I was walking home (16:40, 6/2/13) from the 8th Day along Stretford Road, when I bumped into Nigel Murphy (Labour councillor for Hulme and the Environment). He told me he was waiting for a bus into town because he had been walking all day, then asked how were things with me. I mentioned they were not very good, (there are lots of things like Birley Fields and the lack of action by the council on climate change), especially with things like Alexandria Park. He mentioned people should read what it is really about and not listen to the protesters who are exaggerating the number of trees being felled. I said I had read the aborculturist’s report and that mature (maybe originally planted by the Victorians) were being felled when they were in good condition. I asked about the old green houses, they were not be restored, so how is this restoring the park to it former glory. Nigel replied that he remembered the greenhouses from a kid and walking in the park. And that the park was unsafe to walk in at night, and that this work was to make it safe. It was to make this park fit for today. If that is the case, then surely they have obtained funds falsely from the National Heritage Fund? The National Heritage Fund is about support the restoration of heritage assets and clearly this is not the council’s intention. Those who agreed to the council’s proposals seemed to of forgotten previous projects by the council, such as Piccadilly Gardens. Is that fit for today, what was done to Piccadilly Gardens? Alexandra Park Trees
Why Climate Scientists Have Consistently UNDERestimated Key Global Warming Impacts | ThinkProgress
Some of have suggested things will be worse than that suggested, such as the total breakdown of the Gulf Stream, plunging the UK into another Ice Age. Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester’s Tyndall Centre, spoke at a breakfast at the Rylands Library and spoke at Manchester’s Town Hall on the urgency of reducing our carbon emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change. Which I mention in an earlier post and that to me, the councillors, especially Richard Leese, the leader, did not appear that interested in.
It is also mentioned in this months Manchester Climate Monthly. There is a new research paper recently published that suggests scientist have consistently under-estimated the effects of climate change. And that things are a lot worse than it was ever thought. Though I feel, it is doubtful our politicians will change their attitudes and policies. No doubt, believing they will be okay because they are rich. They may soon find out, they ARE in it with US, and that they cannot eat or drink money: Why Climate Scientists Have Consistently UNDERestimated Key Global Warming Impacts | ThinkProgress.
Democratic Manchester City Council!
Manchester City Council continue to show, that they are overwhelmingly not acting in the residents best interests, once again ignoring it’s electorate. It has almost total control of the council and acts as a dictatorship. This is to ensure that Bernstein and Leese build their ivory towers, ensuring the City of Manchester, is all fur-coat and no knickers: Mersey Valley warden service facing the axe.
Two must-read articles about Alexandra Park, where the chainsaws are moving in… (See our previous editorial on the subject here).
From the Hulme Green Party, “Alex Park protesters take to trees to stop “Felling Vandalism”
Manchester Green Party Chair Deyika Nzeribe commented “The campaign group has done everything right. They got over 2000 signatures asking for the plans to be reconsidered, they got local experts to show how the councils plans to be altered to preserve trees and they have been in dialogue with both the Council and funders the Lottery every step of the way. They have been completely ignored.
To draw a parallel, last week Manchester City Council made a great show of how unfair the cuts to local budgets were and how the government were ignoring them. The council are acting in exactly the same way as the government to this local issue.”
From Nadine…
View original post 132 more words
stickman’s corral: Review – Extreme Environment (Ivo Vegter)
Though I disagree with some of the points the reviewer makes during his review of Extreme Environment. I think, he has highlighted the repeated nonsense of those who think ‘business-as-usual’ scenario is the one we should follow and environmentalist are just a bunch of ‘Nazis’. The fact that Ivo Vegter uses Monckton as a source of knowledge to attack environmentalist, should give a clue to the his mindset. There are points environmentalist can learn both from the book and the reviewer’s blog, for them to develop their case more hard-cast and understandable to all.
stickman’s corral: Review – Extreme Environment (Ivo Vegter).
Frontline Online: Where should we be looking for waste we can turn to energy? – The Ecologist
Another article which follows on from an earlier reblog I posted on the 12th January:Video: The Dark Side of the Green Economy
Inappropriate biofuel and biomass development can exasperate the pollution, poverty and starvation we already suffer from. I cringe, every time I hear of a ‘ecohouse’ which has wood burners install as a ‘green’ answer to their space heating. It is not, especially on our already overcrowded and polluted Island. The CAT (Centre of Alternative Technology) has a lot to answer for, they have not really moved on since the 70s with regards to alternative technologies. Wood used to be the main source of energy on these Islands, but it was becoming scarce by the 1700s and the Islands nearly deforested. This changed with the onset of steam technology which allowed the exploitation of the ancient fossil fuel beneath our feet. As the Ecologist article mentions, using waste organic waste is a way forward. I have been pushing AD biogesters to turn organic waste to energy (Methane) which is happening all over the world. But is still in its infancy in the UK, just as wave and tidal technologies are. We should be looking at the Best Available Technology (BAT), instead of relying on 18th Century technologies which may be cheaper to build.
Frontline Online: Where should we be looking for waste we can turn to energy? – The Ecologist.
An article which once again, points out the deficiencies in some ‘Green’ ideas. Biofuels are seen as a clean answer to our energy needs, especially for fuel for cars. In order, that we in the Global North, can continue in our wasteful consumption. Some of the article below, may be considered, an exaggeration, but we are once again raping and pillaging the Global South, so as to ensure we maintain our comfortable life-styles.
UN Land Grab Rapes Africa Of Resources & Rebrands Dissenters As Rebels ~ White Owl Conspiracy
www.whiteowlconspiracy.com
Shell Drill Rig Kulluk Breaks Tow Lines – Adrift Again Sunday Night | MyFDL
As the oil and gas companies try to continue with ‘business as usual’, they will try to exploit any oil and gas reserves they believe exist. As they are doing with Tar Sands and ‘fracking’. It does not matter to them whether their activities will lead to environmental disaster, it is about maintaining their dominant position. Unfortunately our politicians do as the oil and gas companies wish, as it is the oil and gas companies who have the money.
Shell Drill Rig Kulluk Breaks Tow Lines – Adrift Again Sunday Night | MyFDL.
Is biomass really dirtier than coal? – Response from the Initiat
I thought I would post Andrew Llanwarne’s letter in response to iCARBS press release against the FoE, Greenpeace and RSPB report on Biomass: Dirtier than Coal? Any form of incineration produces CO, CO2, NOx and particulates, and is an old technology. But the UK Government keeps trying to push incineration, biomass and waste, as the answer to our energy problems. It also does not have the strict regulations, standards and enforcement that the rest of the EU has. It is time the UK Government rethinks it’s strategy towards renewable energy and adopts a strategy fit for the 21st Century and not it’s 19th Century one.
Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:17 am (PST) . Posted by:
“Andrew Llanwarne” andrew.llanwarne
The Biomass Energy Centre report referred to below challenges the findings in the Dirtier than Coal report, based largely on the practices and pricing structure in the UK timber market, with only a passing reference to overseas markets which would be the primary sources of timber for major UK biomass power stations. There is reference at the end to the “extensive work” of the British Govt with industry and NGOs in ensuring overseas supplies will be sustainable, but there is plenty of evidence elsewhere to show that these standards are not assured by assessors paid by the developers. These sources do not seem to take into account the very poor efficiency standards which push up emissions relative to output when timber is used for electricity generation. Locally based CHP or heat-only is the best way to use biomass for energy, where it can make use of locally-sourced waste materials and surplus timber. This is the Scottish Government’s stated policy, but its proposals for future allocation of ROCs are directly contrary to the policy. Although Scottish Government proposes to limit subsidies for electricity-
only plants to 10MW, there is a loophole for biomass power stations of any capacity with a token heat production such as those proposed by Forth Energy (SSE and Forth Ports joint venture). These Scottish plants will only have to meet the DECC “good quality” efficiency standard of 35%, which is only half the 70% efficiency requirement from the EU for CHP production. A second loophole has been left for converting coal-fired power stations to biomass, in the belief that this will result in reduced emissions. The RSPB report undermines that belief.
The overall plea from ICARB is for more careful analysis and peer review, which is a reasonable request, but decisions are being made now on large-scale biomass for electricity developments across the UK, Europe and elsewhere. These will tie us in to reliance on a massive scale of overseas timber production for at least the next 25 years, dramatically increase demand on world markets and ensure that, even if some companies manage to secure relatively “sustainable” supplies, others will have few scruples over social and environmental standards if their investments are at risk. The EU Biofuels Directive has demonstrated what happens to communities and ecosystems when there is a sudden increase in demand for different commercial crops. Any assessment really has to look at the systemic consequences of UK policies on a global scale. The findings would be unlikely to support the large-scale use of imported biomass to generate electricity. Andrew Andrew Llanwarne
IDEAction
8 Glasclune Way
Broughty Ferry
Dundee DD5 3TJ
Tel: 01382 732457
Mob: 0791 294 5325
E-mail: andyllanwarne@hotmail.com
Web: http://www.ideaction.co.uk
and: http://www.walkingstories.com
Sustainable Solutions….Working with Knowledge….Exploring the FutureTo: localsustuk@yahoogroups.com
From: taliesin@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:56:29 +0000
Subject: [localsustuk] Is biomass really dirtier than coal? – Response from the Initiative for Carbon (ICARB)Hi all,Please see the press release below and please forward to others.
For those of you who don’t know about us I should stress that it’s highly unusual for us to decide to go to the press.
Cheers and thanks,
Keith
28 November 2012 – PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Is biomass really dirtier than coal?
Contact Prof Susan Roaf / Dr Keith Baker 0788 412 5540 / enquiries@icarb.org
Is biomass really dirtier than coal? This is what is being claimed in a new report by RSPB, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth [1].
However the report, called ‘Dirtier Than Coal’, is based largely on a new paper by Tim Searchinger of Princeton University [2] that has yet to be peer-reviewed.
ICARB [3] questions why the authors of the ‘Dirtier Than Coal’ do not appear to have consulted the UK-based experts whose peer-reviewed work is referenced by Searchinger.
The Biomass Energy Centre has issued a critical response to the report [4] and ICARB welcomes further submissions from those named in the reports.
We have previously raised concerns over carbon accounting-based claims for biomass because of a lack of transparency and peer-review. In this case ICARB wants to raise that Searchinger’s understanding of practices specific to the UK has been questioned by at least one of the
authoritative sources he references.
ICARB is not commenting on specific aspects of these reports but we do call for a more balanced coverage of the work.
Notes
[1] The report, published by RSPB, Greenpeace (UK), and Friends of the Earth (England, Walesand Northern Ireland), is available at: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/biomass_report_tcm9-326672.pdf
[2] https://www.princeton.edu/~tsearchi/writings.html[3] The Initiative for Carbon Accounting (ICARB) exists to advance the field of carbon accounting to facilitate the reductions in carbon emissions necessary for a sustainable society. We are an independent expert group supported by Heriot-Watt University, Glasgow Caledonian University, the Crichton Carbon Centre, and the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation, and funded by the Scottish Government. Website: http://www.icarb.org
Government bullish over Energy Bill despite faltering renewables investment – 29 Nov 2012 – News from BusinessGreen
Because of the Governments ineptitude, companies have decided to not invest in this country or like PV Solar, a maker of silicon for Solar PV, possibly close down their manufacturing business. The UK has consistently missed the boat, when it came to supporting renewables, instead investing in heavily in Nuclear and fossil fuels. Will the UK, ever rid itself of the title, ‘The Dirty Man of Europe’?
The situation is not helped when we have a very biased media, which appears determined to destroy the logical and sensible move to renewables, by giving it as much bad and incorrect press as possible:
Exclusive study confirms true scale of renewable bad press
This video sums up the UK Government’s attitude:
The History of Climate Change Negotiations in 83 seconds
This article describes the subsidies the fossil-fuel industry has received and still receiving. Also the different approaches taken by Germany and Denmark:
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/cost-propping-oil
Revealed: the coal industry’s plan to devastate the climate | Greenpeace International
Despite continuing warnings that we are getting close to a 2 degree global temperature rise, big business is still pushing the construction of old, dirty technology. In the UK the Government is still pushing through waste and biomass incinerator plants which are also major contributors to CO2 rises. But, Government and Big Business claim they are carbon neutral, which of course they are not. There are better technologies to deal with waste and biomass which do not produce large amounts of CO2. Such as AD biogesters, which have been for years in Europe and South America.
Also, energy efficiency is a subject talk about but little is actively being done about it. Just wander around a large town or city to see how much energy is needlessly being wasted, mostly on advertisements.
Revealed: the coal industry’s plan to devastate the climate | Greenpeace International.
patricktsudlow 