Key quotes from report: “The Australian National University will sell its shares in Metgasco, a company involved in coal seam gas extraction in Northern NSW, following student opposition to the investment… The ANU currently holds a 1% share in Metgasco, worth around $1 million, making it the 12th largest shareholder. The ANU’s total investment portfolio is valued at over $1 billion. Students from the Collective say they discovered the investment in Metgasco’s annual report. They were spurred on by contact from several people in areas affected by Metgasco operations, who urged a push for divestment. The students launched their campaign by installing a ‘gas rig’ made out of milk crates in Union Court on campus and starting a petition.”

I made the following science-informed comment on Woroni:

“Great news! The students are correct – gas is dirty and can be dirtier than coal greenhouse gas (GHG)-wise. Most of natural gas is methane (CH4) which leaks (at 3.3% US average or up to 7.9% from fracking) and is 105 times worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20 year time frame and with aerosol impacts included. In Victoria [a major Australian state] burning gas for power is half as dirty GHG-wise as burning coal but at 3.3% systemic leakage it is 1.2 times as dirty as Hazelwood (Victoria’s dirtiest coal-fired power plant) and at 7.9% leakage it is 2.1 times as dirty as Hazelwood (see this)”.

In 2009 the WBGU (that advises the German Government on climate change) estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise (would you board a plane if there were a 25% chance of it crashing?) the World must emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. Australia as a world leading annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter has ALREADY used up its “fair share” of this terminal GHG pollution budget and is now stealing the entitlement of other countries, including impoverished, climate change-threatened countries such as Somalia, Bangladesh and Kiribati (see “Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions”).

Australia should be stopping gas and coal extraction and not opening up new mines for more carbon pollution.

Congratulations to the student activists! I worked at ANU as a Queen Elizabeth II Research Fellow 40 years ago and so am doubly pleased with the ANU action. Disinvestment represents a significant means of cutting greenhouse gas pollution and anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Pro-environment students, activists and investors around the world should follow the example of the ANU students and ANU management.

Calculation of the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of leaked natural gas

Natural gas is about 85% methane (CH4) and burning 1 tonne CH4 yields 2.75 tonnes carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus gas is not “clean” as asserted by pro-gas lobbyists and politicians and is in fact a dirty source of energy. However if there is industrial leakage of CH4 (estimated to be 3.3% in the US from US EPA data) [1], then one must also consider the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect of the leaked methane which is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year time scale with aerosol impacts included [2-5]. These considerations render false the position of pro-gas lobbyists who plead for a coal to gas transition, falsely arguing that gas burning is “cleaner” than coal burning.

Thus in Victoria, Australia, gas-fired power stations (0.60 – 0.90 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, average 0.75 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) are roughly twice as efficient in producing energy as brown coal-burning power stations (1.21-1.53 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) according to a report by Green Energy Markets commissioned by Environment Victoria (EV) [6]. However, at a systemic leakage of 0.94% the GHG pollution due to gas-fired power would roughly double to about 1.5 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, equivalent to that of Hazelwood, the dirtiest coal-fired power station in Victoria.

If the systemic gas leakage rate is 3.3% (US average) then the combustion of gas for power would 2.3 times as dirty GHG-wise as coal-fired Hazelwood. If the systemic gas leakage rate is 7.9% (the upper estimate with shale formation-derived gas) [7]) then a coal to gas transition would yield power sector GHG pollution roughly 4.7 times as dirty as from coal-fired Hazelwood.

Because methane leaks and is so much worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas (GHG), Professor Robert Howarth, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York has concluded that “The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming. We do not intend that our study be used to justify the continued use of either oil or coal, but rather to demonstrate that substituting shale gas for these other fossil fuels may not have the desired effect of mitigating climate warming”. [7].

Gas GHG impact ignored by Mainstream media (MSM) in Western Lobbyocracies

US President Barack Obama has outrageously and falsely lumped planet-threatening natural gas under “clean energy”; permitted a massive expansion of offshore gas and oil drilling; and supported the Alaska Gas Pipeline, massive expansion of on-shore gas drilling and an oil-to-gas shift for transportation. One would have hoped that the 2010 Gulf oil and gas disaster tragically devastating the coastal environments of the US Gulf States would have prompted sensible, informed public discussion about the immense threat that natural gas (mostly methane) poses to Humanity and the Biosphere.

At least one news report in 2010 sounded the alarm about methane from the Gulf oil spill disaster (variously known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster, or the Macondo blowout): “According to John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the BP oil spill, the crude oil emanating from the seafloor [up to 100,000 barrels oil equivalent per day = 0.013 million tonnes oil equivalent] contains about 40% methane compared to about 5% found in typical crude oil deposits. The risk is great, as marine life will be suffocated as a result of the increased methane levels. The Gulf of Mexico will eventually have “dead zones” to deal with where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives. This is significant and can forever alter the water/life composition. “This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history,” Kessler said.” [8].

The amount of methane released over the 86 days between the initial blow-out and capping the well-head (20 April – 15 July 2010) can be estimated at 0.4 x (0.013 million tonnes methane /day) x 86 days = 0.447 million tonnes CH4 = 0.447 Mt CH4 x 105 x (44/16) (Mt CO2-e / Mt CH4) = 129 Mt CO2-e. Fortunately, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): “John Kessler of Texas A&M University and colleagues surveyed the Gulf waters during the leak as well as after the wellhead was sealed, and their results indicate that a vigorous bloom of bacteria degraded virtually all of the methane released form the well within 120 days of the initial blowout.” [9].

Australian novelist Peter Carey recently observed that the really important news is the news that is not reported. Ditto, “The holes in history are what makes sense of the thing” (Aarons and Loftus, “The Secret War Against the Jews”, p12). This is well exampled by President Barack Obama avoiding mention of natural gas in his recent speech on the Gulf oil disaster from the Oval Office – completely missing from Obama’s Gulf oil-and-gas disaster speech was one key word: gas. Read through his speech and you will find that he used the following words in descending order of occurrence: oil (24 times), energy (14), drilling/drill (8), clean energy (6), environmental (4), God/He (4), Al Qaeda (1), recession (1), gas (0). [10].

Similarly, a search of the entire ABC site for “Robert Howarth” yielded one (1) result relating to the Cornell professor (and that due to me in a reader comment thread), noting that the ABC is the Australian equivalent of the BBC). Searches of The Australian newspaper (Australian national flagship of the Murdoch media empire) and of The Age ( the Melbourne quality newspaper of the Fairfax media empire and arguably Australia’s most progressive Mainstream medium) reveal zero (0) and one (1) report, respectively of the findings of Professor Robert Howarth (The Age report being a letter from me that it kindly published).

