Scientists behaving badly?

No doubt you’ve heard of the fracas going on over the global warming emails that were allegedly hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Centre in the UK and leaked to the world on the Internet. Now known as Climate Gate, the leaked emails have been feasted on by global warming skeptics. Just in case you’ve been hitting the snooze button and missed the whole thing, you can search the emails on this handy website. If you want a potted version of the emails, Andrew Bolt  of the Herald Sun provides excerpts of the juicy bits.

Around 1079 emails and 72 documents supposedly show that scientists have been behaving badly by manipulating climate change data; colluding to suppress data that suggests there is no heating up of the planet happening; and darkly wishing to beat the crap out of scientists who are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). So the allegation is that a bunch of nerdy scientists are guilty of fraud and conspiring to cover up the warming theory. 

On the other side of the fence, there are those who are loudly suggesting that the emails have been taken out of context and that skeptics are “cherry picking” the emails, searching for words and phrases that spectactularly reveal some grand plan on the part of climate change scientists. I think this is an important point to ponder. We all know that email communication can often be blunt, direct, suggestive and misinterpreted by a recipient.  And I’d say that scientists are a pretty direct lot and heavily critique or criticize their peers’ work. Without contextual information, we can all jump to incorrect conclusions. And I’d suggest that’s what might be happening with Climate Gate. Here is a thoughtful analysis that provides some of the missing contextual information surrounding the emails.

Now, before you jump all over me, I’m not a climate scientist (nor are most of the climate change skeptics I’d say). But I am someone who likes to explore issues before jumping up and down, pointing the finger of blame. So I’ve now read many of the key emails skeptics have seized on and I’ve even taken the time to read a few of the original articles of the named scientists and I do think that things have been taken out of context.

For example, Phil Jones (Director of the Climate Research Centre) in a 1999 email said (about temperature reconstructions):

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Yep, on the face of it, not looking too good for old Phil. It does read as though he’s been up to some tricky stuff, manipulating data. But…I took the time to track the original article (referenced as “Mike’s Nature trick). It appears to be from a 1998 article in Nature, entitled “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (the dudes of Hockey Stick fame) Nature 392, 779-787 (23 April 1998). I actually waded my way through it. I’m no pointy-headed scientist (although I do have a Masters in Complexity) and I confess to not understanding some of it because it deals with Paleoclimatology – but seems to me that Jones is using language commonly employed by scientists (let’s remember that every profession has its own language) and he means bag of tricks or a technique to resolve a problem.

In this case, as I understand the article, Jones is referring to a divergence problem. Briefly, proxy data (such as tree rings and ice cores) - going back thousands of years but ending in 1980 – were examined and appeared to diverge from modern instrumental temperature records post-1960. The authors were trying to construct long-term (centuries to millennia) temperature records. Instrumental records from the late 20th Century were pointing to global warming but reconstructed temperatures from trees were showing cooling or no change. Hence, a divergence problem. I read somewhere (I’m hoping to find the reference) that climate change itself could very well be affecting trees, so they don’t grow as they once did and therefore don’t provide useful proxy data. The “trick” that Jones mentioned in his email is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data  – not to “hide” a decline - but because the scientists understood that the tree-ring data was suspect due to global warming (which is shown by the instrumental records). In his words:

“.. they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”

The future of our planet depends on whether or not anthropogenic global warming is a reality. For non-scientists and conspiracy theorists to pounce like wolves on a series of emails and cry “fraud” is itself suspect. IMHO we all need to go back to the original sources, the articles, the science itself and have a whole lot of PhDs after our names before we can even remotely begin to comment.

If you want a conspiracy theory, how about this – no hacking of computers or emails took place (by Russians it’s suggested). It was an inside job. Someone or a group of shadowy dudes, who want to discredit climate change scientists and knew what they were looking for, leaked the material. Because let’s be honest, there are a range of vested interests that would like to smack AGW in the chops and see the whole issue fade away.

For a good laugh: read this….brilliant.

