Himalayan Glaciers Shrinking By 75%: ISRO

Himalayan Glaciers Shrinking

By ONE Liners Agency

The Government of India's primary space research body ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) published a report, showing images of retreating Himalayan glaciers. The satellite images revealed shocking pictures, depicting 75% of Himalayan glaciers were shrinking at a steady pace with average shrinkage rate being 3.75km during the 15 years under study. In 2007, IPCC report said that Himalayan glaciers would be disappeared by 2035, which provoked heavy controversy. ISRO satellite mission to unveil the detail analysis of Himalayan glaciers began after the raging controversy.

The grim finding came after studying 2,190 glaciers broke the myths of disappearance of Himalayan glaciers but undoubtedly raised concern over Asia's 'water towers'.

Dr Ajai, group director, Marine, Geo and Planetary Science Group (MPSG), Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad said that they were now sure about the findings of Himalayan glaciers shrinking, giving an account of 8% have advanced and 17% are stable. He further said that the detail data would publish soon.

The satellite images took by Resourcesat-1 over a period of 15 years (1989-2004). There were about 50 environmentalists, scientists and 14 organizations were involved in the project, including field trips and analysis of other mountainous ranges.

There were three major institutions involved in the study named B Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Kashmir University and Jawaharlal Nehru University. The experts and volunteers also visited the glaciers to make their reports.

The study involved the basins of the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra. It also covered Himalayan parts that spread to China, Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan. It is reported that the first time this type of extensive study had been done on Himalayan glaciers. Other mountainous range that have a high percentage of retreat rate are Alps.

ISRO earlier in 2010 revealed a study report on retreating glaciers, involving 1,317 Himalayan glaciers, which said glaciers had retreated by 16% since 1962. The recent satellite images also showed a minute increase in the area under mangroves.

Food Waste Contributes To Global Warming

Food Wastage Contributed Carbon Emission

Are you a clean eater? Or leave chunks in your plate after finishing your meal? Perhaps it matters none or less to you but from a global environmental perspective, it holds water. In an astonishing report published by WWF-UK and the UK government’s Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has exposed the impact of food waste on country’s carbon emission and water footprint. According to the report, significantly avoidable food waste contributes to the usage of 64 gallons of water per person per day and 727.5 pounds of CO2 per person per year.

It translates food waste in UK actually result around 6 percent of the UK’s water footprint and 3 percent of its carbon emissions. That’s actually in a rough estimation 25 percent of more vehicles on roads.

Food waste is not an eyebrow raising subject for many, but amount of food waste people around the world do, is indeed shameful. It is considered as one of the most unsustainable aspects of high-consumption lifestyle. Understanding the significance of it, and taking small steps to improve on it, will lead to a better sustainable environment.

Let us see the amount of food waste in two major economical nations in the world.

Food Wastage in United States

A commonly quoted figure shows 40 percent food waste happens in the United States. A report published by EPA for statistics in the year 2009 shows a staggering amount of CO2 emission comes directly from agriculture. 53 million tons from food waste in landfill, which contribute to 20 percent of total. Food waste in US contributes to a total of 260 million tones of CO2 emissions and 4.4 percent of the nation’s cumulative carbon footprint.

The rate of water footprint in US is low, it just measure 58 percent of US 696 billion cubic meters/year water footprint comes from agriculture. It is significantly low as compared to other developed nations. Nevertheless, the food waste results a high usage of country total water consumption. If we measure it in terms of per person usage, it goes to 420 gallons per person per day.

Food Wastage in China

In a report published by the Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, in 2009, showing in China around 62 million tons of food waste went to landfill. Another report from National Bureau of Statistics showed the country consumed 905 million tons of food in 2004. It means the 7 percent of total food production has been wasted, and this is surely a significant figure.

It is reported that in China agriculture contributes around 14 percent of country’s overall carbon emission. The rate of food waste is much lower than US, contributing only 66 million tones CO2, or 1 percent emission from food waste in landfill. Due to lower food wastage, the usage of amount per person is also lower.

