Changes in ocean chemistry — a consequence of increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human industrial activity — could cause U.S. shellfish revenues to drop significantly in the next 50 years, according to a new study by researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).
Intensive burning of fossil fuels and deforestation over the last two centuries have increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere by almost 40 percent. The oceans have absorbed about one-third of all human-generated carbon emissions, but the buildup of CO2 in the ocean is pushing surface waters toward more acidic conditions.
This “ocean acidification” creates a corrosive environment for marine organisms such as corals, marine plankton, and shellfish that build carbonate shells or skeletons. Mollusks — including mussels and oysters, which support valuable marine fisheries — are particularly sensitive to these changes.
In a case study of U.S. commercial fishery revenues published in the June issue of Environmental Research Letters, WHOI scientists Sarah Cooley and Scott Doney calculated the possible economic effects of ocean acidification over the next 50 years using atmospheric CO2 trajectories from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and laboratory studies of acidification’s effects on shell-forming marine organisms, focusing especially on mollusks.
Mollusk sales by fishermen currently generate about $750 million per year — nearly 20 percent of total U.S. fisheries revenue. The study assumed that mollusks harvests in the U.S. would drop 10 to 25 percent in 50 years’ time as a result of increasing acidity levels, which would decrease these mollusk sales by $75 to $187 million dollars annually.
“Losses in primary revenue from commercial mollusk harvests—or the money that fisherman receive for their catch—could add up to as much as $1.4 billion by 2060,” said Cooley.
Reduced harvests of mollusks, as well as losses of predatory fish and other species that depend on mollusks for food, could lead to economic hardships for fishing communities.
“Ocean acidification will impact the millions of people that depend on seafood and other ocean resources for their livelihoods,” said Doney. “Losses of crustaceans, bivalves, their predators, and their habitat — in the case of reef-associated fish communities — would particularly injure societies that depend heavily on consumption and export of marine resources.”
Because changes in seawater chemistry are already apparent and will grow over the next few decades, Cooley and Doney suggest measures that focus on adaptation to future CO2 increases to lessen the impact on marine ecosystems, such as flexible fishery management plans and support for fishing communities.
“Limiting nutrient runoff from land helps coastal ecosystems stay healthy,” said Cooley. “Also fishing rules can be adjusted to reduce pressure on valuable species; fisheries managers may set up more marine protected areas, or they may encourage development of new fisheries.”
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Environmental Toxicologists Link Household Bacteria to Asthma
Researchers say asthma and allergy triggers may be commonly found at home. That means there are things you can do to reduce the cause of your family's symptoms.
Steven Pannkuk loves playing with his kids but he worries about their health. "I have some asthma and allergies in my genetics," he says. While genetics do play a role, environmental toxicologists say the bigger culprit may be in the carpet and other places that collect dust.
A new study indicates bacteria in household dust releases chemicals called endotoxins, which can inflame airways and trigger asthma.
Peter Thorne, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Iowa in Iowa City says, "If you think of a bacterium as an orange, the endotoxin is the material that makes up the peel. It's the outer layer. And this becomes shed from bacteria, and it's everywhere in the environment.
Researchers found the bedroom had fewer endotoxins, but it had a greater impact on a child's health. After all, that's where kids spend almost half their day. Plus, they have closer contact with the endotoxins. "Endotoxin in the home is related to higher rates of asthma," Thorne says.
There are things you and your family can do to lower the amount of endotoxins: wash your bed linens in hot water at least once a week, reduce clutter so you can clean better, purchase allergen-prevention pillow cases and mattress covers and don't eat in bed.
"I just try and be a little more conscious inside of what I can do so I can control my environment on the inside," Pannkuk tells DBIS. He is stuck with his seasonal allergies but is happy he can control environmental factors that affect his family.
Another cause of asthma in the home is pet dander. Cases of asthma tripled among newborns to 4-year-olds between 1980 and 2000.
show background -->
BACKGROUND: Bacteria lurking in household dust produces chemicals that may trigger asthma symptoms, whether a person suffers from asthma or allergies or not. The results, from the first nationwide study of toxins made by bacteria in households, indicate that it's not just the concentration of the bacteria-made toxin that is important. Other factors, such as how long and when a person is exposed to the bacterial toxin, as well as genetic factors, may contribute to the development of asthma.
THE STUDY: The nationwide study involved the analysis of more than 2,500 dust samples from 831 homes across the U.S. Results showed a strong association between the levels of toxins made by bacteria -- called endotoxins -- and the prevalence of diagnosed asthma, asthma symptoms and wheezing. People in households with higher endotoxin concentrations had higher instances of respiratory symptoms.
ABOUT ENDOTOXINS: Endotoxins are found in the cell wall of bacteria and are only released when the cell ruptures or disintegrates. Because bacteria can be found everywhere in the home, the likelihood of such a release is very high. Once released, endotoxins can cause inflammation of the airways and lead to asthma symptoms. Endotoxin levels can be reduced in the same way that allergy symptoms can be reduced: by removing dust, keeping the floors as clean as possible, keeping moisture low, repairing water damage, cleaning bed linens, and using a high-efficiency vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter, among other actions.
ASTHMA OR ALLERGIES? Asthma is a chronic disease affecting the airways that carry air in and out of the lungs. The inside walls of the airways become inflamed (swollen) and narrower so less air can flow through the lung tissues. This in turn causes wheezing, coughing, tightness in the chest, and trouble breathing. Asthma is linked to allergies, although not everyone with asthma has allergies. People with allergies tend to react more strongly to the presence of allergens such as animal dander, dust mites, pollen or mold, as well as cigarette smoke and air pollution.
Steven Pannkuk loves playing with his kids but he worries about their health. "I have some asthma and allergies in my genetics," he says. While genetics do play a role, environmental toxicologists say the bigger culprit may be in the carpet and other places that collect dust.
A new study indicates bacteria in household dust releases chemicals called endotoxins, which can inflame airways and trigger asthma.
Peter Thorne, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Iowa in Iowa City says, "If you think of a bacterium as an orange, the endotoxin is the material that makes up the peel. It's the outer layer. And this becomes shed from bacteria, and it's everywhere in the environment.
Researchers found the bedroom had fewer endotoxins, but it had a greater impact on a child's health. After all, that's where kids spend almost half their day. Plus, they have closer contact with the endotoxins. "Endotoxin in the home is related to higher rates of asthma," Thorne says.
There are things you and your family can do to lower the amount of endotoxins: wash your bed linens in hot water at least once a week, reduce clutter so you can clean better, purchase allergen-prevention pillow cases and mattress covers and don't eat in bed.
"I just try and be a little more conscious inside of what I can do so I can control my environment on the inside," Pannkuk tells DBIS. He is stuck with his seasonal allergies but is happy he can control environmental factors that affect his family.
Another cause of asthma in the home is pet dander. Cases of asthma tripled among newborns to 4-year-olds between 1980 and 2000.
show background -->
BACKGROUND: Bacteria lurking in household dust produces chemicals that may trigger asthma symptoms, whether a person suffers from asthma or allergies or not. The results, from the first nationwide study of toxins made by bacteria in households, indicate that it's not just the concentration of the bacteria-made toxin that is important. Other factors, such as how long and when a person is exposed to the bacterial toxin, as well as genetic factors, may contribute to the development of asthma.
THE STUDY: The nationwide study involved the analysis of more than 2,500 dust samples from 831 homes across the U.S. Results showed a strong association between the levels of toxins made by bacteria -- called endotoxins -- and the prevalence of diagnosed asthma, asthma symptoms and wheezing. People in households with higher endotoxin concentrations had higher instances of respiratory symptoms.
ABOUT ENDOTOXINS: Endotoxins are found in the cell wall of bacteria and are only released when the cell ruptures or disintegrates. Because bacteria can be found everywhere in the home, the likelihood of such a release is very high. Once released, endotoxins can cause inflammation of the airways and lead to asthma symptoms. Endotoxin levels can be reduced in the same way that allergy symptoms can be reduced: by removing dust, keeping the floors as clean as possible, keeping moisture low, repairing water damage, cleaning bed linens, and using a high-efficiency vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter, among other actions.
ASTHMA OR ALLERGIES? Asthma is a chronic disease affecting the airways that carry air in and out of the lungs. The inside walls of the airways become inflamed (swollen) and narrower so less air can flow through the lung tissues. This in turn causes wheezing, coughing, tightness in the chest, and trouble breathing. Asthma is linked to allergies, although not everyone with asthma has allergies. People with allergies tend to react more strongly to the presence of allergens such as animal dander, dust mites, pollen or mold, as well as cigarette smoke and air pollution.
Peer Pressure Plays Major Role In Environmental Behavior
People are more likely to enroll in conservation programs if their neighbors do--a tendency that should be exploited when it comes to protecting the environment, according to results of a new study.
The research, to be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) this week, is the first to focus on the phenomenon of social norms in the context of China's conservation efforts, said scientist Jianguo "Jack" Liu of Michigan State University (MSU).
The study focused on a mammoth government initiative called Grain-to-Green that pays Chinese farmers to convert cropland back to forest.
"Much of the marginal cropland in rural communities has been converted from agriculture to forests through the Grain-to-Green Program, one of the largest 'payment for ecosystem services' programs in the world," said Alan Tessier, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Environmental Biology.
"Results of this study show that a community's social norms have substantial impacts on the sustainability of these conservation investments."
Liu's research was funded through NSF's Coupled Natural and Human Systems (CNH) Program. CNH is co-funded by three NSF Directorates: Biological Sciences; Geosciences; and Social, Economic & Behavioral Sciences.
While money is a key factor in whether people sign up for the voluntary program, peer pressure also plays a surprisingly large role, Liu said.
"That's the power of social norms," he said. "It's like recycling. If you see your neighbors doing it, you're more likely to do it."
A representative survey of households in China's Wolong Nature Reserve for giant pandas found that both government payments and social norms had "significant impacts" on citizens' intentions of re-enrolling in the Grain to Green program.
"In other words, people's re-enrollment intentions can be affected by the re-enrollment decisions of their neighbors and tend to conform to the majority," says Liu.
Xiaodong Chen, a doctoral student at MSU and lead author of the paper, said government officials should leverage these social norms along with economic and demographic trends when deciding how to support conversation programs such as Grain to Green.
"We found that, without considering the social norm factor, conservation payments may not be used efficiently," Chen said.
"But if the government considers social norms as it decides where to invest money, it could obtain more environmental benefits in communities that are supportive of these programs than in those that aren't."
Added co-author and MSU scientist Frank Lupi: "Simply by taking account of the social norms, more conservation can be obtained from limited conservation budgets."
Also contributing to the study was doctoral student Guangming He.
Funding also was provided by NASA, the National Institutes of Health, MSU's Environmental Research Initiative and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.
The research, to be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) this week, is the first to focus on the phenomenon of social norms in the context of China's conservation efforts, said scientist Jianguo "Jack" Liu of Michigan State University (MSU).
The study focused on a mammoth government initiative called Grain-to-Green that pays Chinese farmers to convert cropland back to forest.
"Much of the marginal cropland in rural communities has been converted from agriculture to forests through the Grain-to-Green Program, one of the largest 'payment for ecosystem services' programs in the world," said Alan Tessier, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Environmental Biology.
"Results of this study show that a community's social norms have substantial impacts on the sustainability of these conservation investments."
Liu's research was funded through NSF's Coupled Natural and Human Systems (CNH) Program. CNH is co-funded by three NSF Directorates: Biological Sciences; Geosciences; and Social, Economic & Behavioral Sciences.
While money is a key factor in whether people sign up for the voluntary program, peer pressure also plays a surprisingly large role, Liu said.
"That's the power of social norms," he said. "It's like recycling. If you see your neighbors doing it, you're more likely to do it."
A representative survey of households in China's Wolong Nature Reserve for giant pandas found that both government payments and social norms had "significant impacts" on citizens' intentions of re-enrolling in the Grain to Green program.
"In other words, people's re-enrollment intentions can be affected by the re-enrollment decisions of their neighbors and tend to conform to the majority," says Liu.
Xiaodong Chen, a doctoral student at MSU and lead author of the paper, said government officials should leverage these social norms along with economic and demographic trends when deciding how to support conversation programs such as Grain to Green.
"We found that, without considering the social norm factor, conservation payments may not be used efficiently," Chen said.
"But if the government considers social norms as it decides where to invest money, it could obtain more environmental benefits in communities that are supportive of these programs than in those that aren't."
Added co-author and MSU scientist Frank Lupi: "Simply by taking account of the social norms, more conservation can be obtained from limited conservation budgets."
Also contributing to the study was doctoral student Guangming He.
Funding also was provided by NASA, the National Institutes of Health, MSU's Environmental Research Initiative and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.
Waste water plus bugs make hydrogen
Bacteria that feed on vinegar and waste water zapped with a shot of electricity could produce a clean hydrogen fuel to power vehicles that now run on petrol, researchers report.These so-called microbial fuel cells can turn almost any biodegradable organic material into zero-emission hydrogen gas fuel, says Professor Bruce Logan of Penn State University.This would be an environmental advantage over the current generation of hydrogen-powered cars, where the hydrogen is most commonly made from fossil fuels.Even though the cars themselves emit no greenhouse gases, the manufacture of their fuel does."This is a method of using renewable organic matter, using anything that's biodegradable and being able to generate hydrogen from that material," Logan says.In research published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Logan and colleague Dr Shaoan Cheng used naturally-occurring bacteria in an electrolysis cell with acetic acid, the acid found in vinegar.The bacteria slurp up the acetic acid and release electrons and protons creating up to 0.3 volts of electricity. When a bit more electricity is added from an outside source, hydrogen gas bubbles up from the liquid.Water is the only emissionThis is far more efficient than water hydrolysis, where an electric charge is run through water to break it down into its constituent parts of oxygen and hydrogen."It uses about a 10th as much energy as water electrolysis," Logan says.That is because the bacteria do most of the work, breaking the organic material into subatomic particles, so all the electricity does is juice these particles to form hydrogen.The resulting fuel is a gas, not a liquid, but could still be used to power vehicles
This process could be used with cellulose, glucose, acetate or other volatile acids, Logan says. The only emission is water.Although it sounds futuristic, microbial fuel cell technology is available now. The researchers have filed for a patent on this work.These cells are too large to be put into cars, so the gaseous hydrogen fuel they produce must be made in a factory."You could put one of these reactors at a food processing plant and take the waste water and make hydrogen out of it," Logan says."Or you could go to a farm, where there's lot of cellulose or ... agricultural cellulosic residues, take that and make hydrogen there."This would be unlikely to work in big cities but might well be effective in rural areas."The first step is just to start using locations where we have waste waters that were spending money on treating, and turning those water treatment plants into hydrogen production plants," Logan says.