Thankfully Aussies are good swimmers

My last post brought you rather depressing news about future water wars and food insecurity. Well, there’s more worrying news I’m afraid, especially if you’re an Aussie. No doubt you’ve heard about the latest climate change report that focuses on Australia: Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coasts. The report is now up on the Department of Climate Change’s website – go here.

If you can’t be bothered wading your way through this meaty report, I’ll give you the bad news:

• Australia has become a coastal society. Around 85% of the population now live along the coastline and it is of immense economic, social and environmental importance to the nation;
• all Australian state capital cities are located within the coastal zone;
• airports, sea ports and almost a quarter of a million residential homes on Australia’s coastline are at risk of disappearing under rising sea levels by 2100, if climate change continues unchecked;
• up to AU$63 billion of existing residential buildings are potentially at risk of inundation from a 1.1 metre sea-level rise;
• 157,000 to 247,600 existing residential buildings will be at risk from sea inundation by 2100, under a sea-level rise scenario of 1.1m;
• basically if you have a house along the coastline, you’re toast and will have real hassles selling;
• the report offers 47 recommendations such as reviewing evacuation plans (yep, I’d get these plans ready fast) and overhauling building codes to ensure sturdier homes.

Basically dear Aussies, our number is up. Our beach way of life, lazying on the beach, swimming and surfing, golden sand squishing between the toes – all the stuff that makes up our national identity – is threatened by climate change. We’d all better adapt to living away from the coastline and get used to far hotter weather and wilder weather patterns. Insurance companies are already refusing to insure coastal homes and are now tallying up the potential costs (AU$150 billion and counting).

The cat fight I reckon will be over the big question: who’s going to pay? Will owners of beachfront homes get compensation from local councils or State governments? Have State and local authorities got it together yet? – what are their plans for protecting coastal areas and citizens, coastal buildings, public works etc? My bet is that State and local authorities will scramble to protect public buildings and fret over whether angry residents, with beachfront homes sliding into the sea due to soil erosion or inundation, will create public safety issues. They won’t give a toss about the thousands of home owners who will see the value of their expensive beach front homes go belly up. Call me cynical but that’s what I think will happen.

A plan to save civilization

This coming week, I’m in Taiwan but through the magic of auto-posts, ThinkingShift lives on. I hope to take heaps of shots with my new plastic fantastic Superheadz Pink Dress camera.

But today I’m bringing you a slide presentation you need to look at. Awhile back I told you about Lester Brown, the American environmentalist. His website, Earth Policy Institute, has just published a slideshow called Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. Plan B refers to the response to the environmental challenges our planet now faces. The major challenges, as I’ve blogged about many times, are food insecurity and climate change. Here’s a summary of the slide show:

• Earth’s average temperature will rise 1.1-6.4˚C (33.98 ºF-43.52 ºF) during the 21st century;
• we are already outpacing these predictions;
• crop yields drop by 10% for every 1˚C rise in temperature;
• in an effort to ensure their own food security, some affluent food importing countries, such as Saudi Arabia, China and South Korea have begun buying or leasing land abroad to grow their own food. If you don’t believe that rich dude countries are leasing foreign land, then check out this – Pakistan is having a hissy fit that Saudi Arabia is planning to lease 202,342.8 hectares of farmland in Pakistan. I would have thought Pakistan had enough hungry people without leasing out precious land. And Libya is planning to grow wheat on 100,000 hectares (250,000 acres) in Ukraine ;
• historians have argued long and hard that the fall of the Roman Empire was due to food shortages and skirmishes over access to food (along with the Sumerian and Mayan civilisations). The fall of our own civilisation will be due to food shortages and battles over water. I’m now seeing articles about future water wars. My own view is that we’ll see the rise of water privateers. Here’s just one example I can give you of how the poor in developing countries (not to mention you and me) will get shafted by the privatisation of water. Water is going to be the oil of the 21st Century. Private companies will buy rights to water. Two French companies – Suez Lyonnaise des eaux and Vivendi Environnement – are the ones I think we need to watch. Just search for these two companies on the internet – go ahead, it will freak you out to find that these two companies alone supply water to 230 million people around the world (and this includes the US).

