Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


How to save the planet? More nuclear power and GM crops, say climate experts

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:
30 April 2007
THE world's leading climate-change experts will this week put themselves on a collision course with environmentalists by proposing a series of controversial measures to tackle global warming.
More than 2,000 scientists will put forward a global warming action-plan to save the world from overheating, including a major expansion of nuclear power, using GM crops to boost biofuels and burying carbons underground.

The proposals are outline
d in a draft version of the report Mitigation of Climate Change by the United Nations-created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The survey, the final draft of which will be released on Friday following a week-long meeting in Bangkok, is the third this year by the UN climate panel. An IPCC report in February said it was at least 90 per cent certain that mankind was to blame for global warming and on 6 April it warned of more hunger, droughts and rising seas.

Achim Steiner, the head of the UN Environment Programme, said: "We're moving from two very sobering reports to what we can do about climate change. And we can do it.

"Having shown us the path towards greater and greater problems, the IPCC raises our horizons to where the solutions lie and shows that they are within our grasp."

The report estimates that stabilising greenhouse-gas emissions will cost between 0.2 per cent and 3 per cent of world gross domestic product by 2030, depending on the severity of curbs on rising emissions.

Under some scenarios, GDP growth might even get a small net spur from less pollution and less health damage from burning fossil fuels, blamed as the main cause of global warming.

The draft report says: "There is a significant economic potential for the mitigation of greenhouse-gas emissions from all sectors over the coming decades, sufficient to offset growth of global emissions or to reduce emissions below current levels."

The conclusions broadly back those by Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, who estimated last year that the costs of acting now to slow warming were about 1 per cent of global output - but 5 per cent to 20 per cent if the world delayed action.

But delegates yesterday voiced fears that some countries, including China and the US, will say the costs of action are greater than the report suggests and that the proposed measures are unrealistic. Michel Petit, a member of the French delegation, said: "Some countries may challenge these figures."

The report also sets out solutions, such as capturing and burying emissions from coal-fired power plants; a shift to renewable energies such as solar and wind power; more use of nuclear power and biofuels and more efficient lighting and insulation of buildings.

But it says that temperatures will rise by at least 2C to 2.4C above pre-industrial levels even under the most stringent curbs. The European Union says a 2C rise is a threshold for "dangerous" changes to the climate.

Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, attacked some of the proposed solutions. "Nuclear power is nothing other than a white elephant. Scotland and other nations can meet their targets for tackling climate change while maintaining fuel security by using clean, safe alternatives that are already available," he said.

Better public transport and a reduction in road and air travel were more important than more biofuels, a "gung-ho" attitude to which, he warned, could make the problem worse.

"In Indonesia, forested peat bogs are being cleared to establish palm-oil plantations, releasing much more of the carbon stored in the peat and the trees than the oil produced will save. At the same time, this forest clearance is threatening the survival of rare species such as orang-utans," he said.

And Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said far more fundamental lifestyle changes were needed than had been considered by the UN group.

"Simply replacing one set of technologies with another set of technologies won't work, especially when there are such big downsides with some of them," he said.

News of the IPCC's report came as the Met Office released figures at the weekend which showed this month will be the warmest April in the UK for more than 140 years. The average for the past month of 11.1C (51.9F) beats the previous record of 10.6C (51F) in 1865.

• THIS week's IPCC report is the third issued by the UN group this year on climate change.

The first said that it was "very likely" or at least 90 per cent certain that humanity was to blame for most of the warming in the last half-century.

It predicted that temperatures would rise by 1.8 to 4.0C this century.

The second report detailed the likely impacts of climate change around the globe, such as on health, farming and water availability. Critics described it as "apocalyptic".



Page 1 of 1

 
1

www.scottwebb.co.uk..,

29/04/2007 23:53:05

Brilliant Documentary....The Future of Food :) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=849146694200968...

2

G_C,

30/04/2007 00:02:29

Maybe Duncan McLaren should tell us more about these existing non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel technologies that offer us such energy security. Everything currently seems to be going into a technology that only works on windy (but not too windy) days. Or do the greens know about some new electricity storage technology? There may be plenty of climate change deniers around, but they can't match the stupidity of those who are in blatant denial about basic features of the current climate. Most 3 year olds realise that sometimes it's windier than other times, but some of the self-proclaimed experts seem unable to grasp the implications of running an electricity grid on a principle that requires an alternative reality. As for the lessons and the real operating data from countries that already have built plenty of wind farms, those are just Inconvenient Truths when there's such a distorted subsidy scheme to be milked.

3

Flash67,

Edinburgh 30/04/2007 00:26:37

2 - That's why we need a better mix of renewables - more tidal for a start, and yes, I'm afraid, more nuclear. I would also agree with the 'more GM' case - it's the only way we can get more food and biomass for fuel out of the same land area without destroying habitats at an increasing rate.
Nuclear and GM are not ideal, but the severity of the threat of climate change to us and the future of many other species means that we have to swallow some bitter pills...

4

,

30/04/2007 00:48:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 573171, Article id was mapped to record!
5

Foreman,

U.S.A. 30/04/2007 01:05:18

4. Alffie, UK

I think you are on the wrong article, it is disgusting what they do....

6

MarkInAlpine,

Alpine, Texas 30/04/2007 01:23:15

What does #4 have to do with this article?
How long is it going to stay up?

7

deepsealeviathon,

Dallas,Texas USA 30/04/2007 01:24:21

Ethanol is a foolish mistake. Ethanol combustion releases formaldehyde into the atmosphere. Emissions requirements by 2020 will put out so much formaldehyde as exhaust that it will find its way into crops and livestock, our food chain, not to mention making the air we breathe carcinogenic. It only emits 13% less CO2 than gasoline and takes more energy to make that it provides. It's Bush (and now Latin American) economics. The real solution is getting off the combustion engine and that means wind and solar are the only reasonable alternatives.

8

Conan,

Here 30/04/2007 02:26:29

#4 is yanking your chain - ignore it and its head will explode.

