I might take this a little more seriously if the money were used to reduce the birth rate among rich Brits. Just think how much lower England’s emissions would be if aristocrats and bank directors were limited to one spoiled child each. How many Bentleys and Jaguars could be taken off the road if the Royal Family stopped reproducing altogether?

The Royal Wedding confirms my judgement.

The New Zealand environmental research group Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research has prepared a rough estimate of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the merger of the Windsor and Middleton families.

The results indicate that the activities on the day of the wedding could be responsible for an estimated 2,808 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) in greenhouse gases, for the scope of emissions calculated. Emissions due to travel by crowds lining the streets might amount to another 3,957 tonnes of CO2e and the Royal Airforce flyover might add another 1.95 tonnes of CO2e.

Total: 6,767 tonnes.

Landcare emphasizes that this is a very rough estimate, compiled as a “fun exercise.”

What’s more, their estimates aren’t complete: the London Telegraph points out that the estimated Royal Wedding emissions don’t include “emissions from the millions of tons of bunting, cheap Union Jacks and confetti flooding the streets on the day, or the flights of the international media.”

Nor, we can add, did Landcare include emissions from police operations, helicopter surveillance, pre-emptive arrests of dissidents, or other actions associated with what the Independent calls “the biggest security operation in a generation.”ť

But Landcare’s estimate is high enough. The company says that emissions associated with the Royal wedding were 1230 times greater than an entire year’s emissions from an average UK household. It’s even 12 times the annual emissions produced by Buckingham Palace.

Landcare doesn’t say so, but in one day the Royal family was responsible for pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than 67,700 people in Madagascar produce in an entire year.

That puts the entire “too many people” argument into proper perspective. Anyone who really wants to reduce global emissions should be campaigning to abolish the English monarchy.

The photo shows the second hydrogen explosion at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 3 reactor in Japan.

The ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan has sparked new life in the nuclear energy debate in many countries. And the fear for possible nuclear accidents in other countries forces politicians to reconsider and review their current energy policy stance.

The continued protests against nuclear energy in Germany has seen an upswing during these past days. About 60,000 people formed a chain around a nuclear power station in Germany this weekend to protest its continued operation. And chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to announce the suspension of the country’s plans to extend the life of its nuclear power stations later today, the Guardian reports.

In USA people and politicians are starting to question President Barack Obama’s plans to expand and build new nuclear power plants to meet growing energy demands in the country. The independent and strongly pro-nuclear Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, have said that the USA should “put the brakes on nuclear power plants“:

“I don’t want to stop the building of nuclear power plants. But I think we’ve got to kind of quietly put, quickly put, the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan as a result of the earthquake and the tsunami and then see what more, if anything, we can demand of the new power plants that are coming on line.”

In Britain the Green lawmaker Caroline Lucas have said that the Japanese nuclear crisis strengthens the case against new nuclear construction. “You will never be able to completely design out human error, design failure or natural disaster,” she said. Walt Patterson, associate fellow at London’s Chatham House thinktank, said that, the financial damages of a potential nuclear accident also played a big role in shaping the energy debate in Brian and Europe.

“That is undoubtedly going to filter back to the debate in Europe as a further factor in the very dubious economics of these plants,” he told Reuters.

The plans to expand nuclear energy in India for around $175 billion might, in light of the current situation in Japan, see a strong public backlash, analysts and experts say:

“The Japan accident has created a very, very tough situation for India, actual implementation of nuclear power projects will now certainly take a backseat,” said Debasish Mishra, Mumbai-based senior director at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. “It will be very difficult to sell the idea of nuclear power to people for any political party after the Japan disaster.”

While the nuclear crisis in Japan might not change the Chinese government’s plans to develop more nuclear power it could force China to review their energy policies. The current situation in Japan “may become a factor in the drafting of China’s energy plans, Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said in Beijing.”

“The accident in Japan may trigger increased public concerns over building atomic plants,” said Dave Dai, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Daiwa Securities Capital Markets Co. “China will become more cautious while developing nuclear-power plants but is unlikely to alter its long-term nuclear development plans.”

“The Baltic nation of Latvia is blessed with some of the most beautiful forests in the world, millions of square kilometres of pristine woodland that support a complex biodiversity of rare species of animals and plants. [...] As the UK aims to become one of the greenest countries in Europe, we expose its role in the deforestation of Latvia.”

The clear cutting, which is a total loss not only for biological diversity but also for social and economic reasons, is the result of the current economic crisis in Latvia. It is being fueled by the demand from overseas markets, particularly the UK which has been Latvia’s main export market for over 300 years. Al Jazeera shows how corporations and the Latvian government ignores EU habitat directives, laws and nature reserves to be able to satisfy the market demand for timber. They also question the validation of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certificate which is said to only label timber that is sustainable produced.

“Many of the products of the trade from furniture to wood pulp and paper are sold in the UK under a labelling scheme run by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international NGO that certifies timber is being sustainably produced. Is that really true?”

This episode shows not just the world’s ecological unequal exchange but also how unattainable sustainability is in today’s capitalistic system which is based on a never-ending growth rate.