Shale deposit and coal seam fracking, coal seam gas (GSG) and gas-based GHG pollution in Australia

Australia is a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Australia is also part of the global gas rush, gas boom and fracking-based GasLand scenario (see the movie GasLand about the impact of fracking in the US). However the Liberal National Party-National Party Coalition opposition and the Labor Governments (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) have identical overall climate policies of “5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollution” coupled with expanding coal and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. The Libs gave a “direct Action “policy (too ;little too late) whereas Labor has a disastrously counterproductive Carbon Tax-ETS plan that yields massive increases in Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 and 2050 over that in 2000. Thus the following estimates of Domestic and Exported GHG pollution in Mt CO2-e and based on Treasury, ABARE and US EIA data (noting that coal and gas exports are predicted to increase annually by 2.6% and 9%, respectively):

2000: 496 (Domestic) + 504.9 (coal exports) + 16.8 (LNG exports) = 1017.8.

2050: 527 (Domestic) + 2902 (coal exports) + 1,061 (LNG exports) = 4,409.

However these estimates do not take into account an approximate doubling of electricity sector GHG pollution due to a Labor Government-adumbrated coal to gas transition (and indeed an approximately 5 fold increase if fracked shale gas is used). Hydraulic fracking of shale seams is becoming controversial throughout the world, including Australia (see the movie “GasLand”). Thus the hydraulic fracturing (“fracking) of shale deposits with water containing numerous chemical additives has been banned in France and England and New York has imposed a moratorium on the practice. In Australia there are bipartisan concerns about fracking procedures violating prime agricultural land and contaminating and depleting aquifers e.g. the Great Artesian Basin, a huge source of water in this dry continent.

The main arguments against “fracking” of shale deposits and shallower coal seams for gas are destruction of prime agricultural land in a hungry world; pollution and depletion of underground aquifers; and that gas is dirty, generates CO2 on combustion and due to leakage can be much dirtier GHG-wise than coal or oil (if there is a coal to “fracked gas” conversion. there will a circa 5-fold increase in electricity sector GHG pollution in Australia).

However a fundamental objection to “fracking” and a coal to gas conversion is that the World is rapidly running out of time to deal with the worsening climate emergency. Thus in 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU, Wissenshaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) issued a report entitled “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach” in which it estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise the World must emit no more than 600 billion tones of CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. In mid-2011 Australia has already exceeded its “fair share” of this terminal global GHG pollution budget and any Australian GHG pollution now is at the expense of the entitlement of all other countries. [11].

Summary

Natural gas represents a huge threat to the World if, as adumbrated by corporations and governments, there is a coal to gas transition. Ignored by MPs, mainstream media and MPs in the Western Lobbyocracies is the reality that because methane (85% of natural gas) leaks (3.3% US average, up to 7.9% from fracking) and is 105 times worse as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20 year time frame with aerosol impacts included, a coal to gas transition represents a huge threat to a World that must get to zero greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by about 2050 if it is to avoid a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise. Hydraulic fracturing for shale deposit gas destroys agricultural land in a hungry world, pollutes and depletes aquifers and increases the systemic GHG pollution associated with heat and power generation. All countries and intranational jurisdictions must follow the examples of France, England and New York State and ban shale deposit and coal seam fracking. The World is running out of time to seriously tackle the worsening climate emergency. The atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is now 394 parts per million (ppm) but top climate scientists and biologists say that it must be urgently reduced to about 300 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species (see 300.org:) [12] but the World is remorselessly heading in the opposite direction . Stop the coal to gas transition and stop fracking the Planet.

For references, see page two:

Background

Before proceeding to systematically demolish the lies of this document, it is important to get the basic facts straight.

Australia is among the world leaders in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Thus “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included).

Top UK climate scientists Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming . Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of about 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Australia is disproportionately complicit in a worsening climate genocide (“Climate Genocide”).

Australia is world number 1 in coal exports and according to the Australian Government “Australia is a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), with considerable potential for further development based on its abundant resources of natural gas. Australia is the third largest LNG exporter in the Asia-Pacific region and the fourth largest LNG exporter in the world, exporting 17.9 million tonnes in 2009-10 with a value of around $7.8 billion” (see Australian Government, Department of Energy , Resources and Tourism, “Australian liquefied natural gas”, 2010).

Politically Australia is dominated (18 July 2011 primary vote in parenthesis) by the Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition (51%), the Australian Labor Party Government (26%) and the Greens (11%) (see “Latest Nielsen Poll”, Nielson, 18 July 2011). The Gillard Labor Government (elected in November 20101) is a Minority Government that rules with the support of 1 Greens MPs and 3 Independents and the next elections are due in 2013.

The Coalition greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution policy is essentially the SAME as that of the Labor Government, specifically “5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2020” coupled with unconstrained, unlimited, burgeoning, world-leading coal and liquid natural gas (LNG) Exports. The Coalition has a Direct Action Plan (energy efficiency, incentives for cleaner energy, re-afforestation, and biochar) but must be criticized for doing too little. However it can potentially do a lot more.

In contrast, .the Labor Government has proposed a Carbon Tax-ETS-Ignore Agriculture (CTETSIA) plan involving an indirect, selectively market-based plan to achieve a decrease in GHG pollution. Labor ‘s CTETSIA plan entrenches climate change inaction while dishonestly pretending to do otherwise. Thus Labor’s CTETSIA plan will: promote a disastrous coal to gas transition (that will double power sector-derived GHG pollution because methane leaks at about 3.3% and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year timeframe with aerosol impacts included; see “Planned coal to gas transition will DOUBLE Australian electric power greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution”, Bellaciao, 15 May 2011); scupper science-demanded 100% renewable energy by 2020; institute an empirically ineffective, disastrously counterproductive and utterly fraudulent Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) (Source); and ignore agriculture (yet World Bank experts have recently determined that GHG pollution is 50% bigger than hitherto thought and that livestock alone contribute over 51% 9f the bigger figure; see Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009).

