A scientific focus on USA

This video was held by Michael McCracken in 2007. He is Chief Scientist in the Climate Change Institute in Washington DC, and I think it gives an excellent overview on the USA’s situation regarding Kyoto protocol. Kyoto protocol was international agreement, with serious and planned action for different kind of countries, were developing countries wouldn’t be pressed. So, why did the US walk away? The reasons that the government pointed out were the following:

-Developing countries don’t take action.

Developing countries pollution involve a small fraction, and even more, that energy is used just to try to survive. It was agreed that when those countries got developed, they would take the sames steps the rich ones should take.

-Scientific uncertainty.

Even if scepticals do exist, 150 countries ratified the agreement, and there’s really something more than just “green” measures in the protocol. It would mean a united action against a real threat.

-Economy is growing too fast, need to much energy

So, we have too much money, and we also expect poor countries to do it? Where’s the point there?

During the negotiations, it came clear that USA would have to face some problems that other developed countries didn’t have to.

It would hard to implement KP compared to Europe, because even if Europe’s new investments are replacing old sources of power supply, american population is growing 1% per year, and so it is necessary to keep all energy sources to cover the demand for more people. If carbon power plants were turned off, it would cause of shortages.

This could’ve been a valid argument, to explain US population and developed countries the situation. Another argument that the president pointed out was that we couldn’t do anything. Indeed efficiency improving is possible, but emissions still going up, because the government’s policy after resigning the protocol was a non doing anything attitude.

Not really focusing on the scientific and expert arguments, and this turning into not well based argument, is really hurting the real issue of the challenge we face and the things should be made.

Environmentally Friendly and Safe for Humans above All

One of the most up to date issues is waste disposal. We consume a lot, we do recycle, but we don’t know where to dispose organic waste. We haven’t got enough places. Most landfills are full, they are starting to close, and provinces such as ‘Guipuzcoa’ have to pay other provinces for using their dumps.

A possible and currently household issue is waste incineration. Governments defend it, because it is the ‘best’ and quickest solution. It reduces waste volumen to 90-95%, in the case of compressed garbage. Otherwise, it will reduce to 70%. New developed incinerators are incorporated with energy recovery as the incineration process obtains heat. Although, might only be useful over a 20% of this recovered energy.

Incineration, emits flue gasses and hazardous substances such as dioxins and heavy metals, which are difficult to destroy. All of which, are serious trouble to mankind and also for the environment.  Living around of any,are thought to be harmful and increase risks of suffer from certain cancers. For the good of all, are being designed new incinerators capable of removing flue gasses from the emissions. Incinerators are also very expensive and do not support huge amounts of trash at a time. Moreover, there are different kinds of waste therefore different kind of incinerators are needed.

In San Sebastian there is a proyect for building up one. However, the idea is still in the air, because the new city council paralised the proyect. Even though a year ago it was asigned the company incharged of the proyect. The city is living a time of uncertainty. Many proyects are waiting for an approval. For sure, this one needs a quick but sensible answer. It must be environmentally friendly and safe for humans above all.

The enemy of our enemy is our friend

Along the last five years, the whole world has been beaten by a global economic crisis. This crisis has generated unemployment and the economic and industrial activity has decreased greatly. Ultimately, we are poorer. Every nation is struggling to get over the difficulties this situation brings. However, there’s something which has got advantage from this situation: the environment.

Explaining this phenomenon isn’t a big deal: the crisis makes the people poorer so we don’t buy things (the demand is reduced), industries don’t manufacture as much products as before, so the pollution generated by those manufacturing processes decreases. As a consequence, less energy is needed because the quantity of units to produce is less. This is very important as both activities joint together represent around 40% of the CO2 emissions of US which is the second most pollutant country (surpassed only by China).

To shed light, factual information is needed so that’s what we need to analyze. In 2009, the greenhouse gas emissions from the EU businesses fell a 12% regarding the ones in 2008. Respectively to the US, the CO2 emissions fell a 9% between 2007 and 2009. This was provoked by the fact that oil usage fell 5% (in turn caused by rising oil prices) and that the coal usage fell 1% (which is something consider as half of the US nation gets its power from it).