9

Conan,

Here 30/04/2007 02:27:32

Nuclear Power - the greatest, safest, source of energy yet devised by man ...... bring it on and shut down all the coal, oil and nat. gas generators.

10

deepsealeviathon,

Dallas,Texas USA 30/04/2007 02:44:40

Conan, the problem with nuclear is it doesn't ween us off foreign fuel dependence, the cause of political instability and inflating energy costs. Russia, in addition to monopolizing the world oil and gas supply, pipeline routes to Europe, and while forming a gas cartel to fix natural gas prices, is also controller of the world's uranium supply. Since 1996, the USA has purchased 50% of uranium fuel rods for nuclear power plants [United States Department of Defense], surprisingly from Russia. We only depend on Russia for 20% of our oil and gas needs. We must get away from dependence on foreign sources or none of our political and future economic problems will be solved.

11

Conan,

Here 30/04/2007 04:01:46

#10 - that is not a 'problem with nuclear power'. Your suggestions to achieve the goals you enumerate?

12

Bruce,

New Zealand 30/04/2007 05:08:38

No.20.

I read than about 36% of the good quality uranium was located in Australia.
Now that their PM is talking about going nuclear he probably wants it used at home

13

Bruce,

New Zealand 30/04/2007 05:10:20

Sorry I mean No 10 , not 20

14

Bruce,

New Zealand 30/04/2007 05:12:21

But I am not as confused as No.4

15

eric,

Lothian 30/04/2007 05:37:09

Alfie sounds like the Anti christ or Mental illness

16

Brad Arnold,

Minnesota, USA 30/04/2007 05:57:12

The fact that the IPCC has only given directions to keep the warming below 3C (and even that is debatable, given their lack of encorporating positive feedbacks into their climate models), not below 2C, or even 1C, is virtually acknowledging runaway global warming is inevitable.

Dr Hansen from NASA presents very strong arguments that 1C (450ppm CO2) is the upper limit, after which the permafrost will thaw too quickly. Sir David King, the British Science Advisor, believes an upper limit of 2C is the tipping point.

Again, the IPCC, by acknowledging (conservatively) a warming of 2.5C, is tacitly acknowledging a bottleneck for mankind, and is vitually complicit in a genecide larger than any in human history (hundreds of times larger than the Holocast).

17

AJ,

Fife 30/04/2007 06:40:50

No 4 posted all that bilge a couple of weeks ago, I think it was timed to offset some US govt policies regarding gays!!

18

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 30/04/2007 06:51:53

At last, the really difficult debate can get going in earnest, leaving the climate change deniers behind in their fantasy land.

Anthropogenic climate change is real and dangerous, and it's coming at us fast. Business as usual, in terms of fossil fuel consumption, is not an option. It is disappointing (if this report accurately reflects the IPCC position), therefore not to see more radical proposals for dealing with the situation. Rules #15 and Brad #17 outline some of the inadequacies of the proposals, as do the spokespersons for FOE in the article above.
Tony Juniper correctly points out that "far more fundamental lifestyle changes are needed than had been considered by the UN group."
Amongst the issues that must now be addressed on a global scale is the human population. It is the individual consumption level multiplied by the number of individuals that is the root cause of resource depletion, environmental degradation and climate change.
The world urgently needs to address these issues with vigour and honesty.

19

paulr,

30/04/2007 07:56:12

U.N
Useless Numpties

20

Homer,

30/04/2007 07:59:16

I agree with Slioch - we need to address the population issue with vigour and honesty. And scythes. I propose a cull of those above pensionable age.

Seriously, how would you suggest we control population?

21

the_big_kev,

china 30/04/2007 08:00:47

nuclear is safe providing things are done properly. when we get shoddy work and cost cutting at the design stage then there can be big problems. the waste has to be managed better and more creatively. there is an arguement for putting these places is quiet areas so Scotland would be ideal. face it we'll have nuc. power one day.
security has to be stepped up both to stop theft and deliberate destruction by terrorists. building on army bases my be an idea

nuclear physics was a great course at Uni.

22

the_big_kev,

china 30/04/2007 08:04:35

P.S. - all the things we burn to create electricity could be used for better purposes -

arguing about climate change is a joke it's happening all around us - what exactly does have to happen before big Gov. get their head in gear.

23

Borderman,

Borders 30/04/2007 08:05:07

#19 Tony Juniper correctly points out that "far more fundamental lifestyle changes are needed than had been considered by the UN group."

It's probably statements like these that scare the bejeesus out of many of us about the plans and motivations of the green movemenet. It's not that I'm against lifestyle change. I just worry about who will dictate the changes, what they will be, and how will they be enforced. Is our future to be a life of enforced cycling and soy beans?

If the Friends of the Earth can show me how their policies will make possible the development of flying cars, the setting up of a moonbase, and a cure for cancer then I'm ready to listen. Otherwise, I don't really want to know about it.

24

Jeeemy,

30/04/2007 08:12:46

efter Thursday ah the big Gov. wull be spenden thir time treyn tae get thir heeds oot oh thir ayne erses hivin kissed it gid bey

25

GP,

30/04/2007 08:20:06

Our planet is destined to end up like Venus.
Once the temp. rises enough the amount of methane released into the atmosphere will be ireversible starting a chain reaction that will create a similar situation as to that already found on Venus.
Venus is the closest to Earth in real terms apart from one piece and that is an overheated atmosphere.
Here we go wacth out kids we're in for a bumpy ride

26

Guthrie,

30/04/2007 08:24:22

GP- I don't think so. There are too many other feedbacks for any kind of Venus effect to take place. Even Lovelock, who is at the upper end of somewhat wild scenarios was suggesting a 10C rise. This would still devasate the planet, but it's not the same as turning us into Venus.

27

Mart on Skye,

30/04/2007 08:40:32

If as we are so often told that the argument is over and climate change is real then the Government and the greenies have to bite the bullet and do something effective instead of just waffling on about a mix of renewables.

The reality is that no single source or mix of renewables is going to supply the energy necessary, the only option is therefore to use the real alternative - nuclear.

