Skip to main content

Climate change: Some frightening stats

For years scientists have been warning, and being ignored, about climate change and its potential dire consequences. The public has now taken up the issue, and belatedly, politicians, previously sceptical, have realised that global warming is a hot political button. In Australia, even politicians like John Howard and some of his Ministers at least sprout climate change, even if, as one suspects, they neither understand it, let alone embrace the issue.

The Independent publishes some frightening and revealing stats:

"The accelerating destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is now being recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories.

The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists."

And:

"Most people think of forests only in terms of the CO2 they absorb. The rainforests of the Amazon, the Congo basin and Indonesia are thought of as the lungs of the planet. But the destruction of those forests will in the next four years alone, in the words of Sir Nicholas Stern, pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than every flight in the history of aviation to at least 2025."

Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch and his News Limited have seemingly embraced the climate change problem. He is even walking to work, although it is hardly a strenuous walk from his home to the office. But what is striking though, as reported by the SMH, is the effect of News Limited taking positive steps to alleviate, or at least reduce, carbom emissions.

"According to Murdoch snr, the process [that is, greenhouse gas neutrality] - which was only announced this week but which has been under way for almost a year - has made good business sense. Reducing energy usage not only cuts greenhouse gas emissions but saves money, too. Admittedly, a media and entertainment conglomerate is not exactly a smokestack industry. But it is slightly surprising that its activities generated 641,150 tonnes of greenhouse gases last year.

So News Corp cutting back to zero emissions would be the equivalent, Murdoch said, of turning off London for five days. It was an interesting analogy, given some of his columnists in Australia had criticised Earth Hour (which was, incidentally, supported by the publisher of this newspaper, Fairfax Media), where people were encouraged to turn off the power for just an hour.

News Corp's greenhouse gas audit uncovered some useful ways to save money and cut emissions at the same time. Like most global companies, it had never added up the costs of powering all those inefficient light bulbs. According to Murdoch, replacing bulbs in their exit signs will reduce carbon emissions by almost 200 tonnes.

The independent audit of News Corp activities also revealed some interesting, if slightly useless, information. Each copy of The Times of London produces 0.154 kilograms of CO2 equivalents. What isn't useless is that the exercise in calculating that figure can produce ways to reduce emissions."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...