The big functional difference between the Libs and the Labs is that while the Libs can potentially ramp up their Direct Action plan for “5% off 2000 by 2020” , Treasury analysis released by Treasurer Wayne Swan and Climate Minister Greg Combet several weeks ago (“Strong Growth, Low Pollution. Modelling a Carbon Price”) reveals that Labor will certainly NOT achieve “5% off 2000 by 2020” – in 2020 Australia’s annual Domestic GHG pollution will be 679 Mt CO2-e (Business As Usual) or 621 Mt CO2-e (with a Carbon Price) and can only attain the promised “5% off 2000 level by 2020” value of 466 Mt CO2-e by the artifice of purchasing 155 Mt CO2-e of Internationally-sourced abatement credits.

Treasury, ABARE and US EIA data show that Australia will almost DOUBLE its annual Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 relative to that in 2000 (1,012 Mt CO2-e pa) to 1,803 Mt CO2-e pa (with a Carbon Price) or 1,861 Mt CO2-e pa (without a Carbon Price) (see “Analysis: Australian Labor Government Carbon Price-ETS scheme fails & entrenches climate change inaction”, Bellaciao).

It gets worse. In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) and Belize (through disproportionately huge annual deforestation) have already used up their “share” of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget – and are now stealing the entitlement of other countries (see “World has 600 Gt CO2 left to pollute before 2050: Australia & Belize have ALREADY used their “fair share””, Bellaciao).

According to the Climate Commission’s report “The Critical Decade”, launched by PM Julia Gillard a month or so ago (Source), for a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2 degree C temperature rise (EU and Australian policy) the World must emit no more than 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 (1,000 Gt CO2) between 2010 and zero emissions in about 2050. One can readily calculate that Australia’s “fair share” of this terminal carbon pollution budget is 2,750 Mt CO2.

In 2009 Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG in Mt CO2-e totaled 600 (Domestic) + 31 (LNG) + 784 (coal) = 1,415 Mt CO2-e per year. Accordingly , at thjs rate of GHG pollution Australia will have 2,750 t CO2 / 1,425 t CO2-e per year = 1.9 years left before ti uses up its “share” of the terminal global GHG pollution “budget” i.e. Australia must get to zero GHG pollution by mid-2012 or roughly when pro-coal, pro-gas Labor introduces its fraudulent dishonest and ineffective Carbon Tax-ETS scheme (Source).

However in 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) and Belize (through disproportionately huge annual deforestation) have by August 2011 ALREADY used up their “share” of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget (see “World has 600 Gt CO2 left to pollute before 2050: Australia & Belize have ALREADY used their “fair share”“, Bellaciao).

For a detailed analysis of the worsening Climate Emergency sent to the Australian Government, its advisers and to Australian mainstream media see “Look-the-other-way, climate criminal Australia ignores 25 Elephant in the Room climate change realities“, Bellaciao, 6 July 2011). Yet look-the-other-way, climate criminal Australia simply does not want to know – it wants to exploit and indeed expand exploitation of its huge coal and natural gas reserves until the World makes it stop.

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.”�

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.

Supporters of clean air and water this week pushed back against a Republican Party proposal to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to protect Americans from air pollution.

As Republicans pressed forward with an anti-EPA bill, a coalition of environmental, public health and civil rights organizations emphasized the need for government oversight over coal and oil companies who are among the biggest polluters in the country and the biggest contributors to what amounts to a public health crisis. Now more than ever, this coalition, which includes the Sierra Club, the NAACP and Physicians for Social Responsibility, insisted the EPA is needed to lead the effort to regulate pollution-causing emissions.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, explained, “Coal and oil are polluting our air. They give us asthma. They’re fouling our water with cancer-causing toxins.”

“Coal and oil are polluting our political process and they are draining the life from our economy,” he told reporters on a conference call sponsored by the coalition. “As we’ve seen time and time again with situations like the BP oil disaster in the Gulf, big oil and dirty coal can’t be trusted to police themselves.”

“To these polluters, our health matters less than our profits,” he said.

It is the Environmental Protection Agency that stands in the way of their unrestrained habits that are making us sick. “There’s a reason why ‘protection’ is the EPA’s middle name,” Brune said.

With the agency’s effort to regulation pollution, the data shows that as many as 1.7 million asthma attacks and $110 billion in health costs were avoided in 2010 alone, Brune explained.

But the effort to protect public health hasn’t ended. EPA oversight should be expanded to protect the public from the adverse affects of pollution that causes global warming and to ensure an equitable enforcement of standards for all communities in the country.

Jacqueline Patterson, director of the environmental and climate justice program at the NAACP, discussed ongoing racially- and class-based inequalities in terms of exposure to harmful toxins and pollution.

“Communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to airborne toxins that lead to respiratory illnesses ranging to asthma, chronic bronchitis, COPD, and even lung cancer and other illnesses,” Patterson noted.

Based on studies conducted by her office, Patterson added, 71 percent of African Americans live in counties that are in violation of federal clean air standards. Almost eight in 10 African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. Within a three-mile radius of any coal-fired power plant, the population is disproportionately people of color. People who are likely to live within what is considered to be the “detrimental” range of a coal-fired power plant earn about 15 percent less than the national average income.

Simply put, race and income are the top two factors in considering where to locate pollution-causing facilities like coal-fired power plants.

Patterson also cited studies that indicate pollution from coal-fired power plants cause more than 30,000 premature deaths, 7,000 asthma-related emergency room visits, and 18,000 cases of chronic bronchitis each year. Asthma related illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths occur among African Americans at far higher rates than among whites, she said.

Economist Matthew Kotchen rejected claims that EPA regulation of pollution weakens the economy. He noted that the harmful effects of air pollution increase overall healthcare costs, reduce property values, and lower work productivity due to more sick days, all of which result in quantifiable harmful economic effects that outweigh lost profits for specific oil and coal corporations. “There are real costs associated with this air pollution,” he said. But unfortunately, as pollution standards exist now, corporations have little or no incentive to study and account for these costs.

Kotchen said that a federal cap-and-trade program or EPA-originated safeguards extended to such emissions would create the incentive for polluting corporations to consider the broader economic consequences of air pollution.

Americans in large majorities agree that the EPA needs to be allowed to continue to fight harmful air pollution. New polling data released by Public Policy Polling this week showed the public disagrees with the Republicans’ efforts to keep the EPA from doing its job.

Specifically, the poll was conducted in the districts of leading Republicans who advocate placing limits on EPA regulation of air pollution. According to Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling, the findings showed strong opposition even among independents and Republicans to this agenda.

“What we see in the findings across the board is a strikingly consistent affirmation by Americans that they support the EPA and its anti-pollution, pro-public health role,” Jensen told reporters. “Whether they are in rural or urban districts, Americans clearly believe that Congress should be doing what’s best for public health, not polluters.”

