Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 5th July 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

A gift from Scotland to Brazil: drought and despair



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
07 July 2007
SEU Dodo walks through the lush Brazilian woodland he knows well, picking out medicinal plants: lobera for diabetes, one known as "the king of medicines" for the menopause, another he claims can cure flu in a day.
But the search for the plants is getting harder and harder. "A lot of our medicinal plants died this year because of the lack of water," he says ruefully.

According to Seu Dodo and others living near the village of Sao Jose do Buriti, springs that once watered the natural forest are being sucked dry by vast tracts of fast-growing eucalyptus trees used in the production of iron at a local company.

Six thousand miles away, the flames leap from one of the chimneys at the Grangemouth oil refinery on the banks of the Firth of Forth. The orange haze from the massive plant lights up the night sky as thousands of barrels of oil are refined into petrol, diesel and other products for the motor industry. The flares from the chimneys belch carbon dioxide into the sky.

Brazil-Scotland; refinery-rainforest. At first glance, the two places seem totally unconnected. But Grangemouth and Sao Jose do Buriti are tied by a single thread: carbon trading.

For, according to a new investigation, the eucalyptus trees causing such damage in Brazil were part-funded by the money from the former owners of the Grangemouth complex, BP .

BP wanted to offset the it was producing from Grangemouth. So it paid money into a scheme created by the World Bank which would "offset" these emissions by funding schemes elsewhere in the world that would reduce emissions by the same amount.

If the scheme works well, so the theory goes, the net emissions will be zero.

But the World Bank chose to invest some of the £90 million paid into its Prototype Carbon Fund by BP and other companies in a eucalyptus-planting scheme in Brazil.

An iron foundry company, Plantar, threatened to stop using charcoal from eucalyptus trees and turn to coal - a change which would massively increase the company's emissions.

The World Bank agreed to fund an expansion of the eucalyptus plantations to ensure the firm did not make the switch.

Charcoal has less effect on the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere as the next crop of eucalyptus will soak up carbon.

But according to local people, interviewed for a documentary, The Carbon Connection - which had its premiere in Edinburgh last month - the scheme had a dreadful environmental cost.

Standing in a bone-dry river bed in Sao Jose do Buriti, Synara de Fatima Almedia Thomas made her own video diary for the documentary. She said: "Local people say they used to fish here. You can see that it was a really big stream, but today during the rainy season there is not a drop of water."

She explains how one-third of the local area - 100,000 acres - is covered with eucalyptus trees owned by Plantar and other firms. "They pollute there in the north and we here in the south are obliged to clean up because there are more green areas."

The documentary also filmed people concerned about the pollution in Grangemouth, 6,000 miles away.

Norman Philip, 38, who was born and raised in the area, tells how the sky regularly lights up as flares burn off excess gas at the refinery complex, where his father used to work.

Now an activist for Friends of the Earth, he is concerned at the levels of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and tiny particles - which can cause asthma attacks and other respiratory problems and carry a long-term risk of cancer - in the emissions from the plant. Those emissions might have been cut, Mr Philip argues, if oil giant BP had not "offset" them by paying into the World Bank's scheme.

BP still has a presence at Grangemouth, and a source confirmed the company paid into the Prototype Carbon Fund, but said the World Bank determined how the money was spent.

The scheme's problems have been recognised by experts. Dr Axel Michaelowa, one of the world's leading authorities on carbon offsetting, said: "The World Bank was very eager to get to the market very early. The bank did some things that probably were not very good. The Plantar project had some serious problems."

Dr Michaelowa said he was pleased campaign groups were highlighting problems with carbon offsetting where they existed. "It's clear, especially given the gold-rush feeling in the global carbon market, there should be some watchdogs that try to separate the black from the white sheep," he said.

"Overall, the mechanism is working nicely. [But] anything which becomes a big success in a short time has some problems and one should try and eliminate those problems."

In the documentary, one Brazilian woman explains: "In this game of buying and selling carbon credits, the World Bank doesn't factor in the problems caused by eucalyptus monoculture in this region. We tried to tell them, but they don't listen.

"Meanwhile, the company continues destroying our community, destroying our citizens, destroying our fauna, destroying our flora, and nobody does anything."

A spokesman for the World Bank said it had looked into claims about the scheme.

"An independent verifier and the World Bank have looked into this matter and confirmed that some springs in the area have undergone reduction of flow in recent years," he said.

"However, the underlying cause is not yet clear. Many factors could be at play: fluctuations in rainfall, watering of cattle from other farms around the springs or the eucalyptus plantings.

"The matter is under study. In any case, Plantar has removed eucalyptus planted close to springs and has fenced off spring-heads, which has improved the water flow.

"The Plantar project is delivering real and measurable environmental benefits, such as tonnes of reduced and areas of cerrado forest restored."

A spokesman for BP said: "We cannot see any connection between the refinery we used to own at Grangemouth and the Brazil project the film refers to. We have got no comment to make on it."

REFINERY LEAKED OIL

THE Grangemouth oil refinery has been named as the source of an oil slick covering several square miles of the Firth of Forth.

Officials at the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) said the Ineos site at Grangemouth was "one confirmed source" of the pollution and that the firm was being served with an enforcement notice to improve its drainage systems.

Experts identified a storm-water channel within the complex as a likely source of the leak, made worse by recent heavy rainfall.

The spillage has not killed any birds or fish so far, but SEPA spokesman Lin Bunten said: "Any avoidable pollution is unacceptable and we will continue to do our best to ensure everyone takes the protection of Scotland's environment seriously."

Ineos Grangemouth Refinery can handle ten million tonnes of oil per year.