The reports show food waste in a country has an affect on its carbon emissions and water footprint. If we judiciously consume our food, we can also significantly contribute to safe our environment.

Campaign starts for Emergency Containment of Fukushima emissions

Below is an outline of the plan to stop emissions from Fukushima. 
Please recirculate widely to get the concept running as a meme.
There is a letter here that can be sent to nuclear authorities.

Emergency containment of Fukushima emissions

Sadly, it seems that the situation at Fukushima is not under control*.



It is being suggested that emissions of radiation to the environment from the damaged reactors may continue for months.

This is not acceptable. The emissions can and must be stopped.

The alternative - cleaning up thousands of square kilometers of soil, not to mention marine contamination - would be  prohibitively expensive in terms of environmental health and money.

First, responsibility for the site should be taken over by the IAEA, as this is now an international problem. No expense should be spared in containing the radiation.

Happily, the technology needed to contain the radioactivity is simple, practical, and relatively cheap. There are four main matters to be addressed :

1. Reactor cooling
2. Groundwater emissions
3. Emissions to air
4. Entombment
   

Reactor Cooling


It is likely that attempts to cool the reactor will continue for a while, if only to maintain the illusion for TEPCO that the situation is under some kind of control.

The present method of cooling involves a linear process of inserting water, and discharging the resultant waste water to the marine environment.

This is not acceptable in the long term.

An alternative would be to recirculate the water, cooling it by passing it through a heat pump. This would be energy intensive, but would eliminate discharges to the ocean. It could also continued after the site is capped, if cooling coils in hot areas could be put in place. Whether such coils would be able to extract a significant amount of heat is questionable.

The alternative is to abandon cooling altogether. After all, it is not practical to continue cooling for many decades, which is the lenght of time that the reactors are expected to remain hot.

If cooling is abandoned, there will follow an accumulation of heat, and almost certainly downward migration of the melted fuel elements into the subsoil until the hot fuel makes contact with ground water.

This will result in steam formation, possibly at times with explosive force.

Ground water will be contaminated, and left to itself, will diffuse far and wide, eventually reaching aquifers from which water is  abstracted for human use.

This must be avoided or mitigated.


Groundwater abstraction and treatment

Bore holes must be drilled to reach the ground water. Contaminated ground water must be abstracted and pumped through an ion-exchange resin and such other  filters and processes as necessary to reduce contamination to as low a level as technically achievable.

The purified water can be recycled to the cooling effort if necessary.


Emissions to Air

Emissions to air can be stopped by covering the reactors and extracting the contaminated air and steam for treatment.

Reactor 2 still has intact secondary containment. The rectangular window in the containment should be fitted with a duct through which the steam can be drawn and passed to a series of filters. The filter design choice can be a combination of particle filter, cyclone, ion-exchange washing or any other suitable modality. It is simple, standard engineering. The filters can be changed, modified and added to according to experience.


Reactor 2 will be the pilot for the other, damaged reactors, which will need to be enclosed with fabric containment. Once this is in place, air extraction can begin, again being passed to filters.

The contaminated resins and filters will be stored as nuclear waste.

Entombment

Concrete has been suggested as a method of entombment. This is expensive and unyeilding in the event of explosion, with the result that the force of the explosion will be diverted downwards and laterally. It would present a barrier to further work if it is later decided that access to the reactors is necessary.

Therefore the preferred method is to use earth, which is cheap, and in plentiful supply. It will also dampen the force of any explosions that may occur.

Earth moving equipment and bulldozers should be mobilised now. Some earth can be obtained locally, scooping out a pond which may be used to hold contaminated water. Earth may also be brought from other sites in Japan, and stockpiled ready for use. This work can therefore start today.

Earth will be piled up around the walls of the reactors, and when complete, the reactors can be filled with boron sand.

When complete, the mounded earth can be capped with an impermeable fabric layer. An extraction duct can be passed into the interior of this layer, ensuring that all gases diffusing through the earth and sand will be captured, treated and stored.


