EcoRadio

Category: News

Add your news
You can add news from your networks or groups through the website by becoming an author. Simply register as a member of the Generator, and then email Giovanni asking to become an author. He will then work with you to integrate your content into the site as effectively as possible.
Listen to the Generator News online

 
The Generator news service publishes articles on sustainable development, agriculture and energy as well as observations on current affairs. The news service is used on the weekly radio show, The Generator, as well as by a number of monthly and quarterly magazines. A podcast of the Generator news is also available.
As well as Giovanni’s articles it picks up the most pertinent articles from a range of other news services. You can publish the news feed on your website using RSS, free of charge.
 

  • UN climate summit: Leaders take small stps towards action on climate change.

     

    China said it would curb pollution by 2020 – but it did not say by how much. Japan reaffirmed an ambitious new target for cutting emissions and offered cash to developing nations to adopt new green technology and for small-island and low-lying states, to escape the worst ravages of climate change. It did not say how much.

    America committed itself to finding a solution – and for the first time accepted its share of the blame for climate change. France threw out an idea for an entirely new leaders’ summit in November.

    Even the Maldives, which is generally included at such gatherings as a prime casualty of climate change, offered to do its share. It would be carbon neutral by 2020, its president, Mohamed Nasheed, said.

    An outpouring of pledges of action from the world leaders was precisely what Ban intended when he said the summit was the first time such a sizeable group of world leaders had gathered to devote a full day to global warming.

    Last night he said the gathering had saved the Copenhagen negotiations from outright collapse. “I am convinced that something missing from the last few months has returned,” he said. “This ­summit has put wind in our sails.”

    The Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who will be the official host of the Copenhagen meeting, said the deadlock had been broken. In a ­further sign of confidence, he said he was now inclined to invite heads of state and ­government to the talks, picking up the challenge by Gordon Brown last week.

    UN officials said in advance they hoped new commitments from the big industrialised states, such as Japan and China, would prod other countries into action so that they not be seen as the spoilers of a potential deal at Copenhagen.

    Last night, they said that the offers from China and Japan, and recent shifts in position, had changed the dynamics of the negotiations. The industrialised and developing world now appeared to share a sense of common cause on climate change – rather than recrimination about who was to blame, they said.

    They also agreed it was crucial to keep heads of state and government involved because of the complexity of negotiations. The negotiation documents have on their own become a source of conflict, at 200 pages with hundreds of footnotes.

    In his most direct foray into the debate, China’s president, Hu Jintao, said climate change would be an essential factor in its economic planning. “We should make our endeavour on climate change a win-win for both developed and developing ­countries,” he said, adding that China would cut carbon emissions by a “notable margin”, which he did not specify.

    Hu also said China would step up use of renewable energy to 15% by 2020, and increase its forests.

    Environmentalists saw the pledge – though lacking in specifics – as an important move. “These announcements should sweep away the canard that China is not willing to reduce emissions,” said Dan Dudek, the director of the China programme for the Environment Defence Fund. “Is it enough to make Copenhagen a success? That will depend upon whether Hu’s new climate initiatives propel Obama and the Senate into action on controlling greenhouse gases.” Obama offered no promises on pushing through legislation before Copenhagen. The Senate has been preoccupied with healthcare reform, though Democratic leaders said this week they hope to get to energy in early October. Instead, Obama made an overture to the developing countries, acknowledging the US and other industrialised states had failed for too long to acknowledge their responsibility. “It is true that for too many years, ­mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognise the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognise that,” he said. “But this is a new day.”

    Though it was largely overlooked, he also showed he was committed to trying to green the US economy, announcing a project to track greenhouse gas emissions. The president promised further small-bore action at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh where he said America will propose phasing out subsidies for fossil fuel.

    Environmentalists almost uniformly agreed that the US president had missed an opportunity to commit to working with the Senate on ways to get a bill that caps America’s greenhouse gas emissions.

    Even so, the emerging focus on climate finance, with the US and Japan yesterday ready to commit funds, could help ease a contentious issue: how to help the developing world prepare for climate change.

    There are still details to be ironed out. China is pushing for the developed world to spend 1% of GDP. The state department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, called that sum “untethered to reality”. But at least, said UN officials and environmentalists, it looks as if there is a renewed willingness to engage.

