£100bn investment (200bn USD) in renewable energy has been proposed meaning that thousands of wind turbines will be built.

The prime minister has described these plans as his “green revolution” and suggested it is to be the country’s largest energy initiative since nuclear power.

The North Sea – formally a huge source of energy for the UK with its oil and gas supplies – has now peaked and Brown wants this to be turned into a stretch of water oozing with wind power.

Middelgrunden in Copenhagen’s harbour (see photo above) has long been a wind farm I have yearned should become a blueprint on a global scale. It serves as a good example of what the view off the UK’s east coast may one day resemble. Quite beautiful.

Should these proposals come to fruition, then they should ensure we meet the EU’s agenda that states that countries must produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

As reported in the Guardian, the good news doesn’t stop here:

“Householders will be encouraged to reduce their bills through energy-saving incentives due to be announced later this summer. Within a decade … every householder able to do so [should] fit loft or cavity wall insulation, install low-energy light bulbs, and use low-energy consumer goods.”

Perhaps the political green tide is turning here in the UK. A man who has caused many green campaigners absolute anguish has listened and begun that revolution.

Sources:

Greenpeace

The Guardian

Image Source:

andjohan at Flickr under a creative commons license.

Now, mounting pressure from both Europe’s farmers and global food aid organizations have caused the high courts of various EU countries to reconsider.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) wants to collect upwards of $20 billion from member nations to help the world’s famine victims, particularly those in Africa. Many food aid workers believe that restricting GM seed use is harmful to relieving the hungry and see seed integrity as secondary to their cause of hunger relief.

On the other end of the spectrum, the farmers of Europe are watching their North American, South American and Asian counterparts clean up in the booming grain market, using the highly prodigious GM seeds. Nowhere has the struggle between profit-minded farmers and opponents of GM foods been more visible than in the high courts of France, where farmers sued to use a banned Monsanto-created corn seed in March. When the courts upheld the ban, proponents of biotechnological intervention warned that such legislation could exacerbate rising food prices and economic difficulties for small-scale farmers.

France is Europe’s largest agricultural economy and has maintained one of the stricter oppositions to GM seeds and the biotechnology companies like Monsanto that bring the seeds to market. But recently, France’s National Assembly passed a hotly-contested bill by a single vote that will allow genetically-modified seeds that have been previously approved by the E.U. health commission to be grown in France. The E.U. - while restrictive by global standards - still approves more GM seeds than many of its member nations.

But what’s so bad about a seed that resists pests and draught through genetic modification, thereby reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides? GM seeds can cause a whole host of problems, but little research is conducted to ensure their safety before they are brought to market. In many instances, undertested GM seeds have wreaked havoc on the indigenous landscapes, animals and people that came into contact with it. In one example in 2005, Monsanto’s BT Cotton was banned in India after it killed livestock and contaminated indigenous plants. The cotton had been injected with some material from bacillus thuringiensis, a bacteria that kills boll worms - a cotton parasite.

But more than quarrels over particular seeds, opponents of GM crops articulate their discomfort with the commodification of food staples that allows a few multinational conglomerates to have control over all of the basic crops that feed humans. In other words, a GM corn seed is not nearly as dangerous as the patent that allows Monsanto to control who grows it and for what purpose.

In the heated debates across Europe, this issue seems to have gotten lost amid the discussions of farmer rights, humanitarian aid and the doomsday predictions of economic and crop failure.

Image Credit: Charles Platiau for Reuters

Slimy

Actions speak louder than words. I can write no more scathing an attack on the leader of the opposition than he can achieve merely by being him. So it was that the man who instinctively knows where the camera is cycled to work whilst his chauffer followed just out of site driving a pair of shoes.

Fatuous, slimy, ultimately laughable. A joy to read. Silly boy.

So, now we’ve got that out of the way, let’s ponder on cycling here in the UK.

Exeter

My hometown of Exeter, a few years back, introduced a green bike scheme similar to that in Amsterdam. The council kindly gave the city’s citizens some bikes painted green – the intention being that you just hopped upon one, cycled it to your destination and then left it there for the next person. Within days, they’d all disappeared and had been painted another colour to avoid detection. Not quite what was intended.

Drug dealers rejoiced. They were able to pedal medication at greater speed on transport that, when the paint chipped, revealed that familiar green from the week before.

But the city, on a more positive note, is quite accomodating towards the cyclist. Cycle lanes abound, though before you know it, the lane has suddenly become a bus lane but you’re not quite sure at what point along the route, it suddenly became so.

All you know is the lane is suddenly a different colour, the number 50 is tailing you and all you can hear is diesel behind you, and the frantic sound of a thundering heartbeat betraying an imminent coronary brought about by ill-health and fear.

But a journey along the river or canal can be pleasant enough, as we doff our caps to each other.

And as the city council’s website states:

“Cycling in Exeter is popular both as a recreational activity and as a convenient way of getting to work or the shops. The combination of flat areas in parts of the city which are easy to negotiate for the novice cyclist and the more challenging routes in the surrounding areas for the more experienced cyclist, allows everybody to enjoy this healthy activity.

”The City Council considers the promotion of cycling very important and works in conjunction with a number of different groups and individuals to encourage cycling throughout the city and the county as a whole.”

Fat

England is fat. We cheer the fact. Every time the news reports that we’re the most overweight in the European Union, pride and roars of approval sweep the land. It’s all we have left since we gave Hong Kong back.

Bike Week 2008

So, next week can’t come soon enough. Yes, it’s Bike Week 2008 here in the UK.

The theme this year is for families to ride together and discover a freedom that can be enjoyed away from the TV.

Thousands of events are due to take place across the British Isles. The idea is to re-engage people with the joys of two wheels of the man-powered variety.

Bike Week Manager Andre Curtis said: “Plenty of parents have forgotten how much fun cycling was as a child. We want this year’s Bike Week to revive those memories and act as a catalyst for families to spend more quality time together.”

I think then, in all honesty, that the UK has come to the realisation that we’ve collectively reached critical mass around the waistline. I’ve got a bike in the garage and, with this week’s focus topic being what it is, it may just have been enough to galvanise me to get back on the road. Devon is an incredibly picturesque county and it seems an absolute waste to be constantly watching soccer on the TV, when outside lies the undulating greenery of England.

I think Bike Week 2008 may have earnt itself another supporter. The website says:

“Encouraging quality family time and values, cycling will also be shown to help focus minds on the environment, enabling families to reduce their carbon footprints by reducing car usage and enjoying the great outdoors.”

And you can’t argue with that.

Other Articles in Ecoworldly’s Bicycling Series

• Forget Sky-high Gas Prices, Biking Beats Them All! by Sam Aola Ooko
• UK: Bike Week 2008 by Pem Charnley
• Bicycle powered water pumps and filtration systems by Nayelli Gonzalez
• Italy’s Two-Wheeled Cities Speed Up Your Life Quality by Eva Pratesi
• In Chiang Mai, Social Attitudes Crush Bicycling Prospects by Masimba Biriwasha
• Google’s Sexy Bicycle Giveaways and Africa’s Versatile Bike Trucks by Sam Aola Ooko
• South Korean Bicycle Ninjas Do Battle Against Asthma by Gavin Hudson
• Of Course Cycling in Australia is Healthy, But What To Do With the Cars? by Ross Kendall
• Cheer up! Bicycling in Italy is a Daily Adventure by Eva Pratesi
• If You Want a Blissful Sex Life, Don’t Ride a Bike! by Sam Aola Ooko
• Bicycling in Peru: An Art of Adaptation by Levi Novey

Image Credit

micsten at Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Confession time. I have to admit that I may have been a bit of a grumpy environmental blogger, failing to give due credit where credit is due..

In particular, I have frequently complained about bio-fuels driving up world food prices in absence of a few wider considerations, I’ve been dismissive at the EU’s lack of ability to actually implement anything that makes a real difference to the environment, and most recently I described an environmental tax levied on cows as the most stupid idea ever. So it is maybe time to examine these issues in a more positive light – negativity is, after all, the enemy of progress.

Bio-fuels Are Not Solely Responsible For World Food Prices

In fact, there are several reasons behind the recent price increases. Firstly, there are simply more people to feed these days as the earth’s population begins to swell, and feeding these masses hasn’t been made any easier by recent spates of bad weather which have reduced crop production in some parts of the world.

Secondly, not only are there more of us, but we are eating more as the world grows wealthier. In particular, rising standards of living in developing nations is leading to an increase in meat consumption, meaning that instead of using grain directly to feed people it is being used to feed animals to feed people - which is a very inefficient process.

Finally, we shouldn’t forget the impact of farm subsidies in the Western world, which have effectively forced many farmers in developing nations out of business by distorting food markets and has ultimately lowered world food production capacity.

Whilst bio-fuels may not be entirely innocent, they are certainly not the only villain.

Taxing Cows Is Not a Bad Idea

Considering the impact of increased meat production on food prices, a tax on cattle herds starts to sound more sensible. When one considers the additional environmental impacts of overgrazing, soil erosion, desertification and deforestation – not to mention the millions of tons of greenhouse gasses from manure and cow-smells – then it starts to sound quite necessary.

I previously criticized the tax which is now being levied on cattle farmers in Estonia, claiming that there are few alternatives to cows and that there are few ways to make cows more efficient. However, I have to admit that I overlooked the option of simply eating more vegetables instead.

And the EU is Making Sensible Subsidies

To round off, recognizing some of the problems being caused by the massive $62 billion spent by the EU each year on farm subsidies, EU leaders will this week consider plans to pay farmers not for producing food, but to take better care of the countryside instead. The sustainability of farming is becoming increasingly important as high prices encourage some farmers to over stress their land for short term profit.

Under the new proposals, whilst farmers will be more exposed to market forces, they will receive government funds to encourage more sustainable agricultural practices. It is hoped that such reforms will level the world-wide playing field for food production whilst also encouraging and preserving the traditional European rural way of life.

Full Circle

Coming full circle, whilst using food to power vehicles may still not be the smartest long term green energy solution, it is certainly not the only problem, and in our rush to blame bio-fuels we run the risk of ignoring other important problems which also need to be addressed.

At the same time, it’s easy to forget that although our world is under increasing environmental pressure, global environmental awareness and initiatives are at an all time high. We will continue to make many mistakes, but we are also making steady progress. No more grumpy posts from this blogger - for now.

More about agriculture and bio-fuels at Green Options:

How Green Are Biofuels- Comparison Chart [PIC]

3 Reasons Manure is Becoming a Cash Crop

What About the Food in the Farm Bill-

Image credit: kables at Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Much of the push for cleaner environmental standards over the past decade have come out of Europe; the German Chancellor Angela Merkel being a prime example. So it comes as no surprise to see that the European Parliament has set a target of having 25% of their energy come from renewable energy by 2020. Of that 25%, half is planned to come from wind energy.

Europe is already well on their way to making this happen as well, with 5 countries (Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Germany) having more than 5% of their energy provided by wind farms. Currently there exists 80 GW of installed wind capacity in the EU, though only 3.5 GW of that is derived from wind farms built off-shore.

Off-shore installations are especially significant in Europe, due to the large amount of shallow waters. Deeper waters incur further expenses for wind farms, which necessitate additional engineering challenges in the deeper and subsequently rougher waters.

If the 2020 goal is met, wind energy could total 38% of the EU-15’s Kyoto Protocol obligations, and avoid 133 mega-tons of CO2 in the process. Regardless of any plans though, if these plans are to be met, continued government and business involvement is a must, as the will power is there, the money simply isn’t.

Image Courtesy of phault via Flickr

Source via ENN

More from the GO Network

World’s Largest Wind Farm Growing Up in South Dakota

Cape Wind Opponent to Step Down

Today the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Scientific Committee recommended suspending the EUs target for 10% biofuel usage by 2020, due to concerns that first-generation biofuels (those made from food crops) are environmentally unsound.

Back in 2003, the EU established a Biofuel Directive aimed at replacing 2% of vehicle fuel by 2005, and 5.75% by 2010. The 2005 goal wasn’t met, and despite uncertainty that the EU could even reach the 2010 targets, an ambitious goal of replacing 10% of total fuel usage by 2020 was put in place last year.

Now the EEA isn’t sure that’s such a good idea, and recommended the target be suspended until a new, comprehensive scientific study on the environmental risks and benefits of biofuels can be completed. The EEA expressed the following concerns:

• Producing biodiesel or ethanol out of plant material is not the most efficient or environmentally friendly use of biomass when compared to heat or electricity generation.
• Biomass is a finite resource, and using it should be matched with energy efficiency improvements in automobiles (and residential areas).
• The EEA estimated that the land required to meet the 10% target exceeds the amount of arable land available, even with substantial input by second-generation (non-food) feedstocks. Increasing land use will increase pressure on soil, water, and biodiversity.
• Meeting the target would require importing large amounts of biofuels, which could contribute to the accelerating destruction of rain forests in less developed countries.

Europe has been struggling with biofuel policies for some time now. Mandating biofuel targets without having sustainability filters in place may boost industry, but it won’t protect the land. The US is also struggling with biofuel policies and their impacts. See the related links for more:

Europe Faces Biodiesel Feedstock Crunch
Popular Mechanics: Ethanol Bill Bad News
2015: 30% of US Corn Harvest Will Be Gasoline
Ethanol Industry Pays Off Subsidies, Boosts U.S. Economy (Bigtime)
Is Ethanol Production Fueling the Size of the Dead Zone?