Conclusion

The central object of the operation now is to limit and reduce the amount of radionuclides going to the environment.

It is feasible in engineering terms, and it is cheaper.

The challenge and difficulty will be to get the decision makers to initiate the containment process in a timely way. Political pressure from environmental NGOs, Green Parties, citizens, and engineers will be necessary for this to happen.

Please pass this letter on far and wide to anyone who may be interested.

For updates and feedback, email to rlawson@gn.apc.org, or search  www.greenerblog.blogspot.com for "Fukushima". A Facebook page will be set up, with updates about this campaign, and contacts of people to write to.


Thank you for your concern and commitment to reducing the scale of the Fukushima disaster

EU green fatigue

An increasing number of countries in Europe are beginning to suffer from what can best be described as 'green fatigue'. In fact, the mood has changed radically since March 2007 when EU leaders agreed to their ambitious green targets.

This is particularly obvious in Germany, Europe's industrial powerhouse and paymaster.

Over recent days, the EU's directive on biofuels (soon to be overtaken by the Renewables Directive) has been absolutely hammered in the German press. As it stands, the Directive requires gas stations to sell fuel with 10 percent ethanol content - which has triggered boycotts, due to drivers’ fears that the new fuel will harm their vehicles.

Der Spiegel notes:

"All EU countries were supposed to have introduced E10 by the end of 2010, but only France and Germany have complied. And problems have not been limited to Germany. Because of slight differences in the E10 biofuels used in France, the ADAC, Germany's largest automobile association, is recommending that German drivers avoid E10 fuels should they cross the border into France."

In a comment, Handelsblatt criticises the Directive, arguing that due to rising food prices and environmental concerns "In 2008, EU Energy Ministers opposed extending the share of biofuels to beyond 10 percent". But, it notes:

“That isn't the end of the story however...Stable or falling prices for farm products, about which the agricultural lobby - led by France - is complaining, will be a thing of the past. The ones who need to pay, are consumers. In Europe, but especially in developing countries."

It concludes: "to burn food in order to obtain fuel is just a crazy idea."

We've warned against the EU's biofuel policies on several occasions, for example in January 2008, when we wrote that allocating more resources to biofuels would be a serious mistake:

"Biofuels are only likely to achieve between 0.9% and 1.1 % reductions in total EU emissions. This is a serious misallocation of resources. If the huge expense of achieving the miniscule reduction in greenhouse gases through biofuels were to be redirected towards reforestation projects, almost 28% of the EU’s total emissions would be saved. Even if it were to be redirected towards (relatively cost inefficient) renewables (at current costs), these funds would deliver a 2 – 5% reduction."

Meanwhile, the European Commission has just announced that EU climate policy will cost €270 billion annually, over the next 40 years. This is a massive amount. But the Commission is still intent on raising the EU's targets from the current levels of 20%.

FAZ comments:

"The ability of European industry to compete internationally will be undermined as a result of unilateral climate change targets. Energy-intensive production, for example of metals, is merely being transferred to third countries (...) without improvements to the world's climate. The Commission doesn't ask itself these fundamental questions."

To be fair, Germany's Commissioner in charge of the energy brief, Günther Oettinger, has been very critical of his own institution's attempt at raising CO2 targets. "I believe 20 percent is the right, middle way," he said, warning that if the EU would go it alone, "than we not only lose jobs, taxes and social contributions. We will also have no reduction of CO2 levels."

He seems to have lost, though, as the Commission has just announced that it will be pushing for a 25% target, up from 20% compared to 1990 levels.

Still, opposition to the EU's green agenda - agreed at a time when Europe's economy was booming and the EU was looking for a new role for itself (the 'world peace' theme was getting a bit dated) - is clearly growing.

The EU's fisheries policy gets battered

If there ever was a competition for the worst EU policy, the Common Fisheries Policy would probably end up on top. The policy simply has to go.