  • Climate change is killing our people

     

    As the ground in the village remained flooded, there were a lot of mosquitoes around, and five of my family members became ill with malaria. Because there was no clean water to drink, some people got cholera and diarrhoea. Many of the people in my village died. Children didn’t go to school since they were too weakened by disease and their parents had no money for school fees.

    Our farms were ruined, so we didn’t have food until the government came to help us. This was so humiliating for us, because we had never depended on aid to survive.

    This year, when we managed to get seeds to plant for our own food, we were struck by a drought like we had never seen before. It was so hot, all of the crops dried up and the wells where we used to collect water also became dry. There was no water in the boreholes, and so the cycle of hunger and thirst returned, but this time caused by the excessive heat.

    We didn’t understand why this had happened. We wondered what we had done to make God so angry. But we now know it’s climate change. The cycle continues, and it hasn’t gotten much better, as we have had more droughts and more floods. It’s very hard for us to grow food, and some mornings, I go to my field only to find that someone has stolen the potatoes. Although it makes me angry, I know that if my neighbours didn’t steal the potatoes, they wouldn’t have anything to eat.

    When I heard that leaders of the world were meeting at the UN in New York to talk about fighting climate change, I wished that there was a way I could tell them what my community has gone through. I wanted to make them understand that we are getting poorer and poorer because of climate change, and we are dying. I wanted to be there to tell them our story.

    With Oxfam‘s help, I am have joined a number of women like me from different corners of the world in New York to speak my mind.

    I ask the leaders of the rich countries to take action to reduce their carbon emissions so that we can look forward to rains to plant our crops without having to face floods that wash them away. And I ask them to help my community fight the climate change that destroys our houses, increases diseases and stops our children from attending schools. That’s all I am asking for on behalf of my fellow villagers.

  • City dwellers have smaller footprints

    A report from the International Institute for Environment and Development released last week indicates that city dwellers emit an average of two thirds of the emissions of those who live in cities. Larger cities and their transport networks tend to be more efficient but the details depend on a large number of factors. Residents of Rio di Janiero, for example, emit about one third of the national greenhouse gases average per person. The report notes that by 2050 more than half the world’s populations will live in cities and concludes that making those cities as sustainable as possible will be one of the key factors in reducing greenhouse emissions.

    Read the full story

  • Algae Biofuels: From Pond Scum to Jet Fuel

    Microscopic algae yield up to 100 times more oil per acre than soybeans and other common biodiesel feedstocks, according to Mary Rosenthal, Executive Director of the Algal Biomass Organization. Microalgae can be up to 80% oil by dry weight, although that number is for wild strains that are slow growers, according to Dr. Margaret McCormick of the technology company Targeted Growth. Genetically engineered microalgae, such as those created by Targeted Growth, approach 35%-45% oil by dry weight, but achieve dense cultures in one day. Through genetic manipulation, scientists can also control the oil composition, and generate strains specialized for particular growth conditions, such as high salinity or temperature extremes.

    When grown photosynthetically, microalgae are a two-for-one environmental benefit — CO2 mitigation plus a renewable energy source. Microalgae can capture sunlight 20-40 times more efficiently than plants, and unlike corn- or soy-based feedstocks, they do not create a “food or fuel” dilemma. Some can be cultured using seawater. Finally, much of the groundwork for algal biofuels was done by the United States Department of Energy Aquatic Species Program, which developed strains, techniques and pilot programs from 1978-1996.

    From Cells to Oil: Many Paths

    The versatility of microalgae means it’s hard to predict the most promising avenue for harvest, processing and finally commercialization.  While more than 40,000 wild algal species exist, algal biofuel leaders like Solazyme and Sapphire Energy use genetically selected or engineered strains for oil production, according to company representatives.

    In addition to growing photosynthetically, with sunlight as an energy source and CO2 as a carbon source, microalgae can be grown heterotrophically, using sugar, glycerol or cellulosic biomass for energy and carbon. Solazyme uses the latter technique, which gives up the solar advantage in exchange for faster growth, a higher culture density for easier harvesting and a process that fits the existing industrial fermentation infrastructure. Solazyme’s heterotrophic cultivation requires growth in a closed tank system, or bioreactor. Other companies like Sapphire Energy and Solix Biofuels grow microalgae photosynthetically, Solix in photobioreactors and Sapphire Energy in ponds on non-arable land.

