ISSUES AT HOME

Bottled water disasters

Want to Do Something high impact but simple?  Don't buy bottled water. Some media commentators have gone so far as to call it a con. This year, Australians will spend half a billion dollars on bottled water- if it's not a con, it's not sane. Use home filtering systems, refillable water bottles, and drink tap water, if you want reduce the impact on landfills, and help prevent the drying out of groundwater resources, ocean litter and global warming. Here's what crazy about buying bottled water:

Wasting resources: The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change estimates that about 200 milliitres of oil is needed to produce just one one-litre bottle. The sourcing and extraction of the so called ‘spring water’ is also endangering local groundwater supplies. There are also significant costs in the shipping and transport of bottled water (a heavy commodity), particularly over long distances, resulting in burning massive amounts of fossil fuels
Wasting money: average price of bottled water is $2.53 a litre against about a cent a litre for tap water. Bottled water, often attractively described as ‘pristine’, ‘pure’, ‘clean’ and even ‘organic’ in marketing, is between 240-10,000 times more expensive than tap water - more than is paid for petrol, even though approximately 25% of bottled water has been sourced  directly from municipal tap water systems. Over 90% of the cost of bottled water is associated with the bottle, lid and label.
Pollution: Whether dumped into landfill or dropped as litter, the increasing number of water bottles is a growing problem. Approximately 70% of plastic drink bottles end up in landfill and take up to 1000 years to biodegrade They do take up a lot of space compared to other types of waste, comprising 38% of the total volume of litter.
Health Threat: There are an estimated 13,000 pieces of plastic on every square kilometre of the ocean surface. These tiny pieces are easily swallowed by marine life and can have a deadly effect. And it’s not just bottles tossed overboard; any bottle dropped anywhere can eventually make its way into the ocean. Furthermore, there has been some evidence that water stored in plastic bottles can be contaminated by chemicals leaching from the plastic cap or liner. Although there are regulatory standards limiting these chemicals in tap water, there are no legal limits for phthalates in bottled water. Finally, bottled water removes the benefit of fluoride and may result in increasing tooth decay, particularly among children.

Dirty Electricity

Saving energy means not only saving money, but it also saves greenhouse gas pollution. Being more efficient with our energy use is an imperative if we are to combat dangerous climate change.

A bit about energy. Fossil fuels (hydrocarbons) such as oil and coal are very special energy sources- they have facilitated the storage of energy from the sun over very long periods of time, in very compact material forms. Around 80% of our primary energy supply is from hydrocarbons, and releasing the dense energy from them for our use creates a lot of pollution.

Electricity is the most transformational single technical invention we have devised. We need it. But burning coal to get it is problematic for a number of reasons:

1. By the time transmissions losses are taken into account only 28% of the original chemical energy from the coal is available for use in our homes. Burning coal for electricity just isn't efficient.

2. It may be 'cheap', but that's because we don't count the externalized costs- those born outside the energy system. Many costs aren't currently borne in monetary terms at all. Emissions of nitrous and sulphur oxides and fine particles from fossil fuel generation leads to increased health costs, environmental damage, as well as climate change. Air pollution is seen more immediately in poorer countries in particular, the greenhouse effect less visible but rapidly becoming more so as we experience climate change. Once these are accounted for, the net cost to the Australian economy of implementing wind and solar technologies is lower than the net cost of generation through fossil fuels. Another thing that most people aren't aware of is that our taxes also help subsidize just about every stage of the extraction of energy from fossil fuels.

Science tells us that it is beyond dispute that pollution from burning fossil fuels is changing the balance of the earths atmosphere (see below). The consequences for most life on earth if we continue to use the atmosphere as a giant dumping ground are catastrophic. The answers to a healthier planet are to reduce our energy use and supplement it with renewable energy sources. The good news is that energy efficiency or eliminating 'waste' is 'fruit on the ground' and that renewable energy is getting better, cheaper and more widespread. In fact it's an exciting growth era in a tim e of energy uncertainty. The energy from renewables such as wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power are set to become a big part of a clean energy future.
To get involved in this clean energy future you can one do one thing now with big impact. By buying  solar or/and simple GreenPower you can make sure that more electricity comes from clean sources in Australia. A sustainable, just, and prosperous energy future is possible. We can make it happen. Contact us if you want to know how to do the switch.

