Natural Environment Blog

Solar panels in the Utah Desert. As C.G. Abbott predicted back in 1928, “In time, manufacturing will to a great extent follow the sun.”

When I was growing up in the 1970s I can’t remember anyone talking about solar power or environmental issues. So it is surprising to learn that so many forward-thinking people in the 19th and early 20th century were eloquently trying to raise the topic of the environment.

The topic is discussed far more openly today – and people really have started to listen.

Here are some great old and new quotes about man’s attempts to harness nature and produce energy.

1. Henry David Thoreau: “Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth.”
American philosophical writer Thoreau lived in the 19th century before the age of the aeroplane increased mankind’s already-sizeable carbon footprints. He would surely have approved of attempts to promote clean and renewable forms of energy.

2. Frank Shuman: “The human race must finally utilise direct sun power or revert to barbarism.”
Shuman’s quote comes from a letter he wrote to the Scientific American magazine in 1913.
The American engineer invented curved solar mirrors which reflected the heat of the Egyptian sun and heated water; producing steam to power pumps which irrigated cotton fields.

3. C.G. Abbott: “In time, manufacturing will to a great extent follow the sun.”
In 1928, American astrophysicist C.G. Abbot raised the possibility of deserts becoming great industrial areas through the development of solar power.
Today, his vision does not seem to be a mirage. The world’s biggest solar power installation is located in the Mojave Desert in the United States and a 12-square-kilometre solar farm is due to be constructed in a desert city in Morocco.

4. Albert Einstein: “The environment is everything that isn’t me.”
This concept is far simpler that e=mc squared!

5. Sir George Porter: “I have no doubt that we will be successful in harnessing the sun’s energy… if sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago.”
British scientist Sir George Porter made this claim in 1973. He would go on to be a major contributor to the public understanding of science through being president of the influential Royal Society scientific organisation.

6. Jimmy Carter: “Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.”
US President Jimmy Carter made this statement in a televised speech in April 1977. He might not have been a particularly successful President but this quote shows his foresight. You can’t imagine his successor, Ronald Reagan, issuing a similar warning.

7. Warren Christopher: “Environmental degradation – like overpopulation, refugees, narcotics, terrorism and organised crime – is a worldwide problem that doesn’t stop at a nation’s borders.”
Warren Christopher served as US Secretary of State under Bill Clinton and clearly saw protecting the environment as a global, rather than a national, problem.

8. Al Gore: “Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it’s a challenge to the moral imagination.”
US politician Al Gore might have lost a presidential election contest against George W. Bush Jnr but he was a lot more successful at educating the public about environmental issues.

9. Robert Redford: “I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defence of our resources is just as important as defence abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend?”
The American actor, who starred in films such as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, has long been an advocate of green living. His comments show that he is as articulate without a film script as he is with one.

10. Let’s end this article on a note of hope with a quote from Roger Tory Peterson: an educator who was one of the leading inspirations for the 20th century environmental movement. “Not all is doom and gloom. We are beginning to understand the natural world and are gaining a reverence for life – all life.”

James Christie writes for Strenson Solar: provider of solar panels in Brighton.

Earlier this year, I wrote about the Prince’s Rainforest Project website. One of the main aims of that project is to make the world’s forests “more valuable alive than dead”.

To recap, this is what Prince Charles says this about how to save the rainforests:

It seems to me that the central issue in this whole debate is how we put a true value on standing rainforests to the world community – we simply have to find ways of putting a price on them which makes them more valuable alive than dead

Well, one company is attempting to do just that.

Canopy Capital, which was established in 2007, is a company that is attempting to drive capital into rainforests. 

They have already entered a partnership with Iwokrama International Centre (IIC) in Guyana in a deal that is believed to be the first of its kind.

How do They Valuate a Rainforest?

Canopy Capital believes that a rainforest should be valuated based on the services it provides.  Just as your gas company provides a service, a rainforest also provides a service.

More importantly, a rainforest can only provide these services while its alive.

What Services Does a Rainforest Provide?

Canopy Capital believes that the ecosystem services that rainforests provide us with, should not be taken for granted. The services that rainforests provide include:

• generate rainfall
• cool the atmosphere
• store carbon
• moderate weather conditions
• sustain biodiversity

These are services that we currently get for free, but perhaps we should be paying for them? If all the world’s rainforests were chopped down, how would these services then be provided?  

Canopy Capital say:

It would take the equivalent of 50,000 times the daily energy output of the world’s largest hydropower station to evaporate the 20 billion tonnes of water coming off the Amazon each day

“What’s the point of making a machine to capture carbon out of the atmosphere when rainforests do it for free? It’s cheaper to maintain that than to build a new one” says Andrew Mitchell, Director of the Global Canopy Program (GCP) and a partner in Canopy Capital.

Even Prince Charles shares this sentiment. He has described rainforests as “Giant global utilities providing an essential service to humanity on a vast scale”.

