Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Marine

Europe needs Emission Control Areas

Jun 2nd, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Acid News – 2 June 09

Over the last twenty years, fuel and emission standards for land-based transport have been dramatically strengthened over most of the world. But international shipping has for a long time resisted similar legislation, both as regards emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Eventually, in October last year, after some twenty years of talks but very little action, strict new limits for reducing sulphur emissions from ships were finally agreed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). But these important new standards are still many years away from practical implementation – the 0.5 per cent global sulphur limit will apply as from 2020 (or possibly 2025), and the 0.1 per cent sulphur limit for ships in designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs) will apply as from 2015. More importantly, the measures agreed so far in IMO for reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are totally inadequate – the Tier 2 standards that will apply to new ship engines as from 2011 will only reduce NOx emissions by about 16–22 per cent, as compared to the current Tier 1 standards.

The slow turnover of the shipping fleet combined with the high growth in shipping activities mean that the Tier 2 standards are not likely to result in any real reductions in total ship emissions even within the next 15–20 years. Every effort must therefore be made to markedly strengthen the weak global NOx emission standards, both for existing and new ships. Last year’s IMO agreement also included a Tier 3 NOx emission standard, which will be introduced in 2016 and requires an 80 per cent NOx reduction from the present Tier 1 level. But the Tier 3 standards apply solely in specific designated NOx Emission Control Areas, and are limited to new ships only. In late March, the United States and Canada jointly submitted a proposal to the IMO to designate most of their coastal waters, an area extending 370 kilometres from the coastline, as an emissions control area (ECA) for the control of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter emissions (see front page). All ships operating in the ECA will face stricter emission standards designed to reduce the threat they pose to human health and the environment. The ECA standards will cut sulphur in fuel by 98 per cent, particulate matter (PM) emissions by 85 per cent, and NOx emissions by 80 per cent as compared to the current global requirements. Clearly, the EU and its member states should follow the example of the United States and Canada and designate all sea areas around Europe (the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North-East Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea) as “full” Emission Control Areas, i.e. covering all the major air pollutants (sulphur, PM and NOx). Currently only the Baltic Sea and the North Sea have ECA status, and this is limited to sulphur control.

To ensure an organized gradual phasein of low-sulphur fuel, to encourage the use of the best techniques, and to speed up the introduction of cleaner fuels and ships, IMO regulations need to be complemented by economic instruments, such as emission charges. These should be set so as to make it financially worthwhile – at least for ships that regularly frequent the areas where they apply – to use cleaner fuels or to invest in techniques needed to ensure a distinct reduction in emissions.

Christer Ågren

Air Pollution Endangers Lives of Six in 10 Americans

Apr 29th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

WASHINGTON, DC, April 29, 2009 (ENS)

Six out of every 10 Americans – 186.1 million people – live in areas where air pollution endangers lives, according to the 10th annual American Lung Association State of the Air report released today.

Some of the biggest sources of air pollution – dirty power plants, dirty diesel engines and ocean-going vessels – also worsen global warming, the Lung Association says in State of the Air 2009.

As America deals with the linked challenges of air pollution, global warming and energy, the Lung Association urges Congress, the U.S. EPA and individuals to choose solutions that help solve all three challenges together.

Nearly every major American city is still burdened by air pollution, and the air in many cities became dirtier since last year, the report finds, despite “substantial progress” made against air pollution in many areas of the country and more attention paid to the environment by America’s growing green movement.

“This should be a wakeup call. We know that air pollution is a major threat to human health,” said Stephen Nolan, American Lung Association National Board Chair. “When 60 percent of Americans are left breathing air dirty enough to send people to the emergency room, to shape how kids’ lungs develop, and to kill, air pollution remains a serious problem.”

State of the Air 2009 includes a national air quality report card that assigns A-F grades to communities across the country and details trends for 900 counties over the past decade.

The report ranks cities and counties most affected by the three most widespread types of pollution – ozone, or smog; annual particle pollution; and 24-hour particle pollution levels.

The report finds that air pollution hovers at unhealthy levels in almost every major city, threatening people’s ability to breathe and placing lives at risk.

