I have compiled the following information as a response to a friend of mine (Arjan) who has been following the Ian Plimer arguments against human induced Climate Change in his recently published book ‘Heaven and Earth’. I thought it would be a good idea to share the main points with others regarding the release of this controversial book. I can’t really analyse the scientific evidence because I’m not a climate scientist nor am I qualified in any similar fields. For this I rely on others who have the knowledge and experience. But I believe it is important to look at both views on the subject to keep the conversation going.
Arctic Summer Sea Ice
Since I read the draft of Climate Code Red by David Spratt and Philip Sutton just under two years go I’m now setting up an annual routine of looking up the Arctic summer ice thickness in mid September, when the ice extent is at a minimum.
Climate Code Red alerted me and many other Australians to the rapid loss of Arctic Ice, with the Arctic compared to the “canary in the coal mine” when it comes to global warming. I wrote an article which I posted on Squidoo about this towards the end of 2007, which summarised my understanding of Climate Code Red. Now in September 2009 the need to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions is no less urgent. And if anything – as indicated locally by the bushfires in Victoria in February and the record breaking weather of August – climate change is happening quicker than we thought.
Now for an update on the Arctic. Science Daily recently reported on research which has correlated satellite data with submarine records. This shows that in the winter of 1980 Arctic ice averaged 3.64 meters in thickness. By the end of 2007 the average was 1.89 meters. Over 27 years the depth of Arctic ice halved.
Over the same time the extent of the summer sea ice has greatly reduced. The summer of 2007 had the lowest extent of summer sea ice. In September 2009, as reported by the Examiner, the ice extent is somewhat more than in September 2007, but still well below the 1979 to 2000 average.
The canary in the coal mine is still alive, but its future isn’t looking good. We need to keep on cutting carbon emissions.
Painting your roof white better than a PV system in slowing global warming
Lawrence Berkerley National lab reported November last year on some fantastic research into how “cool roofs” can help slow global warming. White surfaces reflect rather than absorb radiation, and can be effective in re-radiating heat back into space. I’ve only just come across this research today, and the potential greenhouse gas savings are enormous.
Most roofs are dark in colour, the research by Akbari, Menon and Rosenfield calculated the CO2 offset achieved by increasing the solar reflectance of urban surfaces. For a 100 m2 roof making a dark roof white (with a long term solar reflectance of 0.60 or more) will offset around 10 tonnes of CO2 per year.
A 10 tonne saving per 100 m2 is a large saving. In hot climates white roofs also reduce air conditioning loads. So called “cool coloured” surfaces apparently have only half the benefit.
In California its been law since 2005 that flat roofs be painted white. We should have the same laws in Australia, and should also be legislating that sloped roofs should be white, or at least “cool coloured” as has been the case in California since July.
Assuming it costs $1,700 to clean and paint a 100m2 tiled roof white, and thus save 10 tonnes of carbon, this one measure will provide more climate benefit implementing all of the following:
- Replacing you gas hot water system with a solar hot water heater (gas boosted)
- Installing a 2 kW solar PV system on your roof
- And implementing energy conservation measures that save 16 kWh per day
* Assuming an emissions factor of 1 kg CO2/kWh.
If you don’t have an air conditioner “geo engineering” by painting your roof white won’t save you any money. But in terms of tonnes of greenhouse gas saved per dollar invested painting your roof white – whether at home or at work – could be one of the least expensive ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. And it may help you avoid the need to get an air conditioner.
If you have a low carbon footprint to start with, based on this research, painting your roof white could actually neutralise your other emissions. And someone with a white roof is doing more to slow global warming than someone with a 5 kW PV system on their dark roof.
You have SPAM with a huge carbon footprint
You may have come across this news item a couple of months ago but it is worth taking another look. Although, the study was conducted by a major spam-ware corporation, it is clear that junk e-mails have a huge carbon footprint.
(image: www.fotolia.com)
Anything powered by electricity emits greenhouse gases. Recently research was conducted in the US to find out the amount of energy needed to transmit, process and filter spam globally. The results were startling. According to the ‘Carbon Footprint of Spam’ report the average greenhouse gas emission of a single spam message is 0.3 grams of CO2. Is this a lot? Well, if you multiply this by the number of spam sent annually it translates into a huge figure.
It is estimated that there are 62 trillion junk e-mails sent each year. In terms of energy this equals to the energy needed to drive a car around the planet 1.6 million times. If looking at the electricity needed to power these spam it equals to 33 billion kWh. This amount of electricity could power 2.4 million homes for a year! Spam-related emissions for all e-mail users around the world in 2008 totalled 17 million tons of CO2 or about the same as the emissions produced by 3.1 million passenger cars. That’s 0.2% of the total global emissions.
