Devil’s Inquisitor Website Launched!

 

I am very excited and pleased to announce that the ‘Devil’s Inquisitor’ main website has now been launched.

Head over to http://devilsinquisitor.com to check it out.

All the articles featured on this blog have been imported to the main website, and in some cases updated to reflect my own further learnings. Take some time to browse the articles you’ve read before.

Look out for quotes, and the ‘hidden images’ I’ve placed with them – a nice way to reflect upon the quote and consider what it means for you.

Most importantly – subscribe and please tell your friends about this!

The only way things are going to get better is by making better choices – and the way to make better choices is to understand what the problems and solutions are.

Note: I will NOT be posting any more blogs to this site. Head over to http://devilsinquisitor.com for all the information you’ll need to make the right choices.

I look forward to seeing you over at http://devilsinquisitor.com and welcome your comments and feedback on how to make this site as good as it needs to be to motivate people to make the right choices.

See you there, and remember…

Subscribe now and be part of something, not just a bystander

 

 

The Rebound Effect – A Sting in the Tail

In my previous blog, I discussed the trend in carbon emissions, reaching the conclusion that whilst there are significant efforts around the world to reduce the level of emissions, the sad fact is that the level of carbon emissions being released into our atmosphere is going to increase for at least the next two decades.

As I mentioned in my previous blog, one of the reasons for this is simply that insufficient action is being taken to tackle this problem because it requires governments and business to fundamentally alter the way in which the developed western world lives (and this ‘American Dream’ is a way of life that developing nations aspire to).  As a small minority of powerful people have become ‘ultra-rich’ on the back of this economic model why on earth would they change anything?  I’ll tackle this in a future blog.

What I want to discuss in this blog is another explanation for why we’re headed for trouble, known as the ‘rebound effect’.

Once again, I will stand ‘on the shoulders of giants’ to see further than I could on my own.

William Stanley Jevons was a British economist.  Having just completed a unit in ‘Managerial Economics’ at Melbourne Business School I am conscious that I have him to thank for popularising the concept of marginal utility of value!

Jevons developed what is known as the ‘Jevons Paradox’ or ‘rebound effect’.  In it’s original form, Jevons proposed that if technological improvements result in an increase in efficiency in the way a resource is consumed, it would be reasonable to expect the level of consumption of that resource to decrease.

We can use cars as an example.  If a car consumes fuel at a rate of 20 litres per 100 kilometres, then an improvement in efficiency to 10 litres per 100 kilometres means using half as much fuel as before.  It would therefore seem reasonable to expect that fuel consumption would fall.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.  As a result of increased efficiency, driving a car becomes ‘cheaper’ because it uses less fuel (if the price per litre doesn’t change you can drive twice as far for the same fuel cost).  What happens is that people will use their cars more often because it is cheaper to do so.  Now, driving your children to school is a substitute for putting them on a bus, or allowing them to cycle; it’s cheaper to use the car for weekend outings to the countryside or beach so you’ll do it more often, and it’s easier to use the car to drive a few hundred metres up the road to buy bread when you could have walked… you get the picture.

Therefore much of the efficiency gains have been lost through increased consumption – this is the ‘rebound effect’.

This leads to several other issues that result in higher overall fuel consumption.  An increase in fuel efficiency:

• Drives the cost of car ownership down, making it more affordable to buy a car, thus driving demand up
• Alternatively, allows cars to become much heavier without using more fuel overall so you lose all the efficiency gained (so you can have air-conditioning, electric windows, electric seats, airbags, crumple zones, sound systems, satellite navigation and so on)
• Increases demand for cars overall, allowing manufacturers to achieve greater economies of scale, which leads to lower prices, thus driving overall demand up
• Leads to increased economic growth and a higher quality of life because it is cheaper to transport goods and move people around
• Leads to increased road congestion, which wastes fuel
• Leads to greater road-building programs, which use valuable resources, and destroys natural habitats

Consider this rather perverse thought – if Henry Ford, Gottlieb Daimler, and others had not found ways to make cars run efficiently, then individual car ownership would have remained out of reach, and public transport would have become the accepted norm!  As it is, humans are so attached to their cars that getting them to give it up is like asking them to cut off a body part.

According to Richard Watson, in his book ‘Future Files’, an original 1976 VW Golf GTi weighed 830kg.  A 2009 VW Golf GTi weighs 1,330kg – a full 60% heavier!  (I just downloaded the brochure for the 2011 Golf GTi, hoping to see an improvement – sadly it weighs even more at 1,360kg).

