This must be one of the most innovative things ever to appear on the Foreign Office Website — an interactive map showing some of the possible impacts of a global temperature rise of 4 degrees Celsius. The yellow line shows where the new “shoreline” would be.
It’s done by using layers in Google Earth. Neat, eh?
In an astute move, Greenpeace is capitalising on iPad frenzy by launching a new report into the carbon footprint of cloud computing.
Make IT Green: Cloud Computing and its Contribution to Climate Change shows how the launch of quintessential cloud computing devices like the Apple iPad, which offer users access to the ‘cloud’ of online services like social networks and video streaming, can contribute to a much larger carbon footprint of the Information Technology (IT) sector than previously estimated.
To be clear: We are not picking on Apple. We are not dissing the iPad. But maybe someone can come up with an app that calculates the carbon footprint of using different web sites based on their location and energy deals. Apple is the master of promotion, and while we marvel at the sleek unpolluted design of the iPad, we need to think about where this is all leading and how like all good surfers we can make sure our environment stays clean and green.
The report builds on previous industry research and shows that at current growth rates data centers and telecommunication networks will consume about 1,963 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2020. That is more than triple their current consumption and more than the current electricity consumption of France, Germany, Canada and Brazil combined. However, the report also shows how IT can avert climate chaos by becoming a transformative force advocating for solutions that increase the use of renewable energy.
The Register has a helpful summary of the report which also highlights an interesting difference between Apple and Google as cloud proprietors:
Apple’s $1bn data center in Catawba County, North Carolina, currently under construction, will get its energy from a local electrical grid that contains only 3.8 per cent renewable energy, and a full 50.5 per cent from dirty ol’ coal and 38.7 per cent from nasty nukes. Google’s data center in The Dalles, Oregon, by contrast, gets 50.9 per cent of its juice from renewable sources, according to Greenpeace.
Greenpeace is also pretty critical of Facebook’s carbon footprint.
A highly sophisticated hacking operation that led to the leaking of hundreds of emails from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia was probably carried out by a foreign intelligence agency, according to the Government's former chief scientist. Sir David King, who was Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser for seven years until 2007, said that the hacking and selective leaking of the unit's emails, going back 13 years, bore all the hallmarks of a co-ordinated intelligence operation – especially given their release just before the Copenhagen climate conference in December.
The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth.
Astonishing, if true. So what’s China’s game?
Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
What’s funny about this is that China is beginning to throw its weight about in a thoroughly American fashion. Looks like we all have some adjusting to do.
A recent Pew Research survey showing a sharp decline in the proportion of the public saying there is solid evidence of global warming has triggered considerable speculation about why these views are changing. The poll was released a day after 18 leading scientific organizations released a letter reaffirming what they see as scientific consensus on climate change.
The survey found 57% saying there is "solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades." In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of global warming, and in 2006 and 2007, 77% expressed this view.
Why do fewer Americans believe the earth is warming? No single factor emerges from Pew Research Center surveys, but rather a range of possible explanations, including a sour economy and, perhaps, a cooler than normal summer in parts of the United States.
First, it is important to note that signs of a change in public opinion — on the environment generally and global warming more specifically — were evident long before Pew Research’s new survey. In March, Gallup’s annual environment survey found an increase in the percentage of Americans who say the seriousness of global warming is “generally exaggerated” — from 30% in 2006 to 41% this year. Similarly, Fox News found the percentage of registered voters saying they “believe global warming exists” has fallen from 82% in January 2007 to 69% in May of this year.
Pew Research surveys show that as economic concerns have surged, fewer people view the environment as a top policy priority. In our annual survey on the public’s policy agenda, just 41% rated protecting the environment as a top priority; just a year earlier, 56% rated it as a top priority. Yet other issues also were overshadowed as more people focused on the economy and jobs. There were sharp declines as well in the proportions rating dealing with illegal immigration (down 10 points), reducing health care costs (10 points) and reducing crime (eight points) as top priorities for the president and Congress.
The classic visual PowerPoint cliche to indicate inspiration is to draw a light bulb over someone’s head. Physicist David Mackay’s inspired idea was that the humble light bulb would provide a graphic way of communicating to non-physicists the scale of the energy gap now facing our society.
We asked David to be the external assessor for our new Open University course on Energy Measurements at Home partly on the basis of his terrific book Sustainable Energy — without the hot air. But we had no idea then that he would be appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. It’s clear that he made the video before he knew it either. Wonder how his political masters are getting on with such a clear thinker — and speaker. I suspect they are finding it, well, slightly uncomfortable. Speaking truth to power is generally not appreciated, and I can’t see Professor Mackay trimming to the wind. Someone once accused him of being against wind turbines. He replied: “I’m not against anything. But I am for arithmetic.”
One of my colleagues has estimated that our university department could save nearly £17,000 a year on toner if we all simply used a special font for our laser-printed documents. He’s probably right, but it sure brings on a tussle between one’s aesthetic sensibility and one’s environmental ‘conscience’. But maybe it’s not so bad in small sizes. Only one way to find out…