Climate change could be cancelled out in a staggeringly ambitious plan to plant the Sahara desert and Australian outback with trees
David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 18.35 GMT
Some talk of hoisting mirrors into space to reflect sunlight, while others want to cloud the high atmosphere with millions of tonnes of shiny sulphur dust. Now, scientists could have dreamed up the most ambitious geoengineering plan to deal with climate change yet: converting the parched Sahara desert to a lush forest. The scale of the ambition is matched only by the promised rewards – the scientists behind the plan say it could "end global warming".
The scheme has been thought up by Leonard Ornstein, a cell biologist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, together with Igor Aleinov and David Rind, climate modellers at Nasa. The trio have outlined their plan in a new paper published in the Journal of Climatic Change, and they modestly conclude it "probably provides the best, near-term route to complete control of greenhouse gas induced global warming".
Under the scheme, planted fields of fast growing trees such as eucalyptus would cover the deserts of the Sahara and Australian outback, watered by seawater treated by a string of coastal desalination plants and channelled through a vast irrigation network. The new blanket of tree cover would bring its own weather system and rainfall, while soaking up carbon dioxide from the world's atmosphere. The team's calculations suggest the forested deserts could draw down around 8bn tonnes of carbon a year, about the same as emitted from fossil fuels and deforestation today. Sounds expensive? The researchers say it could be more economic than planned global investment in carbon capture and storage technology (CCS).
"The costs are enormous but the scale of the problem is enormous," says Ornstein, who is best known for pioneering a cell biology technique called polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis in the 1950s. "It's a serious suggestion in that I believe it is the most promising and practical option in terms of current technology to solve the biggest parts of the problem."
The scheme could cost $1.9tn a year, he says. "When that's compared to figures like estimates of $800bn per year for CCS, our plan looks like a loser. But CCS can address only about 20% of the problem at the $800bn price. Mine addresses the whole thing. And CCS would involve a network of dangerous high-pressure pipelines coursing through the most developed neighbourhoods of our civilisations, compared to relatively benign water aqueducts in what are presently virtually uninhabited deserts."
Planting trees to combat rising carbon dioxide levels is controversial on a large scale, because most places where it has been suggested, such as Canada and Siberia, are in the northern hemisphere where the resulting change in surface colour, from predominantly light snow and rock to predominantly dark trees, could soak up more sunlight and cancel out the cooling benefit. Ornstein says subtropical regions, such as the Sahara and the Australian outback, do not have this problem. The areas have only minimal "human occupation, agricultural food and fibre resources and competing natural biomes" the team says. "We must bite the bullet, global warming will not go away by itself ... solar, geothermal and wind power can make modest contributions. All of these are other parts of a fix. But the quicker a forest can be grown, the more time will be available to choose among and to implement such adjustments, and perhaps to develop more attractive substitutes."
Ornstein says several desert-heavy countries are suitable, including large chunks of Saudi Arabia and a string of African nations west of Egypt. The scheme would provide jobs and investment, he says, as well as a long-term source of sustainable wood that could be used as a biofuel to replace fossil fuels. Other plans for the desert region, such as the installation of giant arrays of mirrors and solar panels to generate electricity would not be affected, he says. Tree-planters, and the resulting clouds, would stick to the flatter regions further south.
Since the paper was published a few weeks ago, Ornstein has attempted to seed serious discussions on specialist websites, with little success. Critics have pointed out that the deserts are not total wildernesses, but rich and diverse ecosystems in their own right, which would be destroyed. Ornstein says: "If sacrifices are required to stem global warming, the almost non-existent ecosystems of the central Sahara and the outback seem like reasonable candidates compared to the alternatives."
The scheme does have some support. "It is incredibly important and definitely worth taking seriously," says Rick Anthes, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. "While there are many practical and political difficulties of afforestation of regions this large, the benefits could be enormous and go well beyond carbon sequestration."
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Council climate change resolutions are just a lot of hot air
Our local council has banned us from having double glazing, while insisting on more insulation. What can possibly be the point?
Charles Arthur
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 18.15 GMT
We've got the builders in. Yes, we're doing building. And doing building means building inspectors, sent by the council to make sure we aren't building a fire trap in the extension to our house.
They're also very keen to check we're not building something that won't conform to new environmental regulations: the ceiling and walls have to have particular thicknesses of insulating material, which doesn't come cheap, but will – we're assured – save energy.
Though when the inspector called a few days ago, he regretfully had to point out that we needed to add another 4cm of insulation to the sloping ceiling that we'd hoped would house a bedroom and perhaps even a toilet. With the extra insulation, it's starting to look as though we're only going to be inviting very small children to the bedroom.
And for our builder, the extra 4cm was a layer too far. "But you've got us putting that in while you've also insisted that we have single-glazed windows all through!" he blurted, his indignation finally getting the better of him. It's true. Our local council, which recently passed a solemn resolution that it was against climate change and would take it "seriously", has insisted that we may not have double-glazed windows in the new building.
Why? Because the main building is, by virtue of its age, listed – that strange process by which slightly obsessive-compulsive types hope to hang on to the past by pretending that the present isn't happening and that the future won't mind.