The arguments put up against nuclear are poor.
Danger - you are probably more likely to die in an accident at home than due to nuclear power.
Cost - if the consequences of climate change are so dire then cost is irrelevant.
Legacy for our children -
from going nuclear -nuclear waste:
from not going nuclear - climate change.
Which do they think is more of a problem - a local contamination or a global catastophe.

It would seem that any argument against nuclear by the greenies and Fools of the Earth is about as good as a starving person stamping their feet and refusing to eat Brussel sprouts because they don't like them.

Come to think of it Brussel sprouts could be the source of the new natural gas. Force feed Brussels to environmentalists in "wind" farms and pipe the gas.
( just an odd image that crept into my mind)

28

Mart on Skye,

30/04/2007 08:44:44

An after thought - the Brussels could be GM'd to make them more gassy!

29

,

30/04/2007 08:45:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 573841, Article id was mapped to record!
30

nick,

cumbernauld 30/04/2007 09:07:21

Say we no longer used fossil fuels. And electricity was used not just for its present purposes ( lighting, domestic appliances, some industrial, some heating etc. ), but also to power our transport, water desalination etc.
How much electricity would we need ?

In the UK alone, probably 3 to 4 times our present installed capacity just for our present energy needs.
Say Nuclear was used to provide half that capacity. WE in the UK would need 10 to 20 times the number of nuclear power stations that we presently have. The world would probably need 50 times the nuclear power stations it presently has. And these numbers would increase with time as the demand for energy/electricity increased.

This leads to thee problems.
1) How long would our reserves of uranium last? Hundreds of years ? I doubt it.
Are we absolutely certain that we will economically solve the problem of nuclear fusion.

2) Do we decommission all these nuclear power stations when they are shut down? Remember there will be thousands of them.
Judging by the astronomical costs being talked about for decommissioning the present modest number of nuclear stations in the UK, we would eventually find that a large proportion of the world's economy was dealing with nuclear power station decommissioning.

3) If we decided not to decommission them but simply to fence them off, there would be several thousand of such sites in the world in 100 years or so and growing.

I dont think nuclear is the obvious answer to the worlds energy future.
What is ? Maybe that's what Armageddon is all about.

31

Am-Bodach,

30/04/2007 09:29:55

An interesting article which exposes the hypocrisy of the environmental movement. Having lectured us for many years on the dangers of climate change as reported by the IPCC, the greens now advise that the IPCC are completely wrong when highlighting nuclear power's role in mitigating this phenomenon. Ironically, nuclear power is our safest means of generating large amounts of electricity. A coal fired power station releases 100 times more radiation into the environment than an equivalent capacity nuclear power station. In the USA, more radioactive heavy metal is released into the environment every two years by coal burning than the total spent fuel waiting to be buried from all U.S. nuclear power production and most U.S. nuclear weapons production. Unsurprisingly, the risk of malignancy is ten times greater in the vicinity of a coal fired power station than a nuclear power station. As for #33, there are designs of nuclear power stations (IFR) that can utilise U238. Today's reactors only use U235 which is less than 1% of the uranium found in nature. There is sufficient fuel to power IFR type facilities for well over 100 thousand years. There is enough uranium that has been mined and placed in barrels (uranium 238) for IFR-type plants to provide all the electricity for the United States for over 500 years.

32

nick,

cumbernauld 30/04/2007 09:42:22

Am-boddach.
Tell me which country is building or is planning to build an IFR , and what it's estimated cost/installed Kw is.

33

David - another one,

Edinburgh 30/04/2007 09:43:21

Poster number 2 repeats some of the usual misinformation, which is still misinformation no matter how often it is repeated.

Wind is not the only form of renewable electricity currently being undertaken, though in the short term it is the best way of boosting our renewable electricity percentage. Work is underway at the moment on the new hydro station at Glendoe. Scottish firms are involved in a number of wave and tidal projects, some of which have passed tests and are now about to deployed. http://www.oceanpd.com/LatestNews/default.html is one example. Let's hope we don't throw away our early lead in this sort of engineering in the same way that we threw away our early lead in wind generation.

The intermittency of wind is discussed at length in the report at http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/258/852 which poster number 2 can challenge if he or she wishes. It has yet to be seriously challenged.

There is no need to look elsewhere to get "real" operating data. The first commercial wind farm opened in November 1991. It was studied extensively and the way wind generated electricity interacts with the UK electricity system, at an engineering and institutional level, is understood very well. There is a list of operating wind farms at http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/operational.asp and there are enough of them that we have a very good idea of how they work.

However, it is reassuring that the best the anti-wind lobby can do is to loudly repeat misinformation, presumably in the hope that some will believe it. If they had better arguments they would presumably present them.

34

Sit William Arrol,

30/04/2007 09:46:37

I have long taken the view that the refusal of FotE and allies to consider nuclear power* as the major solution to global warming (man-made or otherwise) in preference to 'fundamental lifestyle changes', as clear and positive proof that these people are not advocating real solutions to a real problem, but some sort of mystic religion based on pseudo-science.

Attempting to change the way people live their lives is (a) the clearest hallmark of a religion and (b) universally bound to fail, as a perusal of history quickly shows.

Therefore in real-world terms, these people are not serious, and should be treated with the contempt they deserve for attempting--with a terrifying degree of temporary success--to foist a religious solution onto a real-world problem.

If continuing global warming is happening (actually, the present period of global warming started about 1960 after thirty years of cooling, and we have been living through a period of slow cooling since 1998**) any possible solution (if one is indeed required) is certain to be by way of technology, not changing us from our 'evil ways'.

(It's interesting that they now tend to talk of 'climate change' instead of 'global warming'. The one thing we can all be 100% certain of is that climates change. They always have, they always will: this terminological change is symptomatic of a really sick underlying mental attitude that would forever deny hope for the half of humanity still living in utterly primitive poverty: "We Fear Change".)

-----

* Measure by any reasonable criterion (eg., deaths per TWH) nuclear power is in fact the SAFEST way to generate electricity. Don't believe the (green) propaganda!