    Once the microalgae are cultivated, biofuel manufacturers are faced with two major technical hurdles: harvesting and dewatering. Microalgae cultures can be 80%-90% water, so cells must be collected by settling, which is time-consuming, although this can be hastened with flocculating agents that cause cells to clump and precipitate. More high-tech methods like centrifugation and filtering are faster, but are more costly in both dollars and energy.

    Once harvested, cells may be air- or sun-dried, requiring a large surface area and significant time, or they can be dried using heat or a vacuum, again increasing the cost and reducing energy efficiency.

    Finally, extracting the oils is another challenge. Options include extraction with solvents like hexane, enzymatic digestion of cell walls, or physical disruption with ultrasonic sound waves or microwaves.

    (Image left, shows Solazyme’s fermentation process. Credit: Solazyme)

    The Exxon-Synthetic Genomics partnership genetically engineers strains to continuously secrete oil. Professor Chisti explains that in the future, microalgae might be engineered to “rupture at a certain age and release their oil content.” In either method, the complexities of collecting, drying and breaking open the algal cells would be bypassed since the oil could be harvested by simply skimming the culture.

    Powering Trucks and Jets

    Oil obtained from microalgae can be used as a straight vegetable oil fuel, but this requires a modified engine. Dr. Eric Jarvis, a scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), said that while the home hobbyist might enjoy modifying engines to use algae biofuel, “no one wants to do it at the commercial level.”

    Biodiesel can be used in existing diesel engines and is produced by straightforward and established transesterification technology. This chemical reaction starts with simple triglyceride lipids, which are fats and oils from plants, waste foods or algae. The triacylglycerols are chemically reacted with alcohol, with the help of enzymatic or chemical catalysts. The resulting biodiesel has the characteristics of petroleum diesel and can be used alone or in a blend.

    The big pay-off in algae biofuels will be as drop-in replacements for gasoline or jet fuel. Successful test flights have already been run on mixtures of petroleum and algal-based jet fuels. Chisti says, “generally, only a portion of the crude algal oil is suitable for making biodiesel, but all of it can be used to make gasoline and jet fuel.” For this, the fatty acids in the algal oils are refined by hydrogenation and hydrocracking.

    NREL’s Jarvis believes the refinery pathway has the most flexibility, in part because the techniques are already established for petroleum. He says that “oil chemists know how to do the cracking and hydrogenation, so they can change the fatty acids into what they need.” Also, refining is necessary “to get the energy-dense targets like jet fuels. You can’t use ethanol on airplanes.” In addition, less refined products have problems with gelling, which Jarvis cautions, “you don’t want happening at 30,000 feet.”

    Even with the proven potential of algal biofuels, cost-effectiveness is an issue. Biofuels currently compete with petrochemical fuels, which have economy of scale. A 2007 analysis of the economics of algal biofuels by Chisti suggested that a five-fold reduction in production costs was needed to compete with plant- or petroleum-based diesel. Now, Chisti says, “issues relating to climate change may leave us with no choice but to replace petroleum fuels with renewable, carbon-neutral algal fuels, despite a somewhat higher cost.”

    Algal-based Biofuel Manufacturing Yields Valuable Coproducts

    Algal biofuel manufacturers have another ace up their sleeves: coproducts. Algae excel at making complex organic compounds like B and C vitamins and beta-carotene that are used as fragrances, flavorings, pigments and supplements. These can sell for hundreds of dollars a kilogram, so harvesting both the coproducts and feedstock oils can potentially offer manufacturers another revenue stream and make cultivating and processing microalgae more economical.

    Even after lipid and coproduct extraction, the remaining proteins and carbohydrates in the biomass can be used as animal feed, or fermented by anaerobic bacteria to generate methane. The coproduct strategy lets algae manufacturers achieve economic feasibility. Plus, the Exxon-Synthetic Genomics partnership gives algal biofuels a big publicity boost. Dr. McCormick of Targeted Growth says it’s “great for the industry…this shows that companies are looking to see how they can make algae work for them, and we welcome that investment.”

    Chris Tachibana, Ph.D, is a science writer based in Seattle and Copenhagen, Denmark. Visit her website here.