Ah, but it gets better. The main building – the one in which we actually, you know, live – isn't a paragon of "listedness" (unless you mean actually physically listing, which the floors do towards one end). In fact, it has a number of double-glazed windows. And who put them in? Why, the council itself, which used to own the property a few decades ago.
Shall we recap? We're building a modern extension in which we're obliged to put energy-leaking windows in order to conform to an historic ideal about our main home that hasn't actually been followed by the organisation now forcing us to put in the inefficient windows.
The whole process is indicative of how utterly our establishment has failed to get to grips with the twin realities of climate change and energy demand, which aren't linked but have similar outcomes: we need to use less fossil fuel energy. (Yes, we could use secondary glazing on the windows, but it's far less effective than real double glazing.)
For years, the Labour government has shied away from making rational – if politically brave – decisions about energy use: we've needed more investment in nuclear power and renewables. Instead, six years ago nuclear was left out of the energy white paper.
That's six years of not building the replacement for fossil fuels we've used (and will in future have to import from countries such as Russia, not known for its helpfulness towards Britain). I wish someone had noticed what Norway was doing – investing its windfall from oil exports in new energy sources. Too late now for North Sea oil. We spent it on … well, possibly the banks.
Meanwhile, our local councils run masterclasses in cognitive dissonance: frowning on climate change, "urging" action, insisting its aim is to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the council and the district", while forcing people to do things that will be costly in precisely those terms in the future.
My guess is that a sensible government in the future would drop the whole idea of "listing" buildings. The trouble is that when the energy crunch comes, it will be too late. We'll have been driven down a road wearing the blinkers imposed by the past. Stupidity comes in many forms; and on this occasion, it comes in the form of insulation standing by a single-glazed window.
Charles Arthur
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 18.15 GMT
We've got the builders in. Yes, we're doing building. And doing building means building inspectors, sent by the council to make sure we aren't building a fire trap in the extension to our house.
They're also very keen to check we're not building something that won't conform to new environmental regulations: the ceiling and walls have to have particular thicknesses of insulating material, which doesn't come cheap, but will – we're assured – save energy.
Though when the inspector called a few days ago, he regretfully had to point out that we needed to add another 4cm of insulation to the sloping ceiling that we'd hoped would house a bedroom and perhaps even a toilet. With the extra insulation, it's starting to look as though we're only going to be inviting very small children to the bedroom.
And for our builder, the extra 4cm was a layer too far. "But you've got us putting that in while you've also insisted that we have single-glazed windows all through!" he blurted, his indignation finally getting the better of him. It's true. Our local council, which recently passed a solemn resolution that it was against climate change and would take it "seriously", has insisted that we may not have double-glazed windows in the new building.
Why? Because the main building is, by virtue of its age, listed – that strange process by which slightly obsessive-compulsive types hope to hang on to the past by pretending that the present isn't happening and that the future won't mind.
Ah, but it gets better. The main building – the one in which we actually, you know, live – isn't a paragon of "listedness" (unless you mean actually physically listing, which the floors do towards one end). In fact, it has a number of double-glazed windows. And who put them in? Why, the council itself, which used to own the property a few decades ago.
Shall we recap? We're building a modern extension in which we're obliged to put energy-leaking windows in order to conform to an historic ideal about our main home that hasn't actually been followed by the organisation now forcing us to put in the inefficient windows.
The whole process is indicative of how utterly our establishment has failed to get to grips with the twin realities of climate change and energy demand, which aren't linked but have similar outcomes: we need to use less fossil fuel energy. (Yes, we could use secondary glazing on the windows, but it's far less effective than real double glazing.)
For years, the Labour government has shied away from making rational – if politically brave – decisions about energy use: we've needed more investment in nuclear power and renewables. Instead, six years ago nuclear was left out of the energy white paper.
That's six years of not building the replacement for fossil fuels we've used (and will in future have to import from countries such as Russia, not known for its helpfulness towards Britain). I wish someone had noticed what Norway was doing – investing its windfall from oil exports in new energy sources. Too late now for North Sea oil. We spent it on … well, possibly the banks.
Meanwhile, our local councils run masterclasses in cognitive dissonance: frowning on climate change, "urging" action, insisting its aim is to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the council and the district", while forcing people to do things that will be costly in precisely those terms in the future.
My guess is that a sensible government in the future would drop the whole idea of "listing" buildings. The trouble is that when the energy crunch comes, it will be too late. We'll have been driven down a road wearing the blinkers imposed by the past. Stupidity comes in many forms; and on this occasion, it comes in the form of insulation standing by a single-glazed window.
Geo-engineering might help tackle climate change but do we really want every cloud to have a silver iodide lining?
At the moment, geo-engineering is not on the agenda for Copenhagan - but one can see why scientists are arguing that we use it to tackle climate change, writes Robert Colvile.
Robert ColvilePublished: 6:46AM GMT 04 Nov 2009
If you've ever had a hankering to play God, send a CV to the Beijing Weather Modification Office. There, with a wave of the hand – or rather, a judicious dusting of silver iodide – the servants of the Chinese state believe they can force the clouds to unload moisture as and where they choose, bringing rain to parched crops or guaranteeing clear skies for occasions of supreme national importance, such as the Beijing Olympics or last month's National Day celebrations.