** Record warm years in the UK are, by themselves, beside the point: it's the GLOBAL temperature that matters. For instance, the recent warm Easter weather here was compared with the cooler weather in Spain, Florida, etc. But if it was due to GLOBAL warming, Spain, etc.

35

Murchadh Ruadh,

30/04/2007 09:58:19

#37. I welcome your desire for facts rather than misinformation, but let's look at the right facts. You give the BWEA link, and there you will see that their 'Annual homes equivalent' figure is defined as: "Over the course of a year, the wind farm would be expected to provide enough electricity to serve this many households. This calculation is based on a capacity factor of 30% and an average household consumption of 4,700 kWh/year."

Well OK, it is not a lie, but sadly for BWEA that 4700 kWh is energy, not power, and power demand is not evenly distributed throughout the year or the day. The figures for homes supplied are blatant spin, unrelated to the real world where folk want lots of power at tea-time, for the finals of big events, when it is cold etc., and rather less at 3a.m. in a hot summer. Your beloved wind farms cannot supply the **power** that is needed to supply these homes, so please stop pretending that they will.

36

,

30/04/2007 10:08:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 574113, Article id was mapped to record!
37

Am-Bodach,

30/04/2007 10:25:01

#37

"The intermittency of wind is discussed at length in the report at http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/258/852 which poster number 2 can challenge if he or she wishes. It has yet to be seriously challenged.

There is no need to look elsewhere to get "real" operating data."

Not this one again - I have yet to see you respond to extensive criticism of the ukerc report.

We do indeed have operational data on the performance of wind power in the UK - the government's energy statistics are publicly available. The combined action of all UK wind farms saves less than one third of one per cent of the fuel consumed in UK power stations. This figure is unadjusted for balancing generation, or for the energy consumed in turbine manufacture, maintenance, and decommissioning, and thus overstates the benefits of wind power. It is evident that if we expand wind power ten fold from current levels, fossil/nuclear fuel consumption in (and emissions from) UK power stations will be at least 97% of current levels. I have not factored intermittency into this calculation. The government's energy stats also provide strong evidence that claimed emission savings for wind power are exaggerated by ~ 500%. The BWEA assumes that wind displaces conventional generation megawatt for megawatt - official energy stats demonstrate this to be untrue. Finally, I note that a DTI study to be published in a forthcoming edition of the journal Energy Policy states the following costs for mitigation of one tonne of carbon: nuclear, £18; coal CCS retrofit, £7-£60.9; coal CCS new, £38.1-£90.6; on shore wind, £125.5; off shore wind £298.5.

38

Masque,

30/04/2007 10:32:27

How to save the planet?

Move to another one!!!

39

Borderman,

Borders 30/04/2007 10:34:05

#33 "The answer is a range of renewables"

I assume you mean energy sources such as wind, sun and sea. In what sense are these any more renewable than fossil or nuclear fuels? The solar energy diverted from where it would have gone to produce electricity isn't renewed. The same applies to wind and wave power.

The attraction of sun, wind and sea energy is that they are seen as clean and unlimited. It's the latter perception that concerns me. It's reminiscent of the short-sighted views of the past of coal and oil being unlimited. Has anyone done the sums of the effect of diverting solar, wind and sea power from their "natural" roles in the envronment to serving humanity's energy needs? If we are to believe that increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere by small amounts can have catstrophic effects, it's not unreasonable to suppose that "robbing the environment" of equivalent amounts of sun, wind, and wave power might have effects too.

I see it as irresponsible not to utilise the resources we have in order to advance technology. I think we owe it to future generations. Of course we should do it responsibly, but we must accept that no course of action is risk free. Learning to cope with lower levels of technology and impoverished lifestyles serves no one except those who place nature above people. From that point of view, nuclear power makes sense.

40

Guthrie,

30/04/2007 10:42:48

Sir William Arrol, you make some elemnetary mistakes.

For starters, we have not been living through a period of slow cooling since 1998. In fact the trend has been upwards all the way. 1998 was an El Nino year, when average temps can reach 3 degrees above "normal", due to the release of vast amounts of energy from the Pacific ocean.

See here for actual climate data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

Secondly, whilst I think technology will be very useful in solving some problems, it is foolish in the extreme to suggest that it will definitely do so. For example, fusion power would be great, but we are looking at 30 years before ITER, the European fusion project, gives us enough data to be able to relaly go for it.

As for climate change and global warming, climate change can be used in a historical sense. Global warming is a more specific description of what is occuring just now. The key point is that we are responsible for most of the current warming, and are putting the planet on course for an average warming of around 3 degrees by 2100.
As for your comments about people being anti-development, you merely demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what the issue really are.

Oh yes, and the point about global warming is that some areas can get hotter whilst others get cooler, due to distortions of weather patterns and local microclimates.
I reccomend going and reading up on climatology.

41

Guthrie,

30/04/2007 10:47:10

Borderman, whilst I appreciate your concern, I think it is vastly overstated.
For example by using wave power we would be reducing the energy of the waves hitting the sea shore, and I really do not see any problem with that. I am not aware of any particular ecology which depends upon high energy wave impacts upon it in order to thrive, certainly not in Scotland.

The same go's for wind power- there is no reason to suppose that taking some energy from the wind is robbing some other part of the world. Perhaps if we had wind turbines a mile across you might realistically be worried about weather patter distortions, but we're never going to manage that, so don't lose any sleep over it.
Then there is solar- putting panels or water heaters on your roof will make no difference at all, except insofar as that heat won't warm your house up. But if you've got a well insulated house anyway, it won't matter.
The only concievable problem would be if you ripped up cropland in order to build a solar power station. However most will be built in deserts with nothing much to disturb, so again there is not a problem.

42

Sit William Arrol,

30/04/2007 10:48:00

I'm afraid there is little doubt that wind energy is about the most inefficient way of going about generaating electricty imaginable, and by the time it's true (as opposed to BWEA's propaganda's distorted) productivity is put into the equation, it's quite clear that it costs more in CO2 generation per KWH than just about any other way of going about the job.

The BWEA 'calculation is based on a capacity factor of 30%...'

Capacity? 30% Perhaps.
Actual productivity achieved? more like 2%, with luck, unpredictably and not necesarily when most needed. And so a fossil-fuel-powered generator of the same capacity is need, running in the background all the time (for use 98% of the time) is needed anyway.

You doubt this?

Take a look at
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/ha...

43

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 30/04/2007 11:01:09

More than 2,000 scientists will put forward a global warming action-plan to save the world from overheating, including a major expansion of nuclear power, using GM crops to boost biofuels and burying carbons underground.

I am thrilled. Al Gore is one of them. Bush is not in. Balire has a pain in the NHS 30th April he faces the music. I just saw him in TV. He has lost the weight , climate of Iraq vellly vellyy hot and snady dunes sir..We in Tanzania are 34 million. We have plenty of scales of measuring the rice, millete(for brewing), potatoes for the tourists fish and chips but CARBON. Oh we burn the sticks and huts but measure of Carbon. Oh we know the tree gives out oxygen and takes in the carbon. So why worry? We are far from the indutrilised countries no crabon can touch us. WE ARE SAFE YIPPY How do you measur this and who buys these. WE can fill the ballons and sell planty of these. We have medicine men who know carbon the pencil that writes. THey write some names you do not understand then they dance like the Red Indians the YIPPY one goat gone. THen the cow. We have Rift Valley Fver. THis is the fever that comes from the Rift Valley. God knows if these is the flu the birds pass on to cows but I doubt. Birds are small. No? oes are big . Yes?
So how does fevr clear the air or the tree leaves give hloropyhi to give oxygen. But when we have miles of forests and un developed lands, we are lazt you see, then if we have plenty of OXYGEN, why worry abou carbon. We are safe. When you have the melting you take the water. We have rivers that are dying not dead give ten days they will dire. Very hot sun but there is rain in the forest and the sea. That helps. No?
Isles stranger than fiction rice story continues
2007-04-30 09:43:36
By Mwinyi Sadallah, Zanzibar
The Zanzibar government has embarked on a shop to shop inspection to check retailer shops selling rice said to be unfit for human consumption.
The rice branded ``Super Pow

44

,

30/04/2007 11:04:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 574267, Article id was mapped to record!
45

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 30/04/2007 11:12:56

With the ABOVE I am more worried about what I will eat today then the ice melting. Who wants to see the ice melting when the starving eyes are looking at the maize rotting in the farms and onions price going every hour up up up . But surprise. We speak for hours on the cel. Wonder where the money comes from. No one complains. We love peace. WE WANT NO GOBAL IMNTERFEARANCES. Worl bank and IMF give plenty so why worry. No ice only sun shine. We will se when the sun heats up. Put up umbrealls Okay... You may be wondering why I post this?? RIGHT? Wrong. I had a college closed by the ordinary man dressed up like police man with the preacher and the tugs came and just tossed me out. I am not worried about the Galobal heat. I had enogh. My file in the court is in the pit. Y worry.

You are so kind to keep me happy......

46

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 30/04/2007 11:15:24

GM Genral motors NO we have Toyotas and this World Bank expert says subsidy on power plays destructive role.....no power... no sprk plugs and plenty of heat in the parliament andthe football matches. but Glob warming No sir. We are cool.

2007-04-27 08:35:23
By Perege Gumbo

47

Sit William Arrol,

30/04/2007 11:17:30

Guthrie:

"See here for actual climate data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif";


Or, also for ACTUAL climate data, take a look at:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

... which clearly shows the cooling since 1998.

You pays your money and takes you choice.

(Actually, anything touched by Hansen at NASA is highly suspect. We know he doctored the satellite/sounding balloon results to fit them in with his preconceived belief that the ground stations (intrinsically by far the least accurate of the three and the only one to show warming) had to be right, in the face of these other inconvenient facts.

And when the post 1988 cooling trend started to show, he doctored the entire data set to tilt it upwards. (One other embarrassment that that got rid of for him was that before the tilt, the warmest year measured in US history was... 1934.)

On Nuclear:

So we wait 30 years to make sure it's OK, but meanwhile we charge ahead on far less evidence than that for AGW to change everything else? Who'se kidding who here?

Local weather variations

"Oh yes, and the point about global warming is that some areas can get hotter whilst others get cooler, due to distortions of weather patterns and local microclimates."

How convenient!

Bovine excreta.

I recommend YOU go and read up on climatology, of which you clearly know little and understand less.

48

Borderman,

Borders 30/04/2007 11:28:23

#46

Thanks for the response and concern. I'm sure I won't lose any sleep over it. :-)

My main point was the use of the term "renewable". To me, something like wood can be desribed as a renewable resource. We can see a forest grow and be utilised in a single lifetime. (I'm not advocating we burn wood, just pointing out a more accurate use of language.)

As for saying I'm overstating the problem, I hear similar comments from some about the global warming issue. :-) It would nice to be sure about these things. For example, you say there's not much to disturb in the desert. But one square kilometre of solar panelling results in that section of desert receiving no sun. This will cool adjacent areas of desert by x degrees, which in turn will cool air temperature, which will affect air movement, which will affect weather patterns. You get the picture. If we view nature as a tough old beast, we can assume it can absorb this kind of punishment. On the other hand, if we see it as a delicate and complex mechanism, perhaps we should be worried. I'm sure there's some kind of irony there.

49

Ed Sears,

Derbyshire 30/04/2007 11:32:24

To Sir William Arrol. Your idea that wind generation does not work is challenged by the fact that Denmark use it for 10% of their electricity supply, and it is rapidly expanding in many countries. Perhaps they have a religion that makes them believe the lights are on when they aren't? The largest wind generators produce the energy consumed in their production, deployment, maintenance and disposal in 3-8 months.

