If the sign says 'Do not drink this water'...would you?

While this website has covered the debate about shale gas and the methods of extracting it before now (namely, fracking. See: “Fracking – Not Just a Sci-Fi Swear Word“) there are yet more opinions and views to be examined, given that the water pollution in Pennsylvania in the US has reached desperate levels.

WHAT’S HAPPENING AND WHY?

Ten years ago, people did not know about this gas, let alone how ‘easy’ it would be to extract from the ground. Easy, maybe, but with such an impact on the environment and on human and animal life, is it really the way to go?

Speaking to the BBC, Professor Rob Jackson of Duke University in North Carolina, said; “We found some extremely high concentrations of methane: 64 milligrams of methane per litre of drinking water, compared with a normal level of one milligram or lower[…]” Given that the difference is so low – over sixty-four times what it would normally be – what then can we assume is going to be the impact of the rising concentrations of methane? Certainly worry about the levels reaching explosive hazard levels is one such impact, according to Professor Jackson. As the Nicholas Professor of Global Change for Duke University, Professor Jackson recently co-authored a paper entitled “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing” in which he, along with Stephen G Osbourn, Avner Vengosh and Nathaniel R Warner, published their findings from a series of experiments on drinking water in the north-eastern states of Pennsylvania and New York. The scientists took sixty-eight samples from private water wells; the majority came back contaminated by methane and similar toxic substances above the norm.

Indeed, samples taken from ground water supplies near shale gas drilling sites indicate that methane concentrations are increasing to seventeen times above normal. Given that methane is poisonous, it is easy to see why people are starting to panic.

WHY ARE WE STILL MINING SHALE GAS?

If shale gas mining increases the contamination of the atmosphere and the water supplies with methane, why then is it still being used as a way to obtain cheap fuel? And there is the answer. Comparatively, shale gas is cheaper and quicker to obtain from the ground than its counterparts. As well there is, as of yet, no indications that methane can directly poison people through the water we drink. The greatest risks from shale gas mining seem to be in the explosive factor of the operation. Professor Jackson has stated that he cannot find any “[…]peer reviewed literature on the health effects of low level methane on people[…]” but that he and his colleagues are calling for a medical review of chronic and/or low-level exposure to methane.

The rising methane concentrations in the ground water supply can probably be attributed to ‘leaky gas well casings’ – it is certainly the simplest explanation, but it does lack any semblance of reassurance to the public; if it is simply an issue with faulty equipment, why has the equipment not been replaced and why are the concentrations of methane in the water supply still rising? There is another possibility, but one that strikes Professor Jackson as being less likely – that the gas escapes into the water through fissures in the bedrock that could possibly be caused by the process of fracking; that is, the method of extracting shale gas by funnelling five million gallons of liquid through fissures to, essentially, push the gas out from each hidden well underground. After all, as Professor Jackson has pointed out, there is no evidence yet of contamination in the drinking water supplies from liquids used in the fracking process.

Clearly, this debate is far from over. Professor Jackson and his team have published a paper outlining their recommendations and highlighting what must absolutely be addressed in examining whether the industry of shale gas mining needs to be readdressed. However, when there are videos appearing on the web that show people setting fire to water coming from their kitchen taps, it is difficult to imagine how there could ever be an advantage to such a product.

Posted under Environmental News, News

The worst British wildfires in 30 years follow a record-breaking warm and dry 2011 April

Top Record Temperatures

Last month was the warmest April in the UK since records began in 1910. Provisional figures recently released by the Met Office indicate that many parts of the UK saw temperatures 3 to 5 degrees centigrade higher than it is normal for April. 2007 had already seen the warmest April since records began, so this sets a new and higher milestone only four years after the previous top record. In England, where official figures date back to 1659, April 2011 became the warmest April in 350 years.

The same month saw unusually low amounts of rainfall, with the average national rainfall at 36.7mm –approximately half of the normal amount of rainfall for the month. This has prompted various water suppliers companies throughout the country, such as Wales Water, to issue precautionary warnings asking customers to use water sparingly. During Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons on 4 May, the PM was informed that farmers in the South of England were ‘genuinely concerned’ about shortages of water and possible drought.