This weekend brought a reminder of the agency's work: in seeking to end a minor drought, the Chinese claimed to have burst the heavy clouds over the area, dumping 16 million extra tons of snow and forcing the closure of the capital's airports. The reaction from the West ranged from bemusement to admiration. But what would we do if China attempted to reorder the heavens on a global scale?
Over the next month and a half, the world's leaders will be attempting to hammer out a deal on carbon emissions, to tackle the growing threat of climate change. But already, some scientists are arguing that such a deal will come too late, or achieve too little, and that we must turn to technological fixes.
In other words, as well as changing our behaviour, whether by taking fewer flights or abandoning eating beef (as fewer cattle means less methane), we should investigate "geo-engineering": reflecting the sun's rays by painting roads and cities white, or launching mirrors into space; encouraging the growth of carbon-capturing algae in the oceans by seeding them with iron; lowering those oceans' surface temperatures by drawing cooler water from the depths; using sea water to create artificial clouds to reflect the sunlight; scrubbing carbon from the air using artificial trees; or setting up artificial volcanoes to pump sulphur into the atmosphere.
This last proposal has been receiving particular attention recently, after it was included in Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner's new book SuperFreakonomics. They profiled Nathan Myhrvold, a former Microsoft executive "so polymathic as to make an everyday polymath tremble with shame", whose Seattle-based firm Intellectual Ventures reckons it could solve global warming at a bargain-basement price by injecting sulphur into the upper atmosphere, mimicking the volcanic eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, which temporarily lowered world temperatures by half a degree.
For each of these systems, grand claims are made. Myhrvold's team thinks that by rigging 18-mile-long fire hoses to helium balloons, and using the waste sulphur from oil extraction, they can get a planet-saver in place at a start-up cost of $150 million, plus $100 million a year in running costs – a bargain, considering Lord Stern's warning that between 1 and 2 per cent of global GDP will be needed to fight climate change. Hashem Akbari, who has been urging the world's cities to get out the pots of white paint, thinks his plan could offset a decade's worth of increased emissions.
The objections, of course, are equally fervent. First, the world's climate is a terrifyingly complex system, full of barely understood tipping points and feedback loops. Even though rough predictions can be made, we are only just beginning to work out the ways in which, for example, atmospheric water vapour magnifies the effects of carbon emissions. Tinker in the wrong way and you'll get nastier and, in some cases, more permanent consequences than a few snowbound runways.
Second, studies suggest that many of the proposed systems might not work, would have less of an effect than hoped, or would be prohibitively expensive. And third, given that humanity got the planet into this mess, it seems a bit of a cheat to rely on technology to fix it without making us suffer for our sins.
In a way, however, the flaws and merits of the various systems are beside the point. The squabbling surrounding Copenhagen shows that it will be a mammoth task to get the world's 200-odd governments to agree on specific measures to tackle climate change. Even if they do, coralling more than 6.7 billion people into modifying their lifestyles to suit could be a tall order. And even if emissions were slashed tomorrow, all the carbon we've pumped into the atmosphere would still be sitting there, helping to heat up the planet.
It is with these obstacles in mind that the Royal Society called for the world's governments to investigate geo-engineering as a "Plan B", through the creation of a £100 million fund to evaluate the various suggestions on offer. At the moment, it is nowhere on the Copenhagen agenda. But it's easy to see the sort of quick and easy solution offered by geo-engineering and its prophets becoming terribly attractive to one government or more, a few years down the line, despite the risks.
If a China beset by the effects of climate change decided to construct one of Myhrvold's sulphur spreaders unilaterally, would the accusations about "weapons of planetary destruction" be far behind? That would be enough of a mess to make last weekend's weather in Beijing look like a snowstorm in a teacup.
Robert ColvilePublished: 6:46AM GMT 04 Nov 2009
If you've ever had a hankering to play God, send a CV to the Beijing Weather Modification Office. There, with a wave of the hand – or rather, a judicious dusting of silver iodide – the servants of the Chinese state believe they can force the clouds to unload moisture as and where they choose, bringing rain to parched crops or guaranteeing clear skies for occasions of supreme national importance, such as the Beijing Olympics or last month's National Day celebrations.
This weekend brought a reminder of the agency's work: in seeking to end a minor drought, the Chinese claimed to have burst the heavy clouds over the area, dumping 16 million extra tons of snow and forcing the closure of the capital's airports. The reaction from the West ranged from bemusement to admiration. But what would we do if China attempted to reorder the heavens on a global scale?
Over the next month and a half, the world's leaders will be attempting to hammer out a deal on carbon emissions, to tackle the growing threat of climate change. But already, some scientists are arguing that such a deal will come too late, or achieve too little, and that we must turn to technological fixes.
In other words, as well as changing our behaviour, whether by taking fewer flights or abandoning eating beef (as fewer cattle means less methane), we should investigate "geo-engineering": reflecting the sun's rays by painting roads and cities white, or launching mirrors into space; encouraging the growth of carbon-capturing algae in the oceans by seeding them with iron; lowering those oceans' surface temperatures by drawing cooler water from the depths; using sea water to create artificial clouds to reflect the sunlight; scrubbing carbon from the air using artificial trees; or setting up artificial volcanoes to pump sulphur into the atmosphere.
