lukegreen.co.uk

living life one day at a time!

So below is the first ever bit of political correspondence I have felt the need to write. At the time of posting this America of all places (yes that country with some of the most aggressive foreign policy and single minded pursuit to secure Oil and access to Oil at all costs around the world) is currently accusing the UK Brown/Blaire government of shady oil deals!

America accuses the UK government of releasing Megrahi (the man charged with the Lockerbie Pan-Am flight bombing) to secure oil interests with Libya. Now maybe there is a connecting strand here, but it strikes me as completely hypocritical and cynical of America to try and take the moral high ground on this. It’s widely thought that the Lockerbie bombing was in response to America shooting down Iran_Air_Flight_655 as neatly highlighted in Christine Grahame (MSP) sturdy Newsnight response.

Here’s the email I sent her…

Christine

I have never felt the need to contact a political figure before, but have been so angered by America’s recent hypocritical stance on the Megrahi release, shady BP Oil deals accusations, that I had to send my congratulations to you for your robust response to John Bolton on Newsnight. I find America’s position particularly reprehensible given their foreign policy and decisions over the past, many motivated by Oil and access to Oil. Thank you for showing a high degree passion and backbone in your response to another American, drunk on the idea that when his country grumbles everyone else should cower.

Yours Sincerly Luke

You can watch the news night interview while its available on the BBC iPlayer

Each nation must find the best use of its resources to sustain civilisation for as long as they can, argues James Lovelock. Published in The Independent, 16 January 2006.

Imagine a young policewoman delighted in the fulfillment of her vocation; then imagine her having to tell a family whose child had strayed that he had been found dead, murdered in a nearby wood. Or think of a young physician newly appointed who has to tell you that the biopsy revealed invasion by an aggressive metastasising tumour. Doctors and the police know that many accept the simple awful truth with dignity but others try in vain to deny it.

Whatever the response, the bringers of such bad news rarely become hardened to their task and some dread it. We have relieved judges of the awesome responsibility of passing the death sentence, but at least they had some comfort from its frequent moral justification. Physicians and the police have no escape from their duty.

This article is the most difficult I have written and for the same reasons. My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease. Gaia has made me a planetary physician and I take my profession seriously, and now I, too, have to bring bad news.

The climate centres around the world, which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth’s physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth’s family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger.

Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.

Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 percent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.

Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This ‘global dimming’ is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.

By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in charge. By doing this, we condemn ourselves to the worst form of slavery. If we chose to be the stewards of the Earth, then we are responsible for keeping the atmosphere, the ocean and the land surface right for life. A task we would soon find impossible – and something before we treated Gaia so badly, she had freely done for us.

To understand how impossible it is, think about how you would regulate your own temperature or the composition of your blood. Those with failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys.

My new book The Revenge of Gaia expands these thoughts, but you still may ask why science took so long to recognise the true nature of the Earth. I think it is because Darwin’s vision was so good and clear that it has taken until now to digest it. In his time, little was known about the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, and there would have been little reason for him to wonder if organisms changed their environment as well as adapting to it.

Had it been known then that life and the environment are closely coupled, Darwin would have seen that evolution involved not just the organisms, but the whole planetary surface. We might then have looked upon the Earth as if it were alive, and known that we cannot pollute the air or use the Earth’s skin – its forest and ocean ecosystems – as a mere source of products to feed ourselves and furnish our homes. We would have felt instinctively that those ecosystems must be left untouched because they were part of the living Earth.

So what should we do? First, we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act; and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can. Civilisation is energy-intensive and we cannot turn it off without crashing, so we need the security of a powered descent. On these British Isles, we are used to thinking of all humanity and not just ourselves; environmental change is global, but we have to deal with the consequences here in the UK.

Unfortunately our nation is now so urbanised as to be like a large city and we have only a small acreage of agriculture and forestry. We are dependent on the trading world for sustenance; climate change will deny us regular supplies of food and fuel from overseas.

We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World War, but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate.

Perhaps the saddest thing is that Gaia will lose as much or more than we do. Not only will wildlife and whole ecosystems go extinct, but in human civilisation the planet has a precious resource. We are not merely a disease; we are, through our intelligence and communication, the nervous system of the planet. Through us, Gaia has seen herself from space, and begins to know her place in the universe.

We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. So let us be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone, and see that we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia. We must do it while we are still strong enough to negotiate, and not a broken rabble led by brutal war lords. Most of all, we should remember that we are a part of it, and it is indeed our home.

Taken From James Lovelocks Personal Website

As the dust settles on a bit of UK political and TV history pundits and politicians are all trying to guage it’s effect on the election. For me it was facinating stuff, I consumed this bit of TV not in front of my TV but like millions of you, on my computer while simaltaneously plugged into Facebook, Twitter and The Worm!!!

I found the whole experience facinating, connected and also even exciting (politics = exciting yeh I know!!!). I think it upped the ante for political debate and brought a kind of roman gladiator like feel to proceedings. Even though the audience wasn’t really allowed to clap and jeer, the social networks were alive with comments, which I bet if they had came attached with sound would have all the rawkus noise of a wined up roman public, baying for blood.

I joined the dabate about 20 minutes in and for me within the first couple of minutes Nick Clegg was in his element coming accross as a confident fresh speaker. It wasn’t long before both the Twittersphere and Facebook posts were too confirming Clegg was “doing well”, with the “just for fun” polls putting him in the lead on popularity and a close second on the economy.

