| Redd scheme designed to prevent deforestation but critics call it ‘privatisation’of natural resources John Vidal,environment editor,in Cancun guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 November 2010 19.58 GMT  An aerial view of trees at a forest on Sumatra,Indonesia where millions are being spent to fight deforestation. Photograph:Beawiharta/ReutersSome of the world’s largest oil,mining,car and gas corporations will make hundreds of millions of dollars from a UN-backed forest protection scheme,according to a new report from the Friends of the Earth International. The group’s new report – launched on the first day of the global climate summit in Cancun,Mexico,where 193 countries hope to thrash out a new agreement – is the first major assessment of the several hundred,large-scale Redd (Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) pilot schemes. It shows that banks,airlines,charitable foundations,carbon traders,conservation groups,gas companies and palm plantation companies have also scrambled into forestry protection. While forestry is billed as one issue where significant progress could be made at the talks,over the weekend David Cameron,Chris Huhne,the climate change secretary,and the government’s chief scientists all played down the prospect of a global deal to cut carbon emissions. “British ministers are going to Mexico this week with an approach that is both realistic and optimistic,”the prime minister wrote in the Observer . “Realistic,because we don’t expect a global deal to be struck in Cancun,but optimistic too,because we are viewing this as a stepping stone to future agreement.” Huhne,who will attend the second week of the talks,was more blunt:“No one expects a binding deal on climate change in Cancun.”But he said deforestation and longer-term climate finance were areas where progress could be made. The Redd scheme is central to slowing,or halting,deforestation,which causes huge releases of carbon dioxide. But critics say that the scheme amounts to privatisation of natural resources. FoE’s report shows,for example that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm Shell has linked with Russian gas giant Gazprom and the Clinton Foundation to invest in the Rimba Rey project,100,000ha of peat swamp in Indonesia. The project is expecting to prevent 75m tonnes of carbon being emitted over 30 years,which could earn the three groups $750m at a modest carbon price of $10 a tonne. It also says that an investment of little more than $10m by the bank Merrill Lynch,the conservation group Flora and Fauna International and an Australian carbon trading company could generate more than $430m,over 30 years,from a project to protect 750,000ha of forest in Aceh province,Indonesia. The “Redd rush”is limited to voluntary carbon offsets for now but is expected to become a stampede if the 193 countries meeting this week reach an outline forestry protection agreement that would allow governments to offset national emissions against forest conservation. It could result in eventual cash flows of $30bn a year from rich countries – who need to offset emissions – to poor countries,where most of the world’s endangered forests are. But the report’s authors say great social risks attached to the schemes must be addressed. “There are significant risks that Redd will lead to the privatisation of the world’s forests,transferring them out of the hands of indigenous peoples and local communities and into the hands of bankers and carbon traders,”they say. Many of the world’s greatest stretches of forests are the traditional home of indigenous peoples,and millions of others may be dependent on access to forests,say the authors,who urge that ownership of land and carbon rights must be resolved. “Many Redd-related disputes are now unfolding. Respect for indigenous peoples’rights seems to be a missing element,”says the report. “A Redd race is under way. Redd is emerging as a mechanism that has the potential to exacerbate inequality,reaping huge rewards for corporate investors whilst bringing considerably fewer benefits or even serious disadvantages to forest dependent communities. It could become a dangerous distraction from the business of implementing real climate change cuts.” One major concern is that the weak legal definitions of “forest”and “degraded land”would let the powerful logging and palm companies carry on business as usual by persuading governments to redefine what constitutes a forests. Greenpeace claimed last week that Indonesia planned to class large areas of its remaining natural forests as “degraded land”in order to cut them down and receive $1bn of climate aid for replanting them with palm trees and biofuel crops. However some observers,including Lord Stern,say the Redd schemes offer the best opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They say thatmore technologically sophisticated options,such as carbon capture and storage,could take several years to come into large-scale operation,and they are more expensive. A spokesperson for Shell said the company could not yet comment on the Friends of the Earth report. Taken from Gaurdian 28 November 2010