The same argument applies to air travel.  At first, this was a luxury, reserved for the privileged few.  Now, it is nothing more than an ‘air bus’ (it is no coincidence that the largest commercial passenger jets in the world are made by Airbus).

Street Lighting in the UK – A Study

Another good example of this is a study by Roger Fouquet and Peter Pearson on energy use for lighting in the UK (Seven Centuries of Energy Services: The Price and Use of Light in the United Kingdom 1300-2000; published in 2006).  The study showed that in the 200 years from 1800 to 2000, the efficiency of energy consumption for lighting increased by a factor of 1,000 – in other words the amount of energy required to light a room in 2000 (to the same ‘brightness’) requires one-thousandth of the energy it needed in 1800.  However, over the same period the average use of lighting per person increased by a factor of more than 6,500 so that total energy consumption per person increased by more than six times!  Coupled with an increase in population, and increasing uses for lighting, total energy consumption for lighting in London is now 25,000 times higher than it was in 1800.  Imagine this on a global scale, just for lighting!

This report is illuminating (pun intended) for many reasons because it describes the introduction of lighting in London (itself a luxury at the time), and the number of hours per year that lighting was available.  Whale oil was used between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries for lighting, hence the massive destruction of this gentle giant of the sea.

According to estimates provided by the British Astronomical Society’s ‘Campaign for Dark Skies’, the cost of electricity that is wasted each year due to inefficient lighting exceeds £1,000,000,000 (see the calculations for yourself at http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/economic.html?7O).  What’s more ‘two power stations are required every night to make the smog of light pollution that hangs over our cities at night’.

I have one final note on the rebound effect.  Household appliances and gadgets are becoming more energy-efficient; the challenge is that households have more of them, many of which operate in an ‘always on’ mode – ready to spring to life at the push of a button.  This standby or ‘sleep mode’ consumes almost as much electricity, primarily generated from the burning of coal and gas.  Also, as more of the world’s population enters the so-called ‘middle class’ the number of households with appliances and gadgets is increasing rapidly.

The Question:  How has this article helped your understanding of the ways in which increasing fuel-efficiency is more than offset by increased consumption?

What Determines the Level of Carbon Emissions?

I’ve published several blogs already (click here, here, and here to read them) about our atmosphere and the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.  This is the next blog in this particular series and it looks at the factors affecting the level of CO₂-e emissions released into the atmosphere.

To recap the previous blogs, the following points have been made:

• Our atmosphere is a natural ‘blanket’ covering the planet, trapping heat and maintaining the overall global temperature within a range that allows life to exist
• Naturally occurring greenhouse gases are good – they create the blanket which allows life to exist
• Mankind has massively increased the level of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and wood for energy
• Not all greenhouse gases are equal; some have greater potential for warming and remain in the atmosphere for longer
• The greater the level of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, the more heat becomes trapped, leading the higher average global temperatures

A Japanese economist called Yoichi Kaya has in my opinion most neatly described the challenge that we face.  He developed an equation that breaks down the level of C0₂-e emissions that are released into the atmosphere into a product of three factors, as follows:

The level of CO₂–e emissions = Economic Output x Energy Intensity x Carbon Intensity

where:

• Economic Output = the sum total of all the economic activities of mankind
• Energy Intensity = the level of energy required to generate the Economic Output
• Carbon Intensity = the level of carbon-equivalent emissions released by the energy used to generate the Economic Output

Let’s use an example to demonstrate what this means (the numbers are to illustrate the example; they are made up).  Imagine that to cook a large pot of soup you need to heat it over a fire containing ten equal-sized logs.  Burning each log releases ten grams of carbon into the atmosphere (which will remain there for about one hundred years).

Therefore to cook one pot of soup you will produce 1 (pot) x 10 (logs) x 10 (grams of carbon per log) = 100 grams of carbon into the atmosphere.

It makes sense therefore that if you want to cook more soup you need to consume more logs, and therefore release more carbon.  So, ten pots of soup will release one kilogram of carbon into the atmosphere and so on.

After cutting down all the trees you can find, you run out of wood.  Fortunately, rather than starve, you come across some black stuff that happens to generate a lot of heat when burned.  Let’s call this black stuff ‘coal’.  Now, it turns out you can cook soup quite nicely with just two blocks of coal, so everything is fine once again.

However, each block of coal releases 100 grams of carbon, so now one pot of soup produces 1 (pot) x 2 (blocks of coal) x 100 (grams of carbon per block of coal) = 200 grams of carbon into the atmosphere.  Since you can’t see the carbon being released into the atmosphere, you’re happy to burn the coal so that you can keep eating soup.  The doubling of carbon emissions is invisible.