This process could be used with cellulose, glucose, acetate or other volatile acids, Logan says. The only emission is water.Although it sounds futuristic, microbial fuel cell technology is available now. The researchers have filed for a patent on this work.These cells are too large to be put into cars, so the gaseous hydrogen fuel they produce must be made in a factory."You could put one of these reactors at a food processing plant and take the waste water and make hydrogen out of it," Logan says."Or you could go to a farm, where there's lot of cellulose or ... agricultural cellulosic residues, take that and make hydrogen there."This would be unlikely to work in big cities but might well be effective in rural areas."The first step is just to start using locations where we have waste waters that were spending money on treating, and turning those water treatment plants into hydrogen production plants," Logan says.
Liquid coal for cars 'dirtier' than petrol
Some alternative vehicle fuels such as liquid coal can cause more harmful greenhouse gas emissions than petrol or diesel, scientists warn."Liquid coal, for example, can produce 80% more global warming pollution than [petrol]," says the US non-profit environmental group, the Union of Concerned Scientists.Some people have billed liquid coal, the name for petrol or diesel derived from coal, as a potential replacement to the oil on which countries rely heavily to fuel vehicles.Likewise another alternative fuel, petrol from tar sands, is estimated to have 14% more global warming potential compared with standard petrol, says the union in its latest report Biofuels: an important part of a low-carbon diet."Corn ethanol, conversely, could be either more polluting or less than [petrol], depending on how the corn is grown and the ethanol is produced," the report says.The analysis is based on replacing a fifth of all petrol used in the US with alternative fuels by 2030.If most of these alternatives consist of liquid coal, the change could pump pollution into the atmosphere equivalent to 34 million more cars on the road, the report says.But favouring cleaner "advanced biofuels" could cut harmful gases by a similar amount.The cleanest alternative, the report says, is cellulosic ethanol, made from grass or wood chips. It could cut greenhouse emissions compared with petrol by more than 85%."We need to wean ourselves off oil, but we should replace it with the cleanest alternatives possible," says study author Patricia Monahan."Let's not trade one bad habit for another."
Green Revolution in India
The introduction of high-yielding varieties of seeds after 1965 and the increased use of fertilizers and irrigation are known collectively as the Green Revolution, which provided the increase in production needed to make India self-sufficient in food grains, thus improving agriculture in India. Famine in India, once accepted as inevitable, has not returned since the introduction of Green Revolution crops.
Initiation
The program was started with the help of the United States-based Rockefeller Foundation and was based on high-yielding varieties of wheat, rice, and other grains that had been developed in Mexico and in the Philippines. Of the high-yielding seeds, wheat produced the best results. Production of coarse grains- the staple diet of the poor and pulses the main source of protein- lagged behind, resulting in reduced per capita availability.
Results
The major benefits of the Green Revolution were experienced mainly in northern and northwestern India between 1965 and the early 1980s; the program resulted in a substantial increase in the production of food grains, mainly wheat and rice. Food-grain yields continued to increase throughout the 1980s, but the dramatic changes in the years between 1965 and 1980 were not duplicated. By FY 1980, almost 75 percent of the total cropped area under wheat was sown with high-yielding varieties. For rice the comparable figure was 45 percent. In the 1980s, the area under high-yielding varieties continued to increase, but the rate of growth overall was slower. The eighth plan aimed at making high-yielding varieties available to the whole country and developing more productive strains of other crops.
The Green Revolution created wide regional and interstate disparities. The plan was implemented only in areas with assured supplies of water and the means to control it, large inputs of fertilizers, and adequate farm credit. These inputs were easily available in at least parts of the states of Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh; thus, yields increased most in these states. In other states, such as Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, in areas where these inputs were not assured, the results were limited or negligible, leading to considerable variation in crop yields within these states. The Green Revolution also increased income disparities: higher income growth and reduced incidence of poverty were found in the states where yields increased the most and lower income growth and little change in the incidence of poverty in other states.
The Green Revolution has also been criticized as unsustainable. It requires immense amounts of capital each year to purchase equipment and fertilizers. This may lead to a cycle of debt if a farmer is unable to pay off the loans required each year. Addtionally, the crops require so much water that water tables in some regions of India have dropped dramatically. If this drop continues, it is possible that the process of desertification may take place. Already, the low water is starting the process of salinization. If continued, this would leave the land infertile, spelling disaster for India
Initiation
The program was started with the help of the United States-based Rockefeller Foundation and was based on high-yielding varieties of wheat, rice, and other grains that had been developed in Mexico and in the Philippines. Of the high-yielding seeds, wheat produced the best results. Production of coarse grains- the staple diet of the poor and pulses the main source of protein- lagged behind, resulting in reduced per capita availability.
Results
The major benefits of the Green Revolution were experienced mainly in northern and northwestern India between 1965 and the early 1980s; the program resulted in a substantial increase in the production of food grains, mainly wheat and rice. Food-grain yields continued to increase throughout the 1980s, but the dramatic changes in the years between 1965 and 1980 were not duplicated. By FY 1980, almost 75 percent of the total cropped area under wheat was sown with high-yielding varieties. For rice the comparable figure was 45 percent. In the 1980s, the area under high-yielding varieties continued to increase, but the rate of growth overall was slower. The eighth plan aimed at making high-yielding varieties available to the whole country and developing more productive strains of other crops.
The Green Revolution created wide regional and interstate disparities. The plan was implemented only in areas with assured supplies of water and the means to control it, large inputs of fertilizers, and adequate farm credit. These inputs were easily available in at least parts of the states of Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh; thus, yields increased most in these states. In other states, such as Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, in areas where these inputs were not assured, the results were limited or negligible, leading to considerable variation in crop yields within these states. The Green Revolution also increased income disparities: higher income growth and reduced incidence of poverty were found in the states where yields increased the most and lower income growth and little change in the incidence of poverty in other states.
The Green Revolution has also been criticized as unsustainable. It requires immense amounts of capital each year to purchase equipment and fertilizers. This may lead to a cycle of debt if a farmer is unable to pay off the loans required each year. Addtionally, the crops require so much water that water tables in some regions of India have dropped dramatically. If this drop continues, it is possible that the process of desertification may take place. Already, the low water is starting the process of salinization. If continued, this would leave the land infertile, spelling disaster for India
Global Warming Leads to 150,000 Deaths Every Year
Global warming is not only a threat to our future health, it already contributes to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses annually, according to a team of health and climate scientists at the World Health Organization and the University of Wisconsin at Madison—and those numbers could double by 2030.
Research data published in the journal Nature show that global warming may affect human health in a surprising number of ways: speeding the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever; creating conditions that lead to potentially fatal malnutrition and diarrhea; and increasing the likelihood of heat waves and floods.
Health Effects of Global Warming Hardest on Poor NationsAccording to the scientists, who have mapped the growing health impacts of global warming, the data show that global warming affects different regions in very different ways. Global warming is particularly hard on people in poor countries, which is ironic, because the places that have contributed the least to global warming are most vulnerable to the death and disease higher temperatures can bring.
"Those least able to cope and least responsible for the greenhouse gases that cause global warming are most affected," said lead author Jonathan Patz, a professor at UW-Madison's Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. "Herein lies an enormous global ethical challenge."
Global Regions at Highest Risk from Global WarmingAccording to the Nature report, regions at highest risk for enduring the health effects of climate change include coastlines along the Pacific and Indian oceans and sub-Saharan Africa. Large sprawling cities, with their urban "heat island" effect, are also prone to temperature-related health problems. Africa has some of the lowest per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, regions of the continent are gravely at risk for diseases related to global warming.
"Many of the most important diseases in poor countries, from malaria to diarrhea and malnutrition, are highly sensitive to climate," said co-author Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum of WHO. "The health sector is already struggling to control these diseases and climate change threatens to undermine these efforts."
"Recent extreme climatic events have underscored the risks to human health and survival," added Tony McMichael, director of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University. "This synthesizing paper points the way to strategic research that better assesses the risks to health from global climate change."
Global Responsibilities of Developed and Developing NationsThe United States, which currently emits more greenhouse gases than any other nation, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, choosing instead to initiate a separate multinational effort with less ambitious goals. Patz and his colleagues say their work demonstrates the moral obligation of countries with high per-capita emissions, such as the United States and European nations, to take the lead in reducing the health threats of global warming. Their work also highlights the need for large, fast-growing economies, such as China and India, to develop sustainable energy policies.
"The political resolve of policymakers will play a big role in harnessing the man-made forces of climate change," said Patz, who also holds a joint appointment with the UW-Madison department of Population Health Sciences.
Global Warming is Getting WorseScientists believe that greenhouse gases will increase the global average temperature by approximately 6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Extreme floods, droughts and heat waves, such as Europe's 2003 heat wave, are likely to strike with increasing frequency. Other factors such as irrigation and deforestation can also affect local temperatures and humidity.
According to the UW-Madison and WHO team, other model-based forecasts of health risks from global climate change project that:
Climate-related disease risks of the various health outcomes assessed by WHO will more than double by 2030.
Flooding as a result of coastal storm surges will affect the lives of up to 200 million people by the 2080s.
Heat related deaths in California could more than double by 2100.
Hazardous ozone pollution days in the Eastern U.S. could increase 60 percent by 2050. Individual People Can Make a DifferenceAside from research and the needed support of policymakers worldwide, Patz says individuals can also play an important role in curbing the health consequences of global warming.
"Our consumptive lifestyles are having lethal impacts on other people around the world, especially the poor," Patz said. "There are options now for leading more energy-efficient lives that should enable people to make better personal choices."
Research data published in the journal Nature show that global warming may affect human health in a surprising number of ways: speeding the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever; creating conditions that lead to potentially fatal malnutrition and diarrhea; and increasing the likelihood of heat waves and floods.
Health Effects of Global Warming Hardest on Poor NationsAccording to the scientists, who have mapped the growing health impacts of global warming, the data show that global warming affects different regions in very different ways. Global warming is particularly hard on people in poor countries, which is ironic, because the places that have contributed the least to global warming are most vulnerable to the death and disease higher temperatures can bring.
"Those least able to cope and least responsible for the greenhouse gases that cause global warming are most affected," said lead author Jonathan Patz, a professor at UW-Madison's Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. "Herein lies an enormous global ethical challenge."
Global Regions at Highest Risk from Global WarmingAccording to the Nature report, regions at highest risk for enduring the health effects of climate change include coastlines along the Pacific and Indian oceans and sub-Saharan Africa. Large sprawling cities, with their urban "heat island" effect, are also prone to temperature-related health problems. Africa has some of the lowest per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, regions of the continent are gravely at risk for diseases related to global warming.
"Many of the most important diseases in poor countries, from malaria to diarrhea and malnutrition, are highly sensitive to climate," said co-author Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum of WHO. "The health sector is already struggling to control these diseases and climate change threatens to undermine these efforts."
"Recent extreme climatic events have underscored the risks to human health and survival," added Tony McMichael, director of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University. "This synthesizing paper points the way to strategic research that better assesses the risks to health from global climate change."
Global Responsibilities of Developed and Developing NationsThe United States, which currently emits more greenhouse gases than any other nation, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, choosing instead to initiate a separate multinational effort with less ambitious goals. Patz and his colleagues say their work demonstrates the moral obligation of countries with high per-capita emissions, such as the United States and European nations, to take the lead in reducing the health threats of global warming. Their work also highlights the need for large, fast-growing economies, such as China and India, to develop sustainable energy policies.
"The political resolve of policymakers will play a big role in harnessing the man-made forces of climate change," said Patz, who also holds a joint appointment with the UW-Madison department of Population Health Sciences.
Global Warming is Getting WorseScientists believe that greenhouse gases will increase the global average temperature by approximately 6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Extreme floods, droughts and heat waves, such as Europe's 2003 heat wave, are likely to strike with increasing frequency. Other factors such as irrigation and deforestation can also affect local temperatures and humidity.
According to the UW-Madison and WHO team, other model-based forecasts of health risks from global climate change project that:
Climate-related disease risks of the various health outcomes assessed by WHO will more than double by 2030.
Flooding as a result of coastal storm surges will affect the lives of up to 200 million people by the 2080s.
Heat related deaths in California could more than double by 2100.
Hazardous ozone pollution days in the Eastern U.S. could increase 60 percent by 2050. Individual People Can Make a DifferenceAside from research and the needed support of policymakers worldwide, Patz says individuals can also play an important role in curbing the health consequences of global warming.
"Our consumptive lifestyles are having lethal impacts on other people around the world, especially the poor," Patz said. "There are options now for leading more energy-efficient lives that should enable people to make better personal choices."
How It Affects Your Health
It's a fair bet that global warming is going to lead to a rise in human sickness and death. But what form they will take is difficult to say. We can be pretty sure that as average temperatures climb, there will be more frequent and longer heat waves of the sort that contributed to the death of at least 20,000 Europeans in August 2003. Other predictions are more tenuous. For example, rising temperatures could--if rainfall and other conditions are right--result in larger mosquito populations at higher elevations in the tropics, which could in turn contribute to the spread of malaria, dengue and other insect-borne infections. Early indications are not encouraging. The World Health Organization (WHO) believes that even the modest increases in average temperature that have occurred since the 1970s have begun to take a toll. Climate change is responsible for at least 150,000 extra deaths a year--a figure that will double by 2030, according to WHO's conservative estimate. As with so many public-health issues, a disproportionate part of the burden appears to be falling on the poorest of the poor. That doesn't mean, however, that the comparatively wealthy--who account for more than their share of greenhouse-gas emissions--will escape harm.
A look at three key factors affected by warming offers a hint of things to come.
AIR We're used to thinking of industrial and traffic pollution as having a detrimental effect on air quality. But all other things being equal, rising temperature by itself increases the amount of ground-level ozone, a major constituent of smog. So many studies have linked higher ozone levels to death rates from heart and lung ailments that many cities issue smog alerts to warn those at risk to stay indoors. You can expect more and longer alerts.
It gets worse. Higher levels of carbon dioxide favor the growth of ragweed and other pollen producers over other plants, according to Dr. Paul Epstein at Harvard's Center for Health and the Global Environment. In addition, ragweed churns out more pollen as CO2 levels rise. Scientists have tied local spikes in asthma and allergy attacks to increases in molds and emissions from diesel engines. Apparently, the molds attach themselves to diesel particles, which deliver them more efficiently deep into the lungs. Add a plentiful helping of dust storms (from, for instance, the desertification of Mongolia or northern Africa) and a rise in drought-driven brushfires, and you have a made- to-order recipe for increasing respiratory distress worldwide.
WATER Residents of the U.S. Gulf Coast don't have to be reminded that water can be a killer. You can usually evacuate people ahead of a major storm, but you can't evacuate infrastructure. "Thirteen of the 20 largest cities in the world happen to be located at sea level," says Dr. Cindy Parker of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, Md. That means that where people are most at risk from floods, so are hospitals and water-treatment plants. As we have seen in New Orleans, the health effects of losing those facilities persist long after the water has receded.