The environmentalism as religion idea is borrowed from Philip Stott but it ignores the reality that we have to care for our productive ecological base or our civilisation will go down the pan. There is cast-iron historical precedent for societies spreading across the available fertile farming land, moving agriculture onto more marginal lands as the population expands, and then collapsing when the climate changes, usually due to drought.

Lifestyle changes seem an eminently sensible way of dealing with climate change. US cities and suburbs take a lunatic approach to energy consumption with the different elements of daily life (housing, food supply, shops, work) spread as far apart as possible (it's called zoning), with no concentration of facilities so public transport can't get you there. Russian towerblocks run their heating systems on full constantly, with open windows as the only form of temperature control.

The blackout during the Battle of Britain was a lifestyle change: it cost some blankets and nails but saved many lives. Nobody waited for the invention of black lightbulbs.

50

Ed Sears,

Derbyshire 30/04/2007 11:49:20

#53 Your assertion that all climate data is filtered through James Hansen, who then changes it to suit his arguments, is ridiculous.

Your assertion that the CRU/UEA data shows a global cooling since 1998 is a lie: 1998 was an unusually hot year (so what! El Nino was active at that point), but the trend is clearly and continuously upwards with an increase in warm years the closer you get to the present day. The data shows warming since 1999 and also warming since 1997, and since any other year except 1998. I invite everybody else to have a look at the data - it's only a click away, then click on the image to expand it.

51

fred bloggs,

30/04/2007 11:52:51

54. Borderman - you have nothing to worry about; any heat energy absorbed in producing electricity reappears when that electricity is used in the appliance (kettle, radio, iPOD, etc).

52

AJ,

Fife 30/04/2007 11:54:52

The Fizz#51,

What is a tug?

53

Neil,

9% Growth Party 30/04/2007 11:56:20

This seems an almost sensible report - one can see why FoE are so annoyed.

If warming were both caused by CO2 increase & undesireable, both highly questionable, then cutting CO2 by building nuclear would be the only practical option. While I support GM I am less sanguine about using it for biofuel. Doing so requires some fertilizer even for GM crops & fertilizer requires oil. Biofuels, while great for the farming subsidy lobby, do not save resources - quite the opposite. A more cost effective method would be to use the off peak power from nuclear reactors to create hydrogen or methane.

Nuclear is far cheaper than even conventional power, as has been proven & ignored on here repeatedly.

The really good thing about this is that the IPCC, or elements thereof, seem to be looking at the possible problem from an arithmetical rather than religious viewpoint. When you do that the religious views of the Luddites are shown as almost unanimously wrong.

54

Sixupman,

Bridgwater 30/04/2007 11:58:35

The problem with nuclear is the management thereof - self-deluded propagandists to a man
[actually liars nearer the mark]. The TV documentary "Pandora's Box" exposed the same - wherein top civil servant, of the day, admitted their financial projections were known, by HMG at the time, to be crap! Current plans for deposition of medium wastes will take 30 years to transport same from above ground to the underground emplacement position. A civil engineering design change could probably half that time - but environmental factors are against it. hat has gone on is unbelievable, but yet a matter of record not disputed.

55

GP,

30/04/2007 12:03:10

wur doomed Captain!

56

fred bloggs,

planet earth 30/04/2007 12:03:27

57. continued: heat can only arrive at the planet by radiation from the sun. Heat can only escape from the planet by radiation from the surface and the atmosphere. The earth's temperature can therefore only remain stable if these two heatflows are in balance. The smallest imbalance and the earth will heat up or cool down. This is why the small imbalance man has created could lead to disaster...

57

fred bloggs,

planet earth 30/04/2007 12:08:56

59. "If warming were both caused by CO2 increase & undesireable, both highly questionable, then cutting CO2 by building nuclear would be the only practical option."

Warming IS both caused by CO2 increase & undesireable and cutting CO2 by building nuclear may be the only practical option.

But other generation methods, preferably renewable will be needed as nuclear is only fit for baseload.

58

LA Kings,

30/04/2007 12:13:47

40. Peter Max

How are you tying homosexual acts into both the Queens visit to the USA & now this article on global warming????

I'm totally confused. Also, is there any truth that Prince Charles has a butler whose breath smells like cr*p?

59

Derek Emery,

UK 30/04/2007 12:25:33

See http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HTBFAFRUCC.php by the Institute for Science in Society for what appear to be well thought out ideas for being fuel and food rich under climate change. This page also has an interesting link to ‘Nuclear power: A leap into the dark energy chasm’.

60

Sit William Arrol,

30/04/2007 12:29:12

#56L "Your assertion that the CRU/UEA data shows a global cooling since 1998 is a lie"

No it's not. it's there for all to see. (Awkward things, facts, arn't they?)

---
#55:
"Your idea that wind generation does not work is challenged by the fact that Denmark use it for 10% of their electricity supply"

Then why has Denmark decide it's built as many as practical, and why does Denmark import vast amounts of power from Germany to make up for the huge gaps left by the failure of the Danish wind to blow at the right speed all the time?

You really should try to keep up...
---
"Lifestyle changes seem an eminently sensible way of dealing with climate change... ... The blackout during the Battle of Britain..."

The Battle of Britain lasted what? 6 months? People will change behaviour for relitively short periods for a temporary major crisis, like a war.

You want them to change even more radically, and for ever. Mark my words: You are bound to fail, as you are flying in the face of human nature.

It was this same delusion (about war-time behaviour) that led many people to suppose they could change human behavour in order to make Socialism work. They were wrong then--even with the KGB there to 'help'; you are wrong now.

The solution is through technology; high technology at that; or there is not one.

Stopping GW by changing human nature is an incredibly stupid idea that has never worked in the past and never will.

61

Guthrie,

30/04/2007 12:46:52

No, its a lie, arrol. If you look closely at the data, what you see is an upwards trend. You are familiar with the idea of a trend? Obviously not.


Stopping global warming does not require changing human nature. For example, I've run into several libertarians who are for carbon taxes or permits of various kinds, in order to run things according to market ideology, which will then stimulate the appropriate response. LIfestyle changes will still be the best way to go, and with appropriate technological changes we will be able to maintain something similar to current living standards whilst cutting our emissions. California for example has plateaued in Co2 emissions during the same period the rest of the USA has increased its output by 40%. This is because they enacted fairly strict efficiency standards for much electrical equipment.

