Archive for May, 2011
The Daily Mail Strikes Again
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Dodgy Journalism on May 31, 2011
If you are the owner a wood burner or open fire, get rid of it now BEFORE IT KILLS YOU!!!
Sorry; no need to panic. I was just using some Daily Mail style hyperbole to get you to read my article.
You may think I’m exaggerating about the hyperbole, but trust me, I’m not. I have just been forwarded an article by this ‘news’paper telling us that wood burners will give you cancer. For real; read it here if you want.
So what is this information doing in an environmental blog? Well, in my opinion, wood burners are good for the planet: they use a renewable fuel, they use a fuel that’s carbon neutral, they use a fuel that can be sourced locally, plus they can replace or augment radiators in your home, lowering its carbon footprint.
So not just as an environmentalist, but also as a conscientious reader of the news, I am fundamentally opposed to articles such as the one in question, which turn a quite ordinary piece of news into the end of the world as we know it.
This reckless journalism by the Mail isn’t doing anyone any favours. Ok, agreed, it is reporting one of science’s latest findings; but telling us that breathing in smoke is bad for you? Well duh!? What a revelation that is!
What I find irresponsible is the fact that they use these findings to try and convince us that wood burners and open fires are evil. If they were that bad Santa would be long dead by now… and he’s not. Is he?
Now I’ve got no beef with the story itself, it is vaguely interesting and based on fact, but titling it ‘Wood-burning stoves can be as deadly as exhaust fumes by producing smoke that can cause heart disease’ is just a tad over the top isn’t it?
Fair enough, the author mentions health impacts associated with open fires in the developing world, but we already knew that burning fires inside homes comes with an element of risk.
It’s not until the last few paragraphs that the author actually gives us some useful information about how best to burn wood to avoid unnecessary smoke. Thanks for the advice. Seriously.
I would like to know what the reporter suggests for those of use who use wood burners and open fires so we don’t kill ourselves. Should we replace them with electric heating systems and then all laugh when he writes a piece moaning about the wind turbine erected near his house to help produce the extra electricity?
Gosh what a pile of nonsense. Wood burners are great, so long as you don’t start breathing in the smoke. Got that? Don’t breath the smoke; it’ll give you cancer, you know.
If you’re considering buying a wood burner or resuscitating that old open fire in the front room; go right ahead. It’s not just good for the natural environment, but it’s also good for your own personal environment: the ambiance created by burning wood in the corner is unbeatable. Don’t listen to these spoilsports who have nothing better to do than sensationalise the normal.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of Vladimir Tatarevic
A Little Bit of Good News
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change on May 26, 2011
An interesting article in The Toronto Star, is telling us that melting ice may have the effect of fighting climate change. That’s slightly ironic, is it not?
Scientists believe that meltwater from Antarctic ice is fertilising the seabed with iron deposits, spurring an increased growth of phytoplankton and algae and giving the region’s ecology a real shot in the arm. They say that a growth in numbers of these organisms at the bottom of the food chain will have a knock on effect all the way up to small crustaceans and perhaps even to birds. Additionally, as these organisms grow, they will absorb CO2, boosting the ocean’s capacity to act as our main carbon sink.
If proven correct, this will transpire as both a negative and positive feedback effect: negative in the sense of the term that it’s reducing the effects of climate change; positive is so much as it’s good.
Naturally it is too early to tell if this will actually have an impact on atmospheric CO2, but we can always live in hope. Earth-shattering this news may not be, but it is one of life’s little rays of positivity that we all occasionally need to keep us going forward. I also wonder if it’s evidence that James Lovelock’s Gaia is boosting her immune system.
Now, apart from wanting to spread the good news of this discovery, I am also intrigued to know if any climate change denialists will report these findings and use the data to tell us that climate change is a hoax and will never happen.
What do I mean? Well, in backing up their denial of climate change, these guys are very quick to tell us that a small ski resort in Colorado has had a record amount of seasonal snow or that the temperature in Vostock, Antarctica, will hit a record low this year. These are all slightly vague and too narrow in scope to paint a real picture, but the supporters of these statements all seem to slap each other on the back and hold the information aloft as proving the commonly held theories on climate change as either falsified or wrong. Silly people.
In my opinion, the most compelling evidence that we may yet avert global climate catastrophe, is in evidence such as this. Will they see it?
Any climate scientist will tell you that feedback loops like this are written into their models, but the inherent degree of uncertainty dictates that we err on the side of caution when talking about the climate and future policy. I agree completely; this information - all be it positive – is just a drop in the ocean (pardon the pun) and we can’t relax about shrinking ice coverage quite yet.