A look at three key factors affected by warming offers a hint of things to come.
AIR We're used to thinking of industrial and traffic pollution as having a detrimental effect on air quality. But all other things being equal, rising temperature by itself increases the amount of ground-level ozone, a major constituent of smog. So many studies have linked higher ozone levels to death rates from heart and lung ailments that many cities issue smog alerts to warn those at risk to stay indoors. You can expect more and longer alerts.
It gets worse. Higher levels of carbon dioxide favor the growth of ragweed and other pollen producers over other plants, according to Dr. Paul Epstein at Harvard's Center for Health and the Global Environment. In addition, ragweed churns out more pollen as CO2 levels rise. Scientists have tied local spikes in asthma and allergy attacks to increases in molds and emissions from diesel engines. Apparently, the molds attach themselves to diesel particles, which deliver them more efficiently deep into the lungs. Add a plentiful helping of dust storms (from, for instance, the desertification of Mongolia or northern Africa) and a rise in drought-driven brushfires, and you have a made- to-order recipe for increasing respiratory distress worldwide.
WATER Residents of the U.S. Gulf Coast don't have to be reminded that water can be a killer. You can usually evacuate people ahead of a major storm, but you can't evacuate infrastructure. "Thirteen of the 20 largest cities in the world happen to be located at sea level," says Dr. Cindy Parker of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, Md. That means that where people are most at risk from floods, so are hospitals and water-treatment plants. As we have seen in New Orleans, the health effects of losing those facilities persist long after the water has receded.
Ways to combat Global Warming
Global warming is the increase in the earth's temperature as a result of the green house effect. Certain gases such as Carbon-di-oxide, Nitrous Oxide, and Methane act as the additional blanket around the earth. They allow sun's heat to reach the earth surface and warm up the earth's temperature. Although, it is the natural phenomena occurring on the planet earth. Than with the increase in globalization, deforestation is the another devastating force behind global warming. It is the second main cause of releasing the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Trees collect the CO2 that we breath and give back oxygen that we breath in. Thus, as the trees dies, it leads to the greater concentration of CO2 into the environment. Global warming is constantly resulting in extreme high temperature of the surface, reduction of snow cover, and rise in the water level.
However the increasing human activities are significantly contributing to the cause of global warming. And the foremost among them is the clearing of the forests and converting them into the agricultural lands. Than the another threat to the environment is the burning of the fossil fuels by the industries, which forms the layer of the Sulphuric and the Nitric acid into the air. In this way the environment is dealing with some of the very serious problems, which are having its considerable effect on the climate too. So it has become really important to reduce the process of warming as soon as possible. Each one of our effort can save the environment from the serious hazards. Here are some of the simplest ways to slow down the system of global warming:-Using recyclable products : Start using recyclable products instead of disposables. By this you can reduce the waste which ultimately leads to global warming. You can buy those products from the market, which can be reused. However there are methods to recycle certain products such as plastic, glass and aluminum cans, paper and newspapers. Purchase energy efficient products : The most efficient way to reduce the global warming is to suggest various measures for the energy conservation. If you are planning to buy a new car choose the one that offers the good gas mileage. Get your car and other vehicles serviced periodically. Than the home energy accounts to biggest cause of global warming. Avoid products that come with the excessive packages, that cannot be recycled. If you save garbage at your house, you can save large amount of carbon-di-oxide annually. Turn off the heaters, air conditioners, coolers when not in use. Tree plantation : Grow trees in and around your house to lower down the temperature of your house. Infact tree plantation is the best possible way to combat global warming. They absorb the carbon-di-oxide and gives off oxygen. They also absorb the harmful gases generated by the vehicles. Reducing pollution : When you have to cover the shorter distance prefer walking or biking, which saves gasoline and reduces pollution caused by the vehicles. As the main reason for the increase in the global warming is the the gases emitted by the vehicles which has severely damage the ozone layer. And due to this the, the ultra violet rays and other harmful rays from the sun reaches out the earth causing the problem of global warming. Another way to reduce the air pollution caused by the industries into the atmosphere is to use the low Sulphur fuels instead of fossil fuels. Than there should be strict control on the emission of harmful gases from the industries.
However the increasing human activities are significantly contributing to the cause of global warming. And the foremost among them is the clearing of the forests and converting them into the agricultural lands. Than the another threat to the environment is the burning of the fossil fuels by the industries, which forms the layer of the Sulphuric and the Nitric acid into the air. In this way the environment is dealing with some of the very serious problems, which are having its considerable effect on the climate too. So it has become really important to reduce the process of warming as soon as possible. Each one of our effort can save the environment from the serious hazards. Here are some of the simplest ways to slow down the system of global warming:-Using recyclable products : Start using recyclable products instead of disposables. By this you can reduce the waste which ultimately leads to global warming. You can buy those products from the market, which can be reused. However there are methods to recycle certain products such as plastic, glass and aluminum cans, paper and newspapers. Purchase energy efficient products : The most efficient way to reduce the global warming is to suggest various measures for the energy conservation. If you are planning to buy a new car choose the one that offers the good gas mileage. Get your car and other vehicles serviced periodically. Than the home energy accounts to biggest cause of global warming. Avoid products that come with the excessive packages, that cannot be recycled. If you save garbage at your house, you can save large amount of carbon-di-oxide annually. Turn off the heaters, air conditioners, coolers when not in use. Tree plantation : Grow trees in and around your house to lower down the temperature of your house. Infact tree plantation is the best possible way to combat global warming. They absorb the carbon-di-oxide and gives off oxygen. They also absorb the harmful gases generated by the vehicles. Reducing pollution : When you have to cover the shorter distance prefer walking or biking, which saves gasoline and reduces pollution caused by the vehicles. As the main reason for the increase in the global warming is the the gases emitted by the vehicles which has severely damage the ozone layer. And due to this the, the ultra violet rays and other harmful rays from the sun reaches out the earth causing the problem of global warming. Another way to reduce the air pollution caused by the industries into the atmosphere is to use the low Sulphur fuels instead of fossil fuels. Than there should be strict control on the emission of harmful gases from the industries.
Shocking Report Says Cigarette Smuggling Finances 'terrorist' Groups
new report has shockingly said that cigarette and tobacco smuggling finances militant groups such as the Pakistani Taliban and saps about 40 billion dollars a year from government budgets.
The claims were made as 160 countries resumed talks at the World Health Organisation on expanding an international anti-smoking treaty to clamp down on the illicit trade in tobacco. Apart from issues such as enforcement and coordination, the 10-day preparatory negotiations are also examining a possible halt to duty free sales of cigarettes or measures against Internet sales, WHO documents showed. An alliance of some 350 anti-tobacco campaign groups said in a statement that concerted action against the contraband and counterfeit cigarettes trade would far outweigh the 40.5 billion dollars in lost tax revenue. Some 11.6 percent of the global cigarette market was illicit, equivalent to some 657 billion cigarettes a year, the International Union Against Tobacco and Lung Disease estimated in a report. Citing enforcement officials, other researchers also alleged that "half a dozen terrorist" or militant groups rely on black market tobacco and smuggling for revenue. They included the Pakistani Taliban, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Hezbollah, leftwing FARC rebels in Colombia, the Real IRA in Northern Ireland, and a Tutsi rebel group in the Democratic Republic of Congo. "We believe that tobacco has been second only to drugs as a source of finance to the Pakistani Taliban," David Kaplan, editorial director of the US-based Center for Public Integrity, told journalists
His body's report also highlighted "smuggling hubs" in China, Paraguay and Ukraine, where either illegally produced counterfeits or contraband excess production from legal factories were fuelling black markets around the world. It estimated that 80 percent of counterfeit cigarettes in the European Union and 99 percent of those sold on US streets were among the estimated 400 billion made illegally every year in China.
"Renegade factories, multinational companies and weak enforcement all play a role in fuelling this massive illegal trade, whose profits rival those of narcotics," said Bill Buzenberg, executive director of the Center. Legitimate cigarette factories in Ukraine helped feed a two billion dollar black market in the European Union, according to the report. "Ukraine... is overproducing and flooding the market," said one of the authors, Marina Walker Guevara. Meanwhile, plants in Paraguay produce 20 times what can be consumed in the country, and local officials estimated that some 90 percent of output -- one billion dollars -- disappeared into the black market, especially in South America. The report was produced by the center's International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, backed by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Washington. The WHO negotiations are aimed at expanding the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, that strengthened measures against smoking, possibly next year. One of the measures being considered is a ban, or restrictions, on duty free sales that are "often diverted into illicit trade," according to official reports for the meeting. They concluded that there would be no legal obstacles to such a ban, while a "track and trace" system on tobacco to prevent contraband was "feasible".
The claims were made as 160 countries resumed talks at the World Health Organisation on expanding an international anti-smoking treaty to clamp down on the illicit trade in tobacco. Apart from issues such as enforcement and coordination, the 10-day preparatory negotiations are also examining a possible halt to duty free sales of cigarettes or measures against Internet sales, WHO documents showed. An alliance of some 350 anti-tobacco campaign groups said in a statement that concerted action against the contraband and counterfeit cigarettes trade would far outweigh the 40.5 billion dollars in lost tax revenue. Some 11.6 percent of the global cigarette market was illicit, equivalent to some 657 billion cigarettes a year, the International Union Against Tobacco and Lung Disease estimated in a report. Citing enforcement officials, other researchers also alleged that "half a dozen terrorist" or militant groups rely on black market tobacco and smuggling for revenue. They included the Pakistani Taliban, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Hezbollah, leftwing FARC rebels in Colombia, the Real IRA in Northern Ireland, and a Tutsi rebel group in the Democratic Republic of Congo. "We believe that tobacco has been second only to drugs as a source of finance to the Pakistani Taliban," David Kaplan, editorial director of the US-based Center for Public Integrity, told journalists
His body's report also highlighted "smuggling hubs" in China, Paraguay and Ukraine, where either illegally produced counterfeits or contraband excess production from legal factories were fuelling black markets around the world. It estimated that 80 percent of counterfeit cigarettes in the European Union and 99 percent of those sold on US streets were among the estimated 400 billion made illegally every year in China.
"Renegade factories, multinational companies and weak enforcement all play a role in fuelling this massive illegal trade, whose profits rival those of narcotics," said Bill Buzenberg, executive director of the Center. Legitimate cigarette factories in Ukraine helped feed a two billion dollar black market in the European Union, according to the report. "Ukraine... is overproducing and flooding the market," said one of the authors, Marina Walker Guevara. Meanwhile, plants in Paraguay produce 20 times what can be consumed in the country, and local officials estimated that some 90 percent of output -- one billion dollars -- disappeared into the black market, especially in South America. The report was produced by the center's International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, backed by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Washington. The WHO negotiations are aimed at expanding the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, that strengthened measures against smoking, possibly next year. One of the measures being considered is a ban, or restrictions, on duty free sales that are "often diverted into illicit trade," according to official reports for the meeting. They concluded that there would be no legal obstacles to such a ban, while a "track and trace" system on tobacco to prevent contraband was "feasible".
HFCs - Protect The Ozone But Raise Global Warming
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), known for protecting the ozone layer from destruction, may also be responsible for global warming, a recent research has held. The research was conducted by scientists from NOAASHFC earth system research laboratory and theircolleagues, which do not contain ozone-destroying chlorine or bromine atoms, are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in such uses as refrigeration, air conditioning, and the production of insulating foams. The researchers took a fresh look at how the global use of HFCs is expected to grow in coming decades. Using updated usage estimates and looking farther ahead than past projections (to the year 2050), they found that HFCs, especially from developing countries, will become an increasingly larger factor in future climate warming. "HFCs are good for protecting the ozone layer, but they are not climate friendly," said David W. Fahey, a scientist at NOAA and second author of the new study. "Our research shows that their effect on climate could become significantly larger than we expected, if we continue along a business-as-usual path," he added. HFCs currently have a climate change contribution that is small (less than 1 percent) in comparison to the contribution of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The researchers have shown that by 2050, the HFCs contribution could rise to 7 to 12 percent of what CO2 contributes, and if international efforts succeed in stabilizing CO2 emissions, the relative climate contribution from HFCs would increase further.NOAA's Earth System ResearHFCs, which do not contain ozone-destroying chlorine or bromine atoms, are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in such uses as refrigeration, air conditioning, and the production of insulating foams. The researchers took a fresh look at how the global use of HFCs is expected to grow in coming decades. Using updated usage estimates and looking farther ahead than past projections (to the year 2050), they found that HFCs, especially from developing countries, will become an increasingly larger factor in future climate warming. "HFCs are good for protecting the ozone layer, but they are not climate friendly," said David W. Fahey, a scientist at NOAA and second author of the new study. "Our research shows that their effect on climate could become significantly larger than we expected, if we continue along a business-as-usual path," he added. HFCs currently have a climate change contribution that is small (less than 1 percent) in comparison to the contribution of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The researchers have shown that by 2050, the HFCs contribution could rise to 7 to 12 percent of what CO2 contributes, and if international efforts succeed in stabilizing CO2 emissions, the relative climate contribution from HFCs would increase further.
ch Laboratory and their colleagues.
ch Laboratory and their colleagues.
India has only around 1,500 tigers: govt survey
While the new survey shows a marginal decline in tiger numbers inside sanctuaries and protected areas, the tiger population outside them appears to have fallen drastically
There are only between 1,300-1,500 tigers left in India, according to a new study commissioned by the government. This figure is less than half the reported figure from the last official tiger census conducted in 2001, although many experts had questioned those numbers. The prime minister has promised action to tackle the alarming decline in the country?s tiger population.
The Wildlife Institute of India, which carried out the survey with the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), said the tiger population in reserves and protected areas had dropped marginally but had declined sharply in unprotected forest areas.
?Today?s presentation has brought home the fact that we may have made a mistake about wanting to have people co-exist with tigers, and become dinner. And it wasn?t such a good idea for people. The idea was to try and find ways to remove them from those areas and let nature rejuvenate itself,? said conservationist Prahalad Kakkar.
The survey was presented to a National Wildlife Board meeting, chaired by India?s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The new numbers confirm fears expressed when initial results from the study were reported in May. ?The earlier tiger census figures were exaggerated because there was a tendency that if you are a manager of a tiger reserve, if you did a census and showed a lower number, your knuckles were rapped,? added Belinda Wright, director of the Wildlife Protection Society of India.
The last major tiger census relied on estimating the population by examining tiger pugmarks; the current study is far more extensive and accurate, using camera ?traps? triggered by passing animals, as well as hundreds of wildlife officials tracking the animals through droppings and pugmarks.
Listing urgent measures that have been taken to bolster tiger conservation in India, the NTCA said, while releasing the study on November 2, that central assistance is being provided for the creation of a ?tiger protection force? comprising ex-army personnel and local people. This will complement the efforts of field staff and existing protection initiatives.
