Categories
Economics Environment

[1056] Of Exxon surrenders!

After being attacked from all sides by the greens and allies, one of the great global warming deniers surrenders (via via via):

Jan. 12, 2007 — Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations, a move experts said could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on greenhouse emissions.

Why does Petronas plan to act on global warming?

I wonder, where does Petronas sit in the climate debate?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reservedp/s — from Making Waves of Greenpeace:

A couple years back, our intrepid Greenpeace US research team — through their work on the ExxonSecrets website — exposed the role that Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) was playing in trying to ensure Global Warming didn’t impact US energy policy — absurdly in one case being asked to play political assassin by folks in the Bush Administration’s Council for Environmental Quality who thought the Bush Administration EPA chief wasn’t skeptical enough about climate change. (They uncovered a nice little smoking gun memo exposing the collusion.)

Two years ago, I blogged about ExxonSecrets.

Categories
Environment

[1047] Of 30% sourced from hydropower

I am disappointment to hear that Malaysia is planning to source 30% of its electricity from hydroelectric power plant. In The Star today:

PUTRAJAYA: The plan is to have 30% of electricity over the next decade generated through hydropower to reduce the adverse effects of fossil fuel use.

Power generated through gas and coal will be reduced to 45% and 25% respectively.

Hydroelectricity generation currently constitutes only 5.5%, gas 70.2%, and coal 21.8%.

I would prefer to see the country diversifies its sources and includes heavier utilization of green renewables like solar and wind energy.

Further in the article:

“Hydroelectricity is environment-friendly, renewable, cheap and stable. Prices of fossil fuel are not stable and are always increasing,” he [Energy, Water and Communications Minister Dr Lim Keng Yaik] told reporters after addressing the ministry’s monthly gathering here yesterday.

While hydroelectric is renewable, it is not environmental friendly and hence, not green. Hydroelectric dam devastates local environment perhaps more than any other types of power plant. The larger a dam, the greater the damage done to the local environment. The intensity of damage done to the local environment by a large dam could rival any other types of power plant at typical operational level.

One does not need to be reminded how various dams in the United States have contributed to the falling salmon population:

Scientists estimate that about 70%-95% of the human-induced kills of salmon in the Columbia Basin are dam related. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “the major decline of the runs coincides with the construction and operation of dams for electrical power, irrigation, and flood control. Between 1930 and the late 1970’s about 200 dams, including 19 major hydro-electric dams, were constructed in the Columbia Basin to provide water for irrigation, flood control, barging, and cheap electricity for the aluminum smelters and cities of the region. Hardly any major stream was left untouched. For example, the 1214 mile Columbia River was turned into a series of back to back dams and reservoirs. Less than 200 miles of the Columbia River in the United States remain free-flowing today.

Or the extinction of the Chinese dolphin.

In The Star further, the minister seems to have implicitly assumed that hydropower plant produces less or practically no greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuel-based plants:

The minister said burning fossil fuels increased global warming and caused other damage.

That assumption does not necessarily hold for all cases.

Recent publications have suggested that dams in tropical areas produce significant amount of greenhouse gases due to decomposition in areas flooded by dams:

Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels. Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam, says Philip Fearnside from Brazil’s National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. “But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about.”

In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá-Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.

This is because large amounts of carbon tied up in trees and other plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the plants rot. Then after this first pulse of decay, plant matter settling on the reservoir’s bottom decomposes without oxygen, resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane. This is released into the atmosphere when water passes through the dam’s turbines.

Therefore, please reconsider dear sir.

Categories
Environment Science & technology

[1046] Of fluorescent versus incandescent bulb

The NYT has an article on why some people are having a hard time switching from incandescent to fluorescent bulb:

In trying to replace — depose — incandescent light bulb light, you’re asking people to disengage from a gravitation as primal as the attraction to the sun’s light or fire, which are incandescent. Like the bulb and its filament, they make light from heat, to create a glowing focal source, or a “flame.”

Fluorescent bulbs activate a gas inside a tube, lighting a fluorescent coating that glows and creates an even, diffuse light without a center. Born in a lab, they don’t have much traction on the human experience since the dawn — incandescent — of man.

Also:

It could be that America splits along cultural lines in the debate. In Asia, people are more comfortable with fluorescent light, said Mr. Gordon, the designer, who has clients there.

“Asians have developed an architecture that makes use of diffused light sources,” he explained. Rice-paper windows and room-dividing walls in Japanese houses, for example, spread light evenly, with few shadows, unlike incandescent light, which has a source point, like the flame of a candle.

Whatever it is, buy fluorescent bulb instead of incandescent. It saves energy and the environment.

