blast fishing: “another blast is one blast too many.”

Al Gore in Bio Fuel Row

2008-01-11T03:57:00.000-08:00

Al Gore, the man who brought the urgency of global warming to the world’s policymakers is now caught in a bio fuel controversy.

By: Vanessa Uy

Anti global warming crusader Al Gore has angered the environmental activists in Argentina last May 13, 2007 due to his relatively culturally insensitive introduction of bio fuel industry in Argentina and the rest of Latin America. Gore’s program of promoting bio fuel production to the rest of South America. Has the intent of lessening their dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Unfortunately caused an- uproar on Argentina’s environmental groups that sparked a series of loud demonstrations, burning of the US flag and chanting of anti- US imperialism slogans. The concerns of the Argentina’s environmentalist were warranted though.

Ever since the Argentina’s government started a program of producing ethanol from locally grown sugarcane. Even though the quantities of ethanol produced is for Argentina’s own domestic use, local sugar prices soared and the mono- culture created by the hundreds of hectares of sugarcane fields are a crop failure disaster waiting to happen. This can get much worse though if most Americans just substitute bio fuel like they waste petroleum based fuels. Energy conservation should be an integral part of every program if the industrialized world wants to reduce their “carbon footprint.”

Poorly conceived bio fuel production methods not only create mono -culture problems, this also increases the retail prices of staple foods in most of South America. If the US Government plans to use the whole of South America to grow the bio fuel quota needed to run their wasteful lifestyle, this could be seen as another form of US imperialism in the region. More importantly, the deeply held pre-Columbian beliefs and culture that recently began to assert despite of more than five centuries of European Christian hegemony failed to quell about the Native Latin American peoples reverence to their food crops. This is the main reason why they oppose the large- scale production of bio fuels using staple food crops. Even Venezuelan President Hugo Chaves and Cuban President Fidel Castro are now up in arms in opposition to this latest incarnation of US imperialism. Looks like Al Gore should have consulted Body Shop’s Anita Roddick first before launching such a venture.

A Better Honduran Agricultural Reform

2008-01-11T03:53:00.000-08:00

A farsighted 1992 reforestation effort that protected a region of Honduras against the brunt of 1998’s Hurricane Mitch. Will this make other Honduran farmers choose sustainable development?

By: Vanessa Uy

Hurricane Mitch is probably one of the worst storms that has able to hit Honduras in the past 100 years. The storm’s high death toll was caused primarily on the heavy rain’s effect on most of Honduras’ hillside slopes weakened by slash and burn farming methods. Illegal logging also made these slopes prone to landslides even on hurricanes of lesser strength.

But in some regions of the country, landslides with their accompanying death toll didn’t happen. Thanks to the 1992 reforestation efforts in Limpira and an educational campaign explaining the follies of slash and burn farming methods. Programs that introduce progressive agricultural techniques like crop diversification. Also by allowing trees to act as shades and windbreakers for cornfields lessens the rate of water evaporating from the soil thus minimizing the amount of water used for irrigation. The locals called it “Kisengual” farming technique in honor of the pre-Columbian tribal identity of the region. The Kisengual farming technique allows the farmers to increase their corn harvest. This allows them to use the surplus corn to feed their chickens and cows as opposed to buying commercial feeds.

Introducing the concept of bio-diversity to our agricultural practices makes it sustainable. This also allows small- scale farmers the hands-on experience of organic farming, agricultural products free from harmful chemicals and at an affordable price.

11th Hour: Last Call to Stop Global Warming

2008-01-11T03:49:00.000-08:00

With the box office success and political impact of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” will Leonardo Di Caprio’s “11th Hour” do the same.

By: Vanessa Uy

Another “environmental opus” coming you’re way via the 60th Cannes Film Festival. I just hope that the hype generated by these two environmentally conscientious works doesn’t downplay the seriousness surrounding the issue of climate change and/or global warming. I haven’t yet seen “11th Hour” in it’s entirety, but the trailer suggest it’s about those pro-Bush/pro-Republican climatologists who kept the proof of global warming from reaching the policymakers on Capitol Hill. The film is a very thorough explanation of the world’s policymaker’s current mad-dash to formulate laws to lessen the impact of global warming. Even my friends who served during the 1991 Operation: Desert Storm predicted that by the year 2000, cars will be run by something other than gasoline as they witnessed first hand the carnage caused by the industrialized world’s lust for petroleum.

Ecological Technology

2008-01-11T03:44:00.000-08:00

Can we solve our current energy crisis in an ecologically friendly manner? Can we gain better understanding on ecological systems when viewed from a technological perspective? The answer is a big yes but only if our intellect is up to the challenge.

By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy

Ecology, the branch of science that deals with the interactions of living organisms and their environment, a term derived from two Greek words which mean ”the study of the home” while technology is the totality of the means employed to provide objects necessary for human sustenance and comfort.

Since humans are the dominant “life form” on this planet, and are viewed as the cause célèbre for all of our ecological problems. Paradoxically, it is us that can only solve the problems that we create in the first place. One of the problems that we face today is our increasing demand for energy generation that is not necessarily environmentally friendly to begin with. How we go about solving this must go hand in hand on how we will protect our environment just to keep our planet habitable in the future. All the energy that mankind utilizes, whether renewable or not, all come from nature. Only a handful of scientists like R. Buckminster Fuller view ecosystems as an interrelationship between matter and energy or more aptly living organisms and energy.

All ecosystems are governed by: “The Laws of Thermodynamics”, this is the relationship between matter and energy in a system. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that “the sum total energy in a system is constant” i.e. energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is a tendency toward entropy or maximum disorganization of a structure and the loss of usable energy. These laws prevent us from formulating an easy solution to our energy problem in an ecologically friendly manner. But first, let’s check out how nature manages energy to sustain an ecosystem.