  • SA towns to get water the Murray can’t buy

    The Commonwealth buyback scheme is being conducted in stages to ensure purchases are in line with the budget’s forward estimates.

     

    The unsuccessful irrigators were promised another chance at selling their water back to the river, with new buyback rounds set to begin within the next nine months. But Ms Maywald said SA would seek to get in first and buy the water for critical human needs – drinking supplies in towns and cities.

    She said the move would bolster drinking supplies in 2010-11 and also help struggling farmers.

    “We understand that many irrigators had factored water sales through the Commonwealth’s buyback into their business plans and now as a result of the full subscription of the program, are uncertain about the future,” she said.

    Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Dr Paul Sinclair said “critical human needs” was a vague term and he hoped the environmental needs of the Murray River remained a priority.

    “If it’s genuinely for critical human use we would have no problem, but we need to ensure the speed at which water is being purchased to help the Lower Murray is matching the scale of the environmental catastrophe that has unfolded there,” he said.

    Commonwealth spokeswoman Ilsa Colson said $790 million was spent last financial year buying back 507 billion litres of water entitlement.

    She said the states were entitled to enter the water market as they saw fit for either critical human needs or the environment.

    The Brumby Government has confirmed plans to divert about 12 billion litres of water that would usually be destined for the parched Wimmera-Mallee region, and instead send it to Melbourne through the north-south pipeline.

    The diversion will be a one-off event in a bid to ensure Melbourne gets its promised 75 billion litres in 2010.

    The water would have gone to rivers in the region, but the Government defended the move, saying nearby water-saving projects were completed years ahead of schedule and the water was available earlier than planned.

  • Major pushes sustainable farming into mainstream

    Read the original in The Land

    “We gather together very capable people to work pro-bono to look at certain issues, and to use their intellect and resources to find solutions to particular questions,” Maj-Gen Jeffery said.

     

    The General plans to establish Outcomes Australia teams to address a range of issues, from the tangle of State and Federal environmental legislation to use of soil microbiology and the impacts of chemical-based farming.

    He believes the core of the solution to many of Australia’s environmental issues lies with the Natural Sequence Farming methods developed by Peter Andrews.

    “We’re not saying we have the total answer to all the problems in regenerating the landscape, but we have a pretty good indication of what needs to be done,” Maj-Gen Jeffery said.

    “I’ve spent the past six months visiting properties in many parts of the country and, for example, have seen what biological fertilisers can do for soil fertility and carbon sequestration.”

    “My main conclusion has been that Peter Andrews’ ideas are applicable in a holistic sense across much of the country, supported by bio fertilisers and other measures.”

    Mr Andrew’s ideas hinge on the understanding that 200 years of misinformed land management have dehydrated the landscape, with implications for stream flows, soil fertility and fire risk.

    Adjunct Professor David Mitchell of Charles Sturt University’s Institute for Land, Water and Society disagrees with Mr Andrews on certain details, but not on the general principle.

    “Water is critical,” Prof Mitchell said.

    “Without knowing it, we have been drying out this countryside. A lot of our water resources were not in pools, but in soil and vegetation. When it rains those reservoirs start filling again, and there’s less water for us. The current dryness is not just lack of rain.”

    Prof Mitchell applauds the General’s initiative. “We have to bring together everyone who has a good idea on this issue,” he said.

    While few will quarrel with the ideal of restoring landscape health, not everyone is likely to be in favour of the approaches endorsed by the General.

    He hopes that within a decade a third of Australia’s farmers – and eventually all of them – will have stopped using artificial fertilisers, dramatically boosted vegetation species, substantially reduced or ceased irrigation and adopted a more holistic approach to farm management.

    He also wants water to be recognised as the nation’s most valuable asset, owned by the people and managed by the Federal Government.

    “Our water has to be controlled at the national level with a value attached to it that equates to its importance,” General Jeffery told the Batemans Bay gathering.

    “Unless we can address the threat to world-wide water and food security, we stand to see conflict on a scale unknown since WWII.”

    Similar discussions have been held around the fringes of mainstream agriculture for many years, but this is the first time that such a radical overhaul of agriculture and landscape management has had the backing of a leading public figure.

    And in a clear sign that this is more than just a talk-fest, the Batemans Bay meeting was sponsored by Federal Departments of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, CSIRO and NSW Industry and Investment.