The slide show offers up some responses (Plan B):

• a worldwide switch to highly-efficient lighting would cut electricity use 12%, equivalent to closing 705 coal-fired power plants;
• the wind potential in North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas alone could satisfy U.S. energy needs.

There are heaps of ideas in the slide show to save the planet and our civilisation. There are also a ton of facts that will freak you out such as:

• soaring food prices – from mid-2006 to mid-2008, world grain and soybean prices tripled;
• since 1981, oil extraction has exceeded new discoveries by a widening margin. Most of the easily recovered oil is already pumped;
• between 1950 and 2000, world water use tripled. Some 70% of water use is for irrigation. Over-extraction is leading to disappearing lakes and rivers failing to reach the sea. Aquifer depletion is causing water tables to fall and wells to go dry;
• massive Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are melting at accelerating rates. Together hold enough water to raise sea level 12 meters (39 feet). A 10-meter rise in sea level today would inundate coastal areas home to more than 600 million people.

Environmental boundaries to save Gaia

If you’re wondering whether humans are stupid enough to be the architects of civilisation’s collapse and will become extinct….read on. Twenty eight scientists have been asked how we are going as stewards of Planet Earth. Really, why bother with twenty eight scientists when I could have given the short answer: humans are wrecking the planet and we will all be kaput!

Anyway, the pointy-headed scientists have drawn up a list of nine “planetary boundaries” that we had better not transgress if we, as a species, want to hang around and not suffer disastrous consequences. Check out this article from Nature for full details but basically, I’ll give you the goss – and the bad news? We’ve already crossed three of the planetary boundaries. Our planet’s environment has been unusually stable for the past 10,000 years. This stable period is known as the Holocene (aka The Long Summer) and has seen civilisations rise and fall. But since the Industrial Revolution, we’ve been in a new period – the Anthropocene – and basically the signature of this period is human activity driving environmental change, which could push us beyond the stability of the Holocene and into abrupt, irreversible climate change. So here is the framework the scientists propose to keep us within safe boundaries:

(1) Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. Human changes to atmospheric CO₂ concentrations should not exceed 350 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) but current CO₂ concentration stands at 387 p.p.m.v. and climbing. The boundary of 350 p.p.m.v. ensures the continued existence of the large polar ice sheets (but as we know, these are rapidly melting). So we’re probably toast as we’ve crossed this climate boundary already. The article says that we are already seeing evidence that some of Earth’s subsystems are moving outside their stable Holocene state eg accelerating rates of sea-level rise during the past 10–15 years and the retreat of mountain glaciers around the world.

(2) Biodiversity loss. This is the second boundary we’ve crossed and/or screwed up. Species extinction is a natural occurrence but biodiversity loss in the Anthropocene has accelerated massively and many scientists say we are in the grip of a sixth great extinction event. In 1993, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Earth is losing around 30,000 species per year (and this equates to three species per hour). Here’s a great site if you want to learn more about the mass extinction humans are causing. Today, the rate of extinction of species is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times more than what could be considered natural.

(3) Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. The rise of industrialised agriculture has thrown off Earth’s natural nitrogen and phosphorus cycles and we have pollution on land and in our water ways. We’ve passed the threshold with the nitrogen cycle because the planet and oceans simply can’t process the chemicals being dumped by humans obsessed with food production and cultivation of crops using chemicals. A major side-effect of nitrogen use is pollution of oceans – the Gulf of Mexico, for example, has a 5,800 square mile “dead zone” caused by nitrogen/fertilizer run off.

(4) Ozone. We haven’t stuffed this up because a 1987 ban on ozone-eating chemicals (being chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs) has resulted in atmospheric levels of ultraviolet radiation-blocking ozone now being at the safe level. Ozone depletion is a serious issue because it can lead to skin cancer, cataract and premature ageing of the skin.