The report found that about 85 to 91% of all e-mails globally is spam. Nearly 80% of the spam-related GHG emissions came from the energy used by the PC users viewing, deleting and searching for legitimate e-mails amongst the junk e-mails. But spam filtering itself accounts for about 16% of spam-related energy use. To view and trash a piece of spam takes about 3 seconds.
If every inbox were protected by spam filters, organisations and individuals could reduce today’s spam energy by 75% or by 25 billion kWh per year. This would save the same amount of greenhouse emissions as produced by 2.3 million cars. In late 2008 a major source of online spam was taken off line and global spam volumes dropped by 70%. However, there are always new ones to take its place.
Weather in August our most extreme on record
David Jones, the bureau of meteorology’s head of climate analysis, as reported in the the Age, said earlier this week that temperature benchmarks for August had been broken in every state and territory. ”In duration, extent and the magnitude of anomalies it is beyond historical experience and it hasn’t finished,” he said.
See full article at the Age newspaper.
I find this very disturbing. It appears that climate change is happening very quickly, reinforcing again the need for urgent action to cut emissions.
Will we look back at today as a period of climate change or the start of climate change?
This week the weather is not what we expect for winter. Melbourne is known as a place of changeable weather, so I can’t recall a winter where we have had 5 or 6 nights in a row of strong winds. In Brisbane the temperature was 32 degrees Celsius yesterday. Its winter for goodness sake!
So are we going to look back at this time as a period of climate change or the start of climate change? The science seems quite clear. Unless we can quickly slash the amount of greenhouse gas being generated by human activity, the climate will continue to change. My young children may never in their lifetimes know what it is like to live in a stable climate.
The famous Dr Seus children’s book The Tale of the Lifted Lorax finishes by saying “unless someone like you cares an awful lot…”
Unless we get global emissions reduction quickly, 2009 will be viewed historically as a year back in time where people started to notice that the weather was changing. Unless we quickly stop putting great amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, stabilise, then reduce atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases people won’t be looking back and saying “2000 to 2030 was the time where the climate changed quickly.”
Think about this next time you make or support a decision that results in greenhouse gas being generated somewhere.
McKinsey says energy efficiency could reduce energy use by $1.2 trillion – but reinforces the dangerous viewpoint “think climate – think government”
A new report has identified that the USA could reduce its energy consumption by 23% by 2020 through energy efficiency.
The report has been prepared by McKinsey and Company, who are well known for their studies on the economics of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
McKinsey however says that this sort of saving is not easily achieved. Three types of barriers to the uptake of energy efficiency are identified in their report – structural, behavioural and availability. They say that these barriers need to be overcome to realise the full potential of energy efficiency across the economy.
Structural barriers are those that prevent an end user of energy from saving energy. For example a tenant typically has no control over the type of heating and cooling system in the building.
Behavioural barriers are those where ignorance or unwillingness to act mean energy efficient solutions aren’t implemented. An example that we see quite often in commercial buildings is ignorance about the time the air conditioning starts in the morning. Often it will be starting two hours or more before the building is occupied in the morning – which is wasteful if it only takes half an hour to get the building to a comfortable temperature.
Availability barriers are those where the user wants to reduce energy, but can’t access the solution or technology, often for cash-flow or cost reasons. For example, a business with tight cash flow that knows its HVAC system is a clunker, but doesn’t have the cash for an upgrade.
The report proposes various solutions to these barriers, mostly showing what government could do. The prescriptions appear valid for any government, not just the US. If you are in government, or have some influence in government circles, this report is worthwhile looking at.
Whilst these sorts of reports can be useful, they come with the implicit message “Think climate change – think government.” Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that just because another report is recommending the government do more, that it’s the sole responsibility of government to cut greenhouse gas emissions. There is a lot you can do yourself, and with focus and creativity these barriers can be overcome. Your organisation could probably cost effectively achieve a 23% saving from energy efficiency within a couple of years if you make this a priority. And the greater the number of individuals and organisations who make this a priority, the greater the impact.
Go to the department of climate change’s website and you’ll see the slogan “think climate, think change”.
Here in Melbourne the department of climate change’s slogan could be rephrased as “Think climate - watch change”.
