The year moves on

I love this time of year!

G20 and global justice?

35,000 people marched through London yesterday ahead of this week's London summit of the G20 demanding action on poverty, climate change and jobs and calling for a new kind of global justice. This and other protests in Germany, France and Italy have highlighted many of the interconnections of social, environmental and economic concerns. Though seeing the summit primarily as 'make or break' for the world's economy is evident in other news coverage. The G-20 is

"made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and also the European Union who is represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank."

Early spring flowers

A beautiful morning for snowdrops, hellebores and crocuses at Coton Manor today.

Impressive reduction in plastic bags

Once in a while the sheer scale of what's going on in the UK in relation to its use of resources and production of wastes hits home. It did with the numbers given in this article. The Independent reports that:

Shops gave out 3.5 billion fewer plastic bags last year under a voluntary scheme which has, for now, headed off the threat of a government ban on free carrier bags. Figures from Wrap, the Government's anti-waste body, show that the number of plastic bags dispensed fell from 13.4 billion in 2007 to 9.9 billion last year, a drop of 26 per cent.

Wall street journal - obnoxious on global warming

Interesting piece from Stuart Gaffin of Columbia University on Reuters environment blog. He's critiquing yet another attempt to argue for the status quo regarding taking action to reduce CO2 emissions in the US:

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial page occupies a uniquely obnoxious place in commentary on global warming.....In response to President Obama’s revolutionary new efforts to cap CO2 emissions, WSJ editorial member Holman Jenkins Jr. tells us to “…Put away the global warming panic…” and writes an impressive number of fictions in two sentences...

in the same sentence that claims science knows nothing about CO2, somehow he [Jenkins Jr] (or science?) knows enough about it to conclude that “ …the impact is too small to untangle from natural variability …” Which one is it?

The rush to nuclear power

The Economist a while ago descibed a power struggle with France leading the way in a global revival of nuclear energy. ....and now it's Italy making a deal with France to step up Italian nuclear power. India too seems to have signed up with the 'French nuclear giant Areva' for six new nuclear reactors and we're told in this article that

The Areva-designed pressurized water reactors, which are meant to replace aging reactors around the world whose designs date from decades ago, are already under construction in Finland, France and China. Areva also has plans to build the new reactors in Britain and the United States

Although this has obviously been developing over quite a long time the press coverage does make it feel like there's almost a rush to get on the nuclear power bandwagon. There's a lot riding on this technology - hope it can stand the test of time. What's changed in the past few weeks? Is this because nuclear power has suddenly gained political acceptability and 'green' credentials in the context of climate change and those concerned have become convinced that it's the only way to go? Or are there other political and economic drivers? I can see that some nuclear power might have to be part of our future but what does this mean for investment in renewables?

Nuclear power debate

According to the Independent

Britain must embrace nuclear power if it is to meet its commitments on climate change, four of the country’s leading environmentalists – who spent much of their lives opposing atomic energy – warn today

Monbiot also has changed his tune, seeing nuclear power as less threatening than the effects of climate change. He claims he hasn't gone pro-nuclear but his position is that he will no longer oppose nuclear power if four conditions are met:

1. Its total emissions - from mine to dump - are taken into account

2. We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried

3. We know how much this will cost and who will pay

4. There is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be diverted for military purposes.

Not sure how we could ensure all those conditions are met and it's assumptions about what we can and can't control that bother me but at least Monbiot's taking a well-argued position and his article logs lots of changing circumstances and views. This move in favour of nuclear power isn't exactly news as the debate about renewable v nuclear power and fossil fuel v nuclear has been hotting up for quite a while now with many like James Lovelock arguing in favour of nuclear on grounds of reduced emissions, safety and practicality. The safety arguments in terms of what hasn't happened recently compared with other sources of power are I think increasingly impressive e.g. in this article comparing dangers in nuclear and wind energy. Though they do seem to me to make assumptions about stability in future and I'm not sure nuclear would look as favourable if necessary institutions and infrastructure were to start to break down. But increased carbon emissions seem to be seen as a bigger threat to life on earth as we know it.

Just recently pro-nuclear power arguments do seem to be gaining ground with long-opposing countries like Sweden lifting its ban on nuclear power. There are allegedly still lots of myths around concerning conventional v renewable energy. It'll be interesting to see how this shapes up as we head towards COP15, the United Nations next major climate change conference to be held in Copenhagen in December.