Downlight Disasters

The good news is there are alternatives to these energy guzzlers that are also a fire hazard. If you've ever changed a downlight shortly after it was turned off, you can get an idea of the heat.

CFL or LED Downlights are a much better alternative - they consume far less energy (7 watts compared to 50 watts), they run at a much lower temperature, making them much less dangerous and they last up to 50,000 hours (compared to 1-2000 hours for halogens).Best news is that they are becoming more affordable. Contact us for a quote to change over your downlight disasters!.

Whilst all insulation in the roof is supposed to be clear of downlight fixtures, dust can accumulate on the globes. Another issue is that rats can nest near the lights as they provide warmth in colder months. It is estimated that one house fire a day is caused by downlights catching fire.

Thinking of insulation

I used to live in a house where kitchen exhaust fan emptied into the cupboard above it. Builders will sometimes cut costs when they think they can get away with it. The average Australian home is vastly under insulated, and energy inefficient as a consequence. With good insulation your home will be almost 7 degrees cooler in summer and 10 degrees warmer in winter, reducing your heating and cooling costs by up to 45%. And it costs little.Heating and cooling account for half a typical home's energy consumption: stopping drafts can save up to 30%. The skills to weather strip and insulate your house are, in a way, very ordinary, but if you really want to do it right, you'll find a 'house doctor' who has special equipment to diagnose your house's chills and fevers.

Chronic water shortages

Our dams are still very low and we need to save  water.

We’re asking you to use no more than 155 litres of water per day. That means thinking of water waste, and use. If you haven't done it already, contact your water retailer and get your old shower heads exchanged for low flow ones.  Turn off taps properly, stop leaks and drips. Do what country folk do- "if it's yellow let it mellow" or gents, fertiize the garden occasionally. If you've not got dual flush toilets, put a brick or a full plastic bottle in the cistern. Make sure water wastrels use shower timers. Full loads in dish and clothes washing machines.

SIS actively supports Drink for Change and Save Water 155 initiatives.

Scenes from the bushfires in Victoria on Black Saturday, February 2009. Source: The Victorian Farmers Federation.

Sceptics in our midst

Climate change is one of the few issues where the scientific community is considerably more anxious than the lay population. It seems that the communication of the science of climate change is challenging for a number of reasons.

While legitimate science retains doubt about a few aspects of global warming, such as the distribution of vegetation and the survival of species adapted to cold climates, the basic relationship of carbon dioxide to rising temperatures is not a subject of serious debate (see below).

This science has been played out with intense rigour over a long time in peer reviewed journals and academic meetings.  Climate change highlights the difficulties of science opposing established ideologies, not unlike the days of Galileo or Newton coming up against the Church.

Climate skeptics are often conservatives and usually fear the thought of large-scale government intervention.

But climate change is not another arm of ideological debate, science tells us that climate change is happening now and will affect all of humanity, and most other species. It is a very real risk that needs to be addressed urgently.

Here's an interesting report about Denial from the New Scientist magazine.

It seems usual for any climate skeptic with any sort of scientific training to be shunned by colleagues but covered in compensatory glory by the far right. It is perhaps unfair to blame journalists, few of whom have scientific training, who filter the appearance of climate change in newspapers. In reality the climate skeptics are a dwindling minority. I say that those who continue to doubt the need to attack climate change, and its inherent moral urgency, would do well to speak to those who will be affected first, the developing world's poor. Although Australia's small population means our overall contribution to greenhouse emissions is small, we remain the highest per capita emitter in the world, 35 per cent greater than the US according to a recent UN report.  If ever there was an issue on which to take moral leadership, this is it.

