Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is calling on U.S. EPA to reveal the confidential locations of dozens of coal ash impoundment sites considered dangerous.
Speaking with reporters this morning, Boxer said EPA has determined that at least 44 of the hundreds of coal ash piles identified across the country pose a "high hazard," meaning they could threaten human life if they fail -- like an impoundment that collapsed at a Tennessee Valley Authority facility late last year. The agency collected the information on the locations from the utility companies that operate the ash disposal sites.
Boxer said EPA is notifying and working with first responders this week while conducting evaluations at the sites to determine whether there is an imminent threat of failure.
But Boxer said EPA told her the agency could not reveal the location of these 44 sites, due to concerns from the Department of Homeland Security and the Army Corps of Engineers about national security, a decision Boxer finds unsettling.
"If these sites are so hazardous, and if the neighborhoods nearby could be harmed irreparably, then I believe it is essential to let people know," she said. "I think secrecy might lead to inaction."
Boxer and her committee staff have been informed of the locations of the sites, and she was permitted to inform only the senators whose states have the high hazard sites about their locations, she said.
She told reporters she is sending a letter to EPA, DHS, and the Army Corps today asking whether the public disclosure of the hazardous coal ash waste sites is consistent with the treatment of other hazardous sites, noting that locations of Superfund sites, power plants and other sites are common knowledge.
"There's really no need to do this," Boxer said, pledging to hold more committee hearings on coal ash.
Concern about the threat of another coal ash accident has been mounting since last year's TVA spill, in which a retention pond at the power utility's Kingston Fossil Plant collapsed and loosed 1.1 billion gallons of ash and sludge over Roane County, Tenn.
The spill is expected to cost more than $1 billion to clean up and has prompted a renewed call for tougher regulations on coal ash impoundments.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said the agency will propose coal ash regulations by the end of the year and will determine whether to reclassify byproducts of coal combustion as hazardous waste.
Boxer dismissed suggestions that there may be a need for a bill to mandate tougher regulations on coal ash storage, because she was confident EPA would do it on its own.
"They don't need legislation if they do their job," she said.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Green tea reduce stroke risk
Two cups of green tea a day may reduce a person's risk of having the most common form of stroke, say researchers.
According to researcher Professor Colin Binns, of the School of Public Health at Curtin University in Western Australia, the study shows that people who drink at least one cup of green tea a day reduce their risk of ischemic stroke, reports ABC Online.
"We can say if you are going to drink a beverage, then tea is the healthier option," said Binns. "We believe other kinds of tea are half as effective as green tea in reducing risk," he added. The findings have been published in the journal Stroke.
According to researcher Professor Colin Binns, of the School of Public Health at Curtin University in Western Australia, the study shows that people who drink at least one cup of green tea a day reduce their risk of ischemic stroke, reports ABC Online.
"We can say if you are going to drink a beverage, then tea is the healthier option," said Binns. "We believe other kinds of tea are half as effective as green tea in reducing risk," he added. The findings have been published in the journal Stroke.
Bullets don't stop Guatemala green activist
His stride is an awkward hop, the scars on his abdomen and legs an ugly road map of hurt. Seven bullets tore into Yuri Melini -- that much is known.
Harder to figure out is who did it. Melini has a lot of enemies.
Drug traffickers. Midnight loggers. Mining giants. Corrupt military men. Politicians. The 47-year-old Melini has taken on all of them as lead agitator of a Guatemalan environmental advocacy group, the Center for Legal, Environmental and Social Action, or CALAS.
Melini doesn't seem surprised that police have yet to come up with a solid lead into September's shooting by a lone gunman. Or that telephone threats and sightings of shadowy men haven't stopped.
He opts for the bright side. "I'm alive," Melini says.
If you think it's not easy being green, try doing it in a place as violent as Guatemala, where environmentalism is often viewed as a radical pursuit and the rule of law remains a distant goal. Speaking out can bring a hit man to your door.
For the last nine years, Melini has spoken out a lot. Using a mix of grass-roots activism, lawsuits and old-fashioned lobbying, his organization tackles issues from illegal logging in protected forests and the impact of a growing mining industry to the supply and cleanliness of water.
Guatemala has plenty of other grave social problems, poverty and inequality among them. But Melini, who gave up his training as a physician to focus on conservation causes, says his environmental work ties into a wider effort to improve life for the powerless, including the country's large indigenous population.
"There are enough laws -- the problem is they are not being applied," Melini says, as government-supplied bodyguards wait outside his office in Guatemala City, the capital. "It is a matter of awareness and will: raising the awareness of the people and the will of the politicians."
Big triumphs have been few for CALAS, with a staff of 21 lawyers, engineers, agronomists, sociologists and other experts.
But a major victory came last June, when the group won a Supreme Court of Justice ruling that struck down parts of the nation's mining law as too lax. CALAS had argued in its legal challenge that the law didn't adequately safeguard people living near mining operations.
Melini has done battle with oil firms and gone to court to challenge a decision to allow logging in a mountain forest designated for protection.
In addition, he has complained loudly about damage caused by drug traffickers in a vast wilderness in the northern province of Peten, where smugglers fell trees to build secret airstrips and roads. This year, CALAS is to open its first offices in the region, home to some of its toughest fights and most dangerous adversaries.
Such crusades don't always charm. Melini acknowledges that even some environmentalists consider him too strident. He relies on foreign sources for funding, with most coming from a special environmental program of the Dutch government.
But admirers say Melini is breaking new ground by carrying environmental fights to the courtroom -- a tactic that is common in the United States but not in Guatemala or much of the surrounding region. Melini says he wants to create a legal-aid network devoted to environmental issues and to lobby for creating special environment courts.
"Environmental litigation across Central America is still not very common," said Erika Rosenthal, an attorney for the Oakland-based group Earthjustice. "That kind of advocacy . . . is sorely needed."
Last month, Melini was honored by the Irish-based human rights group Front Line for his efforts on illegal logging and mining issues. The group cited his attempts to bring attention to attacks on environmental activists. (He counted 128 during two years.)
Melini was ambushed outside his mother's house Sept. 4 by a gunman who fired from close range. The activist said he lay curled on the ground, awaiting the coup de grace, but the attacker left.
Nine months later, Melini gets around with a walker and faces more surgery. He's had residency offers from several countries, including Switzerland and the Netherlands, but refused. He figures fleeing Guatemala would serve those behind the attack on him, whoever they are.
"I am like a tree," Melini says. "They chopped me down, and I'm bouncing back again."
Harder to figure out is who did it. Melini has a lot of enemies.
Drug traffickers. Midnight loggers. Mining giants. Corrupt military men. Politicians. The 47-year-old Melini has taken on all of them as lead agitator of a Guatemalan environmental advocacy group, the Center for Legal, Environmental and Social Action, or CALAS.
Melini doesn't seem surprised that police have yet to come up with a solid lead into September's shooting by a lone gunman. Or that telephone threats and sightings of shadowy men haven't stopped.
He opts for the bright side. "I'm alive," Melini says.
If you think it's not easy being green, try doing it in a place as violent as Guatemala, where environmentalism is often viewed as a radical pursuit and the rule of law remains a distant goal. Speaking out can bring a hit man to your door.
For the last nine years, Melini has spoken out a lot. Using a mix of grass-roots activism, lawsuits and old-fashioned lobbying, his organization tackles issues from illegal logging in protected forests and the impact of a growing mining industry to the supply and cleanliness of water.
Guatemala has plenty of other grave social problems, poverty and inequality among them. But Melini, who gave up his training as a physician to focus on conservation causes, says his environmental work ties into a wider effort to improve life for the powerless, including the country's large indigenous population.
"There are enough laws -- the problem is they are not being applied," Melini says, as government-supplied bodyguards wait outside his office in Guatemala City, the capital. "It is a matter of awareness and will: raising the awareness of the people and the will of the politicians."
Big triumphs have been few for CALAS, with a staff of 21 lawyers, engineers, agronomists, sociologists and other experts.
But a major victory came last June, when the group won a Supreme Court of Justice ruling that struck down parts of the nation's mining law as too lax. CALAS had argued in its legal challenge that the law didn't adequately safeguard people living near mining operations.
Melini has done battle with oil firms and gone to court to challenge a decision to allow logging in a mountain forest designated for protection.
In addition, he has complained loudly about damage caused by drug traffickers in a vast wilderness in the northern province of Peten, where smugglers fell trees to build secret airstrips and roads. This year, CALAS is to open its first offices in the region, home to some of its toughest fights and most dangerous adversaries.
Such crusades don't always charm. Melini acknowledges that even some environmentalists consider him too strident. He relies on foreign sources for funding, with most coming from a special environmental program of the Dutch government.
But admirers say Melini is breaking new ground by carrying environmental fights to the courtroom -- a tactic that is common in the United States but not in Guatemala or much of the surrounding region. Melini says he wants to create a legal-aid network devoted to environmental issues and to lobby for creating special environment courts.
"Environmental litigation across Central America is still not very common," said Erika Rosenthal, an attorney for the Oakland-based group Earthjustice. "That kind of advocacy . . . is sorely needed."
Last month, Melini was honored by the Irish-based human rights group Front Line for his efforts on illegal logging and mining issues. The group cited his attempts to bring attention to attacks on environmental activists. (He counted 128 during two years.)
Melini was ambushed outside his mother's house Sept. 4 by a gunman who fired from close range. The activist said he lay curled on the ground, awaiting the coup de grace, but the attacker left.
Nine months later, Melini gets around with a walker and faces more surgery. He's had residency offers from several countries, including Switzerland and the Netherlands, but refused. He figures fleeing Guatemala would serve those behind the attack on him, whoever they are.
"I am like a tree," Melini says. "They chopped me down, and I'm bouncing back again."
British 'Searaser' invention promises green power revolution on the waves
Alvin Smith had his eureka moment not in the bath, but in the swimming pool. 'I was swimming round the pool, making little waves, and it struck me how much power there was in the displacement of the water,' he remembers. 'You think of a 500-tonne boat: a wave comes along, lifts that whole boat, and then drops it down again. You must be able to harness some of that, I thought.'
His subsequent invention would have made Archimedes proud, and should be making the renewables industry very excited.
Dubbed 'Searaser', it consists of what looks like a navigation buoy, but is in fact a simple arrangement of ballast and floats connected by a piston. As a wave passes the device, the float is lifted, raising the piston and compressing water. The float sinks back down on the tail of the wave on to a second float, compressing water again on the downstroke.
What is particularly clever about Searaser, however, is its simplicity. Where most marine energy devices have sealed, lubricated innards and complex electronics, Searaser is lubricated entirely by seawater, has no electronic components and is even self-cleaning. Smith describes it as 'Third-World mechanics', but this belies the sophistication of the concept.
'The beauty of it is that we're only making a pump, and bringing water ashore,' he explains. 'All the other technology needed to generate the electricity already exists.'
Searaser is designed to pump water either straight through a sea-level turbine to generate electricity, or up to a clifftop reservoir, where the water could be stored until needed, then allowed to flow back down to the sea through turbines, generating electricity on demand.
The second option is the one about which Smith is most passionate. By effectively storing the energy generated by Searaser to be used on demand, his system would solve a problem that dogs almost all renewable technologies – their variability. Energy that can be summoned at will is not only more valuable, but also allows the grid to compensate for other, less easily controlled renewables such as wind and solar.
Early trials of the prototype Searaser, one of which was completed in April, have proved encouraging. Despite being less than a tenth of the size of the version he hopes will eventually be supplying power to our homes, Smith's homemade machine managed to pump some 112,000 litres of water a day during the trial, at times operating from waves a mere 6in high.
The eventual machine will be capable of generating 1 megawatt of electricity – enough to supply some 1,700 homes – at prices that the team behind Searaser believe will be lower than most other renewable technologies.
As an intermediate step, a trial of two midsize machines should go ahead towards the end of this year, with a university invited to monitor the trial and provide independent accreditation of the results. Although these machines won't generate electricity (they will simply pump water through a flow meter to determine their potential) they will demonstrate whether the technology can work for prolonged periods and in rough conditions.
For Smith, however – a man who could use a welder by the age of eight – the incremental steps between prototype and commercial deployment seem almost an irritation. His vision is already far advanced, and includes using the pressurised saltwater generated by Searaser to produce drinking water, using the same reverse osmosis process used in conventional, energy-hungry desalination plants.
'All you'd have to do is reduce the size of the piston and increase the size of the floats to increase the pressure,' he explains.
He has also put plenty of thought into how he would persuade planners and landowners to allow him to build reservoirs on top of cliffs to provide the energy storage for Searaser.
'The planning will frighten everyone,' he says, 'but if you were trying to produce as much energy from wind turbines, they'd be very visible; a reservoir you'd only see from above.'
Smith has also put thought into how the reservoir could be made as water-tight as possible – vital to avoid saltwater leaching into soils. By double-lining the reservoirs and including an outlet pipe in between the two linings, you would instantly be able to see if the uppermost lining had a puncture by watching the end of the outlet pipe.
'If you saw any water coming out, you'd know you had a leak and you could drain down the reservoir and sort it out,' he says.
Beyond being simply functional, however, Smith believes the reservoirs could be beautiful, providing recreational spaces for watersports or sites for shellfish farmers. 'I bet the birds would love it, too,' he adds.
Although Searaser is clearly a commercial project and Smith hopes to see a return on his patents, he is also keen to see the technology deployed abroad, given that its simplicity lends itself to installation and maintenance in the less-industrialised world.
'It's a modular system: a community could start off with two or three machines, and expand as necessary. It can go round the globe, it really can,' he says.
His subsequent invention would have made Archimedes proud, and should be making the renewables industry very excited.
Dubbed 'Searaser', it consists of what looks like a navigation buoy, but is in fact a simple arrangement of ballast and floats connected by a piston. As a wave passes the device, the float is lifted, raising the piston and compressing water. The float sinks back down on the tail of the wave on to a second float, compressing water again on the downstroke.
What is particularly clever about Searaser, however, is its simplicity. Where most marine energy devices have sealed, lubricated innards and complex electronics, Searaser is lubricated entirely by seawater, has no electronic components and is even self-cleaning. Smith describes it as 'Third-World mechanics', but this belies the sophistication of the concept.
'The beauty of it is that we're only making a pump, and bringing water ashore,' he explains. 'All the other technology needed to generate the electricity already exists.'
Searaser is designed to pump water either straight through a sea-level turbine to generate electricity, or up to a clifftop reservoir, where the water could be stored until needed, then allowed to flow back down to the sea through turbines, generating electricity on demand.
The second option is the one about which Smith is most passionate. By effectively storing the energy generated by Searaser to be used on demand, his system would solve a problem that dogs almost all renewable technologies – their variability. Energy that can be summoned at will is not only more valuable, but also allows the grid to compensate for other, less easily controlled renewables such as wind and solar.
Early trials of the prototype Searaser, one of which was completed in April, have proved encouraging. Despite being less than a tenth of the size of the version he hopes will eventually be supplying power to our homes, Smith's homemade machine managed to pump some 112,000 litres of water a day during the trial, at times operating from waves a mere 6in high.
The eventual machine will be capable of generating 1 megawatt of electricity – enough to supply some 1,700 homes – at prices that the team behind Searaser believe will be lower than most other renewable technologies.
As an intermediate step, a trial of two midsize machines should go ahead towards the end of this year, with a university invited to monitor the trial and provide independent accreditation of the results. Although these machines won't generate electricity (they will simply pump water through a flow meter to determine their potential) they will demonstrate whether the technology can work for prolonged periods and in rough conditions.
For Smith, however – a man who could use a welder by the age of eight – the incremental steps between prototype and commercial deployment seem almost an irritation. His vision is already far advanced, and includes using the pressurised saltwater generated by Searaser to produce drinking water, using the same reverse osmosis process used in conventional, energy-hungry desalination plants.
'All you'd have to do is reduce the size of the piston and increase the size of the floats to increase the pressure,' he explains.
He has also put plenty of thought into how he would persuade planners and landowners to allow him to build reservoirs on top of cliffs to provide the energy storage for Searaser.
'The planning will frighten everyone,' he says, 'but if you were trying to produce as much energy from wind turbines, they'd be very visible; a reservoir you'd only see from above.'
Smith has also put thought into how the reservoir could be made as water-tight as possible – vital to avoid saltwater leaching into soils. By double-lining the reservoirs and including an outlet pipe in between the two linings, you would instantly be able to see if the uppermost lining had a puncture by watching the end of the outlet pipe.
'If you saw any water coming out, you'd know you had a leak and you could drain down the reservoir and sort it out,' he says.
Beyond being simply functional, however, Smith believes the reservoirs could be beautiful, providing recreational spaces for watersports or sites for shellfish farmers. 'I bet the birds would love it, too,' he adds.
Although Searaser is clearly a commercial project and Smith hopes to see a return on his patents, he is also keen to see the technology deployed abroad, given that its simplicity lends itself to installation and maintenance in the less-industrialised world.
'It's a modular system: a community could start off with two or three machines, and expand as necessary. It can go round the globe, it really can,' he says.
China and the environment: Red, green - and black
Visiting China a couple of years ago, the American journalist Thomas Friedman conceded that, when it came to climate change, his hosts had a point. Yes, the west had grown rich using dirty old coal and oil, and the Chinese had the right to do the same. "Take your time!" he told a conference in Tianjin. "Because I think my country needs ... five years to invent all the clean power and energy efficiency tools that you, China, will need to avoid choking on pollution and then we are going to come over and sell them ... to you." It took a few moments for his words to be translated and land in delegates' headphones - and for the ripple of consternation to spread around the hall.
Two years on, Mr Friedman's lesson - that clean energy can be profitable rather than a costly drag - has not only been learned by the Chinese; now Beijing is intent on writing the rest of the textbook. Just look at yesterday's Guardian report on China's plans to ramp up wind and solar power, so that they meet 20% of its energy needs by 2020. That is already a big advance in Beijing's goals - and it is poised to go even further. There are reports it will spend up to $600bn on clean power over the next decade - or the equivalent of its entire military budget every year for each of the next 10 years.
Sums like that certainly put western chatter about green new deals in perspective. Indeed, China's 20% goal matches European targets, which EU members such as Britain are struggling to meet. And while Beijing's announcement may put Europe's governments on their mettle, there is more to this clean stimulus than a challenge for environmental leadership. China is dependent on imported fuel, it can see the business opportunities from developing green technology (it is already the world's leading manufacturer of photovoltaic panels, which turn sunlight into electricity) - and Beijing needs to go into this December's negotiations on a successor treaty to Kyoto with something to deflect the charges that it is some kind of climate criminal. Instead, China will be able to cast itself as a green leader.
There is only one snag. Green optimists such as Thomas Friedman yoke energy security with the green agenda; Beijing is effectively decoupling the two. However much it may trumpet its green initiatives, China is still the world's biggest user of coal and the largest emitter of carbon. Neither of those two things look likely to change. Beijing has yet to accept any target for reducing carbon emissions. The US Congress looks as if it will accept only a small one. The two countries that are central to December's negotiations in Copenhagen will be able to show much progress and good faith - but painful, binding targets? Do not bet on it.
Two years on, Mr Friedman's lesson - that clean energy can be profitable rather than a costly drag - has not only been learned by the Chinese; now Beijing is intent on writing the rest of the textbook. Just look at yesterday's Guardian report on China's plans to ramp up wind and solar power, so that they meet 20% of its energy needs by 2020. That is already a big advance in Beijing's goals - and it is poised to go even further. There are reports it will spend up to $600bn on clean power over the next decade - or the equivalent of its entire military budget every year for each of the next 10 years.
Sums like that certainly put western chatter about green new deals in perspective. Indeed, China's 20% goal matches European targets, which EU members such as Britain are struggling to meet. And while Beijing's announcement may put Europe's governments on their mettle, there is more to this clean stimulus than a challenge for environmental leadership. China is dependent on imported fuel, it can see the business opportunities from developing green technology (it is already the world's leading manufacturer of photovoltaic panels, which turn sunlight into electricity) - and Beijing needs to go into this December's negotiations on a successor treaty to Kyoto with something to deflect the charges that it is some kind of climate criminal. Instead, China will be able to cast itself as a green leader.
There is only one snag. Green optimists such as Thomas Friedman yoke energy security with the green agenda; Beijing is effectively decoupling the two. However much it may trumpet its green initiatives, China is still the world's biggest user of coal and the largest emitter of carbon. Neither of those two things look likely to change. Beijing has yet to accept any target for reducing carbon emissions. The US Congress looks as if it will accept only a small one. The two countries that are central to December's negotiations in Copenhagen will be able to show much progress and good faith - but painful, binding targets? Do not bet on it.