Photo credit: World Economic Forum

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is now warning that the upcoming climate talks this December in Copenhagen, Denmark, are in “grave danger” of failing. The UN climate change conference, also known as Cop15, in Copenhagen this year is the last chance we have to take action against “the greatest threat the world has ever faced”.

“”It is a historic moment: the ultimate test of global cooperation. Yet the negotiations are proceeding so slowly that a deal is in grave danger,” Brown wrote.

Brown has, after a rather successful global climate wake-up campaign around the world (see video below), pledged he will attend the Copenhagen talks. He says the UN climate change conference is such an important subject that it cannot be left to environment ministers.

“Securing an agreement in Copenhagen will require world leaders to bridge our remaining differences and seize these opportunities,” Brown wrote. “If we miss this opportunity, there will be no second chance sometime in the future, no later way to undo the catastrophic damage to the environment we will cause.”

Earlier this month Foreign Secretary in the UK, David Miliband, warned that the climate negotiations are in “real danger” of failing:

“There’s a real danger the talks scheduled for December will not reach a positive outcome, and an equal danger in the run-up to Copenhagen that people don’t wake up to the danger of failure until it’s too late.”

“According to one person who has read the drafts, the new policies will include buying up to 50% of the reduction from abroad. If this is true, it means that the UK will not cut its greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050, as the government promised. It means it will cut them by 40%. Offsetting half our emissions (which means paying other countries to cut them on our behalf) makes a mockery of the government’s climate change programme.”

Monbiot writes that “if global justice means anything”, the rich West must of course make deeper cuts than the poorer developing countries. “We have the most to cut and can best afford to forgo opportunities for development”, Monbiot writes on the Guardian.

“Carbon offsetting makes sense if you are seeking a global cut of 5% between now and for ever. It is the cheapest and quickest way of achieving an insignificant reduction. But as soon as you seek substantial cuts, it becomes an unfair, impossible nonsense, the equivalent of pulling yourself off the ground by your whiskers. Yes, let us help poorer nations to reduce deforestation and clean up pollution. But let us not pretend that it lets us off the hook.”

It is, like always, worth a read: The rich can relax. We just need the poor world to cut emissions. By 125%

Lovelock has earlier said that he believes that climate change is now irreversible. He predicts that the major part of the humans, more than six billion people, will get wiped out of the face of the earth due to wars, starvation, epidemics and chaos during the rest of the century due to the effects of a changing climate. Lovelock estimates that by year 2100 there will only be around 500 millions people left who struggles to survive on the few remaining liveable places on earth: Scandinavia, Canada and Iceland.

In the IPS interview Lovelock says he hopes that once climate disaster strikes “we will stay civilised and those in the North will give refuge to the unimaginably large numbers of climate refugees”:

“TIERRAMÉRICA: What will this new climate be like?

JL: The tropical and subtropical zones of the Earth will be too hot and dry to grow food or support human life. People will be forced to migrate towards the poles to places like Canada. There will be less than one billion people by the end of the century. My hope is that we will stay civilised and those in the North will give refuge to the unimaginably large numbers of climate refugees.”

“[…]TIERRAMÉRICA: How did we end up in such a difficult position, in which the human species is at risk?

JL: It’s like the pre-World War II calm in Britain when I was a young man. No one did anything until bombs began to fall. We really don’t notice climate change; it seems theoretical to most of us. When the first great climate disaster strikes, I hope we will all pull together just as if our nation was being invaded.”

Although I don’t agree with many of the viewpoints Lovelock holds, his nuclear stance being one, I always find his ideas and opinions interesting (and scary!). Lovelock’s latest book “The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning” was released in April earlier this year, which is said to be “Lovelock’s final word on the terrifying environmental problems we will confront in the twenty-first century.” I haven’t read it yet, the book is laying here on the table next to me, but I am sure it will be just as interesting as his former books.

via Stephen Leahy

A third runway is proposed to be built at the Heathrow airport in the UK. Once constructed the third runway would make Heathrow to the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. It’s expected that the airport would emit nearly 27 million tonnes of CO2 every year. A sum that is equivalent to the emissions of 57 of the least polluting countries in the world combined.

But the resistance against the third runway is massive, as I’ve written about before: Greenpeace, celebrities and politicians buy Heathrow land to delay third runway and Angry kids against the grownups inaction

Here in this video Emma Thompson, a British actress and Greenpeace activist, is being interviewed about her anger against the third runway. The video is about 3 months old I believe. But I think it clearly show what kind of feelings people have towards the third runway and the hypocrisy from the UK government.

In a genius attempt to stop the construction of a third runway at the Heathrow airport in the UK the TV impressionist Alastair McGowan has bought a piece of the Heathrow third runway site along with Emma Thompson, Zac Goldsmith and Greenpeace.

If constructed the third runway would make Heathrow UK’s single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s expected that the airport would emit nearly 27 million tonnes of CO2 every year. A sum that is equivalent to the emissions of 57 of the least polluting countries in the world combined. But McGowan, Thompson, Goldsmith and Greenpeace hopes to stall or even stop the third runway completely by dividing up the plot to people around the world.