This last proposal has been receiving particular attention recently, after it was included in Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner's new book SuperFreakonomics. They profiled Nathan Myhrvold, a former Microsoft executive "so polymathic as to make an everyday polymath tremble with shame", whose Seattle-based firm Intellectual Ventures reckons it could solve global warming at a bargain-basement price by injecting sulphur into the upper atmosphere, mimicking the volcanic eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, which temporarily lowered world temperatures by half a degree.
For each of these systems, grand claims are made. Myhrvold's team thinks that by rigging 18-mile-long fire hoses to helium balloons, and using the waste sulphur from oil extraction, they can get a planet-saver in place at a start-up cost of $150 million, plus $100 million a year in running costs – a bargain, considering Lord Stern's warning that between 1 and 2 per cent of global GDP will be needed to fight climate change. Hashem Akbari, who has been urging the world's cities to get out the pots of white paint, thinks his plan could offset a decade's worth of increased emissions.
The objections, of course, are equally fervent. First, the world's climate is a terrifyingly complex system, full of barely understood tipping points and feedback loops. Even though rough predictions can be made, we are only just beginning to work out the ways in which, for example, atmospheric water vapour magnifies the effects of carbon emissions. Tinker in the wrong way and you'll get nastier and, in some cases, more permanent consequences than a few snowbound runways.
Second, studies suggest that many of the proposed systems might not work, would have less of an effect than hoped, or would be prohibitively expensive. And third, given that humanity got the planet into this mess, it seems a bit of a cheat to rely on technology to fix it without making us suffer for our sins.
In a way, however, the flaws and merits of the various systems are beside the point. The squabbling surrounding Copenhagen shows that it will be a mammoth task to get the world's 200-odd governments to agree on specific measures to tackle climate change. Even if they do, coralling more than 6.7 billion people into modifying their lifestyles to suit could be a tall order. And even if emissions were slashed tomorrow, all the carbon we've pumped into the atmosphere would still be sitting there, helping to heat up the planet.
It is with these obstacles in mind that the Royal Society called for the world's governments to investigate geo-engineering as a "Plan B", through the creation of a £100 million fund to evaluate the various suggestions on offer. At the moment, it is nowhere on the Copenhagen agenda. But it's easy to see the sort of quick and easy solution offered by geo-engineering and its prophets becoming terribly attractive to one government or more, a few years down the line, despite the risks.
If a China beset by the effects of climate change decided to construct one of Myhrvold's sulphur spreaders unilaterally, would the accusations about "weapons of planetary destruction" be far behind? That would be enough of a mess to make last weekend's weather in Beijing look like a snowstorm in a teacup.
Roses chocolates ditch the tin in favour of cardboard
A tin of Roses chocolates, a Christmas treat in many households, will become a cardboard box this year as the manufacturer attempts to cut down on the packaging.
By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs EditorPublished: 7:00AM GMT 04 Nov 2009
Cadbury, the manufacturer of Roses, hopes to save 200 tons of steel as a result of moving its chocolates from its round 2lb tins into square, sturdy cardboard boxes. It also aims to cut the total weight of its packaging by 45 per cent, ultimately saving on transportation costs.
Initially the move into cardboard will take place at Tesco stores, but if consumers accept the change, Cadbury will abandon tins altogether.
Roses chocolates, first sold in 1938, are the biggest selling line of confectionery at Christmas, with an estimated £85 million of them sold.
However, while the boxes will save the company money, consumers will not see any reduction in the price. A 2lb tin at Tesco will still cost £5.
Jo Grice, head of marketing for Cadbury's seasonal ranges, said: “We know from our research that many of our consumers are dreaming of a green, not white, Christmas this year. Introducing an environmental twist on a festive favourite – Roses and Heroes tins – will help us to meet shoppers’ ethical concerns whilst still delivering those magical moments of pleasure this Christmas. And they are far easier to wrap."
The move follows a series of initiatives by chocolate manufacturers to cut down on their packaging. They have previously been accused of being responsible for some of the most excessive use of plastic wrapping, especially in their Easter eggs.
Mark Barthel, at the Government-funded waste reduction quango WRAP, said: “Over the festive season, when the amount of waste sent to landfill increases significantly, it’s good to see Cadbury and Tesco working together to help consumers and the environment.”
By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs EditorPublished: 7:00AM GMT 04 Nov 2009
Cadbury, the manufacturer of Roses, hopes to save 200 tons of steel as a result of moving its chocolates from its round 2lb tins into square, sturdy cardboard boxes. It also aims to cut the total weight of its packaging by 45 per cent, ultimately saving on transportation costs.
Initially the move into cardboard will take place at Tesco stores, but if consumers accept the change, Cadbury will abandon tins altogether.
Roses chocolates, first sold in 1938, are the biggest selling line of confectionery at Christmas, with an estimated £85 million of them sold.
However, while the boxes will save the company money, consumers will not see any reduction in the price. A 2lb tin at Tesco will still cost £5.
Jo Grice, head of marketing for Cadbury's seasonal ranges, said: “We know from our research that many of our consumers are dreaming of a green, not white, Christmas this year. Introducing an environmental twist on a festive favourite – Roses and Heroes tins – will help us to meet shoppers’ ethical concerns whilst still delivering those magical moments of pleasure this Christmas. And they are far easier to wrap."