The heat wave has been caused by the persistence of a series of high pressure systems over the east of the British Isles. These weather systems have brought warm, dry air from the continent as well as from North African and the Saharan regions. The high pressure has kept away cooler winds that normally come at this time of the year from the Atlantic, bringing moisture and bands of rain over the UK. Whilst it is impossible to attribute any particular weather event directly and unequivocally to Global Warming, an increase in extreme weather patterns and weather events are regarded as a possible sign of Climate Change.

Wildfire Havoc

The unusually warm and dry weather has seen some of the worst wildfires seen in the UK in the last 30 years. Blazes have burned continuously for several days in areas of Wales, the Scottish Highlands, Berkshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire. David Cameron has praised the efforts of fire crews up and down the country battling the blazes and has promised funds towards the countrywide fire fighting operation. In Ireland fire crews have had to deal with more than 1,000 gorse and forest fires over the last 5 days.

Whilst the police are investigating a number of individuals on suspicion of possible arson, many of the blazes are likely to have been initiated unpremeditatedly by the increasing use of Chinese lanterns at wedding ceremonies, country pick nicks and other celebratory events. Fire fighters have asked the public to be aware that Chinese lanterns must be used carefully as their embers can continue glowing for extended periods even after the flame has gone out. Abandoned pieces glass lying on the ground are also known to be the causes of fires when exposed to long spells of warm, dry and sunny weather, as dry leaves are highly flammable.

Whilst dozens of fire fighter crews continue to battle the flames through beatings and dropping water from helicopters, only rainfall is likely to completely quench the advancing blazes. However, showers are of limited help. Only sustained rain will have a lasting effect, as the longevity of the fires means that hot spots buried one meter deep in the undergrowth threaten to reignite the fires that have been put out. Whilst temperatures are expected to hit 26°C over the weekend, it is hoped that forecast thunderstorms offer the fire crews much needed help over the next few days.

Posted under Environmental News

Grand Designs - Products of the Future, Avaliable Today

It is only halfway through the nine days of Grand Designs London 2011 and we at EcoSwitch are already regretting that this year’s exhibition in London is almost over! It has been so much fun and there are so many things to see and do – how could we not love it there? With four main sections, over seven hundred exhibitors, real live chickens and the biggest playhouse ever, this year’s Grand Designs is truly something special.

WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT TO SEE AT THIS YEAR’S GRAND DESIGNS?

In the Grand Restaurant section you can investigate new innovations for the kitchen as well as trying out soups, smoothies and sausages. Yakult have a stand there as well where you can pick up a red-top or a blue-top (the light version, but just as tasty) to try for free. The fudge and ice-cream stands are especially attractive for some of us – we had to be torn away to go back to work! There is also a burger and hot-dog stand where you can try a buffalo, wild boar or venison tasty snack – 100% organic and doubly delicious.

The Garden section is full of shiny things – literally. There are garden rooms that look like a high-class cabana from a Caribbean resort together with saunas and swimming pools. There is also an incredibly fun two-storey playhouse with a slide leading from an upstairs lounge area to the ground-level play area. The good news to covetous adults is that adults are allowed to entertain their inner child and explore the playhouse to their heart’s content, as long as they are careful!

Grand Technology is the section to be in for all those with a serious lust for the new and high-tech. Have a look around the House of the Future presented by Virgin Media with hourly presentations throughout the day and get the latest and most up-to-date advice on all the products about to hit the market. Grand Interiors (sponsored by Dulux), on the other hand, is jam-packed full of everything you need to make your life a little more luxurious. With entertainment options, furniture and lighting, it would really be a shame to miss this section out.

