16 February 2016, The Conversation, Adapting to bushfires: a new idea of ‘fire-proof’ homes. This summer’s bushfires have destroyed homes, precious ecosystems and, tragically, lives. Fires in South Australia and Western Australia killed two and six people, respectively. On Christmas Day more than 100 properties were destroyed in Victoria, and ongoing fires in Tasmania’s wilderness have claimed ancient, fire-sensitive vegetation. Our key strategy to address this is to evacuate fire-prone areas extensively on days when fire weather is likely to present a risk. In essence, we are leaving our homes to fend for themselves, and rightly so. Homes can be replaced; lives cannot. We know the cost of fire. In a warming world, it is very likely we will see more frequent and more extreme fires. To adapt to these future fires we will need to change how we approach fire management and the safety of our homes. Fortunately there are good examples in contemporary Australia of how we might do so. Land of fire Before European settlement, Australia was a fire-adapted continent from the southern tip of Tasmania to the tropical north. Its indigenous citizens understood fire both as a threat and as a tool. Indigenous people regularly used fire to modify the vegetation so that fires could not reach an intensity that would damage to trees, animals or indigenous settlements. Unfortunately, most of Australia looks nothing like it did back then. The bush in many parts has reverted to a thick impenetrable scrub with fuel loads that can support fires so severe that agencies have no way of stopping them. Read More here
hmcadmin
15 February 2016, Science Daily, Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. You may as well learn the expression “carbon-negative technology,” or Bio-CCS, right away, because it has become a talking point in technological circles. Gemini explains why. There exists a method, or technology, that is capable of reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “In practice, the methods consists of capturing carbon dioxide emitted by “climate-neutral” processes such as the combustion of organic waste, pellets or sawdust,” explains SINTEF research scientist Mario Ditaranto, a specialist in combustion technology. It is then stored safely underground for ever, thus reducing its concentration in the atmosphere, because it has been eliminated from the natural carbon dioxide cycle. This is the only method we have to lower the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is an important cause of our climate problems. The method is called Bio-CCS, and it is not new. Until now it has suffered from a rather mixed reputation as insignificant, expensive and limited in its range of applications. However, in the light of climate change and the recent COP21 summit in Paris, it is on the of everyone in the climatology field. In Norway, it has led to SINTEF, the environmental organisation Bellona and certain branches of Norwegian industry working together for a rapid breakthrough. “Superlight” geoengineering The reason for the growing popularity of Bio-CCS is that at the very least it can be regarded as an extremely mild and non-hazardous form of geo-engineering. The aim of geo-engineering is to counteract anthropogenic climaste changes by means of physical interventions. Launching huge sunshades into space and spraying >> millions of ?? tonnes of sulphur into the atmosphere to filter sunlight are a couple of suggestions. These have naturally led to heated debates about both the ethics and safety of such solutions. After all, what might be the consequences if we fix things in ways that only make them worse? Unavoidable More than 1000 estimates brought together in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/) show that even a significant but gradual brake on carbon dioxide emissions will not be sufficient if we are to avoid a serious climatic crisis. Read More here
15 February 2016, Science Daily, Four billion people affected by severe water scarcity. There are four billion people worldwide who are affected by severe water scarcity for at least one month a year. That is the conclusion of University of Twente Professor of Water Management, Arjen Hoekstra, after many years’ extensive research. This alarming figure is much higher than was previously thought. His ground-breaking research was published in Science Advances. Professor Hoekstra’s team is the first research group in the world to identify people’s water footprint from month to month and to compare it to the monthly availability of water. “Up to now, this type of research concentrated solely on the scarcity of water on an annual basis, and had only been carried out in the largest river basins,” says Hoekstra. He defines severe water scarcity as the depletion of water in a certain area. “Groundwater levels are falling, lakes are drying up, less water is flowing in rivers, and water supplies for industry and farmers are threatened. In this research, we established the maximum sustainable ‘water footprint’ for every location on earth, and then looked at actual water consumption. If the latter is much greater than what is sustainable, then there can be said to be severe water scarcity.” More than previously thought Until now, it had always been assumed in the scientific community that 2 to 3 billion people were affected by severe water scarcity. “Previous research looked at the availability of water on an annual basis, but that paints a more rosy and misleading picture, because water scarcity occurs during the dry period of the year,” explains Hoekstra. In his research, he describes for each place the number of months in a year that people are affected by severe water scarcity. That varies from zero to twelve months per year. Problem areas Of the four billion people referred to, a large proportion feel the effects of water scarcity directly. Particularly in Mexico, the western US, northern and southern Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East, India, China, and Australia, households, industries and farmers regularly experience water shortages. In other areas, water supplies are still fine but at risk in the long-term. Read More here
15 February 2016, Renew Economy, Nuclear commission findings spell more trouble for wind and solar in Australia. The South Australian Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle has conceded that nuclear power is not a viable alternative for Australia, but has urged authorities to consider it anyway – in what could have serious implications for the roll out of renewable energy across the country. The commission delivered the results of its “tentative” findings on Monday, indicating that it supports the establishment of a nuclear waste facility in the state, the storing of spent nuclear fuel and the expansion of uranium mining. On the subject of nuclear generation, the commission admitted that it wasn’t viable in South Australia in the foreseeable future (2030) – even with a significant carbon price and a sharp reduction in the cost of capital. It conceded that Australia should only adopt “proven” new nuclear technologies such as “small modular reactors” and next generation “fast reactors” , but that these were some way off, and likely to be very costly. But commission chairman Kevin Scarce wants the nuclear generation dream to continue. He admitted that while there were real risks in nuclear generation – and there are “no guarantees on its safety” – he doesn’t “think the positive side of nuclear power is being presented.” Despite the findings of the commission on the high costs of nuclear, and its unsuitability to the South Australian market in particular, he wants nuclear energy to be part of the national consideration because of the challenges Australia faces in meeting its emissions abatement task. In effect, he and the nuclear proponents are betting that Australia will fall short in its climate targets; and given the record of the Coalition government on climate policy – including the repeal of the carbon price, the slashing of the renewable energy target, the attack on key institutions and slow progress on energy efficiency – that is a fair bet. Read more here