The move follows a series of initiatives by chocolate manufacturers to cut down on their packaging. They have previously been accused of being responsible for some of the most excessive use of plastic wrapping, especially in their Easter eggs.
Mark Barthel, at the Government-funded waste reduction quango WRAP, said: “Over the festive season, when the amount of waste sent to landfill increases significantly, it’s good to see Cadbury and Tesco working together to help consumers and the environment.”
Friends of the Earth attacks carbon trading
An FoE reports says 'cap and trade' carbon markets have done little to reduce emissions but have been plagued by corruption and inefficiency
Ashley Seager
The Guardian, Thursday 5 November 2009
The government's reliance on carbon trading schemes is inefficient and could cause a financial crisis similar to that seen with sub-prime mortgages, says Friends of the Earth
The world's carbon trading markets growing complexity threatens another "sub-prime" style financial crisis that could again destabilise the global economy, campaigners warn today.
In a new report, Friends of the Earth says that to date "cap and trade" carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions but have been plagued by inefficiency and corruption that render them unfit for purpose.
As the world heads towards the Copenhagen climate summit, Britain and other developed countries want to see carbon trading expanded worldwide. The carbon market, mainly based in Europe, was worth $126bn in 2008 and is predicted to mushroom to $3.1tn by 2020 if a global carbon market takes off.
However, FoE fears that the area has been hijacked by speculators on the financial markets. Sarah-Jayne Clifton, the report's author, said: "The majority of the trade is carried out not between polluting industries and factories covered by carbon trading schemes, but by banks and investors who profit from speculation on the carbon markets – packaging carbon credits into increasingly complex financial products similar to the 'shadow finance' around sub-prime mortgages which triggered the recent economic crash."
The FoE claims that the first phase of the European emissions trading scheme between 2005 and 2007 failed. And the second phase, from 2008-2012, is likely to fail too, it said. FoE is calling on governments to use more reliable instruments such as carbon taxes, which are harder to avoid and can be effective at changing people's behaviour and reducing emissions.
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "We agree that domestic action by developed countries as well as public finance is essential to meet the challenge of climate change and … the UK is going all-out to get an ambitious, fair and effective deal.
"But carbon trading can also play a role, making it far more likely that we tackle dangerous climate change, get cost-effective emissions reductions and get money to the poorest countries of the world."
Ashley Seager
The Guardian, Thursday 5 November 2009
The government's reliance on carbon trading schemes is inefficient and could cause a financial crisis similar to that seen with sub-prime mortgages, says Friends of the Earth
The world's carbon trading markets growing complexity threatens another "sub-prime" style financial crisis that could again destabilise the global economy, campaigners warn today.
In a new report, Friends of the Earth says that to date "cap and trade" carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions but have been plagued by inefficiency and corruption that render them unfit for purpose.
As the world heads towards the Copenhagen climate summit, Britain and other developed countries want to see carbon trading expanded worldwide. The carbon market, mainly based in Europe, was worth $126bn in 2008 and is predicted to mushroom to $3.1tn by 2020 if a global carbon market takes off.
However, FoE fears that the area has been hijacked by speculators on the financial markets. Sarah-Jayne Clifton, the report's author, said: "The majority of the trade is carried out not between polluting industries and factories covered by carbon trading schemes, but by banks and investors who profit from speculation on the carbon markets – packaging carbon credits into increasingly complex financial products similar to the 'shadow finance' around sub-prime mortgages which triggered the recent economic crash."
The FoE claims that the first phase of the European emissions trading scheme between 2005 and 2007 failed. And the second phase, from 2008-2012, is likely to fail too, it said. FoE is calling on governments to use more reliable instruments such as carbon taxes, which are harder to avoid and can be effective at changing people's behaviour and reducing emissions.
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "We agree that domestic action by developed countries as well as public finance is essential to meet the challenge of climate change and … the UK is going all-out to get an ambitious, fair and effective deal.
"But carbon trading can also play a role, making it far more likely that we tackle dangerous climate change, get cost-effective emissions reductions and get money to the poorest countries of the world."
Liquid Granite and the hunt for a carbon-neutral cement
Cement is responsible for 5% of the world's carbon emissions, and the race is on to find an alternative
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 22.00 GMT
What do you do with a problem like cement? Around 2bn tonnes are used every year, each tonne a source of 0.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide as it is made. The cement industry is responsible for 5% of the world's carbon emissions – more than the entire aviation industry.
Standard, or Portland, cement is made by heating limestone or clay to around 1,500C. This use of energy and the decomposition of the limestone as it cooks releases copious amounts of CO2. As the carbon reduction targets from global climate agreements begin to bite, sorting out cement will become a priority.
Engineers have been working hard on the problem in recent years, with a range of approaches to cutting the environmental impact of the construction industry: some have tried synthetic polymers that would remove the need for limestone; others have fiddled with how cement is used in buildings. The latest on the block is Liquid Granite, a binding material that, according to its inventor, could almost entirely replace cement with a powder made from recycled waste materials.
Liquid Granite replaces the need for more than two-thirds of this Portland cement when making concrete, thereby saving the associated carbon emissions. "One of the biggest culprits of carbon footprint is cement, which we use in making concrete – Liquid Granite does away with most of the use of cement. The amount used is pretty small," says Prof Pal Mangat of Sheffield Hallam University, who came up with the product. "Potentially, by the time we're finished with this developmental technology, it'll be close to zero."