Climate action must be a first resort
As the first signs of "green shoots" start to appear in headlines and the housing market, a rather depressing question keeps nagging at me: "Is the current economic 'shock' big enough?" It might seem an odd question to ask when a crisis is destroying jobs, decimating trade and driving many countries to the brink of insolvency. No one, least of all Oxfam, is hoping for anything but a quick recovery.
But crises do not only destroy; they can also create once-in-a-generation opportunities when the world re-examines the way we do things. Women won the vote in Britain after the first world war had transformed their role in society. In the US the Great Depression led to the New Deal. As Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's chief of staff, remarked recently: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
Could the current crisis create the conditions for profound changes that would benefit the majority of the world's people in the long run; or is the current doom and gloom devoid of any such silver lining?
The latest figures from the IMF are certainly shocking. The global economy is in full recession, predicted to shrink by 1.3% this year (at least until the next downward revision of forecasts). Advanced economies have suffered a massive 3.8% fall in output. And although the developing world isn't doing quite so badly as the rich countries – it is predicted to achieve sluggish positive growth – a close examination of the numbers reveals that the impact on poor people looks very worrying.
In per capita terms (ie allowing for population growth), developing country economies are shrinking, after years of progress. Using the World Bank estimate that a loss of 1% of global economic output pushes 20m people into poverty, by the end of 2009, 100 million more people will be living below $1.25 a day than would otherwise be the case. Stop and read that again: below $1.25 a day.
That certainly fits economists' definition of a "shock", and a big one at that. What changes might such a shock trigger? There are already signs of some tectonic shifts. First, the geopolitical – the crisis has crystallised the rise of China. After keeping its head down during three decades of "peaceful rise", Chinese diplomacy has suddenly become far more assertive, openly blaming the west for the crisis and calling for major reforms of the international financial system. The era of the G2 (US and China) begins here. More broadly, the G8 is now looking increasingly obsolete – real power has shifted to the G20, with far greater recognition of the role of emerging economies such as Brazil and India, as well as China.
Second, the end of the Great Deregulation. Since finance was let off the leash in the mid 1970s, it has boomed and come to dwarf the real economy. By 2007 the daily flow of capital across borders was 100 times greater than world trade. Backed by the power to make and break economies, the whims and prejudices of financial markets acquired absurd political importance. That has now given way to an era of reregulation and downsizing of the financial sector. Good thing too.
But other impacts are worrying or absent. At the G20 in London in April, the world wrote a huge cheque to the International Monetary Fund, in return for promises of reform. But it is far from certain that the IMF can transform itself from being an austerity-wielding devotee of the "Friedmanite tourniquet" to being an advocate of the kind of Keynesian reflation that is needed in poor countries right now.
Most worrying of all, climate change has so far taken a back seat. The G20 largely ignored the issue; progress in the UN talks that culminate in Copenhagen in December is glacial. But we are running out of time. The longer we take in beginning a fundamental (and probably painful) shift to a low-carbon economy, the worse the climate change and pain of transition will become. At the current rate global greenhouse gas emissions will double in 25 years. They need to start falling fast by 2015 at the latest.
Some argue that we should sort out the economic crisis first, and then turn our attention to the longer-term issues such as climate change, but that is to ignore the role of crises in driving change.
The creation of the UN, World Bank and IMF – the global order of the second half of the 20th century – was the product of both the Great Depression and the second world war. World leaders meeting at the G8 next month have a real chance to grasp their once-in-a-generation opportunity. But my fear is that the current economic collapse will not be enough to convince us or them of the need for change. Will we need the climate equivalent of a world war before we and our leaders accept the need to shift to a low carbon world? The scale of such a climate shock, its irreversibility, and the impact on the lives of millions of ordinary people make that a very bad last resort.
But crises do not only destroy; they can also create once-in-a-generation opportunities when the world re-examines the way we do things. Women won the vote in Britain after the first world war had transformed their role in society. In the US the Great Depression led to the New Deal. As Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's chief of staff, remarked recently: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
Could the current crisis create the conditions for profound changes that would benefit the majority of the world's people in the long run; or is the current doom and gloom devoid of any such silver lining?
The latest figures from the IMF are certainly shocking. The global economy is in full recession, predicted to shrink by 1.3% this year (at least until the next downward revision of forecasts). Advanced economies have suffered a massive 3.8% fall in output. And although the developing world isn't doing quite so badly as the rich countries – it is predicted to achieve sluggish positive growth – a close examination of the numbers reveals that the impact on poor people looks very worrying.
In per capita terms (ie allowing for population growth), developing country economies are shrinking, after years of progress. Using the World Bank estimate that a loss of 1% of global economic output pushes 20m people into poverty, by the end of 2009, 100 million more people will be living below $1.25 a day than would otherwise be the case. Stop and read that again: below $1.25 a day.
That certainly fits economists' definition of a "shock", and a big one at that. What changes might such a shock trigger? There are already signs of some tectonic shifts. First, the geopolitical – the crisis has crystallised the rise of China. After keeping its head down during three decades of "peaceful rise", Chinese diplomacy has suddenly become far more assertive, openly blaming the west for the crisis and calling for major reforms of the international financial system. The era of the G2 (US and China) begins here. More broadly, the G8 is now looking increasingly obsolete – real power has shifted to the G20, with far greater recognition of the role of emerging economies such as Brazil and India, as well as China.
Second, the end of the Great Deregulation. Since finance was let off the leash in the mid 1970s, it has boomed and come to dwarf the real economy. By 2007 the daily flow of capital across borders was 100 times greater than world trade. Backed by the power to make and break economies, the whims and prejudices of financial markets acquired absurd political importance. That has now given way to an era of reregulation and downsizing of the financial sector. Good thing too.
But other impacts are worrying or absent. At the G20 in London in April, the world wrote a huge cheque to the International Monetary Fund, in return for promises of reform. But it is far from certain that the IMF can transform itself from being an austerity-wielding devotee of the "Friedmanite tourniquet" to being an advocate of the kind of Keynesian reflation that is needed in poor countries right now.
Most worrying of all, climate change has so far taken a back seat. The G20 largely ignored the issue; progress in the UN talks that culminate in Copenhagen in December is glacial. But we are running out of time. The longer we take in beginning a fundamental (and probably painful) shift to a low-carbon economy, the worse the climate change and pain of transition will become. At the current rate global greenhouse gas emissions will double in 25 years. They need to start falling fast by 2015 at the latest.
Some argue that we should sort out the economic crisis first, and then turn our attention to the longer-term issues such as climate change, but that is to ignore the role of crises in driving change.
The creation of the UN, World Bank and IMF – the global order of the second half of the 20th century – was the product of both the Great Depression and the second world war. World leaders meeting at the G8 next month have a real chance to grasp their once-in-a-generation opportunity. But my fear is that the current economic collapse will not be enough to convince us or them of the need for change. Will we need the climate equivalent of a world war before we and our leaders accept the need to shift to a low carbon world? The scale of such a climate shock, its irreversibility, and the impact on the lives of millions of ordinary people make that a very bad last resort.
US wind farm energy up in the air over climate change, says study
The great gusting winds of the American midwest – and possibly the hopes for the most promising clean energy source – may be dying, in part because of climate change, according to a new report.
A study, due to be published in August in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, suggests that average and peak winds may have been slowing across the midwest and eastern states since 1973.
The authors of the study note that their findings are preliminary and some of their data is ambiguous. But the study, based on measurements gathered from wind towers across the midwest raises the possibility of yet another new side effect from global warming: declining wind speeds.
"We have noted there have been some periods in the past ... where there was a pretty substantial decrease in wind speed for 12 consecutive months," Eugene Takle, the director of the climate science initiative at Iowa State University and one of the authors of the study, said. "We suspect that it's some large-scale influence that we don't yet understand."
Areas of the midwest have seen a 10% decline in average wind speed over the past decade. Some places – such as Minnesota – have seen a jump in the number of days where there was no wind at all.
Takle said climate modelling suggested a further 10% decline in wind levels could occur over the next four decades. "Generally we expect there will probably be a decline in wind speeds due to climate change."
The sharpest fall off in wind speeds recorded in the study occurred in the eastern United States including Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Illinois, Louisiana, northern Maine, western Montana and Virginia.
Other areas, like west Texas, which is the heart of America's wind power industry have been relatively unaffected, the study found.
The yet-to-be-published study was first reported by the Associated Press which also noted that the research was preliminary.
Takle noted that data could be skewed by changes in instruments for measuring wind, or reforestation, which could also slow wind speeds.
Other scientists have also raised doubts about the findings.
But if the findings are borne out, the dying winds could deliver a serious setback to plans to expand the use of the renewable energy.
The US is the world's largest producer of wind power, and investment in the sector had explosive growth before the economic downturn, hitting $17bn last year. Wind turbines are now a common sight on high rises across many American states.
But a 10% fall in peak winds could translate into a 27% reduction in energy, Takle said. "On moderately windy days when wind turbines are struggling to get as much as they can out of the wind available and they are not letting any extra power go through that could make a big difference."
Wind industry analysts downplayed the potential impact of a reduction in wind levels in some regions of the US. "I don't think that at this point you could definitively say there are going to be across the board decreases in wind," said Michael Goggin, an industry analyst for the American Wind Energy Association. "The abundance and diversity of wind resources in the United States is so great. We are called the Saudi Arabia of wind for a reason. There are enough different climate regimes that even if some are negatively affected – and at this point that is speculative – others could do better."
Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at Nasa's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, told the Guardian the study had yet to establish a clear pattern of declining winds, and that it was too soon to be thinking of the effects on wind energy industry.
"It's still very preliminary. My feeling is that it is way too premature to be talking about the impact that this makes.
A study, due to be published in August in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, suggests that average and peak winds may have been slowing across the midwest and eastern states since 1973.
The authors of the study note that their findings are preliminary and some of their data is ambiguous. But the study, based on measurements gathered from wind towers across the midwest raises the possibility of yet another new side effect from global warming: declining wind speeds.
"We have noted there have been some periods in the past ... where there was a pretty substantial decrease in wind speed for 12 consecutive months," Eugene Takle, the director of the climate science initiative at Iowa State University and one of the authors of the study, said. "We suspect that it's some large-scale influence that we don't yet understand."
Areas of the midwest have seen a 10% decline in average wind speed over the past decade. Some places – such as Minnesota – have seen a jump in the number of days where there was no wind at all.
Takle said climate modelling suggested a further 10% decline in wind levels could occur over the next four decades. "Generally we expect there will probably be a decline in wind speeds due to climate change."
The sharpest fall off in wind speeds recorded in the study occurred in the eastern United States including Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Illinois, Louisiana, northern Maine, western Montana and Virginia.
Other areas, like west Texas, which is the heart of America's wind power industry have been relatively unaffected, the study found.
The yet-to-be-published study was first reported by the Associated Press which also noted that the research was preliminary.
Takle noted that data could be skewed by changes in instruments for measuring wind, or reforestation, which could also slow wind speeds.
Other scientists have also raised doubts about the findings.
But if the findings are borne out, the dying winds could deliver a serious setback to plans to expand the use of the renewable energy.
The US is the world's largest producer of wind power, and investment in the sector had explosive growth before the economic downturn, hitting $17bn last year. Wind turbines are now a common sight on high rises across many American states.
But a 10% fall in peak winds could translate into a 27% reduction in energy, Takle said. "On moderately windy days when wind turbines are struggling to get as much as they can out of the wind available and they are not letting any extra power go through that could make a big difference."
Wind industry analysts downplayed the potential impact of a reduction in wind levels in some regions of the US. "I don't think that at this point you could definitively say there are going to be across the board decreases in wind," said Michael Goggin, an industry analyst for the American Wind Energy Association. "The abundance and diversity of wind resources in the United States is so great. We are called the Saudi Arabia of wind for a reason. There are enough different climate regimes that even if some are negatively affected – and at this point that is speculative – others could do better."
Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at Nasa's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, told the Guardian the study had yet to establish a clear pattern of declining winds, and that it was too soon to be thinking of the effects on wind energy industry.
"It's still very preliminary. My feeling is that it is way too premature to be talking about the impact that this makes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)