I assume you are trying to make some sort of political/ ideological point here. It would make it easier if you actually laid out your assumptions and axioms.

62

fred bloggs,

planet earth 30/04/2007 12:47:46

66. "Stopping GW by changing human nature is an incredibly stupid idea that has never worked in the past and never will."

The suggestion is not to change human nature but to change human behaviour. During the war this was done e.g. through the 'Waste not want not' campaign. And by the way, the black out lasted throughout the 5 years of the war, not just the Battle of Britain.

63

Jack the lad,

30/04/2007 12:57:01

What size is Scotlands green footprint.

You know all the positives - all the stuff that cleans up the atmosphere and stuff. Put that against all the negatives - polution and stuff. How is it worked out?

How does Scotland compare with other countries?

64

Neil,

9% Growth Party 30/04/2007 13:00:11

Fred 63 supports nuclear for the heavy lifting but says
"But other generation methods, preferably renewable will be needed as nuclear is only fit for baseload"

If you mean hydro which has the flexibility to provide extra power when you need it I agree & indeed have repeatedly mentioned france 80% nulcear & the rest hydro as a very good fit. If you mean windmills which are extremely useful for providing extra power when you don't need it then I fail to see the advantage.

If the attitude of the less extreme Greens is that nuclear should be allowed to provide the electricity & windmills should be allowed to take the customers money, which is prety much the curent position, I do not favour it.

65

fred bloggs,

planet earth 30/04/2007 13:10:36

70. An advantage of wind generation is that it automatically compensates for the cooling effect of the wind...

66

petrol head,

Edinburgh 30/04/2007 13:16:02

"Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, attacked some of the proposed solutions. "Nuclear power is nothing other than a white elephant"

That fool again! Why do his comments on nuclear power get published? Even a 5-year old could see that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

For the record, this self-styled saviour of the world as we know it does not even know the difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb.

IGNORE HIM!!!

Nuclear power is a good idea and is something we should have been building on instead of listening to fools like McLaren who think that power stations can explode liks nuclear bombs.

67

Colin, Glasgow,

30/04/2007 13:49:21

Rulesbutnotrulers #15 et al

Nuclear electricity is cost effective. With new nuclear, the cost of decommissioning is roughly 5%-10% of the cost of the electricity, and the waste management is similar. Even with this factored-in, the electricity is cost competitive. Witness the dozens of new nuclear stations currently under construction worldwide. They aren’t throwing money away.

And nuclear power stations ARE insured. In fact various international conventions require them to be insured, and they are liable for any incident regardless of fault. British Nuclear Insurers is one of the consortiums that provide nuclear insurance. The amount of liability is limited by international conventions, but was sufficient to cover Three Mile Island. Chernobyl was uninsured and uninsurable because it was not a safe design.

Nuclear fuel supplies are finite, but they are vast. 70 years known reserve at current usage. Multiply by 60 if we use fast breeder reactors. And that is with hardly any attempt at exploration for more uranium. Thorium can also be used as nuclear fuel, and it is three times as abundant as Uranium. Conservatively there is hundreds of year’s worth of fuel available; and if we went as far as extracting uranium from seawater it could last for millions of years.

At the moment the only renewable source that comes close to nuclear in terms of scalability is hydro. We need at least one more generation of fission reactors, and the sooner the better.

68

Murchadh Ruadh,

30/04/2007 14:21:09

#73 'At the moment the only renewable source that comes close to nuclear in terms of scalability is hydro.' Agreed of course, but the prospects for large-scale new hydro in UK are pretty limited. The one being built at Glendoe near Ft Augustus is the first really big one for years, and there are few other credible sites. So that gets us back to nuclear for the low CO2 option.

69

Guthrie,

30/04/2007 15:04:59

For big scale hydro, I thought that most of the good sites had already been used up. There are limited numbers of appropriately shaped valleys with high rainfall and good geology.

70

Am-Bodach,

30/04/2007 15:13:34

#55.“Your idea that wind generation does not work is challenged by the fact that Denmark use it for 10% of their electricity supply, and it is rapidly expanding in many countries.”

The vast majority of electricity produced by wind power in Denmark can not be used productively, and has to be “exported” . If I understand Denmark’s energy statistics correctly, wind power has not reduced the consumption of crude oil/natural gas – despite the concurrent deployment of energy efficiency measures and CHP:

Danish energy production from oil+gas: (PJ)

1990 – 375926
2000 – 1074833
2005 – 1189092

#63. Wind power can not replace our dependence on nuclear power, yet paradoxically wind power is incompatible with a generation system that includes nuclear power. This is because both wind and nuclear have high capital costs and low or no fuel costs. That means both require "must run" status to pay off their capital costs within an economic time frame. There is one energy source that is both expensive and irrelevant both to our energy supply and to mitigating climate change – that is wind power. We can save electricity consumers 3 million pounds per day by scrapping it – and planet Earth will not notice!

71

Colin, Glasgow,

30/04/2007 15:22:13

#75 I think that's true for most of the world. Most developed countries have already exploited any good hydro sites. I think there are a number of potential sites still in Africa.

72

AJ fae Fife,

Fife of course 30/04/2007 15:57:00

How about this

73

fred bloggs,

30/04/2007 16:19:32

79. September 1939 - August 1945.

74

fred bloggs,

planet earth 30/04/2007 16:24:52

76. "The vast majority of electricity produced by wind power in Denmark can not be used productively, and has to be “exported”

How is this a problem? Presumably they get paid for it!

Or are you suggesting the surplus electricity is somehow 'poured down the sink'?

75

Am-Bodach,

30/04/2007 18:13:06

#81

Yes - I understand that the Danes export electricity under extremely unfavourable economic conditions, in instances paying for other countries to take it [The wind frequently blows at times when demand for electricity is low]. Much is in fact "dumped". That which isn't frequently displaces emission-free hydro or nuclear in other countries.