“The more we learn, the more urgent it becomes for us to take decisive action to make our air healthier,” said Nolan.

Many cities, like Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Baltimore have made improvements in their air quality over the past decade.

Only one city, Fargo, North Dakota, ranked among the cleanest in all three air pollution categories.

Seventeen cities appeared on two of the three lists of cleanest cities: Billings, Montana; Bismarck and Sioux Falls, North Dakota; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Colorado Springs, Ft. Collins, and Pueblo, Colorado; Farmington and Santa Fe-Espanola, New Mexico; Honolulu, Hawaii; Lincoln, Nebraska; Midland-Odessa, Texas; Port St. Lucie, Florida; Redding, Salinas, and San Luis Obispo, California; and Tucson, Arizona.

The three cities most polluted by ozone are all in California – the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area; Bakersfield, a center of agriculture, petroleum extraction and refining, and manufacturing in the San Joaquin Valley; and Visalia-Porterville, a San Joaquin Valley agricultural community.

Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania tops the list of cities most polluted by 24 hour fine particle pollution, while the three California cities that top the most polluted ozone list are close behind in this category and also for year-round particle pollution.

Ozone

In March 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted a new, tighter standard for ozone pollution. The new standard showed that unhealthy ozone levels are more widespread and more severe than previously recognized.

Evaluating the most recent data against the new standard, the American Lung Association found that approximately 175.4 million Americans – 58 percent – live in counties where ozone monitors recorded too many days with unhealthy ozone levels, far more than the 92.5 million identified in the State of the Air 2008 report.

Sixteen cities making this year’s 25 most ozone-polluted list experienced worse smog problems than last year.

The Lung Association’s review found consistent improvements in ozone in some cities, such as Los Angeles, with its long-standing ozone problem.

But two cities, Dallas-Ft. Worth and Las Vegas, have higher ozone levels than 10 years ago.

Ozone is the most widespread form of air pollution. When inhaled, ozone irritates the lungs, resulting in something like a bad sunburn. The health effects of breathing ozone pollution can be immediate. Ozone can cause wheezing, coughing and asthma attacks. Breathing ozone pollution can even shorten lives.

“More than 175 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy smog levels – that’s 80 million more than we identified in last year’s report,” said Charles Connor, American Lung Association president and chief executive. “We at the American Lung Association believe that the new ozone standard is not yet strong enough to protect human health – an opinion nearly all scientific experts share.”

In March 2008, the EPA adopted a standard of .075 parts per million, ppm, after legal action by the American Lung Association forced the agency to complete a formal review. This standard is not as strict as the standard of .060 ppm recommended by the Lung Association.

The association, along with states, public health and environmental groups, has taken the EPA back to court in an attempt to force the agency to adopt the .060 ppm standard before its scheduled five-year review in 2013.

Particle Pollution

State of the Air 2009 grades counties for both 24-hour and year-round levels of particle pollution – a toxic mix of microscopic soot, diesel exhaust, chemicals, metals and aerosols.

“It is the most dangerous and deadly of the outdoor air pollutants that are widespread in America,” the Lung Association says in its report, warning that “breathing in particle pollution can increase the risk of early death, heart attacks, strokes and emergency room visits for asthma and cardiovascular disease.”

One in six people in the United States lives in an area with unhealthy year-round levels of fine particle pollution (termed annual average levels).

Nine cities in the list of the 25 most polluted by year-round particle pollution showed measurable improvement, including five cities that reported their best year-round levels since the Lung Association began tracking this pollutant: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Atlanta, York and Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

The annual average level of particle pollution worsened in a dozen cities, including Bakersfield and Los Angeles, California and Houston, Texas.

Roughly three in 10 Americans live in counties with unhealthful spikes of particle pollution which can last from hours to days (termed 24-hour levels).

Thirteen cities had more days, or more severe days, of spikes than in last year’s report. Eleven cities have improved continually since the 2007 report.

New data show that women in their 50’s may be particularly threatened by air pollution and that diesel truck drivers and dockworkers who are forced to breathe exhaust on the job may face a greater risk of developing lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

California researchers have tripled their estimate of the number of people that particle pollution kills each year in their state.