To finish with a few words from John Holdren- Barack Obamas science adviser and a Harvard professor of Environmental Science:

“Climate change skepticism has delayed and continues to delay- the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge...The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.”

This link is for those of you who might be challenged by the myths in which the sceptics seem to be so well versed: click here for all your rebuttals. If you own an iphone you can also download an awesome (free) app called Skeptical Science which has a list of all the common arguments put forward by deniers, and full answers to them. Highly recommended.

Another fresh thought, well put by the director of regulatory and public policy research for MissionPoint Capital Partners, Mr Abassi:

The big problem with global warming he says is not just that the planet is being roasted – it’s trying to maintain public focus on an “inconvenient truth” that is currently portrayed in a nearly incomprehensible way, he says. “In their scrupulousness to accurately reflect the complexity of climate change when communicating with the public and decision makers, scientists have overwhelmed many people,” he writes in an online essay about his idea.
Besieged by disparate climate data and deniers’ claims, both the public and policymakers “have tuned out the science and relegated climate change to a matter of ideological opinion rather than fact,” he writes.

Meat Eating

Whether you eat meat or not (or how much) is a private matter, they might say. Maybe it has some implications for your heart, especially if you’re overweight. But it’s not one of the high-profile public issues you’d expect politicians to be debating.  
Yet, as environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future.

...How did such a seemingly small matter of individual consumption move so rapidly from the margins of discussion about sustainability to the center?

1. Deforestation and destruction of grasslands.

Deforestation was the first major type of environmental damage caused by the rise of civilization. Farm animals take much more land than crops do to produce a given amount of food energy, but that didn’t really matter over the 10 thousand years or so when there was always more land to be found or seized.

“In Central America, 40 percent of all the rainforests have been cleared or burned down in the last 40 years, mostly for cattle pasture to feed the export market – often for US beef burgers… Meat is too expensive for the poor in these beef-exporting countries, yet in some cases cattle have ousted highly productive traditional agriculture. – John Revington in World Rainforest Report

“The Center for International Forestry Research reports that rapid growth in the sales of Brazilian beef has led to accelerated destruction of the Amazon rainforest. “In a nutshell, cattle ranchers are making mincemeat out of Brazil’s Amazon rainforests,” says the Center’s director-general, David Kaimowitz. – Environmental News Service

Grassland destruction followed, as herds of domesticated animals were expanded and the environments on which wild animals such as bison and antelope had thrived were trampled and replanted with monoculture grass for large-scale cattle grazing.

2. Water depletion.

Fresh water, like land, seemed inexhaustible for most of the first 10 millennia of civilization. So, it didn’t seem to matter how much a cow drank. But a few years ago, water experts calculated that we humans are now taking half the available fresh water on the planet – leaving the other half to be divided among a million or more species.
Since we depend on many of those species for our own survival (they provide all the food we eat and oxygen we breathe, among other services), that hogging of water poses a dilemma. If we break it down, species by species, we find that the heaviest water use is by the animals we raise for meat.

“A report from the International Water Management Institute, noting that 840 million of the world’s people remain undernourished, recommends finding ways to produce more food using less water. The report notes that it takes 550 liters of water to produce enough flour for one loaf of bread in developing countries… but up to 7,000 liters of water to produce 100 grams of beef. – UN Report Water – More Nutrition Per Drop, 2004

You may save more water by not eating a pound of beef than you would by not showering for six entire months. – John Robbins, How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and the World

3. Excrement.

Waste disposal, like water supply, seemed to have no practical limitations throughout our history. There were always new places to dump, and for centuries most of what was dumped either conveniently decomposed or disappeared from sight.

