The surface of the Earth receives an amount of solar energy equivalent to roughly 10 000 times the worlds energy demand. Of course there isn’t always sunlight, but the solar panels can store the energy, and they are getting better and better at it. A solar panel converts one sixth of the sunlight into electrical energy. Although they also are getting able to turn more and more of the sunlight into energy, they are already so efficient that space isn’t much of an issue anymore. The area of solar cells needed to supply a family with electricity is usually much smaller than the roof of their house. And when including the land required for mining and excavation of coal, CPS-plants (power-plants that rely on solar energy) are more space-efficient than power-plants fueled by coal. Solar power is roughly fifty times as space-efficient as growing crops for bio fuels. And that’s just with the technology that currently is commercialized.

Read the rest of this entry »

During a visit to Henderson Nevada, President Obama explained basic climate science for the people who had gathered to listen to him at the town hall.

“First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like — a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there’s all this snow on the ground, this doesn’t mean anything. I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn’t mean that every place is getting warmer; it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver, which is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees, and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow.

The idea is, is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns, and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather. So any single place might end up being warmer; another place might end up being a little bit cooler; there might end up being more precipitation in the air, more monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.”

You should also take a moment to read George Monbiot’s article on why Britain’s cold snap does not prove climate science wrong.

Karl Marx came up with the term “metabolic rift” to explain the crack or rift that capitalism has created between social and natural systems, humans and nature. This rift, he claimed, led to the exploitation of the environment and ecological crisis. Marx argued that we humans are all part of nature and he was also the first one who saw social societies as an organism with a metabolism similar to that of humans. In the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts from 1844, Marx wrote that:

“Man lives from nature, i.e., nature is his body, and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die. To say that man’s physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.”

The general idea is that disruptions, or interruptions, in natural cycles and processes creates an metabolic rift between nature and social systems which leads to a buildup of waste and in the end to the degradation of our environment.

Read the rest of this entry »

The 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, which many have said was our last chance to take action against “the greatest threat the world has ever faced”, ended in a failure.

For over 15 years delegates and politicians from around the world have discussed, debated and negotiated the questions of dealing with manmade climate change in various COP (Conference of the Parties) summits. So why haven’t they made any real progress yet?

That is a big question that covers a whole range of topics and issues that I won’t go into. Instead I will try to focus on the actual politics and tactics used at the COP summits. I will try to see if uneven development and inequality plays any part in how the actual negotiations plays out, how the delegates attending perceive climate justice and fairness, and if all this combined somehow sabotages the efforts to secure a climate deal.

Read the rest of this entry »

Controversy was sparked recently when Audi aired a new car commercial featuring “green police” arresting polluters for environmental infractions. The ad which ran during last Sunday’s Super Bowl, promoted Audi’s new car, the A3 TDI diesel.

Read the rest of this entry »

With only a few days left before the 2010 Olympic Games officially begins, there is a buzz around the streets of Vancouver. Being a resident of the city, I can certainly say it has undergone some radical changes in the past few months. Regardless of whether or not you support the games, it seems everyone has something to say.

Recent talk has surrounded the issue of sustainability. Considering, at the very least, the carbon emissions created by all the flights into the host city (and some residents’ flights out of the city) the Olympics can never be genuinely environmentally-friendly. However, Vancouver 2010 has been promoted as “the greenest Olympics ever” (official website: http://www.vancouver2010.com/sustainability/).

Interestingly, David Suzuki recently awarded Vancouver 2010 a bronze medal for sustainability (full article: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews02031001.asp). He writes: “achievements of the 2010 Olympics include building energy-efficient venues, using clean-energy sources, relying on public transit during the Games, and offsetting part of the Games’ emissions.” However, several areas were lacking. For example, the David Suzuki Foundation admits that “opportunities to create lasting reductions in transportation emissions in the region have been missed.” In addition, the carbon-offsetting accounted for less than half of the overall emissions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sustainability has never reached the point where it became so imminent as it is nowadays and at the same time so unperfected in the architectural discussion. We are on the eve of an architectural revolution where situational design parameters are no longer used as a design tool to “catch” the genius loci of a place or to resolve the design in the context, but will be driven from a sustainable necessity and local opportunities.

In an interview with the Dutch TV program “EenVandaag”, top economist Jeremy Rifkin states that the survival of the human race depends on the question; How are we going to deal with energy? According to Rifkin we are on the eve of a third industrial revolution, an era where fossil fuel is obsolete but the technique to create sustainable energy is available. So far no news. The interview gets interesting when he unfolds his view on “buildings as small power plants” and the way we should distribute energy. In his vision a lot depends on modern techniques which should be implemented in our buildings. Techniques to create energy from the sun, wind, earth warmth, tidal waves and domestic waste. On top of that we should also, according to Rifkin, renew our way of distribution of this “home created” energy. Energy can be stored as hydrogen energy and shared at peaks and lows throughout a intrigued network similar to the internet. Decentralised instead of centralised energy distribution. The question is; how can we as architects implement these techniques in our design process?

Read the rest of this entry »

In an interesting interview during COP15 Amy Goodman from Democracy Now asks Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, about his view of the climate summit in Copenhagen, climate change, USA, and the huge oil reserves in Venezuela. Watch it:

“AMY GOODMAN: What level of emissions are you willing to support reductions of emissions?

PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ: [translated] One hundred percent. One hundred percent. We must reduce the emissions 100 percent. In Venezuela, the emissions are currently insignificant compared to the emissions of the developed countries. We are in agreement. We must reduce all the emissions that are destroying the planet. However, that requires a change in lifestyle, a change in the economic model: we must go from capitalism to socialism. That’s the real solution.”

You can read a rush transcript of the interview here. Amy Goodman and Democracy Now had a great coverage of the Copenhagen climate conference which is worth a look if you missed it.

The bottom line in the Copenhagen Climate Summit should be (a) equal per capita greenhouse gas emissions for everyone and (b) an additional but equitable penalty for First World countries for their disproportionately huge historical contribution to atmospheric carbon pollution. Anything less is pure and simple climate racism and climate injustice leading to climate genocide. Unfortunately climate criminal First World countries believe that they are much more deserving than others, and are lead by Copenhagen sabotaging, US surrogate, climate criminal Australia which wants a 2020 per capita GHG pollution for itself that would be over 60 times that of Bangladesh.

Informed by “all men are created equal and have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, Climate Justice demands that “annual per capita GHG emissions” should at the very least be the same for “all men” – at the very least, because European countries have been responsible for about 73% of 1750-2006 historical carbon pollution of the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century (see Dr James Hansen’s 2008 Open Letter to PM Kevin Rudd of Australia).

Read the rest of this entry »

Chances are, you already do quite a few of these already. These ideas certainly aren’t new or ingenious. However, they are simple, easy and attainable. So if you see something new on the list, give it a go. There are always things we can work on.

Your Two New Best Friends…

…are your reusable shopping bag and stainless steel thermos, of course. The thing about shopping trips and coffee runs is that they’re often unplanned, so you can’t realistically say no to plastic bags or paper cups. The problem is that these one time slip-ups really add up for the planet. But its easy to avoid if you always keep these two essentials with you. Never leave home without them!

Go Veggie Once a Week

It’s probably no surprise that meat production and processing requires an immense amount of water and land—more than is required to produce any other form of food. So even if it’s just once a week, eating a vegetarian meal makes a difference. As an added bonus, a plant-based diet has countless health benefits, including lower cholesterol and a reduced chance of heart disease.

Read the rest of this entry »