“The science is rock-solid. We now know that air pollution can impair the lung function of even the healthiest people,” said Norman Edelman, MD, American Lung Association chief medical officer. “Air pollution worsens asthma and is a direct cause of heart attacks, which makes people living with lung and heart disease especially vulnerable.”

Dr. Edelman suggests that people living in areas of high particle pollution “must recognize that this is the fact of their lives, and they must be more careful about other life factors – stop smoking, eat well, exercise.”

In addition, Dr. Edelman suggests, people who live with particle pollution “must take action help us and other organizations to change the EPA regulations. It’s personal, it’s affecting them and their neighbors.” In addition, he said, they can take local political action to change regulations such as engine idling, and clean up diesel-powered school buses.

Low income people and some racial and ethnic groups often face greater risk from pollutants. Pollution sources like factories and power plants may be closer to their homes, the Lung Association points out. Many live near areas with heavy highway traffic or have poor access to health care, which makes them even more vulnerable. Some racial and ethnic groups have a higher prevalence of diseases like asthma or diabetes, which compounds the ill effects of air pollution for these groups.

“We need to renew our commitment to providing healthy air for all our citizens – a commitment the United States made almost 40 years ago when Congress passed the Clean Air Act,” Connor said. “After four decades, we still have much work to do.”

“America needs to cut emissions from big polluters like coal-fired power plants and ocean-going vessels,” Connor said. “We need to fix old dirty diesel engines to make them cleaner and strengthen the ozone standards to better protect our health. We also need to improve the decaying infrastructure of air monitors. America must now enforce the laws that help us improve our nation’s air quality.”

CLEANEST U.S. CITIES

Cleanest U.S. Cities for Ozone Air Pollution *Cities below had equal scores.

  • Billings, Montana
  • Carson City, Nevada
  • Coeur D’Alene, Idaho
  • Fargo-Wahpeton, North Dakota-Minnesota
  • Honolulu, Hawaii
  • Laredo, Texas
  • Lincoln, Nebraska
  • Port St. Lucie-Sebastian-Vero Beach, Florida
  • Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Cleanest U.S. Cities for Short-term Particle Pollution (24 Hour PM2.5) *Cities below had equal scores.

  • Alexandria, Louisiana
  • Amarillo, Texas
  • Austin-Round Rock, Texas
  • Bismarck, North Dakota
  • Brownsville-Harlingen-Raymondville, Texas
  • Cheyenne, Wyoming
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado
  • Corpus Christi-Kingsville, Texas
  • Fargo-Wahpeton, North Dakota-Minnesota
  • Farmington, New Mexico
  • Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado
  • Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Longview-Marshall, Texas
  • Midland-Odessa, Texas
  • Oklahoma City-Shawnee, Oklahoma
  • Portland-Lewiston-South Portland, Maine
  • Pueblo, Colorado
  • Redding, California
  • Salinas, California
  • San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, California
  • Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, California
  • Santa Fe-Espanola, New Mexico
  • Sioux Falls, South Dakota
  • Tucson, Arizona

10 Cleanest U.S. Cities for Long-term Particle Pollution (Annual PM2.5)

  • Cheyenne, Wyoming
  • Santa Fe-Espanola, New Mexico
  • Honolulu, Hawaii
  • Great Falls, Montana (tied for 4th)
  • Flagstaff, Arizona (tied for 4th)
  • Farmington, New Mexico (tied for 6th)
  • Anchorage, Alaska (tied for 6th)
  • Tucson, Arizona
  • Bismarck, North Dakota (tied for 9th)
  • Salinas, California (tied for 9th)

MOST POLLUTED U.S. CITIES
10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Ozone

  • Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, California
  • Bakersfield, California
  • Visalia-Porterville, California
  • Fresno-Madera, California
  • Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, Texas
  • Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Yuba City, California-Nevada
  • Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas
  • Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, N.C.-S.C.
  • Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona
  • El Centro, California

10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Short-term Particle Pollution (24 Hour PM2.5)

  • Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania
  • Fresno-Madera, California
  • Bakersfield, California
  • Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, California
  • Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, Alabama
  • Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield, Utah
  • Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Yuba City, California-Nevada
  • Logan, Utah
  • Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (tied for 9th)
  • Detroit-Warren-Flint, Michigan (tied for 9th)

10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Year-Round Particle Pollution (Annual PM2.5)

  • Bakersfield, California
  • Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pennsylvania
  • Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, California
  • Visalia-Porterville, California
  • Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, Alabama
  • Hanford-Corcoran, California
  • Fresno-Madera, California
  • Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana
  • Detroit-Warren-Flint, Michigan
  • Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, Ohio

Visit www.lungusa.org to search local air quality grades by zip code.

Zim Shows Off Environmentally Friendly Ship

Apr 9th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

The Chronicle Herald.ca By TOM PETERS Business Reporter – 9 Apr 2009

The world’s shipping lines are under international pressure to help protect the oceans from pollution. Zim Container Line is one of several major carriers that is taking the challenge seriously.

Zim, a customer at the Port of Halifax since 1972, bought one of its newest vessels into Halifax on Wednesday as part of the inauguration of its service from Asia to the Mediterranean.

Zim San Francisco, a Panamax container ship with a capacity of slightly under 5,000 TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) and only two months out of the Daewoo Shipyard in South Korea, leaves little evidence of pollution in its wake.

“Our company sets environmental standards,” the ship’s chief officer, Timo Kopf, 28, said Wednesday.

“We don’t throw any garbage overboard when at sea, except food waste, which first goes through a grinder.”

The ship, owned by the CONTI Group of Germany and chartered by Zim, has an incinerator on board and what garbage can’t be burned, like tin cans, is bagged and discharged when the vessel reaches port.

The ship also has a bilge water separator that separates any waste oil from waste water that might be discharged into the ocean.

“We also have sludge tanks and discharge that material to contracted companies when we get to port,” he said.

Chief Officer Kopf said Zim follows international standards and has its own environmental targets for food waste disposal.

Zim San Francisco is one of 15 vessels in the Asia-Mediterranean service that calls at Halterm container terminal twice a week. The port rotation is Skekou, China; Hong Kong; Ningbo, China; Shanghai; Pusan, South Korea; Balboa, Spain; Panama Canal, Kingston, Jamaica; Savannah, Ga.; New York; Halifax; Tarragona, Spain; and Haifa, Israel.

The German-flagged vessel, with a crew of 21, burns about 110 tonnes of fuel a day at minimum speed and up to 115 tonnes at maximum speed. The ship can stay at sea for more than three weeks before refuelling.

( tpeters@herald.ca)

Roadside Air Pollution in Hong Kong

Jan 30th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Updated on Jan 30, 2009 – SCMP

I agree with your correspondent P.A. Crush (Talkback, January 24) that diesel buses and trucks are not the only sources of poisonous gases and particulate matter in roadside air pollution in Hong Kong.

Just look at the high-sulfur fuel being burned by the ocean-going vessels and other ships in our “fragrant” harbour.

The problem of air pollution will only go away with increased public support and increased pressure on the government to make a decision and act.

World Health Organisation air quality standards must be put in place. A polluter-pays policy can then be applied and we will see the results immediately.

A road-pricing scheme has been considered but this means the rich will drive faster to the next traffic jam caused by the remainder blocking the narrow side roads while avoiding the toll roads, and delivery costs will increase to offset the road tolls.

First, government officials should have their cars and drivers taken away from them, and be made to use public transport, to set an example.

A re-evaluation of bus routes could reduce the high number of diesel buses on our streets with shuttle buses operating between major terminuses.

These shuttle buses could serve the most common routes of these buses and it would reduce congestion in most central city areas.

On the subject of increased fares, I believe this is not necessary as buses do not need passengers to make money.

The advertisements covering these buses are more than enough to make them profitable as, empty or not, they are a major source of revenue.