 Wednesday,13 October 2010  Stefan Kuiper Wind power could meet about a fifth of the world’s electricity demand within 20 years,an industry group and environmental watchdog Greenpeace predicted in a new report released Tuesday. The global market for wind power grew 41.7 percent on year in 2009,beating average annual growth of 28.6 percent over the past 13 years,said Steve Sawyer,secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council,or GWEC. China ranked second in the world in installed wind generating capacity in 2009 and was the largest buyer of wind technology,Sawyer told reporters at the launch of GWEC and Greenpeace’s Global Wind Energy Outlook 2010 report. “We would expect China to continue to be the largest market and perhaps even be the (overall) largest market in the world by the end of this year,”he said. The report’s “advanced scenario”–its most optimistic outlook –projects the world’s combined installed wind turbines would produce 2,600 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity by 2020 –equal to 11.5 to 12.3 percent of power demand. By 2030,wind energy would produce 5,400 TWh –18.8 to 21.8 percent of the world’s power supply,the report said. The more conservative “reference”scenario based on figures from the UN’s International Energy Agency saw wind power triple in the next decade to cover up to 4.8 percent of electricity –equal to Europe’s current total production. The “moderate”scenario based on current industry figures would see wind power meet up to 9.5 percent of the world’s power demand by 2020,the report said. “For more than the last 10 years,the actual performance of the wind industry has exceeded our advanced scenario every time,”said Sawyer. Under the advanced forecast,1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions would be saved each year,the report said. This would increase to 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2 saved each year by 2030. The cumulative amounts of CO2 saved would be 10 billion tonnes by 2020 and 34 billion tonnes by 2030,the report said. When asked to compare China’s wind power industry to the US,Sawyer said Beijing was showing more leadership than Washington in alternative energy. “At the moment,the Chinese market has most of the advantages in the sense that there’s a clear and supportive policy framework and very clear government support for developing a domestic industry,”Sawyer said. “Neither of those have really been the case in the United States.” Taken from the Independant Website on th 26 October 2010 I first came accross Avaaz about 2 years ago. I can’t remember why but I do remember thinking ‘thank goodness someone is looking at this’. I signed a petition and went on with my life. I have been signing petitions and writing letters since on not all their causes but the ones that they bring to light and I agree I want it either stopped or started. If you feel passionately or even feel for fellow humans please sign up to this fantastic site;http://www.avaaz.org/en. A cross-border fraternity that strives to be seen,heard and heeded Sep 2nd 2010 | ottawa A new way of looking at that prison camp NEARLY four years ago,a web-based political movement set itself the modest task of “closing the gap between the world we have and world most people everywhere want”. Calling their group Avaaz,which means “voice” in several languages,the founders aimed to reproduce globally some of the success which their progenitors—like America’s Moveon.org,and Australia’s Getup!—had enjoyed in national political arenas. By its own lights,the movement,using 14 languages and engaged in a mind-boggling list of causes,has had some spectacular successes. Within the next few months,membership will top 6m. The number of individual actions taken (from bombarding a politician with a well-aimed message,or funding a poster campaign,to helping provide satellite phones to Burmese monks) is estimated at over 23m. Among the recent developments Avaaz claims to have influenced are a new anti-corruption law in Brazil;a move by Britain to create a marine-conservation zone in the Indian Ocean;and the spiking of a proposal to allow more hunting of whales. But is there any objective measure by which the reach of a global e-protest movement can be assessed? Sceptics use words like “clicktavism” to describe political action that demands nothing more of a protester than pressing a button,which may just imply curiosity;and it is rarely possible to prove beyond doubt that e-campaigning is a decisive factor in a political outcome. On the other hand,argues Ricken Patel,a co-founder of Avaaz,digital activism rarely ends with the click of a mouse. Avaaz’s campaign against the death sentence for adultery imposed on an Iranian woman asks members to phone Iranian embassies (and provides numbers);members are also being urged to put pressure on the leaders of Brazil and Turkey to intercede with Iran. Avaaz is collecting funds for a campaign in the Brazilian and Turkish press,too. Avaaz’s other demands range from the simple—close Guantánamo,because it plays into the hands of Osama bin Laden—to the very broad:fight climate change,avoid a clash of civilisations. Despite the risk of blurred signals,the variety of causes is also a strength,says Dave Karpf,an American analyst of the net;it allows the group to act as a hub,attracting members to one campaign and telling them about others. As Evgeny Morozov,a writer on the internet (including for The Economist) points out,Avaaz has lost whatever monopoly it had over the creation of instant,cross-border lobbies;you can do that on Facebook. But the way Avaaz bunches unlikely causes together may be an asset in a world where campaigns,like race and class,can still segregate people,not reconcile them. Taken from the following website:http://www.avaaz.org/economist_sept10 on the 15 October 2010. A good friend of mine just sent me this –(The person they are interviewing) Universities are meeting the growing demand for environmental skills with a range of ‘green’degrees 