In autotrophic based ecosystems, the energy that is stored through net primary production by photosynthetic organisms is used to support higher trophic levels. Energy flows only one way through these levels with decreasing amount at each level. The energy that is captured by the autotrophs (photosynthetic plants) does not revert back to the sun. And also; what energy that flows to the herbivore does not flow back to the photosynthetic plants, and so on, as it moves through the various trophic levels, energy is no longer available to the previous level. The important implication of this unidirectional flow of energy in an ecosystem is that the system would collapse if the primary source of energy, like the sun is cut off.

The next major fact to be noted is the progressive decrease in energy at each trophic level. This fact can be explained by the energy lost as heat in metabolic activity and manifests here as respiration. This particular ecosystem also has a large amount of unutilized energy. Even if more of this “unutilized energy” is being used in a more efficient system, there would still be considerable loss due to respiration. Thus, even with more efficient energy utilization, considerable energy would still be required to maintain the system.

These factors-Unidirectional energy flow and inefficient energy utilization-account for the requirement of a steady stream of energy to avoid the collapse of an ecosystem. An ecosystem simply cannot itself when deprived of a source of energy input for an extended period of time.

To know more about this energy flow or how “Mother Nature” does energy management on ecosystems, Vanessa and I studied R. Buckminster Fuller’s thesis about “energy and wealth.” At first we thought that we came to a wrong conclusion. At present, most college physics students are taught the idea that the energy of a closed system remains constant, but as time goes on its entropy always increases. That is, natural processes always tend toward states of increased disorder. Based on what they’re taught, those college students could conclude that what humanity’s been doing is using up our available sources of energy at a rate greater than the ability of our technology to make new sources available. Until solar energy is in use on an everyday basis, humanity had better hang on to our oil, coal, natural gas, and wood.

The more we studied R. Buckminster Fuller’s thesis, the more uncomfortable we felt on his rejection on the second law of thermodynamics as a universal principle. This rejection is based on his own axiom that there are no closed systems-that closed systems; like straight lines or bodies at rest, are like obsolete Aristotelian concepts that hinder, rather than help, our understanding of the universe.

Fuller’s synergetic-energetic geometry is still debatable, of course, and it will probably take another generation of experiments and research before his position on the second law of thermodynamics is truly confirmed or refuted. However, a modification of that law has become generally accepted-and if “most college physics students” does not know about this, most graduate physics students do (like Ringo), this concept was only known to graduate physics students because it is a relatively recent finding. Only college physics students who go out of their way and follow closely the latest trends in the advancement of thermodynamic research can know about this. This refers to the development of general systems theory, which redefines both closed and open systems. While closed systems follow the second law precisely, and entropy increases within them, making less energy usable, open systems operate without this restriction, so that negative entropy (negentropy) may increase, making energy more usable.

As L. Brillouin wrote in American Scientist in 1949:

The second¬ [law] means death by confinement…Many textbooks, even the best of them, are none too cautious when they describe the increase of entropy…The theory of relativity, and all the cosmological, quantum mechanical theories that followed…involve a bold revision and drastic modification of the laws of thermodynamics…The earth is not a closed system…The sentence to “death by confinement” is avoided by living in a world that is not a confined and closed system.

Of course, this does not deny the existence of an ecological problem. It’s because the scientists concerned wish that this problem should be understood correctly, as a misuse of technology, like the increase of “greenhouse gasses” in our atmosphere, rather than a consequence of an inescapable human law. This law is a product of our current understanding of the universe, that Fuller and others have emphasized so urgently that there is nothing in thermodynamics that makes the growing ecological disaster inevitable.

So what does all of this suppose to mean? First the ecological structure of our planet is quite complex that it is very easy for the powers- that- be like industrialist and politicians with the help of scientists in their payroll to refute the existence of global warming. They do this by stating that our current knowledge of the planet’s ecosystem is insufficient or flawed and to contradict to this would take research and experiments that would take so much time and money as to be an anathema to the shaky relations between science and politics. Second, we cannot stop technological progress. The Genie is out of the bottle so we have to deal with it rationally. One viable solution to this problem is to move our less ecologically friendly industries out into space, thus the urgent need for “green energy” to escape the earth’s “gravity well.” This in turn will make it easier for us to turn the entire planet as a nature preserve with us humans as an integral part of it.

Climate Change Threaten German Beer Festival

2008-01-10T04:15:00.000-08:00

The effects of climate change are more insidious than we presently realize; even beer is threatened by global warming.

By: Vanessa Uy

If you think that global warming can’t possibly affect those traditions-no matter how trivial-that we hold dear, then you’re wrong. When spring arrived early in the heart of Europe this year, most Germans greeted the strange phenomena with much rejoicing and fanfare. But a warmer climate could threaten a much- loved German staple: beer. Whether you believe that the ancestral home of beer is Germany or Ancient Egypt, you should be concerned on how global warming and climate change can affect your cherished “brew.” The type of barley that is used to brew traditional German gourmet beer has not weathered very well to Europe’s increasingly warmer climate. Looks like ski resorts are not the only casualty of global warming.

A decline in barley harvest was noticed in Germany during the past few years. There was also a noted decline in the general health and well being of the kind of barley that is traditionally used in preparing German beer. Where this leads to can only be assessed by on going research on the warming climate’s effects on the barley crop.

Compounding the threat of climate change on Germany’s beer culture is the European Union’s heavy-handed approach in granting financial subsidies. The EU hand these out like their going out of fashion to farmers who comply to their current mission du jour. Crops that can be used to produce bio fuels like the rape plant whose rape seed oil can be easily converted to bio diesel are heavily subsidized. This “free-money” diplomacy can easily make small-scale German farmers to choose “favored” crops as opposed to barley.

Fear and Loathing on the World Community’s Efforts for Climate Protection

2008-01-10T04:11:00.000-08:00

Now that there’s a consensus that global warming is primarily caused by our industrial activities, should we be optimistic about a solution that serves everyone’s interests.