Pete Altman, climate campaign director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sponsored the surveys, said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chair, “and other members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will now be hard-pressed to ignore the fact that their constituents want Congress to let the EPA do its job of safeguarding the health of American families.”

Upton’s committee is currently considering a bill that would weaken Clean Air Act provisions and prevent the EPA from regulating air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Kristen Welker-Hood, director of environment and health at Physicians for Social Responsibility, explained that greenhouse gases actually contribute to the development of smog and harmful pollutants that adversely affect public health. She said that the Republican bill would “absolutely have an impact on the ability of the EPA to regulate air pollutants.”

This article was first published in People’s World on February 10th, 2011.
Author: Joel Wendland.

There is an overwhelming global scientific consensus that global warming is real, man-made and must be urgently addressed, As adjudged from the rhetoric at the disastrous Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun (2010) climate change summits, most world leaders acknowledge the problem. However in practice politicians are still largely committed to disastrous “business as usual” (BAU) policies. Nevertheless most politicians must appear to be “tackling climate change” while in reality playing a BAU game acceptable to huge fossil fuel interests.

One such false, phony, politically disingenuous approach has been the Carbon Trading-based Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) approach. The ETS approach has been variously slammed as (a) empirically ineffective (despite ETS measures carbon dioxide, (CO2) pollution continues to increase remorselessly and indeed man-made global warming has been described by top economist Professor Sir Nicholas Stern as “the greatest market failure the world has seen”; (2) dangerously counterproductive (we are running out of time, CO2 emissions must cease by 2050 for the World and by 2020 for the US, and there is no point wasting time going down a route already demonstrated to be ineffective); and (3) utterly fraudulent ( the ETS approach has already engendered market manipulation fraud, involves selling licences to pollute that must ultimately be worthless, and fundamentally involves governments selling something they do not have the right to sell, specifically the “right” to pollute the one common atmosphere of all peoples). [1].

A further phony approach that is now being implemented on a massive scale around the world is a coal-to-gas transition on the basis that (1) gas burning for power typically yields half the carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution as coal burning per unit of electrical energy produced and (2) gas burning is associated with greatly lowered carbon particulates, sulphur dioxide (SO2), heavy metals and organics and an 80% reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (nitrous oxide, N2O, nitrogen dioxide, NO2, and nitric oxide. NO, these being collectively denoted as NOx). However, as set out below, the reality is that gas burning seriously threatens the Planet because (A) Humanity should be urgently decreasing and certainly not increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution; (B) Natural Gas (mainly methane, CH4) is not clean energy greenhouse gas (GHG)-wise; and (C) Pollutants from gas leakage and gas burning pose a chemical risk to residents, agriculture and the environment.

(A) Australia and the World should be decreasing and not increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution.

Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming – noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Already 16 million people (about 9.5 million of them under-5 year old infants) die avoidably every year due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease – and man-made global warming is already clearly worsening this global avoidable mortality holocaust. However 10 billion avoidable deaths due to global warming this century yields an average annual avoidable death rate of 100 million per year. [2].

Collective, national responsibility for this already commenced Climate Holocaust is in direct proportion to per capita national pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (GHGs). Indeed, fundamental to any international agreement on national rights to pollute our common atmosphere and oceans should be the belief that “all men are created equal”. However reality is otherwise: “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent [CO2-e] per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included). [2].

However expansion of Australia’s exported GHG pollution is occurring through increasing black coal, liquid natural gas (LNG) and dried brown coal exports and increased pollution domestically through new fossil fuel power plants (coal and natural gas). Thus exports of brown coal from Victoria to Asia are expected to reach 20 million tonnes [Mt] per year (74 million tonnes CO2-e). [3].

If this is achieved by 2020 then Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 will be 1245 Mt + 74 Mt = 1319 Mt CO2-e = 149% of that in 2000. The Australia Federal Government’s derisory pledge of “5% off 2000 level by 2020” in actual reality seems likely to be about “150% of 2000 level by 2020”. [4].

Based on UN Population Division population projections, Australia’s 2020 annual per capita Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution is accordingly projected to reach 1319 Mt CO2-e / 23.4 million people = 56 tonnes CO2-e per person per year, 62 times that of Bangladesh, a densely populated country acutely threatened by inundation from mainly First World-imposed GHG pollution. [4].

Leading climate scientist Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber CBE (Director of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research [PIK], Germany and variously associated with the University of Manchester, University of East Anglia and Oxford University) has estimated that for a 67% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise (the EU target; would you board a plane if it had a 33% chance of crashing?) the World has to cease CO2 emissions by 2050. “All man are created equal” means that all human beings must be allotted equal shares of CO2 pollution until 2050. This means that high per capita countries such as the US and Australia must reach zero CO2 emissions by 2020 while low per capita emitters (e.g. India and Burkina Faso) can increase their emissions until finally reaching zero emissions by 2050. [5].

It must be noted that other leading climate scientists have reached similar conclusions about the urgency of achieving zero emissions. Thus Dr Vicky Pope (Head of Climate Change Advice, UK Met Office Hadley Centre):

“Latest climate projections from the Met Office Hadley Centre show the possible range of temperature rises, depending on what action is taken to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions. Even with large and early cuts in emissions, the indications are that temperatures are likely to rise to around 2 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. If action is delayed or not quick enough, there is a large risk of much bigger increases in temperature, with some severe impacts. In a worst-case scenario, where no action is taken to check the rise in Greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures would most likely rise by more than 5 °C by the end of the century. This would lead to significant risks of severe and irreversible impacts. In the most optimistic scenario, action to reduce emissions would need to start in 2010 and reach a rapid and sustained rate of decline of 3 per cent every year. Even then there would still only be a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rises below around 2°C. This contrasts sharply with current trends, where the world’s overall emissions are currently increasing at 1 per cent every year.” [6].

Similarly, Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK):

“According to the analysis conducted in this paper, stabilizing at 450 ppmv [carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2-e, atmospheric concentration measured in parts per million by volume] requires, at least, global energy related emissions to peak by 2015, rapidly decline at 6-8% per year between 2020 and 2040, and for full decarbonization sometime soon after 2050 …Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonization (in excess of 6% per year), it is difficult to envisage anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilization at or below 650 ppmv CO2-e… Ultimately, the latest scientific understanding of climate change allied with current emissions trends and a commitment to “limiting average global temperature increases to below 4oC above pre-industrial levels”, demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda, and the economic characterization of contemporary society.” [7].