76

GP,

30/04/2007 18:17:11

82#
Why should future generations have to work hard to pay for the fuel used by past generations? It's unfair, and quite unnecessary in view of the dozens of sustainable alternatives


by your statement why should we be paying for past coal and oil generation.
grow up!
wind is the least effective way of generating electricity and Denmark and Germany have stopped deploying because of it's uneconomic service.
If these two countries who have had wind power a lot longer than us are abandoning it surely that tells a story. Germany for one is not a country that walks away from anything positive.

77

G_C,

30/04/2007 18:42:23

#81 The Danes do indeed get paid for exported electricity, but at a price which is entirely market driven. This means exporting during higher-wind/lower demand conditions at extremely low prices and buying back during times of high demand at high prices. It's an arrangement which works particularly well for Norway.
Since maintaining a reliable supply depends on controllable and reliable sources of power, Denmarks lights are kept on by importing from Norway (hydro), Sweden (nuclear and hydro) and Germany (coal and nuclear). It's all explained in the following links:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/Ho...
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/Wh...
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/ma...

These documents also contain the real data graphs that poster #37 and the UK wind industry are so scared of. Ever seen an hourly output graph for the UK wind industry? Why won't they publish them?

78

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 30/04/2007 19:15:30

AJ @78. Yeah, that's much better. Really suits you. Brings out the colour of your eyes so it does!

79

Colin, Glasgow,

30/04/2007 19:17:59

Rulesbutnotrulers #82 - international law limits the liability for nuclear accidents. Insurers take on the risk up to the limit of the liability. The level of liability is set by international convention, and has been for 50 years. The flip side of this arrangement is that the nuclear operator is liable for ALL incidents regardless of fault.
It is hardly sensible to expect either the operators or the insurers to insure for a larger amount than they are legally required to. Everybody - the insurers, the industry, and all signatory governments - are happy with these arrangements so they are unlikely to change.
At any rate, with current plant designs the worst-case incident is unlikely to be worse than Three Mile Island (which harmed nobody but was expensive) and this is easily covered by the existing liability. All non-Soviet designs include a containment building, which makes a Chernobyl-style release of radioactivity impossible. I should add, Chernobyl is the only occurrence where a radiation accident at a civil nuclear power station has killed anybody, ever.

You can chose to guard nuclear waste for 130k years if you want to. If you want to make nuclear power seem expensive, then assume this by all means. We have no choice but to deal with the waste that we already have, so the cost is going to be incurred whether we have new nuclear stations or not.
Alternatively, the sensible option is deep geological disposal. This removes the waste from the biosphere long enough for it to decay to safe levels. It removes any responsibility from future generations. And it is passively safe forever. Living on top of a repository would be considerably safer than having natural gas installed in your home.


As I said before, the cost of waste management and decommissioning can be included in the cost of nuclear electricity and it is still cost competetive. All new nuclear operators are required to do this. There is no "lost opportunity" th

80

AJ fae Fife,

Fife of course 30/04/2007 20:35:22

Thanks Dave, ma new style isnae too far away fae yer ain!!:)

81

CombatVet68,

New Babylon 30/04/2007 21:54:51

Why do you give place in your hearts for fear? Do you not know that HE who framed the heavens and the earth, He who gave life to all living things, still reigns over all that HE has made?

The end of time will come in HIS own time, not mans. There must first be a great devastation and conflict between nations. More violent than at any other time in the history of man.

After this time, there will be one thousand years of peace upon the face of this earth, for the Son of Man will reign. So there is no need to fear that the earth will no longer support life before all thse things come to pass. Your real fear should be focused upon the middle east and the rise of Persia, in league with Russia and China.

82

Karlinsky,

30/04/2007 22:41:39

We should have been building new updated Nuclear power plants decades ago.

83

GM and Nuclear, you must be kidding,

Alabama, USA 30/04/2007 22:46:12

check out #15 --it's ridiculous to even suggest nuclear energy and gm food to curb climate change. maybe you guys should start reading into this a little more for yourselves rather than swallowing everything corporate media shoves down you throat. nuclear energy is not safe or economical. GM crops should be destroyed rather even put on the market in the first place. No one knows all the health risks of GM food, and it's ultimately just a ploy for companies like Monsanto to completely control the worlds agriculture. This planet is in serious trouble thanks to ideas like these.

Lets keep in mind that there is only one way to have a sustainable society : to give back to the earth more than we take (and no one can disagree with that). indigenous cultures have lived on this planet since the beginning of time, and never created any of the problems that capitalism has in just a few hundred years. Highest standard of living? i don't think so. Western civilization is a virus killing the environment and killing ourselves. New energy sources don't get to the source of this problem; what we need is a completely different social and political structure.

The earth is more than just natural resources, and peoples' lives are more than just statistics. get your priorities straight. Its not your god given right to drive a car if it puts everyone else's lives in jeopardy.

84

Pilrig,

Livingston 30/04/2007 22:59:13

CombatVet68 # 90- Jesus wants you for a sunbeam !

85

"Suck"-=-McCrunchie,

Don't vote it just encourages them 01/05/2007 02:20:01

If nuclear is the solution/future...

1. Why are we trying to discourage some middle eastern oil producers from using it?

2. Why can George Bush not pronounce it?

86

Neil,

9% Growth Party 01/05/2007 11:26:24

The answer to both questions is stupidity.

92 your post amounts to assertion of things which have already been proven here to be untrue.

Nuclear is proven both safe & economical & your assertion that GM "should" for no given reason, be banned is merely a religious evidence free conviction.

Regretably this seems par for the course for the eco-fanatics.

87

GM and Nuclear, you must be kidding,

alabama, usa 01/05/2007 19:56:04

95 check out Brian Tokar's book Gene Traders and Jane Goodall's book Harvest for Hope if you actually feel like learning something.

i know its hard to believe but sometimes mainstream news media puts the interests of their corporate sponsors above those of regular people.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.