Andy Heald led the City and is now doing a ‘green’MSc. Photograph:Graham Turner for the Guardian Former stockbroker Andy Heald had his epiphany… in the office loo. “I was sitting in the gents and on the back of the door was a poster from Barclays,claiming it had just saved £55m by installing energy-saving time switches,”recalls the 38-year-old. “I decided to investigate it further …and realised that everything looks good in the energy-saving industry for the next 20 years in terms of the brain-power and money going into it.” So in 2007 Heald ended his 12-year stint in the Square Mile and moved to south-west England. After completing a Cornwall College foundation degree in surf science and technology at Lusty Glaze beach – which led him to establish a kite-surfing school,which he still runs – Heald has now enrolled on a full-time MSc in energy,environmental technology and economics at City University in London which,in partnership with London South Bank University and Kingston University,opened a Centre for Efficient and Renewable Energy in Buildings in June. It is reckoned that more than £100bn was invested in low-carbon energy last year and that,by 2020,the amount invested in helping developing economies alone to cut their emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change will reach $100bn (£65bn) a year. Tracking how many “green jobs”this investment will actually create is trickier;the UK government claims there are already 400,000 green jobs in the economy,but its definition includes cleaners and waste collectors,as well as renewable energy specialists and water engineers. However,the prospect of an explosive growth in jobs in newer,greener industries is accompanied by a parallel surge in energy,environment and conservation-related postgraduate courses that seek to place graduates in posts with governments,NGOs,thinktanks,consulting firms and multinationals. Whereas five years ago most environment-related courses were science-focused,the new crop tend to be more inter-disciplinary. Cambridge University launched an MPhil in conservation leadership last year. Nottingham Trent University’s school of arts and humanities has just created an MA in human security and environmental change,which will study poverty,health and the changing climate,helping its students find internships,and maybe careers,in emergency planning,environmental and economic policy. Likewise,the University of Sussex has introduced two masters programmes:in climate change and development;and climate change and policy. Others,including UCL,University of East Anglia and De Montfort University,are combining their science-based masters in climate change with modules in business,leadership or politics. However,universities also report continued strong demand for master’s courses,where science is the meat and drink of the programme;courses such as the MSc in water,energy and the environment at Liverpool John Moores University and the range of sustainability masters degrees offered by the school of earth and environment at the University of Leeds. Leeds has also just launched a research-led masters in climate-change science,which is built around quantitative scientific skills training. “At a time when public spending is being cut,research into climate and the environment is in good shape,”says course co-leader Dr Andy Challinor. The course can be tailored to individuals’needs. “One set of choices will lead to knowledge and skills on modelling the earth system – skills of interest to,for example,the Met office. Another set will lead to knowledge and skills on climate change.” Challinor believes the MSc will lead to careers in research,but also jobs with any organisation that needs a knowledge of the scientific basis of climate change and the tools used to understand it. Back in Cornwall,Heald has begun pursuing his vision of making a difference. With help from an EU grant,he is setting up his own company,Cornwall Renewables,Energy and Management,to conduct site surveys for wind turbines and photovoltaic panels,and energy and environmental audits. He says:“From my days as a stockbroker,I remember the happiest clients were those who ran their own businesses.” Taken from the Gaurdian Website on the 29 September 2010 Internal combustion shocker By Rik Myslewski in San Francisco • Get more from this author Posted in Science,17th September 2010 23:54 GMT Samsung Q-Series –Power your life on the go The X Prize Foundation has announced the winners of the $10m Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize challenge,and the $5m winner of the Mainstream Class was neither a hybrid nor an all-electric vehicle. “When we began this process,”said the leader of the winning Edison2 team,Oliver Kuttner,“we followed the general assumption that building a hybrid,or partially electric vehicle,would be the answer to building the most efficient car.” But that didn’t turn out to be the case. “In careful research,”Kuttner continued in a video interview,“we came to think that by far the lowest hanging fruit was just to build the best platform. The most efficient platform,by definition,is the lightest,lowest aerodynamic drag platform. We quickly realized that lugging around hundreds of pounds of batteries was conflicting with that philosophy.” And so Kuttner’s team — which consists of over 100 people,many from racing backgrounds — created the aptly named Very Light Car. In their quest to build a vehicle that could meet the X Prize’s goal of 100 miles per gallon (or thereabouts,as we’ll explain in a bit),they powered the VLC with a 250cc,single cylinder,dual overhead cam,turbocharged Yamaha engine that maxes out at 40 horsepower and 29 ft-lbs of torque while running on E85 fuel,a mix of 85 per cent ethanol and 15 per cent gasoline.  ‘I’m not for or against electric cars,I’m for efficient cars,’says the VLC’s team leader The VLC is very light,indeed,weighing it at 830 pounds (376kg). While that may seem weighty when compared with solar-powered waifs such as the Umicar Infinity,Nuna 4,or contestants in,for example,the World Solar Challenge,it’s impressively svelt when you keep in mind that to compete in the Automotive X Prize’s Mainstream Class,a car has to be,well,a car and not a delicate silicon-encrusted table-on-wheels. The VLC is quite car-like:it seats four,has 22 cubic feet of luggage capacity,heating and air conditioning,a six-speed manual transmission,three-speed windshield wipers (with an intermittent mode,as well,natch),and even an iPod-powered stereo system. And it tops out at 100 miles per hour. Efficiently. According to Kuttner,“Our car gets essentially the same miles per gallon if you’re going 40,50,60,or 70 miles per hour. If we can get a car that get 100 miles per gallon going 70 miles per hour,I think that’s a pretty good winner.” And the X Prize judges found after road testing at Michigan International Speedway and laboratory verification at the US Department of Energy’s Argonne National Lab that the VLC did manage to achieve that 100 mile per gallon goal:102.5 MPGe,to be exact. MPGe,however,isn’t the same thing as MPG,and the X Prize award was calculated in terms of MPGe — miles per gallon equivalent — not MPG. As explained by the X Prizers,MPGe is calculated as follows:(miles driven) / [(total energy of all fuels consumed)/(energy of one gallon of gasoline)]. Thankfully,they’ve also provided an Excel spreadsheet you can download here to help you determine MPGe for an assortment of fuels and electricity sources. By Kathy Marks,Asia-Pacific Correspondent,and Daniel Howden  INDEPENDENT GRAPHICS A “plastic soup”of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States,scientists have said. The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world’s largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting “soup”stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast,across the northern Pacific,past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan. Charles Moore,an American oceanographer who discovered the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”or “trash vortex”,believes that about 100 million tons of flotsam are circulating in the region. Marcus Eriksen,a research director of the US-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation,which Mr Moore founded,said yesterday:“The original idea that people had was that it was an island of plastic garbage that you could almost walk on. It is not quite like that. It is almost like a plastic soup. It is endless for an area that is maybe twice the size as continental United States.” Curtis Ebbesmeyer,an oceanographer and leading authority on flotsam,has tracked the build-up of plastics in the seas for more than 15 years and compares the trash vortex to a living entity:“It moves around like a big animal without a leash.”When that animal comes close to land,as it does at the Hawaiian archipelago,the results are dramatic. “The garbage patch barfs,and you get a beach covered with this confetti of plastic,”he added.The “soup”is actually two linked areas,either side of the islands of Hawaii,known as the Western and Eastern Pacific Garbage Patches. About one-fifth of the junk – which includes everything from footballs and kayaks to Lego blocks and carrier bags – is thrown off ships or oil platforms. The rest comes from land. Mr Moore,a former sailor,came across the sea of waste by chance in 1997,while taking a short cut home from a Los Angeles to Hawaii yacht race. He had steered his craft into the “North Pacific gyre”– a vortex where the ocean circulates slowly because of little wind and extreme high pressure systems. Usually sailors avoid it. He was astonished to find himself surrounded by rubbish,day after day,thousands of miles from land. “Every time I came on deck,there was trash floating by,”he said in an interview. “How could we have fouled such a huge area? How could this go on for a week?” Mr Moore,the heir to a family fortune from the oil industry,subsequently sold his business interests and became an environmental activist. He warned yesterday that unless consumers cut back on their use of disposable plastics,the plastic stew would double in size over the next decade. Professor David Karl,an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii,said more research was needed to establish the size and nature of the plastic soup but that there was “no reason to doubt”Algalita’s findings. “After all,the plastic trash is going somewhere and it is about time we get a full accounting of the distribution of plastic in the marine ecosystem and especially its fate and impact on marine ecosystems.” Professor Karl is co-ordinating an expedition with Algalita in search of the garbage patch later this year and believes the expanse of junk actually represents a new habitat. Historically,rubbish that ends up in oceanic gyres has biodegraded. But modern plastics are so durable that objects half-a-century old have been found in the north Pacific dump. “Every little piece of plastic manufactured in the past 50 years that made it into the ocean is still out there somewhere,”said Tony Andrady,a chemist with the US-based Research Triangle Institute. Mr Moore said that because the sea of rubbish is translucent and lies just below the water’s surface,it is not detectable in satellite photographs. “You only see it from the bows of ships,”he said. According to the UN Environment Programme,plastic debris causes the deaths of more than a million seabirds every year,as well as more than 100,000 marine mammals. Syringes,cigarette lighters and toothbrushes have been found inside the stomachs of dead seabirds,which mistake them for food. Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans. The UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic, Dr Eriksen said the slowly rotating mass of rubbish-laden water poses a risk to human health,too. Hundreds of millions of tiny plastic pellets,or nurdles – the raw materials for the plastic industry – are lost or spilled every year,working their way into the sea. These pollutants act as chemical sponges attracting man-made chemicals such as hydrocarbons and the pesticide DDT. They then enter the food chain. “What goes into the ocean goes into these animals and onto your dinner plate. It’s that simple,”said Dr Eriksen. Taken from the  on the 24 August 2010 Across the world,wind technology produces as much political heat as electric light—stirring local arguments as well as global onesAug 19th 2010 | Athens,Hyannis and sydney  Flour,not power “OF COURSE I’m all in favour of clean energy,especially wind power,but…” That is a familiar opening gambit in a new sort of political storm,raging ever more fiercely in corners of the world where electric power comes,or may soon come,from flashing blades rather than blazing furnaces. The odd thing about conflicts over wind is that,usually,each side claims to be greener than the other. Opponents say a unique landscape or seascape is being overshadowed,to the detriment of tourists and residents alike. Wind power does undoubtedly pose some hazard to birds and other fauna;some say it harms humans. Others simply find wind turbines ugly,an eyesore in any location. Yet,compared with other power sources,the green credentials of wind are pretty convincing:it creates no waste,uses no water and (unlike solar panels) doesn’t need much room. As an example of a green-on-green row,take one in Maine,where environmentalists squabble over plans to expand a wind farm on the wilderness of Kibby Mountain. Opponents say the lynx and other species will be disturbed;they hate the fact that the wind farm’s builders,TransCanada,are also engaged in tar-sands extraction in Alberta. Supporters retort that global warming,which wind and other renewable energies help to avert,would not be good for big cats or the trees they prowl round. On August 5th,TransCanada announced that it was scaling back its expansion plan after running into resistance from state regulators. Meanwhile in Scotland’s border country,David Bellamy,a broadcaster on wildlife,has joined the campaign against a wind farm in the rugged Lammermuir Hills. This row is not just green-on-green,but blueblood-against-blueblood. The Duke of Roxburghe wants to host the turbines;his neighbour,the Duke of Northumberland,opposes them. Tempers run extra-high when the locations are glamorous and global celebrities are involved. Take Robert Kennedy junior,an environmental lawyer who helped to clean up New York’s Hudson River. He has been part of a campaign to stop a $1 billion sea-based project,called Cape Wind,that was approved by the Obama administration in April. If it proceeds,it will be America’s first offshore wind park,with an impressive capacity of 468 megawatts. The country has been a leader in land-based turbines but lags behind China and Europe in sea-based efforts. Among its many benefits,the park would meet the electricity needs of a gorgeous strip of coast where Kennedys and other grand folk have been summering for several generations. But it is a blessing those blazer-wearing,bourbon-sipping vacationers could do without. Ken Salazar,America’s secretary of the interior,said he gave his approval only after making adjustments to parry all objectors. The number of turbines was cut from 170 to 130,in part to reduce the “visual impact” suffered by the Kennedys’ fabled compound. The wind park has been moved farther away from Nantucket island and its breadth has been reduced to make it less visible to holidaymakers there. The minimum distance from the mainland is now 5.2 nautical miles;Nantucket town is 14 miles away from the proposed blades. But the Kennedys,as well as humbler sorts nearby,such as the owners of homes,boats and businesses,have not been persuaded. Before his death in 2009,Senator Ted Kennedy (Robert’s uncle) had denounced the project as a “special-interest giveaway”. Scott Brown,the Republican who took his place in the Senate,is following suit;he has likened the park to putting turbines in the Grand Canyon. In some local matters,even right-wing climate sceptics and climate-conscious lefties concur. On a recent August day in Hyannis,the mood seemed carefree as tourists tucked into fish lunches or boarded ships for the islands. But in the naysayers’ view,it is precisely these idyllic scenes that are under threat from machines that may cover an area the size of Manhattan and be taller (at 134 metres) than the Statue of Liberty. “It would be like industrialising the Sound,” says Audra Parker,head of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound,a protest group. A study by the Beacon Hill Institute,a free-market think-tank associated with Boston’s Suffolk University,lists a sharp drop in tourist spending among the economic costs the project would impose;it would not be viable at all without a vast subsidy from state and federal taxpayers,the report argues. But Mr Salazar insists that the Cape Wind project is not only desirable in itself,but a precursor to other wind parks on America’s Atlantic coast,which has up to 1m megawatts of capacity. One place where aesthetes and sceptics seem to have prevailed is the Greek island of Serifos,where plans were announced in 2007 to build 87 turbines of similar height to the ones proposed for Massachusetts. Critics felt the blades would disturb the 100,000 tourists who visit every year. “The project was way too large for our island,” says Angeliki Synodinou,the mayor. Another foe of the plan,Daphne Mavrogiorgos,said the turbines would have been almost as high as the island’s loftiest peak. Speaking for Elliniki Etaireia,an NGO which defends the Aegean’s ecology,she said turbines are both desirable and aesthetically fine,but the scale must be right. Yet advocates of wind insist that tourists and turbines can go together. In 2002,a survey of visitors to the west of Scotland (where wind farms abound) found that only 8% said their feelings were negatively affected by the blades;some 43% said the mills made them feel better about the region. “In China and Poland people go to wind farms to have wedding pictures taken,” notes Steve Sawyer,of the Brussels-based Global Wind Energy Council. Apart from aesthetics,the threat to migratory birds is the most frequently cited argument against wind farms. Since June,Cape Wind has faced a legal challenge from a group that includes Californians who normally lobby in favour of renewable energy. Their case is that the park could violate the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In the Australian state of Victoria,concern over the threat that turbines could pose to the rare orange-bellied parrot nearly put paid to a wind farm,the Bald Hills project,in 2006. Earlier this year,the spectacular bird was again in the eye of an Australian storm,this time over another,larger wind park in Victoria,even though research had suggested that the threat to parrots is small. The park is going ahead.* Some Australians fret more about the effect of turbines on humans. Residents of Waubra,a town near Victoria’s biggest wind generator,recently complained that low-frequency noise was causing headaches and earaches. Noel Dean,a local farmer,said he had to move his family away. He then commissioned a report that seemed to confirm his view. But the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council,which advises the federal government,thinks otherwise. In a report published in July it concluded there was no scientific evidence to suggest that noise,flickering shadows or glinting blades made people sick. It found that a wind farm with ten turbines made much less din than an office;in fact,only about the level that might be found in a quiet bedroom,or in a rural area at night. Britain’s National Health Service agrees:having studied the available research,it finds no proof of harm from turbines. In practice,the way people feel about windmills may have as much to do with financial effects as with physical ones. Many people fear that turbines will instantly depress the value of property nearby,even if it enriches those whose land is used. Research in America and Britain suggests there is no consistent relationship between blades and property prices. But if enough people expect a negative effect,the fear will be self-fulfilling.  Flour,not power According to Australia’s Clean Energy Council,an industry association,wind farms divide rural communities. On one side are those who are well paid by power companies for the right to set up turbines;on the other are their neighbours who gain nothing but a darkened skyline. Perhaps not surprisingly,the council found that people who benefited from turbines could endure the noise “despite exposure to similar sound levels as people who were not economically benefiting”.
Learning Danish
Both Australia and Greece have looked at how Denmark has fared with its community-owned wind farms. Danish lessons were used in the Australian town of Daylesford,where wind power has been accepted by the whole population,in the form of a two-turbine station meeting the needs of the area’s 2,300 homes. The project,known as Hepburn Wind,grew out of a campaign by a few devotees to educate people about clean energy. They then raised about A$8 million ($7.2m) from the locals. Simon Holmes à Court,one of the founders,says a “wind rush” by big developers in Victoria a few years ago turned some citizens off. Hepburn took a different line,with consultation and co-ownership. Wind doesn’t always lead to political problems. In several countries where it flourishes—such as Germany,China and Spain—the technology is relatively free from controversy,whether because the public has been convinced,or is simply prepared to accept top-down decisions. In fiercely democratic Greece,the potential for wind farms certainly exists,as anyone who sails the Aegean knows. And Tina Birbili,Greece’s environment and climate-change minister,says her country can follow Spain and Portugal in promoting wind energy,despite the local opposition it sometimes arouses. Next year her government will invite bids for offshore parks—after specifying,to the dismay of some contractors,that the government would identify the locations. This was denounced in some newspapers as too statist an approach;she disagrees. Far from frustrating investors,the policy would help them by offering a one-stop shop. It would pre-empt the objections that might be raised by various bits of the Greek government—from the culture ministry,protective of antiquities,to the foreign and defence ministries,mindful of security. In any case,Miss Birbili says,the state welcomes private-sector proposals for land-based parks. For visitors to Greece,the words “windmill” and “Aegean” evoke stone buildings with white sails,like the newly rebuilt ones on Patmos (pictured). Planning laws prevent such structures from being used for electricity. Miss Birbili thinks giant,high-tech blades,looming over the wine-dark sea,could become an equally welcome sight. But it may be a while before a new Homer hymns them in verse. *Correction: In the original version of this article,we said the Bald Hills project was located in the state of Queensland. The project is actually located in the state of Victoria. This has been corrected online. Taken from the Economist Website on the 23 August 2010 Michael McCarthy is given the chance to put his environmental policies to the test 
SUSANNAH IRELAND The Independent’s environment editor Michael McCarthy examines the 2050 Pathway Calculator It’s not quite being at the controls of the Starship Enterprise. But it’s on the way there. As from today,you can sit at your laptop or your workstation and redesign UK energy policy for the next 40 years. That’s you. Yes,you. It’s simple. You do it using the software the British Government is using itself,and you can pick your own range of policies and measures that will keep the lights on,in the face of looming global threats to energy supply,while simultaneously cutting Britain’s emissions of carbon dioxide,the principal greenhouse gas,by 80 per cent – as the Government has pledged. Once you start doing it,as I did yesterday,you get a feeling of Titanic Power,as in “Hmm. I think I’ll close down all coal-fired power plants”. (Unspoken thought:And have my picture displayed on all public buildings). You also get a real sense,deciding with the click of a mouse whether to install 10,000 or 17,000 offshore wind turbines by 2050,or to build 13 nuclear power stations,or 30,or none at all,that in planning the energy future there are necessary choices and trade-offs,and you can’t rule something out,without ruling something in. And it’s all rather more complex than you might think. Whatever mix you choose,or whatever “pathway”,as the Government prefers to term it,the endpoint must be the same:CO2 emissions have to be slashed by 80 per cent in four decades’time – with the lights still kept on. Doing it yourself gives an unusual and vivid insight into the difficulties faced by real policymakers in grappling with our energy future. The software tool that makes it possible is called the 2050 Pathways Calculator and it is the brainchild of the blue-skies thinker at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC),the chief scientist,Professor David Mackay. When I began using the calculator yesterday – it’s available on the DECC website – I was quickly initiated into the frustrations,as well as the delights,of shaping the future. The calculator has three lists of measures,which you can see in the columns on the screen,from left to right,under the headings UK demand for energy,UK supply of electricity,and greenhouse gas emissions. The first has measures affecting demand,such as home heating and insulation,while the second lists power-supply sectors such as wind,solar and nuclear power,and fossil-fuel burning (combined with technology to store the CO2 given off). Each list has four ranges of effort,from one,which is doing virtually nothing,to four,which is doing everything short of breaking the laws of physics. You pick a series of measures and apply a range of effort to each one,and then column three works out for you what the result is,in terms of the percentage cut in CO2 by 2050. I decided to see how much I would cut if I put all the demand measures,and all the supply measures,on level two of effort (“effort described by most stakeholders as achievable”). I did the clicking,and there was the result:Britain’s CO2 cut in 2050 by 42 per cent (a long way short of the target). So I ramped up onshore wind from effort level two (8,000 turbines covering the landscape by 2050) to effort level three (13,000 turbines). Result:nothing. The CO2 cut stayed at 42 per cent. This can’t be right,I thought. Bloody government. Bloody software. So I ramped up the offshore wind sector from level two (10,000 turbines surrounding the coasts by 2050) to three (17,000). Result:nothing again. The CO2 stayed on 42 per cent. Your calculator,I told the DECC press office indignantly,is broken on its first day. Washed up. Rubbish. Five minutes later I had a call from a man at the DECC whom I can only describe as a boffin,called Jan,and when I explained to him that at the risk of permanent enmity from the Countryside Alliance,I had virtually doubled Britain’s wind turbines overnight,yet nothing had happened,he nodded – I can sense people nodding down the phone – and said:“But of course.” He explained:“You are now merely oversupplying decarbonised electricity.”There was so much carbon-free electricity in the system I had chosen that adding more didn’t actually cut carbon emissions further. “However,”he went on,“if you move ‘electrification of individual transport’from level two to level three,you will see that the CO2 emissions cut rises from 42 per cent to 43 per cent.” “Ah,”I said. “Ah yes.”It was in other areas,he added,that the extra cuts needed to be found. Well,I never said it was simple,did I? All right. Maybe I did. But it’s fascinating,and you can try it yourself at 2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk. Taken from the Times Website on the 20 August 2010 Jessica Aldred guardian.co.uk, Monday 10 December 2007 12.20 GMT 
Wind turbines in in Stirling,Scotland. Photograph:Jeff J Mitchell/Getty What’s the history of wind energy? For centuries,people have harnessed the wind’s energy for power,to sail ships (the ancient Egyptians) or to power windmills to grind grain (the Persians). The Dutch are famous for their windmills,which have formed the basis for the design of the modern wind turbines that we see today. How does wind energy work? Wind is caused by sunlight unevenly heating the surface of the Earth. During the day,air over the land heats up more quickly than air over the water,making it expand and rise. As it does so,cooler,more dense air rushes in beneath it,creating an air current. Some giant wind currents are driven by hot air at the equator and cool air at the poles. In Britain,we have enough wind to power the country several times over. Turbines harness this energy by working like an old-fashioned windmill with rotor blades that face into the wind. When the blades are spinning,they drive a shaft that is connected to an electrical generator by a gearbox. Most wind turbines produce electricity when the wind is blowing at 10-30mph. One 1.8mW wind turbine produces enough electricity for 1,000 households every year. What are wind farms? Turbines tend to be built together,as “windfarms”,to produce more electricity in places that have strong,steady winds. Windfarms can be onshore –on ridgelines,at the tops of rounded hills,open plains and gaps in mountains;near shore –on land within 3km of a shoreline,or offshore –generally 10km or more from land. Onshore windfarm projects are finding it increasingly difficult to get planning approval because opposition to them is becoming more entrenched and better organised. Offshore farms cost more to build but produce more electricity because they usually stand in open,windier spots. However,current offshore farms can encroach on shipping lanes,affect seabird sanctuaries and disturb marine life,limiting the number of suitable sites. Wind energy is now available for both large and small-scale electricity generation,with huge technological advances over the past 20 years. How many windfarms are there in the UK? The UK has some of the best wind resources in Europe,if not the world,in both onshore and offshore locations. This makes the British Isles a very attractive location for wind developments,as high average wind speeds and good reliability results in more power output and lower costs. The number of windfarms in the UK is steadily increasing. The first windfarm was set up in November 1991. According to the British Wind Energy Association,there are currently 186 operational windfarm projects in the UK,with 2,120 turbines creating enough energy to power the equivalent of 1,523,052 homes and saving 6,156,175 tonnes of carbon. However,wind turbines do not yet make a significant contribution to electricity production,making up less than 1% of the national total. The government last year announced plans for thousands of new offshore wind turbines which could power every home in Britain by 2020. What are the benefits of wind energy? Wind is really a form of solar power,so it has similar benefits of being clean,abundant and free. Some estimates suggest there is enough wind to generate one-third of the world’s electricity. Small wind turbines can be used in remote places to power homes that are too far away from the national grid. What are the arguments against? The major problem with wind power is that it is intermittent,so it can only be used to generate electricity when the wind is blowing strongly enough. Good sites for wind turbines are often quite remote,either offshore or up on mountainsides,far from the cities where the energy is most needed. Another argument against large-scale windfarms is their impact on the natural landscape. Because they generally have to be positioned on hills to get the maximum benefits of the wind,some complain that they ruin the landscape. Onshore windfarm projects are finding it increasingly difficult to get planning approval in the UK because local residents are fighting against windfarms being positioned in their area. There are now 151 UK anti windfarm action groups in the UK which have been formed as a result of windfarm developments planned for local countryside areas. Another argument made against windfarms – particularly offshore ones- is the threat to birds. However,appropriately positioned windfarms do not pose a significant hazard for birds,says the RSPB. Taken from the Gaurdian Website on 20 August 2010 | |