(5) Freshwater use.  Demand for fresh water is soaring due to hygiene, sanitation, food production and industry. But planetary supplies of freshwater are dwindling. Current consumption for agricultural, for example, may expand from 2,600 cubic kilometers to 4,000 cubic kilometers in the future and this will lead to further environmental damage and water scarcity. Check out this freshwater scarcity map – it will freak you out:

Source: Scientific American

(6) Land use: I was reading the other day that Australia’s population growth is exploding (and given that we are the most arid continent on Earth, not sure this is smart). We will have 35 million by 2049 (current: 21,993,806 according to ABS). The world population is currently around 6.8 billion and is projected to surpass 9 billion by 2050. Just imagine: in 1950, the world population was 2.5 billion. To accommodate 9 billion people in 2050 you need land – so natural terrain, forests, fields and wetlands will most likely disappear to make way for cities and expanding suburbia. We’ll be lucky to spot a small shrub in the crowded concrete jungles of the future!

(7) Ocean acidification: Our civilisation oozes carbon dioxide and eventually it finds its way into waterways and oceans, raising their acidity levels. In acidic seawater coral, for example, have a tough time building their skeletons because the minerals they produce to build the skeletons quickly dissolve in acidic water. Apparently, oceans are now acidifying 100 times faster than at any time during the past 20 million years.

(8) Chemical pollution: I’m always saying that our era will be known as the “chemical generation” (that is if there are any humans left in the future).  We are chemical crazy. Go off and look at the ingredients in your shampoo…I’ll wait. Do you see Sodium Laureth Sulfate or Sodium Laurel Sulfate? If so, chuck it out now – these chemicals are known as surfectants and are basically foaming agents. They are known irritants and have also been linked to liver toxicity and may be carcinogenic. These chemicals also pop up in toothpaste, soap, mascara, laundry detergent, body wash, shave cream and so on. But you can get SLS-free products, go here for a list. Of course, nasty chemicals end up in our waterways and have been linked to genetic damage.

(9) Atmospheric aerosols. A volcano spewing forth its muck is likely to pollute the atmosphere but so are human-made sulfate aerosols created by the burning of coal and oil. Human-made sulfate aerosols are now thought to outweigh naturally produced sulfate aerosols such as desert dust and volcanic aerosols resulting from eruptions. Human-made sulfate aerosols are suspended in Earth’s atmosphere and actually have a cooling effect on climate but do not offset global warming.

Of the 9 planetary boundaries, we have crossed three. Below is the “planetary boundaries” table that shows the sorry state of affairs.

Click here for larger view (Source: Nature).

What’s in the patty?

I’m reading a book that is freaking me out. It warns us of a future where countries that have dried up their rivers and aquifers to water the crops we’ll need to sustain some 9 billion people by 2050, will need to import water via an international water market. Water will become a globally traded commodity. I won’t even go into the horrors of reading about how analysis of a hamburger patty revealed the tissues and bits and pieces of 1,000 animals (yep, you read that correctly: 1,000). And forget about swine or avian flu – the three dangerous emergent pathogens we have to worry about are – Salmonella enteritidis, campylobacter and the deadly Escherichia coli O157:H7.

Here are a few snippets from the book:

• “humanity will still need at least 17% more fresh water to meet all of its food needs than is currently available…just to produce the extra grain the world is forecasted to need by 2050 will require us to somehow come up with as much as a trillion tons of additional water – a challenge that may simply exceed our technical, political and physical capacities”.

• “we know that the climate is changing, and we know that oil could very easily be at $250 a barrel tomorrow if the Middle East blows up…So if we are really scientists, we should at least be asking ourselves what kind of agricultural system could produce the food and fiber we need in a world where oil is $250 and where we have twice the severe weather but only half the water that we have now. What kind of agriculture could we come up with? It’s an entirely reasonable question to ask, and yet, no-one wants to touch it, because when you get down to it, no one has a clue”.

• Since 1980….more than 1.1 million square miles of forest – an area larger than India – has been cleared, much of it to make way for pasturelands and croplands, especially soybeans, corn and palm oil plantations.