So it's encouraging that the EU’s Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki yesterday did the right thing and called for an end to the CFP-mandated practice of throwing back dead fish overboard if fishermen's quotas have been exceeded:

"I consider discarding of fish unethical, a waste of natural resources and a waste of fishermen's effort. But I would like to go further – since our stocks are declining, these figures are not justifiable anymore. If we continue with our policy, then we will soon face a situation where the production capacity of marine ecosystems is at risk”.

This is of course hardly a revelation; groups from across society and the political spectrum have been warning about the economic, social and environmental catastrophe that is the CFP for a long time.

To give only a couple of examples of what Europe's fishing industry has come to under the CFP :

· 80% of Europe’s fisheries are considered to be overexploited or in danger of collapse

· 1.3 million tonnes of seafood are thrown back every year in the North Atlantic alone, including two out of every three haddock caught to the west of Scotland

· The value of fish that thrown back every year by the Scottish fishing fleet alone was estimated at £40m, resulting in higher prices for consumers.

Momentum against the CFP is building, and the recent “Fish Fight” campaign fronted by TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall has brought the issue to a much wider audience, helping to put pressure on the EU for reform. While Damanaki’s pledge is good news, this time it must be followed by concrete action. After all one her predecessors, Joe Borg, called the discards policy “morally wrong” and pledged root-and-branch reform back in 2007, but to no avail.

The common sense void in which the CFP exists is a big reason why hostility to the EU is growing, exemplifying Brussels’ painful inability to reform its policies as the circumstances around it changes (on this one, it's not the Commission's fault as a handful member states, most importantly Spain, continue to block reform). It is so detested that it even managed to unite such diverse groups as climate change sceptic Conservative MPs and Greenpeace activists.

Although dumping the discards policy will not solve all Europe’s fishing problems, it's certainly the right place to start.

Cap and trade - not the only way to skin the cat

Following his defeat in the mid-term elections, US President Barack Obama has now announced that he will drop his plans for a cap and trade system to reduce CO2 emissions. The idea behind cap and trade is to put a limit on greenhouse gases and then allow companies to buy and sell pollution permits under that ceiling.

President Obama said:

Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way...I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem.

As we've argued many times before, the cost of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is massive and it's far from clear that a cap and trade system is the best way to achieve global emission cuts, while also encouraging investment in alternative energy. Obama's decision is sensible. But it clearly has implications for Europe, not least since the EU might now be put at more of a competitive disadvantage in the absence of a cap and trade system in the US.

Interestingly, former deputy prime minister John Prescott - who was a key UK negotiator at the Kyoto global warming conference in 1997 - today argued that in light of Obama's decision world leaders should ditch their hopes for achieving enforceable targets for emissions reductions. Instead, he said, they should push for a voluntary agreement at the upcoming Cancun summit:

Let's have a voluntary agreement. Let's stop the clock. Instead of Kyoto having to be done by 2012, stop it for about five years, put in a voluntary agreement and a verification system.

For his part, German Economy Minister Rainer Brüderle warned yesterday against imposing more environmental rules on German industry, arguing that global competition doesn't allow for a go-it-alone approach. He has a point.

The better way forward for the EU would be to set overall targets but then allow individual member states to reach them in whichever way they deemed to be the most cost-effective.

There is more than one way to skin the cat - also in the EU.

EU subsidised travel? The next step in a Summer's dream

The glorious weather in London today has reminded us of a story we noted last month - but have not yet had a chance to share here :-)

In these rather gloomy (except today) and dark times of recession and gloom, what could be more uplifting than a holiday, to an exotic destination within the EU, subsidised by the European Union. Sounds great huh? Well, perhaps it's not so uplifting or great when we consider where the cash will actually come from - our less than exotic taxes.

It may strike many as a rather strange ‘initiative’ for the EU to introduce when we consider that most member states are presently stuck in a debt trap deeper than the Spanish caves of Drach. But no, as ridiculous as it sounds, this isn’t a joke. Under the Lisbon Treaty, tourism was brought in as a new EU competence with the aim of boosting the industry.