ECOSWITCH’S STAND AT GRAND DESIGNS 2011

While we are not an energy company, as many of you know, we believe passionately in the role of renewable energy in helping curve our impact on the environment. For this reason, at this year’s Grand Designs Ecoswitch is working in conjunction with Ecotricity and Good Energy to promote green energy, that is, energy that comes from renewable sources: water, sunlight and wind. Fossil fuels have played an important part in meeting our energy needs in the past, but now the public have a choice to get their energy from the ‘good stuff’ rather than carbon-fired stations at no extra cost. As well as just being greener and better for the environment and you, there is the fact that, at some point, those deposits of coal and oil from ‘dead dinosaurs’ are going to run out. In Britain, it will always be windy…whether we like it or not!

So for every customer that goes green at Grand Designs, we are planting two trees – one in Malawi and one here in Britain with the Woodland Trust AND handing out a FREE No More Stand-By device. Right there, right then, and you get to walk away with it on the day! We are also instituting a very special raffle in honour of Grand Designs where you can win an EcoKettle (RRP £29.95 for the white version, £39.95 for the chrome one.) All you have to do is put your name and number down on one of our fliers and hand it in at our stand (B41, in the Grand Build section). Simple, easy and entry to the raffle is free. Green, renewable energy is not the only thing on our minds – our staff on the stand can help you with queries about everything to do with a more sustainable lifestyle.

So what are you waiting for? Visit Grand Designs Live 2011 and be mesmerised. And while you are there, do not forget to pop in at the EcoSwitch stand (B41, in the Grand Build section) to know more about renewable energy, sustainable living and to enter a free raffle for an EcoKettle!

The show runs from 30th April to 8th May at London’s ExCeL Centre. Ring 0844 209 7349 or visit Grand Designs for further details.

We hope to see you there.

Posted under Environmental News

Barack Obama surveys damage along the Louisiana coastline from the oil spill. Photograph: Larry Downing/Reuters.

One year on from the devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and it is time to examine whether the situation is getting better or whether it has just stagnated like the oil slick itself on the surface of the water.

WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED? AND WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SINCE?

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the biggest off-shore oil spill in US history, has been the subject of much controversy. Eleven people, hailing from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, died when the explosion occurred – and that was only the start of the problems for the region. The Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, ordered the giant valves which partially hold back the power and water-flow of the Mississippi River to be opened. It was hoped that the massive rush of fresh water would push the oil away from the fertile and endangered land at the mouth of the river. Partially successful, but it was an action that angered oyster fishermen in Louisiana as oysters need salt water to survive and Jindal wiped out vast tracts of oyster beds in one pen stroke when he signed the order. The fishermen have had to live with the desolation of their livelihoods for the last year, now, and they are still looking for answers and the compensation owed to them. Byron Encalade, of the Louisiana Oystermen’s Association, told BBC reporter Emma Simpson that BP’s compensation scheme for the Gulf communities affected by the spill “…is not working…We’d like to know where the money’s gone.”

The oyster fishermen are angered by how their own government has treated them. While the leak started on April 20th last year, was plugged successfully – after a few misfires – on 15th July, it wasn’t until September that the well was permanently sealed. In that time and the following months, the workers of the region have not seen results good enough to pass muster, even though President Obama appointed someone to oversee and run BP’s compensation fund for the Gulf. This man is Ken Feinburg and, despite multiple trips to Louisiana and the neighbouring states where the fishermen and women’s trade has been so severely disrupted, people are questioning as to why they have not seen any of the promised money. Feinburg disputes this and claims “…the program is working…we’re trying to do the right thing.” He told the gathering at a town hall meeting in Louisiana that, of the $4 billion already paid out as compensation, $1.7 billion – £1 billion – has been allotted to Louisiana.

WHO ELSE IS INFURIATED BY THE DISASTER?

The oyster fishermen are not the only people infuriated by the handling of the spill. A number of BP’s shareholders have called for the company to sell more of its assets in order that they might meet the target for compensation – $30 billion (or, £18.4 billion) by the end of 2011. The current amount gathered by the on-going sale of BP’s assets is $24 billion – £14.7 million. Diana Wilson, a shrimp farmer from Texas, came over to London to protest at the BP shareholders’ AGM this weekend. Ms Wilson daubed her clothes and face with crude oil to make a point – arriving in a smart outfit, the deliberate mess was a calculated hit at the handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. She was ejected from the AGM and, later, arrested for disturbing the peace.