By: Vanessa Uy

Have you noticed that anything designed by a committee is seldom aesthetically and functionally pleasing? I hope that this fate doesn’t befall the well-intentioned actions of the Global Community / Powers-That-Be to limit the impact of our industrial processes on our climate. Believe me, I’m all for establishing resolutions to limit the generation of greenhouse gasses that’s causing global warming that would eventually cause a catastrophic climate change and sea level rise. But chances are, the United States will have the loudest voice on formulating policies to solve this somewhat intransigent dilemma because herein lies the true extent of the complexity of the task at hand. But first, lets take a look back on the United States Government’s track record on how might they deal with this problem.

During the end of the 1960’s, the gravest threat to the Global Community was the all-out nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the then Soviet Union. The Nixon administration at that time was in a unique position to declare a détente or and end to the “Cold War” and the ability to enforce it. Sadly, the U.S. Administration at that time was extremely reluctant to reformulate the “canon” of their “interests” and foreign policies. This was immortalized in that famous Richard M. Nixon quote; “Peace in our time with honor.” A lot of people will argue that it was a good thing because the almost imminent all-out nuclear exchange was postponed indefinitely. But as time went on, this flawed foreign policy has created Al-Qaeda and despotic Persian Gulf Heads-of-State.

If the U.S. Administration’s involvement in formulating laws that are of benefit to the Global Community in tackling catastrophic climate change is still based on a 40-year-old “canon” that protects U.S. interests in maintaining their Military-Industrial-Complex above all else would probably result in two scenarios. One, it would be doomed to fail; two, it would create more problems that it intends to solve.

Maybe, we should take solace on what Abraham Lincoln said about slavery more than a hundred years ago. He said that the institution of slavery was “formulated on both injustice and bad policy.” This is much like our present “agricultural subsidies” that only benefit the rich and powerful. Policymakers really should think carefully on how they should formulate solutions to protect our climate that not only benefits the poor but also rich industrialists can live with.

Most “common folks” that I know have been doing their part in protecting our planet. Some of them for more than thirty years by reducing energy consumption and recycling in order to conserve our dwindling natural resources. Let us just hope that when run-of-the-mill politicians use their heavy handedness on environmentalism, Russian Literature buffs won’t be saying: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

How Real Is Global Warming

2008-01-10T04:07:00.000-08:00

Since the runaway blockbuster success of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and a well-founded case of “Republicans” suppressing evidence on global warming since the mid-1990’s, is everyone ready to heed the warning signs?

By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy

We’ve been always fascinated by the concept behind the “Einsteinian Dictum.” It’s Albert Einstein’s suggestions to scientists when presenting their scientific theories and laws to the general public. Einstein says “Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.” On presenting their ideas on global warming to the public, “simple as possible” is fast becoming “we don’t get it” unless you’re a climatologist with a minor in chaos theory. The earth’s climatic system is quite complex that at present there are still some aspects of it that we don’t understand. The good news is that more and more people are well informed of the issues on taking care of our climate. The bad news is that a lot of people, including climatologists and policymakers under the tenure of the industrial-political-powers-that-be, can quite easily refute the existence of global warming using the complexity of the earth’s climate as an excuse.

One aspect of this confusion is the natural “greenhouse effect” that keeps the global average temperature to within 25ºC. This is caused by the small amount of carbon dioxide gas (200 parts per million) that’s naturally present in the earth’s atmosphere. This traps the infrared or heat component of the sun’s radiation that reaches us. Without this, our global average temperature would be about -30ºC. The main culprit of global warming is the dramatic increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere due to our industrial processes being run by burning fossil fuels.

Global warming that’s caused by the increase of greenhouse gasses, primarily carbon dioxide, was first described by Dr. Roger Revelle back in 1957. Revelle was concerned about the vast quantities of carbon dioxide venting into the earth’s atmosphere as a by-product of our industrial processes like electricity generation and/or transportation. Revelle wrote that, ”Mankind is inadvertently conducting a great geochemical experiment.” As the world’s climatologists continue to gather data during the intervening years, recently, a large majority came to an alarming conclusion. It was assumed that Earth’s climatic system was resilient enough to absorb shocks and respond to human influence in a steady, gradual way has come under question. One prediction by climatologists that’s being suppressed by the industrial-political-powers-that-be is that the climate can suddenly – within a century or less – flip into an entirely different mode, a “climate change.” In fact, the climatologists argue using evidence recently collected from the polar ice caps and ocean sediments shows that it has already occurred in the past.

Due to the lack of concrete findings from the scientific community, our policymakers are forced to adopt a wait- and-see approach, which is being criticized by the experts as a dangerous naïveté. A number of qualified weather experts are challenging the present existence of global warming that’s being caused by the increase of greenhouse gas emissions. Reid Bryson, a prominent professor of meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, has stated that the global warming predictions are based on flawed data. If anything Bryson and others claim, that the worldwide climate over the past 50 years is getting colder, not warmer. Kenneth E. F. Watt, professor of zoology and environmental studies at the University of California at Davis, points out that the urban "heat-island" effect known since 1952 is the reason why the data we have at present that points to global warming is suspect. Another critic is James Goodrich, one time chief climatologist for the state of California, points out that the use of urban temperature records for monitoring long-term climatic trends skews the results that would validate the existence of global warming.

Despite the credible experts probably with vested interests from the industrial-political-powers-that-be, an- albeit less vocal majority of the scientific establishment in the United States tends to accept the existence of global warming. One of them is James Hansen of NASA, has been recommending immediate congressional action since the mid-1980’s, to slow down the degradation of the earth’s atmosphere, and set targets for global reduction in the burning of fossil fuels.

As Vanessa and I viewed Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” a movie which is a critique-backed-by-scientific-data to the policymaker’s inaction in taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We can say that we are now better informed and thus have a more realistic perception of the big picture. Using the worse case scenario projected progression of global warming, we can conclude that the Kyoto Protocol’s target and timetable of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is unrealistic. It’s a “catch 22” of the industrial world’s reluctant to develop and adapt non-carbon based alternative sources, and the long term effects of the greenhouse gasses from industry even if we suddenly stop generating them.

And even if you don’t believe that global warming exists, you should know that the “American Foreign Policy Du Jour” affects us all. The U.S. Government’s dependence on foreign oil and reluctance to develop and adapt alternative energy sources is a sign that it’s okay for them to “reward bad behavior” to despotic Middle-Eastern States that are the primary producers of petroleum. This petroleum dependence is the source of revenue of these repressive regimes that threaten geopolitical stability.

Isn’t Overpopulation a Problem?

2008-01-10T04:03:00.000-08:00

Various interest groups still insist that overpopulation is not a problem, are they waiting for cheap kalashnikovs for a speedy resolution?

By: May Anne UY

In 2006, ecologists around the world reached a consensus that the current human population has an “ecological footprint” equivalent to 1.2 Earths. This means that we need another fifth of planet Earth in order for each and every one of us humans to live comfortably and prosper. Population/birth control programs are tried and true (i.e. most humane) methods of controlling our numbers but religious zealots seem to continue to have increasing clout over legitimate governments in our supposedly rational 21st Century.

Back in 1798, the English cleric Thomas Malthus influenced public thought on population and food supply via an essay that still exerts controversy till this day. Malthus predicted that people would always multiply faster than their food supply/means of production and populations would be “kept equal to the means of subsistence by misery and vice.” In modern terms, the restrictive factors at work are – primarily – the starvation and pestilence that threaten underdeveloped nations. But advanced nations, benefiting from developments Malthus did not appreciate, such as birth control and farm technology, produce more food that they can use.

Ah birth control, a very humane and effective solution against food shortage and environmental destruction. Except that in poor and depressed parts of our planet, the Catholic Church seem to be the be-all end-all policymaker/clout-meister when it comes to family planning / birth control. Your Holiness, its 2007 not 1407. You hide behind the Crimen Solitationis law like an American Soldier uses the Posse Comitatus law to justify half-assed jobs. If the Catholic Church/Vatican really care about the well being of these people and their “Canon” doesn’t allow them to support birth control, then how about manned space travel/ space colonization? Sadly, their political view on this idea is hopelessly bunkum. Remember what the Catholic Church did to Giordano Bruno and Galileo 400 or so years ago. In our recent past, I never ever heard or saw Pope John Paul II or any high ranking Vatican official urging then US President Ronald Reagan or the NASA Administrator at the time of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster to “stay the course.” Is this proof that the Catholic Church doesn’t support existing manned space programs and/or will not support space colonization programs in the future? This could be the most viable solution to the overpopulation problem that’s killing our planet.

It’s now election season here in the Philippines, electoral candidates are now vying to be elected for their various electoral positions. Along with environmental concerns, overpopulation is an issue that’s probably on the way bottom/unimportant cache on the list of problems to be tackled by our politicians and policymakers elected or otherwise. Is this due to the Catholic Church’s apparent illusory hegemony over our government, God only knows? To me, the problem of overpopulation is long overdue to be discussed in an erudite and rational atmosphere by our policymakers and government officials. It’s the primary/root cause (take your pick) of poverty here in the Philippines. Despite the 10% economic growth attributed to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s policies, the population grew by 25% during the same period. How can you share the wealth under such conditions? If our country doesn’t exert a concerted effort to solve our overpopulation problem soon, conditions similar to that which started the genocide in Rwanda back in April of 1994 will be upon us by the year 2012. I hope that you have already stocked your share of black market Soviet-era weaponry as a stop gap solution.

Methane Hydrate: A Blessing or a Curse

2008-01-10T04:00:00.000-08:00

A huge reserve of methane found under the sea could ease our current energy problems, or send our planet into a runaway greenhouse effect.

By: Vanessa Uy

Studies show that the amount of methane hydrate that’s currently found under of all the Earth’s oceans is probably twice as large as our current reserves of other fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas combined. Even though all of this methane hydrate has the danger of escaping into the Earth’s atmosphere increasing the effects of global warming, it also has the potential of easing our current energy shortage. Also, methane is the cleanest carbon based fuel in current use.

The mysterious phenomena of deep-sea methane hydrate deposits, is being currently under investigation by marine geologists all over the world. Methane hydrate can also be found in the permafrost layer of the soil in Arctic regions, but deep-sea deposits are more concentrated therefore more economical to mine. Methane hydrate is made up of frozen water or ice that contains large amounts of methane gas trapped in its crystal structure. The chemical process of hydration also contributes to the relative stability of methane hydrate crystals. On extremely rare occasions, methane hydrate fields can suddenly out- gas in huge eruptions. This could explain why some ships mysteriously sank without a trace in the Bermuda Triangle, even on calm weather conditions.

Chemists, geologist and other scientists have now joined forces to study of methane hydrate crystals from its stability aspect to the economics of harvesting it as a source of methane fuel. Certain deep sea beds are now being studied whether the relatively high water pressure of the deep ocean or the relatively low temperature of just a few degrees above freezing are factors that affect the occurrence of methane hydrate crystals.

One of the few research vessels that’s currently studying the phenomena of methane hydrate deposits is the Hamburg-based Meteor. Meteor is a German science vessel that is specially equipped with an autoclave corer that can reach 2000 meters below to extract the methane hydrate seam. This autoclave corer enables her to maintain the ambient water pressure that surrounds the methane hydrate deposits-usually 180 bar- as these samples are brought to the surface to be collected. Then the other samples of methane hydrate are stored in a cryogenic fluid like liquid nitrogen for further analysis in land-based laboratories.

Marine Geologist Gerhard Bormann of Marum Bremen University with a team of chemist and engineers run the research ship Meteor. They are currently involved in the feasibility study of mining methane hydrate from the ocean’s dept without exacerbating the effects of global warming by allowing the methane to leak into the atmosphere. Japanese scientists are also involved in formulating efficient and economical ways of extracting deep-sea methane hydrate deposits.

By melting methane hydrate crystals in the lab, scientists found out that the “frozen” methane expands to 160 times its volume as a gas. Even though by weight, a typical piece of methane hydrate crystal is just made up of 10 to 15 percent methane by weight.

Mercury Rising

2008-01-10T03:56:00.000-08:00

An almost forgotten relic of World War II has become a ticking time bomb, threatening the island of Fedje in Norway with a large- scale ecological disaster.

By: Vanessa Uy

When the German u-boat U-864 was torpedoed by the British Royal Navy operating near the waters of the island of Fedje (pronounced feyah) during World War II, the act generated repercussions that extends to this day. Recently declassified World War II era documents provided by the United States Government reveals the true mission of U-864. U-864 was transporting 60 metric tons of the toxic liquid metal mercury to imperial era Japan to jump- start her own nuclear weapons program.

In recent years, campaigns to raise the U-864 and salvage her toxic mercury cargo to avoid an ecological disaster that may come sooner rather than later. Interest groups like the Citizens Initiative Raise U-864 are pleading the international community for assistance since salvaging the tons of toxic mercury trapped in a sunken World War II era submarine under 700 meters of water requires tools and expertise that the local government of Fedje just don’t have.

The local inhabitance are quite fearful of the environmental contamination that amount of mercury can cause. Anyone familiar with the term “minamata disease” may have an idea about this. “Minamata disease” was named after a place in Japan, were a factory illegally dumped toxic chemical wastes mostly composed of mercury compounds into the local waterways. The locals eat the fish found in these waters not knowing the extent of the contamination. Many die due to the toxic effects of mercury and many children are born with malformed limbs. The illegal dumping was not immediately halted since it happened just a few years after World War II. Japan was under rapid industrialization, environmental concerns just has to take a back seat. I hope Fedje won’t become a 21st Century Minamata.

Mount Everest Rubbish Problem

2008-01-10T03:53:00.000-08:00

A problem that’s long overdue for a clean- up, can the Japanese team tackle this problem single-handedly?

By: Vanessa Uy

Ever since, mountaineers from distant land’s flock to Nepal to fulfil their ambitions to reach to the summit of Mount Everest. The worlds journalist-at-large continually seem to ignore the rubbish problem that’s been steadily piling up around Mount Everest. Threatening to spoil the pristine nature of the surrounding landscape.

In May 29, 2007-a Japanese team led by acclaimed mountaineer Ken Noguchi is probably the first organized Mount Everest clean-up crew. Ken Noguchi and his team have their work cut out for them. Especially in the “death zone” where the air is so thin no human can survive for prolonged periods. This is where spent oxygen bottles litter the landscape and the odd human remains lay were they originally fell because even top sherpas don’t have enough strength to recover bodies from the “death zone.” Ken Noguchi and team’s commendable efforts are set to coincide with the anniversary of the first successful scaling of Mount Everest back in 1953 by Sir Edmund Hillary and acclaimed sherpa Tensing Norgay.

The Japanese teams efforts will undoubtedly be welcomed with open arms by the global mountaineering community since humanitarian efforts like these around the Himalayas are few and far between. Ken Noguchi and his team’s efforts rank those with Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenseng Norgay’s Educational Fund that the two set up to provide free education to the children of sherpas.

Our Bees Are Dying

2008-01-10T03:49:00.000-08:00

The idea seems so absurd, but toward the end of 2006, everyone in the United States agricultural community had noticed that bees – especially in America’s Northeast region – are becoming scarce.

By: Vanessa Uy

Albert Einstein once said that if all the bees in the world were to disappear, the human race has only four years to live. Bees are extremely important to agricultural crops because without bees not only will our food crops fail to yield their fruits, our food crops won’t be able to reproduce without the aid of bees in their pollination. Remember apiculture (bee keeping) is more than just producing honey.

The phenomenon that describes the continuing decline of honeybee population in the United States is called: “Colony Collapse Disorder.” Colony Collapse Disorder was first observed in a blueberry farm in the state of Maine. Ken State University had conducted bee “autopsies” in the field where Colony Collapse Disorder had occurred. Dennis Van Engelsdorp, one of the researchers investigating the phenomenon have found out that autopsies conducted on the dead bees show that signs of disease are present but the cause is still a mystery. As of the middle of May 2007 the preliminary findings suggest that “Colony Collapse Disorder” -might be caused -by an agent that affects the bee’s immune system.

Even though the jury is still out, “Colony Collapse Disorder” has already been declared as a “calamity” by various farm and agricultural communities in the US. Watermelons and other honeybee dependent crops have shown decline in their yields during the past two years. This had cost farmers millions of dollars in lost yields. At present, “Colony Collapse Disorder” is still localized in the northeastern part of the United States. If we don’t understand this phenomena and create a solution before this spreads around the world, mankind is doomed.

The Earth’s Ozone Layer: Safe at Last?

2008-01-06T05:06:00.000-08:00

The Montreal Protocol might be working since scientists had observed a steady decline of ozone destroying chemicals in our atmosphere since the 1990’s, is this good news for the ozone layer?

By: Ringo Bones

Compared to the Kyoto Protocol’s mandate of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the harm that could be caused by climate change. The Montreal Protocol’s mandate (mission?) of eliminating existing chemicals then in use in the industry and in domestic situations that are harmful to the Earth’s ozone layer was perceived as an insurmountable task – by both critics and proponents alike- 20 years ago.

The Montreal Protocol, whose full official title is the Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer is a treaty that was established on September 16, 1987 at Montreal, Canada by a 25 nation body who first signed on. Presently, 168 nations are now parties to the accord. The Montreal Protocol’s mandate was to set limits on the production of ozone depleting chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and related substances that release chlorine or bromine to the ozone layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. But first, a brief description on how the ozone layer of our planet works.

The Earth’s ozone layer –or the part that filters harmful UV rays out- is found in the upper part of the stratosphere at 40 to 50 kilometers up. The ozone found at ground level is a pollutant. Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen. Allotrope is an element in two or more different forms usually in the same phase like the element carbon that can both exist as coal, or a diamond depending on how it’s atoms are arranged. Unlike the ordinary atmospheric i.e. diatomic oxygen that we breathe whose molecular structure is composed of two oxygen atoms, while ozone has three. Even though both are composed of the same elemental oxygen, ozone can irritate –even damage- our lungs in long term exposure. While monatomic oxygen i.e. gaseous oxygen existing as single atoms plays a part in providing color in the aurora borealis and australis as it gets hit by charged particles from the sun. Every time an ozone molecule gets hit by an energetic ultraviolet radiation from the sun like UV-B (cancer causing), UV-C (chromosomal and immune system damage) and UV-A (tans the skin but still harmful in excess), it breaks apart into a diatomic oxygen molecule and a monatomic oxygen. Oddly enough, the same harmful UV rays allow the ripped oxygen molecules to recombine into ozone thus the cycle continues. This is how ozone absorbs UV radiation. While ozone destroying chemicals that reach the stratosphere also break ozone molecules apart, the bad part is the ozone molecule broken by this method didn’t perform it’s duty of absorbing UV rays. If enough ozone is broken apart chemically, levels of harmful UV rays could reach the Earth’s surface.

The biggest hurdle in the total manufacture and utilization ban of ozone destroying chemicals is that the “miracles” of contemporary society like refrigerants / keeping things cool and putting out “technical” fires will be seriously affected by the ban. The haloalkane / BCF fire suppressant halon had saved countless fighter pilots that served during the Vietnam War. An F-105 Thunderchief survived being hit by a Soviet made surface-to-air missile to return to her home air base thanks to the halon fire suppression system. Next to the modern ejection seat, halon is the modern jet pilot’s “other best friend.”

Under the Montreal Protocol, the ozone depleting potential or ODP, of any substance is measured with respect to an equal molecular mass of CFC-11, which is assigned a value of 1.0. Most other CFC’s have an ODP rating that ranges from 0.5 to about 1.3. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which are being used as transitional replacements until 2020 for CFC’s in refrigeration, have ODP’s that are generally less than 0.5. The problem with hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFC’s is that HCFC’s are a very efficient greenhouse gas because of its high specific heat rating. Thus it’s use could contribute to global warming while it’s molecular structure is still under investigation if it chemically breaks down fast enough before it reaches into the stratospheric regions to affect the ozone layer. Hydrofluorocarbons, which are also replacing CFC’s as refrigerants, have an ODP of zero. The molecular structure of HFC’s allows it to chemically break down before it drifts high into the ozone layer. The caveats of hydrofluorocarbons or HFC’s is that the refrigeration system that use HFC’s as a refrigerant are inefficient compared to ones that use CFC or HCFC i.e. it consumes more electricity. Also, ozone-depleting potentials are based on existing scientific knowledge and are to be reviewed and revised periodically. Thus the ODP rating of HFC's could change in the future.

An article published in the March 5, 2007 edition of Science Now about the findings that chlorine based ozone destroying agents are in decline. But the scientists conducting the study are still weary about the future recovery status of our ozone layer because bromine based ozone destroying agents can not yet be tracked with certainty as easily as chlorine based agents using current procedures. The good news is that the preliminary findings suggest that if current preventive measures on ozone depleting chemicals continue, there will be a marked improvement on the status of the Earth’s ozone layer 50 years from now.

A Run for Clean and Safe Drinking Water

2008-01-06T05:02:00.000-08:00

When it comes to campaigns for social and environmental welfare, you can never have enough of these in the harsh reality of today.

By: Vanessa Uy

Blue Water Run, a campaign to highlight the lack of safe and clean drinking water in the developing world. Over 2 million people a year die due to water borne illnesses. Blue Water Run is supported by film star Hillary Swank.

Blue Water Run is billed as a round the world relay race that involves 20 runners in 60 different countries. The runners will be on the road for 95 days.

To me, it’s quite refreshing when famous celebrities use their influence to fast track campaigns to improve the living conditions of the world’s poor. These problems usually rank at the bottom – if ever discussed at all – of the priorities of the powers-that-be during the previous G8 summits. Will the issue of a steady supply clean drinking water for poor communities be ever discussed on the Heiligendamm G8 summit? The Bush Administration will probably “hog” the summit with the issues concerning their “missile defense program.”

For a minimum donation of US$30, you can lend a helping hand in providing a safe and steady supply of clean drinking water for the world’s poorest communities. For more details, just go to www.blueplanetrun.org.

Wither Air Travel

2008-01-03T03:42:00.000-08:00

Even though air travel produce only 3% of the industrial world’s total carbon dioxide output, why do environmentalists continue to vilify it as the main culprit of global warming?

By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy

Having seen “The Ethical Man” series of documentaries on the BBC’s world service, both of us had always wondered why air travel receives a disproportionate amount of vilification by the world’s environmentally conscious populace. Is it because of the current reality that biofuels won’t work (they’ll freeze) at the high altitudes frequented by commercial air traffic? Or is it because that the ownership of “private jets” -the perennial (30-year-old?) aspiration- of the ultimate status symbol never goes out of fashion? If these environmentalists hate air travel for these reasons, are they willing to boycott Mid-East oil in order to solve the turmoil in Iraq and put an end to the Bush Administration/Oligarchy’s and Al- Qaeda’s raison d’être? Or should we be asking the question: “Is there an alternative to air travel?”

Since -at present- politics beat environmental concerns, in our opinion there will never be an alternative to air travel unless the worldwide peace and order situation undergoes a radical turn for the better. Land based mass transit systems –like bus and rail- are easy prey for Taliban-style insurgents armed with assault rifles and man-portable artillery. Sea travel fares no better, remember the Achile Lauro incident more than 20 years ago? Even the US Navy’s USS Cole, was seriously damaged by an Al-Qaeda operative sailing a “floating firecracker.” Since 99% of the world’s terrorist organizations don’t have yet the capability to shoot down commercial planes flying at 30,000 feet, then flying is still-for the foreseeable future- the safest way to travel. Even if it’s not quite environmentally friendly.

