The article ‘Masdar Plan’ was printed in The Economist on the 4th of December, 2008. The link to the article is: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesbysubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348924&story_id=12673433
The article ‘Masdar Plan’ discusses the ambitious project that is currently being put into practice in Abu Dhabi, the Masdar initiative which was unveiled in 2006. The Masdar initiative consists of a research institute for environmental technologies, an investment arm for these technologies and an eco-city; it aims to find solutions for global energy security issues, climate change and sustainable human development. Though this project will not have an effect on Abu Dhabi’s environmental impact (carbon footprint), since it is too tiny to negate the fact that people from countries in the UAE have the highest greenhouse gas emissions per head, it is a step to diversify the economy in preparation for when its primary income, oil, runs out.
The Masdar Initiative is, unlike other extravagant projects on Abu Dhabi’s part, continuing in construction. A grant of $15 billion from the government is, in addition to investments into different areas of the project by companies such as Credit Suisse, the financial means of this project. Constructing the facilities in an environmentally friendly way is proving to be a difficulty, since, for example, the concrete and steel being used has to have a high recycled component. One branch of this project is the Masdar Institute for Science and Technology (MIST) that, with the aid of MIT, is recruiting and training faculty to teach the students, who will first be admitted in 2009. MIST is appealing to great minds with the promise of minimal teaching requirements, many opportunities to pursue research, and the ‘open laboratory’. The eco-friendly city, Masdar City, has received most scrutiny, since its promise of zero-carbon emissions seems a bit overambitious, especially when considering the harsh environmental conditions. It plans to do this by using the most efficient & beneficial technologies to benefit the environment. Buildings are created to be extremely energy efficient, solar panels are being installed throughout the city and in large areas to provide the energy needed, water will be recycled, cars are prohibited, personal rapid transport pods are the only means of fast transportation, and the greenery is chosen according to its drought resistant properties. In addition, space has consciously been left for new technologies of the future. Overall, the project is due to be completed in 2016.
This project is considered to be more of a development project than an environmental one. Its hopes of producing more energy than it consumes are not within reach at this moment; its claim to producing zero carbon is, at the moment, slightly false. This is because the primary energy providers, solar panels, cannot generate enough energy to power the city by night. Gas-fired power is currently being imported until better solar energy storing technologies are developed. Overall, Masdar still has a long way to go until it can truly have an impact.
Posts mit dem Label environment werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label environment werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Samstag, 13. Dezember 2008
Samstag, 6. Dezember 2008
'Green Iron': Article Summary
The article ‘Green iron’ was published on Economist.com on the 14th of November 2008. The link to the article is: http://www.economist.com/research/articlesbysubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348924&story_id=12587219
Iron is normally not associated with having any sort of outstanding advantages with regards to preserving the environment. However, iron shavings can now be utilized as a cheap, efficient and quick way to clean industrially polluted water, as a research project in China demonstrates. The method was applied to a wastewater facility in the Taopu district of Shanghai, where small pharmaceutical, petrochemical and textile factories contaminate the water with dyes, phosphorus and nitrogen. This method, only recently developed but based on prior information, is applied to industrial waste water since the standard water cleaning system isn’t effective if water contains toxic and non-biodegradable compounds. The idea is simple; the waste water passes through iron shavings, which are cheap and readily available (treated with a solution of copper chloride to increase their effectiveness), which attract the non-biodegradable chemicals, react with them by sharing electrons and therefore degrade them. After this, the water can be treated as normal waste water. The method has been proven to work, at least at this small of a scale, since it, for example, the removal of nitrogen went from 13% to 85%. At 20 cents a kilogram in China, with an additional 5 cents for the treatment with the copper chloride solution, the iron shavings method developed by Dr. Wei-Xian Zhang could prove to be especially useful in developing countries. Already, larger wastewater plants that apply this method are being planned in China and, hopefully, this idea will be picked up by other countries as well.
Sonntag, 16. November 2008
'Pay the Piper': Article Summary
The article ‘Pay the Piper’ was published on Economist.com on the 10th of November, 2008. The link to this article is: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12583452
This article deals with Obama’s ambitious plans in regard to improving America’s and, as a result, the World’s environment, though these face certain difficulties. These plans include the goal to, by 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below the rates of 1990, as well as the $150 billion energy overhaul plan. However, three factors also play a role in the future execution of these plans and these are the Congress, the economic crisis as well as the public and their interests.