Categories
Environment Science & technology

[1040] Of glacial retreat at Puncak Jaya

I am familiar with glacial retreat. To many, the most famous retreat is probably the one occurring at Mount Kilimanjaro of Kenya, Africa. On whether this is a proof of global warming, I will leave you to decide on it.

Kilimanjaro however is perhaps too far away for average Malaysians like me to relate to. Worry not however because there is a closer example of glacial retreat: Puncak Jaya. Puncak Jaya is the highest mountain in Indonesia with the height of 4,884 m. That means it is higher than Mount Kinabalu of Malaysia. It is located in West Papua.

Wikipedia has an animation that illustrates the glacial retreat at Puncak Jaya:

Public domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:137.13211E_4.05959S.gif

Nothing less than dramatic, yes?

The entire glacier is expected to melt by 2016, less than 10 years from now.

Where exactly is Puncak Jaya? Thanks to Google, here it is:

Fair use. Copyright by Google.

I hope the familiar features of Borneo and Australia is enough for many to recognize the location of the mountain.

For more similar animations, please visit the provided link to a page at Wikipedia, just before the animation.

If you are wondering what the hell is the hole in the middle of the 2003 picture, it is a copper mine.

Categories
Environment Politics & government

[1035] Of putting climate change on the Malaysian priority list

It is nearly three years since I wrote in ReMag that Malaysia needs a green spark if we are to see environmental issues sitting on top of the Malaysian priority list. After so many false sparks, the spark might have come in form of a huge disaster that had hit Johor and the Peninsular Malaysia in general several weeks ago. It is unfortunate that it takes something a horrendous disaster to strike us for us to act on the matter but we all need a remainder to wake us up sooner or later.

For the past few days, major Malaysian dailies have been placing the term “climate change” and its variants on their front page more than once. It seems to me that the highlights on climate change cuts through the language barrier — or at least, the barrier between the Malay and the English dailies. I am unsure if the Chinese, Indian or any other dailies in Malaysia are reporting on the same issue.

There are several examples to back this up. One is an article from The Star:

KUALA LUMPUR: The global climate change has prompted the Government to study its effects on the country to better prepare for possible disasters.

Another is from the New Straits Times:

Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Datuk Seri Dr Jamaludin Jarjis said the Cabinet had directed his ministry to conduct a study on climate change and how it affected Malaysia.

The ministry will hire local and foreign experts to conduct the study which will offer medium and long-term scenarios, in view of the changing global weather patterns.

The first study will be submitted within this month to the National Disaster Management and Relief Committee chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Dear sir, once that study is completed, please make it public.

Also, as blogged earlier, Utusan Malaysia:

Screenshots of Utusan Malaysia. Fair use. Scanned by Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

The disaster comes as a blessing in disguise to the greens. It is a political victory and staged by mother nature herself. This victory must be used by all greens to force actions on climate change in order to save the environment, so to speak, within Malaysian context.

Politically speaking, if Malaysia had a coherent environmental movement the way the United States has, the movement would have pounced almost immediately on the issue, further capitalizing the issue. Alas, Malaysia does not have a coherent green movement to play up this issue and influence Malaysian public policy greatly.

Once, I was driving down to Florida from Michigan to escape the gruel winter Michigan is famous for with friends. Along the highway in Florida on our way to Orlando and later Miami, there were large billboards warning Americans and others alike of the danger of climate change, of the ever increasing storm strength, as is claimed in several scientific papers. In the aftermath of Katrina, we all saw on the greens played the issue well enough to obtain the desired effect of political support among Americans. In fact, the investigation on link between global warming and storm strength was brought to public sphere because of Katrina.

It is during this kind of time of disaster when greens could throw scientific appeals out of the window and apply emotional and consequential appeals instead. Both are logical fallicies but sadly, it is almost a fact that scientific appeal, the science does not impress on the masses too much. As disgusting as it might be, it takes logical fallacies instead of pure reasoning to move the masses and directly, the state. This might be the factor that contributes to our reactive attitude whereas we need proactive policies to the environment.

The fact that the government is concerned of the effect of climate change and by proxy, climate change itself however is a development for all greens to celebrate. It is a political point that is ever so precious in a society that places priority on matters that do not matter to our well being.

What important though is not a study or another set of ineffective greenwashing policies. If the government wants to conduct a study, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report is due for release this February. Most that the government might need might be available in that report.

What important instead is the will to make our home a better place to leave in instead. We must be proactive as far as the issue of climate change — we could for instance introduce carbon trading and encourage ASEAN to do so same thing. Each moment of inaction will make the impeding adverse changes the more unbearable for us.

For me, the first step towards such end is economics: the internalization of all negative environmental externalities. The initiation of carbon trading as those in the United States and the European Union might be part of that internalization. Or, more radically, the green tax shift — application of full cost accounting, Pigovian tax, etc.