This is a content area in the footer where you can promote special offers or activate widgets for recent posts, image galleries and more! Read more!

Start uga_insert_html_once: head, Footer hooked: HTML inserted: Location is HEAD Start uga_get_option: footer_hooked uga_options: array ( 'internal_domains' => 'www.humacon.org,humacon.org', 'account_id' => 'UA-10399907-2', 'enable_tracker' => true, 'track_adm_pages' => false, 'ignore_users' => true, 'max_user_level' => '8', 'footer_hooked' => true, 'filter_content' => true, 'filter_comments' => true, 'filter_comment_authors' => true, 'track_ext_links' => true, 'prefix_ext_links' => '/outgoing/', 'track_files' => true, 'prefix_file_links' => '/downloads/', 'track_extensions' => 'gif,jpg,jpeg,bmp,png,pdf,mp3,wav,phps,zip,gz,tar,rar,jar,exe,pps,ppt,xls,doc', 'track_mail_links' => true, 'prefix_mail_links' => '/mailto/', 'debug' => true, 'check_updates' => true, 'version_sent' => '1.6.0', 'advanced_config' => true, ) Ending uga_get_option: footer_hooked (1) End uga_insert_html Ending uga_wp_head_track: Start uga_filter:

Scientists from the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth are calling for urgent research to understand the impact of renewable energy developments on marine life. The study, now published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, highlights potential environmental benefits and threats resulting from marine renewable energy, such as off-shore wind farms and wave and tidal energy conversion devices.

The research highlights the capacity for marine renewable energy devices to boost local biodiversity and benefit the wider marine environment. Man-made structures on the sea bed attract many marine organisms and sometimes become ‘artifical reefs’, for example, supporting a wide variety of fish. The study also points out that such devices could have negative environmental impacts, resulting from habitat loss, collision risks, noise and electromagnetic fields.

The study highlights the gaps in our understanding of the effects of marine renewable energy devices on the health of our oceans. The team calls for more research to improve our understanding of these threats and opportunities. The researchers also stress the importance of considering the impact on marine life when selecting locations for the installation of marine energy devices.

Corresponding author Dr Brendan Godley of the University of Exeter said: “Marine renewable energy is hugely exciting and it is vital that we explore the potential for it to provide a clean and sustainable energy source. However, to date research into the impact of marine renewable energy on sea life has been very limited. . Our study highlights the urgent need for more research into the impacts of marine renewable energy on marine life. This will involve biologists, engineers and policy-makers working together to ensure we really understand the risks and opportunities for marine life.”

Professor Martin Attrill, Director of the University of Plymouth Marine Institute said: “Our paper highlights the need to take a fresh look at the effect marine renewable energy generation has on the environment if we are to deliver a higher proportion of energy from renewable sources and start to combat climate change. We need to have the industry working directly with conservation bodies to plan the next phase of development. We suggest further research could demonstrate the potential of security zones around, for example, wave farms to act as Marine Protected Areas. Therefore, if all stakeholders can work together in a coordinated way we can possibly address two key issues – combating climate change and creating a network of MPAs. We need the research on environmental impact to help move the whole field forward.”

This study was carried out by PRIMaRE (the Peninsula Research Institute for Marine Renewable Energy), a joint £15 million institute for research into harnessing the energy from the sea bringing together the technology and marine expertise of the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth.

Start uga_filter:

An editorial and letter, published simultaneously by the BMJ and Lancet, warn that failure to agree radical cuts in carbon dioxide emissions at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen this December spells a global health catastrophe.

The scientific evidence that global temperatures are rising and that man is responsible has been widely accepted since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report in 2007, write Lord Michael Jay and Professor Michael Marmot in the editorial. There is now equally wide consensus that we need to act now to prevent irreversible climate change.

So the chances of success should be good but the politics are tough, they say.

The most vocal arguments are about equity: the rich world caused the problem so why should the poor world pay to put it right? Can the rich world do enough through its own actions and through its financial and technological support for the poor to persuade the poor to join in a global agreement?