Meanwhile, renowned conservationist Valmik Thapar said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had promised prompt action to deal with the dwindling tiger population. ?Yesterday?s National Wildlife Board meeting headed by the prime minister was excellent. He came up with three solutions -- one, a sub-committee should be formed to look into tiger conservation; second, a tiger population force must be formed which should be headed by various state governments to check the number of tigers in every state; and third, a senior policeman should head a wildlife crime bureau that has been headless for quite some time now. These three ways will affect the tigers in a positive way. This could be the beginning of a new era in wildlife conservation. Government, NGOs and individuals can partner much better. The prime minister was very much in tune with the problem and is doing what needs to be done. So we are keeping our fingers crossed,? Thapar concluded.
A century ago, India?s tiger population was believed to number in the tens of thousands. But unchecked development, rampant poaching and population pressure on tiger habitats have rapidly depleted their
There are only between 1,300-1,500 tigers left in India, according to a new study commissioned by the government. This figure is less than half the reported figure from the last official tiger census conducted in 2001, although many experts had questioned those numbers. The prime minister has promised action to tackle the alarming decline in the country?s tiger population.
The Wildlife Institute of India, which carried out the survey with the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), said the tiger population in reserves and protected areas had dropped marginally but had declined sharply in unprotected forest areas.
?Today?s presentation has brought home the fact that we may have made a mistake about wanting to have people co-exist with tigers, and become dinner. And it wasn?t such a good idea for people. The idea was to try and find ways to remove them from those areas and let nature rejuvenate itself,? said conservationist Prahalad Kakkar.
The survey was presented to a National Wildlife Board meeting, chaired by India?s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The new numbers confirm fears expressed when initial results from the study were reported in May. ?The earlier tiger census figures were exaggerated because there was a tendency that if you are a manager of a tiger reserve, if you did a census and showed a lower number, your knuckles were rapped,? added Belinda Wright, director of the Wildlife Protection Society of India.
The last major tiger census relied on estimating the population by examining tiger pugmarks; the current study is far more extensive and accurate, using camera ?traps? triggered by passing animals, as well as hundreds of wildlife officials tracking the animals through droppings and pugmarks.
Listing urgent measures that have been taken to bolster tiger conservation in India, the NTCA said, while releasing the study on November 2, that central assistance is being provided for the creation of a ?tiger protection force? comprising ex-army personnel and local people. This will complement the efforts of field staff and existing protection initiatives.
Meanwhile, renowned conservationist Valmik Thapar said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had promised prompt action to deal with the dwindling tiger population. ?Yesterday?s National Wildlife Board meeting headed by the prime minister was excellent. He came up with three solutions -- one, a sub-committee should be formed to look into tiger conservation; second, a tiger population force must be formed which should be headed by various state governments to check the number of tigers in every state; and third, a senior policeman should head a wildlife crime bureau that has been headless for quite some time now. These three ways will affect the tigers in a positive way. This could be the beginning of a new era in wildlife conservation. Government, NGOs and individuals can partner much better. The prime minister was very much in tune with the problem and is doing what needs to be done. So we are keeping our fingers crossed,? Thapar concluded.
A century ago, India?s tiger population was believed to number in the tens of thousands. But unchecked development, rampant poaching and population pressure on tiger habitats have rapidly depleted their
India will not take on emission reduction targets: Ramesh
India will not sign any treaty that legally binds it to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh reiterated here Tuesday, attacking a proposed US legislation that seeks to financially punish countries that refuse to take on such targets.
At a time when climate change - along with terrorism and the economic downturn - is dominating the international agenda, Ramesh told the media that India 'must stop looking at climate change purely as an international issue'.
'It is most fundamentally a domestic and local issue, as it impacts water security, land productivity, agricultural yields and energy consumption.'
All countries are now negotiating an agreement to tackle climate change. They are scheduled to do so by this December, when the next climate summit will be held in Copenhagen.
Industrialised countries, which are already committed to reducing their GHG emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012, are putting immense pressure on India, China and other emerging economies to commit to GHG emissions reductions or at least caps.
These emissions - 75 percent of them of carbon dioxide - are warming the atmosphere and leading to climate change.
In this fractious atmosphere, Ramesh reiterated India's 'eight non-negotiable basic principles':
* India's per capita emission levels will never exceed the per capita emission levels of developed countries.
* India cannot and will not take on emission reduction targets because poverty eradication and social and economic development are the first and over-riding priorities; each human being has equal right to global atmospheric resources; 'common but differentiated responsibility' is the basis for all climate change actions.
* India will continue to be a low-carbon economy.
* India's primary focus is on adaptation (to climate change), with specific niches for mitigation (of GHG emissions).
* India has already unveiled a comprehensive National Action Plan on Climate Change, whose activities are in the public domain. Work on the action plan has been initiated.
* Only those 'nationally appropriate mitigation actions' can be subject to international monitoring, reporting and verification that are enabled and supported by international finance and technology transfer.
* India wants a comprehensive approach to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and advocates REDD+ that includes conservation, afforestation and sustainable management of forests.
* India advocates collaborative research and future low-carbon technology and access to intellectual property rights as global public goods.
Ramesh said industrialised countries that were responsible for almost all GHG in the atmosphere today should be far more proactive in reducing emissions. He described the bill passed by the US House of Representatives Monday as 'anaemic. The targets are very unambitious. And the most pernicious part of it is the climate tax.'
He welcomed US President Barack Obama's call to the US Senate to reject this part of the bill and said: 'India rejects the use of climate as a non-tariff barrier and will oppose the introduction of climate change talks in World Trade Organisation negotiations. We want barriers to trade environmental goods and services to be removed.'
At Bonn earlier this month, during the most recent preparatory talks for the Copenhagen summit, India, China and 36 other countries had submitted a proposal that industrialised countries be legally obliged to reduce their GHG emissions by at least 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.
Referring to this proposal, Ramesh told IANS: 'We don't want the developed countries to push back their commitments to 2050, when none of us here will be around. We want them to reduce their emissions by 2020, and to do it from 1990 levels, instead of pushing the baseline to 2005 as some of them are trying to do.'
At a time when climate change - along with terrorism and the economic downturn - is dominating the international agenda, Ramesh told the media that India 'must stop looking at climate change purely as an international issue'.
'It is most fundamentally a domestic and local issue, as it impacts water security, land productivity, agricultural yields and energy consumption.'
All countries are now negotiating an agreement to tackle climate change. They are scheduled to do so by this December, when the next climate summit will be held in Copenhagen.
Industrialised countries, which are already committed to reducing their GHG emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012, are putting immense pressure on India, China and other emerging economies to commit to GHG emissions reductions or at least caps.
These emissions - 75 percent of them of carbon dioxide - are warming the atmosphere and leading to climate change.
In this fractious atmosphere, Ramesh reiterated India's 'eight non-negotiable basic principles':
* India's per capita emission levels will never exceed the per capita emission levels of developed countries.
* India cannot and will not take on emission reduction targets because poverty eradication and social and economic development are the first and over-riding priorities; each human being has equal right to global atmospheric resources; 'common but differentiated responsibility' is the basis for all climate change actions.
* India will continue to be a low-carbon economy.
* India's primary focus is on adaptation (to climate change), with specific niches for mitigation (of GHG emissions).
* India has already unveiled a comprehensive National Action Plan on Climate Change, whose activities are in the public domain. Work on the action plan has been initiated.
* Only those 'nationally appropriate mitigation actions' can be subject to international monitoring, reporting and verification that are enabled and supported by international finance and technology transfer.
* India wants a comprehensive approach to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and advocates REDD+ that includes conservation, afforestation and sustainable management of forests.
* India advocates collaborative research and future low-carbon technology and access to intellectual property rights as global public goods.
Ramesh said industrialised countries that were responsible for almost all GHG in the atmosphere today should be far more proactive in reducing emissions. He described the bill passed by the US House of Representatives Monday as 'anaemic. The targets are very unambitious. And the most pernicious part of it is the climate tax.'
He welcomed US President Barack Obama's call to the US Senate to reject this part of the bill and said: 'India rejects the use of climate as a non-tariff barrier and will oppose the introduction of climate change talks in World Trade Organisation negotiations. We want barriers to trade environmental goods and services to be removed.'
At Bonn earlier this month, during the most recent preparatory talks for the Copenhagen summit, India, China and 36 other countries had submitted a proposal that industrialised countries be legally obliged to reduce their GHG emissions by at least 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.
Referring to this proposal, Ramesh told IANS: 'We don't want the developed countries to push back their commitments to 2050, when none of us here will be around. We want them to reduce their emissions by 2020, and to do it from 1990 levels, instead of pushing the baseline to 2005 as some of them are trying to do.'
Nano to rule cities as green norms push M800 off road
THE world’s cheapest car, Nano, is likely to wrest the leadership position in the small car segment within a year as the ruling market leaders — Maruti 800 and Omni — will no longer be sold in 11 of India’s biggest cities from January 2010 because of failure to meet current emission norms. These cities account for one out of two cars sold in the country. “This (absence of Maruti 800 and Omni) would mean no direct competition to Nano. The important question is whether Tata Motors would be able to manufacture enough units of Nano that would meet the demand.” said Kapil Arora, Partner (Automobile), Ernst & Young. Although Nano could become the highest selling car in its segment, it would take some time to contribute to Tata Motors’ sagging bottomline. Mr Arora said Tata Motors, which suffered a Rs 2,500-crore loss last year largely due the tribulations of its UK subsidiary Jaguar and Land Rover, needs to sell at least 2.5 lakh units of the Nano to make money from the world’s cheapest car. The company may be in a position to produce the Nano in these numbers only by the end of 2010 once its plant at Sanand, Gujarat becomes operational. The entry-level Maruti 800, the flagship product of Maruti Suzuki India, is priced at Rs 2.15 lakh. The basic version of the Nano is pegged at Rs 1.35 lakh though other version with more more features cost more. “The pricing strategy of the product is not decided yet. The price of the Nano could go up. The margin at the moment is wafer thin, “ he added. The company spokesperson said: “The first one lakh allotments (of the Nano) are price-protected as prices were declared at the launch. For others, should circumstances require any pricing decision, it will be intimated to them (customers who have booked the car) at the time of delivery.” The company is also planning to launch the diesel version of the Nano. There has been speculation that the diesel Nano could cost around Rs 2 lakh, making it the cheapest car in the category.
Pollution control board officials collect samples from Sewree mudflats to check toxicity
Following the case of a flamingo’s collapse in the swamps of the highly polluted suburb of Sewri last week “due to toxicity in the water”, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) has collected water samples from the mudflats for thorough chemical analysis.
BD Wadde, MPCB regional officer in Mumbai, said that on May 19, immediately after the incident, his officials visited the spot where the migratory bird was found, and collected about two-and-a half litre of water to carry out detailed tests. The samples have now been forwarded to the MPCB labs and results will be out in a month.
“We have to ensure that dissolved oxygen (DO) has not fallen below 5 mg per litre. If that happens, the aquatic animals may die due to suffocation,” Wadde said.
The pH level, DO levels, turbidity, total dissolved solid, ammonical nitrogen content, nitrate, phosphate, biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD) as well as the total and faecal coliform contents in the water will also be checked.
A separate micro pollutant test will also be carried out to rule out pesticide content in the water. This test will check for DDT, endosulphan, aldrin, diedrin, methyl parathion, chloropyriphos etc in the water. Existence of toxic metals like arsenic, cadmium, mercury, zinc, chromium, lead, nickel and iron will also be checked.
However, pollution control board officials suspected that high effluent contents in the water may not have caused the bird’s collapse. “There are very few industries within the city and there is a stringent check on waste disposal. It is not possible that the mudflats are so polluted. This seems like a one off case and it is possible that the bird could have had a bad health condition,” he explained.
Flamingo still not wellThe flamingo found at the mudflats two weeks ago is still battling to recover at the SPCA Hospital. The bird, which had diarrhea and was vomiting blood, when it was hospitalised, is now finding it difficult to walk or fly. “The flamingo has been put on a treatment of vitamin tonics and supplements. The toxins seem to have damaged its nerves. It is lying prostrate and not standing up, said Dr Y Kaginkar of the SPCA Hospital. The toxins in the bird’s system cannot be checked as the veins of the bird are delicate now. “When the bird becomes strong, I shall conduct further tests,” adds Kaginkar
BD Wadde, MPCB regional officer in Mumbai, said that on May 19, immediately after the incident, his officials visited the spot where the migratory bird was found, and collected about two-and-a half litre of water to carry out detailed tests. The samples have now been forwarded to the MPCB labs and results will be out in a month.
“We have to ensure that dissolved oxygen (DO) has not fallen below 5 mg per litre. If that happens, the aquatic animals may die due to suffocation,” Wadde said.
The pH level, DO levels, turbidity, total dissolved solid, ammonical nitrogen content, nitrate, phosphate, biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD) as well as the total and faecal coliform contents in the water will also be checked.
A separate micro pollutant test will also be carried out to rule out pesticide content in the water. This test will check for DDT, endosulphan, aldrin, diedrin, methyl parathion, chloropyriphos etc in the water. Existence of toxic metals like arsenic, cadmium, mercury, zinc, chromium, lead, nickel and iron will also be checked.
However, pollution control board officials suspected that high effluent contents in the water may not have caused the bird’s collapse. “There are very few industries within the city and there is a stringent check on waste disposal. It is not possible that the mudflats are so polluted. This seems like a one off case and it is possible that the bird could have had a bad health condition,” he explained.
Flamingo still not wellThe flamingo found at the mudflats two weeks ago is still battling to recover at the SPCA Hospital. The bird, which had diarrhea and was vomiting blood, when it was hospitalised, is now finding it difficult to walk or fly. “The flamingo has been put on a treatment of vitamin tonics and supplements. The toxins seem to have damaged its nerves. It is lying prostrate and not standing up, said Dr Y Kaginkar of the SPCA Hospital. The toxins in the bird’s system cannot be checked as the veins of the bird are delicate now. “When the bird becomes strong, I shall conduct further tests,” adds Kaginkar
Green lobby split on climate plan
ENVIRONMENTALISTS can't agree on whether the proposed emissions trading scheme is green enough to get the go-ahead.
High-profile climate scientist Tim Flannery says it is, and has called on the Greens to pass it in the Senate.
"A first step is better than nothing,'' Prof Flannery, a former Australian of the year, told ABC Television last night.
But Greens leader Bob Brown has rejected what he described as "the Tim Flannery compromise''. "I think from politics, from much greater political experience than Tim Flannery, that you don't allow a process which is of itself going to fail,'' Senator Brown said.
He says the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as little as 5 per cent by 2020 is not good enough, and the ETS gives too much support to big polluters.
