I don’t really want my kettle boiled by radioactivity, thankyou muchly

Despite having my head buried in a book about Integrated Coastal Zone Management (why did i pick that module? It sounded ‘exotic’), it has come to my attention that the government has published their latest Energy White Paper. I had just enough time between revision breaks to get a little bit peeved. (only a little, because i’d wasted a lot of time deciding between a penguin bar or a hobnob. Tough call)

I can understand why the government is concerned about security of supply, as i believe not many people abroad like us at the moment. Oh yes, i know about these things because i watched Eurovision.

I just don’t think nuclear power is a good idea. First of all, Wales and Scotland would not allow any more to be built in their regions, so all the stations would be in the South of England. Bearing in mind the long term nature of radioactivity, i don’t think placing these sites in an area that would be first to go underwater with global sea level change is particularly bright. But hey, that’s just me.

Secondly, whilst renewables are generally a GOOD THING, they have to be the right sort to provide a net benefit. A barrage across the Severn would not, in my opinion be a net benefit. Placing such a massive piece of hard engineering in such a unique environment is not good, especially when tidal turbines (a bit like upside-down wind turbines) could produce a huge amount of power and not dramatically change the landscape.

The barrage scheme makes me think of those unsuccessful sea-defence systems on the East coast. The government has now realised that it is better to work with nature, not against it, and let the marshes grow back. I think a huge barrage scheme, whilst harnessing ‘clean’ energy, would be working against nature, and it is a battle the barrage would eventually lose.

Sorry! Also some brown paper bags

As in, i’m sorry about the lack of blogging.

I am currently knee deep in the good old revision, in an attempt to come out with something resembling a degree. It’s been a long tunnel, but i’m finally starting to see the light!

In other news, i went to Dublin recently. Plastic bags are banned (I think) in Ireland, so everything came in recycled paper bags etc. This was absolutely brilliant i thought, until we visited the off license. I bought a cheap bottle of red wine and they put it on a brown paper bag. Carrying this back to the house together with my unkempt hairstyle made me look like a hobo.

In all seriousness, i couldn’t believe how clean the streets and waterways were. No plastic bags = less blockages in the sewage treatment process, less visual pollution, and less animals (especially marine mammals) dying of plastic ingestion.

Why aren’t we doing that here?

Dolphin-friendly tuna - actually quite silly

Dolphins are lovely, everybody knows that!

And that is exactly why they recieve greater protection over many other marine species. A good example of this is dolphin-friendly tuna. Now i’m sure you are all familiar with the little labels on the side of tuna tins, letting you know that that tin of tuna is dolphin - friendly. I’d just like to highlight a few things to make you a bit more aware of exactly what happens to bring that tin into your shopping basket.

So how did dolphin-friendly tuna come about? Basically fishermen noticed that large shoals of tuna liked to swim under pods of dolphins, and realised they could make a lot of money if they looked for dolphins and then stuck a massive purse seine net in the sea to catch the tuna. Unfortunately this led to a big decline in dolphin numbers, which was followed by that old chestnut, PUBLIC OUTRAGE. So fishermen then had to find tuna at other places, such as on coral reefs etc, and not go looking for them under dolphins. They also had to improve their nets, so that dolphins (who are a little more intelligent than some sea dwellers) could escape through a specially designed system in the top of the net.

There are all sorts of problems with this.

Firstly, dolphin-friendly does not mean that no dolphins were killed during the production of that tin of tuna, but that the fleet that caught the tuna may not have specifically fished where tuna was swimming under a dolphin pod. (I say may not, because it isn’t always regulated.)

Secondly, by fishing for tuna in a much more haphazard way (at a coral reef), where the tuna are mixing with many other species, means that instead of one species being caught as by-catch (i.e dolphins under the old method), hundreds of different species can be caught. Some of these species - such as sea turtles and sharks - are listed as endangered under CITES, and have really slow reproductive rates. Therefore their population drops dramatically. Interestingly, dolphins have a proportionally high reproductive rate, and can recover from a loss in numbers much quicker.

Thirdly, (to simplify), the public love dolphins, and therefore they get a lot of research done on them. The public do not love sharks, and therefore research into the affect of dolphin-friendly tuna on some species is not being undertaken. Even species that are not cute and cuddly are absolutely vital to marine ecosystems, and as many have lower reproductive rates than dolphins, are more likely to die out as a result of dolphin-friendly tuna than the likelyhood of dolphins dying out if we return to old tuna fishing methods.

Environmental groups are at present divided on the merits of dolphin-friendly tuna, but it must be remembered that a lot of these groups supported the idea initially, and their campaigning is part of the reason why we have dolphin-friendly tuna in the first place.

I may actually write this as an article at some point, if i run out of contributors!

Conversations with people who don’t fully understand things

I had the most perplexing conversation with a friend today.

We were discussing what would happen to society when oil and gas run out. I suggested the following scenario as a possibility:

Firstly, improvements in GIS etc mean we may find that the world has a lot more reserves than is now thought.

Secondly, when even these run out, we can go back to finishing off all the plentiful coal reserves which were considered economically unviable when huge oil fields were discovered.

Thirdly, this will not happen for some time, so by then the relatively new field of marketable renewable energy should have developed significantly, with dramatic improvements in technology.

Fourthly, we could all become France and go nuclear. To summarise, there are ways in which the world will not end when the oil runs out.

My friend (who i know is not joking about this) asked me if it was true that there are huge oil and gas reserves beneath Antarctica. Begrudgingly (because i knew where this was going) i confirmed it to be true. My friend then said “well if we aren’t gonna run out of oil for a while, we could just wait for global warming to completely melt Antarctica and then get the oil and gas from there, and also go snowboarding, because it would be really cool.”

At this point i tried to explain that Antarctica is so massive that it would take longer to melt than the time it would take for oil reserves to run out, but my friend had made his point and was running with it, and accused me of lying! “Why would i lie about how long it will take Antarctica to melt?” I asked him. His reply? “Because you are an environmentalist, and environmentalists lie.”

So in conclusion, thankyou very much to Al Gore for completely ruining my credibility.

The end really is nigh

I had a really interesting lecture today on the instrumental records of climate change. There was no comment made as to the possible causes of global warming, but one definite conclusion was made: we are totally buggered.

The imminent arrival…

The Climate Change Bill is out on Tuesday. There have been Bills that take decades to put together, but this took very little time indeed. Something to do with media coverage perhaps? I can only speculate.

Just heard that Al Gore will be addressing the Conservatives next week, I bet Dave Cameron is positively jumping up and down in his green recycled trainers.

The Church of Environmentalism

This term has been bandied about a lot lately. I’m starting to think that there is real potential for a money-earning cult. While i do subscribe to an essentially green doctrine, i think that making people feel like outcasts for not going 100% environmentally-friendly is a mistake. I think it might actually put people off from going green at all, and create a sort of anti-environmental movement.

If a Church of Environmentalism were officially created however, would the 10 commandments be? Please feel free to add your suggestions. Oh, and don’t take me wrong, I thought An Inconvenient Truth was rather good! To start us off:

1) Thou shalt not shop at Tesco

2) Thou shalt take the word of the prophet Al Gore as the Word of God

3) Thou shalt not fly long haul

4) Thou shalt buy local

5) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours’ oil

Happy International Polar Year!

This week saw the the launch of a year dedicated to polar study, to the tune of $1.5bn.

Unsuprisingly, climate change studies are at the top of the agenda. It’s about time we got our hands on huge quantities of raw data, so the ‘oh my god, we are all going to die’ (Copyright, The Independent) headlines will finally be justified. However i don’t think that bringing back this data is enough. Lots of amazing pictures should be taken of the large-scale melting, and there should be many images showing polar bears stranded on icebergs. This is the best way of translating the data into something meaningful. Remember the golden rule: give it a human interest angle! The Sun will lap it up. 

In other news, a member of an environmentally-orientated society at the university accused me of not caring about the planet today. This is because i rarely put articles from this person on my page. It’s not that i don’t care about the planet, because i really do, it was because the articles are really REALLY crap, and show that evidently the writer does not possess English as a first, second, third or even fourth language. This is despite the fact they are from Southampton.

Also, i looked through all the pages i’ve done this year, and over 70% of them are environmentally themed. If this person actually wants to make a difference, they should get a haircut and an English qualification and join the lobbyists in Westminster campaigning for the Climate Change Bill.

Finally!

I’ve done it. I have a lot to say, but i’m not sure it’s going to make sense outside of my head.

I’ve started this blog because i’m a little fed up with some of the bad reporting i’ve seen on our impending death by climate change, and of people saying i can’t possibly be an environmentalist because i own a car, or some such.

You are more likely to be listened to if people respect you, and you are in touch with modern society. This means all your clothes do not need to be made of hemp.