In conclusion, it is obvious that this crisis is something negative that we have to face and get over of, but along doing it we should see the positive part of it and think that it may be showing us a new path towards a new De-carbonized energetic policy.

What’s next?

After Canada’s resignation and Russia and Japan also in such mood, the second commitment of the “Kyoto Protocol” is in serious trouble. USA opposed to sign in 2001 due to China and India, two of the most polluting countries, were allowed not to reach the agreed terms, because they are taken as countries on ways of industrialisation. On the United States’ manifestations it is notoriously reflected an economic issue, because those two countries are a threat to the world’s strongest economy. On the other hand, Europe will only sign the second commitment if USA and China show they are serious on major cuts on the following years. Moreover, Canada left the ship due to the USA’s resignation and China’s allowance to make a lighter effort.

However, China who is ‘seriously’ involved on the treaty effusively asks for a second commitment. It is true, that if we leave this issue behind everyone will make whatever they want. We have reached a point where we can’t look back, otherwise, we will be condemnig ourselves to ‘suicide’. We need to continue fighting for a better world, a GREEN world. Perhaps we should make a NEW agreement as Canada said when leaving. One that should involve every developed country on the world, including India and China. Like this, everyone will be satisfied. Now that it seems “The Kyoto Protocol” to be a failure, who is making the move? We need more DRASTIC action. WHAT’S NEXT?

Who will save us?

Kyoto protocol’s attemps to stop pollution have been in vain, lets assume this fact. Moreover, the economic crisis the world is facing has moved this imminent disaster away from the collective conscience.

Even when economy seemed to be healthy, many countries refused to renounce to any benefit. Now that we struggle with speculation and the so called “markets”, polar bears, trees and so on have been definitely removed from the average citizen’s mind.

From my point of view, there’s little economists can do about this, because any attempt to cut emissions has led to a cut in the income of companies, and this would be really traumatic for them. For example, when Kyoto protocol established the emissions trading system in Europe, Japan, Australia and some other countries, they came out with a way of avoiding any loss, by buying cheap carbon “credits” to companies in Africa.

So, who will save us? Is there anything engineering could do? I really think that future and present engineers have the key to face climate change, for the following reasons.

Engineers discovered renewable energies, invented the electric car, made low consumption machines, and have the knowledge to create new ways of transport, industry and the capability to replace nowadays technology. Engineers should provide society with more tools to satisfy Kyoto protocol’s demands.

Canada left the ship

On the 11th of december of 2011 the United Nations gathered in Durban (South Africa) to discuss on the climate change. When the conference came to an end, Peter Kent, the Canadian environmental minister, announced that Canada was abandoning the Kyoto Protocol.

The official reason for taking this decision was that the Protocol wasn’t working, but the real reason is that since the Conservative Party government arrived in 2006, led by Stephen Harper, Canada has been increasingly explotting its oilfields located in the province of Alberta and if they remained being part of the Kyoto Protocol they wouldn’t be able to keep on this activity without being sanctioned. In addition, Kent affirmed that this agreement was part of the past. Indeed, if Canada wouldn’t have given up the Protocol, it would have to pay a 14,000 million dollar fine for not having reduced its emissions compared to the ones in the 90s. In fact, Canada has increased a 28.8% its emissions.

So it seems that the Kyoto Protocol has become more an economical factor for the development of a country rather than a fight against the pollution. Proof of this are Kent’s final words: “Canada won’t return to the Protocol unless every main emissors signs it”. These words bring us a moral conflict: is it right to enrich at any price? I think it’s obvious that the answer is “no” but it seems it isn’t that clear for everyone.

Its all about LIFE!

Deforestation is responsible for about a fifth of the world’s CO2 emissions, it is even more than what the whole world’s transport sector emits! It is for sure, that we must act on behalf of the Earth. Tropical forests just cover about 7% of the land surface and it is vital for biodiversity. Without them many animals and even indigenous people would extinct.

Greenpeace is trying to involucrate the “Kyoto Protocol” on this issue by handling a proposal for the second commitment period (2020). Countries should start taking part on this global problem. We should protect forests, we should start regrowth on abandoned lands and we should recycle paper so that we could reduce wood-cutting and logging.