“According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, livestock waste and farm runoff has polluted more than 45,000 kilometres of rivers and contaminated groundwater in dozens of US states. – Natural Resources Defense Council

“Nutrients in animal waste cause algal blooms, which use up oxygen in the water, contributing to a “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico where there’s not enough oxygen to support aquatic life. The dead zone stretched over 7,700 square miles during the summer of 1999. – Natural Resources Defense Council

4. Embodied energy.

Energy consumption, until very recently, may have seemed to most of us to be an issue for refrigerators, but not for the meat and milk inside. But as we give more attention to life-cycle analysis of the things we buy, it becomes apparent that the journey that steak made to get to your refrigerator consumed staggering amounts of energy along the way.

“It takes, on average, 28 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of meat protein for human consumption, [whereas] it takes only 3.3 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of protein from grain for human consumption. – David Pimentel, Cornell University

"Today, more than 70 percent of the grain produced in the United States is fed to livestock, much of it to cattle. – Jeremy Rifkin, Los Angeles Times May 2002

5. Doing what comes naturally.

Cattle send a signifcant amount of methane, a potent global-warming gas, into the air as a by-product of digestion.. 
One ton of methane, the chief agricultural greenhouse gas, has the global warming potential of 23 tons of carbon dioxide. A dairy cow produces about 75 kilograms of methane a year, equivalent to over 1.5 [metric] tons of carbon dioxide. The world’s cattle population, which currently numbers about 1.3 billion. The cow, of course, is only doing what comes naturally.

“Belching, flatulent livestock emit 16 percent of the world’s annual production of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. – Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg in State of the World 20046.

6.  Human Health

Lifestyle diseases, especially heart disease, might not have been regarded as an “environmental” problem a generation ago. But it’s now clear that the vast majority of public health problems are environmental, rather than genetic, in nature. Moreover, most preventable diseases result from complex relationships between humans and the environment, rather than from single causes. Heart disease is linked to obesity resulting both from excessive consumption of sugar and fat (especially meat fat) and from lack of exercise facilitated by car-oriented urban design. The environmental problems of suburban sprawl, air pollution, fossil-fuel consumption, and poor land-use policies are also all factors in heart disease.

“The irony of the food production system is that millions of wealthy consumers in developed countries are dying from diseases of affluence – heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, and cancer – brought on by gorging on fatty grain-fed beef and other meats, while the poor in the Third World are dying of diseases of poverty brought on by being denied access to land to grow food grain for their families. – Jeremy Rifkin, Los Angeles Times

“Not only is mortality from coronary heart disease lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, but vegetarian diets have also been successful in arresting coronary heart disease. Scientifc data suggest positive relationships between a vegetarian diet and reduced risk for… obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer." – American Dietetic Association

Trust Albert Einstein, who was better known for his physics and maths than for his interest in the living world to say: “Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” "

Peak Oil

The BP oil disaster reminds us once again of the many large costs of oil use not included in its price.  But because conservatives have blocked or rolled back all serious efforts to move us off of oil in the last three decades, peak oil will soon change that.

The Limits of Oil. The looming crisis we now face is often referred to as “Peak Oil” — a status where global oil production will reach a plateau, then begin its irreversible decline.

Source: Peak Oil Primer

Oil fields follow a production curve where output increases at first, then reaches a plateau or “peak”, after which a steep decline occurs.   Because existing oil fields decline, oil companies must continually develop major new finds just to maintain existing production.  If these new projects do not exceed the decline of existing fields, it becomes impossible to maintain oil production, let alone grow oil output to fuel economic growth.

The problem in recent years is that new oil finds have been smaller, deeper, and in more difficult to reach places.  Cheap oil prices simply won’t support the investment needed to develop them, so oil companies have not invested heavily enough to keep up with demand.  Lester Brown of Worldwatch Institute notes that major oil companies, awash in cash, have instead spent billions buying up their own stock, aware their existing reserves will soon increase greatly in value.

Did Global Oil Production Permanently Peak in 2008? Until 2008, world energy forecasters had always assumed global oil production would keep up with economic growth.  According to classic economic theory, as world economies grew they would demand more oil, and oil companies would respond by investing in more exploration and development.  ”Peak Oil” was considered decades away.

Beginning around 2005, however, world oil production began to hit a brick wall, and by 2008 global oil demand actually exceeded supply.  With only a 2% shortfall of supply compared to demand, oil spiked to $147/barrel, and U.S. gasoline prices soared to over $4/gallon.

That same year, the International Energy Agency for the first time published a “bottom-up” oil analysis, evaluating each of the world’s major oil fields to see if production actually could continue to increase.

After looking at the oil field data, the IEA revised its forecasts of future oil production downward, yet still took a very optimistic official view, by using rosy projections of as-yet-undiscovered oil fields.

Independent researchers, however, using IEA’s same “bottom-up” data, have now stated the IEA was wildly optimistic.  The Global Energy Systems Group has concluded the world actually reached Peak Oil in 2008, and global oil production will now begin to decline.   Investment alone cannot fix the problem as the decline rates of existing fields are accelerating..

see Deutsche Bank: Oil to hit $175 a barrel by 2016 and World’s top energy economist warns peak oil threatens recovery: “We have to leave oil before oil leaves us”

A bit on Climate Change

The science of climate change in summary:

‘Global warming’ is a misnomer because it implies gradual, uniform, mainly about temperature and quite possibly benign. What’s happening is rapid, nonuniform, affecting everything about climate and almost entirely harmful.
A more accurate term is “global climatic disruption”
This ongoing disruption is

Real without doubt
Mainly caused by humans
Already producing significant harm
Growing more rapidly than expected

What climate change means. Climate is the pattern of weather, meaning averages, extremes, timing, and spatial distribution of…..
•    Hot & Cold
•    Cloudy & clear
•    Humid & dry
•    Drizzles & downpours
•    Snowfall, snowpack & snowmelt
•    Zephyrs, blizzards, tornadoes & typhoons

When climate changes, the patterns change. Global average temperature is just an index of the state of the global climate as expressed in these patterns. Small changes in the index means big changes in the patterns. The earth is getting hotter. The instrumental record (i.e. thermometer) records show 2005 as the hottest year on record; 2007 tied with 1998 for the 2nd hottest, 14 hottest years in 225 year record all occurred since 1990. This is not a random occurrence. Last year James Hansen, NASA's top climatologist, revealed his findings for 2008, which show, surprisingly, that last year was the coolest this century, although still hot by standards of the 20th century. The finding will doubtless be seized on by climate change deniers, for whom Hansen is a particular hate figure, and used as "evidence" that global warming is a hoax.
However, deniers should show caution, Hansen insisted: most of the planet was exceptionally warm in 2008. Only a strong La Niña - a vast cooling of the Pacific that occurs every few years - brought down the average temperature. La Niña would not persist, he said. "Before the end of Obamas first term, we will be seeing new record temperatures. I can promise the president that."

Facts about warming:

•    Over the last 100 years, the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.74°C. Since the 1970s, it has risen by about 0.4°C, according to the IPCC. Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO) reports that some parts of our country have warmed by 1.5 to 2°C since the 1960s and there have been fewer cold days in that time.
•    In Australia, 2009 ended the warmest decade on record, according to data compiled by the government's Bureau of Meteorology. The mean temperature for the year was 0.9°C above the average for 1961-1990, and it was the second warmest year since high-quality records began, in 1910.
•    Satellite data shows that, globally, last November, December and January were the hottest in just over 30 years of such records. "People sometimes suggest that satellite data shows that warming has stopped," says Neville Nicholls, president of the Australian Meterological and Oceanographic Society. "In reality, it shows the opposite. Warming continues despite rumours of its demise."
•    What about the recent freeze in parts of Europe and the US? In fact, the recent cold weather was within the bounds of natural variability, and still adhered to the global trend of rising temperatures, according to the UK's Met Office. And while the UK, Siberia and parts of the US were colder than average last December and this January, other regions of the northern hemisphere, such as Alaska, Canada and the Mediterranean were warmer than usual.