If we rearrange the terms in Kaya’s original equation we come up with an even simpler version:

The level of CO₂ emissions = Population x CO₂ emissions per Person

This inherently makes sense.  The level of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere by mankind is simply the total population on the planet multiplied by the average amount of emissions per person.

Reducing average CO₂ emissions per person is where industry and government is focused – by way of increasing the efficiency of the things we use such as light bulbs, buildings, cars, and fridges.  Significant advances have been achieved in energy efficiency and in creating alternative sources of energy that emit virtually no carbon emissions (such as wind and solar).

However, there are two huge problems with the task of reducing carbon emissions.

The first is obvious – the population is increasing by 153 per minute.  The global population is estimated to exceed 7,000,000,000 and will continue to grow.

The second problem is a consequence of the global economic model – our focus on money, growth, and consumption as benchmarks of success mean that we are obsessed with earning more and consuming more.

Developing nations such as China and India, and many parts of Africa and South America, are rapidly catching up to our standard of living as more and more people enter the ‘middle class’, meaning they will buy TVs, cameras and mobile phones, computers, gaming and music devices, fridges and washing machines, motorcycles and cars, and live in larger houses complete with air-conditioning and hot water, and travel overseas by airplane.  They will also eat more (as evidenced by rising levels of obesity across the globe), and meat will form a larger part of their diet (meat taking far more energy to produce than cereals, rice and grains).

It is projected that the combination of population growth and increasing living standards will lead to a doubling of energy consumption by 2050.  In order to maintain carbon emissions where they are today, energy efficiency must also double.  If we want to reduce carbon emissions to zero, then one of the terms in the equations above must also be zero.  Assuming that the human population is not zero, something else has to give!

Realistically, we are faced with the prospect of increased emissions for some years yet (and the evidence shows that this is indeed happening despite all the changes countries have put in place so far), leading to more and more heating of the atmosphere.

The Question:  What, if anything, would you do to solve this problem given the equations above?

2011 In Review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.  Thanks to everyone who has supported Devil’s Inquisitor in its first year of existence – I look forward to providing more information in 2012 and ask you to play your part by letting others know about this site.

Here’s an excerpt:

A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 1,600 times in 2011. If it were a cable car, it would take about 27 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

What’s the Difference between Greenhouse Gases?

Greenhouse gases are vastly different when it comes to their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere.  The more heat a gas is able to trap, the greater the impact that gas has when it is released into the atmosphere.

Global Warming Potential – GWP

Helpfully, a standardised measure has been devised in order to easily compare the relative impact of each greenhouse gas.  It is called the ‘Global Warming Potential’ or ‘GWP’.  The GWP of a greenhouse gas is the measure of the amount of heat trapped by a given mass of the gas compared to the equivalent mass of carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide therefore has a GWP of 1.

The GWP rating is given in terms of a specific time period, such as 20 or 100 years.  This takes into account the amount of heat a greenhouse gas traps over that time period when compared to carbon dioxide.

Let’s use methane to illustrate the point.  We know from the previous blog that methane is much more potent than carbon dioxide.  The question is, “How much more potent?”

The GWP provides the answer:

• The GWP rating for methane over a 20-year time period is 72 – this means that a given mass of methane will trap 72 times more heat in the atmosphere than a similar mass of carbon dioxide
• The GWP rating for methane over a 100-year period is 25 – this means that a given mass of methane will trap 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than a similar mass of carbon dioxide

My previous blog mentioned how methane resides in the atmosphere for about ten years compared to a hundred years or more for carbon dioxide.  This explains why methane has a much higher GWP rating over a 20-year period than over a 100-year period.  It also explains why common sources of methane such as landfill are often burned – although any additional carbon dioxide emissions are not desirable, they are less harmful than the amount of methane that would otherwise be emitted.

Similarly:

• Nitrous oxide has a GWP of 289 over a 20-year period and 298 over a 100-year period
• Sulfur Hexafluoride has a GWP of 16,300 over a 20-year period and 22,800 over a 100-year period

As noted in my previous blog, it is fortunate that these particular greenhouse gases exist in low concentrations in the atmosphere as they are extremely potent compared to carbon dioxide.  Every kilogram of sulphur hexafluoride will trap 16,300 times more heat over a 20-year period than a kilogram of carbon dioxide!

Calculating the GWP for a greenhouse gas can be challenging due to a number of factors that are not relevant in this blog.  However, there is an internationally-agreed table of GWPs for a range of greenhouse gases that is used as a reference for the Kyoto protocol and other climate change agreements.

Water vapour does not have a GWP rating because its concentration in the atmosphere is not constant – it changes with air temperature.

Equivalent Carbon Dioxide Emissions

When the GWP is used, it becomes possible to estimate the equivalent carbon dioxide concentration that would have to be emitted to cause the same level of warming as a given type and concentration of another greenhouse gas.  This allows for measuring the overall impact of all greenhouse gases on one scale and is known as ‘equivalent carbon dioxide’ (CO₂-e).

The practical use of this measure is that by comparing greenhouse gases on one scale, governments and industry can fairly measure the impact of widely different activities – for instance, whether a coal-fired power station is more polluting than a herd of 200,000 cattle, or whether one country is emitting more greenhouse gases than another.

The other benefit of the CO₂-e is that in future blogs, I can draw comparisons between mankind’s activities and demonstrate that it is not always obvious what is causing us problems!

Whether or not you agree that man-made activities are contributing to global warming is irrelevant and my role is not to persuade you one way or the other.  It is quite possible that our increased emissions are warming the atmosphere to the extent that the onset of the next Ice Age will be delayed or not happen at all!  About 10,000 years from now, our descendants may actually thank us for our polluting behaviour.  On the other hand we could well be condemning our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to some very ‘uncomfortable’ lifestyles in the decades ahead.

The Question:  Does it follow that as the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, the more likely it is that the average temperature of the planet will increase?

H to O of Greenhouse Gases

In my previous blog I introduced an outline of our atmosphere and the valuable role it plays in allowing life to exist on our precious planet.  I also introduced the concept of greenhouse gases and the role they play in trapping sufficient heat to maintain a fairly stable global temperature.

It's Hotting Up

This article looks at the greenhouse gases themselves in order of their contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Water Vapour (H₂O)

We start with water vapour because it is a natural greenhouse gas, as well as the most potent and abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.  It accounts for between 36-70 per cent of the greenhouse effect and is a natural part of the cycle that causes water to evaporate from the oceans and return to the land.  Water vapour spends about nine to ten days in our atmosphere during its cycle.  The level of water vapour in our atmosphere varies significantly over time of day, time of year, and location as it is a part of our weather system.  It can’t easily be controlled by humans.

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂)

Carbon dioxide is another naturally occurring greenhouse gas and the most abundant after water vapour.  It accounts for between 9-26 per cent of the greenhouse effect.  Unlike water vapour, carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for a century or more, which means that excess carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere today will continue to have an effect on climate for the next hundred years.

Any efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will have little impact on rising global temperatures caused by carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.  Looking at it another way, we are still being impacted at some level by carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere before World War I, and our great-grandchildren will be impacted by the carbon dioxide we emit into the atmosphere today.

The current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 390 parts per million, an increase of about 40% since 1750, and the highest concentration for at least 800,000 years.  This increase is largely due to the intense burning of fossil fuels.  Trees and vegetation absorb carbon dioxide and grow more quickly at higher concentrations, making them very effective carbon sinks.  This is important when you consider deforestation.

Methane (CH₄)

Methane is an organic compound and is the principal component of natural gas.  As a greenhouse gas it is far more potent than carbon dioxide and accounts for about 4-9 per cent of the greenhouse effect.  It remains in the atmosphere for around ten years.  The current concentration of methane in the atmosphere is 1.7 parts per million, an increase of about 150% since 1750.

Methane is relatively abundant and is very useful as a fuel.  Fortunately, it is not easy to transport, which can limit its use in certain areas.  When methane is burned in the presence of oxygen (in other words, in normal air), it produces both carbon dioxide and water.  For this reason common sources of methane, such as landfill, are burned instead of being left to decay because it is less damaging to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than methane.

The relative impact of methane compared to carbon dioxide will be discussed in my next blog.

Another major source of methane that should be considered is livestock such as cows.  They naturally produce methane through flatulence (farting).  Our tendency towards eating more meat means that more livestock are bred, leading to increasing methane emissions.  It is something we can have a direct impact on by eating less meat (and there are other reasons for this which I cover in another blog).

Nitrous Oxide (N₂O)

Nitrous oxide is a highly potent greenhouse gas, although fortunately it resides in the atmosphere at very low concentrations.  Despite this it is the fourth largest contributor to the greenhouse effect because of its potency and has the added disadvantage of being a major cause of ozone depletion.

Nitrous oxide is emitted by bacteria in soils and oceans, which accounts for about 70 per cent of the nitrous oxide in the atmosphere.  The remaining 30 per cent is caused by human activities such as agriculture (it is used in fertilisers), livestock farming (as a result of the bacteria produced from animal waste), and the production of nylon (a material used in stockings, seat belts, tents, clothes and so on).

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF₆)

Sulfur Hexafluoride is an inorganic compound, in other words man-made.  It is the most potent greenhouse gas identified to-date (according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), hence its inclusion on the list of significant greenhouse gases.  It is also extremely long-lived, residing in the atmosphere for an estimated 800-3,200 years.

Fortunately, it is not naturally occurring and its uses are fairly limited.  It is produced for use in the electrical industry, for magnesium production, for insulated glazing, and has some military and navigation equipment uses.  The atmosphere therefore contains very low concentrations of this gas, and its overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is much less than 1 per cent.

Hydrofluorocarbons (or HFC)

Hydrofluorocarbons are a group of organic compounds and a highly potent greenhouse gas.  Their primary use is as a refrigerant (the gas in the pipes of your fridge/freezer that keep it cool) and although their overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is negligible, it is known to be increasing rapidly and hence is on the list of greenhouse gases to be controlled.

Perfluorocarbons (or PFC)

Perfluorocarbons are similar to hydrofluorocarbons and are also a highly potent greenhouse gas.  They are primarily used in oil- and water-repellent products and in some solvents.  Although their overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is negligible, they are judged to be sufficiently harmful to be on the list of greenhouse gases to be controlled.

The Question: What can you do personally to reduce the level of greenhouse gases entering our atmosphere?

Our Atmosphere – A Simple Explanation

Our planet receives massive amounts of energy, as radiation, from the sun.  This radiation strikes our atmosphere, a thick ‘blanket’ surrounding our planet; some of the radiation passes through this blanket and heats the surface of the planet; the rest is reflected back and dissipates in the frozen vacuum of space.

This blanket is a finely tuned instrument.  It is invisible and yet all around us.  It allows enough radiation through to heat the planet, and not so much that the planet boils.  At the same time, it is able to ‘trap’ enough heat to keep the planet warm at night so that the planet’s surface does not freeze when the sun is not shining directly on it.

Our Atmosphere

Our atmosphere primarily consists of nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%).  These two gases sustain life – being present in all living organisms in the case of nitrogen, and being used to ‘breathe’ in the case of oxygen.  Together nitrogen and oxygen account for 99% of the content of the atmosphere.  However, they are not able to trap radiated heat from the surface of the planet.

It is the gases that make up the remaining 1% of our atmosphere that are responsible for trapping heat – they are the reason why the average surface temperature of the earth is 15 degrees centigrade and not minus 18 degrees centigrade.

The name for these gases is ‘greenhouse gases’ because they behave like a greenhouse and trap heat.  The primary greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.  There are other greenhouse gases to consider, such as sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.

Typically, water vapour accounts for about 1% of the atmosphere (consisting of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and thus counting towards the overall oxygen content in the atmosphere).  Carbon dioxide accounts for about 0.039%, (or 390 parts per million) and is the most prolific greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases are critical to the maintenance of the average temperature of the earth.  They are essential to sustaining the equilibrium of the planet and are thus a good thing.  By and large, greenhouse gases occur in the atmosphere as a result of natural processes occurring on the planet, such as natural forest fires, decaying plants and animals, and so on.  At the same time there are natural ‘sinks’, such as oceans and forests, which ‘capture’ greenhouse gases so that the balance between emissions and absorption is maintained.

An increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can occur if the rate at which greenhouse gases are being emitted into the atmosphere exceeds the ability of the earth to absorb them.  A good example of this is the effect of cutting down trees – if they are cut down they can no longer absorb carbon dioxide; if they are subsequently burned as fuel, carbon dioxide is released from the wood into the atmosphere.

It is generally accepted that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to higher average temperatures as more heat from the earth’s surface is trapped.  This is known as global warming.

The Question:  How important is our atmosphere for maintaining global average temperatures and thus our existence?

Flick of a Switch – A Toastmasters Talk

Here is a talk I gave at a Toastmasters meeting ten years ago (2001).  I found it the other day and realised that despite some out-dated references to “VCRs” and so on, it still has relevance today.  It’s a bit longer than my average blog so make a cup of coffee and take a break to read it.  Enjoy.

Greenhouse Gases

For most of history human beings have believed that forces beyond our control governed the weather.  Our ancestors (not that long ago) firmly believed that gods provided rain and wrought floods, sent angry fire to consume our crops, and expressed their wrath with thunder and lightning.  In countries across the world sacrifices were offered to appease these angry gods in the hope of favourable weather.

As humans stand at the beginning of the 21st century, we understand that we are at least partly responsible for the weather.  While climate is naturally unstable, records show that we are experiencing the wettest, driest, hottest, coldest, stormiest weather in more than 1,000 years, perhaps longer.  Scientists are putting this “global warming” down to what is becoming commonly known as the “Greenhouse Effect”, the build up of carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour in our atmosphere.

To a certain extent, greenhouse gases are good – they act to trap heat radiation from the sun, in turn warming the planet to an average temperature of 15 degrees centigrade.  Without greenhouse gases, our beautiful planet would have a more hostile average temperature of minus 18 degrees centigrade.

We have become thoroughly accustomed to energy on demand – we take it for granted, so much so that it is equivalent to breathing.  It just is.

It is so seamless, so much a part of our daily lives that we use it without thinking, especially when in the form of electricity.  Everything is plugged in, switched on and ready to perform at a moment’s notice.  Recent blackouts in the State of California are a reminder to Americans and to us that there are limits.

Electricity at point of use produces no carbon emissions.  However, most electricity in Australia comes from burning fossil fuels like coal, gas or oil.  This produces carbon dioxide – and lots of it.  Burnt carbon atoms combine with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce carbon dioxide (CO2).  About 40% of carbon emissions in Australia come from the generation of electricity.

Since the Industrial Revolution, burning of fossil fuels has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.  It has been estimated that at the end of World War II about 1,000,000,000 metric tonnes of carbon in the form of CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere.  Today, in 2001, it is approximately 7,000,000,000 metric tonnes – a staggering increase in emissions.  The greenhouse gases released by our level of consumption are having an effect on the very weather we used to think was the domain of the gods.

There are enormous consequences for everyone.  The problem is that we cannot see those consequences – today, they are invisible.  Fast-forward ten years, twenty years, and more, and the effects will become apparent in the form of more extreme weather events.  Our children will be the ones who face the consequences.

We have to be careful to make the distinction between stating that ‘temperature has gone up’ and ‘man/something else has caused the temperature to go up’.  Natural climatic changes do occur, and there is much evidence of this happening in the past.  Efforts are ongoing to understand just how much our emissions cause climate change, or whether it is coincidental that we are experiencing a hot spell.

Scientists study “natural archives” such as tree and coral where the rate of growth is dependent on temperature and glaciers where temperatures are preserved in the chemistry of ice layers.

Evidence from these sources is dramatic.  Viewed on the perspective of a 1,000-year timeframe the rise in average temperature of just one degree centigrade that has been witnessed this century stands out as an anomaly.  While specific regions may have experienced a short warmer climate, average global temperatures were definitely cooler than they are today.  In particular, the decade of the 1990’s was exceptionally warm and there is no evidence of a decade like it in more than 1,000 years.

Carbon dioxide spreads around the atmosphere.  Emissions from your car will show up in Greenland next year and affect the melting of glaciers there.  The industrial northern hemisphere may produce the majority of greenhouse gases; all of us will feel the consequences.

Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for a long time.  Whereas water vapour only remains for a few days, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for an average of 100 years before being absorbed back into the ocean.  Some greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for even longer periods.  Thus, the pollution we emit today will continue to contribute to climate change for the next century or longer, and future generations will pay the price.

While scientists still don’t know what will happen if we double or triple the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there is little doubt that humans are changing its composition.

Energy on Demand

Few of us realise just how much power we consume.

Even at 3am in the morning, the electricity grid is operating at over 50% of its maximum loading levels due to the 24-hour cycle of manufacturing and the proliferation of appliances and devices that are always ‘on’.

Australian households generate almost one-fifth of Australia’s greenhouse gases – more than 15 tonnes per household each year.

In an Australian household, the single biggest power consumer (20% or more) is the refrigerator/freezer.  A typical refrigerator uses between 600 and 900 KWh per year.  I have a Fisher & Paykel fridge.  It has a 4-star energy efficiency rating.  It has a sticker that states it uses 690KWh per year.

What does this mean?

Well, 1KWh releases approximately 230g of carbon into the air.  So, over the course of a year, my fridge will release 160kg of carbon into the air.  I weigh about 85kg, so in the course of one year my fridge will release almost twice my body weight in carbon into the atmosphere.  Every year.

What about the average air conditioner in your home?  Another 4,000KWh per year, 900kg of carbon, or ten times my weight.  Taking a daily morning shower?  Another 250kg of carbon per year.  A computer used 40 hours per week?  Another 270kg of carbon per year.  Lighting the average house – 900kg; running an average office building – 1,100,000kg of carbon.

Driving an average of 20,000 kilometres per year, at an average of 10 kilometres per litre of fuel, a Toyota Corolla, with a kerbside weight of just under 1,200kg, will consume 2,000 litres of fuel per year.  Each litre of fuel produces about 500g of carbon, so the car will produce 1000kg of carbon per year, almost the weight of the car itself.

The energy consumption of thirsty SUVs is much higher – parents enjoy driving their children to school in their ‘Toorak tractors’ and ironically are contributing to long-term problems for those same children (and others).

Certainly, the efficiency of car engines has improved significantly over the years.  However, this preference for larger and heavier cars means that total emissions remain at virtually the same levels.

What’s more, each kilogram of carbon released into the atmosphere combines with oxygen to form nearly 4 kilograms of carbon dioxide.

Imagine the effect then, of the combined, growing and cumulative energy consumption of 19,000,000 Australians, 280,000,000 Americans, 700,000,000 Europeans?  What happens as India and China, where each person currently consumes one-fortieth of the energy that a typical US citizen uses, climbs out of poverty and becomes a consumer like us?  What happens when another 2,000,000,000 people want a TV, a VCR, a car?

It is difficult and perhaps unfair to expect a country such as India or China to follow a path radically different to the one that the Western world has enjoyed for over a century.  Unfortunately, allowing it to happen is likely to be catastrophic for our atmosphere, and hence our climate, and ultimately our way of life.

Standby Power Consumption

Standby power is another area to consider.  It is the energy used by an appliance while plugged in but not performing its central function.

It applies to TVs, VCRs, stereos, washing machines, dishwashers, air conditioners and other appliances around the home.

The energy losses incurred when domestic and commercial appliances are left in standby mode account for a significant portion of Australia’s energy usage.  It has been estimated that standby power accounts for almost 10% of Australia’s household electricity usage, costing Australian households $400,000,000 annually and generating 4,000,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide in the process.

This is equivalent to the greenhouse impact of approximately 1,000,000 cars.  Imagine if we could take these off the roads?

Reduction in standby power is a win-win situation – greenhouse gases are reduced while you reduce your electricity costs.

The amount of electricity consumed by some appliances in standby mode is often startling.  For example, some compact stereos use about 40 watts while playing a tape, yet use 27 watts in standby mode.  Some of the newer technology, such as television set-top boxes used for pay television, use only marginally less power in off mode than in on.

Energy Efficiency

Everyone has a role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.  Choosing an energy efficient appliance is one way to do this while saving money.

The upright freezer that won the 2000 Energy Awards in Australia had an annual energy consumption figure half that of its closest competitor – just 355KWh versus 711KWh.  Not only does this reduce emissions dramatically, it also saves you money.

Using energy efficiently means you reduce your bills, and it also means we can put off building new power stations for longer.

The good news is, it’s not hard to save energy.  It is important to take note of energy ratings when purchasing appliances, and also turn off appliances at the plug when not using them.  It’s good for your pocket and for our future!

The Question:  Ten years on, how much progress do you think our civilisation has made, and are we doing enough?

7,000,000,000 Humans – How Big is That? (UK Style)

As I have mentioned in several other blogs, 2011 will see the world’s population reach 7,000,000,000.  This is a really big number, and it can be hard to get your head around it.  Just how big is this exactly?

Have you ever driven from Southampton to Newcastle-Upon-Tyne?  According to Google maps, it is a trip of 529 kilometres (329 miles) and is estimated to take 5 hours and 43 minutes (at an average speed of 92.5 kilometres per hour, or 57.5 miles per hour).

For the sake of simplicity, let’s round it slightly and say it is 525 kilometres (326 miles) and takes 6 hours to drive (at an average speed of 87.5 kilometres per hour, or 54.4 miles per hour).

Now, if you have one handy, go and grab a £1 coin.  According to the Royal Mint, this coin has a diameter of 22.5mm.

Figure 1 - UK £1 coin

Imagine you have one of these £1 coins for every single person on the planet (bear in mind that the poorest 3,000,000,000 people earn less than $2 per day), and you lay them out in one long line.

How long would this line of coins be?

The answer is a staggering 157,500 kilometres (97,860 miles).  Imagine if every human only took up 22.5mm of space lined up side-by-side so you could go down the line and shake their hands?  It might take a while.

In fact, if we go back to our car journey from Southampton to Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, this line of coins is equivalent to driving from Southampton to Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, and back again, exactly 150 times.

Moreover, if you could drive this non-stop at an average speed of 87.5km/hr (54.4miles/hr), it would take you exactly 10 weeks and 5 days to do it.  If you started out at midnight on New Year’s Eve in 2012, you would finish driving at midnight on 15 March 2012.

Now, you’d be a bit exhausted after all that driving, and you’re probably looking to simply crash into bed.

Well, I hate to disappoint you.  There is one more piece to the puzzle so you’re not quite finished driving yet.

While you’ve been driving backwards and forwards between Southampton and Newcastle-Upon-Tyne for the past 10 weeks and 5 days, the world’s population just kept growing.

As I have mentioned in other blogs, the world’s population is growing by approximately 153 people per minute.  So, after 10 weeks and 5 days of driving, I’m afraid that the world’s population has increased by a further 16,541,096 people.  This is equivalent to more than a quarter of the population of the UK being added to the world’s population in less than three months!

It means that another 16,541,096 £1 coins have been added to the line, which works out as another 372 kilometres (231 miles) to drive.  So, unfortunately, off you go, back towards Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.  You need to go about 70% of the way there and it will take you 4 hours and 15 minutes.  I don’t think there are many cafés around Junction 41 of the A1(M).  You could stop and admire the coal-fired Ferrybridge Power Station though.

Ferrybridge C Power Station

Sorry about that!  It’s going to be dark, cold and wet probably (wouldn’t you rather be living in Australia?).

The Question:  How does this help you in getting your head round as big a number as 7,000,000,000?

7,000,000,000 Humans – How Big is That?

As I have mentioned in several other blogs, 2011 will see the world’s population reach 7,000,000,000.  This is a really big number, and it can be hard to get your head around it.  Just how big is this exactly?

Have you ever driven from Melbourne to Sydney?  According to Google maps, it is a trip of 879 kilometres and is estimated to take 9 hours and 46 minutes (at an average speed of just under 90 kilometres per hour).

For the sake of simplicity, let’s round it slightly and say it is 875 kilometres and takes 10 hours to drive (at an average speed of 87.5 kilometres per hour).

Now, if you have one handy, go and grab an Australian $1 coin.  According to the Royal Australian Mint, this coin has a (very convenient) diameter of 25mm.

Figure 1 - Australian $1 coin

Imagine you have one of these $1 coins for every single person on the planet (bear in mind that the poorest 3,000,000,000 people earn less than $2 per day), and you lay them out in one long line.

How long would this line of coins be?

The answer is a staggering 175,000 kilometres.  Imagine if every human only took up 25mm of space lined up side-by-side so you could go down the line and shake their hands?  It might take a while.

In fact, if we go back to our road trip from Melbourne to Sydney, this line of coins is equivalent to driving from Melbourne to Sydney, and back again, exactly 100 times.

Moreover, if you could drive this non-stop at an average speed of 87.5km/hr, it would take you exactly 11 weeks, 6 days and 8 hours to do it.  If you started out at midnight on New Year’s Eve in 2012, you would finish driving at 8am on 24 March 2012 (which coincidentally is my birthday).

Now, you’d be a bit exhausted after all that driving, so let’s assume that you can come round to my place for a well-earned breakfast.

Well, I hate to disappoint you.  There is one more piece to the puzzle so you’re not quite finished driving yet.

While you’ve been driving backwards and forwards between Melbourne and Sydney for the past 11 weeks, 6 days and 8 hours, the world’s population just kept growing.

As I have mentioned in other blogs, the world’s population is growing by approximately 153 people per minute.  So, after 11 weeks, 6 days and 8 hours of driving, I’m afraid that the world’s population has increased by a further 18,378,995 people.  This is getting pretty close to the whole population of Australia being added to the world’s population in less than three months!

It means that another 18,378,995 $1 coins have been added to the line, which works out at another 460 kilometres to drive.  So, unfortunately, off you go, back to Sydney (or just over half way anyway).  It’s going to take you another 5 hours and 15 minutes, so you’ll be in time to grab lunch in Tarcutta, New South Wales.  Sorry about that!  I hear it’s nice there in March.

The Question:  How does this help you in getting your head round as big a number as 7,000,000,000?