The Brazilian Amazon, the world’s greatest natural resource, is being destroyed. However, the Brazilian government is taking terms on it and has increased his control on rainforests in order to reduce illegal logging. They have invested on technology (satellites) more forest-guards, more police vigilance and so forth… for having more management on this matter. Results haven’t waited to come and from 2009 to 2010, deforestation was reduced by a 14%. A brazilian engineer has invented a microchip to be added on the base of the trees so it is easier to know where does the wood come from, if it is from a sustainable parcel or it has been ilegally logged.

Still there is mad people that every summer not just in Spain, but on other countries (mostly Mediterranean), provoque fires and destroy green-lands and its fauna and flora. Thanks to the police work many of them end in jail.

From this site we give you some tips to prevent fires:

-Do not throw cigars to the ground.

-Do not live plastics such as water bottles, plastic bags…

-Do not make fires on droughted grounds when camping.

Is facing global warming expensive?

The maddening answer is yes, it would cost an incredible amount of effort and money to invest in this issue. This video makes an economic analysis of the most serious problems of humanity.

Surprisingly, global warming would be the most inefficient way of doing good to the world. I appreciate the economic focus of this speech, but I also hold a strong clash with his arguments.

Is it impossible to solve all the problems at the same time? It seems that our capability to change the world is limited by the amount of money available. From my point of view, and in contradiction with the best economists in the world, reducing emissions should be among the first things to take into account. I’m not talking about spending correctly, but making profit out of it.

Saving energy of all kinds by promoting efficiency at home, car, industry and many other polluters’ consumption, would involve a huge amount of savings, that could be spent in such other critical problems mentioned in the video.

All in all, kyoto protocol talks about a change in our conception of our surroundings. Mankind must take care of itself, and what a better thing to do it  than facing HIV, malaria and so on, with all the resources available. Kyoto protocol should be seen as a tool to stop global warming, but also as a way of avoiding wasting resources, in order to make other things that are really worth the effort.

Our biggest enemy is us

Human kind has inhabitted Earth for thousands of years but until industralisation both, nature and mankind, have lived in perfect armony. Since then, we have enslaved the enviroment and exploited it. Now, we pay the price for our selfishness and we seek for redemption by creating conventions such as environmental awareness. However, the damage is already done, but this doesn’t mean we should ignore it, it means we have to work harder to make The World a kind of heritage for future generations, and that is what The Kyoto Protocol is about.

To get started, we marked ourselves some objectives:

• Every government should undertake to reduce its CO2 emissions
• The industralised countries should reduce in a 40% its emissions for 2020, taking the emissions of 1990 as reference.
• The most developed countries should help the less developed countries to evolve by using renewable energies.
• Although it will affect their growing, these countries in process of development will also have to contribute by developing in a “clean” way.
• By 2020 there should be a document to stop deforestation.

These are just some of the many objectives the protocol put up to the ones who signed it.

There are many ways to reduce the CO2 emissions but one of the most effective one is introducing the nuclear energy which barely uses carbon dioxide but also has its drawbacks and it isn’t socially accepted, however, it is proved to be a very effective solution.

Watch the video below for more information about this global issue.

We should walk to work!

In the protocol they tried to apply some iniciatives to reduce the emission of gases such as CO2, one of the most harmful gases for the Ozone layer. The CO2 is principally emitted by transport vehicles, tertiary sector (domestic and services) and the electric sector.

On 2011, there were more than 1,000,000,000 vehicles!! on the whole world.  “The OCDE expects that by 2050 there would be 2,5 billion vehicles!” Nowadays, transportation accounts for 23% of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions.

There needs to be a quick solution for this, because each vehicle uses fossil fuels, which are in ways of extintion, and with renewable energies we don’t have enough! From here we encourage people to start using the public transport or going to work, college, university… by foot or either begin sharing cars.

However, without the agreement of countries such as EEUU or Canada, which are two of the most contaminating countries (they represent more or less 25% of the world’s pollution), start reducing the gas emissions at great scale is barely impossible. Until these two countries sign the Protocol the world won’t make a big step on this fight. Besides, Canada has renounced Kyoto Protocol and USA has signed it but with no commitment on acting for THE COMMON GOOD.