However, rather predictably, Eurocrats have used the opportunity to exercise their somewhat ‘backward’ understanding of economic theory. Deciding that, rather than stimulating demand for tourism, they will instead create supply. Last month at the European Tourism Stakeholders’ Conference, the Vice-President, Antonio Tajani, announced that “taking holidays is a right”, saying that:

“our unrivalled tourism resources must become fully accessible to those for whom travelling is difficult: the elderly and persons with reduced mobility…young persons and families at a disadvantage who – for various reasons – also face difficulties in exercising their full right to tourism”.

In particular, subsidies would be given for the disadvantaged to travel during the low season to encourage year round tourism flows.

Aside from the economic illiteracy of the ‘initiative’, some may be confused as to why Brussels would champion the right of tourism for all when fighting climate change, through reducing carbon emissions and introducing carbon taxes, is heralded to be a key EU priority. In fact, the EU already pays out for a variety of campaigns urging us to "travel responsibly" such as the You Control Climate Change! and Climate Action schemes.

Of course, this contradictory behaviour is par for the European course. Many will remember the controversial junket taken in March this year when 250 delegates (including 68 members of the European Parliament) jetted off to sunny Tenerife to discuss a variety of issues including the environment and sustainable tourism.

Taxing questions

The EU's new Taxation Commissioner Algirdas Semeta has announced that he is planning to revive previously shelved plans for an EU-wide carbon tax, aiming to set a minimum levy of €10/tonne of CO2 emitted (although the exact level is a bit unclear) from energy sources such as petrol, coal, and natural gas when they are used as motor and heating fuel, or to produce electricity.

Based on the Commission's previous proposal we've calculated that such a tax would cost the UK economy at least £3.2bn a year. This cost will hit poorer consumers and small businesses disproportionately hard.

Is the cost worth it? Well, a carbon tax can, and has worked in some member states - Sweden being the most conspicous example (the country has cut carbon emissions by 9% since introducing a carbon tax in 1991, while the economy has grown by 48% during the same time period). Unlike the EU's flawed Emissions Trading Scheme, a carbon tax would create a firm price on carbon (although still largely arbitrary) and ensure that polluters have to pay rather than being rewarded. This, in turn, would provide a strong incentive to switch to, and invest in, green energy. If replacing other, poorly targeted, CO2 policies a carbon tax could be the right way to go.

But apart from this discussion, the proposed tax raises two further important issues.

Firstly, why an EU-wide harmonised tax? We must remember that the EU already has all manner of climate change policy instruments playing different tunes. It has an extensive cap-and-trade system for large emitters of CO2, such as power generators and heavy industry. It has heavily prescriptive renewable energy targets and biofuel targets (the latter of which even the Commission now admits might be a mistake). It also has various other environmental regulations restricting emissions such as the Large Combustion Plant Directive, which will force the closure of nine of the UK's power plants by 2015.

Those in favour of an EU-wide tax say that it must be harmonised across Europe in order to avoid 'distortions to the Single market'. However other countries, Sweden for instance, have successfully implemented a domestic carbon tax without any detrimental impact on their economies.

But more importantly, if the stated end goal is not EU tax harmonisation in and of itself but emissions reduction, all that really needs to be decided at an EU level is the extent of the emissions reduction targets. As for the means, who cares? The job of meeting these targets should be left up to member states, who are best equipped to devise a policy mix tailored to their individual circumstances - and when it comes to energy, these are often very diverse.

A carbon tax may be a cost-effective option, or it may not. But it should not be the European Commission's job to decide.

This leads us to the second issue. There are understandable concerns that the Commission has an ulterior motive for its carbon tax. While the current proposal would see member states collecting the revenues from any tax, such "eco taxes" have long been seen by many within the Commission as a way of directly financing the EU budget - a view shared by EU President Herman Van Rompuy.