The full article contains 1162 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 July 2007 11:16 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Aoda,

Pennylvania Wilds 07/07/2007 00:48:16

Now that the genus that invented the internet has finished counting shads he wrote a book. From the book came a movie. The next step and now done is proving that the earth is going to go lifeless tomorrow. How come all of a sudden lakes dry up, streams dry up? Planting those trees was the PC thing to do but never mind researching to see what the end result would be.

We maybe and we may not be adding to globial warming but the radicals are sure scaring us into believing it. The media is stating it as fact.

Would you believe that Gore plans to run for president.

2

Tearlach MacPolk,

07/07/2007 02:02:04

It will be a snowy day in Death Valley before Mr. Gore becomes President of your United States!

All the while, they are fighting to build a refinery in Yuma, Arizona, USA. You might say that is a good thing, that the USA will be dependent on foreign fuels? However, they plan on piping the petrol up from Mexico, refining it in Arizona, then shipping the petrol by-products back into Mexico to sell!

3

Conan,

Here 07/07/2007 02:03:19

There is one sure way to find out if there is anything to this 'global warming' stuff - and that would be for those who advocate the existence of such a thing, and their camp-followers, to simplt do 100% of what they are advovating that we all do.

Then, and only then, will we all see if there is any significant cause and effect between what they do (or stop doing) and the planet's atmospheric condiitons over time - and what such a connection actually means (if anything).

If there is, then - and only then, we can have confidence that the 'sky-is-falling' crowd of global warming opportunists and cultists may have a point and thenerefore 'something' should be done ..... provided that doing 'something' will have any effect on the large world-wide scale.

In the meantime ..... as a matter of common sense and respect, don't make a mess of the planet if for no more than a selfish reason:- It's the only home we have and we really should keep our home a tidy, happy and healthy place.

4

Guga II,

Rockall 07/07/2007 02:46:40

#1 Aoda. Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, nor did he, as he claimed, create it. That, like his current garbage, is a lie.

I suggest you check out the following:

http://www.connected-earth.com/Galleries/Frombuttonstobyt...

5

Mcsnagpile,

S.E.A 07/07/2007 02:47:10

The impression that Grangemouth is a belching monster from hell expelling out cancer, asthma and more evils than Pandora ’s Box is a bit over the top. The purpose of the Grangemouth complex is to process the millions of gallons of oil not burn it up a chimney. If you want to see flares I will give you flares that make Grangemouth look like a tupenny candle and have a far greater impact on the Amazon. How many trees are the Arabians (have a look at some of their flares), Chinese, Japanese (try OSAKA), etc etc planting in Brazil??--- Don’t mention the USA.
Ineos -a rose by any other name-- BP

6

Navvy,

07/07/2007 03:26:00

This carbon offset business seems to be rather dodgy.

Britain cut down most of its forest long ago and mostly before the industrial revolution. A lot was cleared for sheep rearing - the Downs and kept that way bu sheep in much Scotland where most of our coastal oak was cut down for ship building. A lot of the Caledonian forest was cut for cash and another lot was burnt to flush out enemies. Much more was cut for farming though we did have a good history of coppicing for furniture and charcoal - Burnham Beeches springs to mind.

It seems to me that planting for carbon trading should be done nearer to home. Scotland is one of the least wooded countries in Europe. But do it properly, maintain the sightlines from our roads and railways which tourists like, concentrate on native species and where faster growing non native "commercial" crop trees are planted do it behind native tree borders hundreds of metres, not just a token 2 trees, deep


Britain was the first industrial country

7

Navvy,

07/07/2007 03:33:44

Britain was the first industrial country and it is industry which is to blame because transport allows concentrations of people and allows large urban populations to be sustained.

So the real solution is to have less people. The UK population should be limited to the size which we can feed from our own land without destroying it.

Likewise, in broad terms the polulations of other countries where water and land are limiting factors.

If such a broadly self sustaining policy were adopted world wide with the help of labour saving technology then we could meet rising expectations with a falling population and in a few generations we could, for example, have a sustainable world population of about half the present one.

Then I could have a Sunday pub lunch in Kent without getting into a traffic jam

8

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 07/07/2007 05:44:06

When Gore tells you his private jet flights or his yatch or SUV use is covered by Carbon ofsets please do remember that the company that organises carbon ofsets is allegedly owned or run by him ........ win win eh ?

9

donald,

weegieland 07/07/2007 05:57:09

"All the while, they are fighting to build a refinery in Yuma, Arizona, USA. You might say that is a good thing, that the USA will be dependent on foreign fuels? However, they plan on piping the petrol up from Mexico, refining it in Arizona, then shipping the petrol by-products back into Mexico to sell!"

Mexico sounds like Scotland.

10

Harbinger,

Fantasy Island 07/07/2007 07:26:17

Guga, I think Aoda was being sarcastic..

Gore charges a minimum $100,000 a time for his appearances and I thought altruism was dead.

Plus he gets totally free publicity for his propaganda from the media. Just look at the guff coming from the BBC at the moment.

It wouldn't surprise me if if he makes a late run for President: the reluctant hero compelled to save the world?

11

nell from falkirk,

07/07/2007 07:37:26

BP has a bad effect on Brazil? - you should have a look at the effect it has on Bo'ness!

#5 " belching monster from hell"is just what the Grangemouth petrochemicals plant is. What they belch out in the daytime is bad enough, but under cover of darkness, there are all sorts of nasties belched out.
The rates of bronchial disease and cancer in Bo'ness, which gets the worst of the fallout because of the prevailing winds, are way above other areas.

It was always a local very black joke that workers at the BP could get offered a great pension because most of them wouldn't live to collect it.

12

nell from falkirk,

07/07/2007 07:40:52

And here we have, hidden away at the bottom of the article - the truth about the oil spillage polluting the Forth. What a surprise, it was the Grangemouth Oil Refinery. Who could have guessed?