Senator Brown pointed out that even with the Greens' support, Labor can't pass the ETS because Family First's Steve Fielding will vote against it.
The Greens are not optimistic that an adequate ETS will proceed in Australia.
"I think the Rudd Government is about to fail on that score,'' Senator Brown said.
There has already been a falling out between green groups over whether the ETS should be passed.
The Australian Conservation Foundation supports it passing, while Greenpeace says the scheme is not good enough.
High-profile climate scientist Tim Flannery says it is, and has called on the Greens to pass it in the Senate.
"A first step is better than nothing,'' Prof Flannery, a former Australian of the year, told ABC Television last night.
But Greens leader Bob Brown has rejected what he described as "the Tim Flannery compromise''. "I think from politics, from much greater political experience than Tim Flannery, that you don't allow a process which is of itself going to fail,'' Senator Brown said.
He says the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as little as 5 per cent by 2020 is not good enough, and the ETS gives too much support to big polluters.
Senator Brown pointed out that even with the Greens' support, Labor can't pass the ETS because Family First's Steve Fielding will vote against it.
The Greens are not optimistic that an adequate ETS will proceed in Australia.
"I think the Rudd Government is about to fail on that score,'' Senator Brown said.
There has already been a falling out between green groups over whether the ETS should be passed.
The Australian Conservation Foundation supports it passing, while Greenpeace says the scheme is not good enough.
Global ban on commercial chemicals
Experts and officials from some 150 countries started talks on Monday on banning production of nine chemicals considered potentially dangerous but still used in farming and for other commercial purposes.
If agreement is reached at the week-long meeting, under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the nine will join a list of 12 other so-called persistent organic pollutants, or POPS, long targeted for elimination.
"The risks posed by such chemicals are profound, and these toxic substances leave chemical footprints around the globe," said UNEP executive director Achim Steiner, who will be watching over the Geneva gathering.
The newly-targeted chemicals include products - known normally under their scientific names - that are widely used for pesticides and are also used in the manufacture of flame retardants and similar items.
The original 12 POPS - dubbed the "dirty dozen" and widely blamed for damaging human nervous systems, causing cancer and disrupting the development of young children - were listed under a 2001 international pact called the Stockholm Convention.
But as these have been removed from production lines, focus has switched to extending the banned list to other highly toxic chemicals that take many years, often decades, to degrade into less dangerous forms.
SPECIAL RISKS
Among the new ones to be considered this week are Alpha hexachlorocyclohexane, Hexabromidyphenyl ether, Chlordecone, Hexabromobiphenyl, Lindane, Pentachlorobenzene and Perfluorooctane, according to UNEP.
UNEP says these, like the "dirty dozen", pose special risks to young people, farmers, pregnant women and the unborn, and to remote communities like those in the Arctic where Inuit women and polar bears have been found to have large POP doses in their own bodies.
The pollutant chemicals can evaporate and travel long distances through air and water to regions far from their original source and accumulate in the fatty tissues of both humans and animals.
A thaw in the Arctic linked to global warming may allow some of the chemicals, long-trapped under sea ice, to evaporate into the atmosphere and spread further around the polar region, an expert said on Monday.
Agreement at the Geneva meeting, which ends on May 8, could mark a major step toward creating a healthier and more sustainable green economy for the world, said Steiner, while lifting a health threat to millions of people.
If agreement is reached at the week-long meeting, under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the nine will join a list of 12 other so-called persistent organic pollutants, or POPS, long targeted for elimination.
"The risks posed by such chemicals are profound, and these toxic substances leave chemical footprints around the globe," said UNEP executive director Achim Steiner, who will be watching over the Geneva gathering.
The newly-targeted chemicals include products - known normally under their scientific names - that are widely used for pesticides and are also used in the manufacture of flame retardants and similar items.
The original 12 POPS - dubbed the "dirty dozen" and widely blamed for damaging human nervous systems, causing cancer and disrupting the development of young children - were listed under a 2001 international pact called the Stockholm Convention.
But as these have been removed from production lines, focus has switched to extending the banned list to other highly toxic chemicals that take many years, often decades, to degrade into less dangerous forms.
SPECIAL RISKS
Among the new ones to be considered this week are Alpha hexachlorocyclohexane, Hexabromidyphenyl ether, Chlordecone, Hexabromobiphenyl, Lindane, Pentachlorobenzene and Perfluorooctane, according to UNEP.
UNEP says these, like the "dirty dozen", pose special risks to young people, farmers, pregnant women and the unborn, and to remote communities like those in the Arctic where Inuit women and polar bears have been found to have large POP doses in their own bodies.
The pollutant chemicals can evaporate and travel long distances through air and water to regions far from their original source and accumulate in the fatty tissues of both humans and animals.
A thaw in the Arctic linked to global warming may allow some of the chemicals, long-trapped under sea ice, to evaporate into the atmosphere and spread further around the polar region, an expert said on Monday.
Agreement at the Geneva meeting, which ends on May 8, could mark a major step toward creating a healthier and more sustainable green economy for the world, said Steiner, while lifting a health threat to millions of people.
FLIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE WITH DIET CHANGE
Global warming has been called humankind's "greatest challenge" and the world's most grave environmental threat, and science shows that one of the most effective ways to fight global warming is to go vegetarian.1
Stars such as Sir Paul McCartney and Chrissie Hynde are lending their voices to share what science has already proven—that the meat industry is one of the leading sources of the greenhouse gases that lead to global warming.
When asked what personal change people could make to help the environment, McCartney replied, "I think the biggest change anyone could make in their own lifestyle would be to become vegetarian." To read the complete interview with Sir Paul McCartney, visit PETA's blog The PETA Files.
A 2006 United Nations report found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined.2 Greenhouse gases cause global warming, which studies show will increasingly lead to catastrophic disasters—like droughts, floods, hurricanes, rising sea levels, and disease outbreaks—unless we drastically reduce the amounts emitted into the atmosphere.
Many conscientious people are trying to help reduce global warming by driving more fuel-efficient cars and using energy-saving light bulbs, but they could do more simply by going vegetarian.
The official handbook for the Live Earth concerts says that "refusing meat" is the "single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint."3
According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than a half-million cars off U.S. roads.
The University of Chicago reports that going vegan is 50% more effective than switching to a hybrid car in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Raising animals for their flesh, eggs, and milk is one of the world’s leading emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2). But global warming is caused by more than just CO2. Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which—combined with carbon dioxide—causes the vast majority of global warming.
Methane: The billions of farmed animals crammed into factory farms produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces that they excrete. Methane is more than 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in our atmosphere.5 Statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency show that animal agriculture is the number one source of methane emissions in the U.S.6
Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions.7
You Can Help Stop Global Warming Today
The most effective way to fight the global warming crisis is to stop eating meat, eggs, and dairy products. Start today by taking the Pledge To Be Veg for 30 Days. Please also take a few moments to encourage Al Gore, the most prominent voice in the fight against global warming, to add going vegetarian to his list of solutions to our climate
Stars such as Sir Paul McCartney and Chrissie Hynde are lending their voices to share what science has already proven—that the meat industry is one of the leading sources of the greenhouse gases that lead to global warming.
When asked what personal change people could make to help the environment, McCartney replied, "I think the biggest change anyone could make in their own lifestyle would be to become vegetarian." To read the complete interview with Sir Paul McCartney, visit PETA's blog The PETA Files.
A 2006 United Nations report found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined.2 Greenhouse gases cause global warming, which studies show will increasingly lead to catastrophic disasters—like droughts, floods, hurricanes, rising sea levels, and disease outbreaks—unless we drastically reduce the amounts emitted into the atmosphere.
Many conscientious people are trying to help reduce global warming by driving more fuel-efficient cars and using energy-saving light bulbs, but they could do more simply by going vegetarian.
The official handbook for the Live Earth concerts says that "refusing meat" is the "single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint."3
According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than a half-million cars off U.S. roads.
The University of Chicago reports that going vegan is 50% more effective than switching to a hybrid car in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Raising animals for their flesh, eggs, and milk is one of the world’s leading emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2). But global warming is caused by more than just CO2. Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which—combined with carbon dioxide—causes the vast majority of global warming.
Methane: The billions of farmed animals crammed into factory farms produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces that they excrete. Methane is more than 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in our atmosphere.5 Statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency show that animal agriculture is the number one source of methane emissions in the U.S.6
Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions.7
You Can Help Stop Global Warming Today
The most effective way to fight the global warming crisis is to stop eating meat, eggs, and dairy products. Start today by taking the Pledge To Be Veg for 30 Days. Please also take a few moments to encourage Al Gore, the most prominent voice in the fight against global warming, to add going vegetarian to his list of solutions to our climate
Auto-ban: German town goes car-free
The Germans may have given the world the Audi and the autobahn, but they have banished everything with four wheels and an engine from the streets of Vauban – a model brave new world of a community in the country's south-west, next to the borders with Switzerland and France.
In Vauban, a suburb of the university town of Freiburg, luxuriant beds of brilliant flowers replace what would normally be parking outside its neat, middle- class homes. Instead of the roar of traffic, the residents listen to birdsong, children playing and the occasional jingle of a bicycle bell.
"If you want to have a car here, you have to pay about €20,000 for a space in one of our garages on the outskirts of the district," says Andreas Delleske one of the founders and now a promoter of the Vauban project, "but about 57 per cent of the residents sold a car to enjoy the privilege of living here." As a result, most residents travel by bike or use the ultra-efficient tram service that connects the suburb with the centre of Freiburg, 15 minutes away. If they want a car to go on holiday or to shift things, they hire one or join one of the town's car-sharing schemes.
Because it has no cars, Vauban's planners have almost completely dispensed with the idea of metalled roads. Its streets and pathways are cobbled or gritted and vehicles are allowed in only for a matter of minutes to unload essential goods. Being virtually car-free is only the start of what has been hailed as one of Europe's most successful experiments in green living and one which is viewed increasingly as a blueprint for a future and perhaps essential way of living in an age of climate change.
Vauban is a southern suburb of Freiburg and home to 5,300 people. Its elegant, weather-boarded, four-storey homes are painted in subtle tones of blue, yellow and red or left as natural wood. They have wide balconies and large French windows that look out on to quiet, park-like gardens. The overall impression is of being stuck in a never-ending IKEA advertisement.
But if the district's surface texture is eminently middle class, an eco-revolution is bubbling beneath the surface. The windows of all the homes are triple-glazed. An intricate ventilation system fitted with heat exchangers ensures that apartments are kept constantly topped-up with fresh air at room temperature, even when the windows are shut. Most homes are powered by solar panels and smart co-generator engines that run on wood chips which provide domestic heating and electricity for lighting and appliances. One of the consequences is that most of Vauban's homes generate a surplus of electricity and sell what they don't need to the power companies that run the national and regional electricity grids.
With their 35cm thick walls, the homes are so well insulated that the temperature inside is directly affected by the number of people in each apartment. "If it gets too cold in the winter, you have the choice of turning up the heating or inviting a couple of friends round to dinner," Delleske says. He is immensely proud of the fact that his 90sqm, four-roomed "Passive house," which is almost environmentally perfect, costs a mere €114 a year to heat. "Most people pay that kind of money for heating each month," he says. The "Passive house" has even managed to dispense with drains for the toilets and showers. The waste is reduced to compost in special biological toilets and shower and washing-up water is filtered and used to water the garden.
Word about the Vauban experiment is spreading. Each day, six or seven busloads of visitors roll up – parking on the outskirts, needless to say – to witness the suburb's environmentally friendly living. At the entrance, they are greeted by slogan in big letters that reads: "We are creating the world we want."
Yet the suburb's origins were very remote from such idealistic themes. It started life in 1937 as the Leo Schlageter army barracks, a collection of three-storey stone buildings to house Adolf Hitler's expanding Wehrmacht army. It was named after a German hero from the First World War who was executed by the French in 1923. At the end of the Second World War, the barracks were requisitioned by the French army and renamed Quartier Vauban, after a noted 17th century military architect. After Germany's re-unification, the French withdrew and the district was handed over to the city of Freiburg in 1994, to be promptly occupied by squatters.
Soon after, a group of ecologically minded and mostly middle-class people became interested in the quarter. Many had taken part in the anti-nuclear movement as students in the 1970s and 1980s. They set up the Forum Vauban, which began negotiating with the city government.
Vauban's founders explain that much of the eco-friendly technology that has gone into the complex was conceived and developed around Freiburg as an alternative to nuclear power. The upshot was the formation of a series of loosely structured housing associations which commissioned architects to design new and ecologically sustainable homes on the site. Most of the old Nazi-era barrack buildings were torn down and more than 60 architects were engaged to reconstruct Vauban. Its three- to five-storey buildings contain apartments of varying sizes and 80 per cent are privately owned. A four-bedroom unit costs about €250,000.
The project is a reminder of the strength of Germany's green movement. Freiburg's city government is run by a coalition of conservatives and Green Party councillors and the Greens hold the most seats. During the European elections, the Green Party won up to 60 per cent of the poll in Vauban's constituencies.
The district also bucks Germany's reputation for having one of the world's lowest birth rates: nearly 30 per cent of its inhabitants are aged under 18. Ute and Frank Lits moved to Vauban five years ago. Their children, aged six and 10, can walk out the front door of their four-bedroom apartment into a communal garden equipped with a playground and a wood-fired pizza oven. "We wanted to buy our own home and we liked the eco-friendly principles of the place," Mrs Lits said. "But the main reason is that Vauban is prefect for children. They enjoy the kind of freedom that it would be difficult to find in a normal town apartment." The couple owns a car, but neither mind having to park it in a communal garage eight minutes' walk from their home.
If Vauban's brave new world suffers from anything, it is its own peculiar brand of middle-class monoculturalism. Sitting outside a former Nazi barrack building that now functions as an organic restaurant selling ricotta-filled ravioli and ostrich meat, its is difficult to spot anyone who is non-European, old or poor.
Wolfgang Konradi, a youth worker who spent years working in less sophisticated urban areas before coming to Vauban, says the district's teenagers behave like normal people of their age. "The problem is mainly the parents, they go around expecting their offspring to be perfect citizens, but that's just not realistic," he laments. Ina, his wife, said that since having their son, she had learned to appreciate the advantages that Vauban offered for children. But she added: "It's very nice here, but a bit like living under a bell jar. I certainly wouldn't want to live here forever."
In Vauban, a suburb of the university town of Freiburg, luxuriant beds of brilliant flowers replace what would normally be parking outside its neat, middle- class homes. Instead of the roar of traffic, the residents listen to birdsong, children playing and the occasional jingle of a bicycle bell.
"If you want to have a car here, you have to pay about €20,000 for a space in one of our garages on the outskirts of the district," says Andreas Delleske one of the founders and now a promoter of the Vauban project, "but about 57 per cent of the residents sold a car to enjoy the privilege of living here." As a result, most residents travel by bike or use the ultra-efficient tram service that connects the suburb with the centre of Freiburg, 15 minutes away. If they want a car to go on holiday or to shift things, they hire one or join one of the town's car-sharing schemes.
Because it has no cars, Vauban's planners have almost completely dispensed with the idea of metalled roads. Its streets and pathways are cobbled or gritted and vehicles are allowed in only for a matter of minutes to unload essential goods. Being virtually car-free is only the start of what has been hailed as one of Europe's most successful experiments in green living and one which is viewed increasingly as a blueprint for a future and perhaps essential way of living in an age of climate change.
Vauban is a southern suburb of Freiburg and home to 5,300 people. Its elegant, weather-boarded, four-storey homes are painted in subtle tones of blue, yellow and red or left as natural wood. They have wide balconies and large French windows that look out on to quiet, park-like gardens. The overall impression is of being stuck in a never-ending IKEA advertisement.
But if the district's surface texture is eminently middle class, an eco-revolution is bubbling beneath the surface. The windows of all the homes are triple-glazed. An intricate ventilation system fitted with heat exchangers ensures that apartments are kept constantly topped-up with fresh air at room temperature, even when the windows are shut. Most homes are powered by solar panels and smart co-generator engines that run on wood chips which provide domestic heating and electricity for lighting and appliances. One of the consequences is that most of Vauban's homes generate a surplus of electricity and sell what they don't need to the power companies that run the national and regional electricity grids.
With their 35cm thick walls, the homes are so well insulated that the temperature inside is directly affected by the number of people in each apartment. "If it gets too cold in the winter, you have the choice of turning up the heating or inviting a couple of friends round to dinner," Delleske says. He is immensely proud of the fact that his 90sqm, four-roomed "Passive house," which is almost environmentally perfect, costs a mere €114 a year to heat. "Most people pay that kind of money for heating each month," he says. The "Passive house" has even managed to dispense with drains for the toilets and showers. The waste is reduced to compost in special biological toilets and shower and washing-up water is filtered and used to water the garden.
Word about the Vauban experiment is spreading. Each day, six or seven busloads of visitors roll up – parking on the outskirts, needless to say – to witness the suburb's environmentally friendly living. At the entrance, they are greeted by slogan in big letters that reads: "We are creating the world we want."
Yet the suburb's origins were very remote from such idealistic themes. It started life in 1937 as the Leo Schlageter army barracks, a collection of three-storey stone buildings to house Adolf Hitler's expanding Wehrmacht army. It was named after a German hero from the First World War who was executed by the French in 1923. At the end of the Second World War, the barracks were requisitioned by the French army and renamed Quartier Vauban, after a noted 17th century military architect. After Germany's re-unification, the French withdrew and the district was handed over to the city of Freiburg in 1994, to be promptly occupied by squatters.
Soon after, a group of ecologically minded and mostly middle-class people became interested in the quarter. Many had taken part in the anti-nuclear movement as students in the 1970s and 1980s. They set up the Forum Vauban, which began negotiating with the city government.
Vauban's founders explain that much of the eco-friendly technology that has gone into the complex was conceived and developed around Freiburg as an alternative to nuclear power. The upshot was the formation of a series of loosely structured housing associations which commissioned architects to design new and ecologically sustainable homes on the site. Most of the old Nazi-era barrack buildings were torn down and more than 60 architects were engaged to reconstruct Vauban. Its three- to five-storey buildings contain apartments of varying sizes and 80 per cent are privately owned. A four-bedroom unit costs about €250,000.
The project is a reminder of the strength of Germany's green movement. Freiburg's city government is run by a coalition of conservatives and Green Party councillors and the Greens hold the most seats. During the European elections, the Green Party won up to 60 per cent of the poll in Vauban's constituencies.
The district also bucks Germany's reputation for having one of the world's lowest birth rates: nearly 30 per cent of its inhabitants are aged under 18. Ute and Frank Lits moved to Vauban five years ago. Their children, aged six and 10, can walk out the front door of their four-bedroom apartment into a communal garden equipped with a playground and a wood-fired pizza oven. "We wanted to buy our own home and we liked the eco-friendly principles of the place," Mrs Lits said. "But the main reason is that Vauban is prefect for children. They enjoy the kind of freedom that it would be difficult to find in a normal town apartment." The couple owns a car, but neither mind having to park it in a communal garage eight minutes' walk from their home.
If Vauban's brave new world suffers from anything, it is its own peculiar brand of middle-class monoculturalism. Sitting outside a former Nazi barrack building that now functions as an organic restaurant selling ricotta-filled ravioli and ostrich meat, its is difficult to spot anyone who is non-European, old or poor.
Wolfgang Konradi, a youth worker who spent years working in less sophisticated urban areas before coming to Vauban, says the district's teenagers behave like normal people of their age. "The problem is mainly the parents, they go around expecting their offspring to be perfect citizens, but that's just not realistic," he laments. Ina, his wife, said that since having their son, she had learned to appreciate the advantages that Vauban offered for children. But she added: "It's very nice here, but a bit like living under a bell jar. I certainly wouldn't want to live here forever."
Britain's green shame
When it comes to environmental sustainability, the prognosis is grim: Britain is "winning battles, but still losing the war".
The UK is failing to hit a raft of key targets on sustainable living, according to a new report to be published this week. In its critical analysis, released on Wednesday, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) warns that progress on a number of green targets has been "undermined by stasis or even reversion". Jonathon Porritt, outgoing SDC chair and one-time "green guru" to Tony Blair, claims sustainability plays second fiddle to the drive for consumption-driven economic growth. "The thing that stands out is the very limited progress we've made on reducing inequity in our society... it's a startling indictment of this Government that more people will be living in fuel poverty at the time of next election than were living in fuel poverty in 1997," he said.
The "review of progress on sustainable development" details how the "Securing the Future" strategy launched by Tony Blair in 2005 has failed in a number of areas. It says Britain remains the EU's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and is not on track to meet its target of a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010.
Britain remains well behind most European countries on supplying renewable energy, which accounts for less than 2 per cent of overall energy consumption, according to the report, which also predicts the proportion of energy produced by renewables in 2020 will be just 5 per cent – far short of the EU target of 20 per cent. And while recycling is on the increase, there is a long way to go to meet the 40 per cent target by 2010, with the UK heavily reliant on landfill, says the report.
Mr Porritt, who steps down next month, admitted: "I feel some disappointment inevitably because I would have wanted to see faster progress," and cites a new energy White Paper as something "they could, and should, have done four or five years ago".
The embarrassing report comes just days after Gordon Brown's proposals for a £60bn international fund to help poorer countries deal with climate change were announced. The Prime Minister is also arguing for aviation and maritime emissions to be included in global climate-change talks taking place in Copenhagen in December.
The Government's record on sustainability also came under attack from politicians and pressure groups last night. Greg Clark, Tory spokesman on energy and climate change, said: "This is a time when we need action rather than spin."
And Mike Childs of Friends of the Earth said of the Government: "They've produced strategies and had press conferences but there hasn't been conviction... that sustainable development is of critical importance."
In a statement, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "We're grateful to the SDC for the work they've put into this report. We look forward to its publication... and we will consider its content carefully."
Greenhouse gas emissions
Government target
Twenty per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2010, and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050.
What the report says
Britain remains the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Europe. In 2007, CO2 emissions were 8.5 per cent below 1990 levels.
Verdict
Britain is not on track to meet its target on emissions. An apparent decrease becomes a significant increase once emissions embedded in trade and travel are taken into account.
Energy production
Government target
Britain to supply 10 per cent renewable energy by 2010. Twenty per cent of EU energy production from renewables by 2020.
What the report says
In 2007, the percentage of final energy consumption from renewable sources was less than 2 per cent. Projections suggest that this will increase to 5 per cent by 2020.
Verdict
Britain is one of the poorest performers in Europe in supplying energy from renewables and is not on track to meet national and EU targets.
Existing homes
Government target
To eliminate fuel poverty in all households by 2016.
What the report says
Cavity wall insulation is one of the most cost-effective measures to reduce carbon, yet 8.5 million UK households do not have this. In 2006, there were approximately 3.5 million UK households (14 per cent) in fuel poverty, an increase of 1 million since 2005. Some 2.75 million of these were classed as 'vulnerable' households.
Verdict
Despite some improvements, significant energy efficiency improvements are required to meet climate-change targets.
Healthy and safe mobility
Government target
To encourage cycling and walking and reduce dependence on cars.
Halve the number of children killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads by 2010.
What the report says
Between 1986 and 2003, the average number of trips by foot fell by 30 per cent. There has been a 52 per cent fall in children killed or seriously injured on roads.
Verdict
Road traffic volume has risen by 20 per cent since 1990, and the frequency of car journeys in the UK outranks walking, cycling and public transport.
Health
Government target
Halt increase in childhood obesity in under-11s by 2010.
Reduce adult smoking rates to 21 per cent.
Reduce health inequalities by 10 per cent by 2010.
What the report says
Almost 40 per cent of the population is expected to be obese by 2020.
Average smoking rates have fallen to 22 per cent.
In Scotland, life expectancy in deprived areas is around 10 years lower than the general population.
Verdict
Britain has the highest rate of childhood obesity in the EU.
We are not on target to meet the 2010 goal of reducing inequalities.
Sustainable communities
Government target
Eradicate child poverty by 2020.
Reduce the proportion of children living in workless households by 5 per cent between 2005 and 2008.
What the report says
Between 1997 and 2007 the number of children in workless households decreased from 19 to 16 per cent. One in five children still live in poverty.
Verdict
Some progress has been made on reducing income inequalities, but the gap between the richest and poorest is increasing. The UK is not on track to meet its child poverty target.
Local economies
Government target
Job and business creation with benefits for the community, and town centres that are economically viable and attractive.
Eighty per cent overall employment rate.
What the report says
There are more than 55,000 social enterprises in Britain generating more than £27bn in turnover. Over the past decade Britain has had high rates of employment but this fell to 74 per cent in December 2008.
Verdict
The economic downturn has caused increases in unemployment. Unemployment is not distributed evenly across the UK, and basic and intermediate skills need improving.
Domestic waste
Government target
Reduce household residual waste by 29 per cent in 2010.
Recycle or compost 40 per cent of household waste by 2010.
What the report says
In England, total household waste fell by 2 per cent between 2006/07 and 2007/08. The national household recycling rate has reached 34.5 per cent but is short of the 40 per cent 2010 target. The UK is also still heavily reliant on landfill.
Verdict
Households are recycling more of their waste, but most of that which is not recycled still goes to landfill. A third of the food we buy goes to waste.
Biodiversity
Government target
To halt biodiversity loss by 2010. To deliver 95 per cent of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) into 'favourable' or 'recovering' condition by 2010.
What the report says
Eighty per cent of SSSIs are in 'favourable' or 'recovering' condition. Sustainable development issues, including biodiversity, risk being sidelined by Rural Development Agencies, due to an overriding focus on economic growth.
Verdict
Britain is not on target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. Protected area arrangements appear to be working but the lack of cross-government action means non-protected areas are particularly vulnerable.
Air quality
Government target
The EU Air Quality Directive sets standards for major pollutants, including levels of particulates, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone.
What the report says
Overall emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates and sulphur dioxide have been steadily decreasing since 1990. Despite this, air pollution in 2005 was estimated to reduce life expectancy by seven to eight months and cost up to £20.2bn per annum.
Verdict
Despite decreases in overall emissions of air pollutants, 20 cities fail to meet EU legislation for particulates, and the UK is at risk of missing targets for nitrogen dioxide levels.
The UK is failing to hit a raft of key targets on sustainable living, according to a new report to be published this week. In its critical analysis, released on Wednesday, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) warns that progress on a number of green targets has been "undermined by stasis or even reversion". Jonathon Porritt, outgoing SDC chair and one-time "green guru" to Tony Blair, claims sustainability plays second fiddle to the drive for consumption-driven economic growth. "The thing that stands out is the very limited progress we've made on reducing inequity in our society... it's a startling indictment of this Government that more people will be living in fuel poverty at the time of next election than were living in fuel poverty in 1997," he said.
The "review of progress on sustainable development" details how the "Securing the Future" strategy launched by Tony Blair in 2005 has failed in a number of areas. It says Britain remains the EU's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and is not on track to meet its target of a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010.
Britain remains well behind most European countries on supplying renewable energy, which accounts for less than 2 per cent of overall energy consumption, according to the report, which also predicts the proportion of energy produced by renewables in 2020 will be just 5 per cent – far short of the EU target of 20 per cent. And while recycling is on the increase, there is a long way to go to meet the 40 per cent target by 2010, with the UK heavily reliant on landfill, says the report.
Mr Porritt, who steps down next month, admitted: "I feel some disappointment inevitably because I would have wanted to see faster progress," and cites a new energy White Paper as something "they could, and should, have done four or five years ago".
The embarrassing report comes just days after Gordon Brown's proposals for a £60bn international fund to help poorer countries deal with climate change were announced. The Prime Minister is also arguing for aviation and maritime emissions to be included in global climate-change talks taking place in Copenhagen in December.
The Government's record on sustainability also came under attack from politicians and pressure groups last night. Greg Clark, Tory spokesman on energy and climate change, said: "This is a time when we need action rather than spin."
And Mike Childs of Friends of the Earth said of the Government: "They've produced strategies and had press conferences but there hasn't been conviction... that sustainable development is of critical importance."
In a statement, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "We're grateful to the SDC for the work they've put into this report. We look forward to its publication... and we will consider its content carefully."
Greenhouse gas emissions
Government target
Twenty per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2010, and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050.
What the report says
Britain remains the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Europe. In 2007, CO2 emissions were 8.5 per cent below 1990 levels.
Verdict
Britain is not on track to meet its target on emissions. An apparent decrease becomes a significant increase once emissions embedded in trade and travel are taken into account.
Energy production
Government target
Britain to supply 10 per cent renewable energy by 2010. Twenty per cent of EU energy production from renewables by 2020.
What the report says
In 2007, the percentage of final energy consumption from renewable sources was less than 2 per cent. Projections suggest that this will increase to 5 per cent by 2020.
Verdict
Britain is one of the poorest performers in Europe in supplying energy from renewables and is not on track to meet national and EU targets.
Existing homes
Government target
To eliminate fuel poverty in all households by 2016.
What the report says
Cavity wall insulation is one of the most cost-effective measures to reduce carbon, yet 8.5 million UK households do not have this. In 2006, there were approximately 3.5 million UK households (14 per cent) in fuel poverty, an increase of 1 million since 2005. Some 2.75 million of these were classed as 'vulnerable' households.
Verdict
Despite some improvements, significant energy efficiency improvements are required to meet climate-change targets.