“The government would use its powers to issue compulsory purchase orders for the plots but lawyers said yesterday that the existence of thousands of owners would make this process time-consuming and expensive. Similar tactics have been used successfully to protect tropical forests.”

Greenpeace says they will “resist all attempts at compulsory purchase and will represent millions of people from across the world at any planning inquiry.” And that their “lawyers are now examining ways in which all of our owners can act as a legal obstacle to plans for a third runway at our busiest airport”. So far over 5000 people have signed up for a piece of the plot.

“As legal owners of this plot we will take the opportunity to oppose airport expansion at every stage in the planning process. We’re joined on the deeds by Oscar winning actress Emma Thompson, comedian Alastair McGowan and prospective Tory parliamentary candidate Zac Goldsmith. Along with Greenpeace UK, that’s the maximum number of owners we can put on the deed, but you can sign up to add your name and stand beside us to resist all attempts of a compulsory purchase of the land.

You’ll be joining beneficial owners who’ve already signed-up including local Labour MP John McDonnell, Tory frontbench spokeswoman Justine Greening, Lib Dem MP Susan Kramer, environmentalist George Monbiot and acclaimed climate scientist and Royal Society Research Fellow Dr Simon Lewis.”

Emma Thompson said: “I don’t understand how any government remotely serious about committing to reversing climate change can even consider these ridiculous plans. It’s laughably hypocritical. That’s why we’ve bought a plot on the runway. We’ll stop this from happening even if we have to move in and plant vegetables.”

“It’s a very good time to enter the property market. If BAA want my patch they will have to negotiate with me – and why would I want to sell it to them?” said Kramer.

McGowan said: “The government is sticking two fingers up to the environment and the people of this world. By giving this runway the go-ahead Gordon Brown is effectively holding a giant blow torch to the polar ice-caps and saying ‘Melt, Melt !’”

If you want your very own piece of the land you can sign up here.

Here comedian Alastair McGowan explains why he joined the Airplot to stop Heathrow expansion:

Conservative Party green advisor Zac Goldsmith explains why he’s part of Airplot, a group who’ve bought land in the middle of Heathrow airport’s proposed 3rd runway, and who say they will never sell it to BAA or allow the airport operator’s bulldozers onto their site:

Photo credit: izzie_whizzie

Yesterday it was revealed that on November 28 one activist managed to breach the coal-powered Kingsnorth plant, one of the most heavily guarded power stations in Britain. The activist singlehandedly managed to get in, stop the power station and get out the same way without being noticed or caught by the security on site.

The ÂŁ12m defences of the most heavily guarded power station in Britain have been breached by a single person who, under the eyes of CCTV cameras, climbed two three-metre (10ft) razor-wired, electrified security fences, walked into the station and crashed a giant 500MW turbine before leaving a calling card reading “no new coal”. He walked out the same way and hopped back over the fence.

As a result the coal-powered Kingsnorth plant was shut down for hours, which apparently reduced the climate change emissions in the UK by 2%.

The police and climate activists are “mystified” about who the man dubbed “climate man” or the “green Banksy” really is and how he managed to pull it off.

Yesterday the hunt was on for the man dubbed “climate man” or the “green Banksy”. Climate activists responsible for hijacking coal trains and breaking on to runways said they knew nothing about the incident. Even veterans of some of the most audacious direct actions, such as the scaling of the Kingsnorth chimney, are mystified. The station operator E.On professed astonishment that a lone activist would be daring enough to try to do something so potentially dangerous.

[…]Should “climate man” ever show up, he will be feted for what activists say was the most daring individual action of the year. “We have no idea who he is – but we really want to know. Everybody’s asking ‘where were you on Friday November 28′,” said Ben Stewart of Greenpeace, one of six people arrested for climbing the 76 metre (250ft) chimney of the Kingsnorth station early last year but found not guilty of criminal damage in November. “We would never act anonymously,” he added.

This story creates lots of questions. But one thing is for sure. There truly exist many climate heroes in the UK.

The storms over the Alaska’s Beaufort Sea last week brought with them not just bad weather but also streams of hot air into the Arctic. Satellite images that were taken shortly after could show that the ice caps had started to “disintegrate dramatically.” And because of that the scientists believes that the melting could exceed last year’s record loss of ice.

‘It is a neck-and-neck race between 2007 and this year over the issue of ice loss,’ said Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado. ‘We thought Arctic ice cover might recover after last year’s unprecedented melting – and indeed the picture didn’t look too bad last month. Cover was significantly below normal, but at least it was up on last year.

‘But the Beaufort Sea storms triggered steep ice losses and it now looks as if it will be a very close call indeed whether 2007 or 2008 is the worst year on record for ice cover over the Arctic. We will only find out when the cover reaches its minimum in mid-September.’

These huge losses of Arctic sea ice will result in “major meteorological, environmental and ecological” consequences, such as: More and heavier storms being swept into Britain, polar bears and seals losing their habitats, rising sea levels and a further increased in global temperatures.