And remind me, what was the response again, from Forth Ports?
Oh yes, hang on and it will disperse in time.
Same response as to the sewage spiil in the SAME estuary only a few weeks ago.

Long gone time for ONE agency to have control over the Estuary, and an end to this wholly unsatisfactory piecemeal appraoch.

13

nell from falkirk,

07/07/2007 07:51:12

#1 & #2 What has Al Gore got to do with this?
Apart from one of his posters being apparently the only thing the "Scotsman" can find in its archive with which to illustrate this article?

This whole "carbon offsetting" scheme sounded fishy to me from the start - the idea that you can somehow undo bad you've done (and continue to do) by paying money.
Bit like the old notion of "buying indulgences" the Catholic Church had at one time. Pay now, and that covered your next several sins.

And who would trust the World Bank, that dumping ground for Dubya's superannuated friends who are no use for anything much, with its many hidden agendas?
The response to every problem these days - throw money at it and it'll go away. Don't worry about being sure that what you're going to do with the money is helpful, or even not actively harmful.
And don't listen to anyone who might know the difference - "one Brazilian woman explains: "In this game of buying and selling carbon credits, the World Bank doesn't factor in the problems caused by eucalyptus monoculture in this region. We tried to tell them, but they don't listen.
Meanwhile, the company continues destroying our community, destroying our citizens, destroying our fauna, destroying our flora, and nobody does anything."

Trouble is, the World Bank isn't elected, so is not answerable for its actions.

14

Gordon,

Edinburgh 07/07/2007 08:01:27

There is a much bigger threat to our survival on this planet - fresh water.

While we in Scotland have sufficient for now, many countries are depleting their ground water supplies to the point that they will last for less than 50years. New trees use much more water than old ones, so this sudden rush to plant more with no regard to the effects is counter productive.

15

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 07/07/2007 08:12:52

Why do all the scientists and politicians ignore the big, fat (endangered) elephant standing in themiddle of the living room? THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE PLANET!!! The Earth can obviously not sustain the numbers yet, here in the West, we insist on prolonging life until our 90s even when it has no quality or use. In the developing world, they're breeding at a rate that puts rabbits to shame. 300 million Indians in 1947, over a BILLION now. And we compound it by overcoming Nature's Malthusian checks of famine and disease. And all will want TVs and cars and air conditioning and holidays etc etc. We can posture all we like about carbon offsetting but until we address the problem of overpopulation it's pissing into the (hot Saharan desertifying) wind. We're all doomed I tell ye!!

16

nell from falkirk,

07/07/2007 08:37:31

#15 yes, I'm afraid you have it exactly right.

17

Edward,

07/07/2007 09:08:52

This story is the biggest load of horse crap Ive evr heard!!
Why is this paper trying to lump blame on Scotland for drought conditions in other parts of the World??
Why is this paper trying to lump Scotland into what an international company, in this case BP is doing for carbon offsetting??
The headline and article are a complete disgrace!!
Why dont they just focus on BP and why they are haveing non native trees planted in Brazil?
The vast Forests are NOT repeat NOT being sucked dry by large tracts of eucalyptus trees . the eucalyptus trees are being planted in areas which had already been deforested by unscrupulas Brazilian timber merchants, who cut down trees in preserved areas against the law, but by handing out the proverbial brown envelope have been getting away with it for years, that is the real story and that is a fact, ask any Brazilian

18

Drew McNaughton,

Borders 07/07/2007 10:28:35

The thing that people seem to have neglected considering, including the scientists and pundits who are all for carbon offsetting and capture, is this simple and rudimentary equation that you learn in chemistry at school:

CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O

And all the other permutations of this when you burn hydrocarbons. Work it out for yourself.

19

Charles MN,

07/07/2007 10:32:29

Once again FoE are more concerned about propaganda than truth. You can see the current pollution measurements for Scotland here:
http://www.scottishairquality.co.uk/current_levels.php

As you can see Grangemouth is one of the least polluted place of those measured.

20

Carel,

Isle of Skye 07/07/2007 10:44:39

"We may be and we may be not adding to global warming" - - that comment was reasonable to make 15 year ago; ten year ago it might still have been worth debating; but now the people who study climate know without a shadow of doubt that we are heating up the planet by adding to the carbon gases in the atmosphere. There is still a reasonable debate to be had about the speed of the process and a lot of doubt about exact consequences; but don't be fooled by charlatans, hirelings and people with nay-saying temperaments, climate scientists are as sure of the basics as geologists are sure about tectonic plates.
The geology analogy is worth thinking about. In '61 I did Ordinary Geology at Glasgow uni - tectonics were never mentioned. That was because their existance was just being realised by a handful. Ten/fifteen years later a geology student would have been getting taught tectonics as established fact. But at that stage there were still some individual geologists (whose life work had involved other explanations for the phenomena explained by tectonic theory) who were arguing that it was still a hypothesis.
No-one outside geology cared. No major economic changes were required of anyone as a result - the nay-sayers one by one either realised they'd backed a wrong horse academically or got Alzheimers or both.
But the man-made-global-warming theory involves warnings of massive problems to come. It involves huge established industries perhaps getting curtailed. So, though this climate theory is as certain as tectonic theory there are lots of people with a stake in rubbishing it - and lots more willing to be misled by them; 'cos who wants to give our governments the duty to make us cut our consumption? Just the far-sighted, and prophets have always pissed off the majority.

21

The Strategist,

07/07/2007 10:54:19

Climate change may or may not exist and it may or may not be caused by us...... In any event, if it does exist then any real catastrophic consequences are quite a long way off...

What is much closer though is an energy shortage particularly in relation to liquid fuels. Note the recent flurry of activity here and overseas in building bio-fuel production capacity.

Unfortunately, it won't be enough and it will never be enough. Today there are 700 million cars in the world. By 2030, that number is expected to nearly double to over 1.2 billion. Nobody can say where the fuel to run them is coming from.

Life is going to get interesting..

22

Sanny,

07/07/2007 11:54:34

A few posters have made the point that the increasing number of people are the prime pollution. To a large extent I agree with the hypothesis. Fewer people on the planet would lower the stress on the limited resources.

However, may I remind you that China had, and enforced, a population reduction policy - one child per woman - I think they still do. The Western PC Brigade were up in arms at this inhumane policy! These are the same people who run about sounding off about Global warming without proof that it is due to man's actions.

I agree we must take better care of our planet but this must be done by reasoned argument for policies that are fully explored and tested before mass implementation.

Remember Gore is a failed politician with no scientific training. CO2 is not a toxic gas it is an absolute necessity to life. Without CO2 no plant would grow. It is growing plants that feed us and replenish the Oxygen we breathe.

If we stopped all of man's activity we could reduce total CO2 emissions by a maxim of 3% (the remainder are natural emissions). The effect of this on Green House Gasses would be less than 0.01%.
Of course we'd all be dead as well so it wouldn't matter.

A final point to ponder. CO2 reached its minimum value Just before we plunged into the last major ice age at the end of the Carbonaceous period. We are almost at the end of the current interglacial period and are due to descend into an new Ice Age anytime in the next 2,000years. Maybe we should encourage Global Warming to stave of the Ice Age!!!

23

Sanny,

07/07/2007 12:01:34

20. Carel, Isle of Skye :
Where is your justification for such a statement. Even the IPCC report doesn't make such a claim. Try reading it in its entirety and not just the sensational bit mis-quoted by the press. Also check the number of scientists who have lodged objection to their names being attached to a report they disagreed with. Then read the findings of independent Climatologists who have challenged even the weak claims of the IPCC report.

Please do the research before swallowing the sound bites.

24

Sanny,

07/07/2007 12:03:43

19. Charles MN : -
You do not really expect the Foes of the Earth to let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite. DO YOU!!

25

Lady Jane Grey,

07/07/2007 12:12:32

From what I remember from Highers physics:
Energy can not be destroyed only converted.

therefore global warming creats Co2 not Co2 creating global warming.

Discuss;

26

Major General Puffin-Stuff,

07/07/2007 12:35:38

Surely all that means is that so many eminent scientists are WRONG, and you are the only one who is RIGHT, Lady Jane Grey, m'dear!!

I see that the "everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" brigade are out in force today.

27

GD,

Glasgow 07/07/2007 12:40:27

You've got to laugh at The Scotsman's sensationalist 'Sunday Sport' like headlines right enough. They always remind me of the Viz magazine!
Anyway, carbon emissions and ALL other environmental issues are just symptoms of overpopulation but no-one is addressing the issue.
Hold all the Live Earth concerts you like, and let Bob Geldof, Bono etc preach until they're blue in the face, but until they start to concentrate on Human overpopulation it's a complete waste of time and energy.
There's no ifs or buts, it's comparable with changing a wheel nut on a car with engine problems!

28

Aoda,

Pennylvania Wilds 07/07/2007 13:23:18

#4 Guga II, Harbringer has it right. He did claim that he invented it but when caught on it, he had to admit that as a senator he voted on the bill to authorize it. Remember it was a DOD project before it became public.

#10 Harbringer, you have it right. Just like the old western movies. The cavalry(Gore) comes charging to the rescue at the last minute.

#13 nell, Gore has a lot to do with it. First he is becoming richer on this carbon trading scheme, second he is getting a lot of free publicity thus keeping his name on the front pages.

You are right about the money scheme. Pour money into the "problem" that we created which will raises the price of everything plus raising our tax to pay for these schemes. This carbon trading is one excellant example. If it was so good why doesn't it reduce the emissions instead of just spreading it around the world?

Too many questions on globial warming by scientist on both sides of the issue. The biggest problem is the media and politicans using it to make money and fame. What this article is pointing out is that how they "traded" carbon output was to force it in an area that harmed the local enviroment and the local population. The net rest results for the main reason was a wast of money, time and effort. It did not reduce the emissions one iota, thus worthless.

29

Ozzie,

victoria 07/07/2007 13:41:10

Can someone please explain how this carbon capture really works?

Because if you buy a hectare of bluegums to offset pollution.
And at the end of 10 years the timber company harvests the timber to send it to Japan for manufacture into paper products ,and then the paper is used and discarded ,is not all the stored carbon released?

Seems to me like a collosal fiddle.

30

,

07/07/2007 13:59:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 767031, Article id was mapped to record!
31

Canadian in Edinburgh,

07/07/2007 14:18:56

Global warming is a lie...I don't believe for a second scientists really know if we are contributing to global warming or not, too many times I hear or read that humans do contribute...then we don't .... then we do....then we don't...I don't care! I think it's all a lie and scientists or whoever are just trying to scare us! Well you're not scaring me and pretty much all the people I talk to aren't scared either! Good try...

32

nell from falkirk,

07/07/2007 14:56:19

#30, of which Grangemouth Petrochemicals company are YOU the chairman?

33

Miss Jean Brodie,

07/07/2007 15:00:07

#30 a pervvy who has stumbled upon a non porn website - sumbdy help the pure chap to have human and genuine sexual experiences !