Tom Feilden, science correspondent for the BBC, has said that it could be decades before the full impact of the spill is known while supporters and artists at the Tate in London feel, quite vehemently, that the Tate should cut ties with BP. While BP has been a main sponsor of the Tate, the continued jeopardisation of ecosystems through incidents like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (which could have been avoided, “…had existing progressive guidelines and practises been followed…”, according to the final Deepwater Horizon report). This protest of BP’s sponsorship of the Tate is, of course, partially due to several other factors seen as overly controversial, including the company being revealed as a backer of the Murabak regime in Egypt and their investment in the controversial tar sands extraction in Canada.

BUT IS IT ALL REALLY THAT BAD?

Many people are of the opinion that perhaps the oil spill is not as bad as the media and others have made out. Devastating, yes, but not as horrific as first thought. Doctor Jane Lubchenco, for example, is optimistic about the clean-up operation that is being master-minded by several US federal agencies. Dr Lubchenco is administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and believes that the health of the Gulf is “…much better than people feared…”. Together with other agencies, NOAA is dedicating its efforts to cleaning up the Gulf post-spill.

However, how much they have been able to accomplish is up for debate. Claude Gascon, chief science officer for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in the US, says that the information they have received has been “…very sketchy…it is almost impossible to get any idea what that group of agencies and researchers are actually finding” and that “…it is very difficult to know, at the moment, what the scale of the impact has been and will be in the future.” Still, with responsibility for the spill still being argued over, the chances are that this is going to be an issue that will remain in people’s minds for a very long time.

Posted under Environmental News

Google, the world’s most popular internet search engine, has invested $168 million into a solar farm – to be added to the $1.6 billion from the US government. A solar farm, that is, unlike most domestic generators of solar energy in that the site is huge. and looks set to be an indication of the future. Situated in the Mojave Desert, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) will be completed in 2013 (work started in October last year) and will be able to boast of 173,000 heliostats that concentrate the sun’s rays onto a solar tower. The towers (three, in total, on the site) will stand about 137 m (450 Ft.) tall and are expected to generate 392 MW of energy – enough to serve more than 140,000 homes in California during the peak hours of the day.

BUT HOW DOES IT ALL WORK?

The whole system works by mirrors turned to catch the sun and then focusing that power onto solar receivers. The ISEGS complex will reduce CO2 emissions by more than 400,000 tonnes a year and is set to be the example and prototype for many more such super solar farms worldwide. While it is the first such project in the United States, similar projects have been announced in other countries. The most notable of these is in Inner Mongolia in China where a facility is being built near Ordos City and will eventually be capable of producing 2.2 GW of energy – although the project will not be completed until 2019 when full capacity is reached.

The ISEGS project has found its site four and a half miles to the southwest of the town of Primm in California – unremarkable to most and unheard of by many outside of California, but now notable for its proximity to the Ivanpah solar power plant. The project is named after the Ivanpah dry lake near its location and the whole venture is being masterminded by the company BrightSource Energy (www.brightsourceenergy.com). Unlike nuclear power plants, any accidents will not have a hugely disastrous impact on the surrounding area.

This is not the first time that Google have invested in start-up renewable energy plans. Last year, the company invested $38.8 million in a wind farm – but the Ivanpah plant is its largest and most ambitious investment to date.

Until now, Europe has laid claim to most of the world’s solar farms – there are several in Spain, for example – but with companies like the US-owned First Solar rapidly expanding, perhaps this venture will truly become worldwide as people learn to rely more on solar power and less on fossil fuels. Solar power, unlike coal and natural gas deposits deep underground, is highly unlikely to run out any time soon.

Posted under Environmental News, News

A biofuel plant - more than just a blight to the landscape?