In the 1980s vehicle number plates here in Melbourne proudly bore the slogan “Victoria – the garden state”. Fast forward twenty years to 2009 and Melbourne is now the driest capital city in Australia. Six months ago we had our worst ever bush fires. The newspapers this week have been saying that fire danger is going to be even worse next summer.
This is precisely what most governments have been doing for a long time now – thinking climate – watching change - and not doing enough. The Australian Government ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, along with most of the rest of the world, back in 1992 (yes, SEVENTEEN years ago!). Back in 1992 this is what Australia and many other countries agreed to:
“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures [to anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change]”, UNFCCC, 1992
“Think climate, think change” is a start – yes we need to think about this issue – but we need to go beyond thinking to action – all of us, not just the government. I much prefer the message developed by Darebin City Council – “think climate, make change”. Now.
You can reduce your own carbon footprint significantly if you want to. You can encourage those you know to do the same. And if you are an entrepreneur – think up solutions that cut carbon emissions then make them a reality, like Shai Agassi at Better Place. “I’m an imagineer. I imagine the future and engineer towards it.”
Which Solar Hot Water Heating System?
One of the most energy intensive (and therefore costly) processes in any house is the heating of water. Heating water accounts to about 37% – 40% of the annual energy consumption in an average Australian household and about 20% of its greenhouse emissions. Therefore it is important to consider all the alternatives, such as using the heat of the sun in solar hot water systems.
Which Solar Hot Water Heating System?
(Part One)
One of the most energy intensive (and therefore costly) processes in any house is the heating of water. Heating water accounts to about 37% – 40% of the annual energy consumption in an average Australian household and about 20% of its greenhouse emissions. Therefore it is important to consider all the alternatives, such as using the heat of the sun in solar hot water systems.
The diagram below summarises the GHG emissions of each type of hot water system.
Throughout the day, a sensor monitors the difference in water temperature between the water in the storage tank and the water in the collector (typically mounted on the roof). At a preset temperature difference, the sensor triggers a pump to circulate the water through the collectors where it absorbs solar heat.
Below is a summary of the two types of commonly used domestic solar hot water systems. Both the flat panel and evacuated systems have several versions, where gas or electricity is used to boost the water temperature if it is not sufficiently hot coming out of the water tank. In most cases the sun is simply used to ‘preheat’ the water to higher temperatures (40-70 C) before it goes into a storage tank. A pump may be used to circulate the water from the tank to the collectors until it is used. In addition the flat panel systems may use a heat-exchange mechanism typically where the water may freeze.
Flat panel or evacuated tubes?
In recent years evacuated tubes have become more popular and affordable and together with the flat panels have become widely used in Australia, especially since generous government rebates have been introduced. However, it is still disputed which system is better than the other. Obviously the manufacturers of each type of system claim that theirs is better than the other (sometimes claiming 90% to 160% more efficiency than the other system). The following reasons have been cited: because it captures sunlight better, is better in certain climates, is more cost effective, has better output for dollar spent, has faster payback, is less prone to failure or damage, is cheaper to repair, requires less roof installation area, etc.
It is difficult to find impartial opinions on the subject. It seems that each system should be examined in its own context. The climatic conditions and application will determine the better collector. One of them may be the preferred choice over the other due to a number of variables, such as the environment, availability of sunlight, elevation, orientation, average outdoor temperature, greenhouse gas savings, ease of installation including existing plumbing, payback period, running cost, availability of natural gas to use for boosting water temperature, how well the hot water tanks are insulated and many other factors. So which one is better and how do they compare?
To be continued……..soon……….
If you understand cash flow you understand climate change
For a small business such as ours maintaining a healthy cash flow is a must. Cash comes into the business when invoices are paid. A recent survey showed that Australian businesses were on average now waiting 58 days for invoices to be paid. This means that for most businesses the cash that will come into the business in April is dependent on what the business invoices now in February. There is lag between when the work is done and when it is paid for. Failure to invoice enough in February could result in a business running out of cash in April. And when there is no cash, there is no business.
Climate change is similar. The carbon we put into the atmosphere now influences the climate well into the future. However rather that a time span of weeks or months, its decades. Todays carbon emissions will influence the climate for decades to come. So to get a stable climate in the future we need to cut greenhouse gas pollution NOW.
Many years ago a friend “temporarily” left the shell of a model T Ford in my front yard as he had no space to store it. Its still there. I haven’t asked my friend to take it away because it reminds me that some of the carbon that car generated over its lifetime is still in the atmosphere driving climate change.
Since climate change is like cash flow, if we want a stable climate as we grow older, and for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we need to be acting now.