34

exiled jock 45,

Norfolk 07/07/2007 15:05:05

Global warming may indeed be happening and part of it may be down to the activities of mankind. The destruction of the Amazon rainforests is one thing that springs to mind. However, natural phenomena may be more to blame than man. For example, when Mount St. Helens blew its top a number of years ago, it probably belched more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in a couple of days than man has in the last two thousand. Similarly there are other volcanoes throughout the world belching sulphur and other gases into the atmosphere which far surpass those put up by all the industries of the world combined. I agree that we are only exacerbating the problem, but those who are on the 'global warming' bandwagon are trying to use mankind's methods as an excuse to raise taxes and lower our standard of living. Hen Broon from Downing Street is a perfect example in that he was and is using it as an excuse to raise taxes from an already overburdened taxpayer.
In my opinion ( for what it is worth ) it requires all governments of the world , especially our cousins form across the pond, to get together and stop exploiting the rainforests of the likes of the Amazon Basin and allow them to recover. They are the lungs of the world where much of the oxygen of the world is made from the CO2 emmisions and also they help control the climate of the world. Continue to destroy them and you will inevitably destroy all living creatures of this world. In addition man, in destroying the tropical rainforests, is also destroying the natural cures to practically every diease known. There are many plants etc. being destroyed in the cut and burn philosophy by unscrupulous companies which could hold the cures for many ailments and governments are turning a blind eye to their activities. I think it is time for these governments to wise up.

35

fred bloggs,

earth 07/07/2007 15:24:48

Global warming will take care of the population excess:
'The increase in extremely hot summers predicted by climate change models will lead to a higher death toll that will not be offset by fewer deaths during warmer winters, say researchers.

"The increase in mortality when you have one extra cold snap is 1.59%, but the increase in mortality for an additional heatwave is 5.74%," explains Mercedes Medina-Ramón of Harvard University's School of Public Health in Massachusetts, US.

36

The Strategist,

07/07/2007 15:44:16

The rush to produce biofuels is a mediocre attempt to fill the liquid fuels gap. It won't work because we'll never be able to produce enough without food prices going through the roof and doing even more damage to our ecosystem.

The UK Govt in particular is still stuck with its head in the sand whilst Scandinavia, Germany, the USA and others are already moving forward doing things such as rolling out hydrogen refuelling stations across their countries. Many have also developed hydrogen fuelled cars.

We should be thoroughly ashamed of how little we've invested in this and other clean technologies.

37

California Scot,

07/07/2007 15:46:25

Ye should all see Los Angeles on a hot summers day when there has been no wind for several days. It is a microcosm of the earth...a confined space being inundated by toxic gasses that have no where to go because LA is in a basin. The air is orange.

The result is certain plants and trees that can't be planted along the roadways (they can't survive the exhaust, but could survive the climate), a layer of filth and grime that lies on everything and gets breathed in, and record numbers of cardio-pulmonary disease in humans.

It is indeed possible to create more toxins than than can be sythesised down to harmless through "natural means".
Don't have a solution, but since moving here, I can tell you that man-made pollution and its negative effects do exist.

38

MarkB,

USA 07/07/2007 16:27:06

Scotland and George Bush - destroying the planet together! Excuse me, I need to spew carbon into the atmosphere by watching the Save The Planet concert on the telly :)

39

fred bloggs,

earth 07/07/2007 16:31:10
40

Cheryl,

07/07/2007 16:41:51

The planting of trees which do absolutely no good in environmental efforts is hardly new to Central and South America. Companies have been doing it for years and people, not knowing any better, think it's great how companies are giving back and 'going green'. Trees are planted which can be later cut down to make paper, in some cases, and no thought is given to actually doing something that will benefit and help sustain/replenish the ecosystems and environment.

41

Bob from USA,

USA 07/07/2007 17:06:26

Is it not amazing that all these experts can tell us this and that about what is causing (man) the Earth's warming and what will happen in 2050 and so yet can not accurately predict next week's weather? Here in the States in the 60's we were concerned about the coming ice age and of running out of food by the year 2000 then in the 80's we were running out of landfill space and now it is globel warming. It is mostly about the academic folk needing to publish to maintain their standing and about starting a fad. Many can get attention by jumping on bandwagon also be able to publish and so on. Politicans can get attention and tax us even more by jumping on the bandwagon. Around and around it goes until there is another major threatening concern resulting in a new bandwagon to jump on. This is not to say that there are not changes going but they have always been going on and it is highly unlikley that man is important enough to have anything more than at most very minor local role in any major change that alters the Earth's climate. Greenland was named such by the Vikings because it was not ice-covered as now but much was green with forest when they first landed there. The Sahara Desert was at one time the breadbasket of the ancient European/African world. Where were the SUV's and factory smoke stacks at those times? It appears that the Gulf Stream that helps keep the British Isles warm is changing (as it has in the past- remember the Little Ice Age that ended about 1850?) which will effect the folk in both the British Isles and eastern USA. Man is simply along for the ride and must adapt as we have throughout our history.

42

Whit Away,

Gore NEVER claimed he invented the internet 07/07/2007 17:16:17

Oh, flat-earthers, Laroucheittes and ditto-heads can never be bothered to do their research, What Gore actually said in a 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN was -
""During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Which happens to be completely true. The internet is not a technology, it's a system that used prior developments (most especially, Aoda, ARPANET) and made it a pubicly-accessible network. It's a creation of policy and technology implementation, not technology innovation.

43

DocJ,

Tijuana Del Norte 07/07/2007 17:36:32

Here in Tijuana we call Al Gore.... Un Loon incómodo

44

DocJ,

Tijuana Del Norte 07/07/2007 17:44:49

#20 people who study climate know without a shadow of doubt that we are heating up the planet by adding to the carbon gases in the atmosphere.


As a real scientist, and not one who gets his funding from grants that are only forthcoming if manmade Global Warming is accepted, I can honestly say that man is contributing next to nothing to the effects of warming caused by the Sun.....Man's contribution is on the order of 0.000000000000000001%...if that....

45

DocJ,

Tijuana Del Norte 07/07/2007 17:49:39

#20 says: But the man-made-global-warming theory involves warnings of massive problems to come.

So did global cooling theory back in the 1970's. And they were wrong back then but only because the sun switched to it's most active period in 400-500 years. It will not last and the cycle will reverse in ther next few years and we will head back towads a mini ice age....this may have already started as the freeze lines in Florida have been moving South the last few years. And Global Cooling is much worse than Global Warming....

46

DocJ,

Tijuana Del Norte 07/07/2007 17:51:44

#25 BINGO.....that is a fact.....warming always precedes CO2 increases....

47

DocJ,

Tijuana Del Norte 07/07/2007 17:54:22

#26...please don't insult people who are correct such as #25.....

48

DocJ,

Tijuana Del Norte 07/07/2007 17:57:43

#28 I was using the DARPANet and CerfNet before Gore even went into Congress when I was at school at MIT and then while I was working on RF systems for the USAF.....

49

DocJ,

Tijuana Del Norte 07/07/2007 18:05:40

#34 The US is a net CO2 absorber....US forests absorb nearly twice more than we emit. The EU, Russia, the UK and the rest of Europe are net CO2 emitters....you put out almost 3 times more than your forests absorb.

50

stuiec,

Moraga, CA, USA 07/07/2007 18:06:38

#41 Bob from USA: It's about way more than starting a fad. It's about finding some idea that will make people believe that they are doomed -- DOOMED, I tell ya! -- if they don't stop their selfish, capitalistic ways and submit to the socialist values that will of course solve all of mankind's problems. The most significant single advance in environmental cleanliness in the 20th century occurred with the collapse of the Soviet Union, when it was no longer possible to force Soviet citizens to accept being poisoned as their Socialist duty. The next great advance in environmental cleanliness will be the collapse of the Chinese Communist Party, so that a billion and a half people will be able to say no to being poisoned in the name of the Party.

51

DocJ,

Tijuana Del Norte 07/07/2007 18:09:48

#37 is exaggerating a wee bit...those types of days only occur when their are forest fires nearby and there isa Santa Ana which the winds blow towards LA instead of away...it has nothing to do with any normal days.....you see, even in LA which is a desert, we have massive forests...and they burn sometimes....

52

Caora Dubh,

Dhachaidh 07/07/2007 18:25:23

#25 etc. A greenhouse gas is a gas which causes increased radiative forcing in the atmosphere, i.e. it is a gas through which infrared photons (heat!) pass less easily than through the bulk components of oxygen, nitrogen and argon. The transparency of a gas to infrared photons (heat) is an absolute property that can be measured in the laboratory. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons are much less transparent to heat than the rest of the atmosphere. The quantities of these gases in the atmosphere have been greatly increased by human activity: CO2 by 35% since 1750. The reasons are the burning of vast quantities of hydrocarbons, the destruction of the vast northern coniferous forest and the rapidly diminishing tropical rain forests and semitropical hardwood forests. What makes matters even worse, is that the resulting increase in global temperatures causes more water to evaporate from the ocean, and water vapour is itself a powerful greenhouse gas. By the time that there are enough clouds to balance this increased evaporation by reflecting light back into space, devastating environmental changes will have occurred. The prediction for Britain was that due to increased cloud cover over all but south England, it will suffer from greatly increased rainfall and less sunlight, while southern England was expected to suffer from hotter, drier summers with a risk of drought. This is exactly what has happened.

So are such changes occurring globally? Yes, absolutely! Every single observable and measurable parameter is in agreement with increasingly rapid environmental change caused by global warming. One nasty aspect is that the global wind system is driven by altitude and latitudinal temperature differences: gradients that nature "attempts" to even out through air movements. These gradients are expected to steepen as global warming worsens, driving stronger and stronger winds, and inevitably more, and stronger storms and hurrican

53

DocJ,

Tijuana Del Norte 07/07/2007 18:28:01

42...Actually not...Gore had little to do with the, merely jumping on the badwagon after it was already going along nicely for many years before him. Vincent Cerf in 1967 enrolled in UCLA's computer science program. While at UCLA, he worked on the ARPANET, the earliest packet switched computer network. In 1973, Bob Kahn (whom Cerf already knew, since Kahn had been the principal architect of the ARPANET Interface Message Processor (IMP) project as its prime contractor, Bolt, Beranek and Newman) and Cerf started thinking about how to connect together several different packet switching networks, into what we now call an internet. Their 1974 paper, A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication is now recognized as the fundamental document in this (then-new) field. TCP/IP and ethernet invented in 1973.

Gore was not even in the House until 1976...and the Senate in 1985...Gore did not even get involved with the net until at least 1986....so he did not invent the internet.

54

DocJ,

Tijuana Del Norte 07/07/2007 18:31:32

#52....Don't worry. The Sun is reversing it's long cycle that has caused all of the recent Global Warming and we will be heading back into a Global Cooling cycle and maybe into another mini ice age.....btw....everyone in the UK had better buy warmer clothing and snow tires....

55

Laurette,

San Diego, California 07/07/2007 18:41:01

#42 Thanks! You are one of the few who saw what he said - not what the media used to discredit him. It's amazing how words can be twisted to make someone look like a total fool.

56

Caora Dubh,

Dhachaidh 07/07/2007 18:49:49

Carbon trading is a good idea that has gone badly wrong. The problems are that: (1) Much carbon trading does not involve new activities that will absorb extra carbon dioxide, but rather ongoing activities that would have occurred even in the absence of carbon trading. These activities are not boosting the amount of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere, as they were already present in the current balance of carbon payments to and from the atmosphere, so to speak. (2) Just like the example quoted in the article, many activities that absorb carbon from the atmosphere are environmentally unfriendly in other ways. Many readers will remember the disastrous consequences of the Thatcher regime's policy of permitting tax deductions on private lands developed for forestry. Do you remember huge stretches of the flow country being churned up and studded with little conifers, doomed to die in the acidic waterlogged soil? Well, such activity helped the wealthy estate owners to reduce their taxes, while Alba's environment was wrecked as a consequence. (I leave you to identify the morons responsible.) The point is that much carbon trading is exactly this: the replacement of ecosystems rich in endemic plant and animal species by monocultures of exotic plants. Ideally carbon trading would be replaced by the enforced restoration of natural flora and fauna to degraded areas: this is an expensive and long process that big business wishes to avoid. Madagascar, for example, desperately needs restoration of its defoliated land, as its soil, its lifeblood, is gushing down into the sea leaving huge gullies and denuded wastelands. Current carbon trading is largely a cop-out and big business knows it.

57

Lady Jane Grey,

07/07/2007 19:03:37

#56
All smoke and mirrors, as Doc j points out the current sun warming cycle will reverse to a cooling cycle.

58

Lady Jane Grey,

07/07/2007 19:05:26

And you posting appears to be cut and pasted from the F.O.E site

59

Caora Dubh,

Dhachaidh 07/07/2007 19:12:42

#54. The sun is not reversing "its cycle". I believe that you intend to refer to the Milankovitch cycles, but are too scientifically uneducated to do so. Don't worry, you are not alone. Scientific education in the UK has been so bad for so many years, that we rely heavily on importing scientific postgrads from other countries. The numbers of chemistry and physics departments in UK universities has dropped precipitously. Correspondingly, there has been a significant swing among the general public against anything scientific, and scientific documentaries such as those on BBC2 have had to be dumbed down to the level that they have become unbearable to scientists themselves. Perhaps there really is a cycle out there of some sort, and we are indeed entering a new Dark Age?

The Milankovitch cycles are brought about by variations in the Earth's orbit and axial revolution, and cause very small changes in the amount of sunlight reaching various parts of the Earth's surface: If you want details read John Gribbin's "Hothouse Earth": he explains this extremely well. Slight changes in the amount of sunlight penetrating the oceanic surface cause significant changes in the quantity of algae at the sea surface, absorbing or releasing carbon dioxide. This then has a knock-on effect on the global climate, through the greenhouse effect. Yes, in theory we should now be close to a global maximum mean temperature, and left to itself nature would within a couple of thousand years, start turning the heat down again. The problem is that the variations in carbon dioxide associated with the natural Milankovitch cycles, are completely dwarfed by the changes in carbon dioxide produced by ourselves. What is worse, is that the changes associated with the Milankovitch cycles occur over time periods that are vastly longer than those imposed by man on nature. Our effect is like that of imposing a huge heat-increasing Milankovitch cycle on the Earth, one that completely o

60

Joe Barrk,

Buenos Aires 07/07/2007 19:14:17

#52. actually you're wrong. Al Gore had something to do with the fact that the public ARPANET and the NSFNet got appripiate government funding in their early days, before the commercialization of the net.

-----------------------------------------------------------
That Al Gore once claimed to have "invented the Internet" is now part of electoral folklore -- one item in a litany of Gore "exaggerations" or "lies" that his opponents trot out to discredit him.

The sheer cheek of Gore's purported claim invites mockery. Everybody knows the Internet is an extraordinarily complex piece of engineering that only incredibly smart scientists could have "invented." Politicians need not apply.

But things that "everybody knows" are always worth examining for defects. And the "Gore claims he invented the Net" trope is so full of holes that it makes you wish there were product recalls for bad information.

Gore never claimed to have "invented" the Internet. What he said was:

During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

As my colleague Jake Tapper carefully reported here last year, at worst that statement is a minor exaggeration of Gore's legislative record -- and miles away from the "I built it from scratch!" lie into which it has been twisted.
(...)
Several of the people who could claim to have "invented" the Internet, or key pieces of its protocols -- in particular, Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn -- are out there on the Net today defending Gore, asserting that he was the politician in Washington who took the "initiative" to support the Net in its early days.

Libertarians typically believe that the government can't do anything right, and they prefer to forget or ignore the part government has played in the Net's triumph. Giving Gore credit means admitting the government's

61

Mart on Skye,

07/07/2007 19:16:07

#56 said "Many readers will remember the disastrous consequences of the Thatcher regime's policy of permitting tax deductions on private lands developed for forestry"

The tax advantages that were used at this time had nothing to do with Thatcher they were already in existence long before she came to office.

62

Caora Dubh,

Dhachaidh 07/07/2007 19:23:30

#58 Lady Jane Grey: I don't cut and paste, so it's time to get the axe sharpened and off with your head immediately! What I write is original or I will give references. However, you may not be a scientist, and have probably followed a different career path to myself. So I forgive you. Your head can remain where it belongs (well, at least for a few days as you are Lady Jane Grey), and I suggest that you fill it with some good science. Yes, from the F.o.E. website if nowhere else. But the F.o.E. can be rather silly sometimes, so be careful!

63

Stephen Robin,

Coldstream 07/07/2007 19:25:39

Caring about the environment, caring for other people, caring about your own footprint on the world, are all things that any responsible person should consider. If we want to change the world, we need to change ourselves and are own atitudes to how we live and how we respect others. it starts with each one of us, each ONE.

64

Lady Jane Grey,

07/07/2007 19:29:12

#62
do you want me to post the link to prove my point?

65

Caora Dubh,

Dhachaidh 07/07/2007 19:30:02

#61 Oidhche mhath Mart, fàilte! If Thatcher wasn't responsible when did the forstry deductions start? Why wasn't it stopped before so much damage was done? (Maybe I should run away now and browse some websites.)

66

Caora Dubh,

Dhachaidh 07/07/2007 19:36:11

#64 Yes, yes, please go ahead. I wrote what I wrote without referring to anything except what I had learnt from John Gribbin and a long but excellent article in French that appeared in the French version of Scientific American (Pour la Science); it appeared a few years ago: it gave a lot of detail about the carbon cycle and was fanatastically well illustrated. The basic science is the basic science: the same facts should appear and will appear in numerous sites, I am pleased to say. Please post the website Lady Jane Grey: hopefully everyone can learn more from it.

67

Lady Jane Grey,

07/07/2007 19:45:22

66. Caora Dubh
Perhaps this was your source.
( the date should be noted)
Prepared statement of Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D.
Director, Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program

Before the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Science Hearing on U. S. Global Change Research Programs: Data Collection and Scientific Priorities, March 6, 1996

68

Lady Jane Grey,

07/07/2007 19:47:17

As an aside,
My name sake was executed with a broad sword not an axe. :(

69

Lady Jane Grey,

07/07/2007 19:51:52

which probably was better than being hoisted by your own petard.

70

Jim P,

07/07/2007 20:18:58

Try this simple test:

Take a culture of microorganisms (representing bulk of earth's biomass). Increase its temperature gradually. CO2 levels in culture environment increases owing to increased metabolic rate.

Take a culture of microorganisms (representing bulk of earth's biomass). Increase CO2 in the atmosphere above the culture. Does the temperature of the culture environment increase?

71

Dr. Francis T. Manns,

Toronto 07/07/2007 20:19:09

CO2 has inverse solubility in water. That means it bubbles out when the ocean's warm up from from solar causes. Google up the Friends of Science web site to find out the things Al Gore knows now but will not debate. This is about deconstructing prosperity and it's based upon fear of the future. Relax, the planet is fine.

CO2 is plant food and the UN IPCC cooked the books along with a lot of rocknrollers brains.

72

Mart on Skye,

07/07/2007 20:19:53

#65

Hi there Caora Dubh - now your straining my brain to remember all the details.

But about 50 years ago some smart accountants spotted that there existed some little known features of the tax system that were advantageous to income tax payers if used in a particular way.

In fact it was not of benefit to existing land owners but rather to high income tax payers (ie city bankers, businessmen and of course pop stars and the like)who were looking for ways of saving tax.

It went something like this - the 'Schedule D' income taxpayer bought an area of land at a low price, then prepared and planted it with trees. All these operations could be set against his/her income tax. (Before decimalisation the rate had been as high as 19/6d in £ - in other words for every 6d the tax payer spent on forestry operations the taxman put in the other 19/6d)

Having established the plantation which would take about fifteen years it would then be time for its first thinning harvest. At this point the taxpayer sells his plantation at good profit to someone who would then change the tax category to 'Schedule B' and start to harvest the trees. Under this schedule the profits from selling timber are free of tax.
The first taxpayer can then start again or buy another plantation ready for harvesting and take the profits from that.

This system only works when forest land changed hands so it was of no use to the long established owner occupiers of large estates.

As to damage done- there is less damage than the vociferous bodies would have had us believe. Less than 10% of the Flow country was planted and only a portion of that has actually been a failure.

Forestry policy at the time was still to provide a homegrown timber resource to offset the massive 95% import requirement.
Forestry policy changes are always slow to be seen, the changes that occured in the eighties will only be fully realised in about fifty years time.

I could g

73

Dr. Francis T. Manns,

Toronto 07/07/2007 20:33:04

CO2 os about as effective at trapping heat as a Venitian blind with three slats. There are nine spectral positions in infra-red spectrum that are absorbed by water vapour and three by CO2. These wavelengths are now largely saturated and incremental increase in the contribution of parts per million by CO2 has gone flat. It is in exponential decay. It's like a slightly dirty window or adding a slat to a broken down Venitian blind. More CO2 does not contribute more warming. CO2 is a trace element (ppm) in the atmosphere and a useful plant food. Animals eat plants. Moreover, most of the CO2 in the annual cycle goes directly into sea water. Al Gore now knows that but wants to win the Nobel Prise for delusion so he will not debate.

74

Pooka,

memphis,tn, usa 07/07/2007 20:54:13

Envirnmental disaster from overpopulation has been declared eminent and unavoidable since the days of the Roman Empire when bishop Basil said, "there are farms and fields where once woods and waste were and the world groans under the load of humanity and can not long support them". That was in the 300 hundreds long before Malthus and the enviromental penchant for misrepresenting facts.
Technological progress has allowed for mankinds growth and together with our increase in knowledge and computer power offers the chance to truly understand nature and provide for all of it ourselves included. We are part of nature and deserve as much consideration as trees.

75

Meta,

07/07/2007 20:57:12

Dr Francis #73. Why can nobody extract the O2 from the carbon?

76

Jim P,

07/07/2007 21:26:33

#75 Meta

It's easy to extract the O2 from CO2. Here's the equation:

CO2 + 6H2O > C6H12O6 + 6O2

which is what plants do. It is called photosynthesis; it need light, chlorophyll, and of course the plants also need nutrients such as P and N, and trace elements.

77

steve's here,

somewhere near a confessional 07/07/2007 21:46:20

today on my woodland walk i broke wind and from what i have read about methane gas and it's contribution to global warming i now fear for China. I am very sorry and what's keeping me up tonight is i have no way to blame George W Bush or the USA for this. Tomorrow i will have to call my German carbon broker and make amends for my sins......this must be GWB's fault.....did I have a big Mac?

78