Dr James Hansen, (head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, and an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University) has concluded:

“After the ice has gone, would the Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas , and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty”. [8].

However, achieving zero CO2 emissions is just the start. Many top climate scientists and biologists state that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (currently a damaging 392 ppm and increasing at about 2 ppm per annum) must be urgently reduced to about 300 ppm for a safe planet for all peoples and all species. [9].

At current CO2 pollution rates, in about 30 years the atmospheric CO2 concentration will reach 450 ppm, a level at which the Great Barrier Reef coral and indeed most coral around the World is doomed from the dual effects of warming and ocean acidification. [10].

The message from science is unequivocal. High per capita GHG polluter Australia is obliged top cease CO2 pollution by 2020. Accordingly any further expansion of Australian Domestic or Exported GHG pollution is absolutely contra-indicated.

A key part of achieving 100% cessation of CO2 pollution by 2020 is installation of 100% renewable energy. Professor Peter Seligman (bionic ear electrical engineer. University of Melbourne) has published a book, “Australian Sustainable Energy- By the Numbers”, setting out how Australia can get 100% renewable energy by 2030 at a cost $253 billion, his scheme involving a mix of wind, concentrated solar thermal and other technologies with hydrological energy storage for 24/7 baseload operation. [11].

An Australian engineering team called Beyond Zero Emissions has released its 5 year study on Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 (ZCA2020) Report) that shows how Australia can have 100% renewable energy by 2020 for $370 billion using renewable technologies of wind power and concentrated solar thermal with molten salts energy storage for 24/7, baseload operation. [12].

Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, California, and Mark A. Delucchi of University of California Davis have produced a plan for 100% renewable energy plan for the whole world by 2020. [13].

Unfortunately the clear message from top scientists is being ignored because of the lobbying power of “business as usual” and fossil fuel vested interests. Dr James Hansen in answer to the question “Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis?”, has stated: “Absolutely. It is possible – if we give politicians a cold, hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – “goals” for emission reductions, “offsets” that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual “cap-and-trade” mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual.” [14].

Gas (mainly methane) is not clean energy greenhouse gas (GHG)-wise.

The Australian Labor Government and the natural gas industry are utterly incorrect in their repeated assertion that “natural gas is clean energy”. However this untruth remains formally uncorrected and is now spreading through society, through media and even into the environment movement. [15].

The truth is otherwise – natural gas is dirty energy and on combustion is twice as carbon dioxide (CO2) polluting as brown coal on a weight basis. Further, in Victoria the carbon pollution currently ranges from 1.2-1.5 tonnes C/MWh for major brown coal plants and 0.6-0.9 tonnes C/MWh for major gas-fired plants – gas may be “clean-er” on this basis but is certainly not “clean”. [16].

However even the asserted “clean-er” status of gas as a fossil fuel is belied by the recent analysis by Professor Robert Howarth of Cornell University, New York, USA, who has concluded that : “A complete consideration of all emissions from using natural gas seems likely to make natural gas a far less attractive than oil and not significantly better than coal in terms of the consequences for global warming.” [17]

Natural gas (mostly methane, CH4) yields carbon dioxide (CO2) on combustion as does black coal (mostly Carbon, C) and brown coal (65% water, H2O).

The molecular weights of CH4 and CO2 are 16 and 44, respectively. The atomic weights of oxygen (O), carbon (C) and hydrogen (H) are 16, 12 and 1, respectively.

Burning 16 tonnes of CH4 yields 44 tonnes CO2 (i.e. burning 1 tonne of natural gas yields 2.8 tonnes CO2).

Burning 12 tonnes of C yields 44 tonnes of CO2 (i.e. burning 1 tonne of coal – assuming it to be 100% carbon – yields 3.7 tonnes of CO2).

Brown coal (that is burned to produce most of the electricity in Victoria, Australia) has a water (H2O) content of about 65% and thus burning 1 tonne of brown coal would yield 0.35 x 3.7 = 1.3 tonnes of CO2, or about 46% of that produced by burning 1 tonne of natural gas (2.8 tonnes of CO2).

Clearly, on a weight basis, burning natural gas (CH4) yields twice as much CO2 as burning brown coal. However proponents of gas burning assert that it is only 50% as polluting as black coal and only 30% as polluting as brown coal in terms of grams CO2 generated per million joules of energy.

Methane (CH4) has a molecular weight of 16 and carbon dioxide (CO2) has a molecular weight of 44.

When you burn CH4 you get CO2: CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O.

Accordingly burning 16 tonnes of CH4 yields 44 tonnes of CO2 and burning 100 tonnes of CH4 yields 100x 44/16 = 275 tonnes of CO2.

However if there is industrial leakage of CH4 (estimated to be at least 2.2% by the US EPA) then one must consider the greenhouse gas effect of the released methane (72 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year time scale).

Of our 100 tonnes of CH4, how much CH4 leakage (y tonnes) gives the same greenhouse effect (in CO2 equivalents or CO2-e) as burning the remaining CH4?

y tonnes CH4 x (72 tonnes CO2-e/tonne CH4) = (100-y) tonnes CH4 x (2.75 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4).

72y tonnes CO2-e = (100-y) 2.75 tonnes CO2-e

72y = 275 – 2.75y

74.75y = 275

y = 275/74.75 = 3.68 i.e. a 3.7% leakage of CH4 yields that same greenhouse effect as burning the remaining CH4 (check: 3.68 tonnes leaked CH4 corresponds to 3.68 tonnes CH4 x 72 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4 = 265 tonnes CO2-e . Burning the remaining 96.32 tonnes of CH4 corresponds to 96.32 tonnes CH4 x 2.75 tonnes CO2/tonne CH4 = 265 tonnes CO2). [18].

Recent re-assessment by the US EPA of US natural gas leakage has led to the estimate that “3.25 % of US natural gas production leaks into the atmosphere as methane gas”. [19].

There is no point spending billions of dollars replacing coal with natural gas and locking us into something essentially as bad as coal for decades more. Top climate scientists say that we must urgently reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from the current damaging 392 parts per million (ppm) to a safe and sustainable 300 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species.

Pollutants from gas leakage and gas burning threaten residents, agriculture and the environment.

Natural gas is not necessarily cleaner than coal for power generation in terms of greenhouse gas pollution (see part (B) above). However the bottom line in any analysis of any social policy is avoidable human morbidity (sickness) and mortality (death). That fundamental consideration and other environmental impacts of gas burning heavily inform the following numbered concerns about the threat of gas burning to residents, agriculture and the environment. [20].