I think for many people he was a little bit of a revelation having been consigned by the last few weeks of satire as the unknown outsider. Undoubtably Clegg had the most to gain during the debate and traded blows effortlessly as the fresh faced “ready for change” leader.

My instinct (and I suspect also the wider electorate) is that people are keen for change and reform at Westminster and Clegg seems to have alot to offer, a party that’s never governed and seemingly remaining unscathed by the recent sleaze alegations making them much more than just the tactical vote of past elections.

Brown I thought did well obviously not in his element but again seemed to rise to the challenge. Almost all of his answers were characterised not by the effervesance and optimism of Clegg but by a pragmatic and thoughtful approach, that I suspect comes from the realities of being in government for 10 years. Brown defined himself as the safe pair of hands. The biggest loser in this I feel was Cameron, who was expected to do well in this debate, infact came accross less convincing and at times he seemed lost. Both the ITV polls and general social networks assesment he was last on almost every issue.

I would consider my self a floating voter so I’m very keen to see what each party wants to do with our country, also as a business owner I want to see innovation and leadership at one of the most important junctures in this countries last 30 years. I think the future of the UK as a competitor in the world is at stake and if we elect the wrong party or even worse create a hung parliment it will effect us financially and socially for years to come.

So what’s the impact of the debates, for me I think they will be critical on influencing mainstream opinion, we are a personality driven society, we love celebs and by forcing our future leaders I to this arena webare judging them on the same level, we are projecting ourselves to them and if either of them hit a rich vein of mainstream agreement it could be decisive.

I for one have been engaged and will try hard to dig behind the personalities, and understand the policies but in the end this is the election and right now we need someone with global vision, ideas and the qualities of a true leader.

Researchers developing alternatives to fossil fuels are working with everything from algae to babassu oil to corn, but a California company says it can recycle carbon dioxide into fuel.

Carbon Sciences claims it has developed a way of using the CO2 emitted during the combustion of coal, oil and other hydrocarbons to create transportation fuels like gasoline and jet fuel. Should Carbon Sciences — or any of the other firms working on similar projects — accomplish this on a large scale, it could bring a reduction in CO2 emissions as well as an abundant supply of renewable fuel.

“We are very excited about our novel process to transform CO2 into fuel,” says company CEO Derek McLeish. “Based on our research to date, we believe that we will be able to demonstrate our technology within the next several months with a prototype that can convert a stream of CO2 into an immediately flammable liquid fuel.”

Fossil fuels are comprised of chains of hydrogen and carbon atoms called, appropriately, hydrocarbons. The more carbon atoms in the chain, the greater its energy content. Gasoline, for example, has seven to 10 carbon atoms, while jet fuel has 10 to 16. When those hydrocarbons are burned, they release carbon dioxide. Theoretically, the carbon dioxide could be split and its carbon atoms used to make more hydrocarbons. But CO2 is very stable and breaking it up requires so much heat and pressure that it has not been economically viable. Carbon Sciences says it has solved that problem. “We’re very excited by what we’ve seen in the lab,” McLeish told CNN. “We’ve had some promising results.”

The company says its “C02-to-Fuel” technology uses CO2 to create ethane, propane and methane, three run-of-the mill hydrocarbons used to make high-grade gasoline and other fuels. The key to the process is biocatalysis, a process where natural catalysts are used to perform chemical reactions. Biocatalysis is a more energy efficient and cost-effective way to break down CO2, making the possibility of a large-scale ramp up economically feasible.

The approach uses a low energy biocatalytic hydrolysis process that splits water molecules into hydrogen atoms and hydroxide ions, says Dr. Naveed Aslam, the company’s chief technology officer and inventor of the process. The hydrogen is used to create hydrocarbons, while the free electrons in the hydroxide are used to fuel the biocatalytic process, he says. The process “is based on natural organic chemistry processes that occur in all living organisms where carbon atoms, extracted from CO2, and hydrogen atoms extracted from H2O, are combined to create hydrocarbon molecules using biocatalysts and small amounts of energy.”

As for collecting the CO2, Carbon Sciences won’t just erect a big filter in the sky and hope for the best. The idea is to set up shop alongside oil refineries and and coal plants and capture the CO2 such facilities generate.

Carbon Sciences isn’t the only outfit seeking viable ways to recycle carbon dioxide. Scientists at Sandia National Laboratory have developed a way to use sunlight to convert CO2 into fuel. Newcastle University researchers can use CO2 to create chemical compounds called cyclic carbonates. The compounds are used in many solvents and also could be used as an additive to make gasoline burn more efficiently.

The potential benefits of this technology should not be understated. Not only would it capture greenhouse gases otherwise released into the atmosphere, but it would create a renewable source of fuel. “This is about closing the cycle,” Ellen Stechel, manager of Sandia’s Fuels and Energy Transitions department, told us earlier this year as she discussed the lab’s Sunlight to Petrol project. “Right now our fossil fuels are emitting CO2. This would help us manage and reduce our emissions and put us on the path to a carbon-neutral energy system.”

Michael North, a professor of organic chemistry at Newcastle University, notes that renewable sources of hydrocarbons would benefit much more than the transportation sector. “People don’t seem to realize that ten percent of everything that comes out of an oil well doesn’t go to the fuel industry — it drives the chemical industry,” he tells CNN. “Not only are we facing a fuel crisis, but the entire chemical industry is likely to cease to exist. So we desperately need to find ways of making chemical materials out of CO2.”

Article from wired.com