About paid rainforest services, Mitchell says “Paying communities and governments to maintain forests for us, like a global utility benefiting the world, will one day be as natural as paying for your electricity bill”.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has been completely hammered over the announcement of their upcoming world tour in 2009.

The tour will enable 88 paying passengers the opportunity to visit, and learn about some of the 19 highest priority places that WWF operate in. Transport will be provided in the form of a private jet. Experts will present a series of lectures to passengers en route. 

News sites and blogs have accused the WWF of hypocrisy due to the amount of carbon the expedition will produce. According to Steven Milloy of the JunkScience website:

…the 36,800-mile trip in a Boeing 757 jet will burn about 100,000 gallons of jet fuel to produce roughly 1,231 tons of CO2 in 25 days

Here’s a collection of articles I’ve encountered slamming the WWF over this expedition:

• The Hypocrisy of the World Wildlife Fund’s Eco Tour (Wired.com blog)
• Five-Star Green Hypocrisy (JunkScience.com) (This article is also available on FoxNews)
• WWF lectures: don’t do as we do (Blog at News.com.au)
• WWF = Whee, We’re Flying (Deceiver.com)
• You too can be like Al Gore! (Gather.com)
• Neil Hrab: Waste emissions; see endangered species. Don’t tell Al Gore (NationalPost.com)
• All Around the World with the World Wildlife Fund For A Mere $65k (blogtalkradio.com)
• Private Jet Travel for Me, But Not for Thee (OpenMarket.org)
• WWF Full of Environmental Charlatans (Skepticsglobalwarming.com)

Um yeah… I think it’s fair to say that people aren’t happy!

A Different View

OK, at first glance, I couldn’t help but see the irony in the situation. WWF - an organization pleading with the world to lower its carbon emissions - coming up with a 25 day trip that will omit more carbon than an average household does in a year.

But I’m going to take a different view on this one. 

First of all, let’s look at who the WWF is targeting. It’s targeting people who can afford to pay $65,000 for a 25 day trip. People who can afford that amount are not likely to be short of cash, or influence.

It’s exactly people like this, that can help the WWF and its various causes. Wealthy people are in an excellent position to donate hundreds, thousands, or even millions of dollars to these causes. And, influential people are in a great position to inspire others to do something about a cause that they feel passionate about.

Here’s what Dr. Sybille Klenzendorf, WWF Species Conservation Program Director, says on the brochure for this expedition:

During a field research outing in Borneo two years ago, I made a rare sighting of pygmy elephants, the smallest and tamest elephant in the world. A herd of a half dozen of them was weaving through the thick rain forest along the Kinabatangan River.

Of course, such sightings are rare—even after many years working in wildlife conservation or protection, I’ve seen just a handful of the world’s species in the wild. But each time I do, I remember why I work in the remarkable field of conservation: To help save these animals and to inspire others to care deeply for the world’s wild places—and because moments such as that day in Borneo, no matter how fleeting, are the most memorable of my life. 

Contrary to what some cynics would try to have you believe, rich people can have a conscience too. Just imagine if more “high-flying executives” and the “business elite” had experiences like the one described by Dr. Klenzendorf. Think about the good they might do for the environment.

Out of the 88 wealthy, influential passengers that will be on that plane, don’t you think at least some of them will be moved by the experience like Dr. Klenzendorf was in Borneo? 

I expect that an experience like that would almost certainly inspire passengers to ask themselves; “What else can I do to help?”

Plus, I could think of a lot more environmentally-damaging ways to spend $65,000. If they don’t spend it with WWF, where will they spend it?

I think it’s a bit unfair to accuse WWF of hypocrisy on this one. I reckon the WWF would view this expedition as an investment in the environment. If the WWF were to eliminate all its carbon emissions, it would cease to exist. Do you really think that the WWF could operate as effectively as it does if it didn’t use modern technology to help spread the word about the environment?

I’m hoping this expedition is a way of burning a (relatively) small amount of carbon, in order to inspire others to take positive action - the results of which will dwarf any negative impact that this expedition might bring.

Rainforests are some of the world’s most ancient and complex ecosystems. They barely cover 2% of the Earth, yet more than half of all plant and animal species live there. 

Despite covering such as small part of the Earth, rainforests continue to be destroyed every day. At the current rate of deforestation, we will only have 20% of the world’s forests left by 2030.

Saving the world’s rainforests from deforestation is not a small task (just ask the UK government!). Many environmentally conscience individuals and organizations around the world are devising new ways to protect our valuable rainforests. 

Click to Save the Rainforests

One new way of protecting rainforests comes in the form of “The Rainforest Site”. The Rainforest Site is a website that allows us all to do our bit for the rainforests. By using this site, you can help keep rainforests around the world alive.

And the great thing is, it doesn’t cost you any money. Not a cent. 

All you need to do is click a button on The Rainforest Website. When you click that button, The Rainforest Website gets money from their sponsors. They then pass this money to charity organizations who help preserve the rainforests. 

According to The Rainforest Site, more than 150 million visitors have preserved more than 40,500 acres of land to date.

How Does it Work?

When you click on the button, the website displays advertising from their sponsors. These sponsors actually pay The Rainforest Site so that their advertising can appear.

100% of the sponsors’ money goes to their charity partners, who fund programs to protect and preserve rainforest habitat.

So it would follow that, the more popular the site is, the more likely sponsors will want to advertise (i.e. more people are seeing their ads). 

Who are the Charity Partners?

When you click, the following organizations get money (from the website’s sponsors). These organizations then use the money to protect the world’s rainforests:

• The Nature Conservancy
• Rainforest Conservation Fund
• World Land Trust-US
• Rainforest2Reef

These organizations protect and preserve rainforest habitat in countries such as Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Ecuador, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, the United States, Canada, the Pacific, and more.

Cool, I Want to Help! How do I do it? 

To help save the rainforests:

1. Open The Rainforest Site
2. Click on the button entitled “Click Here to Give - it’s FREE!”
3. Repeat each day 

That’s all!

By repeating each day, you’ll ensure that money is finding it’s way to these important organizations who help protect the world’s rainforests.

To Help You Remember…

To help you remember, you could set The Rainforest Site as your “home page” when you open up the browser. Most browsers let you do this through their “Options” dialog box. 

For example:

• In Firefox, go to “Tools > Options“
• In Internet Explorer, go to “Tools > Internet Options“
• In Safari, it’s under “Edit > Preferences“

“There is a clear sense of urgency”.

That’s what, Valli Moosa, the president for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) told delegates at the World Conservation Congress (WCC) during the opening session on Sunday.

After the 4th day of the congress, Moosa said:

In the last four days the call to protect the planet has been heard from both government leaders and the NGO community. Environmental concerns are now at the top of the decision-makers priority list.

Moosa wasn’t the only one with this sentiment. IUCN Director General, Julia Marton-Lefèvre said: 

Absolutely everyone now agrees that we can’t postpone decisive action if we are to avoid major disruptions in all spheres of human and natural activities. Business as usual is not an option.

About the Congress

The congress, being held in Barcelona, Spain, brings together more than 8,000 of the world’s leading decision makers in sustainable development: from governments, NGOs, business, the UN and academia.

The objective of the congress is:

Ideas, action and solutions for a diverse and sustainable world.

In total, 125 motions were forwarded to the congress for discussion. The motions fall under the following categories:

• Governance (13 motions)
• Biodiversity Conservation (54 motions)
• Ecosystems and Human Well-Being (26 motions)
• Climate Change (8 motions)
• Energy (4 motions)
• Economy, Market and Finance (7 motions)
• Law, Policy and Ethics (10 motions)
• Education and Communication (3 motions)

You can read the full list of motions on the IUCN website. 

The congress is being held over 10 days between 5 October and 14 October, 2008.

While Energy efficient light bulbs (also known as a Compact Fluorescent Lamp, or CFL) help address one environmental issue, they cause another. Fortunately, the later can be addressed quite easily - as long as governments make it easy.

The Benefits of CFLs

Energy efficient light bulbs are being encouraged by green groups, electricity providers, and governments around the world, and for good reason. For the same light output, an energy efficient light bulb uses between a fifth and a quarter of the energy that a traditional light bulb (also referred to as, incandescent lamp) uses.

And what’s more, over it’s lifetime, an energy efficient light bulb can save over 2000 times it’s weight in greenhouse gases.

But, like so many environmentally friendly solutions, there is a dark side to energy efficient light bulbs.

The Problem with CFLs

Each energy efficient light bulb contains a small amount of mercury. In fact all fluorescent lamps contain mercury, and energy efficient light bulbs are a form of fluorescent lamp . The amount of mercury is usually quite small - around 5 or 6 grams.

The problem with mercury is that, if it’s not disposed of properly, it will lead to air and/or water pollution. Currently, most CFLs are dumped into landfills or incinerators. This is because people simply through them in the bin when finished with them.

How to Address this Problem?

The simple solution is to recycle your CFLs and other fluorescent lamps.

Under normal circumstances, the mercury in each CFL isn’t an issue. As long as the light bulb is discarded correctly and doesn’t break before it’s discarded, everything will be alright. CFLs should never be thrown out with the normal rubbish. This is because it will end up in landfill. From there it could break and mercury will end up in surrounding waterways. Or it could burn and release mercury into the air.

Energy efficient light bulbs (and any other fluorescent lamp) should always be recycled. This obviously requires you have a recycling station to take it to. Ideally, local governments should provide education and easy access to these recycling stations.

For example, you should be able to simply throw your light bulb into a recycling bin at your home (which is separate from your normal garbage). You could place your recycling out on the street say, once per month (or more frequently). Then, a recycling collection service could pick up your recyclables as they drive past and take them to the recycling station.

Some governments are starting to become aware of this issue, but there’s still a long way to go.