There is always controversy surrounding the development of new technologies and scientific discoveries, especially when debating whether biofuels really are the way to the future with regard to our economy and our ecological requirements. However, following the push of biofuels to the forefront of the race to find an alternative for the fossil fuels that we have been using for decades, we are now being told that perhaps this might not the case. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has just produced a report saying that the targets that the EU has set for the production and use of biofuels are unethical and unsafe to both us and our environment.

Clearly, this has come as a shock to some of the biggest companies investing time and money into the advances in this area, but perhaps it should not have been such a surprise. In our current panic over the rapid depletion of fossil fuels and the chaos that they are wrecking on our atmosphere and soil, we are prone to committing ourselves whole-heartedly to anything that seems like it could be the solution to our problems. A new medicine goes through years of tests and trials before it is classed as fit and suitable for humans – and even then there are mistakes made that do not become apparent until many years later. Still, at least the extensive testing means that usually the work is put in to making medicine as safe as possible. Why should it not be the same for the fuels that we use as pesticides and fertilisers, to mention but two of the uses for biofuels?

Working as an independent body, the Nuffield Council is designed to examine the ethical issues raised in the development of medicine and biology – including the area of biofuels – and now they have decided that perhaps striving to hit the targets set by the EU might not be the best way forward after all. Included in the report published by the Council are directives that include;

That biofuels should be environmentally sustainable;

That they should contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gases;

Have costs and benefits that can be distributed in an equitable way.

If this is set against the EU Renewable Directive, which states that biofuels should be accounting for 10% of transport fuel by 2020 in the EU, then there is a clear contrast between what the EU have directed and what the Nuffield Council are now decreeing we should actually be doing. It should be noted that, from the very start, the EU Renewable Directive was a subject of much debate and controversy. Only 3% of transport in Britain uses currently uses biofuels and, of that, only a third of that 3% actually met environmental standards in 2009/10.

There are also numerous conflicts with the idea of introducing an unknown element into the food cycle. If biofuels are used in the manufacture process of fertilisers, then what cost is rolled onto the end product? Fertilising products have always been hotly debated since they became more chemical than natural in their make-up. The fact that we cannot predict what the end result will be only means that people are quickly becoming more concerned about the health of us and our planet. While it is true that we need fuel to produce the food we consume – even the organic vegetables and meat require some form of processing before they hit our shops and tables – some environmentalists and campaigners are calling for a complete cessation in our growing reliance on biofuels.

Perhaps they are right – if you were not assured in the fact that a medicine had undergone rigorous testing to make it as safe as humanly possible, would you agree to take it or give it to your children?

Posted under Environmental News, News

In Japan, the nuclear crisis has been raised to the highest level in recorded history. While nature played a part in the destruction of Japan and the surrounding region, surely the fact that there were four reactors right next to each other did not help. Neither did the flawed earthquake predictions, which lulled Japan and the officials at Fukushima into a false sense of security regarding the safety of the power plant.

Said to be as bad as Chernobyl in 1986, the Fukushima disaster is a highlighted example for the abolition of nuclear power by those opposed to it, and there are a lot of them. The waste produced in the process of generating nuclear power needs to be isolated for varying lengths of time (depending on the type of the waste) until it can be declared to be ‘safe’ and no longer poses a hazard. Our methods of disposing nuclear waste are almost childlike in their simplicity – burial. There is more to it than that, of course, but it essentially boils down to deep burial for the longest lived wastes.

Simple, but is it really safe? No matter how far down the shafts are (500-1000 metres in depth), how thick the concrete walls are, or how much concrete is poured on top, there will always be that lingering fear that we have not been as careful as we could have been. The walls of Fukushima were made out of reinforced concrete – and that did not help when the earthquake hit and the tsunami wave pushed through, decimating almost everything in its path.

Raising the level of the nuclear crisis to 7 is not, however, a result of any sudden, recent incident, but rather a reflection on the total amount of radiation that has been leaked since the emergency began.