If such a carbon tax were established, it would clearly create an obvious focal point for those calling for an EU funding stream that bypasses member states' treasuries, with the ultimate aim being a direct tax.

All the more reason to follow a pragmatic approach that concentrates on the stated aim of cutting emissions at the lowest cost to businesses and consumers, rather than creating yet more centralised and complex EU rules that limit member states' ability to tailor climate change policies to their own needs.

ETS awards millions in windfall profits to oil companies and heavy industry

As national ministers meet this week in Copenhagen to discuss a new climate change deal, Open Europe has found that under the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), oil and gas companies' operations in the UK were granted a surplus of carbon permits worth €28.6m in 2008. For example, ExxonMobil received €4.3m and Total received €5.4m.

Meanwhile, heavy industrial polluters such as Corus received €47m, while cement firms Hanson and Lafarge received €17.3m and €20.2m.

The EU is keen to be seen to take the lead at the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen and has already announced ambitious targets to reduce its carbon emissions. However, the EU's principle policy for achieving those reductions, the ETS, is fundamentally flawed.

Due to the economic downturn, many heavy polluters, such as oil and gas companies and heavy industrials, have been left with a surplus of carbon permits - essentially a free asset that firms can sell on to bolster their short term profits.

The glut of surplus permits on the market has driven down the price of carbon and led to a sharp increase in the number of permits being traded via carbon exchanges. Open Europe has found that the two largest carbon trading exchanges, European Climate Exchange[1] and Bluenext[2], which includes members such as Barclays Bank, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch and Shell, have earned a combined average of €245,000 a day from the trading of carbon permits so far in 2009, in transaction fees alone. In total, they have made over €57m between them in 2009.

Instead of producing a firm carbon price to encourage investment in greener technologies, the ETS has become a subsidy to some of the UK's biggest polluters and has simply created a new breed of carbon traders, which are cashing in on a policy that is failing to achieve its core objective.

Click here to read more.

Turn the air con down

The Department of Energy and Climate Change has produced an Impact Assessment for the Government's 'Renewable Energy Strategy' - in other words, its plans for meeting EU targets for renewable energy. It it rather serious stuff. The plans will cost £4.2bn a year ,with annual benefits of £0.3bn a year. The cumulative cost is estimated at £60bn over 20 years, while the value of carbon saved is estimated at £5bn.

While these large figures might seem pretty abstract to many, the following will not. A significant proportion of the cost will be passed on to consumers, with the Government estimating that domestic electricity prices will increase by 15 percent and gas prices by 23 percent by 2020. This equates to average increases of £75 and £172 to electricity and gas bills.

Besides the cost, the UK’s share of the EU target of producing 20 percent of energy from renewables by 2020, a national target of 15 percent, is widely regarded as 'ambitious' and by others as 'unrealistic'.

Those in the latter camp include the UK's Chief Scientific Advisor at the time the agreement was made (Tony Blair was in the hotseat for us). Sir David King said:

"I think there was some degree of confusion at the heads of states meeting dealing with this. If they had said 20% renewables on the electricity grids across the European Union by 2020, we would have had a realistic target but by saying 20% of all energy, I actually wonder whether that wasn't a mistake."

In a report last year we estimated that the EU's entire climate and energy package, of which the renewables target is only a part, will cost the UK £9bn a year and push an extra 1 million people into fuel poverty.

We're not arguing against an EU role in fighting climate change - a global challenge which the EU can contribute to solving with regional cooperation. We are, however, objecting to the EU's desire to micro-manage and continually centralise policy.

An EU-wide binding renewables target removes the UK’s flexibility to find the cheapest way of reducing emissions, which should be the overall aim. The cost is so high because the Government is now forced to 'pick winners' by subsidising the renewable technologies it thinks can achieve reduced emissions at the cheapest cost.

State bureaucrats do not have the ability to predict new advances in renewable technologies and their relative costs, which are at different stages of development and also depend on the fluctuating price of fossil fuels.