Healthy and safe mobility
Government target
To encourage cycling and walking and reduce dependence on cars.
Halve the number of children killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads by 2010.
What the report says
Between 1986 and 2003, the average number of trips by foot fell by 30 per cent. There has been a 52 per cent fall in children killed or seriously injured on roads.
Verdict
Road traffic volume has risen by 20 per cent since 1990, and the frequency of car journeys in the UK outranks walking, cycling and public transport.
Health
Government target
Halt increase in childhood obesity in under-11s by 2010.
Reduce adult smoking rates to 21 per cent.
Reduce health inequalities by 10 per cent by 2010.
What the report says
Almost 40 per cent of the population is expected to be obese by 2020.
Average smoking rates have fallen to 22 per cent.
In Scotland, life expectancy in deprived areas is around 10 years lower than the general population.
Verdict
Britain has the highest rate of childhood obesity in the EU.
We are not on target to meet the 2010 goal of reducing inequalities.
Sustainable communities
Government target
Eradicate child poverty by 2020.
Reduce the proportion of children living in workless households by 5 per cent between 2005 and 2008.
What the report says
Between 1997 and 2007 the number of children in workless households decreased from 19 to 16 per cent. One in five children still live in poverty.
Verdict
Some progress has been made on reducing income inequalities, but the gap between the richest and poorest is increasing. The UK is not on track to meet its child poverty target.
Local economies
Government target
Job and business creation with benefits for the community, and town centres that are economically viable and attractive.
Eighty per cent overall employment rate.
What the report says
There are more than 55,000 social enterprises in Britain generating more than £27bn in turnover. Over the past decade Britain has had high rates of employment but this fell to 74 per cent in December 2008.
Verdict
The economic downturn has caused increases in unemployment. Unemployment is not distributed evenly across the UK, and basic and intermediate skills need improving.
Domestic waste
Government target
Reduce household residual waste by 29 per cent in 2010.
Recycle or compost 40 per cent of household waste by 2010.
What the report says
In England, total household waste fell by 2 per cent between 2006/07 and 2007/08. The national household recycling rate has reached 34.5 per cent but is short of the 40 per cent 2010 target. The UK is also still heavily reliant on landfill.
Verdict
Households are recycling more of their waste, but most of that which is not recycled still goes to landfill. A third of the food we buy goes to waste.
Biodiversity
Government target
To halt biodiversity loss by 2010. To deliver 95 per cent of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) into 'favourable' or 'recovering' condition by 2010.
What the report says
Eighty per cent of SSSIs are in 'favourable' or 'recovering' condition. Sustainable development issues, including biodiversity, risk being sidelined by Rural Development Agencies, due to an overriding focus on economic growth.
Verdict
Britain is not on target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. Protected area arrangements appear to be working but the lack of cross-government action means non-protected areas are particularly vulnerable.
Air quality
Government target
The EU Air Quality Directive sets standards for major pollutants, including levels of particulates, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone.
What the report says
Overall emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates and sulphur dioxide have been steadily decreasing since 1990. Despite this, air pollution in 2005 was estimated to reduce life expectancy by seven to eight months and cost up to £20.2bn per annum.
Verdict
Despite decreases in overall emissions of air pollutants, 20 cities fail to meet EU legislation for particulates, and the UK is at risk of missing targets for nitrogen dioxide levels.
Batteries included: Are eco-friendly cars any good?
The first shot of the electrical car revolution was fired on 10 January 1985.
Rather than change the world, it hit a wall of media criticism, ricocheted against several bricks of public abuse and pinged back to strike its originator between the eyes. It was the winter morning when Sir Clive Sinclair, the eccentric, beady-eyed, ginge-bearded inventor of pocket calculators and microcomputers, introduced the Sinclair C5, the world's first electric car.
It was an odd-looking thing, like a pointlessly streamlined invalid carriage, 6ft long, 2ft 6in high, 2ft 6in wide and weighing just 99lb. Instead of petrol, it ran on a 33lb lead acid battery which drove a 250-watt electric motor – identical, journalists noted, to the one that powers your mum's washing machine. Its top speed was a snaily 15mph, and it could travel a whole 20 miles between recharges. Imagine.
How they scoffed, the C5's first spectators, as they watched the shoe-shaped machine slither in the snow. Nobody believed the 20-mile claim. Sceptics noted it used more electricity in cold weather and struggled so much uphill, the driver was obliged to use pedals. Its height made it dangerous for the occupant, who, A: couldn't been seen by lorry- or jeep-drivers, and B: would be choked by car fumes just at the level of his or her nose.
It was a disaster. Nobody wanted the C5, the invention that conferred instant wally status on anyone foolish enough to climb into it. Sir Clive became a figure of ridicule. The price was slashed from £399 to £199 to offload the surplus stock. By October, Sinclair vehicles were in the hands of the receivers, and production of the C5 ceased. Electric cars? Pah, everyone said. They're battery-powered toys, one step up from milk floats. They are slow, anaemic, whining, pathetic and need charging up with flex and socket every few miles. How am I supposed to drive one to the Cairngorms? Don't talk to me about electric cars.
Scoot forward to 2009 and you could be forgiven for thinking our relationship with the things had scarcely improved. The only electric car driven by anyone I know is the GoinGreen G-Wiz and, much as I like the owner, you'd never catch me in one. I recall the nitric scorn heaped on it by Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear. He abused its cramped conditions, its lethal cornering, its arse-juddering suspension, its sluggish performance: you can't, he pointed out, access the radio or the fan, or have electric windows, or go fast or even stop, "because it'll wear the battery down". He mocked the fact that the EU didn't classify the G-Wiz as a car at all, but a "quadricycle". He raced one against a standard Renault (it lost) and a kitchen table carried by six men (it lost when it ran out of juice). Plus, EU data also revealed that, whatever its manufacturers claimed about a 45mph top speed, the average speed at which it's usually driven is 10mph. Twenty-odd years after the C5, the electric car is still becalmed near the intersection of Toytown and Rubbishville.
Not for much longer. Last week, the Government rolled out a scheme to persuade the population to love, or consider loving, electric cars – sorry, "environmentally-friendly vehicles", because they're not all electric; at least one runs on wind turbine energy. The scheme, fronted by Paul Drayson, the science minister, is costing £25m and will make 340 cars from various manufacturers available, at the end of the year, to members of the public to test, on short-term leases, in eight areas, including London, Glasgow, Birmingham and Oxford.
Universities and regional areas will be encouraged to help by experimenting with finding ways to supply the nervous electric motorist with charging points. The aim is to cut road transport emissions in the UK by half, from 22 per cent to 11 per cent.
The Government's scheme will start with four models: they'll be given the Star Wars-ish title of the Ultra Low-Carbon Vehicle Fleet. They are the Smart Electric Drive, owned by Mercedes; the MiniE from BMW; the Expert Eurobus (formerly the Teepee) from Peugeot, and the Lightning from the combined forces of Westfield and Delta Motorsport. But hardly had the scheme been announced than other makers pitched in. Ford Motors announced its own "global commitment" to developing "Battery Electric Vehicles" or BEVs. They're not saying which makes or models will take part in the scheme, but we shall find out by the end of the year.
Will we like them? I thought I'd go for an early sighting. I am no petrol-head, but I love cars. I practically live in my Alfa Romeo 159. Could I find an electric one that didn't make me feel (and look) a fool or a geek when driving it? Could I turn myself into an amp-head, a watt-brain, an ohm-body?
The cool-looking Lightning, sad to report, isn't currently available, since it's still being built. Ditto the Mini E, which BMW hope will be available to the public by November. So I high-tailed it to west London to try out the Smart ED.
People are in two minds about Smart cars. They look slightly ludicrous, but are becoming less so. They nip in and out of traffic like annoying hornets, but have a certain miniature charm.
At first sighting of the ED, your heart sinks. Climbing into one is like getting into one of those electrically-operated toy vans you see outside supermarkets. It's all front seat, driver's door, then nothing. I was reminded of the moment in the wartime movie Kings Row, when the unfortunate Ronald Reagan, having fallen foul of a vindictive surgeon, wakes up in hospital to find both his legs amputated, and cries: "Where's the rest of me?" Inside, though, it's not half bad. There's plenty of headroom. Even if, like me, you're six-feet-one, there's plenty of legroom. The dashboard is charming. On the left of the speedometer, two little dials poke up like antennae on a robot: one's a clock, the other tells you how much percentage of electricity remains.
I switched it on, nervously. I put it in gear. (There are three gears: neutral, drive and reverse. Electric cars don't need clutches, transmission, spark plugs, engine oil, filters, exhaust, any of that stuff.) I gingerly placed my foot on the accelerator. A strange, mosquito whine filled the air: "Eeeeeeeee." Slowly, painfully, the Smart ED inched forward, as though expressing a whingey reluctance to go anywhere (or anywhere with me). Once I left the car park, the noise resolved into a cute, kittenish mewing, then disappeared. It was damned odd to be driving something so discreetly, mutedly, virginally, monkishly, mortifiedly silent.
As I became used to its teeny size, things became easier. It was still sluggish getting away from traffic lights, but I could feel it trying. It handled very lightly – sometimes I felt I was sitting on a metal tray with windows – but was a little ponderous when taking corners, hardly surprising when you think of the heavy battery pack under the floor. Though my reflection in shop windows looked a little ridiculous (especially with the words "emission zero!" emblazoned just under my nose), it was easy to feel rather cool and zippy.
The makers claim a top speed of 60 mph and I can confirm that, in a burst of enthusiasm, I got it up to 56mph on the M4 before being forced to subside. The main drawback of the Smart ED, though, is that you spend a lot of time watching the dial that tells you how much juice is left. At the start of my drive, the dial said 83 per cent remained. After an hour, the figure had reduced to 60. At times, I thought I could see the needle moving before my eyes while I hummed along. They say you can drive 70 miles before needing to recharge the battery. I'm afraid I'd have one eye on the dial all the way.
It's a simple drive, in a car that feels properly constructed, rather than fashioned from plastic. It doesn't emit carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, unburned hydrocarbons – it doesn't emit anything except a high-pitched whine. And charging it means sticking a blue plug into a six-pin socket and sticking the three-pin plug at the end of a long yellow flex into a household socket, for up to eight hours. Call me a dreamer, but the Smart ED seems to represent the normalisation of the electric car. If only someone could apply the transformation to a family-sized saloon ...
Should you have an unusually large family – very large – you might talk to Peugeot, who are taking part in the Government's trial. For a year from this autumn, they'll supply 40 of their "zero emission vehicles" (ZEVs) for drivers in Glasgow, in partnership with the local battery company, Axeon. During the trial period, Scottish Power will set up 40 electric-charging points around Glasgow. All the data about car journeys will be recorded by satellite and analysed by boffins at Strathclyde University. The only drawback to the plan is that ZEVs aren't your usual family runaround. They are big commercial vans and "multiple passenger vehicles" (or as we say in English, "buses").
I headed for the Peugeot showroom in Chiswick and took out a Peugeot Expert Eurobus. It's a big, roomy, metal box with windows; it will never appeal to the boy racer but, in its electrical incarnation, it's fun to drive. You feel like you're sitting six feet above other motorists, humming along in near-silence. The suspension is so bouncy that driving over speed bumps is like hitting a trampoline – and then there's the gear lever.
Just the sight of it made me laugh out loud. Plonked in the middle of the wide dashboard, sitting on a metallic pad the size of a beer mat, the lever is the size of a toothpick, tapering outwards at the top. It resembles one of those miniscule screwdrivers you get in a Christmas cracker. You flick it forward an inch, and the 3,000kg bus moves forward. Flick it back an inch, and the metal Behemoth obediently reverses. I flicked it back and forth a dozen times, entranced by the power and heft that could be accessed by prodding something the size of a Twiglet.
The Eurobus has a top speed of 70, and a range of 100 miles between rechargings; the makers suggest you treat it like a pet, settling it down after a hard day's driving, for "a good night's charge", so you can assume eight hours is standard.
I was beginning to warm to electric cars – their silent efficiency, their clean energy, their lack of bits that can go wrong. Hard-core petrol-heads will never love them – without all the complex engine parts, no exhaust system, fuel system, gearbox or clutch, they rather resemble a human body with no internal organs, only a robot brain and an On/Off switch – but you can see them catching on, as soon as the problem of recharging availability is solved. Should sockets be available on the forecourt of every petrol service station? Or would the petrol companies consider that helping the enemy?
What I missed about the cars I'd tried was a sense of style. Then I learned that the Tesla company was opening a London outpost. Tesla is a name that raises goose-bumps on some motorists' skin. Rumours have flown for months about the Californian company owned by Elon Munsk, whose electric Roadster is a sports car that can reportedly out-race a Porsche and a Ferrari from a standing start.
The showroom was in Knightsbridge. The four cars on display were jaw-droppingly beautiful - sleek and glistening in red or silver. The makers have adapted the chassis from a Lotus Elise, made it 6in longer and 2in wider, its carbon-fibre skin as smooth as butter. The gear stick is a perfect silver ball like a Ferrari's. The seats are low-lying and buttock-clenching. The leather upholstery is black and red, finished with exposed stitching like a Savile Row suit.
Don Cochrane, who runs the UK office, is a handsome, Wapping-born Londoner with coal-black hair and a boundless optimism about electric cars. He dismissed the idea that Tesla was in competition with the environmentally-friendly cars coming out from BMW, Peugeot, Mercedes and Ford. "We're not making cars in their price bracket. But I'm happy to see more electric cars in the market place. The more people see them, the more they'll say, 'Maybe it's realistic for me to have an electric car for the 20 miles a day that I drive, instead of a combustion-engined vehicle.' " A car lover rather than an environmental zealot, he is nonetheless keen to change people's perspectives: "It makes sense that if things are going to change, you should be part of that change and not have it forced upon you." He used to work for Formula One under Bernie Ecclestone. Could he imagine an electric model ever having the performance level of Formula One cars?
"Certainly. Give it five years. There's so much investment now in battery technology. One positive side-effect of this recession is that governments are bailing out companies but, as part of the bailout, are forcing them to work on more environmental cars. Ford just announced they're going to build two; that's because they're just got $1.5bn of DOE money from the States."
Mr Cochrane can talk at torrential length about battery technology and the 6,831 lithium-ion cells that make up the battery in every Tesla Roadster. He can explain with admirable fluency the "torque curve" of ordinary cars, as they increase their power ratio through the gears, and how electric cars provide 100 per cent torque all the time (but controllably). He explained how the Roadster's top speed is 125 mph and that it can go 200 miles without recharging. I listened politely, but itched to try it. We rolled the doors aside, Cochrane started the engine (silently) and rolled the silver Roadster out into the narrow roadway. He glided into a side-road, then – in a burst of pure showing-off – whizzed in reverse round the corner, fast as a whipcrack. I climbed in (the seats make you virtually horizontal), plied the key, engaged "Drive" and glided away, with no whining, no wheel-grind, no noise at all except the envious cooing of passers-by.