So while this may – or may not – have the denialists running round saying I told you so; I can take that. Happily, it’s one of those little morsels of good news for those of us who have kids and want to protect them and from the (potential) effects of climate change. Let’s hope for some more soon. In the meantime, let’s also keep doing the little things we do to help keep the planet healthy. They ALL make a difference.
One last thing: Is denialist even a real word?
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of Tom Dowd
No More Hunting For Parking Spaces
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Greenwashing on May 23, 2011
I’ve just seen on CNN that San Francisco is the beneficiary of the world’s first app that will actually find you a parking space. Well, that’s not quite true; what the app does is take information from sensors in parking spaces and sends it to your phone, which then tells you where the empty parking spaces are.
Now, this seems to be a pretty good idea and should put an end to driving around aimlessly while getting your kids to shout out when they see a space, which so often turns out to be either restricted, disabled, just that little bit too small or – the worst of all – hiding a smart car. You know; where you don’t the see little car until you actually start to drive into the space. How frustrating is that?
A problem I see with this app is that it encourages the use of your phone while driving. I mean how many old grannies crossing the road are going to have to be run over by drivers looking for spaces on their phones, before people see this may not be such a good idea?
However, my main bugbear with this technology is that San Francisco City officials are saying it will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as cars will no longer have to drive around for hours on end hunting for spaces. Agreed, this is probably true. But if lowering greenhouse gas emissions is the goal, shouldn’t they instead be trying to persuade people to leave their cars at home?
I know that one reason I avoid driving into my home city is because parking is a nightmare (and because I’m an angel with a green halo around my head, obviously). If parking in San Francisco becomes easier and you can pretty much drive direct to the spaces, will this not encourage more people to take their cars into town instead of walking, cycling or getting on the bus?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not so stuck up that I oppose this technology outright; I actually think it’s a pretty good idea; but please don’t try and sell it to us as being green.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Shale of the Century
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Shale Gas on May 17, 2011
There are a number of articles that have recently been published extolling the virtues of extracting natural gas from shale rock. Many journalists are hailing this as the next energy revolution, holding shale gas aloft as our energy saviour.
The reasons for all this excitement are quite simple: shale contains ‘natural’ gas; we can get at it cheaply and easily; and – most importantly – there’s bloody loads of the stuff; enough to power Amercia for the next century apparently. Let’s not also forget that shale gas could fundamentally change global geopolitics as the gas and oil-reliant countries of the industrialised world will be able to look inside their own borders for a secure energy supply, reducing their reliance on unbalanced nation states run by madmen. Yes Gaddafi, I’m talking to you.
Ok, now I can’t argue that we don’t need to find a solution to our looming energy crisis, and I also can’t argue that natural gas isn’t the cleanest of the fossil fuels. However, it is still a fossil fuel. No matter how clean it may be, its use will still contribute to atmospheric CO2 levels potentially exacerbating man-made climate change and leading to the end of the world as we know it (kind of).
Another point is that this wonderful clean energy supply will need to be extracted from deep below the Earth.
Now here lies one of the main problems for me. Whereas we have previously extracted our gas from areas such as the middle of the North Sea or the wilderness of Russia, shale rock lies right under our feet – or at least it’s much, much cheaper to get at it from right under our feet. This means that the drilling will not be way out to sea or in the middle of nowhere, but could end up slap bang on your doorstep, where the gas companies will dig, drill, blow up and generally degrade the surface of the Earth until they have what they want. In Pennsylvania USA, for example, there are stories of contaminated water and mine tailings polluting local water supplies (It makes the idea of having a giant wind turbine in your backyard seem positively desirable). This inherent disruption and pollution could last for years and will be spread out over numerous areas as shale gas is not found in concentrated fields like it’s natural gas cousin.
Now I don’t want to rain on shale’s parade (if only I had that much influence) and I can really see the advantages to a new source of energy that can be ‘home-grown’. But if we do embrace this cheap abundant energy supply, then the areas we should be looking at, such as energy efficiency and resource conservation, will be put on the back burner (pardon the pun). Humanity will then carry on stumbling towards its next energy crisis: I refer to when the shale gas runs out and we haven’t made any solid plans to plug the gap. Sound familiar?
Of course I am not here to single-handedly put an end to the future of shale gas extraction. All I want to do is help spread the word: It’s almost certain that in the near future we will see this gas hailed as an environmentally-friendly, clean and cheap solution to our energy woes. Naturally, humans will take this to mean all our problems are solved and we can use our new-found energy with abandon.
Please don’t listen to what they may tell you. Dig in. Stay the course. We are finally starting to see some truly innovative ways of coming to grips with that elusive concept of sustainability. Let’s stay heading the way we are at the moment (all be it slowly); concentrate on tweaking our lives to become greener, look after the prospects of our future generations and forge ahead keeping in mind our regard for Mother Earth.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of pakhnyushchyy