I reckon that Lester Brown has been spot on with his forecasts. Have a read of his 1995 work, “Who will feed China?” – because a lot of meat-hungry Chinese are now demanding a Western-style diet and this means more corn has to be grown to feed the cattle at increasingly cheaper costs; all the crops necessary to feed our expanding global population leads to soil erosion because of massive use of pesticides and fertilizers; water is getting scarcer; peak oil is fizzling out (and grain relies on cheap oil for transport and so on).  You can read a synopsis of Brown’s work here and the book is here.

The state of the climate

I’m going to be very busy over the next week, so posts will be more about pointing you in the direction of interesting stuff (rather than my usual ranting and raving).

I came across a very interesting debate between four scientists over climate change issues. Here are some snippets to whet your appetite before you trot off and read the full article:

• the Earth is now 0.75 degrees Celsius warmer than it was a century and a half ago;
• if we continue with our current trends in burning fossil fuels, the ocean will become more acidic than it has been at any time in the past 65 million years;
• both poles are getting warmer and this is different from the past because both poles did not move together – one pole would lead and the other would follow. Now, ice is melting from both poles at an accelerated rate;
• although the planet warmed in the past, it did so over millions of years and ecosystems could adapt. What we’re seeing now are rates of increase in greenhouse gases and warming that exceed natural rates by a factor of 100;
• we are at a critical point in history – if we don’t stop stuffing up the planet, the scientists believe that geologists in 50 million years (if there are any!) will be able to pinpoint the exact time in history when civilization had developed advanced technology but didn’t develop the wisdom to use it wisely;
• we will have to raise the food supply another two times to feed all of the people that we think will be alive by the latter third of the 21st century;
• to address global warming, we’ll need US$500 billion to get going but ultimately trillions;
• the stratosphere—the upper atmosphere—is cooling while the lower atmosphere and the land surface are warming. This is a sign that greenhouse gases are trapping energy and keeping that energy close to the surface of the earth.

All four scientists have serious academic chops and also address the contrarian view (that climate change is not happening). So if the above hasn’t scared you enough, go here to Discover magazine to read the full article.

And Happy Independence Day to all my US readers!

Environmental stuff

I thought I’d share with you some interesting environmental stuff I’ve come across recently – in no particular order.  First up, the Swedes have just released some guidelines for climate-friendly food in an effort to reduce greenhouse gases. Jointly drafted by the Swedish National Food Administration and their Environmental Protection Agency, the guidelines will be circulated around the EU for comment. There are no surprises to the advice: eat meat less often; eat seasonal, locally-produced fruits and vegetables (remember when we used to do that?); and avoid bottled water (the plastic may contain chemicals such as phthalates and bisphenol A, which seep into the water).

It’s good to see the Swedes taking the lead in Europe and helping consumers think through their food choices. Given that one kilo of beef contributes up to 15-25 kilos of greenhouse gases and that Swedes’ meat consumption has grown by an average ten kilos per person over the past ten years and now totals 65 kilos, it’s a smart move promoting healthy food choice hand-in-hand with helping the environment.  And you only have to read this report (by the Joint Research Centre) to learn that meat and dairy products contribute on average 24% to the environmental impact of total final consumption in the EU 27, while constituting only 6% of the economic value. Click here to read the guidelines in English.

And speaking of things seeping into your water or food, if you want to freak yourself out, go here to find out what pesticides are on your food. I decided to use the site to check out if my favourite poached pears might be suspect. Holy Guacamole as they say! 28 pesticides are found on pears – 6 known or probable carcinogens; 13 suspected hormone disruptors; 8 neurotoxins; and 3 developmental or reproductive toxicants. I’m reading Paul Roberts’ book, The End of Food, and he goes through the history of when we lost the plot and starting growing our crops smothered by chemical fertilizers and pesticides and injecting animals with antibiotics so they’d grow faster. Frightening. I have no doubt that in 100 years (if humanity hasn’t knocked itself off by sheer stupidity), future generations will shake their collective heads and call us the “chemical age”.

Meanwhile, Houston is going to erect a dome over the city. Well, engineers are thinking about it anyway. The idea is that a giant geodesic dome, stretching over 21 million square feet, might protect the city from its grim environmental future of fierce hurricanes and baking heat. You can watch a video on the Discovery Channel and explore the dome. I’ve pinched the photo below from the Discovery Channel.

The dome won’t be made of glass as that would be too heavy. It may be built from a light polymer, called Texlon® ETFE, invented over 25 years ago and called the “climatic envelope”. It’s 99% lighter than glass and can withstand winds of more than 180 miles per hour (more than the strongest category 5 hurricane). Apparently, an army of dirigibles would be used to construct the dome since everyday city life in Houston could not be interrupted.  But what about insects, birds and rain – how would that work inside the dome?

And finally, I was out in the garden the other day muttering about pests that had attacked some flowers. I don’t want to whip out chemicals so I hunted for some homemade recipes to beat them off and found this excellent FAQ sheet from Gardening Australia – a heap of recipes using things like soap flakes, bicarb and molasses to get rid of pests like caterpillars, grasshoppers and mealybugs. I tell you: it’s a war zone out there in the garden!

Secret billionaire club

What’s with the secret squirrel business? Some of America’s billionaires (now, what would it be like to be a billionaire!) have been meeting secretly. They are not plotting a secret new world government.  They have been meeting to discuss how their combined humongous wealth could be used to curb global population and improve health and education. I’m all for the latter, not so sure I like the sound of rich dudes thinking they have the right or power to control population numbers. Smacks of that dark bit of history – eugenics – and we know what the Nazis did with eugenics.

So the likes of Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet, George Soros, David Rockefeller Jr, Ted Turner and Michael Bloomberg (is he a billionaire?) are known as the Good Club. They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist, on May 5 in Manhattan, US and even some aides didn’t know the real purpose of the meeting, being told their boss was off to a security briefing (Oprah goes to security briefings?). I  guess over some top notch champagne and caviar they had a friendly chat and at some point Bill Gates dropped the clanger – that he wants to cap the world’s population at 8.3 billion people. So whilst these “philanthropists” will no doubt throw millions at schools and better health care, I’m wondering how they’re thinking of “curbing the population”. And I’m sure that Ted Turner would have trumped Gates by outlining his plans – bringing the world’s population down to two billion through a global voluntary one-child policy (guess his plans wouldn’t run to himself as he has five kids). Perhaps they even discussed Henry Kissinger’s secret 1974 “food control genocide” plan (a covert plan to reduce population growth through birth control, war and famine).

Possibly, Gates even mentioned that his dad, William H Gates Sr is a board member of Planned Parenthood and a quick search of the American Eugenics Society Records shows Bill’s dad crops up in their records. And no doubt David Rockfeller Jr confessed that his own dad, John D. Rockefeller, bankrolled the eugenics programme in Nazi Germany through the Kaiser Wilhelm institute.

We know the planet cannot sustain a projected world population of 9 billion by 2050. And I’m sure the Good Club discussed many initiatives around health and education that would benefit Third World countries but when you delve into the backgrounds of some of the gathered few and note the link to eugenics, a feeling of uneasiness occurs. The eugenics movement has never really gone away; it’s simply moved into a new era and has converged with concerns over the sustainability of our planet and global population. Some interesting quotes:

• “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal”. Ted Turner, CNN founder & UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June 1996

• “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically & psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public  mind is informed of the issues so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable”. Sir Julian Huxley, first director general of UNESCO (1946-1948)

• “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels”. Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December 1995

• “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it”.  Jacques Cousteau

• “The world has a cancer and that cancer is man”. Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation.

• “…The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size”. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb. pp 130-131.

There is even a suggestion that the Human Genome Programme is eugenics in disguise – that the genetic code can be altered to produce designer babies and that ultimately our world will consist of GenRich and GenPoor (those who can afford to have their DNA tinkered with and those who can’t – the latter being referred to as naturals or God children and who may form a future class of lowly-paid service workers or labourers. This of course was depicted in the movie Gattaca).