It was a completely new driving experience: touch the accelerator and you rocket forward, the G-force pushing you back in your leather seat as if you're on a fairground ride, although you never feel out of control. The handling is (as with the Smart ED) a touch heavy when cornering, but deliciously smooth on the straight. Though the car lies very close to the road, it bounces over bumps and sleeping policemen as if pillowed in goosedown. And you can't help but feel a boyish glee about the vast coiled spring of power and speed that's detectable under your hands. On Hammersmith flyover, doing 50 with no traffic ahead, I experimentally floored the accelerator to see what would happen. The car leapt forward, in a split-second, to 70mph. Talk about torque. It was scary (and possibly illegal) but tremendously exhilarating.
By the time I returned it, with the greatest reluctance, to Mr Cochrane's tender care, I was determined to buy one. There are 500 lucky Californians driving Roadsters and amazing their friends with their environmental responsibility and their love of speed. It's time I joined them. It'll only take 20 years or so of patient savings to find the £94,000 I'll need.
With their curious little fleet of tiny Smart cars and Minis, and huge utility vehicles from Peugeot, the Government may have an uphill struggle making British people love electrical cars. The shadow of the Sinclair C5 hasn't completely dispersed. I suspect if the sceptics were given five minutes in a Tesla, they'd change their minds. It's becoming obvious that the electrics are where the future of cars must lie. Whoever comes up with the first mid-range, sensible-sized, four-door family model for under £20,000, with a charging-range of at least 100 miles, will be a very lucky winner indeed, in this fascinating off-shoot of the race to environmental purity.
Rather than change the world, it hit a wall of media criticism, ricocheted against several bricks of public abuse and pinged back to strike its originator between the eyes. It was the winter morning when Sir Clive Sinclair, the eccentric, beady-eyed, ginge-bearded inventor of pocket calculators and microcomputers, introduced the Sinclair C5, the world's first electric car.
It was an odd-looking thing, like a pointlessly streamlined invalid carriage, 6ft long, 2ft 6in high, 2ft 6in wide and weighing just 99lb. Instead of petrol, it ran on a 33lb lead acid battery which drove a 250-watt electric motor – identical, journalists noted, to the one that powers your mum's washing machine. Its top speed was a snaily 15mph, and it could travel a whole 20 miles between recharges. Imagine.
How they scoffed, the C5's first spectators, as they watched the shoe-shaped machine slither in the snow. Nobody believed the 20-mile claim. Sceptics noted it used more electricity in cold weather and struggled so much uphill, the driver was obliged to use pedals. Its height made it dangerous for the occupant, who, A: couldn't been seen by lorry- or jeep-drivers, and B: would be choked by car fumes just at the level of his or her nose.
It was a disaster. Nobody wanted the C5, the invention that conferred instant wally status on anyone foolish enough to climb into it. Sir Clive became a figure of ridicule. The price was slashed from £399 to £199 to offload the surplus stock. By October, Sinclair vehicles were in the hands of the receivers, and production of the C5 ceased. Electric cars? Pah, everyone said. They're battery-powered toys, one step up from milk floats. They are slow, anaemic, whining, pathetic and need charging up with flex and socket every few miles. How am I supposed to drive one to the Cairngorms? Don't talk to me about electric cars.
Scoot forward to 2009 and you could be forgiven for thinking our relationship with the things had scarcely improved. The only electric car driven by anyone I know is the GoinGreen G-Wiz and, much as I like the owner, you'd never catch me in one. I recall the nitric scorn heaped on it by Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear. He abused its cramped conditions, its lethal cornering, its arse-juddering suspension, its sluggish performance: you can't, he pointed out, access the radio or the fan, or have electric windows, or go fast or even stop, "because it'll wear the battery down". He mocked the fact that the EU didn't classify the G-Wiz as a car at all, but a "quadricycle". He raced one against a standard Renault (it lost) and a kitchen table carried by six men (it lost when it ran out of juice). Plus, EU data also revealed that, whatever its manufacturers claimed about a 45mph top speed, the average speed at which it's usually driven is 10mph. Twenty-odd years after the C5, the electric car is still becalmed near the intersection of Toytown and Rubbishville.
Not for much longer. Last week, the Government rolled out a scheme to persuade the population to love, or consider loving, electric cars – sorry, "environmentally-friendly vehicles", because they're not all electric; at least one runs on wind turbine energy. The scheme, fronted by Paul Drayson, the science minister, is costing £25m and will make 340 cars from various manufacturers available, at the end of the year, to members of the public to test, on short-term leases, in eight areas, including London, Glasgow, Birmingham and Oxford.
Universities and regional areas will be encouraged to help by experimenting with finding ways to supply the nervous electric motorist with charging points. The aim is to cut road transport emissions in the UK by half, from 22 per cent to 11 per cent.
The Government's scheme will start with four models: they'll be given the Star Wars-ish title of the Ultra Low-Carbon Vehicle Fleet. They are the Smart Electric Drive, owned by Mercedes; the MiniE from BMW; the Expert Eurobus (formerly the Teepee) from Peugeot, and the Lightning from the combined forces of Westfield and Delta Motorsport. But hardly had the scheme been announced than other makers pitched in. Ford Motors announced its own "global commitment" to developing "Battery Electric Vehicles" or BEVs. They're not saying which makes or models will take part in the scheme, but we shall find out by the end of the year.
Will we like them? I thought I'd go for an early sighting. I am no petrol-head, but I love cars. I practically live in my Alfa Romeo 159. Could I find an electric one that didn't make me feel (and look) a fool or a geek when driving it? Could I turn myself into an amp-head, a watt-brain, an ohm-body?
The cool-looking Lightning, sad to report, isn't currently available, since it's still being built. Ditto the Mini E, which BMW hope will be available to the public by November. So I high-tailed it to west London to try out the Smart ED.
People are in two minds about Smart cars. They look slightly ludicrous, but are becoming less so. They nip in and out of traffic like annoying hornets, but have a certain miniature charm.
At first sighting of the ED, your heart sinks. Climbing into one is like getting into one of those electrically-operated toy vans you see outside supermarkets. It's all front seat, driver's door, then nothing. I was reminded of the moment in the wartime movie Kings Row, when the unfortunate Ronald Reagan, having fallen foul of a vindictive surgeon, wakes up in hospital to find both his legs amputated, and cries: "Where's the rest of me?" Inside, though, it's not half bad. There's plenty of headroom. Even if, like me, you're six-feet-one, there's plenty of legroom. The dashboard is charming. On the left of the speedometer, two little dials poke up like antennae on a robot: one's a clock, the other tells you how much percentage of electricity remains.
I switched it on, nervously. I put it in gear. (There are three gears: neutral, drive and reverse. Electric cars don't need clutches, transmission, spark plugs, engine oil, filters, exhaust, any of that stuff.) I gingerly placed my foot on the accelerator. A strange, mosquito whine filled the air: "Eeeeeeeee." Slowly, painfully, the Smart ED inched forward, as though expressing a whingey reluctance to go anywhere (or anywhere with me). Once I left the car park, the noise resolved into a cute, kittenish mewing, then disappeared. It was damned odd to be driving something so discreetly, mutedly, virginally, monkishly, mortifiedly silent.
As I became used to its teeny size, things became easier. It was still sluggish getting away from traffic lights, but I could feel it trying. It handled very lightly – sometimes I felt I was sitting on a metal tray with windows – but was a little ponderous when taking corners, hardly surprising when you think of the heavy battery pack under the floor. Though my reflection in shop windows looked a little ridiculous (especially with the words "emission zero!" emblazoned just under my nose), it was easy to feel rather cool and zippy.
The makers claim a top speed of 60 mph and I can confirm that, in a burst of enthusiasm, I got it up to 56mph on the M4 before being forced to subside. The main drawback of the Smart ED, though, is that you spend a lot of time watching the dial that tells you how much juice is left. At the start of my drive, the dial said 83 per cent remained. After an hour, the figure had reduced to 60. At times, I thought I could see the needle moving before my eyes while I hummed along. They say you can drive 70 miles before needing to recharge the battery. I'm afraid I'd have one eye on the dial all the way.
It's a simple drive, in a car that feels properly constructed, rather than fashioned from plastic. It doesn't emit carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, unburned hydrocarbons – it doesn't emit anything except a high-pitched whine. And charging it means sticking a blue plug into a six-pin socket and sticking the three-pin plug at the end of a long yellow flex into a household socket, for up to eight hours. Call me a dreamer, but the Smart ED seems to represent the normalisation of the electric car. If only someone could apply the transformation to a family-sized saloon ...
Should you have an unusually large family – very large – you might talk to Peugeot, who are taking part in the Government's trial. For a year from this autumn, they'll supply 40 of their "zero emission vehicles" (ZEVs) for drivers in Glasgow, in partnership with the local battery company, Axeon. During the trial period, Scottish Power will set up 40 electric-charging points around Glasgow. All the data about car journeys will be recorded by satellite and analysed by boffins at Strathclyde University. The only drawback to the plan is that ZEVs aren't your usual family runaround. They are big commercial vans and "multiple passenger vehicles" (or as we say in English, "buses").
I headed for the Peugeot showroom in Chiswick and took out a Peugeot Expert Eurobus. It's a big, roomy, metal box with windows; it will never appeal to the boy racer but, in its electrical incarnation, it's fun to drive. You feel like you're sitting six feet above other motorists, humming along in near-silence. The suspension is so bouncy that driving over speed bumps is like hitting a trampoline – and then there's the gear lever.
Just the sight of it made me laugh out loud. Plonked in the middle of the wide dashboard, sitting on a metallic pad the size of a beer mat, the lever is the size of a toothpick, tapering outwards at the top. It resembles one of those miniscule screwdrivers you get in a Christmas cracker. You flick it forward an inch, and the 3,000kg bus moves forward. Flick it back an inch, and the metal Behemoth obediently reverses. I flicked it back and forth a dozen times, entranced by the power and heft that could be accessed by prodding something the size of a Twiglet.
The Eurobus has a top speed of 70, and a range of 100 miles between rechargings; the makers suggest you treat it like a pet, settling it down after a hard day's driving, for "a good night's charge", so you can assume eight hours is standard.
I was beginning to warm to electric cars – their silent efficiency, their clean energy, their lack of bits that can go wrong. Hard-core petrol-heads will never love them – without all the complex engine parts, no exhaust system, fuel system, gearbox or clutch, they rather resemble a human body with no internal organs, only a robot brain and an On/Off switch – but you can see them catching on, as soon as the problem of recharging availability is solved. Should sockets be available on the forecourt of every petrol service station? Or would the petrol companies consider that helping the enemy?
What I missed about the cars I'd tried was a sense of style. Then I learned that the Tesla company was opening a London outpost. Tesla is a name that raises goose-bumps on some motorists' skin. Rumours have flown for months about the Californian company owned by Elon Munsk, whose electric Roadster is a sports car that can reportedly out-race a Porsche and a Ferrari from a standing start.
The showroom was in Knightsbridge. The four cars on display were jaw-droppingly beautiful - sleek and glistening in red or silver. The makers have adapted the chassis from a Lotus Elise, made it 6in longer and 2in wider, its carbon-fibre skin as smooth as butter. The gear stick is a perfect silver ball like a Ferrari's. The seats are low-lying and buttock-clenching. The leather upholstery is black and red, finished with exposed stitching like a Savile Row suit.
Don Cochrane, who runs the UK office, is a handsome, Wapping-born Londoner with coal-black hair and a boundless optimism about electric cars. He dismissed the idea that Tesla was in competition with the environmentally-friendly cars coming out from BMW, Peugeot, Mercedes and Ford. "We're not making cars in their price bracket. But I'm happy to see more electric cars in the market place. The more people see them, the more they'll say, 'Maybe it's realistic for me to have an electric car for the 20 miles a day that I drive, instead of a combustion-engined vehicle.' " A car lover rather than an environmental zealot, he is nonetheless keen to change people's perspectives: "It makes sense that if things are going to change, you should be part of that change and not have it forced upon you." He used to work for Formula One under Bernie Ecclestone. Could he imagine an electric model ever having the performance level of Formula One cars?
"Certainly. Give it five years. There's so much investment now in battery technology. One positive side-effect of this recession is that governments are bailing out companies but, as part of the bailout, are forcing them to work on more environmental cars. Ford just announced they're going to build two; that's because they're just got $1.5bn of DOE money from the States."
Mr Cochrane can talk at torrential length about battery technology and the 6,831 lithium-ion cells that make up the battery in every Tesla Roadster. He can explain with admirable fluency the "torque curve" of ordinary cars, as they increase their power ratio through the gears, and how electric cars provide 100 per cent torque all the time (but controllably). He explained how the Roadster's top speed is 125 mph and that it can go 200 miles without recharging. I listened politely, but itched to try it. We rolled the doors aside, Cochrane started the engine (silently) and rolled the silver Roadster out into the narrow roadway. He glided into a side-road, then – in a burst of pure showing-off – whizzed in reverse round the corner, fast as a whipcrack. I climbed in (the seats make you virtually horizontal), plied the key, engaged "Drive" and glided away, with no whining, no wheel-grind, no noise at all except the envious cooing of passers-by.
It was a completely new driving experience: touch the accelerator and you rocket forward, the G-force pushing you back in your leather seat as if you're on a fairground ride, although you never feel out of control. The handling is (as with the Smart ED) a touch heavy when cornering, but deliciously smooth on the straight. Though the car lies very close to the road, it bounces over bumps and sleeping policemen as if pillowed in goosedown. And you can't help but feel a boyish glee about the vast coiled spring of power and speed that's detectable under your hands. On Hammersmith flyover, doing 50 with no traffic ahead, I experimentally floored the accelerator to see what would happen. The car leapt forward, in a split-second, to 70mph. Talk about torque. It was scary (and possibly illegal) but tremendously exhilarating.
By the time I returned it, with the greatest reluctance, to Mr Cochrane's tender care, I was determined to buy one. There are 500 lucky Californians driving Roadsters and amazing their friends with their environmental responsibility and their love of speed. It's time I joined them. It'll only take 20 years or so of patient savings to find the £94,000 I'll need.
With their curious little fleet of tiny Smart cars and Minis, and huge utility vehicles from Peugeot, the Government may have an uphill struggle making British people love electrical cars. The shadow of the Sinclair C5 hasn't completely dispersed. I suspect if the sceptics were given five minutes in a Tesla, they'd change their minds. It's becoming obvious that the electrics are where the future of cars must lie. Whoever comes up with the first mid-range, sensible-sized, four-door family model for under £20,000, with a charging-range of at least 100 miles, will be a very lucky winner indeed, in this fascinating off-shoot of the race to environmental purity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)