These arguments need to be tackled head on, but Jay and Marmot believe that what’s good for the climate is good for health. For example, a low carbon economy will mean less pollution. A low carbon diet (especially eating less meat) and more exercise will mean less cancer, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. This is an opportunity too to advance health equity, which is increasingly seen as necessary for a healthy and happy society, they say.

They point out that the threat to health is especially evident in poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty and lack of resources, infrastructure, and often governance, greatly increase their vulnerability to the effects of climate change.

If we take climate change seriously, it will require major changes to the way we live, reducing the gap between carbon rich and carbon poor within and between countries, they write.

A successful outcome at Copenhagen is vital for our future as a species and for our civilisation. Failure to agree radical reductions in emissions spells a global health catastrophe, which is why health professionals must put their case forcefully now and after Copenhagen, they conclude.

In the accompanying letter, doctors leaders across the world call on politicians to heed the health effects of climate change when they meet in Copenhagen.

They warn that “there is a real danger that politicians will be indecisive, especially in such turbulent economic times as these.”

Doctors are still seen as respected and independent, largely trusted by their patients and the societies in which they practise, they write. As such, they urge doctors “to demand that their politicians listen to the clear facts that have been identified in relation to climate change and act now to implement strategies that will benefit health of communities worldwide.”

“Politicians may be scared to push for radical reductions in emissions because some of the necessary changes to the way we live won’t please voters,” said Dr Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the BMJ. “Doctors are under no such constraint. On the contrary we have a responsibility as health professionals to warn people how bad things are likely to get if we don’t act now. The good news is that we have a positive message – that what is good for the climate is good for health.”

So the chances of success should be good but the politics are tough, they say.

If we take climate change seriously, it will require major changes to the way we live, reducing the gap between carbon rich and carbon poor within and between countries, they write.

In the accompanying letter, doctors leaders across the world call on politicians to heed the health effects of climate change when they meet in Copenhagen.

They warn that “there is a real danger that politicians will be indecisive, especially in such turbulent economic times as these.”

Start uga_filter:

“Salt-loving algae could be the key to the successful development of biofuels as well as being an efficient means of recycling atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Professor John Cushman of the University of Nevada told the Society for General Microbiology meeting at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Sept. 10.

The current major limitation of biofuel production is the lack of adequate feedstocks, soybeans and corn, for biodiesel and ethanol production, respectively. Halophytic (salt-loving) micro-algae can be grown on marginal lands with brackish or salt water unsuitable for traditional agriculture. Their growth is non-seasonal, making them 10-30 times more productive than terrestrial crops. They can be grown on municipal wastewater and have widespread potential for recycling carbon dioxide from biomass-, coal-, and gas-fired power plants.

Algae are adapted to a wide range of water sources, but grow year-round in warm, tropical or sub-tropical climates. Using geothermal heat, Professor Cushman has been able to extend the growing season for algae production from three months to nine months in colder climates.

“Our work aims to find suitable algal strains to use for biofuel production,” said Professor Cushman. “We need to identify the key components of the biosynthetic pathway to learn how to improve oil production and alter desirable oil characteristics with immediate and significant impact on the emerging algal feedstock biofuels industry.”

Start uga_filter:

The European Union is on the cutting-edge of green technology; already ahead of many nations through its introduction a ban of incandescent light bulbs that began on September 1, 2009. The ban of these incandescent light bulbs has a goal of reducing region-wide energy costs through use of the more eco-friendly compact fluorescent light bulbs instead.

In order to move forward with this ban of incandescent light bulbs, the EU is not allowing retailers in the area to purchase these lighting options which take a known toll on the environment and our household energy costs. With fairness in mind, however, retailers are allowed to continue to sell incandescent light bulbs that they already have in stock. By implementing this ban, the EU is hoping that it will contribute to their goal of reducing greenhouse gasses by 2010 and will convert the population to becoming more energy-efficient in their line of thinking. THe public has not reacted entirely favorably to this ban, protesting that they have the right to choose their own lighting options in their homes; but meanwhile, the United States is watching closely to see how well received it is since a similar initiative will be underway in 2012.

The ban of incandescent light bulbs in the EU has been motivated by the fact that they are 75% less eco-friendly than compact fluorescent light bulbs, plus CFL’s last 10 times longer so they not only save on energy consumption and cost, but the light bulb very quickly pays for itself through its savings. Little by little, nations worldwide are doing their part to reduce their environmental footprint, and this is one way that the EU is hoping to do their part!

Start uga_filter:

Forests of artificial trees, giant space mirrors and sailing ships that create clouds may offer the only hope of saving the world from dangerous climate change, Britain’s leading scientists claimed yesterday.

A report by the Royal Society – Britain’s most prestigious science body – said global engineering projects that suck carbon dioxide out of the air or reflect the sun’s rays into space had ‘useful potential’ as a weapon against global warming.

But the authors added that risky and unproven attempts to meddle with the climate could have ‘catastrophic consequences for mankind’ if they were used irresponsibly and that the priority was to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

The cloud ships would blow moisture into the air creating artificial clouds to bounce sunlight away from Earth.

The report is the first major study into geo-engineering – the deliberate manipulation of the Earth’s atmosphere, ocean and climate to reduce the impact of global warming.

Engineers have proposed dozens of schemes to tackle climate change over the last few years.

Some try to cool the Earth by reflecting solar radiation back into space, others reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

Prof John Shepherd, who led the Royal Society geo-engineering working group, said: ‘It is an unpalatable truth that unless we can succeed in greatly reducing carbon dioxide emissions we are heading for a very uncomfortable and challenging climate future, and geo-engineering will be the only option left to limit further temperature increases.

‘Our research found that some geo-engineering techniques could have serious unintended and detrimental effects on many people and ecosystems – yet we are still failing to take the only action that will prevent us from having to rely on them.

‘Geo-engineering and its consequences are the price we have to pay for failure to act on climate change.’

The artificial trees pictured in between the giant wind turbines would help soak up carbon dioxide

The scientists found that none of the schemes was proven to work – and that all remained risky. It said reducing levels of carbon dioxide made more sense than temporarily cooling the world.

Artificial trees that soak up carbon from the air and bury it underground, and the creation of forests had the “most useful potential” for cutting greenhouse gases.

‘Enhanced weathering’ – where engineers mimic the natural chemical reaction of carbon dioxide with recently exposed rocks and minerals – could also reduce atmospheric carbon, it said.

The report ruled out some proposals as too risky. They include pouring iron fillings into the sea to promote the growth of algae which remove carbon from the air. The scientists said that could cause ’substantial damage’ to marine life.

Painting roofs, buildings and roads white, or putting mirrors in deserts, could upset local weather systems and would have little impact globally.

Releasing particles high into atmosphere to block out some of the sun’s rays – mimicking the cooling effect of volcanoes – could help if the world faced a ‘climate emergency’ while space based mirrors and ships that blow salt water into the sky to create more clouds also ‘had potential’, the report said.

The Royal Society called for the Government to spent at least £10 million a year researching geo-engineering.

Friends of the Earth’s Head of Climate Change Mike Childs said: ‘Geo-engineering is no silver bullet – it won’t solve climate change.

‘The different options will take time to develop, risks need to be properly researched, and if we use geo-engineering at all it must be in addition to making deep cuts in the amount of carbon dioxide we produce in the first place.

‘We haven’t got time to play Russian roulette with the future of the planet. If we have any hope of avoiding runaway climate change, rich countries must reduce their emissions dramatically and quickly, as well as providing billions of pounds to enable developing countries to grow cleanly.’

Doug Parr, Chief Scientists at Greenpeace UK said: ‘Geo engineering is creeping onto the agenda because governments seem incapable of standing up to the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby who will use it to undermine the emissions reduction we can do safely. ‘