The 2008 US Presidential Elections are looming on the horizon. Does every one of these presidential candidates need to hop on their individual private jets just to go from one Presidential Debate venue to another? Maybe these presidential candidates do a “carpooling” equivalent on their private jets. Security protocols could still be maintained while reducing the candidate’s carbon footprint. It would be quite hypocritical if these presidential candidates say they are pro-environment yet they use their private jets as if they are bicycles.

The world’s politicians should stop procrastinating when it comes to conflict resolution. Unless they have a vested interest in a “carbon intensive” industry, a more peaceful world means a less energy-intensive world.

What Drives Our Global Energy Conservation Policies

2008-01-03T03:40:00.000-08:00

When it comes to energy conservation, do the consensus reached by the powers-that-be driven by political or environmental demands?

By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy

In a perfect world, climate and/or environmental protection should dictate our energy conservation policies. But the whole world learned –in a hard way- that this isn’t so. Look at the recent outcome of the Heiligendamm G8. The truth was revealed for the whole world to see that the worlds leading polluters’ reluctance to adapt to “green” technologies is due to their overriding policy of choosing economic growth and poverty eradication over safeguarding our planet’s environment. In our opinion, economic growth doesn’t always translate readily into poverty reduction. In a country like the Philippines where on average the economy grows 1% annually while the annual population growth 2.5%. At this rate poverty always wins hands down.

Our recent Al Gore driven environmental consciousness in almost all levels of society is viewed by the majority of environmentalist that are active since the 1960’s as a “too little too late reaction”, but is it? Plans to make the industrial world’s energy source independent from petroleum had been drawn up since the 1967 Arab – Israeli War. And we always got the same perennial excuse since then: these energy sources can’t compete with cheap Middle Eastern oil. When should the global community take environmental and energy security issues seriously?

Over the years, there had been “missed opportunities” where a charismatic leader of strong political will could expedite during these crucial moments of recent history with a high degree of success of ending the human race’s addiction to petroleum. One of these junctures in history was the very first “Earth Day” back in April 22, 1970. Humor me for a moment; imagine then US Vice President Spiro T. Agnew writing his own version of “An Inconvenient Truth” highlighting the evils of Middle Eastern oil. OPEC would never have come to power in 1973. The OPEC imposed oil embargo on Western nations that happened back in October 17, 1973 and ended on March 18, 1974 could have been just a bad dream. The US Government’s delayed reaction on the OPEC threat by establishing the Department of Energy back in August 4, 1977 would only have only existed in techno thriller – type fiction. Or what if the Operation: Desert Storm veterans voiced their concerns during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) -held in Rio de Janeiro last June 1992- against the needless deaths of enlisted men and women to keep crude oil cheap. Friends of ours who served during Operation: Desert Storm genuinely believed –under enemy fire at that time- that by year 2000 cars will run on stuff- other- than- petrol.

Despite of a long list of missed opportunities of ending our petroleum addiction, policymakers around the world still don’t learn about the gravity of the situation. Do they have to wait for an all out nuclear exchange in the Middle East to consider evaluating alternatives to petroleum? It’s getting increasingly hard for anyone around me from ignoring the fact that every time we flick on a light switch or ride on a gasoline- powered vehicle we are rewarding the bad behavior of despotic Middle Eastern states. Renewable energy doesn’t only mean environmentally friendly energy but guilt free as well. Politics truly is the driving force behind our global energy policy, if only the powers-that-be will realize that we don’t have to buy our energy needs from countries that hate our guts.

Are Evangelical Christians Killing Mother Nature

2008-01-03T03:37:00.000-08:00

The proof is provided via BBC’s World Service broadcast on the 14 of May 2007. Looks like people like me are not “that-kind-of-crazy” anymore.

By: Vanessa Uy

At first, it’s kind of hard for me to tell if this is legitimate news broadcast or one of those Tom Clancy novel-made-for-TV-type things. As every Tom Clancy fan can attest the character driven nature style of his works, this particular BBC news broadcast made Dr. Thomas Ice of Liberty University look and act like the “main villain” on “The Sum of All Fears.” Dr. Thomas Ice unabashedly expressed his views on a legitimate news broadcast that Global Warming and other environmental concerns of recent times are just “Hollywood-left-wing-propaganda.” Is Dr. Ice trying really hard to throw out of the window the concerns of the majority of “Rational Americans” want to achieve. The “Rational Americans” want to tell the rest of the world that not all Americans are not egotistical narcissists who want all of the planets natural resources only for themselves. Maybe, Dr. Ice doesn’t want all of America to be environmentally conscious because this is an important stepping stone in establishing a meaningful dialogue between the Islamic World and the West.

Even before the post- September 11, 2001 backlash, the impoverished peoples of the Islamic World has been left “holding the bag” so to speak due to the insensitive energy intensive lifestyles of the more-money-than-sense-Evangelical-Christian-powers-that-be making self-serving policies on Capitol Hill. Even though they are still a minority, they can easily trick Rational Americans like they did in the 2004 US Presidential Elections. The Evangelicals doctrine of greed, exploitation and unbridled materialism are one of-if not the- main reason of the proliferation of misery and suffering in the Islamic World. And I’m beginning to wonder why Osama Bin Laden didn’t specifically mention these people on his “Fatwah.”

Why Al Gore and the IPCC Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

2008-01-03T03:34:00.000-08:00

Environmentalists winning the Nobel Peace Prize, have we reached the point of waging war over arable land and other resources?

By: Ringo Bones

Today, anti war protestors in America carry signs that read “No Blood For Oil”. In a few years time if we don’t do anything to protect our environment, those signs will read “No Blood For Safe Drinking Water” and believe me, that is NOT a “romantic” notion for the “warmongers” in Capitol Hill or the Pentagon. Will the elected GOP / Republican Party politicians authorize an invasion and occupation of Brazil in order to save the Amazon rain forest 10 years from now? I just hope that the world’s powers-that-be will heed the advice of the IPCC and Al Gore to do their part in limiting the impact of climate change.

Growing up in the 1980’s, there isn’t a day that goes by without hearing news coverage about the swiftly declining state of our environment. From major man-made disasters like the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker running aground, to the burning of the Amazon rain forest. I always wondered why the world’s governments have waited 20 or so years in tackling our planet’s environmental problems.

Now in 2007(better late than never), Al Gore and the 3,000 or so scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC were awarded for this years Nobel Peace Prize. They were awarded for their “heroic” efforts in spreading awareness on the dangers of climate change, global warming and the sea level rise. Since the announcement, a number of “influential people” namely Captains-of-Industry and some politicians have doubts whether the Nobel Committee's decision to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC because these two don’t deserve the prize. Some of them said that Al Gore is nothing more than a slick showman while the IPCC –to them - deserve a prize for being a well run organization but not the Nobel Prize for Peace.

Well, that’s those “influential people’s” decisions. To me Al Gore, and the IPCC truly deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Because what the two are essentially doing is laying out plans to limit the impact of climate change on the global economy. IPCC and AL Gore just laid out the groundwork on how future conflicts caused by climate change will be reduced in scale and / or will be even eliminated. Just as Muhammad Yunus deserved his own Nobel Peace Prize because he laid out the groundwork for tackling the root cause of extremism and militancy namely poverty and the lack of income generating opportunities.

I’m just glad that those “influential people” that criticized Al Gore and the IPCC for receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace were not around during my time in high school. Those people would had been over me when I nominated the Afghan Mujahedin as Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” in 1987 for their valiant efforts of resisting Soviet occupation. I even convinced my teacher and a classroom full of people on my case. This was a class project that gained a life of it’s own after President Corazon Aquino became Time magazine’s “Person of the Year”. Mind you this was before I got hold of Osama bin Laden’s or General Rashid Dostum’s dossier, or knew which from which.

Live Earth 2007: An Exercise in Hypocrisy?

2008-01-03T01:53:00.000-08:00

Despite the cause’s altruism, are private-jet-flying-I-got-more-than-one-very-fast-car-driving Rock/pop stars good spokespersons for saving the planet?

By: Vanessa Uy

It’s almost tantamount to choosing Paris Hilton as a spokesperson on moral turpitude awareness, but ever since the inception of Live Earth, I’ve always questioned the logic behind the cause’s raison d’être (or more accurately it’s self-parodying stance). Everyone knows that Rock/pop stars are the epitome of Western style capitalist avarice and conspicuous consumption. This little incident of “cognitive dissonance” hasn’t stopped Kevin Wall, Live Earth’s founder from executing this concept – with Al Gore’s blessing of course. For an event that’s billed as “The Greatest Show on Earth to Save the Earth” or “The Greatest Pop Music Event in History” with a mission to spread the message of protecting our environment an estimated audience exceeding 2billion people worldwide. The event will never be free from controversy despite of the organizers’ purchase of “Carbon Offset” funds and the use of environmentally friendly transport like biodiesel powered buses, will biofueled private jets be on offer in the future? As Al Gore unveiled the “7 Point Pledge” in the Live Earth event as a sort of a “checklist” for anyone interested in reducing their “carbon footprint.” Cynics will be saying and thinking that the audiences are more interested in the “acts” than the message Live Earth is trying to get across, but is it right to dismiss the worth of Live Earth?

Ever since the very first Woodstock back in the summer of 1969, Rock/pop stars had always proven their worth in spearheading social revolutions aimed in changing our world for the better. Back in the “Summer of Love”, Rock/pop stars made average suburban white folks more aware of the plight of African-Americans, Dr. Martin Luther King’s message, and the Vietnam War. These “celebrities” provided a platform of informed choice with universal appeal especially to impressionable teenagers. The “Secret Policeman” concert of the early 1980’s where Sting fused his humanitarian concerns with his Rockstar persona for the very first time and quite successful at it even until now. Sir Bob Geldof’s “Live Aid” of 1985 made more young people aware back then in that pre-internet era on the extent of the Ethiopian famine than the traditional news providers ever could. Then came the series of look-how-caring-we-are causes like “A Very Special Christmas” album compilations for the benefit of the Special Olympics.

Basing on this historical track record, I think Rock/pop stars are more successful in earning/generating money/funds for charity than convincing the powers-that-be to end wars and torture. It’s quite sad that convincing “Westernized” people around the world to abandon their pursuit of avarice and conspicuous consumption is almost as futile as convincing the global powers to end all on-going wars around the world. And let’s not forget Live Earth is not the first musical event with an environmental platform. Who among us can still recall the 20th Earth Day TV special back in April 1990 where Bette Middler pleading to all people around the world to be more “Earth Friendly.” Or the Seattle- Music- Scene-movie “Singles” where a bumper sticker reads: “Think Globally, Act Locally” lends a “Dadaist” environmental message in the movie. But earth friendliness never became popular to the 1990’s “Alternative- Grunge-Seattle” music scene. Apparently the “Dadaist Message” was deemed to subtle because the SUV and “cheap” gasoline were the lasting legacy of Clinton-era America. Another environmentalism-driven music scene is “Lilith Fair” but was and always been perceived by the majority as an “alternative lifestyle” venue for American women. And lets not forget that the “Rockstar” lifestyle and excess knows no bounds like the recent incident of Al Gore's son in an “unlawful joyride” with a hybrid car, a Toyota Prius no less.

In spite of it all, to me, any form of spreading awareness on the plight of our environment and what we –the ordinary people- could do in our part to save it should be embraced with open arms because it’s a way a lot better than doing nothing. Rock/pop star fronted causes might work only on “charity cases” but the moral pressure they exerted back in the 1960’s ended the US Government’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict, Civil Rights are no longer a dream but a working reality, but it took time. I think everyone around the world is beginning to realize that environmentalism only works when poverty is reduced to zero, and if the global peace and order situation takes a radical turn for the better.