Mangat is cagey about the exact formulation of Liquid Granite, and with good reason: by 2020, the French bank Credit Agricole estimates, demand for cement will be 50% greater than today, and a new carbon-free building material could reap huge rewards. All that Mangat will say is that Liquid Granite is made from an inorganic powder, 30-70% of which is recycled industrial waste materials. Using the same aggregates as normal concrete, it could be used anywhere cement is but with a fraction of the carbon footprint.
"In some applications it's more suitable than concrete. For example, one of the main areas we are currently exploiting it is fire-resistant building materials," he says. "It has good fire-resistant properties, unlike concrete, which explodes upon exposure to high temperatures."
There has already been interest from the building industry, with Liquid Granite has already been used in fire-rated lintels at the Olympic Village and Stratford Shopping Centre in east London.
Others are hot on Mangat's heels. Novacem, based in London, last year created a cement that has a negative carbon footprint over its lifetime. His invention uses magnesium silicates, which emit no CO2 when heated, and the processing is carried out at a much lower temperature than that required for Portland cement. In addition, the cement absorbs CO2 as it hardens – each tonne could remove around 0.6 tonnes of the greenhouse gas over its lifetime.
Transforming a global industry as established as construction was never going to be simple. But tackling the problem of cement seems a good place to start.
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 22.00 GMT
What do you do with a problem like cement? Around 2bn tonnes are used every year, each tonne a source of 0.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide as it is made. The cement industry is responsible for 5% of the world's carbon emissions – more than the entire aviation industry.
Standard, or Portland, cement is made by heating limestone or clay to around 1,500C. This use of energy and the decomposition of the limestone as it cooks releases copious amounts of CO2. As the carbon reduction targets from global climate agreements begin to bite, sorting out cement will become a priority.
Engineers have been working hard on the problem in recent years, with a range of approaches to cutting the environmental impact of the construction industry: some have tried synthetic polymers that would remove the need for limestone; others have fiddled with how cement is used in buildings. The latest on the block is Liquid Granite, a binding material that, according to its inventor, could almost entirely replace cement with a powder made from recycled waste materials.
Liquid Granite replaces the need for more than two-thirds of this Portland cement when making concrete, thereby saving the associated carbon emissions. "One of the biggest culprits of carbon footprint is cement, which we use in making concrete – Liquid Granite does away with most of the use of cement. The amount used is pretty small," says Prof Pal Mangat of Sheffield Hallam University, who came up with the product. "Potentially, by the time we're finished with this developmental technology, it'll be close to zero."
Mangat is cagey about the exact formulation of Liquid Granite, and with good reason: by 2020, the French bank Credit Agricole estimates, demand for cement will be 50% greater than today, and a new carbon-free building material could reap huge rewards. All that Mangat will say is that Liquid Granite is made from an inorganic powder, 30-70% of which is recycled industrial waste materials. Using the same aggregates as normal concrete, it could be used anywhere cement is but with a fraction of the carbon footprint.
"In some applications it's more suitable than concrete. For example, one of the main areas we are currently exploiting it is fire-resistant building materials," he says. "It has good fire-resistant properties, unlike concrete, which explodes upon exposure to high temperatures."
There has already been interest from the building industry, with Liquid Granite has already been used in fire-rated lintels at the Olympic Village and Stratford Shopping Centre in east London.
Others are hot on Mangat's heels. Novacem, based in London, last year created a cement that has a negative carbon footprint over its lifetime. His invention uses magnesium silicates, which emit no CO2 when heated, and the processing is carried out at a much lower temperature than that required for Portland cement. In addition, the cement absorbs CO2 as it hardens – each tonne could remove around 0.6 tonnes of the greenhouse gas over its lifetime.
Transforming a global industry as established as construction was never going to be simple. But tackling the problem of cement seems a good place to start.
Farmers have been told to go green or face the financial consequences
Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor
English farmers have been given a last chance to adopt greener practices that benefit wildlife and help to combat climate change or face deductions from their state hand-outs of cash.
The Government has set a tough new target which requires that the area of arable fields covered by environmental schemes should double within three years.
Every farmer has also been told that he or she should fund some environmental improvements on their land without any financial support from payments made under the Common Agriculture Policy.
In addition, Hilary Benn, the Rural Affairs Secretary, has made clear that he expects farmers to keep some land fallow to help to provide habitats for birds and small mammals such as voles and field mice.
Such action in the past qualified for “set aside” payments from the European Commission to prevent the creation of grain mountains. Last year the policy was scrapped in light of the worldwide shortage of grain.
Conservationists argued that it was important to safeguard the unintended consequence of the “set aside” policy that helped wildlife. Mr Benn has therefore stipulated that 179,000 hectares (442,000 acres) that were formerly left as set aside should remain uncropped and at least one third of this should be farmed to help wildlife.
If farmers fail to take up the plan, the alternative will be the prospect of payments being docked.
Jim Paice, the Conservative rural affairs spokesman, supported the approach in principle, though he believed that the targets should be based on populations of wildlife and plant life rather than area. Details of the plan are to be outlined today at the announcement of a new industry offensive, Campaign for the Farmed Environment.
The challenge is being directed at 41,000 arable farmers. It is estimated at least 70 per cent of these are involved in some type of countryside stewardship scheme. It is hoped that the 12,000 who are not will sign up to methods to help wildlife and climate change.
The new deal has been accepted by Peter Kendall, president of the National Farmers’ Union, and Sir Henry Aubrey-Fletcher, president of the Country Land and Business Association, who represent most farmers.
Mr Kendall said: “Many farmers do a lot of valuable work at their own expense. But we know, too, of the cynical minority who have never been involved in agri-environment schemes and it is our task to get them involved.”
English farmers have been given a last chance to adopt greener practices that benefit wildlife and help to combat climate change or face deductions from their state hand-outs of cash.
The Government has set a tough new target which requires that the area of arable fields covered by environmental schemes should double within three years.
Every farmer has also been told that he or she should fund some environmental improvements on their land without any financial support from payments made under the Common Agriculture Policy.
In addition, Hilary Benn, the Rural Affairs Secretary, has made clear that he expects farmers to keep some land fallow to help to provide habitats for birds and small mammals such as voles and field mice.
Such action in the past qualified for “set aside” payments from the European Commission to prevent the creation of grain mountains. Last year the policy was scrapped in light of the worldwide shortage of grain.
Conservationists argued that it was important to safeguard the unintended consequence of the “set aside” policy that helped wildlife. Mr Benn has therefore stipulated that 179,000 hectares (442,000 acres) that were formerly left as set aside should remain uncropped and at least one third of this should be farmed to help wildlife.
If farmers fail to take up the plan, the alternative will be the prospect of payments being docked.
Jim Paice, the Conservative rural affairs spokesman, supported the approach in principle, though he believed that the targets should be based on populations of wildlife and plant life rather than area. Details of the plan are to be outlined today at the announcement of a new industry offensive, Campaign for the Farmed Environment.
The challenge is being directed at 41,000 arable farmers. It is estimated at least 70 per cent of these are involved in some type of countryside stewardship scheme. It is hoped that the 12,000 who are not will sign up to methods to help wildlife and climate change.
The new deal has been accepted by Peter Kendall, president of the National Farmers’ Union, and Sir Henry Aubrey-Fletcher, president of the Country Land and Business Association, who represent most farmers.
Mr Kendall said: “Many farmers do a lot of valuable work at their own expense. But we know, too, of the cynical minority who have never been involved in agri-environment schemes and it is our task to get them involved.”
Voluntary approach to greener practices must be adopted, says pioneering farmer
Valerie Elliott: Case study
One of the pioneers of green farming is Ian Waller, a tenant farmer on 1,200 acres of land near Great Missenden in the Chilterns, Buckinghamshire. In four years he has created a haven for birds, butterflies and plants. Since he championed farming for wildlife, 7,500 people have visited his land, including many schoolchildren and agriculture students.
When he started greener practices there was not one lapwing on the land; now it is home to nine breeding pairs. The number of skylarks has doubled from 30 to 60 breeding pairs and barn owls have also returned for the first time in 15 years. Rare orchids are back after a 28-year absence.
The secret, he said, was to convince all farmers that they could still make a healthy profit as well as farm for the environment.
His main income is from growing milling wheat for a bread manufacturer, oilseed rape and spring beans. But he also keeps 31 rare breed Herdwick sheep to graze the chalk grassland.
Mr Waller, 51, said: “There are a lot of farmers out there who pat me on the back and say, ‘Get on with it’, but somehow feel it is irrelevant to them. Some growing high-value crops such as potatoes or sugar beet might also not bother — though I do understand they are operating under tight constraints from supermarkets.
“Some farmers just don’t like the mess of patches for wildlife in their fields. They don’t like to see grasses and flowers on the side of their big, square open fields. Then there are those who don’t like to be dictated to by anyone, especially the Government.
“But if we don’t deliver, ministers are going to say, ‘You’ve had your chance and you’ve blown it’. We have got to make this voluntary approach work.”
One of the pioneers of green farming is Ian Waller, a tenant farmer on 1,200 acres of land near Great Missenden in the Chilterns, Buckinghamshire. In four years he has created a haven for birds, butterflies and plants. Since he championed farming for wildlife, 7,500 people have visited his land, including many schoolchildren and agriculture students.
When he started greener practices there was not one lapwing on the land; now it is home to nine breeding pairs. The number of skylarks has doubled from 30 to 60 breeding pairs and barn owls have also returned for the first time in 15 years. Rare orchids are back after a 28-year absence.
The secret, he said, was to convince all farmers that they could still make a healthy profit as well as farm for the environment.
His main income is from growing milling wheat for a bread manufacturer, oilseed rape and spring beans. But he also keeps 31 rare breed Herdwick sheep to graze the chalk grassland.
Mr Waller, 51, said: “There are a lot of farmers out there who pat me on the back and say, ‘Get on with it’, but somehow feel it is irrelevant to them. Some growing high-value crops such as potatoes or sugar beet might also not bother — though I do understand they are operating under tight constraints from supermarkets.