Even leaving aside the environmental and political ramifications of the Fukushima disaster, we are left with the humane side of the argument. Anyone who has heard of the dedicated team on the ground in Fukushima, frantically trying to stop the radiation leak will not have failed to have their conscience tugged at. These courageous people have, essentially, given their lives because their bodies and health will never be the same given the amount and the severity of the radiation that they have been exposed to. Would their sacrifice have really been necessary if the proper safety factors had been ticked off, if the warning system had been better or the reactors placed a little further apart from each other? Surely their families now have their reservations towards nuclear power and the power plants that are now erected on nearly every continent.

Over a month on from the earthquake and tsunami that devastated the country, what can we say we have learned about nuclear power and its effects on our world and our lives? Yes, nuclear power has its benefits – it is debatably cleaner and ‘better’ than power derived from fossil fuels – but do those benefits outweigh the disadvantages when human lives are taken into consideration? There are many other alternates available to us, ranging from industrial-sized windmills to solar farms.

And no one has ever been killed while stopping leaks from a solar farm.

Posted under Environmental News, News

Chicxulub Crater, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico - Artist's Impression

The plans to study the Chicxulub Crater buried underneath the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico sound like something out of a Jules Verne story. Going deeper than anyone has been before, the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (the IODP) is planning an expedition to study the bottom of the crater that could very well date from the asteroid strike that killed off the dinosaurs sixty-five million years ago. Steeped in scientific importance and, perhaps, containing traces of life; while the crater plunges depths deeper than any human has descended to, there could very well be life forms of some sort or other down there.

Writing for the BBC, Richard Black has covered this story, saying;

“[The] plan to study the Chicxulub crater by boring 1.5km into the sea bed is among the highlights of ocean drilling projects proposed for the next decade.”

Data from this expedition could very well help predict where and when seismic events will happen – a stock of information that, when properly implemented, could save lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people the world over, with particular attention to the Pacific Ring of Fire from which the latest disasters that afflicted Japan and neighbouring islands originated.

This exploration into the popularly monikered ‘Dino Crater’ is lined up to be included in the IODP’s next major plan, due to take place between 2013-2023. Other projects included in this overarching plan involve detailed study into climate and ocean change, life on the ocean floor and an understanding of the seismic and volcanic behaviour of the Earth’s tectonic plates. The draft of the plan is due to be published within the next month after careful consideration by a research team in Germany.

The centre of the crater is located near the Mexican town of Chicxulub (which can be roughly translated from the Yucatec Maya language to the phrase ‘flea demon’), from where the crater gets its name. It was discovered by a geophysicist named Glen Penfield – in liaison with Alan Hildebrand – in the 1970s and has been a subject of debate ever since. An isotope analysis of the crater and carbon dating of the more easily accessible reaches have shown that the crater dates back to the end of the Cretaceous Period – nearly sixty-five million years ago – and a mass-extinction event that caused the deaths of the creatures we call dinosaurs on an extravagant scale, nearly sending life on Earth back to the level of single-celled organisms.

CHICXULUB CRATER’S IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Investigation of the Chicxulub Crater and the data complied could even prove useful in examining the impact of the environment on climate change. Catherine Mevel, of the Paris-based management agency under the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling (ECORD) umbrella, says that the plan has two potential areas of interest for us in the Northern Hemisphere;

“One is the Arctic – we need to understand the tectonic evolution of the Arctic basin because it has a strong influence on global climate change[…]”

She goes on to say that there are particular gas hydrates trapped in the crater which could be released into our atmosphere if the climate heats up too much. These gas hydrates could prove problematic in the future as our atmosphere is a very delicate balance of oxygen, nitrogen and various other elemental gases that combine to provide the very air we breathe. Clearly, it is in our best interests to investigate these potential emissions and the ‘Dino Crater’ in general as quickly as possible in order to circumnavigate any truly catastrophic hitches that may crop up in the future.

Posted under Environmental News

Extreme Weather in the UK. Picture source: NASA

According to provisional figures released on 6 January 2011 by the UK’s MET Office, the official body charged with assessing meteorological and climatic conditions, last December unveiled the most extreme weather since records began in 1910. December was in fact the coldest month on record with its mean temperature averaging -1.0°C, well below the long-term average of 4.2°C, and dramatically lower than the second coldest December in 1981 which reached 0.1°C.

The top temperature also broke other previous extreme weather records: it became the coldest month in England and Wales since 1986; the coldest in Scotland since February 1947; and in Northern Ireland, it was the coolest month ever recorded.

The Cause of the Extreme Weather

The extreme temperatures were caused by an unusual event of high pressure which deflected the jet stream, a strong wind which brings warm and damp air from the west in an easterly direction, leaving much of Europe exposed to cold air from the North. As a whole, the UK’s mean temperature for the whole winter was 2.4 degrees centigrade which is the second coldest winter since 1985/1986.

The Effects of the Extreme Weather

The extreme weather and temperature drop saw significant amounts of snowfall during the month, caused widespread disruption to public transport, the aviation industry and essential local services. In Northern Ireland, record low temperatures were blamed for leaving 40,000 people without water for up to 12 days, following an unprecedented number of burst pipes. Councils up and down the country faced a backlog of rubbish waiting to be collected for more than two weeks, due to unsafe driving conditions.

By contrast, the University of Alabama at Huntsville, which collects temperature readings gathered by satellites, stated that last year was the second warmest year since satellite records began in 1979. Pending further analyses, the average global temperature for last year could beat 1998 as the warmest year on record. While it is hard to attribute any particular weather event solely to climate change many scientists consider such trends as consistent with the prospect of ongoing global warming.

Record breaking temperatures last year have been accompanied by a string of extreme weather events which have caused havoc to millions and devastated entire communities. In August, widespread wildfires around Moscow claimed more than 5000 lives, according to the Moscow Health Department. Concurrently, Pakistan experienced the worst flood in its history, affecting more than 20 million people and submerging one-fifth of its total land area. Floods also ravaged four Chinese provinces during the summer, displacing more than 10 million and killing thousands. These, however, are some of the worst examples of a large list of extreme weather events, from drought and heat wave to flood and big freezes which have affected people globally.

For more information you can visit the MET offices website or click on the link extreme weather to find more detailed statistical information.

Posted under Environmental News

Not always high on the list of questions when it comes to the ins and outs of a new government budget, the impact of shifts in public spending on potential environmental targets is nonetheless an important issue. With the new budget announced, it’s imperative that discussions over its potential for environmental reform are brought to light.

What then, were the environmental concessions?The Guardian reported as follows:

“It looked like the palest of green budgets but Treasury calculations suggested that the series of small but significant transport, tax and investment measures announced could cumulatively lead to the reduction of nearly 80m tonnes of CO2 – nearly 15% of all UK climate change emissions – by 2020. The biggest benefits, said the Treasury, should come from the new green investment bank which the government hopes will encourage a £2bn kick-start for the low carbon economy. Together with initiatives – that the chancellor did not specify in his speech – to encourage biomass burning as opposed to fossil fuels, help for electric and other ultra-low carbon vehicles, this could lead to a saving of 51m tonnes of CO2 by 2020, it says. The new bank, it said, will have an exclusive low carbon focus, and will concentrate on green transport infrastructure and offshore wind.”

When combined with plans from the Department of Energy and Climate Change – which, through the Low Carbon Transition Plan, is looking to change the way that the UK produces and consumes – the new budget could have some favourable environmental impacts. Indeed, a 15% drop in the UK’s total carbon emissions is no bad thing, and whilst many might argue that a larger cut would be needed, the percentage represents something of a commitment when it’s considered that the current government could have been replaced, come May.

What it does show is that, whilst many would favour strong environmental commitments, the practical implications of such commitments aren’t so well supported; the green benefits of the new budget have slipped many by, as people (quite understandably) focus on those shifts which will more greatly affect their day to day lives.

Nonetheless, the new 2010 budget has made some useful steps toward a progressive environmental policy, and given the circumstance, should get some fair praise indeed.

Posted under Environmental News