We know what’s causing the warming.
The warming influence of anthropogenic GHG (CO² carbon dioxide, CH4methane) and absorbing particles is 30x the warming influence of the estimated change in input from the sun.

The key greenhouse gas increases were caused by human activities.

Compared to natural changes over the past 10,000 years, the spike in concentrations of  CO² and CH4in the past 250 years is extraordinary. We know humans are responsible for the CO² spike because fossil CO² lacks carbon-14 and the drop in atmospheric C-14 from the fossil CO² additions is measurable
The biggest cause: 150 years of world energy growth driven by fossil fuel use. More than 80% of global energy comes from fossil fuels with China passing the USA as the largest emitter in 2007. (The approximately 50,000 fossil fuel power stations world- wide create around 300 BILLION tonnes of CO² per annum -just from electricity alone!) Deforestation is the second biggest driver-tropical Africa, Asia, South America.

Harm is already occurring.

Facts about Ice melting

•    Glaciers across the world are melting so fast that many will be gone by the middle of this century, the WGMS reported in January. The latest data for 2007 to 2008 on 96 glaciers found that, on average, they defrosted by nearly half a metre. Glaciers at higher altitudes are more protected from climate change. The most vulnerable are those in lower mountain ranges, including the Alps, Pyrenees, the North American Rockies, and parts of the Andes.
•    Glaciers in Montana's famous Glacier National Park will be gone by 2020, according to the US government's Geological Survey.
•    Greenland's glaciers are disappearing from the bottom up, thanks to water warmed by climate change, according to scientists at the University of California, Irvine. In a recent study, they found that different glaciers were losing between 0.7 and 3.9 metres of ice from underneath each day.
•    Bottom-up melting is also happening in Antarctica. About 90 per cent of the eastern Antarctic Peninsula's glaciers have retreated in recent decades, according to the first comprehensive review of the state of Antarctica's climate, published in December 2009 by the international Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Overall, the picture in Antarctica is complex. There is increased sea ice around the continent - but this is because the ozone hole has altered wind patterns, protecting much of the region from increases in greenhouse gases. This protection will stop as the ozone hole mends.

Glaciers are shrinking all around the world. Permafrost is thawing. Arctic summer sea ice is disappearing – may be gone by 2013 (2070 a few years ago) this is floating ice so wont affect sea level- albedo affect is the problem, a tipping point. Surface melting on Greenland ice sheet is expanding, pattern of accelerating change. Incidents of flooding up almost everywhere. Heat waves in Europe already 2x more frequent because of global warming.  Global heating is not even- uneven heating changes wind patterns (declining monsoon in Asia- increases flooding in south, drying in north). Wildfires are increasing in many countries and the total power released by tropical cyclones has increased along with sea surface temperatures (observational data). Just ask the large insurance companies what's been happening in recent times with claims....Melting land ice and thermal expansion of ocean water are raising sea levels- twice the average of the 20th century and are expected to accelerate though there is no modeling for this.

Facts about Rising sea levels

•    The sea level rose at an average rate of about 1.8 mm/year during the years 1961-2003. Between 1993 and 2003, the rate averaged increased to 3.1 mm/year. But the IPCC says it isn't clear yet whether this is a long-term trend, or simply natural variability.
•    The IPCC's 2007 report estimates that the average sea level will probably rise by between 18 cm and 59 cm by 2100 (depending on the increase in global temperature - which it thinks will be in the range of 1.8°C to 4°C), although it notes that this is based on incomplete information, and the true rise could be higher.
•    In Australia, between 1993 and 2009 sea levels in the south and east rose by 1.5 to 3 mm and in the north and west, the levels rose by about 7 to 10 mm, according to the CSIRO.
•    The 2007 report also concludes that the melting of land-based ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have very likely (with greater than 90 per cent certainty) contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003.
•    Recent data on the melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctic suggests that sea level rise of one metre or more by 2100 is possible, according to Eric Rignot at the University of California in Irvine. However, some other scientists are cautious about making specific predictions - they say the models aren't yet good enough to do this.

Under business as usual (BAU) much bigger disruption is coming. The last time the temperature was 2C above 1900 level was 130,000 yr BP, with sea level 4-6 m higher than today. The last time was 3C (BAU by 2100) above 1900 level was 30 million yr BP, with sea level 20-30m higher than today. Past IPCC assessments have underestimated the rate of growth of emissions. The rate of growth of the concentration of CO² is itself growing.

Annual fossil-fuel carbon emissions have increased fivefold since 1950 and the rate of increase has actually accelerated since 2002. Today fossil fuels provide 4/5s of the energy that powers the global economy. Burning fossil fuels on this scale is a vast and risky experiment with the Earths biosphere.

The bottom line is clear

To keep the world’s climate within the range that it has occupied for at least a million years, recent emission trends will need to be quickly reversed. The current emissions trajectory would take the atmospheric concentration of CO² to 650ppm or beyond by the end of the century.

As Professor Garnaut warned the government- "the failure of this generation to tackle climate change will haunt humanity for the rest of time".

The goal of reducing global emissions by half by 2050 has been adopted by the EU and was endorsed at the G8 economic summit in Japan, giving it political as well as economic significance. The magnitude of the challenge is obvious when the emissions path needed to avoid catastrophic climate change is compared with the current trajectory. The challenge is made particularly difficult by the fact that the energy needs of developing countries such as India and China have accelerated in recent years as they have entered the most energy intensive stages of their development.

The world today uses around 16 terrawatts (16 trillion watts) of energy per annum. Providing energy services for the much larger global economy of 2050 while reducing CO² emissions to 15 billion tons will require an energy system that is very different from that of today. For the world as a whole to reduce its emissions by at least half by 2050 today’s industrial countries will need to cut theirs by more than 80%. According to most official assessments, including that of the IPCC, getting there depends on a 3-pronged strategy: reducing energy consumption through new technologies and lifestyles, shifting to carbon free technologies, and if possible, capturing and storing the CO² released when fossil fuels are combusted. A combination of these 3 options can do the job. It is now time to develop a coherent strategy- and to shape policy and investment accordingly. Steven Chu, Nobel Prize winning physicist and the US secretary of energy says: "Just like during WWII, when a lot of the best physicists went to work of radar and the atomic bomb, the world needs scientists to work on this issue. We're in a war to save our planet." Fossil fuels have been essential in the development of our modern technological society. Now we must use the wisdom and wealth they have make possible to move beyond them.

As Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change (and joint Nobel Peace Prize winner with Gore in 2007) said recently that unless fundamental shifts were underway by 2012, the feedback loops driving climate change would take on an irrevocable life of their own.

The climate in figures

• The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 384.38 parts per million. This compares with a figure of some 315ppm around 1960.

• Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that can persist for hundreds of years in the atmosphere, absorbing infrared radiation and heating the atmosphere. Burning coal to produce electricity creates about 350 billion tonnes of CO² per annum.

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's last report states that 11 of the 12 years between 1995-2006 rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850.

• According to James Hansen, the nation responsible for putting the largest amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is Britain, on a per capita basis - because the Industrial Revolution started here. China is now the largest annual emitter of carbon dioxide.

• Most predictions suggest that global temperatures will rise by 2C to 4C over the century.

• The IPCC estimates that rising temperatures will melt ice and cause ocean water to heat up and increase in volume. This will produce a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimeters. However, some predict a far faster rate of around one to two meters.

• Inundations of one or two meters would make the Nile Delta and Bangladesh uninhabitable, along with much of south-east England, Holland and the east coast of the United States