“Some farmers just don’t like the mess of patches for wildlife in their fields. They don’t like to see grasses and flowers on the side of their big, square open fields. Then there are those who don’t like to be dictated to by anyone, especially the Government.
“But if we don’t deliver, ministers are going to say, ‘You’ve had your chance and you’ve blown it’. We have got to make this voluntary approach work.”
Nviro Cleantech rumour
Nviro Cleantech fell 1.38p to 6¼p amid concerns that the group may need to raise more cash after receiving final approval of a European Union grant of nearly €800,000 for its wood fibre recycling technology. The group, which has cut jobs to lower costs, says that it can operate until next September with present overheads.
Outbreak of optimism in Detroit as motor industry hopes the worst is over
• Chrysler and Fiat join forces to launch smaller, greener cars• Monthly car sales in the US have stabilised
Andrew Clark in New York
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 19.01 GMT
It is too early to hang out any bunting but quietly, tentatively, a more upbeat mood is spreading in Detroit's downtrodden, downsized motor industry.
Chrysler set out ambitious plans today to use technology gained in its tie-up with Italy's Fiat to bring a new generation of smaller cars to US streets. Its proposals, outlined to analysts at its Auburn Hills headquarters, came two days after Ford surprised Wall Street with a $1.1bn (£670m) profit, its first quarter in the black since early 2008.
And industry-wide monthly US vehicle sales for October were flat year-on-year, a sign of stabilisation even without the "cash-for-clunkers" boost.
After $80bn of emergency aid from the US government, two major bankruptcies, scores of factory closures and tens of thousands of job losses, the industry may, finally, be past the darkest point of its trauma.
Jeff Schuster, head of forecasting at the research firm JD Power, said that if he were a car factory worker, he would feel more secure in his job. "I might be able to breathe a little bit with relief that I'm probably not going to end up in an unemployment line," he said.
General Motors' decision to hang on to its European operation – greeted with relief at Vauxhall factories in Britain – is a sign of confidence that its financial health has improved sufficiently to invest in turning around a loss-making yet technologically promising operation. GM, which is 60% owned by the US treasury, has cut its workforce from 318,000 three years ago to 209,000 globally and has got rid of brands such as Hummer, Saab, Pontiac and Saturn.
Over in Japan, Nissan returned to the black this week by delivering a 25.5bn yen (£169m) quarterly profit, ending nine months of losses. And Toyota raised its target for its sales for the year to March 2010 from 6.6m vehicles to 7m.
Chris Hopson, an automotive analyst at IHS Global Insight, warned that the US economy remained extremely weak. He expects US vehicle sales of 10.3m this year and 11.5m next year. But the real recovery will not be until 2011, with sales of 13.8m, and 2013, when he expects sales to return to the 16m-plus level of before the slump. "It's a little bit early to declare victory for any of these companies," he said. "But do all these numbers improve sentiment? Yes."
In Detroit this week, voters re-elected a former basketball star, Dave Bing, as mayor, buying into an upbeat message of renewal. "This is our time to shock the world," he said. "Because nobody thinks we're going to come back."
Andrew Clark in New York
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 November 2009 19.01 GMT
It is too early to hang out any bunting but quietly, tentatively, a more upbeat mood is spreading in Detroit's downtrodden, downsized motor industry.
Chrysler set out ambitious plans today to use technology gained in its tie-up with Italy's Fiat to bring a new generation of smaller cars to US streets. Its proposals, outlined to analysts at its Auburn Hills headquarters, came two days after Ford surprised Wall Street with a $1.1bn (£670m) profit, its first quarter in the black since early 2008.
And industry-wide monthly US vehicle sales for October were flat year-on-year, a sign of stabilisation even without the "cash-for-clunkers" boost.
After $80bn of emergency aid from the US government, two major bankruptcies, scores of factory closures and tens of thousands of job losses, the industry may, finally, be past the darkest point of its trauma.
Jeff Schuster, head of forecasting at the research firm JD Power, said that if he were a car factory worker, he would feel more secure in his job. "I might be able to breathe a little bit with relief that I'm probably not going to end up in an unemployment line," he said.
General Motors' decision to hang on to its European operation – greeted with relief at Vauxhall factories in Britain – is a sign of confidence that its financial health has improved sufficiently to invest in turning around a loss-making yet technologically promising operation. GM, which is 60% owned by the US treasury, has cut its workforce from 318,000 three years ago to 209,000 globally and has got rid of brands such as Hummer, Saab, Pontiac and Saturn.
Over in Japan, Nissan returned to the black this week by delivering a 25.5bn yen (£169m) quarterly profit, ending nine months of losses. And Toyota raised its target for its sales for the year to March 2010 from 6.6m vehicles to 7m.
Chris Hopson, an automotive analyst at IHS Global Insight, warned that the US economy remained extremely weak. He expects US vehicle sales of 10.3m this year and 11.5m next year. But the real recovery will not be until 2011, with sales of 13.8m, and 2013, when he expects sales to return to the 16m-plus level of before the slump. "It's a little bit early to declare victory for any of these companies," he said. "But do all these numbers improve sentiment? Yes."
In Detroit this week, voters re-elected a former basketball star, Dave Bing, as mayor, buying into an upbeat message of renewal. "This is our time to shock the world," he said. "Because nobody thinks we're going to come back."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