Michael Pieper, Discovery Bay

Air Quality Standards Review

Jan 24th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

The following letter was sent to the Director of Environmental Protection by Clear The Air:

Director of Environmental Protection – ENB

24th January 2009

Air Quality Standards Review

Dear Sir,

We are writing to express our NGO’s concern that Hong Kong’s air pollution is damaging local residents’ and visitors’ health and that the Administration’s belated current measures to address the problems remain ineffective whilst simply reporting platitudes.

Hong Kong is an extremely wealthy and developed first world city with ample resources to reduce air pollution , given the will to do so, and yet we know from the Hedley Environmental Index that last year alone 1,155 people died prematurely, there were over 83,000 avoidable hospital bed days, and 7.25 million doctors’ visits which were directly attributable to the toxic effects of local air pollution; this was at a minimum conservative cost of over HK$2.3 billion to society. We also know that for the major part of the year, the major pollution sources were locally generated. Our local power stations in 2007 burned 3 times more coal than they did in 1997 and 40% less gas than in 1999. Their greed is killing people. Perhaps you should suggest Exxon executives come and live here with their children ?

Given this evidence, we call on the Administration to demonstrate its commitment to imminent improvement of public health and reduction of resultant health costs by setting the World Health Organization’s Air Quality Guidelines as the new Air Quality Standards for Hong Kong, and to set out a strategy on how it intends to achieve these Standards. Without gazetted Standards the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle cannot be effective.

In this strategy please address all the major sources of pollution, but please apply particular urgency to reducing emissions from marine vessels and non Euro V diesel on road / off road vehicles. We encourage you to enact large increases in road tax for non Euro V diesel trucks, vans and buses (thereby making these vehicle owners trade up to Euro V) and to insist forthwith on low sulphur bunker fuel use within Hong Kong waters. We appreciate that the emissions from local power stations might soon be reduced following your Department’s belated requirement that flue gas desulphurization equipment is installed as well as Nox burners. In addition the level of the Standards you set MUST therefore require the power companies apply Best Available Current Technology and fuel mix and that includes agglomerators which can catch the lethal PM0.1 ultrafine and PM2.5 heavy metal emissions which the Electrostatic Precipitators cannot currently catch.

We would stress that Air Quality Standards and a clean air strategy that do not lead to rapid improvements in public health cannot be considered an acceptable outcome of the Review and action is required, not further consultation of a public that has already grown tired of this Government’s lack of decisive action.
Yours faithfully,

James Middleton
Chairman Energy Committee

Silence Is Not Golden

Jan 15th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

CHRISTINE LOH – SCMP – Jan 15, 2009

It’s curious, but people are not voicing their concern about air pollution to those who can most do something about it. The government needs to adopt the national environmental plan and set a good example. Civic Exchange’s full survey report, titled “Hong Kong’s Silent Epidemic” and carried out by the Hong Kong Transition Project, was released last Saturday. It looked at how the public is reacting to air pollution and public health. It found that people discuss air pollution with family, friends and co-workers but most of them are not taking matters up with the government, legislators and the media.

So why don’t people complain publicly? They say they don’t think it will help. Some say they don’t know how to, while some don’t believe air pollution is affecting them.

Government officials should pay close attention to the report. It reflects badly on them when people say complaining won’t help. These people have lost confidence in the government’s ability to deal with the problem. The administration also has a responsibility to those who don’t know how to complain, or don’t believe they are affected. Hong Kong’s high level of air pollution speaks for itself – officials need to act.

Moreover, the level of dissatisfaction with government efforts is a very high 77 per cent. Past efforts have included switching taxis and minibuses from using diesel to LPG, supplying ultra-low-sulphur diesel, pushing regulation of idling engines, providing subsidies to replace highly polluting commercial lorries, and tightening emission caps for power plants. But despite these, the public remains dissatisfied, even though people have been silent. Pollution levels have not changed much, according to scientific data, and most people don’t feel any different. Those in charge will no doubt argue that Hong Kong will see substantial reductions in power-plant emissions because of the addition of flue gas desulfurisation technology. With the phased commissioning, Hong Kong should see lower emissions later this year. By 2011, 90 per cent of sulfur dioxide emissions from power generation should have been eliminated, and other pollutants significantly reduced. Officials have focused on power plants in their pollution-reduction strategy. They have yet to get to grips with another major polluter – transport. Viewed in this light, power plants are the easy option. There are only two power utilities in the city. Yet, transport involves many operators, on land, sea and in the air. The major public health culprits are diesel-powered road vehicles – vans, buses and lorries – and marine vessels – tugs, barges, ferries and ships of various sizes.