One would think that since the Democrats are the majority in both houses of congress, Obama would have little difficulty in, for example, passing environmentally friendly bills or in receiving the funding for his projects. However, the Republicans retain enough power to put an indefinite veto on certain bills. In addition, the newly elected democrats have a more moderate stance, rather than a liberal one. The second factor that is hindering Obama’s environmental initiative is the recent economic crisis. Though it is a popular belief that investing heavily into the environmental market will also stabilize the economy, little proof supports this thesis. Big spending to impact America’s rate of emissions or increasing the price of fossil fuels are two options that both would negatively affect the economy or the political image. Therefore it would be easier to tackle one obstacle at a time, starting with the economic crisis. Finally, the economic crisis caused a further decrease in public interest for the environment. The publics worry about global warming is overshadowed by their demand for lower fuel prices.
The best option, it is suggested, is to force polluters to pay for the damage they inflict; however, this repercussion would now extend to the entire American population, not only the large corporations. This contradicts the message that politicians are trying to send; resolving the environmental issue would also relieve the economic situation. Well, you can’t have everything.
This article deals with Obama’s ambitious plans in regard to improving America’s and, as a result, the World’s environment, though these face certain difficulties. These plans include the goal to, by 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below the rates of 1990, as well as the $150 billion energy overhaul plan. However, three factors also play a role in the future execution of these plans and these are the Congress, the economic crisis as well as the public and their interests.
One would think that since the Democrats are the majority in both houses of congress, Obama would have little difficulty in, for example, passing environmentally friendly bills or in receiving the funding for his projects. However, the Republicans retain enough power to put an indefinite veto on certain bills. In addition, the newly elected democrats have a more moderate stance, rather than a liberal one. The second factor that is hindering Obama’s environmental initiative is the recent economic crisis. Though it is a popular belief that investing heavily into the environmental market will also stabilize the economy, little proof supports this thesis. Big spending to impact America’s rate of emissions or increasing the price of fossil fuels are two options that both would negatively affect the economy or the political image. Therefore it would be easier to tackle one obstacle at a time, starting with the economic crisis. Finally, the economic crisis caused a further decrease in public interest for the environment. The publics worry about global warming is overshadowed by their demand for lower fuel prices.
The best option, it is suggested, is to force polluters to pay for the damage they inflict; however, this repercussion would now extend to the entire American population, not only the large corporations. This contradicts the message that politicians are trying to send; resolving the environmental issue would also relieve the economic situation. Well, you can’t have everything.
Montag, 10. November 2008
'Forest-friendly Farming': Article Summary
The article ‘Forest-friendly farming’ was published in the economist on the 6th of November 2008. The link to the article is: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12551566
This article deals with the subject of how there is a possible variation to farming, which could lessen the negative impact of farming on the environment. It is common knowledge that all around the world, species are endangered or disappearing because their natural habitat is turned into farm land; this is especially applicable in the tropics. However, a team of researchers of Stanford University have discovered a method of farming, employed in the Western Ghats (mountain range in south-west India) that, although the area has been cultivated for over 2,000 years, still sustains its biodiversity. This is because the locals mainly cultivate areca palms, which are large, free standing trees, providing a habitat for the regional forest birds. These palms are usually grown alongside other species such as vanilla and bananas, which makes the plantations structurally complex therefore making them, like the forest, compatible for many species. Moreover, these plantations rely on mulches made of leaf debris coming from the forest, therefore making this form of agriculture dependent on an intact ecosystem.
Of course the solution here isn’t to start planting areca palms instead of rice; it is the cultivation of multiple crops, in addition to being slightly dependent on natural resources. This would, potentially, allow for benefits both economically and environmentally. Although this method may work in the given environment, I don’t believe it can be applied to all regions in the world. Firstly, certain regions may depend solely on one crop, which of course is potentially devastating in economic terms; however, changes to this system would probably do more harm than good. Secondly, the climate has to be right for a variety of plants to grow in. Moreover, this step does not really solve the problem for the need of farmland. It is a good step towards preserving the biodiversity in certain areas, yet it isn’t applicable to the entire world.
This article deals with the subject of how there is a possible variation to farming, which could lessen the negative impact of farming on the environment. It is common knowledge that all around the world, species are endangered or disappearing because their natural habitat is turned into farm land; this is especially applicable in the tropics. However, a team of researchers of Stanford University have discovered a method of farming, employed in the Western Ghats (mountain range in south-west India) that, although the area has been cultivated for over 2,000 years, still sustains its biodiversity. This is because the locals mainly cultivate areca palms, which are large, free standing trees, providing a habitat for the regional forest birds. These palms are usually grown alongside other species such as vanilla and bananas, which makes the plantations structurally complex therefore making them, like the forest, compatible for many species. Moreover, these plantations rely on mulches made of leaf debris coming from the forest, therefore making this form of agriculture dependent on an intact ecosystem.
Of course the solution here isn’t to start planting areca palms instead of rice; it is the cultivation of multiple crops, in addition to being slightly dependent on natural resources. This would, potentially, allow for benefits both economically and environmentally. Although this method may work in the given environment, I don’t believe it can be applied to all regions in the world. Firstly, certain regions may depend solely on one crop, which of course is potentially devastating in economic terms; however, changes to this system would probably do more harm than good. Secondly, the climate has to be right for a variety of plants to grow in. Moreover, this step does not really solve the problem for the need of farmland. It is a good step towards preserving the biodiversity in certain areas, yet it isn’t applicable to the entire world.
Freitag, 17. Oktober 2008
'Fewer creatures great and small' Article Summmary
The article ’Fewer creatures great and small' was printed in 'The Economist' on October 16th 2008. Here is the link to the article: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12432305
This article is about how, due to mankind, the rate of extinction is at an all-time high and though steps such as the Convention of Biological Diversity have been taken, no real effort is being made to preserve the world’s biodiversity. The formerly mentioned treaty was signed by nearly all governments in 2002 and vowed to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. However, this goal seems impossible to reach now, as the newest version of the red list of threatened species published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) shows that, for example, 223 species whose condition had changed from the previous year are now closer to extinction. A major factor affecting this rate is global warming, which according to predictions, could kill 20 -30% of species if global average temperatures increased by more than 2°C. What people don’t realize is that many benefits come from natural processes, for example, the pollination of crops, whose losses cost the world inordinate amounts of money each year. A solution, though it is not flawless, was proposed by Johan Eliasch. He stated that if forests were included in the carbon market, therefore forcing the reduction of deforestation (which accounts for very high carbon emissions), then global warming could be slowed and biodiversity could be saved, in addition to poverty being lessened. The problem with this plan is that it would cost the world huge, according to predictions, $4 billion a year for 5 years and a further $ 11-19 billion until 2020. However, deforestation rates would decrease by 75% by 2030 and carbon emissions would sink by 50%. At the moment, the world will have to make do with the small steps made by a small percentage of the world’s countries. Yet at present moment, the economic crisis is probably the primary problem on these governments’ minds.
.
This article is about how, due to mankind, the rate of extinction is at an all-time high and though steps such as the Convention of Biological Diversity have been taken, no real effort is being made to preserve the world’s biodiversity. The formerly mentioned treaty was signed by nearly all governments in 2002 and vowed to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. However, this goal seems impossible to reach now, as the newest version of the red list of threatened species published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) shows that, for example, 223 species whose condition had changed from the previous year are now closer to extinction. A major factor affecting this rate is global warming, which according to predictions, could kill 20 -30% of species if global average temperatures increased by more than 2°C. What people don’t realize is that many benefits come from natural processes, for example, the pollination of crops, whose losses cost the world inordinate amounts of money each year. A solution, though it is not flawless, was proposed by Johan Eliasch. He stated that if forests were included in the carbon market, therefore forcing the reduction of deforestation (which accounts for very high carbon emissions), then global warming could be slowed and biodiversity could be saved, in addition to poverty being lessened. The problem with this plan is that it would cost the world huge, according to predictions, $4 billion a year for 5 years and a further $ 11-19 billion until 2020. However, deforestation rates would decrease by 75% by 2030 and carbon emissions would sink by 50%. At the moment, the world will have to make do with the small steps made by a small percentage of the world’s countries. Yet at present moment, the economic crisis is probably the primary problem on these governments’ minds.
.
Mittwoch, 24. September 2008
Win-Win : Article Summary
This article was on The Economist website, published September 8th 2008. The link to the article is: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12077182
The article revolves around the subject of prizes that create incentive for the development of new ideas and products that could, for example, improve environmental conditions. It states that a well focused prize can lead to ‘radical and sudden breakthroughs’, inspire dedication and, more importantly, solutions that industries seems reluctant to develop. Foundations developing these prizes already exist; for example, the X Prize Foundation created the Progressive Automotive X prize, which offers $10 million to anyone who can design a car that gets 100 miles per gallon. This foundation is brainstorming more ideas for prizes that should inspire new forms of clean, cost effective and renewable energy; it is also open to anyone to submit their own ideas for a prize. Other existing prizes include a prize for a way to remove man made greenhouse gases, for breakthroughs in marine renewable energy, etc. These all have one factor in common: they offer a large amount of money.
Personally, I think the concept of a prize, especially a prize focused on something that everyone can benefit from, is a good one. It allows people’s natural competitiveness and need for the limelight to be focused on something that may improve conditions on earth drastically. However, it has to be considered that not everyone happens to have sufficient spare change to fund such a prize, so it won’t be as if these prizes will allow for leaps in advancement in every area. Therefore, let’s hope that human’s natural competitiveness and greed aren’t the driving force behind these innovations, but the genuine concern for the environment.
The article revolves around the subject of prizes that create incentive for the development of new ideas and products that could, for example, improve environmental conditions. It states that a well focused prize can lead to ‘radical and sudden breakthroughs’, inspire dedication and, more importantly, solutions that industries seems reluctant to develop. Foundations developing these prizes already exist; for example, the X Prize Foundation created the Progressive Automotive X prize, which offers $10 million to anyone who can design a car that gets 100 miles per gallon. This foundation is brainstorming more ideas for prizes that should inspire new forms of clean, cost effective and renewable energy; it is also open to anyone to submit their own ideas for a prize. Other existing prizes include a prize for a way to remove man made greenhouse gases, for breakthroughs in marine renewable energy, etc. These all have one factor in common: they offer a large amount of money.
Personally, I think the concept of a prize, especially a prize focused on something that everyone can benefit from, is a good one. It allows people’s natural competitiveness and need for the limelight to be focused on something that may improve conditions on earth drastically. However, it has to be considered that not everyone happens to have sufficient spare change to fund such a prize, so it won’t be as if these prizes will allow for leaps in advancement in every area. Therefore, let’s hope that human’s natural competitiveness and greed aren’t the driving force behind these innovations, but the genuine concern for the environment.
Montag, 15. September 2008
'Adapt or Die' - Article Summary
This article, with the title 'Adapt or Die', was published on the 11th of September 2008 in The Economist. The link to this article is : http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12208005
The article is about how adaption to global warming is now seen as the better direction to be taking than trying to prevent it, according to environmentalists. The reasons for this are the realization of the speed of global warming and the fact that it affects the poor and those living on island states. Now, ways of aiding (not only financially) those affected by it are being developed by governments and organizations. The UN, for example, is laying down the details for how to control the spending of the first carbon tax that are focused on international adaptation. This means that countries that can't afford to adapt might possibly receive financial aid, to enable them to protect themselves from starvation, rising water levels, etc.
However, certain problems are arising with this new approach to global warming. Problems such as the huge amount of money needed, the fight over what projects deserve priority and how to use the money, etc, can't be pushed into hindsight. Overall, a need to make steps forwards is rising, as is the temperature.
The article is about how adaption to global warming is now seen as the better direction to be taking than trying to prevent it, according to environmentalists. The reasons for this are the realization of the speed of global warming and the fact that it affects the poor and those living on island states. Now, ways of aiding (not only financially) those affected by it are being developed by governments and organizations. The UN, for example, is laying down the details for how to control the spending of the first carbon tax that are focused on international adaptation. This means that countries that can't afford to adapt might possibly receive financial aid, to enable them to protect themselves from starvation, rising water levels, etc.
However, certain problems are arising with this new approach to global warming. Problems such as the huge amount of money needed, the fight over what projects deserve priority and how to use the money, etc, can't be pushed into hindsight. Overall, a need to make steps forwards is rising, as is the temperature.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)