Via Green Car Congress

Photo Credit

Often it is hard to understand just what a trading scheme is all about, but I finally found it explained simply and clearly. The AFP wrote; ‘Emissions trading schemes place a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution which companies can produce, forcing heavy polluters to buy credits from companies that pollute less — thereby creating financial incentives to fight global warming.’

This is, to me, an Australian, great and big news. For so long we stood as outsiders to the world of environmental protection. We wouldn’t sign the Kyoto protocol despite protests and criticism, both internationally and internally.

But with the election of centre-left Labor leader Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister towards the end of 2007, things began to change.

His first act as leader of our nation was to sign the Kyoto protocol; but that seemed like an empty gesture in light of everything else. So this actual step forward – one that is visible from across the world – is one that will hopefully bring Australia to the forefront of fighting climate change.

Senator Wong said that consultations with industry and non-governmental groups had already begun, and that she hoped to have a draft proposal of the scheme ready for public comment by July. This is something that I’ll be watching for carefully, so stay tuned.

As to what the draft would address? Wong stated that it would address, “how we are going to set the targets, what sort of issues we are going to address, how we will address the impacts on various aspects of the economy and how the scheme will work.”

The scheme, which will set a price on the head of greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of coal and gas, is hoped to be put before parliament by early 2009, and quickly placed in to force later that year. “We will set a level of emissions, we will have permits up to that level, and the market will trade and the market will set the price,” Senator Wong said.

Image Courtesy of AFP

But concrete action has been slow, and whilst the world continues to talk, emissions continue to rise. However, another small but significant step has been made during the past week with an agreement between EU leaders to commit to legislation setting firm targets for a 20% reduction in Co2 emissions before 2020.

Janez Jansa , Prime Minister of Solvenia who currently holds the rotating EU presidency told reporters that EU leaders have taken a “huge step forward” with this agreement.

Beyond emissions reductions, the agreement also seeks to reduce energy imports, liberalise internal energy markets to increase competition, reduce taxes on environmentally friendly products, and to achieve world leadership in renewable energy technologies.

Unsurprisingly, some concerns have been raised. Germany and France, in particular have expressed worries about the impact of emissions reduction legislation on the competitiveness of their industries. EU nations with expensive labour costs such as Germany have struggled in recent years under increased competition from low wage countries in the far East and South America as global competition continues to intensify. France and Germany have recently been at loggerheads over proposed vehicle emissions reductions, amid concerns over the impact on their auto manufacturing industries.

Seeking to arrest these concerns, Jansa stated “We are convinced that the costs of these measures will be much lower than if we don’t act”. Indeed, it looks as if the debate is now moving quickly beyond what to how much?

See also: The Swiss Decide on Global Warming

Discuss climate change issues in Green Options Forums

So it was of little surprise that the German auto industry, represented by brands such as Mercedes, BMW, Porsche and Volkswagen Audi vigorously lobbied its government for concessions on new European fuel economy standards (see box text below). Manufacturers were chiefly concerned with loosing their dominance of the luxury car segment through being forced to manufacture smaller, more efficient cars.

“We don’t want Germany to became a nation of small car owners”

President of the German automotive industry association, Matthias Wissmann, told a news conference recently “We don’t want Germany to became a nation of small car owners”. The German government has backed its automakers, claiming that the EU proposals place an unfair burden on German industry in comparison to the French and Italians.

However, according to the industry, consumers are taking a lead on environmental issues and are voting with their cheque books in dealer’s showrooms. Co2 emissions of new German cars registered in 2007 fell by 1.7 percent to just under 170 grams per kilometre. “There’s been a huge increase in buyers’ sensitivity for climate protection.”, said Wissmann, noting that he had experienced the change in German attitudes to car purchases first hand whilst spending time in car showrooms recently.

Attitudes, or simply spare cash?

However, a further look at the sales statistics shows that the small decrease in Co2 emissions is more likely due to the fact that sales in general are lower, dropping 9% in 2007, following increases in vehicle sales taxes and rising fuel costs. This suggests that German car buyers are being more frugal with their cash rather than being environmentally conscious.

Germany leads the way in many green initiatives, being Europe’s largest producer of renewable energy, most diligent recycler of waste, and a fierce advocate for action on climate change. It’s a pity that Germany appears apparently unwilling to apply its obvious engineering talents to green auto technology.

As told by a spokesman from BUND, a German environmental group, “The car industry has to finally accept the challenges of climate protection… Otherwise Germany is going to lose its credibility at future climate protection negotiations.”

Sources:

Reuters, EU Business, TalkClimateChange