This secret billionaire club business makes me a tad nervous, with their talk of trying to shrink the world. As though they, due to their humongous combined wealth, believe they have some sort of moral imperative to decide the world’s population numbers. Creepy. It’s like the recent Australian Government announcement that should swine flu hit us, then half the population (10 million) will be inoculated – which half would that be? Who makes the decision as to who gets the jab and who doesn’t and on what basis?

Photo: Associated Press

The Earth is hiring

I sure wish I was in the Class of 2009 at the University of Portland. The commencement address was delivered by Paul Hawken, environmentalist, entrepreneur, journalist and author. I want you to read the full speech – you will be inspired!  I am sure many of the students present will go on to consider careers that will help make this planet a better place to live on after hearing this speech.

Here are some snippets:

• “There is invisible writing on the back of the diploma you will receive, and in case you didn’t bring lemon juice to decode it, I can tell you what it says: You are Brilliant, and the Earth is Hiring. The earth couldn’t afford to send recruiters or limos to your school. It sent you rain, sunsets, ripe cherries, night blooming jasmine, and that unbelievably cute person you are dating. Take the hint. And here’s the deal: Forget that this task of planet-saving is not possible in the time required. Don’t be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done, and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done.”

• “Ralph Waldo Emerson once asked what we would do if the stars only came out once every thousand years. No one would sleep that night, of course. The world would create new religions overnight. We would be ecstatic, delirious, made rapturous by the glory of God. Instead, the stars come out every night and we watch television.”

Damn, I wish I’d written this speech!!

Photo: NASA Photo Gallery Earth

Green mercury

The European Union does some great things. Its Parliament has just voted to ban the trade in seal products – from 2010, no seal products can be placed on the EU market. This will effectively close a primary market for Canada, which continues to slaughter seals. Bad news for the Scots though. Sealskin sporrans will be illegal and the kilt industry is not too happy. Between 2009 and 2012, the EU has also directed that energy-guzzling, traditional incandescent light bulbs and inefficient halogen bulbs are to be phased out and replaced by compact energy-efficient fluorescent (CFL) bulbs. The bulbs are like miniature versions of the fluorescent strip lights common in offices and kitchens.

But this latter decision, whilst allowing EU homes to reduce electricity usage 10-15% and stopping 5 million tons of carbon dioxide a year from being pumped into the atmosphere, will have serious ramifications for Chinese workers. The new “green lightbulbs” will mostly be made in Chinese factories and mercury is a component of these fluorescent lightbulbs. The problem is twofold: fluorescent bulbs use electricity to excite mercury vapour and, of course, mercury is a toxic pollutant; and during the manufacturing process, mercury (in solid or liquid form) must be handled, contained and safely controlled.

In Chinese factories, however, workers are being poisoned by mercury on a daily basis because many of these factories are often poorly regulated. In one Chinese factory, 121 out of 123 employees had excessive mercury levels. One man’s level was 150 times the accepted standard. Mercury can accumulate in the kidneys and lungs and damage the nervous system.  So toxic is mercury that the British Government cautions that if a compact fluorescent lightbulb breaks in the home, the room needs to be cleared for at least 15 minutes due to the danger of inhaling mercury vapours. I’ve read too that the quality of light emitted from CFL bulbs can trigger migraines in sufferers. And there are reports that the bulbs can trigger dizziness, loss of focus and cause problems for people with epilepsy.

Whilst CFL’s contain small amounts of mercury as vapour inside the glass tubing (about 4.0 mg per bulb), we need to be concerned that these bulbs are largely manufactured in China where workers are being poisoned and told to keep quiet about it. One worker was interviewed on condition of anonymity and said: “In tests, the mercury content in my blood and urine exceeded the standard but I was not sent to hospital because the managers said I was strong and the mercury would be decontaminated by my immune system”.

Because of the surge in foreign demand, mercury mines are being reopened in China and impacting on the environment. So here we have the demand for a “green product” using materials that are proven to be unsafe and being manufacturered by poor Chinese workers who are living in fear of mercury poisoning. All so we can save carbon emissions in the West. Doesn’t sit well with me – what about you?