So far, government initiatives have, on the whole, been end-of-pipe solutions, such as switching to cleaner fuels and adding emissions traps. There have been limited efforts to combine them with urban planning and demand-side management tools to reduce the “canyon effect” on streets and create better roadside environments for the public. And hardly anything has been done to combat the pollution from the burning of toxic bunker fuels, by marine vessels, that gets blown to where people live and work.

It has become blindingly obvious that the government needs to change direction. Public health needs to be an explicit regulatory and legislative driver, and government bureaus and departments must integrate their work. There has been a lack of vision and leadership at the very top. Now the legislature has formed a new subcommittee to tackle air pollution, lawmakers can play a much more active role in calling officials to account and pushing for integrated policies. Without this, we have little to look forward to.

There will be those who say it is not the time to push because of the economic situation. The national 11th Five-Year plan would make good reading for them. The plan puts environmental protection on a par with economic growth and recognises that change must involve comprehensive action using legal, economic, technological and administrative measures. There is a national vision – would Hong Kong’s officials like to get on board?

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange. cloh@civic-exchange.org

What Do You Think of The Discovery Bay Ferry Plan?

Dec 11th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

SCMP – Updated on Dec 11, 2008

By reducing the Discovery Bay ferry service, the passenger levels on each boat will be higher, making the system more efficient in terms of the highly polluting marine diesel that is being used.

Look at the cost in diesel used to transport one person from Discovery Bay to Central and compare that with the cost for a bus using zero-sulfur diesel to Sunny Bay and then for the MTR. Therefore I must agree with any reduction in the use of marine diesel.

As to costs, I drive to work and the cost of fuel has increased by more than 30 per cent in the past two years.

Even with the recent decreases the cost is still up. So I agree with the cost increase as well.

Discovery Bay residents should look outside their oyster shell and keep their whining within the confines of their shell. The residents made the choice to live there. If you don’t like it, you can leave.

Please don’t bother us with your problems all the time. Hong Kong is bigger than Discovery Bay.

Terry Greene, Yuen Long

Cruise Terminal May Worsen Air

Dec 10th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

SCMP – Updated on 10 December 2008

Development of a cruise terminal at the old airport at Kai Tak might worsen air quality, says the environmental impact assessment report. The report, released yesterday for public comment, said fuel burned by cruisers berthing at the terminal might become an air-pollution threat to a tourism complex nearby. To mitigate the impact, the report said the government was considering building an onshore power supply.

An Environmental Credit Crunch

Nov 1st, 2008
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

Kevin Rafferty – SCMP | Updated on Nov 01, 2008

With the whole world heading for financial meltdown, what can possibly get worse? Well, if a group of international experts are correct, the Earth is greedily hurtling towards a crisis far worse than the financial one. We are – the world is – running out of resources. By 2030, we will need two Earths to support the lifestyles we have got used to, that is, if there is anything left after we have consumed or destroyed most of the riches of the planet.

“A more fundamental crisis looms – an ecological credit crunch caused by undervaluing the environmental assets that are the basis of all life and prosperity,” declared James Leape, international director general of WWF, in publishing the “Living Planet Report 2008“. It was prepared in co-operation with the renowned Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network.

The authors estimate that the ecological debt is between US$4 trillion and US$4.5 trillion a year, or double the estimated losses made by the world’s financial institutions as a result of the credit crisis. But who can put a true monetary value on the deforestation, degraded soils, polluted air and water, and declines in the numbers of fish and other species every year? All in all, the Living Planet says that human beings are using 30 per cent more resources than the Earth can replenish each year.

It is a chilling report. But the real surprise is that nothing should be surprising about what it says except the rapid speed of deterioration and the failure to heed the warnings. We are living ecologically in the same way as financial institutions have been, seeking instant gratification without thinking of the consequences.

Until the 1960s, most countries lived within their ecological means but, today, three-quarters of the world’s people live in countries that consume more than they can replenish. The report contains information on the “water footprint” of every country and says that 50 nations are already experiencing “moderate to severe water stress on a year-round basis”.

The report calculates that global biocapacity – that is, the area available to produce our resources and capture our emissions, which would keep the Earth’s biosystem in balance – is 2.1 hectares per person. But the actual footprint per person is 2.7 hectares.

The two countries with the biggest ecological footprints are the US and China, each with about 21 per cent of global biocapacity. But there are big differences in the way Americans and Chinese live. If everyone in the world lived as the average American does, we would already need 4.5 planet Earths because US citizens require 9.4 global hectares; average Chinese consumption is 2.1 hectares, so, if everyone lived like an average Chinese, we’d be OK … just.

Consumption and the actual biocapacity of a country, meaning the resources available within that country, are different. The US, China and India all have average footprints greater than their national biocapacity. The US, with its huge land and resources, is consuming 1.8 times its national biocapacity, China 2.3 times and India 2.2 times. In Beijing and New Delhi, alarm bells should be ringing to ask at what price the rising economic growth will be purchased.

The responses of the two major players is discouraging enough to make one despair for the future of the planet.

Being in the US recently, in the run-up to the presidential election, was something of a surreal experience. Here is a country that is in financial crisis, heavily indebted to the tune of US$10.2 trillion and fighting wars on several fronts that are bleeding it of another US$600 billion a year (and that is without counting unfunded little details like social security, Medicare and Medicaid, which would push total debts to a whopping US$60 trillion) and, yet, none of the political contenders dares to give a reality check.

The US is the best country in the world, with the best workers in the world and we are gonna win the war, whatever it takes – that is the message from both contenders.

John McCain and “Sreamin’ Scarah” Palin go further and declare that they won’t allow America to be pushed around by foreigners and won’t permit anyone to commit the mortal sin of increasing taxes.

How in heaven’s name is the existing mess to be paid for, let alone the future? Yahoo.com this week offered five good reasons for buying an SUV, in total denial of anything real except pandering to pampered lifestyles.

The attitude from Beijing is, by these standards, more measured. China has finally admitted that its greenhouse emissions have caught up with those of the US – though most outside experts say that China passed the US last year. But China stubbornly insisted that its emissions will not fall any time soon and it will not allow the battle against emissions to impede its quest for growth. Yet Beijing also offered its solution to the problem, even though it involves transfers of US$300 billion a year from the Group of Seven industrialised countries, or five times total economic aid from all rich countries to all poor countries.

The US and China, and most other countries, should listen to Bill Clinton. Safely out of office and without having to face the daily pressures of his Congress and electorate, he said that there is hardly a major problem of the world that one country can solve on its own.

In these issues of the fragile future of the planet we are all bound together. The exquisite flapping of a butterfly’s wings in the Amazon can cause a tornado in Texas, just as greenhouse gas emissions from China are already spreading across the Pacific to Los Angeles, and plastic bags discarded in North America are turning up in the stomachs of albatrosses on remote Midway Island.

Poor Earth, poor all of us and our children unless we can make our leaders see how fragile are the precious resources of the planet.


Kevin Rafferty is editing a book for the Poznan Climate Change conference, in December, that is supposed to work out a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol

Methane Emissions On The Rise

Oct 30th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

The Australian | October 30, 2008

EMISSIONS of the potent greenhouse gas methane are on the rise again – but this time it’s nothing to do with farting cows.

Scientists have warned climbing methane levels may speed up global warming.

Levels of methane, the second-worst greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide, had plateaued but recently started to rise again.

Dr Paul Fraser from the CSIRO said increasing methane levels appeared to be caused by the melting of Arctic ice, which was opening up more wetlands to the sky.

These wetlands are releasing methane.

Cows and sheep, that burp, breathe and fart out methane gas, are a major source of methane emissions, but apparently, are not to blame for the increase.

Dr Fraser said the rise in methane levels was a concern.

“This is not good news for future global warming,” he said.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →