Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk

Latest news and features from guardian.co.uk, the world's leading liberal voice

What the Sami people can teach us

March 10, 2010

As global warming and habitat degradation accelerates, people indigenous to the Arctic circle say they have much to teach the world about how to adapt, survive, and thriveElina Helander-Renvall comes from Utsjoki, a place so obscure that even many Finns have little idea where it is. Utsjoki, or Ochejohka, Uccjuuha, and Uccjokk, depending on which local language you are speaking, is Finland's northern-most municipality. Straddling the border with Norway, it shivers, unregarded, deep inside the Arctic circle, a few icy miles from the shores of the Arctic Ocean.Utsjoki, population 1,034, is home to Finland's largest concentration of Sami speakers, the indigenous people once loosely known as Lapps who have eked out an itinerant existence herding reindeer across the frozen wastes of northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and western Russia since the last Ice Age. Nearly 50% of Utsjoki's population are Sami. In Finnish terms, it's the closest this eternal minority has got to being the majority.Born and raised on the margin though she was, Helander-Renvall's message these days is strictly mainstream. As accelerating climate change and other man-made environmental degradations create growing alarm across the planet, the Sami people have much to teach the world about how to adapt, survive, and thrive, she says."There is a lot to learn from the Sami, they have the traditional ecological knowledge, they really know about nature," said Helander-Renvall, head of the Arctic Indigenous Peoples Office at the University of Lapland in Rovaniemi. "They have the most precise knowledge about the weather conditions, about the plants, the diet, the resources. The Sami people have an ethical relationship with nature; a respect for nature that also has a spiritual side."The Arctic region is uniquely vulnerable to global warming, but if it is to weather the storm, it would do well to adopt Sami methods of land and resource management, communal co-operation and communication, local knowledge and best practice, she said.In order to keep a reindeer herd out of trouble, for example, a knowledge of different types of snow could be decisive, Helander-Renvall said. Muohta (ordinary snow) or oppas (untouched snow) might be safe. But the presence of sievla (wet snow), skarta (thin, ice-like snow layers) or ceavvi (a hard layer that the reindeer cannot penetrate in search of lichen) could dictate a life-saving change of route or decision to move camp.Local knowledge will also be vital to the large-scale industrial development on the fast-expanding oil and gas fields of western Russia's Yamal peninsula, and for the burdgeoning commercial and tourism industries in the Scandinavian north. Knowing where it is safe to build, how to site the foundations for a new road, airstrip or pipeline, what terrain to avoid, and how to do so responsibly while protecting biological diversity will all be increasingly important. "We need to preserve and transfer indigenous knowledge to future generations," Helander-Renvall said.Professor Monica Tennberg of the Arctic Research Centre in Rovaniemi said the Sami had shown notable ability to adapt to changing climate conditions. "We've seen how the community adapts, for example finding new ways to deal with floods. We've seen better co-operation, better municipal leadership, better communications, better early warning systems," she said. Adverse effects of climate change on pasture and traditional herding trails had been met with new rotation and migration patterns and also by a tighter communal discipline.The Arctic as a whole faces enormous challenges. Broadly speaking the region is warming at double the rate of the rest of the world, said Paula Kankaanpaa, director of the Research Centre, with local "hotspots" that fare even worse.Symptoms include reduced sea ice; the opening of blue-water sea passages both east and west in summer, north of Canada and Russia; increased levels of carbon-carrying organic waste in the Arctic Ocean caused by melting tundra; coastal erosion due to increased wave activity; loss of habitat for large mammals such as seals and polar bears and growing disruption of indigenous human communities.Governments still resist the idea that Arctic indigenous peoples have something unique to contribute. Canada announced this month that it will convene a foreign ministers' meeting of the five Arctic Ocean states (Canada, Russia, the US, Norway and Denmark/Greenland) in March "to encourage new thinking on responsible development" and "reinforce ongoing collaboration in the region".To their dismay, Arctic indigenous people's organisations, including the Sami, Inuit and Inuvialuit, were not invited.

Climate changePolar regionsFinlandArctic

Simon Tisdall

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

Guardian's sustainability vision

March 9, 2010

Owner of Guardian and Observer to tackle 10 issues ranging from environmental management and ethical procurement to employee and community engagementGuardian Media Group, the multimedia business whose diverse portfolio includes the Guardian and Observer, today launches an integrated sustainability vision and strategy to address issues ranging from climate change to ethical procurement.The 'Power of 10' vision is based on the belief that the group, which also includes radio stations, magazines and business to business media, can have a multiplier effect by educating and influencing its millions of readers, web users, and listeners as well as working with its thousands of staff, suppliers and advertisers to work towards a more sustainable future.GMG has committed to 10 areas of change, ranging from environmental management and ethical procurement to employee and community engagement.The sustainability drive links in with the core values of GMG's sole shareholder, the Scott Trust, which were first laid down by the great Manchester Guardian editor C P Scott in a leader column celebrating the centenary of the paper in 1921: Honesty, integrity, courage, fairness and duty to our readers and communities.The programme, which has been developed in partnership with Forum for the Future, the sustainable development organisation, is the culmination of a two-year process of change. David Bent, Forum's head of business strategies, said: "We've been impressed by Guardian Media Group. In a busy and difficult time for the business, senior executives have taken the time to develop and commit to an ambitious vision. The inheritance of the Scott values, the key brands and the trust structure means GMG is well positioned to be a leader in the media sector."The Power of 10 vision states: "We commit to play our part as a leading media organisation in creating a fair society that lives within the means of our planet. Driven by our unique ownership structure and values, we will enable our audiences, customers, employees, advertisers and suppliers to build a more sustainable future."Sustainability has many interlinked strands but the dangers of climate change are so great immediate that we will pay particular attention to highlighting its hazards and exploring ways of combating it."Given the diverse nature of the group, which includes the Guardian and Observer, GMG Radio, Emap, Trader Media Group (TMG) and GMG Property Services , the vision recognises that "while all our businesses share this common goal, we recognise that each has its own specific contribution to make."This means that while common minimum targets have been set in each of the 10 areas over the next two years, each of the businesses will develop its own centres of excellence. For example, GMG Radio will direct its resources into employee engagement, working with its audience and customers and carbon management, including a commitment to reduce its carbon footprint by 5% in the first year.TMG will be sharing the Power of 10 vision with all employees through informal 'town hall meetings' and by video. It will be overseen by a corporate social responsibility steering committee made up of five senior executives and an environmental committee made up of 30 employees from around the business.Emap will be using the launch of the vision as a springboard for a broad employee engagement plan to help set a strategy and agree which priorities to focus on.The Guardian and Observer already have their own sustainability vision and action plan, developed three years ago, that dovetails into the ambitions of GMG.GMG recognises that as a media company, its biggest impact comes from its ability to inspire audiences and customers to live in a way that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.For example, the Guardian has been leading the charge on the reporting of the environment and social justice for the past two decades and over the past two years has been developing one of the world's most in-depth and popular environment sites. In February, for example, it doubled its page impressions to 7.9 million compared with the same period in 2009 and increased the number of unique users over the same period by 140% to 2.64m.The Guardian also helped launch the 10:10 campaign, which has led to thousands of businesses, councils and individuals pledging to reduce their carbon footprint by 10% in 2010.GMG also recognises that if it encourages readers to change their behaviour, and seeks to influence suppliers and advertisers, then it must also lead the way in its own operations. For example, the Guardian only went ahead with the 10:10 campaign once it had committed to reducing its own carbon footprint by a tenth.The vision states: "The passion we have for inspiring our audiences and customers will be matched by our commitment to operating our offices, print sites and digital platforms to high environmental standards, including minimising waste and maximising both efficiency and recycling."We will measure and publicly report on our carbon footprint and set challenging targets to lower our emissions."

Guardian Media GroupCorporate social responsibilityEthical business

Jo Confino

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

What's the carbon footprint of advertising?

March 9, 2010

What is the environmental impact of installing plasma screens to display adverts, and is it worse than traditional posters?I was wondering if you could help with something that's really getting on my nerves – not least because it seems to necessitate closing Archway tube station at frequent yet random intervals, leaving me with a long and unexpected walk home in the driving rain after 10pm. Transport for London are going to much effort and expense installing plasma screens to display adverts on the Underground system. Surely these screens have a far bigger carbon footprint than the traditional printed posters, what with the initial impact of manufacturing the things, the energy used to keep them all day long and finally the problem of disposing of them safely when they break down and have to be replaced?Victoria, by emailThey do seem to be popping up everywhere nowadays, don't they?I've often wondered, if they must have these screens everywhere so advertisers can flog their wares, why can't they also use them to, say, flash up live network maps of the public transport system so all us users can see where the congested pinch-points are and then try to avoid them.But on the question of their energy use I will investigate and return later this week. In the mean time, if any one else has spotted a gratuitously large or ill-placed screen then please supply details below. Alternatively, if you love the presence of these screens and think they are a welcome part of your journey then dive in, too.

Ethical and green livingAdvertising

Leo Hickman

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

Feed-in tariff 'killing off' burgeoning UK small turbine industry

March 10, 2010

RenewableUK says inconsistencies in tariff favour solar panels, which takes microgeneration business out of UKUK small wind turbine manufacturers say they will lose out to foreign solar panel manufacturers in the race to cash in on the UK government's new feed-in tariff scheme.They claim their products will be penalised because solar panel owners will receive higher government subsidies than wind turbine buyers. As the arrangement stands, a wind turbine would qualify for 26.7-34.5p per KWh in government subsidies, while solar panels would typically bring in 41p per KWh.Turbine manufacturers will also have to pay a fee of up to £100,000 to have their models certified for the scheme, and they argue that planning rules make it harder for customers to get approval for turbines.Due to come into effect on 1 April, the tariff – also known as Clean Energy Cashback – will offer home owners a government subsidy for installing small-scale renewable energy technologies, including solar panels and wind turbines.Alex Murley, RenewableUK's head of small systems, said: "Small wind is the only microgeneration technology which UK manufacturers dominate the market for. If we don't get this right we could be shooting ourselves in the foot and killing off a burgeoning UK success story."According to Renewable UK, planning applications for small wind turbines have traditionally taken up to 14 months to process. Britain's oldest surviving small wind manufacturer, Ampair, has accused some local authorities of "systematically rejecting" applications.The government promises to allow households to install small turbines without planning permission from June, but turbine manufacturers say the current planning allowance is too limited, restricting domestic wind turbines to a hub height of 10 metres and 2.2 metres blade diameter.This will allow a 1.5KW turbine, producing an average of 800KWh a year in windy conditions – less than a fifth of the average UK household's electricity needs. By comparison, UK panel installer Solarcentury has estimated that the typical 18 metre square domestic solar panel installation would on average generate just over 2,000KWh – nearly half the average household's electricity consumption.The government's Energy Saving Trust said that although such limitations are fine for urban roof top turbines, wind turbines in rural locations need to be bigger for small wind turbines to generate a significant amount of energy for the UK. It is these rural locations that will generate the lion's share of energy from "small" turbines. EST figures published last year show small turbines could meet 4% of the UK's electricity demands but only 4% of that energy would come from small turbines in urban locations.UK manufacturers currently produce four-fifths of the country's small turbines, 3,500 of which were installed in the UK in 2008. All larger wind turbines and the vast majority of solar panels are manufactured abroad.David Sharman, managing director of Ampair, claims the UK government is penalising its own manufacturing industry through inequalities in the feed-in tariff.He also claims that the rigorous tests to qualify for the tariff's quality assurance certificate, the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), are prohibitively expensive at at £50,000-£100,000 per product certified. No small wind turbines have so far been MCS accreditedbut the government has set up an MCS 'transition list' for small wind turbines, which allows them to temporarily qualify for the tariff for one year while they complete the accreditation scheme.Responding to criticism of planning restrictions for wind, a spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "We consulted on the proposals to find the right balance for these technologies. We want to enable homeowners to install microgeneration easily and also make sure we're fair about planning permission for larger installations. Different homes will be suitable for different technologies based on a number of factors – it's not a one size fits all."

Feed-in tariffsWind powerRenewable energyEnergyUtilitiesManufacturing sector

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

Green light: Extinction overtakes evolution, solar panels and polar photos

March 10, 2010

This is a weekly email briefing from environmentguardian.co.uk, bringing you the best news, analysis and debate

Sign up here to get the briefing delivered to your inboxConservation and wildlife• Humans driving extinction faster than species can evolve, say experts
• New hope for mountain gorillas in Congo
• Ghost orchid comes back from extinction
• Downpours threaten extinction for Britain's rarest butterfly
• Conservationists unveil plans to restore bison to North American plains
There was good news this week for bisons in the US and gorillas in South Africa, but bad tidings for Duke of Burgundy butterflies and biodiversity globally. "There's no question that the current extinction rates are faster [than the rate at which species evolve]", warned an expert at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.The great feed-in tariff debate• George Monbiot: Are we really going to let ourselves be duped into this solar panel rip-off?
• Jeremy Leggett: Solar panels are not fashion accessories
• George Monbiot: There is no 'green treachery' in questioning this solar panel rip-off
• Jeremy Leggett: I accept George Monbiot's £100 solar PV bet
• Ask Leo: Is it time to generate your own domestic power?
Guardian columnist George Monbiot sparked a war of words over the government's plans to pay householders, businesses and communities for generating their own green energy. Monbiot argued it was an inefficient and costly way to increase the UK's renewable energy capacity, while Jeremy Leggett and other commentators argued the scheme would create UK jobs and bring down the price of solar PV.Multimedia• In pictures: Paul Nicklen: Polar Obsession
• The week in wildlife
• In pictures: Saving Congo's mountain gorillas
• Audio: Moth predator to attack knotweed: '£150m damage every year'
• Video: The National Geographic archives: The wildlife of Namibia
This week's galleries include stunning photos of wildlife from the polar regions by award-winning photographer Paul Nicklen, plus our regular roundup of wildlife around the world - including a spectacular glowing squid.Green living• Do digital screens have a greater carbon footprint than printed posters?
• Which manifesto pledges for cycling would get your attention?
• You ask, they answer: Nokia
• 'Eco' lifestyle magazine is depressingly predictable disappointment
• The innovator: Tom Podkolinski, eco nappy designer
Help us answer Leo Hickman's dilemma this week - do digital screens have a greater carbon footprint than printed posters? And don't forget to post your questions for Nokia on its green track record.Everybody's talking aboutIf you only read one thread...How food and water are driving a 21st-century African land grabAn Observer investigation reveals how rich countries faced by a global food shortage now farm an area double the size of the UK to guarantee supplies for their citizensBest comment
Humans driving extinction faster than species can evolve, say experts
Valleyboi: Look at it this way: You have been dropped into a situation where your task is to tackle Jonah Lomu in his prime in order to survive. If he was walking slowly towards you from 10m away, you'd have a bit of time to sum up your options and formulate the best plan of attack to bring down the big man. Conversely, if he was already running at full steam you'd only just have time to sob for your mummy before most probably being steam-rolled. That's how I think of the situation we are putting nature in.Read interaction manager Mariam Cook's latest blogpost for more about this week's community activity....And finally• The 'waterless' washing machine that could save you moneyWould you trust plastic beads to clean your clothes, if it saved energy and water?

Environment editor

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

Competition: Win a Sankey water butt and stand

March 10, 2010

Water butts, on the whole, are ugly things: green plastic hulking things that lurk by the downpipe and are hard to disguise. So isn't it about time someone designed a stylish water butt you can be proud to display on your patio? Sankey is leading the way with its beehive water butt, which is made of practical plastic, but looks like it's terracotta. We've got two 150L Sankey beehive water butts in Terracina (that's a terracotta effect to you and me) plus accompanying stand to give away.To enter, please email your name, postal address and phone number to jane.perrone@guardian.co.uk with "water butt" in the subject line. Entries will be accepted until the end of the day on March 16 2010.Terms and conditions
1. The Sankey water butt competition (the "Competition") is open to residents of the UK aged 18 and over.2. The Competition is not open to employees or agencies of Guardian News & Media Limited ("GNM"), their group companies or family members, freelance contributors to GNM, or anyone else connected to the Competition.3. Entry into the Competition is acceptance of these Terms and Conditions.4. To enter the Competition you must email your name, postal address and telephone number to jane.perrone@guardian.co.uk with "water butt" in the subject line. If you have any questions about how to enter or other queries in connection with the Competition, please email space@guardian.co.uk with "water butt competition query" in the subject line.5. Only one entry per person. Entries on behalf of another person will not be accepted and joint submissions are not allowed. You are responsible for the cost (if any) of sending your Competition entry to us.6. No responsibility is taken for entries that are lost, delayed, misdirected or incomplete or cannot be delivered or entered for any technical or other reason. Proof of delivery of the entry is not proof of receipt.7. The Competition closes at 23.59pm on March 16 2010. Entries received after that date and time will not be considered.8. The winner will be chosen from a random draw of correct entries.9. Two winners will each receive a Sankey terracotta water butt and stand. GNM accepts no responsibility for any costs associated with the prize and not specifically included in the prize.10. The winners will be notified by phone or email on or before March 20 2010 and given details of how to claim their prize. If a winner does not respond to GNM within 7 days of being notified by GNM, then the winner's prize will be forfeited and GNM shall be entitled to select another winner (and that winner will have to respond to the phone call or email from GNM within 7 days or else they will also forfeit their prize). If a winner rejects their prize, then the winner's prize will be forfeited and GNM shall be entitled to select another winner.11. Details of the winners will also be published on the Guardian gardening blog on or before March 30 2010.12. The prize will be sent to the winners by April 30 2010.13. Details of the winners can be obtained by sending a stamped addressed envelope to the following address: Gardening editor, Guardian News & Media Limited, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU.14. The prize is non-exchangeable, non-transferable, and is not redeemable for cash or other prizes.15. GNM retains the right to substitute the prize with another prize of similar value in the event the original prize offered is not available.16. The winners may be required for promotional activity.17. No purchase necessary.18. Nothing in these terms and conditions shall exclude the liability of GNM for death, personal injury, fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation as a result of its negligence.19. GNM accepts no responsibility for any damage, loss, liabilities, injury or disappointment incurred or suffered by you as a result of entering the Competition or accepting the prize. GNM further disclaims liability for any injury or damage to your or any other person's computer relating to or resulting from participation in or downloading any materials in connection with the Competition.20. GNM reserves the right at any time and from time to time to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, this Competition with or without prior notice due to reasons outside its control (including, without limitation, in the case of anticipated, suspected or actual fraud). The decision of GNM in all matters under its control is final and binding and no correspondence will be entered into.21. GNM shall not be liable for any failure to comply with its obligations where the failure is caused by something outside its reasonable control. Such circumstances shall include, but not be limited to, weather conditions, fire, flood, hurricane, strike, industrial dispute, war, hostilities, political unrest, riots, civil commotion, inevitable accidents, supervening legislation or any other circumstances amounting to force majeure.22. The Competition will be governed by English law.23. Promoter: Guardian News & Media Limited, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 9GU.

GardensEthical and green living

Jane Perrone

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

Save the planet. But maybe not right now | Martin Wainwright

March 10, 2010

Doomsaying precludes the possibility of ingenious solutions – and indicates a morbid vanity that we must be the savioursIsn't it welcome to have Ian McEwan as an advocate for a little optimism in the climate change debate? His hope, expressed in his new novel Solar, that humanity will prove ingenious enough to solve the problem through the skill of coming generations is a welcome change from those who portray our descendants as helpless victims of our "excess".Their injunctions to "save the world for our children and grandchildren" fly in the face of history, which repeatedly shows how progress – from the wheel to the internet – transforms the world picture as time marches on. The doom brigade has its moments, such as the collapse of the classical world in Europe, the Black Death and the first world war, but they are exceptions to learn from. And we have learned.Not to the extent of mastering clairvoyancy, however. Like miserabilism, a constant in human behaviour is the inability of Today to successfully imagine Tomorrow. The archive of prophecy and science fiction contains some good guesses, but in general the seers get it wrong. Which of my grandparents, addressing me in the 1950s, could possibly have foreseen today's IT? Which of my grandparents' grandparents had a notion of the bicycle or national parks?This is true of scientists as much as of the more general type of wise person. Science is too often mistakenly treated in the way that history was by those 19th-century Germans who thought that one day the whole truth could be set down. Certainty is not absolute. Scientists are ambushed by novelty – see Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein – as often as the rest of us.None of this is to argue against the risks of global warming or prudence in facing them. It is to warn against vanity, in the form of the exaggerated belief that it is all down to our generation: here, now, hurry, rush. It's also an appeal against pessimism, because of the limitations glumness places on the very potential which, odds-on, will prove the planet's salvation.A writer in the Economist's most recent green supplement made this point neatly by questioning assumptions (rather reminiscent of Catholic dogma in Galileo's day) that spending the world's limited resources on Tomorrow rather than Today is necessarily morally right. The Economist's writer said: "Since future generations will probably be much richer than we are, it makes no more sense for us to sacrifice our wellbeing for them than it would to expect 18th-century peasants to go without gruel so we can buy more computers."That is the sort of sally that deserves a wide hearing. If we stall Today's wonderful spread of international knowledge, travel and general prosperity, we risk a future like Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, where unknown Miltons remain mute and inglorious and village Darwins never get further than their shacks.

Climate changeClimate change scepticismClimate changeIan McEwan

Martin Wainwright

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

The ecological case for ebooks

March 10, 2010

Should you be getting an e-reader for the planet's sake? I'd always thought not, but a new study has made me think againThe recent announcement that Foyles are soon to launch the bebook is further proof (as if any were needed) that the e-reader bandwagon is well and truly rolling. News that the New York Times book review will soon be available in e-reader format, meanwhile, also points the way to an increasingly interesting future for what we used to know as the "print industry". The ability to buy something I wouldn't be able to get in a better format elsewhere (so long as the UK remains starved of the glory of the Sunday NYT delivery) even makes me think I might possibly find a use for an e-reader. Up until now, they've struck me as less pleasant than books, far more problematic in terms of copyright theft and – at least for personal use – rather decadent. They're a big computer that can only read books and so, I've always assumed, a waste of resources. But a bit of research has led me to question even that assumption.I've only managed to find one report – on the Kindle (by The Cleantech Group) – but it backs up suggestions that so long as e-readers are used as book replacements rather than supplements, they soon start to pay back in carbon terms. The report states that a book uses up "approximately 7.46 kilograms of CO2 over its lifetime" and that the Kindle produces "roughly 168 kg" during its lifecycle, making it "a clear winner against the potential savings: 1,074 kg of CO2 if replacing three books a month for four years; and up to 26,098 kg of CO2 when used to the fullest capacity of the Kindle."There are still problems. Crucially, the report states: "Amazon declined to provide information about its manufacturing process or carbon footprint" – so we're still really dealing with educated guesswork. I was also curious about whether the report has taken into account the role of books as "carbon sinks". My theory was that books last a long time before they are destroyed – often longer than their source trees ... And even when they aren't furnishing rooms they have a useful second life under the floor of motorways and similar. When I contacted the author of the report, senior research analyst Emma Ritch, she said: "While some of the carbon stored in the forest will remain stored in paper, the majority will be emitted into the atmosphere. There is a significant amount of carbon stored in the soil, the roots of harvested trees, the usable saplings and other understory vegetation. These release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere when they decay, or when they are burned as energy sources for the pulp mill."So it seems I'm – literally – barking up the wrong tree. Even wood sourced from sustainable forests uses a lot of energy (not to mention water) when it is being processed, and yet more when transported afterwards. (Books are heavy, after all.) Ritch also made the point that textbooks are often updated – and so become obsolete – every couple of years, showing another clear advantage to ebook readers. There are also plusses for academics ploughing through multiple journals and probably even for professional book reviewers.However, I parted company with Ritch's positive view of e-readers when she suggested a further advantage: "the consumer who purchases an ebook often has the rights to use it on five or more devices, meaning multiple users within a household would not have to purchase multiple physical versions of a book." I'd actually view that as a problem, as far as fiction goes. Five or more devices probably gives the ebook a lifespan of little more than 10 years if my experience with such machines is anything to go by – and that's if you don't share it. A book (so long as it stays together) can be shared with hundreds of people over hundreds of years.I also have concerns about the supply side. There's no information available about the energy required to run Amazon's "whispernet" and it's hard to work out the amount involved in supplying other books for download. The internet is too often thought of as a cost-free resource in carbon terms – but it's recently been suggested that Google alone produces as much as some nation states. Ritch suggested a good comparison would be that "a physical book purchased by a person driving to the bookstore creates twice the emissions of a book purchased online." But of course, that depends on someone driving rather than walking to the shop.Nevertheless, I'm part-way convinced. There are clear advantages to using e-readers in schools and academe. At home, I'm less sure – especially when you factor in side-issues such as the toxicity of the heavy metals used in ebook readers and their batteries. I also hesitate because the devices are so new we still know little about how they're used.Here, I'm hoping an informal survey here might shed more light. So tell me: if you own an e-reader, how often do you use it? (Have you for instance topped off the 22.5 books The Cleantech Group require to break even with traditional books in carbon terms?) Are you buying fewer books? How long does your battery last? Have you had to replace it? Do these carbon savings seem realistic to you? And has that influenced your decision to buy one?I'd also be curious to know if other ebook agnostics are likely to be converted by the idea that they could be more environmentally friendly. I know it makes me waver. But then again, won't an iPad be more useful? Even if that does mean my reading could be interrupted by emails … And you can't throw the thing across the room when whatever you're reading gets too annoying …

EbooksAmazon.comCarbon emissionsEthical and green living

Sam Jordison

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

UK Coal gets £350m merger proposal

March 9, 2010

Deal with resources group Hargreaves Services would transform coal industry UK Coal and resources group Hargreaves Services are weighing up a £350m merger which would transform the coal industry, the Guardian has learned.UK Coal, the UK's last major coal producer, announced today that it had received a merger approach from an unnamed third party. The company is keen to reduce its reliance on its deep mines, which are expensive to maintain and have suffered production problems leading to large losses. UK Coal shares closed up more than 12% today.It is understood that property and transport firm Peel Group, which owns 28% of UK Coal, is being kept fully informed of developments. The merger plan is still tentative and even if both sides proceed with the plan, they are understood to be some way from putting a formal agreement to shareholders. Neither company commented last night.Hargreaves Services owns a deep mine in Maltby, South Yorkshire, which it bought from UK Coal, and is soon to start open cast mining. It also manufactures metallurgical coke and solid fuel such as briquettes used in barbecues. The company also runs a transport division and an industrial services division mainly handling fuel on behalf of power station owners in the UK. With a market value about a quarter more than UK Coal, it is likely that Hargreaves Services would be the senior partner in any merger.UK Coal has embarked on an expensive project to upgrade its coal mines. But it has struggled in recent years because of the fall in coal prices following the economic slowdown and writedowns in its property portfolio. Its 43,000 acre portfolio is mainly located around disused collieries which have been earmarked for housing and light industrial redevelopment schemes and is a significant source of potential income. It reported losses of £80m in the first six months of last year, including a near £60m writedown in the value of its property portfolio. It also reported a rise in net debt to £191m, prompting urgent talks with its lenders.In September UK Coal raised £100m via a rights issue to see it through the next couple of years. Next year, it should start to see the benefits of higher production rates from its mines and higher property values. The company has also struggled for some years with long term supply contracts which have forced it to sell coal below market rates to large customers such as Drax. The last of these contracts will expire next year.UK Coal is Britain's largest producer of coal, supplying around 6% of the country's energy needs for electricity generation. It has four deep mines in operation, employing 3,100 people. Eight years ago it owned 13. It is looking to expand its surface mines, which produced around 1.7m tonnes of coal a year in 2008. They are cheaper to run but are opposed by many local communities.

UK CoalMiningMergers and acquisitionsCoalEnergy industryEnergy

Tim Webb

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

The story behind Power of 10

March 9, 2010

The development of Guardian Media Group's 'Power of 10' sustainability vision and strategy has been the culmination of a two-year process of change.Each business within the group had already been developing its own individual sustainability programme but these were in some cases ad hoc, were not co-ordinated across the group and a lack of reporting made it difficult to measure progress.There were areas of excellence such as the integrated sustainability drive at Guardian News & Media (GNM), publisher of the Guardian and Observer, and the environmental management of Trader Media Group's print sites. But within some businesses there had been limited progress in areas such as carbon footprinting or ethical procurement.At group level, the concentration had been on improving the responsible purchasing of newsprint and magazine grade paper, a key part of our supply chain, but while sustainability-related issues were discussed at the board this was not part of the group's regular formal reporting.A number of factors have helped to transform this situation. First and foremost was the commitment to improvement by GMG senior management. For example, GMG chief executive Carolyn McCall had championed sustainability issues while heading GNM. Having been promoted to the group role, she wanted the whole of GMG to adopt a similar approach.This is not the first example of a parent company within the media sector being inspired by one of its businesses. Sky's innovative sustainability strategy was key in leveraging the development of a climate change strategy at News Corporation.In a video to launch the Power of 10 McCall explains the reasons for GMG's commitment and describes how she was inspired by attending the Prince of Wales May Day Summit on climate change, after which GMG pledged to measure and report carbon emissions publicly, set reduction targets, encourage employees to reduce their carbon emissions at home and at work and encourage customers to take action on climate change.In fact, most corporate responsibility executives describe the breakthrough moment in their own companies is when a senior director starts to really understand the implications of key issues such as climate change, resource degradation, species decline and human rights. A business can have the most effective corporate responsibility team, but their work is likely to remain on the periphery unless someone in authority takes a leadership position.The second critical ingredient was committing specific resource to the project. Along with the creation of a sustainability champion on the GMG board, senior non-executive director John Bartle, came the appointment of one of the group's strategists to develop the programme, with the support of the sustainable development team at Guardian News & Media (GNM), one of five businesses within the GMG family.After gaining the full support of GMG's board and sole shareholder, the Scott Trust, the group joined forces with the Carbon Trust to employ a consultancy to carry out a carbon management project, not only helping to measure the carbon footprint of the group but also advising on ways to reduce it.While it was deemed important to start taking practical steps, there was also a recognition that the group needed to develop a broader vision and strategy to provide a cohesive framework within which each business could develolp its activity.To help with this, it formed a partnership with Forum for the Future, the sustainable development organisation, headed by Jonathon Porritt. GNM had already worked successfully with Forum to develop its own sustainability vision and strategy.There were four keys to the success of the vision and strategy development. One was setting the correct framing. Many companies still tend to act on sustainability either from a position of risk management or compliance or alternatively out of a sense of guilt or obligation.But in similar fashion to the work at GNM, the framing at GMG was set around how sustainability could support the long-term success of the group. By putting it in a positive context, it changed the whole dynamic of the conversations, unleashing creative thinking rather than the limiting it to a feeling of obligation.The second key was recognising that a generic one-size-fits-all approach to managing change would not work at GMG, given the broad and varied nature of the group.This is in part due to the culture of the organisation but also because two of the largest businesses in the portfolio, Emap and Trader Media Group, are co-owned with the private equity company Apax.The solution was to develop a matrix structure that sets minimum standards across the group but allows each business to become a centre of excellence in particular areas, as well as giving them the ability to translate the strategy to fit within its own cultural and business context. For example, what is right for Emap is not necessarily right for the Guardian.Forum had already successfully developed a similar model with Balfour Beatty, the infrastructure services group, which also operated a devolved system of management for its various businesses.Also critical was not to attempt a top down approach but to fully involve key directors and staff from all businesses in developing the matrix, ensuring the final strategy already had buy-in from the boards of all the businesses. The added advantage of this approach was that where issues were identified during the process, work started immediately on addressing them.The fourth key was to recognise from the beginning that there is far more to sustainability than just climate change and to develop a vision that incorporated the social, environmental and economic impacts of the company.While climate change is recognised in the vision as being of critical importance, the group also wanted to incorporate other areas such as community and promoting and developing products and services that support a more sustainable way of life.GMG has given itself five years to meet its vision, but to ensure steady progress has developed a set of aims to be met by 2012 in each of 10 categories, which range from influencing audiences and customers and environmental management to procurement and employee engagement.Each business within GMG has been putting in place effective governance structures and reports will go quarterly to the group board so that progress can be monitored.As I have discussed in a recent blog, change in companies does not come only from management recognising the problems and developing plans for addressing them.Also critical is to engage employees in the process, given that the thousands of small and large decisions they take every day have a major effect on any company's impacts. This is why a core part of the Power of 10 sustainability strategy is to engage staff in focusing on achieving the ambitious targets that have been set.

Guardian Media GroupCorporate social responsibility

Jo Confino

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

GMG's 2015 vision and strategy

March 9, 2010

We commit to play our part as a leading media organisation in creating a fair society that lives within the means of our planet. Driven by our unique ownership structure and values – honesty, integrity, courage, fairness and duty to our readers and communities – we will enable our audiences, customers, employees, advertisers and suppliers to build a more sustainable future.Sustainability has many interlinked strands but the dangers of climate change are so great and immediate that we will pay particular attention to highlighting its hazards and exploring ways of combating it.While all our businesses share this common goal, we recognise that each has its own specific contribution to make.Audiences and customers2015 VisionWe will educate, influence and inspire our audiences and customers to live in a way that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.Our businesses will be recognised as an authority on the implications and opportunities that sustainability presents and will also, wherever possible, give our audiences a platform to explore and debate these issues for themselves.2012 Targets• By 2012 each GMG product should clearly articulate how it will help audiences and customers understand climate change and other key sustainability issues, and what they can do to take action.• This will include an action plan/timetable for how GMG intends to educate, influence and inspire audiences. It should also identify key groups that the particular product will seek to engage with. As a minimum, each product should encourage audiences to take personal action on climate change.• By 2012 each GMG product, where required, should have the editorial resources to deliver the stated aims.Governance2015 VisionEach of our businesses will have its own sustainability strategy and action plan and an effective governance structure to ensure it is implemented.2012 Targets• All businesses report to their board on sustainability progress against all parts of the GMG 2015 sustainability vision once a quarter and have a board member identified as sustainability champion.• By 2012 the board of each business will have objectives focused on progress towards the sustainability vision. Where appropriate, these objectives will be cascaded down throughout the organisation.• All businesses will commit to being represented at the GMG sustainability forum on a quarterly basis.• On an annual basis, all businesses will disclose to key stakeholders (including staff) progress towards the 2015 GMG sustainability vision.Products and services2015 VisionWe will seek a competitive advantage through promoting and developing products and services that support a more sustainable way of life.2012 Targets• We will identify GMG businesses where there is an opportunity to build sustainability related revenues.• From 2010 each relevant GMG business should have a strategic plan that seeks to grow their share of sustainability-related revenues. By 2012 each relevant business should be able to demonstrate progress against that plan.• The strategic plan should include:- A proper assessment of opportunities in all the markets that the business currently operates and potential new markets- Financial and market share projections- Defined objectives and targets/KPIs.• From 2010 all relevant GMG products should have at least one initiative or service aimed specifically at either helping audiences to gain insight into sustainability issues or offering audiences more sustainable alternatives to existing products/services.• Each relevant business should be able to report and track growth in revenue from this specific sector.Advertising2015 VisionWe will share our vision with key clients as well as encouraging advertising from organisations that are playing their part in creating a more sustainable future.2012 Targets• All GMG businesses, via the GMG Commercial Forum, should work towards developing a system for incentivising advertisers who are leading the way on sustainability.• Each GMG business (either individually or collaboratively) should have met with key clients to share the sustainability vision and look for potential partnerships in bringing it to life.Environmental management2015 VisionThe passion we have for inspiring our audiences and customers will be matched by our commitment to operating our offices, print sites and digital platforms to high environmental standards, including minimising waste and maximising both efficiency and recycling.2012 Targets• All GMG print sites will be working together to share best practice and set targets for minimising waste, maximising both efficiency and recycling as well as limiting the use of hazardous chemicals.• All relevant businesses will be meeting the targets set out in the GMG paper purchasing policy.Carbon management2015 VisionWe will measure and publicly report on our carbon footprint and set challenging targets to lower our emissions.2012 Targets• From April 2009 all businesses have committed to monthly monitoring and reporting to GMG of scope 1 and 2 energy, and waste greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across all facilities/sites in our estate and under their control. All businesses will also work towards monitoring and reporting on their travel emissions.• From 2010 all paper products should be able to report the monthly carbon cost of print, paper and production.• From a 2009/10 baseline to 2011/12, businesses will achieve at least a 10% reduction in scope 1 and 2 energy, travel and waste GHG emissions from across their operations.• Each business will produce an action plan detailing how they will achieve this reduction. The action plan should prioritise the avoidance of emissions. Reduction of emissions by purchase of renewable energy and investment in offsetting will not count towards the 10% minimum target.Procurement2015 VisionWe will team up with our suppliers to minimise impacts along our value chain, sourcing more sustainable products and services where possible, with a particular emphasis on carbon reduction.2012 Targets• By 2012 each business should have built in a sustainability review within supplier assessment processes to understand and record risks and opportunities.• By 2012 each business should have had discussions with all key suppliers to identify and realise opportunities for mutual benefit.• By 2012 all relevant businesses will be signed up to a GMG-wide paper procurement strategy.• By 2010 all key existing suppliers will have received a copy of our Sustainability Vision and all new suppliers will be given a copy.Employee engagement2015 VisionWe will give our employees information to increase their awareness of the impact of their actions on the planet both at work and home.2012 Targets• By 2012 each business will have communicated to its employees both the GMG sustainability vision and its own strategic plan for working towards that vision.• By 2012 each business will have an ongoing internal communications plan for sharing its own and GMG-wide sustainability activity. This plan will celebrate successes and be aligned with the existing and unique visions within each business.Embedding sustainability into the workplace2015 VisionEach of our employees will understand how to interpret our priorities on sustainability for their specific roles and have the support necessary to implement change. Successes will be celebrated and shared across the group.2012 Targets• By 2012 each business will be implementing a clear action plan to engage employees in achieving the business vision for sustainability. Each department will be required to work with its staff in understanding how sustainability relates to their specific roles and offer support to make improvements. New starter inductions will include training on sustainability.• By 2012 each business will be able to demonstrate progress against this action plan by using existing frameworks such as staff sur...

 

The Cove filmmakers break up alleged whale meat smuggling operation

March 9, 2010

The documentary-makers exposed an alleged whale-meat smuggling operation at the US sushi restaurant The HumpThe run-up to the Oscars are a heady time for nominees: a whirlwind of screenings, cocktails, celebrity encounters and, for the makers of this year's prize winning eco-documentary, secret meetings in the parking lot of a sushi restaurant with federal investigators.In an action worthy of the eco-commandos of Greenpeace, the makers of The Cove, an Oscar-winning documentary on Japan's dolphin slaughter, helped break up an alleged whale meat smuggling operation at a Santa Monica sushi restaurant catering to "adventurous" eaters.On offer at The Hump, aside from yellowtail tuna, live octopus and shrimp, and baby abalone, was what was said to be whale meat, despite a ban on the sale and possession of whales.That went too far for Louie Psihoyos, the director of The Cove, who co-ordinated the sushi sting from the parking lot."These are endangered animals. They are protected species. It is one thing for the Japanese to be doing it in their own country, but I take it as a major affront that they are doing this on our shores," he told the Guardian. "When they are cut up in little hunks of sushi it's a tragedy."A spokesman for the US attorney's office told the New York Times that the restaurant could be formally charged as early as this week. Anyone convicted could face prison or a fine of up to $20,000 (£13,340).In the week before the Oscars, the crew from The Cove made two visits with police to the restaurant. Two women activists went inside and ordered while Psihoyos maintained audio surveillance outside.Secretly filmed video from an earlier supper last October showed the two women ordering off the chef's special omakase menu, with a waitress bringing thick pink slices of what she said was whale meat.The pair ate two slices of the meat, putting six others in a plastic bag so it could be sent for DNA testing. The samples were sent to an expert who established the slices were from a sei whale. The species is endangered but is still hunted in Japan under a controversial programme that allows the killing of up to 1,000 whales a year in the name of science.The bust offered yet more positive buzz for The Cove after it took the Oscar for best documentary. The Cove is Psihoyos's first feature-length film though he says he has been doing undercover work for 20 years. It relied on remote-controlled cameras mounted in helicopters, helium balloons, and even fake rocks as well as night vision equipment to record the annual dolphin hunt in a small coastal village on Honshu island in Japan.Fishermen, banging on the hulls of their boats to confuse the dolphins' sense of direction, head out to sea to trap the migrating shoals. They herd the dolphins back to shore, packing them into a small inlet as closely as sardines, and then stab them to death with long harpoons and clubs.In the course of each fishing season, the fishermen kill 2,000 dolphins, selling the meat to local supermarkets for about $500 a dolphin. They can earn far more by taking somem dolphins alive and selling them to aquariums.The film-makers have seen a surge of support for stopping the hunt since Oscar night when Psihoyos' collaborator, the former dolphin trainer and underwater stuntman Ric O'Barry, held a sign asking viewers to text in their support. The appeal led the Oscar Academy to cut off Psihoyo's acceptance speech for "activism".Psihoyos is already at work on his next film about the widespread extinctions that will come about because of the changing chemistry of the oceans brought by global warming. The Cove is due to be released in Japan, where the government has responded coolly to the film's success. "There are different food traditions within Japan and around the world," an official statement said. "It is important to respect and understand regional food cultures, which are based on traditions with long histories."

OscarsWhalingFoodWildlifeEndangered speciesAnimalsMarine lifeOceansFishingUnited StatesDocumentary

Suzanne Goldenberg

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

China and India join Copenhagen accord

March 9, 2010

China and India formally endorse the last-minute climate agreement struck at the Copenhagen summitChina and India wrote to the UN's climate secretariat today agreeing to be "listed" as a parties to the Copenhagen accord, the last-minute agreement that emerged from the chaos of the UN's summit in Copenhagen.The action falls short of full "association" and highlights the gulf between the US – the strongest backer of the accord – and the other key nations on how to deliver a global deal to combat climate change.Since Copenhagen, there has been confusion over how a legally binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved. All observers, including the UN's top climate official, Yvo de Boer, are now clear that no such deal will be signed in 2010, with a meeting in South Africa in December 2011 now seen as the earliest date.At the heart of the disagreement is whether a new global treaty, like the existing Kyoto protocol, must be agreed unanimously by all 192 members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and be a continuation of Kyoto, which enshrines bindings carbon cuts on industrialised nations but not on developing ones.In a letter to de Boer, Trigg Valley, the director of the US office of global climate change, did move back from earlier suggestions that the US wanted to ditch the UN process, seen as cumbersome by some, and negotiate climate change in a smaller group like the G20 or Major Economies Forum. But he has proposed to set aside some of the existing UN texts, which had been laboriously negotiated over several years, and replace them with passages from the Copenhagen accord.In the letter from India, Rajani Ranjan Rashmi, environment and forests minister, states baldly the unacceptability of this approach: "The accord is not a new track of negotiations or a template for outcomes."China's submissions are also unequivocal. The Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, strongly backs the UN process and its consensus-based approach to reaching agreement. "It is neither viable nor acceptable to start a new negotiation process outside the [UNFCCC] and the [Kyoto] protocol", he said.The US now appears isolated as China, India and many other countries, firmly support the idea of continuing with the two existing UN negotiating tracks to try to achieve a consensus.The battle of the texts was fought for much of last year with the US backed by Britain and the rest of Europe. Today, the European Commission's first formal statement since Copenhagen offered some support for the US: "The political guidance in the Copenhagen Accord – which was not formally adopted as a UN decision – needs to be integrated into the UN negotiating texts that contain the basis of the future global climate agreement."But some rich country governments now accept privately that they had "crossed a red line" and failed to recognise that developing countries had not been prepared to abandon the Kyoto protocol without a new legal agreement in place to ensure developed countries reduced emissions."The US wants to appear to be leading the world on climate change but it is in a very, very difficult position," said Tom Burke, founder of the consultancy E3G, citing the difficulty President Obama faces in getting a climate change bill through a reluctant senate.In an recent interview with the Guardian, Yvo de Boer,, played down talk of radical change to the way to the UN process demands unanimous decisions, which some, including Gordon Brown, blamed for a lack of progress in climate talks. He said a major stumbling block to an agreement remained mistrust between the developing and developed countries over the finance needed to help countries adapt to the impacts of global warming.Rich countries had offered "recycled contributions from the past" he said, while the build-up to the Copenhagen summit had focused too much on the issue of binding emission reduction targets. De Boer has announced he will step down from the UNFCCC in July. Yesterday, the South African tourism minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, was nominated by President Jacob Zuma as a candidate. But other candidates, including from India and possibly Indonesia, are expected to make the private shortlist from which the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, will make his choice.

Copenhagen climate change conference 2009Climate changeKyoto protocolUnited NationsIndiaChina

John Vidal

David Adam

Damian Carrington

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

The 'waterless' washing machine that could save you money

March 9, 2010

New machine by Xeros cleans clothes with beads and a tiny amount of water and may cut household bills by 30%"Dry" cleaning is set to become a domestic activity with a washing machine that uses 90% less water than a normal laundry cycle and could be available by the end of 2011. The device, developed by Leeds-based Xeros Ltd, replaces water with tiny plastic beads that suck up stains and its producers claim it will shift stubborn pounds from household energy bills as well.The Xeros process uses 3mm-long nylon beads that can get into all the crevices and folds of clothing and can also be re-used hundreds of times. The beads flood the machine's drum once the clothes are wet and the humidity is at the right level. After the washing cycle is complete, the beads drain away in the same way as water in a conventional machine.The chief executive of Xeros, Bill Westwater, said: "The net saving in water, detergent and electricity and including the cost of the beads, we calculate, is about a 30% cost saving for the user." He claims the machine has been tested successfully on a range of fabrics stained with everything from mud, red wine and curry stains to ink from ballpoint pens.According to the Energy Saving Trust, just under one-third of household energy is used to heat water. Laundry washing also accounts for 15% of all household water consumption; meaning if everyone in the UK converted from normal washing to the Xeros system, the carbon emissions saved would be the equivalent of taking 1.4 m cars off the roads. Another perk of the device is that it should allow many delicates to be "dry" cleaned at home.Xeros has already received research and development funding from Yorkshire Forward and has just returned from a government-sponsored "Clean and Cool" trade mission to the United States, aimed at securing investment from venture capitalists in Silicon Valley in California.The idea for polymer-based cleaning came from Stephen Burkinshaw, a polymer chemist at Leeds University who spent 30 years working out how to improve the dyeing of plastics used in fabrics. A few years ago he realised that the stains on clothes acted in a similar way to dyes, and he wondered if he could use plastics to attract away the stains.After experimenting with a range of plastics, he settled on nylon. Thanks to a natural property of the material, nylon beads attract stains to their surface and, in 100% humidity, the molecular structure of the plastic becomes amorphous, so the stains diffuse into the centre of the beads. "Not only are you able to suck the stain off the clothes, you're also able to ensure there's no deposition back onto the clothes," said Westwater.When the beads are at the end of their life, saturated with dirt and stains, they can be collected and recycled into, for example, dashboards for cars. Eventually Westwater wants to design a closed-loop recycling system for his washing machines, where saturated beads can be refreshed and re-used in Xeros machines.Westwater has already built a prototype washing machine and aims to have a product ready for the commercial laundry market by the end of next year, with a consumer version coming to market shortly afterwards. "There is more of a technical challenge [in development] as you compact the system. But it's not just about that - there's also consumer inertia. For millenia, people have been washing their clothes with water and a bit of detergent and suddenly we're coming along and saying that most of that water can be replaced by these beads. That's a big leap in the consumers' minds."Claire Cunningham, a spokesperson for the government-backed Technology Strategy Board, said Xeros had an "interesting and innovative product" and the environmental and financial savings were of particular interest when it was selected to take part, along with the 18 other British clean technology companies, in the Clean and Cool trade mission.

WaterEnergyEnergy efficiencyEnergy billsHousehold billsEnergy

Alok Jha

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

The global race to extinction | Adam Rutherford

March 9, 2010

Not all dinosaurs were wiped out by the Chicxulub meteorite. We too may be in the midst of mass extinctionEveryone loves an apocalypse, and none more so than the one that sped the dinosaurs to their now legendary status. Having been a popular theory for 30 years, last week scientists finally reached a consensus that it was indeed the after-effects of a juggernaut meteorite crashing 65 million years ago into what we now call Chicxulub in Mexico that triggered the end of the dinosaurs' reign on Earth.The reasons for loving this particular catastrophe are easy to understand. Dinosaurs are awesome. Giant meteorites are awesome. And of course, the combination of the two opened the door for the rise of the mammals. Our own story begins with that cataclysm."Consensus" has unfortunately become a dirty word outside the scientific world, thanks to those who disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists about man-made global warming, but fail to offer any science in return. Unlike climate change, though, many issues remain with this extinction event. Sixty-five million years later, the pattern of extinction looks decidedly uneven. Dinosaurs were wiped out, but many similar-sized crocodiles survived. Amphibians managed to come out of this apocalypse relatively unscathed. Sharks survived, but plesiosaurs perished. Much work remains to be done.Nevertheless, this consensus on the fate of the dinosaurs is welcomed by people such as me who worry about such things. But let's not get too attached to it. On the grand scale of extinctions, the Chicxulub meteorite is a drop in the ocean. There have been five major extinctions in the history of life. 251 million years ago was the big mama, erasing 95% of sea species and 70% of land life.It is important to recognise that although 10-mile-wide rocks crashing from space are not the norm, extinction itself is. About 97% of all species that have ever existed currently do not. We may be in the midst of a mass extinction, though probably not on the scale of those 65 or 251 million years ago. Up to a third of all species are "committed to extinction", according to current models.But it is the speed at which we are losing species that is truly significant. The explosion caused by the Chicxulub meteorite would have been enormous, melting rocks into glass, and vomiting forth mile-high tsunamis. But don't assume that the dinosaurs abruptly keeled over. In the aptly named Hell Creek in Montana, dinosaur fossils have been found dating from up to 40,000 years after the impact.Climate change is also the planetary norm, but the rate at which the climate is changing since industrialisation is unprecedented. This is reason enough to accept the scientific consensus that we are the root cause, and the same goes for current extinctions.We have evolved the capability to partially excuse ourselves from natural cataclysms, at least at a species level. Our ability to adapt and survive far outstrips the speed of the same process in natural selection. Should a colossal rock fall from the sky and block out the sun for a thousand years, the effect on humankind would be devastating, but not terminal. Should we continue to ravage the Earth's resources to the extent that human life is unsustainable, it is not in the realm of total fantasy for us to ditch this planet, and set up somewhere else in the universe.But these are not reasons to be complacent. We exist as a part of this planet, not merely on it. The loss of biodiversity from a mass extinction will be devastating to everyone's lives. Unlike with the previous extinctions, we have the power to slow this current one. We will all have to change our lifestyles to adapt to the world that we have created, but by moderating our impact on extinction, that change won't have to be apocalyptic.

DinosaursConservationEndangered speciesWildlifeBiodiversityZoologyEvolutionAnimals

Adam Rutherford

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

Wanted: GWPF assistant director to reveal thinktank's funding | Leo Hickman

March 9, 2010

The Global Warming Policy Foundation calls for transparency among climate scientists but refuses to make public its donors. Maybe its new employee can help usThe Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the thinktank set up last November "to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant", goes from strength to strength, it would seem.Just a few days after its chairman, Nigel Lawson, and director, Benny Peiser, appeared before the science and technology select committee to answer questions about the inquiry into the climate science emails hacked from the University of East Anglia, a job advert for a new assistant director has appeared on the House of Commons internal jobs listings website.We are looking for a highly motivated, young man or woman with strong verbal and written communication skills. Strong grounding in economics is highly desirable but not essential. The assistant director plans, organises, and co-directs the day-to-day operations of the GWPF. He or she assists the director in maintaining good communications with the media, the GWPF's academic advisors, trustees and members, and will be working closely with Lord Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer, former secretary of state for energy, and chairman of the GWPF. The role of assistant director is an outstanding opportunity for a young graduate to help shape the discussion on current and future climate policies and to develop more cost-effective climate policies.
Essential requirements of the position:

• Good research skills and academic ability;
• Good understanding of economics;
• Good knowledge and skills in organisational management;
• Good written and spoken English;
• Strong commitment to the GWPF's mission and goals;
• Good verbal communication, presentation and networking skills;
• Good skills in planning, analysing and coordinating activities and establishing priorities.I have two thoughts on this job ad. I'm no HR expert, but might it not have benefited from an extra criterion? Something along the lines of: "Good understanding of climate science." Peiser is clearly a very busy man these days, what with being near-omnipresent in the broadcast studios as the GWPF director and keeping up with his day job as a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, so one can perhaps understand his delay in responding to Bob Ward's reasonable request for clarification over why the GWPF's website is still displaying a somewhat wonky temperature graph on its masthead. Perhaps this is a task for his new assistant?The other thought I had was that if the GWPF is as keen on "maintaining good communications with the media" as it says it is, perhaps it could start by answering the one burning question that has been asked of it since the very first day it opened its door for business? Who is funding it? I asked Nigel Lawson this very question myself last November and received much the same response as he gave to the science and technology committee last week:Q15 Graham Stringer: Can you tell us how your organisation is funded? We have had an email this morning saying that you have not been transparent in the funding of your organisation.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: I do not think that is within your terms of reference. I am happy to answer it, but we have got quite a lot to do which is within the terms of reference.

Q16 Chairman: Could you just answer it very briefly?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: We have donations from private individuals and private charitable trusts. That is how we are financed. We have one absolutely strict rule: we will not accept any money at all from the energy industry or anyone who has any significant interest in the energy industry.

Q17 Graham Stringer: In one sense you are right, it is not within our terms of reference, but this is a very fraught and vexed question and there is distrust on both sides, so it is better to be clear. Is there a list of your donors available?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, like most thinktanks, not all but like most, we do not publish a list, because if donors wish to remain anonymous, for whatever reasons, perfectly good reasons, then it is their privilege. I am very happy for them to be published.

Q18 Dr Evan Harris: That is strange, because Sense about Science, which is an organisation we hear from a lot, publish all their donors, because they are often accused of being partisan. Would it not be a good idea for you to adopt that rule; otherwise people might have concerns?

Lord Lawson of Blaby: We are absolutely clean. I would be very happy to see the names of all our donors published, I can assure you, it would be very, very good, but if they wish to remain anonymous, for whatever reason, maybe they have other family members who take a different view and they do not want to have a row within the family, maybe they do not want a whole lot of other people asking them for money -

Q19 Chairman: The short answer is you are not giving us the names.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: This is the one in football. It is called playing the man and not the ball. You get a yellow card for that.

Q20 Chairman: Lord Lawson, you are not going to give us those.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: No, when the annual report comes we will ask our donors if they wish to be named. Some may; some may not.This important question is clearly going to hang over the GWPF and raise doubts about its agenda until it chooses to answer it in detail. Slippery, undefined statements such as "we do not accept gifts from anyone with a significant interest in an energy company" will always lead to suspicion when operating in such a distrustful environment. What, say, does the GWPF mean exactly by vague terms such as "significant"? It would seem from the exchange above that Nigel Lawson accepts the point that full transparency is the only way to achieve the trust of its critics and the wider public. The GWPF is asking no less of climate scientists, of course. So why not nip this all in the bud right now by saying the GWPF will only accept donations from those who are willing to have their names listed publicly?Meanwhile, anyone interested in applying for the post should send a covering letter and CV to info@thegwpf.org.

Climate changeClimate change scepticism

Leo Hickman

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

I accept George Monbiot's £100 solar PV bet | Jeremy Leggett

March 9, 2010

I wish to make nine points in my response to George Monbiot's latest round in our disagreement about the importance of solar photovoltaics (PV) and the UK government's upcoming feed-in tariffs.

I have posted a longer version of this comment on my website (doc)1. Monbiot argues that "either solar photovoltaic (PV) power in the United Kingdom is, as (Leggett) claims, a cheap, efficient technology, or it isn't. If it is, why should we be subsidising it to the tune of 41p per kilowatt hour? If it needs this subsidy, it is neither cheap nor efficient. If it doesn't need it, the feed-in tariffs are even more of a swindle than I thought."This view takes a snapshot in time that is a flawed basis for analysis because it ignores both the past and the future, in terms of cost, plus the strategic context of the discussion. I don't claim PV is "cheap" today – I never have. PV is on a descending cost trajectory because economies of scale are at work in both manufacturing and installation, and costs and prices of conventional electricity are rising fast. The feed-in tariff is a market-building mechanism. It is designed to create sufficient demand for PV systems to trigger two benefits: first, falling cost and price of solar electricity, and second, growth of a proper UK-based solar PV industry that can compete with the fast-growing industries in Germany, China, the US, Japan and many other countries. More than 40 governments now have feed-in tariffs, and it is clear that many people believe them to be the best way to make grow renewables markets fast.2. Monbiot bets me £100 that my prediction that solar PV electricity in homes will be no more pricey in 2013 than conventional electricity will be wrong. I accept Monbiot's bet. But I have a proviso: that the winner donates the £100 to the charity SolarAid, set up by my company, for the training and equipping of solar PV lighting entrepreneurs in Africa.This seems appropriate because of another sad aspect of Monbiot's assault on PV. He does not mention the strategic importance of providing channels of distribution and credit for mobilising solar PV in the developing world, where solar PV electricity is already economic in competition with kerosene and other alternatives. As even the World Bank has admitted, solar PV is a better bet than conventional power plants for the hundreds of millions of developing-world households currently without electricity.If I lose the bet on timing of UK grid parity, it would only be by a few years at most, and by 2013 I am confident that people will be able to see the writing on the wall with respect to grid parity. And herein lies my return bet with Monbiot. I bet that if we are near or at grid parity by 2013, that we won't see a column of his admitting to how wrong he was. If he does, I'd gladly donate another £100 to SolarAid.3. Monbiot suggests that if I "really believed" my sales pitch, I would be calling for the feed-in tariff for new installations to be scrapped in 2013, as it would then be redundant: "He can't have it both ways: defending the tariff while suggesting that the tariff won't be necessary."I have never suggested that the "tariff won't be necessary." The government does not share my view of when grid parity will be delivered, but nor do they believe as Monbiot appears to that new industries and new installer capacity can just be turned on overnight.By 2013, just three short years from now, the UK will still be endeavouring to build a domestic PV industry that can compete globally. To do that we will need a strong domestic market. To build that we will need a continuing market-enablement regime. The feed-in tariffs can and will be lower by then, but we will still need them. Otherwise, with a low-growth domestic market in an explosively growing global market, we will be importing almost all the solar technology we useand we will have further undermined our chances of energy independence down the track.4. Monbiot asserts: "Every pound spent on PV is a pound not spent on a more effective technology."This is another use of the flawed snapshot argument devoid of strategic considerations. If we were to use only the current price of energy technologies as a yardstick, and discount all trends and strategic considerations, we would allocate all our money to energy efficiency, where we get the quickest paybacks and carbon "bang for the buck." But this not an either-or: we can't solve all our energy problems with energy efficiency. We will need plenty of new generation to replace aging coal and nuclear plants, and this will have to mean a range of generation by renewables, alongside as much gas as Vladimir Putin and others overseas will allow us. We would be crazy just to go for the technologies that happen to be the cheapest in March 2010, and it is extraordinary that an advocate of expensive nuclear like Monbiot can argue this.5. Monbiot says of the German feed-in tariff: "The realisation in Germany, after 10 years of minimal returns, that they have been getting shockingly bad value for money from their scheme coincides with the launching of the same fiasco in the UK".It is untrue to suggest that the returns are minimal. Consider just taxation. In 2008, the German government gained almost €3bn from the direct and indirect taxation of German solar power companies and their employees. In the same year, feed-in tariff investments amounted to about €2bn.6. Monbiot questions the jobs the German feed-in tariff has created. He says: "Leggett goes on to claim, again without attribution, that the Germans have "created over 50,000 jobs in solar PV alone."The 50,000 German employees are counted by the Federal Solar Industry Association. Monbiot's questioning of even this statistic introduces another relevant issue. I have invited him in to Solarcentury several times to discuss the detail of our story and have a go at calibrating numbers ahead of any epistolary exchanges. I have had no success. He seems to prefer unrooted conflict from afar.7. Monbiot also questions the location of jobs created. He says: "The electricity users who have to pay for the tariff would be rather put out to discover that the jobs the government says it will create are actually on the other side of the world."How many mistakes can you make in one article? The Federal Solar Industry Association count over 100 factories in Germany in the industry built to date by the feed-in tariffs. Then there are all the installer companies.Certainly modules are also imported from China and Japan as well. The global PV market is one of the fastest growing markets in the world (87% in 2008). That is why UK plc needs to be a part of it.Feed-in tariffs in the UK will lead to many jobs in the UK. Solar companies estimate that around 100,000 new jobs could be created in the UK by 2020. And they will be skilled and fulfilling jobs.8. Monbiot persists with the argument from his first article: that the British poor will subsidise the solar roofs of the middle class. He says: "Their bills will rise just like everyone else's to pay for a scheme which will mostly benefit the middle classes. This is why it is deeply regressive."First, it is necessary to be clear about the numbers and the likely impact on average household bills as a result of this scheme. The average yearly cost of the feed-in tariff scheme to household levy payers is projected to be £8.50 per year to 2030. The average annual household levy in 2013 when tariff rates are all up for review is likely to be £3. And those are the costs for all technologies not just solar PV. So the question is whether an average household levy of just £8.50 per year makes the feed-in tariff scheme regressive or not? Furthermore, the government has already committed to make the scheme revenue natural by offering loans whereby households can borrow the capital cost of energy efficiency and renewable technologies and repay them over time using the money saved as a result of ins...

 

Don't buy Obama's greenwashing of nuclear power | Erich Pica

March 9, 2010

Last month, inspectors found dangerous chemicals in the groundwater near the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor. The situation demonstrates that from the mining of uranium ore to the storage of radioactive waste, nuclear reactors remain as dirty, risky, and as costly as they ever were. If President Obama's recent enthusiasm for nuclear reactors has led you to believe otherwise, you've bought in to the administration's greenwashing of nuclear. From Grist, part of the Guardian Environment NetworkOn February 16, while President Obama was in Maryland announcing an $8.3bn taxpayer-backed loan guarantee for Southern Company to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia, inspectors at the Vermont Yankee reactor were finding dangerously high levels of tritium, a radioactive cancer-causing chemical, in the groundwater near the plant.The next week, the Vermont state Senate voted overwhelmingly to shut down Vermont Yankee when its current license expires in 2012.Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R) called the timing of the nuclear loan guarantee announcement and the Vermont Senate's decision "ironic." More than just some coincidence, though, the Vermont Yankee situation demonstrates that from the mining of uranium ore to the storage of radioactive waste, nuclear reactors remain as dirty, risky, and as costly as they ever were. If President Obama's recent enthusiasm for nuclear reactors has led you to believe otherwise, you've bought in to the administration's greenwashing of nuclear.President Obama has justified his proposed $55 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors by misrepresenting nuclear reactors as the largest "carbon-free" energy source in the United States. That's like saying McDonald's should be put in charge of a nationwide obesity campaign because it's the largest restaurant in the U.S. that sells salads.The argument that nuclear is "carbon-free" conveniently omits the entire process of mining uranium, which produces greenhouse gases, along with other pollutants. In Virginia, where a study has just been commissioned to determine its safety, uranium is mined in open pits. This destroys topsoil and increases runoff, which contaminates drinking water with cancer-causing toxins.The uranium-enrichment process also emits greenhouse gases and is highly wasteful. Eighty percent of the ore that goes through the enrichment process ends up as waste. And this is to say nothing of the lye, sulfuric acid, and other caustic agents that must be used to turn the uranium into reactor-ready fuel.While on the surface, the steam billowing from the cooling tower of a nuclear reactor is less harmful than the toxic smoke that spews from a coal plant, nuclear reactors still create byproducts that are dangerous to human health and welfare. There's also the huge problem of radioactive nuclear waste, which can stay hot for hundreds of thousands of years. Storing the radioactive waste isn't just a security threat; there's potential for radioactive chemicals to leak, as they are in Vermont and at other aging reactors around the country.Spent radioactive waste continues to sit at reactor sites and wait for a scientific breakthrough that is 50 years overdue. But a long-term waste storage solution doesn't exist. The Yucca Mountain facility, the government's radioactive waste repository project in Nevada, was marked by billions of wasted dollars, numerous legal challenges, and fundamental infeasibility. President Obama recognized Yucca Mountain's failure and cut the funding for it in 2009. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu followed up by issuing a request last week to revoke Yucca Mountain's application to be licensed as a waste repository.In Maryland last month, President Obama told us the United States needs to build new nuclear reactors to keep up with France's nuclear investments. But France has had its own problems with radioactive waste contamination. The government has had to close down entire rivers because of leaks.In the same speech, President Obama also used China's nuclear growth to greenwash his administration's push for more nuclear reactors. But his argument doesn't stand up. The United States already gets a greater percentage of its energy from nuclear reactors than China will after it reaches its target for nuclear growth, and China has pledged to invest even more toward increasing its solar and wind output. The goal of the United States should not be to build more nuclear reactors, but to make them irrelevant through our own investment in truly clean, renewable sources of energy.In another inapt comparison, President Obama contrasted the emissions from a nuclear reactor with the emissions from a coal plant. But that false dichotomy ignores the cleaner and safer forms of renewable energy that exist and will do more to reduce greenhouse gases. Worldwide, renewables have actually outpaced nuclear reactors in energy capacity and fossil fuels in investment.The $55 billion in taxpayer money the Obama administration wants to risk on more nuclear reactors would produce a far greater return if spent on truly clean, renewable energy. Building new nuclear reactors would be the most ineffectual method to reducing greenhouse gases, whereas building more wind turbines or installing more photovoltaic solar panels would not only do a better job at mitigating climate change, but would create more jobs. President Obama's nuclear industry bailout instead pushes us back to the energy future of the 1950s and gives cover to the nuclear industry to continue to be lax on safety enforcement and lethargic in technological advancement.President Obama has said that "environmentalists and entrepreneurs" should no longer retread the same arguments about nuclear energy. But Vermont Yankee shows us that there's nothing new in nuclear that merits revisiting; clean and safe nuclear energy remains an "Atoms for Peace" pipedream. There may be a shiny green coat of paint on the cooling tower, but dangerous chemicals still leak from the pipes.• Erich Pica is president of Friends of the Earth

Nuclear powerObama administrationUnited StatesEnergy

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

Vehicle scrappage scheme drives down emissions of new cars

March 9, 2010

Average carbon emissions of new cars reduced by 5.4% in 2009 as drivers trade in their old car for cleaner modelsThe average emissions from a new car dropped at the fastest rate in 13 years last year because of the UK government's "cash for bangers" vehicle scrappage scheme, it was announced today.On average, new cars emitted 149.5g of CO2 per kilometre in 2009 – a 5.4% reduction on the average 2008 figure, according to a report from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT). This was the best year-on-year improvement since the SMMT began to keep records of this kind in 1997.SMMT chief executive Paul Everitt said the scrappage scheme was a key contributor to the lower emission figure last year.The average emissions of cars bought through the scheme was 133.3g per kilometre, which was 26.8% below the average of the vehicle being scrapped (182.3g/km). Average new car emissions are down from nearly 190g/km in 1999 to below 150g/km last year, a cut of 21.2%.Everitt said:"The industry is well on its way to meeting EU regulatory targets of a 130g/km fleet average by 2015, but the current rate of improvement must be maintained.""Building consumer awareness and delivering effective mechanisms to influence buying behaviour through a long-term environmental tax regime, and the government's recent ultra-low carbon incentive scheme, will become increasingly important." Last month the Guardian revealed that only two electric cars - an £87,000 sports car and £25,000 four-seater Mitsubishi - would be available from the start of the ultra-low carbon incentive scheme.The Mini sector had the lowest average emissions last year – dropping 6.7% to 115.6g/km. Luxury car models – which averaged 250.3g/km last year – were the worst pollutants, although emissions in this sector were down 6% on 2008.

Carbon emissionsTravel and transportEnergyEnergy efficiencyCar scrappageAutomotive industry

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

 

Digested read: Solar by Ian McEwan

March 9, 2010

Cape, £18.992000 He belonged to that Salman class of short, fat, ugly, clever men who were unaccountably attractive to women. But Michael Beard was anhedonic; his fifth marriage was disintegrating and he should have known how to behave as his philandering had ended the previous four. This time, though, it was his wife, Patrice, who was having an affair with Tarpin, a horny-handed Essex builder who knew nothing about cavity-wall insulation.Beard waited for Aldous to collect him. Gosh, how he hated the polar bear rug in the hall. Still, everyone would soon have one, he supposed, if the polar ice-cap continued to melt. Not that Beard was yet wholly committed to the climate- change agenda, but having won the Nobel prize for his Beard-Einstein Conflation on Photovoltaics, an idea he was very thankful he was never asked to fully explain, he had been happy to head the New Labour Climate Change Laboratory."I'm afraid it's not a Prius," Aldous said. "I'm not surprised, as they were only sold outside Japan in 2001," Beard replied. Aldous was one of his pony-tailed post-docs who was being forced into working on the New Labour cul-de sac of wind turbine energy. Beard nodded off. He was very familiar with the McEwan Conflation of cramming loads of dull facts about climate change into a book and calling it fiction."Tarpin hit me," said Patrice. "He hit me too," Beard replied as he went off to visit an endangered glacier in the Arctic for 30 pages. He returned to find Aldous in his flat. "I admit I'm having an affair with your wife," said Aldous, "but I've worked out that your Conflation can satisfy the world's energy needs." At which, Aldous slipped on the polar bear rug and died, a victim of climate change."I could make it look like Tarpin did it," McEwan thought. He had no real experience of writing comedy and the gags creaked as much as the plot. But it was an improvement on his previous books, so the judge mercifully sent Tarpin to prison.2005 As his plane stacked over New Mexico, Beard passed the time unnecessarily recalling his childhood before patting his gut. He had put on 35lb. He couldn't stop consuming; it was almost as if his size was a metaphor for the world's greed for natural resources. Still, there had been something in Aldous's calculations after all, and he was looking forward to seeing the photovoltaic laboratory the Americans had built for him.Back in England, Beard looked angrily at the man who was helping himself to his crisps and snatched them away. Only later did he realise they were actually the other man's crisps! "That's the oldest comedy plot twist in the repertoire," said Melissa, his new girlfriend. "I know," Beard shrugged, "But Ian thinks that, like climate change, it may be old but it doesn't mean it can't happen." "Really," Melissa yawned.Beard reckoned it was time to move to the safer ground of rehashing large chunks of climate-change data and inventing an unlikely intellectual disagreement. "I don't think the serious climate-change sceptics are fighting over feminism and postmodern relativism," Melissa said. "By the way, I'm pregnant."2009 Beard had put on another 90lb and his belly was as over-extended as the metaphor. Worse still, the plot was falling to pieces. One of his American lovers, Darlene, had rung Melissa to say they were getting married, and Tarpin had been let out of jail."I took the rap for Patrice," Tarpin said. "I know she killed Aldous because he was beating her up." Beard looked quizzically at McEwan. "I'm sorry," Ian said. "I'm OK on the climate-change stuff, but I don't really understand human psychology or comedy. Do you mind if Tarpin smashes up all your solar panels?""We've had enough," said the New Mexicans. "We don't mind you being sued for stealing Aldous's ideas, it's just we think David Lodge does this kind of story so much better.""Oh dear," Beard said. "Maybe I should go back to climate change. Perhaps nuclear power is the answer. Or how about a bit of pathos with my daughter?" "Enough trees have died for this already," Melissa sighed.Digested read, digested: Solar Power: No Thanks.

Climate changeIan McEwan

John Crace

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds