In a sweeping move to win Republicans and moderate Democrats on energy legislation, US President Barack Obama has recently endorsed nuclear power with revised vigour. In his State of the Union address, Obama outlined the next budget year for the US to include billions more dollars in support of new nuclear reactors.

Despite deep-set concerns over radioactive waste, Obama's administration has refocused its tentative outlook on nuclear power to concentrate on a White House priority - climate and energy legislation. Such reaffirmations have been set in state planning to provide a growing number of 'clean' energy jobs to neighbouring districts.

US spokesmen have addressed Obama's actions as reflecting his long term support of nuclear power. However, there has been considerable pressure on the White House for not exploring the viable role nuclear energy and its existing infrastructure can play in mitigating global warming.

Presently, there are over one hundred nuclear reactors in operation, providing around 20 per cent of US electricity. But the potential of nuclear energy and its operating success in pollution-free power sources outweighs even some of the more esteemed favourites, such as wind power, solar and hydroelectric dams. Nuclear energy contributes 70 per cent of power in this field. And US senators are ever-more aware of these potentials.

Nuclear power generation in the US has proved to be a remarkably safe and reliable form of power generation since its first sites came online. However, in order to ensure that nuclear power can act as a viable source of energy for the US and other global markets, engineers and not scientists have got their work cut out for them. It is less with the technology of nuclear power rather than with the constructability of nuclear units throughout the US that need to be addressed.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, for instance, plans to see 100 plants built over the next 20 years. This is not unrealistic according to the Environmental Protection Agency who, after recent surveys, postulate 180 new reactors would be supporting the US energy grid by 2050.

As with any national plans to fully integrate a modified - and by all means advanced - method of generating power, the changes made to the face of American power industries will be vast and demanding. And this has evidently been acknowledge by White House planners.

Even Obama himself has changed the course of his rhetoric to suit forthcoming advancements. He said last week:

"Up until now, the administration has been pursuing a national windmill policy instead of a national energy policy, which is the military equivalent of going to war in sail boats."

Brook Buchana, a spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain, has stated that the senator was enthused by the President's momentum, but also highlighted some of the potential quandaries facing the current administration.

McCain, who criticised Obama's standing on nuclear power throughout the 2008 campaign, remains, along with a large number of state senators, unclear as to whether or not the President receives full backing at this time in present. Industry talks are set to clarify some of the next steps over the oncoming months.

Posted under Articles, Climate

Reports from the Renewable Fuels Agency have warned that using bio-fuel in vehicles may be having adverse effects on the environment. A watchdog recently reported that the use of bio-fuels could actually be helping to destroy the rain forest rather than saving it. Enquiries also point to the possible rise in pump prices due to the Government's policy of ensuring fuel companies add bio-fuels to stand along side petrol and diesel.

Over 1 million hectares of land was used in Britain to contribute approximately 2 per cent of the required fuel last year.

This is a relatively new initiative enforced by the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation, one that is in place to shepherd a growing proportion of bio-fuel into the UK fuel market. On average, 3.25 per cent of fuel must be renewably sourced this year. And by 2020, this figure will rise to 13 per cent. Although this is a positive step for the renewable fuel markets, its immediate impact on consumers may increase fuels prices quite considerably.

The Renewable Fuels Agency revealed that leading fuel companies had previously exploited a loophole which excused them from reporting the exact source of almost 50% of the bio-fuel they supplied to filling stations last year. In 2009, Esso identified the source of only 6 per cent of its bio-fuel and BP, with a similarly low figure, reported only 27 per cent. This activity has been subscribed to the somewhat loose practise that fuel companies are able to describe fuel origin as "unknown" if it is from recently cleared land.

Grey areas such as these need to become a clear Green before 2020, where over a tenth of fuel will be required to have come from renewable sources - a reality which requires the significant adoption of large patches of land. The agency's concerns over the "unknown" areas of last year's reports stem from the threat of a net release of carbon. Such carbon release may have been detrimental to last year's bio-fuel savings as a whole if, for instance, even a small percentage of the "unknown" land was carbon-rich grassland or forestland.

Another concern that has been flagged by recent reports is the method that some companies have partaken in to ensure they achieve bio-fuel targets.

A majority of fuel companies have been keeping up their bio-fuel obligation by buying large quantities of palm oil. Although palm oil is a relatively cheap alternative it is also, potentially, one of the most threatening to the environment due to the carbon-release caused by deforestation in order to create plantations. The Renewable Fuels Agency added that industry leaders had failed to invest in more expensive, sustainable palm oil and have thus stimulated rather dubious areas of the renewable field.

This news comes at the same time, under a European directive, that from March 2011 fuel companies will receive another get-out-clause; that being, fuel firms will not be required to declare using rain forest land if the trees were removed before 2008.

Posted under Articles, Climate

More than ever before the Copenhagen climate Change Summit drew interest and scrutiny on the political side of climate change and global warming problems. Now, all eyes are fixed firmly on the negotiators, and the lack of development at the summit has angered many who would brand those negotiators as the culprits, and has been reported in newspapers, on blogs, news websites and social networks.

There was nothing of the sort in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol was a matter of great press interest, but nothing of the level of scrutiny reached other forms of expression. But the move towards the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit has coincided with the rise in blogging, and now a whole host of angry activists - neither politicians nor journalists - are getting in on the act.

Putting pressure on both the politicians involved and the journalists expected to deliver interpretation of those actions to the world, blogs and social networks have allowed for an explosion of public opinion on the summit. One such example comes from Radiohead front-man Thom Yorke, who attended the summit and kept the Radiohead website in a state of frequent flux with his thoughts on the talks.

In a final flurry of anger, he wrote as follows:

"i guess this time of year is a time for serious reflection and i have been doing a lot of that since coming back from copenhagen.
you know what has stunned me coming back is the anger you can taste in the air about this, everybody i meet wants to talk about it.. everyone is angry and despairing and i have tried to remain positive when i talk to them about it.. it has perhaps awakened something in the back of the mind of sane people throughout the world who perhaps naively assumed that something positive would come of these talks."

And anger has been the reaction for so many that it will now be hoped that the unsatisfactory deal done at Copenhagen will not be met by an equally disappointed lack of protest and backlash from those who oppose its weaknesses.Still in the immediate aftermath, it is difficult to tell. Let's hope, though, that at a grass-roots level, something can be done.

Posted under Articles, Climate

What is it to be environmentally aware these days? It seems that there is no such direct answer. A few years ago recycling, using public transport and buying Organic would've qualified you as an environmentalist in most UK homes. Nowadays, as the threats of Climate Change become ever more apparent, we can see that all our day-to-day actions have ramifications.

This little revelation, as obvious as it is, has shocked most of us into not only considering our own activities within an ecological world but also valuing the work of others. And it's true: almost everything has a Green edge. That is, from your next door neighbour down the road, to the top-end business corporations, everybody can see that it pays to be Green. Businesses sink or sail under this gust of fresh air. And consumers too - having built themselves the supermarket ceremony of digesting the back of product packets in order to contents-check what it really is they're buying - recognise the relevant eco-activities and are impressed by governed Green Seals of approval.

And so it seems that to be environmentally aware today is to question the effects you'll have on tomorrow. Whether we choose to see the worth in this new culture is entirely up to us. But it is up to us. Questioning the real 'value' of our everyday products and services is key. And sometimes the simplest changes are right in front of our noses. Did you know that switching energy tariffs is a sure way to support the shift we need away from fossil fuel consumption? It's true: as a result of growing concern over the earth's finite fossil fuel resources, energy companies have designed green energy tariffs to meet the demands of an ever-emergent environmentally aware market.

Did you also know that it costs just as much to change energy tariffs from your traditional 'grey' suppliers to a 'green' one; but now with the added bonus that next time you switch-on you'll be safe in the knowledge that you are minimising the carbon impact on our environment whilst encouraging others to source their power from renewables too.

It's a cyclical pattern: the consumer demands that at least a portion of their energy is sourced from renewable sources (solar power, wind farms, water turbines etc); power suppliers recognise this demand and align their business service accordingly, investing in the generation of 'clean' energy; other competing firms notice this developing market and bustle for market space, creating further services, again making further investments into renewable sources, and attempting to under-cut the prices of the leading tariffs. This cycle repeats and renews itself until the market is fully developed to meet all the needs of its Green market. And why? Simply because we 'read the back of the packaging' and made the quick calculation for whether or not it is sustainable.

Isn't that brilliant? And it doesn't have to stop there: checking your tariff (which you can do now by clicking the ecotricty link below) is the perfect place to start questioning the services you have in place right now. Just as scanning the ingredients of the food we put into our bodies has become instinctive, so will our ways of valuing, or, if you like, 'calculating' the sum of our day-to-day activities for tomorrow: this will become a second nature we can all invest our pride in.

Posted under Articles, Climate, EcoWarriors

A Hindu theologian, living in Brecon, Wales, has discovered possibly one of the simplest ways to carve our domestic carbon footprint down to its bare essentials. Akhandadhi Das, through his study of Hinduism and the religion's focus on the symbiotic relationship between mankind and the cow, has began to advocate a life without meat as a cause to help decrease the carbon emissions created by UK markets driving intense beef farming.

Mr Das, who found Hinduism in his adult life, has taken an economic edge to his new found enlightenment: "I've been following Hinduism all my adult life and over the years have got very much involved in environmental projects, both here in the UK and in India. My big interest at the moment is the Food Chain. As far as I can see, there is one single thing that each one of us can do that would make a huge impact to our planet, to our carbon footprint, to changing Climate Change, and that is go vegetarian."

One of several religious representatives who attended the Faith in the Environment conference hosted by BBC Wales in November 2009, Mr Das is firm in his belief that vegetarianism is the right step but not for ethical reasons:

"The reason is that the meat industry is responsible for more green house gases than all of the transport systems of the planet. It's destroying the rain forest - two acres disappear every second - given over to temporary grazing and production of soya to feed animals fattening them for beef. This can't be sustained, even for the handful of people on the planet eating that never mind the rest of the population properly."

He continues. "What we need is a holistic approach to the food chain. That, I think, is summarised in the Hindu which really incorporates the symbiotic relationship that humans have with cows. The cow produces the miracle food milk, eats grass that grows freely all over the place; the bull ploughs the land, provides draft, and is the power and the bread-winner. If humans concentrated on their relationship with the cow and the bull, they would enrich the earth with manure; improving the soil, improving productivity and, actually, we could happily feed the planet in a way that is not exploitative either of the earth and the animals."

Mr Das' studies are rooted in the Hindu concept 'Ahimsa' which translates to 'non-violence'. The concept itself goes beyond the obvious state of not being violent to each other, it practises a reciprocal relationship with man and his surroundings in an attempt to achieve Harmony with his Environment.

According to reports in 2006 by the Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative, the livestock industry is currently one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide. Its impact on the planet includes; air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and an increasing loss of biodiversity. Mr Das' approach to vegetarianism is one that should be expanded on with regards to the ineffective and inefficient infrastructures that today hold our meat markets in place.

For more information on this subject and to see Mr Das' interview in full, click here or visit the BBC website.

Posted under Articles, Climate, EcoWarriors

Who's responsibility is it to question and answer the ever-changing problems of the world? Traditionally it has fallen to the artists of civilisation to raise these never ending questions and invite us, the spectators, to participate and think. However, one thing has remained the same: there is no clear or set solution: no straight line.

And as science, technology and industry have reached their own contemporary boundaries, pushing these limits together and individually, they too have asked the same questions with their very own specific languages. So what is it that the arts have to offer to, what seems like, a question only a synthesis of the latter three can answer?

Never before have we seen such a direct and clear acknowledgment that planet Earth is under threat. Headline after headline reinforces these troubled times in waves. Climate change too has become quite a colloquialism, and one that, unfortunately, has become part of the mis-understood idiom of the 21st century. Rain forests are in decline, the O-zone layer is deteriorating and ice-caps are shrinking back into the sea. The only things that seem to be on the increase are pollution levels and the general sense of overwhelming bewilderment that all this information can weigh upon one mind alone.

Is there any hope or solution? A collection of exhibitions, talks and seminars held at the Royal Academy of Arts are inviting the public to respond to these very issues. Earth: Art of a changing world is one example of how art today attempts to grasp the discursive questions relating to climate change and the environment. Through the eyes of contemporary artists, looking to address topical, environmental issues, present time old questions in today's more than relevant situation. The Royal Academy of Art explains:

"'Earth: Art of a changing world' brings together the work of over thirty leading contemporary artists in order to show how art can help us to explore and debate the issues surrounding climate change. Many works in the exhibition highlight both the beauty and fragility of the natural world, leading us to think about our own impact on the environment

As the title of the exhibition suggests, our planet is already experiencing change and the exhibition also invites us to consider the cultural as well as environmental consequences of rising temperatures."

The success of this exhibition and exhibitions just like it being held around the country depend on its participating spectators. That being said, the very concept of this kiln of art exhibition begins to works its way into the imagination before even setting foot into a gallery. If art, artists and their spectators are to help 'save' the world, it seems highly significant that what must be done in order to achieve its result, is to hold a public exhibit: one where anyone is invited to simply turn up, look, and begin to question. Whatever those questions may be.

It's true to say that everyone has a different interpretation, a unique way of understanding the possible meaning of a single piece of art, but whatever the maxim 'seeing is believing' may mean to you, the Royal Academy of Arts, regional galleries and artists up and down the country, are hoping to open your eyes, whichever way they can.

Posted under Articles, Climate, Events

During this month's UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen it has been leaked that a plan to create and build an offshore wind power supergrid in the North and North West seas. Dubbed the "North Seas' Countries Offshore Grid Initiative" the action has been signed by a conglomerate of European countries, including; Denmark, Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Ireland.

In essence, the plan has been devised to unite and link individual 'national' power generation to a broader and less localised market of energy. For instance, the offshore wind parks throughout the various countries signed to the initiative will all be linked via a power network; therefore the power generated in Germany can be brought, sold and used in, say, Denmark or France - and vice versa. The idea behind this agreement is to breakdown any threats of potential energy 'races', where countries compete industrially and economically for the energy available to the Earth.

This action eliminates some of the concerns that UN countries would attempt to monopolise aspects of renewable energy, which might potentially create rifts within the United Nations, and instead allow a hospitable market - encouraging further participants to join.

Similar initiatives exist to help support the production and infrastructure of renewable energy within the UN but have predominantly been prescribed to unite a small number of countries. The "North Seas' Countries Offshore Grid Initiative", however,  looks to expand on this reciprocal relationship throughout renewable markets and the countries involved. 

Ireland's Department of Communications, announced in a press release earlier this month that the initiative will allow Irish wind farms to "connect directly to Europe, not only securing our energy supply but allowing us to sell the electricity produced on a wider market."

Still in its fledgling stage, the agreement is set to undergo improvements and advancements in order to secure the integrity of the pact. At this stage, the countries involved are still predominantly unsure of the net costs involved in such an expedition; furthermore, it is still unclear whom it is that will be assigned the megalith production and tasking services, such as maintenance and security of the plants. The wind farms and transmission lines are also still relatively immature at this stage.

However, seeing that the initiative goes ahead and to plan, the "North Seas' Countries Offshore Grid Initiative" will undoubtedly make a significant impact in helping Europe reach its target of generating 20% of its power from renewable sources by 2020 - perhaps the cornerstone of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conferences.

Posted under Articles, Climate

Today is the day that world leaders join the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, and where talk will focus on emissions cuts, carbon trading schemes, the green ambitions for the US and China, it could easily be forgotten that the key to long term development lies in green resources.

Understandably, the conference and the lead up to it focused on the respective positions of the US, India, China and the European nations on immediate emissions cuts and CO2 emissions limits. Across the media the summit has been relayed as a 'make or break' fortnight in climate change policy and global warming politics; it must deal first with snap decisions, with catalysts and triggers - with the immediate problem - before it can discuss future development and sustainability.

In doing so, though, it risks losing sight of the climate change problem at its most problematic level: that of future generations. Certainly at current the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit is looking to safeguard future generations by curbing the behaviour of current times, but it must also look to the development of a climate change policy that reflects a continued effort at keeping CO2 emissions.

Green resources are the key to that effort.

Green Resources Develop Continued Low Carbon Economies

In developing a long term goal for low carbon emissions and climate change policy, though, it is imperative that world leaders and environment ministers settle on some framework for green resources - renewable energy, potentially nuclear, and also carbon capture and storage (CCS) - so that any emissions limits put in place at Copenhagen can be sustained and developed.

Whilst green resources are implicit in any emissions cuts at the conference, it must also be remember that - much like the arguments about binding or non-binding emissions targets - green resources can only develop globally with a binding framework. If there's no binding framework on development and implementation of green resources, then their inclusion and their development is only tacit.

And if their development is only tacit, then their development is slower. And if their development is slower, then the growth of green resources that will help major nation's transition to low carbon economies is stunted.

Green Resources Must Grow as Part of a Binding Framework

Alongside pledges for emissions cuts at Copenhagen, then, should come a commitment to developing green resources across nations, as a means for achieving low carbon transition and CO2 emissions reductions.

Creating a framework for sustainability and further development too, it ensures that where Copenhagen addresses the needs of the short-term, it also safeguards longer term goals for climate change policy and global warming politics, in years to come.

Let us see then, whether the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference can set such long-term goals, as it struggles to set the short-term ones.

Posted under Articles, Climate

Now, it's fair to say that most of us enjoy a good tree. Sound weird to you? It also wouldn't be too far from the truth if we admitted to nudging someone close by so we could point and say "Look at that; that's a beautiful tree". Even stranger? It's a funny thing to think about when isolated like that, but in today's society, we live, recognise and at once forget the critical importance of our luscious leafy lovables. So here at EcoSwitch we've compiled a refreshing reminder to help us once again see...Why All The Fuss About Trees?

Why are Trees for Me?

Hopefully it doesn't need to be mentioned again, but trees actually give us LIFE! Literally, if we didn't have trees then we wouldn't be here. Their responsibility to and for us forms part of the Earth's glorious ecological balance. Without them we wouldn't even be able to take a breath of oxygen to say "goodbye" with.
The balance is crucial and fundamental to human existence on Earth: as part of the photosynthesis process, trees "take in" CO2 from the air, separating the carbon from the oxygen molecules; the carbon is then absorbed by the tree, releasing the oxygen molecules into the atmosphere, as a waste product, for us to breathe in, and return the favour. It's a bit like a biological see-saw.

But, apart from giving us a critical element of life, they can do much more! Trees have provided foodstuffs, such as nuts and fruits; supported homes for a vast majority of ecological species and eco-systems; provide the shade and shelter necessary for life to cultivate and evolve (just think, if we didn't have rain forests, what life forms we'd be without); produce herbs and primary resources for a lot of medicines and pharmaceuticals; they're helping us combat climate change (trees absorb pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide) and supporting us by enriching the soils, preventing floods, and, well, basically, keeping the shades of the globe Green.

The list goes on; but our ecological support worker has been developing and evolving its life affirming techniques over millions of years. And now, if falls within our reaches to see (or stop) the depletion of forestation and cycles of the ever-helpful, ever-Green - tree. So what are we to do about it?

"Hug" a tree. It is as simple as that. Go out into the big wide world and do what it is you can to help support the life of trees.

So, I Should Go Hug A Tree Now?

Well, in a word - yes! Why not? How great would it be if thousands-upon-thousands of office workers, business men, nurses, mums, dads, who-evers, suddenly burst out their door and hugged the first tree they found? Would this be the sort of action the eyes at 10 Downing Street might need to see? Perhaps.

Okay, that's not exactly what "Hug" a tree really means here. Instead, it is more a thought of "support". Think about how you, in the best way available, can help support the growth (as opposed to the depletion) of trees. Ask yourself "What am I doing to help?" or "What is it I can do?"

And if you're really stuck, we've outlined a few simple solutions to help encourage those bigger changes, until they're ready to stand on their own.

• Planting Trees - a great way to tip the scales back in the tree's favour, is to donate trees overseas (click here to find out more)
• Lifestyle Changes - recycling, using recycled paper products and looking out for the FSC logo
• Help out a Tree Charity - there're a loads out there; trees for cities is a great start

Posted under Articles, Climate

Hydrogen is a hotly touted energy source for many, and a form of energy to be cautioned away from for others. It is, however, the focus of quite substantial current development and spending. Hydrogen also has a unique place in the public imagination following its place in the futurism schematics of past decades; put forward as a fuel for for cars and transportation machines, many of us will remember the story of the hydrogen powered car that 'the corporations won't let us have'.

Hydrogen (H) is produced from water (H20); when the hydrogen is combined with oxygen (O), it produces energy.

The hydrogen must first be produced from water, then, before it can be used as a fuel. Electrolosis of water is one method of 'getting the hydrogen out' of the water; it is paramount that the energy used for the electrolosis process is kept at a low level in order for the whole enterprise to be worthwhile (i.e., so that it isn't the case that more energy is spent than is gained); the energy used for this electrolosis should also be of a renewable kind, from a green source. Hydrogen, produced in this way, could then be a viable alternative to fossil fuels. But done wrongly, more energy will be spent producing the hydrogen than is gained when the hydrogen is eventually used as a fuel; and if the energy used to produce the hydrogen is from 'dirty' fossil fuels, then the whole enterprise starts to look pretty un-green.

Those who wish to promote hydrogen as a fuel of choice in a future green energy economy point to its 'clean' nature when used a fuel for cars or engines; there is no volatile, noxeous or pollutive gases in its exhaust, and instead, only water vapour is released. The controversy arises instead from the energy used in its creation and transportation as a fuel- this is where the current development process needs to iron out the problems. One possible option to aleviate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the production of hydrogen is to have carbon capture or carbon sequestration used where the hydrogen is produced: carbon capture, however, is a controversial issue in many people's books, and hasn't been resolved satifactorily for everyone. It seems rather a bad and wasteful idea to pump out CO2 willy nilly, with the hope of this gas being 'captured'.

The use of renewable energy to produce hydrogen from water is a way out of the fossil fuel method of production. A hybrid of hydrogen power with wind or solar is a hopeful option- in this way, the wind (freely available and renewable) can be used not only to create power for the grid, but also to electrolise water and gain hydrogen; the hydrogen is thus made without damaging the atmosphere with fossil fuel pollutants and CO2, and the hydrgoen thus gained can be used as an alternative power source when wind or sunlight is not strong. The energy sources thus bolster each other. The use of excessive energy to store the hydrogen (a very delicate substance), however, would still need to be reversed.

The main argument against using hydrogen as an alternative fuel, then, is that it isn't freely available (like wind) and needs energy to 'create' it- and this use of energy in hydrogen's production can also have the side effect of producing harmful greenhouse gases and pollutants.
Amongst other issues is the fact that hydrogen is a gas at most temperatures, which requires energy to store and maintain.

Motorised vehicles, for which hydrogen has been historically linked in an optimistic manner, are generally being converted to electricity instead; Ford have dropped all plans to make hydrogen powered cars, and are instead planning only to electrify their vehicles.

Despite these issues and concerns, hydrogen production is nevertheless a large expanding indistry. According to the Chemical Economics Handbook, SRI, July 2001, it is estimated that 50 million tons of hydrogen were produced globally in 2004, next to 170 million tonnes of oil. According to the University of Leeds, the growth rate of hydrogen, worldwide, is around 10 per cent per year

At present, the figures show that barely any of the hydrogen being produced is coming from renewable sources- figures seem to agree on about 5%. The rest is from dirty fuels. The Chemical Economics Handbook puts the percentages of energy methods for procuding hydrogen at 48% natural gas, 30% oil, and 18% coal, water electrolysis 4%- a miserable figure from a green perspective.

Let us hope, then, that if this form of energy will continued to be used in such large quantities, a severe reversal happens in how it is produced; and if not, then other sources of energy are quickly found to replace it.

Posted under Climate, Electricity Generation, Gas & Electricity, Renewable Energy