1. It can be proportionally estimated from Canadian and New Zealand epidemiological data that about10,000 Australians die annually from the effects of carbon burning pollutants, the breakdown being about 5,000 (coal and gas burning for electrical power), 2,000 ( vehicle exhaust) and 3,000 (other fossil fuel combustion excluding bush fires). Accordingly any increase in fossil fuel burning is contra-indicated. [21-26].

2. International comparisons of fossil fuel-based power pollution deaths can be made. “Annual coal-based electricity deaths” [“total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”] are 170,000 [283,000] (the World), 11,000 [13,000] (India), 47,000 [47,500] (China), 49,000 [72,000] (the US), 3,400 [6,900] (the UK), 4,900 [5,400] (Australia) and 2,700 [3,800](Canada) as compared to 110 [360] (heavily renewable-based New Zealand). These estimates of total fossil fuel-based deaths (i.e. from coal burning plus gas burning) are simply ball-park upper limits deriving from a crude assumption, in the absence of readily available data otherwise, of the same mortality from gas burning as from coal burning. In reality, since pollutants are much lower from gas burning (see #3 below) one expects deaths from gas burning for power to be lower than for coal burning. However while transition top gas burning might be expected to decrease mortality from fossil fuel burning for power, clearly gas burning will contribute to such mortality. A direct transition from coal burning to renewables is clearly highly desirable from the perspective of avoiding human and environmental impacts . [24-26].

3. Pollutants (pounds per Billion Btu of energy input) from gas, oil and coal burning are as follows: carbon dioxide (CO2) (117,000, 164,000, 208,000, respectively); carbon monoxide (CO) (40, 33, 208), nitrogen oxides (N2O, NO2 and NO i.e. NOx) (92, 448, 457); sulphur dioxide (SO2) (1, 1122, 2591); particulates (7, 84, 2744); and Mercury (0.000, 0.007, 0.016) i.e. deaths from gas burning for power may be expected to be lower than for coal burning. However CO pollution and NOx pollution from gas burning for power is about 20% of that from coal burning i.e. gas burning produces substantial quantities of dangerous pollutants. [27, 28]

4. In addition to methane and other aliphatic (non-aromatic) hydrocarbons, natural gas can contain toxic materials such as aromatic organics, notably those innately present or deriving from “fracking” mixtures used to help extract gas from fractured rocks or coal seams (e.g. benzene, toluene, ethylbenze and xylene), radon (and other radioactive materials), and organometallics (e.g. methylmercury , organoarsenic compounds and organolead compounds). Incomplete combustion and industrial leakage of natural gas (estimated by the US EPA to be at least 2.2% globally and recently assessed to be at least 3.3% in the US ; see section (B) above) will pollute the local environment with these toxic substances. Radon and other radioactive materials are mutagenic and carcinogenic. Aromatic organics are carcinogenic. Organometallics are fat soluble, leading to long-term storage in human fat tissue. Methylmercury is neurotoxic (e.g. as in Minamata syndrome). Organoarsenic and organolead compounds are variously toxic. Arsenic is toxic, teratogenic (yielding birth defects) and carcinogenic. [27].

5. Nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO) (collectively described as NOx) are major products from natural gas combustion. According to the US EPA: “NOx react with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form small particles. These small particles penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital admissions and premature death.” [28, 29]..

6. According to the US EPA: “Ozone is formed when NOx and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of heat and sunlight. Children, the elderly, people with lung diseases such as asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are at risk for adverse effects from ozone. These include reduction in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms as well as respiratory-related emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and possibly premature deaths.” [29].

7. Nitrogen oxides can seriously injure vegetation, bleaching or killing plant tissue, causing leaf fall and reducing growth rate. Ozone pollution damages photosynthesis by plants. NOx air pollution contributes to acidifying nitrate deposition (with fish kills and reduction in plant growth), causes excess soil nitrification in ecosystems (with damage to vegetation, loss of biodiversity, increased GHG pollution) and is regarded not just a s a threat to agriculture and forestry but also to as a major threat to national parks and wilderness areas . [30, 31].

8. Gas burning-based power generation at a circa 1000 MW level in an urban environment can have very serious health consequences. Thus the City of Sydney (New South Wales, Australia) has pledged to install more than 100 trigeneration gas-burning turbines which burn gas to generate electricity and then capture the exhaust to heat and cool buildings as necessary. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change has slammed this proposal saying that emissions from just 10MW of “co-generation” (a similar engine that heats but doesn’t cool buildings) could exceed health limits and that 200 MW generation would certainly do so: “On an hourly basis 330MW of gas-fired co-generation [the amount envisioned] could emit up to 660kg per hour of NOx; this is more NOx than the combined emissions from the Shell and Caltex oil refineries in Sydney…As a result there is little ‘headroom’ available to accommodate uncontrolled emissions from cogeneration without causing local health impacts.” The National Environment Protection Council sets a limit of 0.03 parts per million (ppm) for allowed levels of NOx release average over a year. By way of example, the current proposal for 1,000 MW gas-fired power plant to be built 1.5 kilometres from the Lockyer Valley town of Gatton (Queensland, Australia) is contra-indicated on the basis of NOx pollution health effects on the nearby community. [32, 33].

9. A further threat from gas fired power generation comers from the generation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. A study of pollution from a 70-year-old natural gas-fired power station in Canada stated:

“This paper presents the results of a risk assessment study made using CalTOX, a multimedia, multiple pathway risk assessment model. The case study is based on the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) soil contamination resulting from the activities of a natural gas power station over a period of 70 years. It describes model characteristics and input parameters such as physico-chemical properties, landscape description, and human exposure factors. Model simulations and risk estimations corresponding to different remedial scenarios in an industrial zone are also presented. These estimations were based on soil contamination by 16 PAHs in the root-zone and vadose-zone layer. Results show that adult exposure (workers) to contaminated soil will lead to a potential health risk of carcinogenic effects, and to no potential risk of non-carcinogenic effects. On the other hand, the addition of 10 cm of clean soil over the contaminated soil (mitigated scenario) decreases the lifetime cancer risk to an acceptable level. The sensitivity analysis showed that the half-life of benzo[a]pyrene in the root-zone soil is the most sensitive parameter and that it contributes significantly to the variability of the cancer risk estimation. [34].”

10. A final major argument derives from cause and effect and the sources of the methane to be used. Australia and America are currently undergoing a gas exploitation boom that flies in the face of what top climate scientists are telling us. The film Gasland presents a deeply upsetting portrait of the devastation across America by the “frackers” involved in recovery of gas from fractured rocks and coal seams. In Australia, in addition to conventional offshore and on on-shore gas exploitation, there is a rapidly advancing coal seam gas industry involving “fracking” that has generated protest from both environmentalists and farmers. Whether the gas used in a gas-fired power station is on-shore- or off-shore-derived it is part of the total resource and accordingly no consequences of any gas extraction (e.g. environmental pollution as set out in “Gasland”) can be ignored. [35].

In summary, objections to the transition from coal burning-based power to gas burning-based power are that (A) Humanity should be urgently decreasing CO2 pollution to 300 ppm from the current dangerous 392 ppm and certainly should not be increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution (all fossil fuels must be kept in the ground if we are to save the Planet) ; (B) Natural Gas (mainly methane) is not clean energy, methane is 72 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time scale and, depending upon the rate of methane leakage, natural gas burning can be as dirty as coal burning greenhouse gas-wise; and (C) Pollutants from gas leakage and gas burning pose a chemical risk to residents, agriculture and the environment. Please use this article as a resource and tell everyone you can why we must oppose transition to gas-fired power.

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.

Are the 2010 Olympics green? Yes, but only because there’s no snow! Which raises the first major point. Vancouver is mild, sunny, and snow-free, which has Olympic officials incredibly worried. What has everyone most concerned is the lack of snow at Cypress mountain, where major events will be held. The solution? Instead of switching locations to snow-filled Whistler, trucks have been transporting snow three hours—from Manning Park all the way to Cypress, using fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases. Around the city, road closures and detours have also created traffic havoc, thereby increasing greenhouse gases.

An equally controversial topic is the famous red Olympic $10 mittens. They are marketed as the must-have souvenir for the games and it seems every second Vancouver resident on the street is wearing them. Ironically, the mittens are made in China. This has been argued by some as trivial and irrelevant, but as such a prominent icon of the (“green”) Olympics, the symbolic importance of this hypocrisy should not be ignored. Profit is certainly more important than sustainability, as countless other souvenirs (made around the world and shipped to Vancouver) are also ready on the shelves to be consumed.

Finally, as if Christmas lights don’t create enough controversy, many Vancouver residents have been encouraged by VANOC to “Paint the Town Red” by decorating their houses with red and white lights, using more electricity.

As climate change continues to become a more and more pressing issue, it’s crucial that long-term, legitimate measures be taken on the part of organizations like the Olympic Committees. Greenwashing won’t cut it. After all, the Winter Olympics just wouldn’t be the same without, well, winter.

Breakfast: good for you and the planet!

Many teens either skip breakfast or grab something starchy and sugary on the way to school. However, from a nutritional point of view, breakfast is the most important part of the day. The solution? A fast and easy breakfast smoothie. You can make your own with protein powder, yogurt and frozen berries, or try Vega smoothie mixes. They have protein for energy, plus all your vitamins and minerals to start the day right. Vega compared its Whole Food Optimizer to a “traditional North American breakfast” including hashbrowns, eggs and bacon, and a “light North American breakfast” including yogurt, cereal and banana. According to the Vega website, there are 38 times more greenhouse gas emissions created by traditional breakfast and 10 times more greenhouse gases created by the light breakfast compared to Vega. Thus, switching to Vega for a year would be equivalent to turning off a 60 watt light bulb for 12,500 hours, or 521 consecutive days (Source: http://sequelnaturals.com/).

Transportation

If no school bus is provided for your school, consider car-free ways of getting to and from class every day. Walk, bike, or create a “walking school bus”, where a group of children walk to school supervised by one or more adult. It’s safer in numbers, easy on the planet, good physical activity and simple for parents, who can take turns supervising. Visit http://www.walkingschoolbus.org/ for more details. If all else fails, carpool or take transit.

Waste-Free Lunch

• Use stainless steel water bottles instead of plastic disposable ones. As I’ve mentioned before, stainless steel is non-toxic, durable, easy to clean and does not rust. Green Bottle (http://www.greenbottleonline.com/) has plenty of fun designs kids will love to brag about to their classmates. They come in 12 oz, 20 oz and 25 oz sizes with a variety of lids including sport tops.
• Look for non-toxic, BPA free Tupperware such as Preserve. Some companies like By Nature and Bento Box Systems offer complete lunch sets for kids including cloth napkins, reusable bags and storage containers. Nubius Organics sells toxin-free reusable cutlery made from bamboo.

Clothes

For back to school clothing shopping, thrift stores are the way to go. Treasure hunting at second hand stores can be just as much fun as showing off the new fashions. It’s amazing to see how many designer labels and never-worn items there are. Plus, kids and teens love having unique pieces that’ll be the envy of all their friends.

For new clothes, even the biggest stores such as Roots Canada, H & M and The Gap are jumping on the organic cotton bandwagon for kids clothes. It’s never been easier to find eco-friendly clothing close to home and at reasonable prices. Just make sure the percentage of organic fibre is high—be wary of 10% organic cotton/90% polyester blends! Bamboo, hemp and soy are other great earth-friendly fabrics.

Supplies

• Before school starts, sort through supplies from the previous years and keep whatever possible. You’ll be saving money in the process.
• Refillable pens and pencils are a smart alternative to disposables. Or, if you prefer, Earthzone pencils are made out of 100% post consumer recycled newspapers—no wood used!
• Paints should be water, not oil based.
• From binders to notebooks, avoid PVC plastic, instead opting for cardboard and paper. In all your paper purchases, look for recycled and non-chlorine bleached options. Remember that unless it says “Post-consumer waste” it may be scrap paper that never left the factory. Try Ecojot Notebooks—they come in cute, stylish patterns and are 100%  post-consumer recycled. For printer paper, most big brand retailers offer recycled options as well. Along the same lines, reduce before you re-use—don’t print rough copies of assignments unless absolutely necessary.
• Backpacks should ideally be made from all-natural materials, such as durable hemp. Otherwise, check out PVC free options at http://www.nubiusorganics.com.

At-School Projects

Environmental class projects don’t have to be reserved for Earth day. There are tons of fun ways to encourage environmental activism to suggest to teachers and school staff. Younger children may enjoy taking nature walks, going on field trips to the recycling depot, and planting trees in the school yard. Students in older grades may wish to start a class vegetable garden and school compost project, or petition for organic options in their school cafeteria.

Before the global recession hit (and reduced the soaring price of fossil fuels), the “market cost” of the best renewables had become similar to that of coal burning-based power (see “Hope: best renewables cost same as coal power. “One Day Pathétique” Symphony painting”).

However an Ontario, Canada Government commissioned analysis has revealed that when you take environmental and human mortality impacts into account the “true cost” of coal burning-based power was 4-5 times greater than the “market cost” – this making the best renewables and geothermal much cheaper than the “true cost” of coal burning-based power (see “Ontario study identifies social costs of coal-fired power plants”).

Another way of seeing this is that it can be estimated (from arithmetic projection from the Canada study) that about 5,000 Australians die every year from the effects of deadly pollutants from coal burning (heavy metals, carbon monoxide, radioactivity, soot, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide) i.e. Australia sacrifices 5,000 lives each year on the altar of heavily-subsidized coal burning-based power (see “How many people die from Carbon Burning and Climate Change each year?”).

For the Text and Power Point Slide Presentation of a superb recent public lecture by Dr Peter Seligman (Bionic Ear engineer, Cochlear and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) entitled “The Bang for Buck Approach to CO2 Abatement” here is the link on the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website. This link gives the Text of a public lecture by Dr Peter Seligman; for the extremely effective Power Point Presentation accompanying this lecture scroll down to see the Attachment at the end of the lecture text. Dr Seligman discussed where you can invest your money most effectively to reduce your Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (e.g. roof top solar PV, solar/gas hot water, wind farms etc) – some of our favourite solutions do not bear up under his analysis. [In the following summary of his analysis, I have included but personally discounted nuclear power because, in addition to major security issues and costs, nuclear power introduction in a carbon-based economy carries a huge CO2 pollution component in the overall fuel cycle from the mining and processing to waste disposal and de-commissioning (see “The truth about greenhouse and nuclear power”)].

Thus, according to Dr Seligman the “cost of energy abatement including the cost of energy saved” in units of “A$/tonne CO2” ranged from a marvellous -$500 (Mornington, WA remote area solar PV), -$141 (Compact fluorescent lamp used 24 hrs/day continuously), -$139 (large geothermal), -$139 (IRIS sealed nuclear reactor), -$134 (Georgia USA nuclear power), -$130 (Portland wind farm), -$121 (Birdsville geothermal), -$118 (Hepburn Co-op wind farm), $111 (Cloncurry thermal solar), $93 (LED fluorescent tube replacement), $92 (Mildura power solar power) and -$90 (domestic gas/solar hot water service, HWS) to the very costly +$7 (Gorgon CO2 injection project), +$30 (Carbon Capture and Sequestration, CCS Otway basin trial), +$36 (More efficient fridge), + $269 (hybrid car extra cost), $417 (Fairview coal bed methane), +$458 (Rooftop grid connect solar PV system), +$682 (Solar/gas HWS holiday house, 10% occupation) and +$2,000 (shredding money). [I would discount the nuclear option for the reasons given above].

Not considered in Dr Seligman’s excellent analysis is conversion to biochar (charcoal) of waste biomass (from crop straw, grasslands and forest waste biomass), this product being useful in CO2 abatement through return of carbon to the soil and also through helping create “terra preta” soil with increased fertility (see “Biochar” and “Forest biomass-derived Biochar can profitably reduce global warming and bushfire risk”). [Other improved agricultural practices such as minimum tillage cropping are also significant ].

Biochar expert Professor Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University calculates that it is realistically possible to fix 9.5 billion tonnes of carbon per year using biochar, noting that global annual production of carbon from fossil fuels is 8.5 billion tonnes (see: Alok Jha, “Biochar’ goes industrial with giant microwaves to lock carbon in charcoal“, Guardian (13 March 2009) and Johannes Lehmann, Biochar for mitigating climate change: “carbon sequestration in the black”).

In an Australian context, Crucible Carbon is developing high efficiency, low O2 pyrolysis technology for the mass production of biochar. According to Inside Waste Weekly: “Managing director Matthew Warnken says … potential carbon abatement of 100-200 million tonnes annually is “extremely reasonable and would be very achievable”… first commercial demonstration plant, with construction to begin at a site in regional NSW early next year. That plant will process around 20,000-40,000 tonnes of feedstock annually, producing electricity and a biochar product that would be used to improve degraded soils … assuming realistic prices for the value of the biochar and energy outputs of the plant, a value of A$20-30 per tonne of carbon sequestered would allow commercial biochar plants to be built with a three-year payback period” (see Opposition throws support behind biochar, Inside Waste Weekly (27 January 2009)).

Professor Lovelock FRS has given a recent assessment in which he discards nuclear (“It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction measures”) and plumps for biochar, stating: ““There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste – which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering – into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast … The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes [550 billion tonnes] of carbon [carbon dioxide, CO2] yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes [CO2]. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won’t do it” (see Gaia Vince (2009), “One last chance to save mankind“, New Scientist, 23 January 2009: and http://biocharfund.com/…/20c02.pdf).

The World is running out of time but there is still hope that reason, science and rational risk management will prevail.

Photo credit: Taras Kalapun

The environmental footprint per capita in developed countries is more than 10 tones per year. For example, 10,8 tones of carbon is emitted per capita by British, 12,7 per capita by Greek and 22,4 tones per capita by Americans. It takes both governments and the citizens to take measures to reduce the impact of each nation on Earth. Many every day habits need to be reconsidered and altered drastically.

19.312 Kilometers an average car travels per year, producing 6 tones of greenhouse gases. But you would have to travel 150.107 Kilometers by train to produce the same amount of carbon for the same period. At the same time, 18 times more carbon is emitted per mile per passenger in a car than in a bus. Buses emit less carbon per passenger than trains, planes, boats or automobiles (in that order). In 2007, of the European Union’s total CO2 emissions, the 12% was created by passenger cars.

All these facts demonstrate the crucial need to ‘wean off’ private cars and opt for public means of transport. Such a decision made by the citizens actually alters their everyday life, as new habits are substituting old ones. To help them make such a decision, governments have to rearrange bus, train and metro schedules. They should be frequent, punctual and efficient, so that citizens can rely on them.

But it’s not only about transportation. Overpopulation and consumerism have similarly dramatic impact on the amount of carbon dioxide on the planet.

The British government has set a goal of 60% reduction on carbon emissions by 2050. Renewable sources of energy will be developed, substituting coal. Most governments have not made similar plans. However, all developed countries ought to make a plan for a considerable reduction on carbon emissions.