Denmark’s capital Copenhagen wants to be the CO₂  neutral by 2025. But transport pollution is a major contributer to greenhouse gas emissions. Linda Arponen, Liisi Mölder and Asta Smagurauskaite report on the ways Denmark is searching to reduce traffic pollution.

We’ve all heard it before; if you want to live sustainably a good way to start is through the food you eat. But where is the food coming from? Rachael Chick writes about how location and sustainable food go hand-in-hand.

Michael Champion at his stall in Taylor Square. Image: Rachael Chick

A recent study of an average Sydneysider’s shopping basket showed that the food had travelled at least 80,919 kilometres to get there. That’s the equivalent of driving from Sydney to Melbourne 80 times.

The concept of food miles is gaining currency the world over. The huge UK supermarket chain Tesco has begun to label its produce with ‘food miles’, as has Walmart in the USA. Chains such as Aldi in Australia are considering following suit.

With all this attention on the distance your food has travelled, it’s no wonder that farmers’ markets purporting to sell local produce are popping up everywhere.

But how environmentally friendly are these farmers’ markets?

Michael Champion is a grower from Mangrove Mountain, near Gosford, NSW, who sells his produce at the newly opened Taylor Square market.

When I ask him about the growing popularity of farmers’ markets, he looks irritated.

“There are only a handful of proper farmers’ markets in Sydney. This one and the Eveleigh Markets are an example. A lot of the others are just resellers markets.”

Champion says another problem he often encounters is consumers’ expectations. “They come and ask me why I don’t have carrots or onions. People have a supermarket mentality. No one grower can supply everything. Sometimes I get people asking why I don’t have bananas. Bananas are grown in Queensland! A genuine Sydney farmers’ market isn’t going to be able to stock them.”

He says that the demand for markets is higher, but that there are simply not enough farmers close to Sydney to supply this demand, and give consumers the range they would have in a supermarket. As a result, wholesalers are brought in to cover the gap, which dilutes the “sustainable” ethos of the market.

Clearly, farmers’ market stallholders take the market scene very personally, and Champion’s quick response reveals one of the main issues currently plaguing these markets: authenticity.

At an authentic farmers’ market, all the products are grown, raised, or made by the people selling them.

However, as Jane Adams of the Australian Farmers’ Market Association says, many markets have been trying to cash-in on the sustainability trend without meeting this criterion.

“There are a number of markers in Sydney that call themselves farmers’ markets,” she says. “But they do not meet the definition of an authentic farmers’ market.”

Cathy Wills, from Sydney Sustainable Markets, agrees.

“There are numbers of markets around Sydney that brand themselves as farmers’ markets, but actually have a fairly limited number of farmers on site. Many of the stallholders are in fact re-sellers of products that they have purchased from a central produce market, and therefore it is very difficult to determine where that product originates from” she says.

This means that stallholders may be selling the same food you could buy from a supermarket, and the produce may have been freighted from the other side of the country, or even worse – for your carbon footprint – overseas. This defeats the environmental purpose of visiting a farmers market in the first place.

So how do you know if your local market is a genuine farmers’ market? If you live in Victoria, you’re in luck: the Victorian Farmers Market Association has started an accreditation program for markets. For a farmer-stallholder to gain accreditation, they must have grown, raised, or made the produce they sell – and they must prove this to the Association before they can display the accreditation logo. Furthermore, for an entire market in a metropolitan area to receive a logo, 90 per cent of stallholders need to be accredited.

That’s Victoria, what about those of us who don’t happen to live in the garden state? Where’s our accredited clean conscience? According to Adams, the Australian Farmers’ Market Association is hoping to import the accreditation scheme into other states.

For the moment though, a list of authentic farmers markets is available on the Australian Farmers’ Market Association website.

Carbon Miles

One of the markets on the list is Sydney’s Eveleigh Markets, which runs from 8am-1pm every Saturday. I’m curious about the claims of farmers markets to sell more local food than supermarkets, and so I visited Eveleigh market as part of a mini experiment in supermarket versus farmers market produce in carbon miles. Taking a small sample of fruits and vegetables from each, I compared where they came from, how far they travelled, and how much they cost.

Apples: A staple in many a lunchbox, many Australians don’t realise that apples are a seasonal fruit. Fortunately for your humble reporter, they are in season in autumn and winter, so I stocked up on my favourite- the pink lady.

The apples I bought were from Kurrawong Organics, and picked near Bathurst; a trip of about 200km. I was assured they were fresh, and they definitely tasted like it. They cost me about 5 dollars a kilo.

For the sake of consistency, I bought Pink Ladies from Coles as well. A kilogram cost me 5 dollars and according to the sticker, they came from Batlow- about 450 kilometres from Sydney.

Winner: Eveleigh markets. The same price, but 250km closer to home as the supermarket product.

It is difficult to trace where fresh produce from Coles come from. There tends to be a difference day to day, judging on where there is more stock and where the middleman distribution markets get their produce from. My assessments therefore had to be based on where the most likely source of the produce in NSW was from.

Carrots: The biggest carrot growing region in NSW is the Murrimbidgee catchment in the south of the state. The major towns in the catchment area are Leeton and Griffith, about 550km from Sydney. Carrots from Coles will set you back 2 dollars a kilo.

Back at Eveleigh, I bought carrots from Windsor, about 60 kilometres from Sydney for 3 dollars a kilo from Eruk Putrino, who is selling food from his and his neighbour’s farms.

Winner: Eveleigh Markets. The price is only one dollar more, and the produce travels nearly 500 fewer kilometres.

Broccoli: The biggest broccoli growing region in NSW is the central and north west basin, the area near Bathurst, about 320 km from Sydney. Broccoli from Coles is 4 dollars a kilo. My Eveleigh Markets purchase was broccoli from Conowindra, in the central north west basin for 8 dollars a kilo.

Winner: Coles. From the same region, at half the price, I have to choose Coles.

Of course, it’s not just about how far the food has travelled, it’s also about time spent in storage. Recently, apples from one of the big supermarkets were tested and found to be about 10 months old. This cold storage takes energy and chemicals that freshly picked fruit and vegetables don’t use.

There are also other reasons to shop at a farmers market; you are supporting the producers directly, there’s a friendly community atmosphere that supermarkets just don’t have, and there are often samples to snack on while you shop!

Sustainable eating

A recent CSIRO study found that what we eat makes up a third of our carbon footprint. So, how do we eat sustainably?

Here are a few simple guidelines to follow:

Eat more fresh foods. Fewer chemicals have gone into their production.

Know where your food comes from. “Where possible, buy locally or regionally for your staples – fruit and vegies, meat, cheese, etc. Avoid products from overseas where there is a great equivalent local product. And save your food miles for a few imported luxuries now and then!” Cathy Wills, of Sydney Sustainable Markets says.

Eat seasonally. Food that is in season locally is going to be fresher than food imported from overseas (and from another season). It also means that you can enjoy eating summer’s first peach or mango when you haven’t had one in months.

Grow your own produce. “Even if you live in an apartment, you can grow things. I live in an apartment and I’ve got basil, lemongrass, and capsicum. They’re easy to grow and taste fantastic,” says Jane Adams, of the Australian Farmers Market Association.

Farm with your community. Some suburbs (for example, Glebe in the inner-west) have community gardens – plots of land where anyone can plant and harvest what they want.

Keep chickens. For those with more space, keeping chickens is a great option. Not only will they eat your food scraps (reducing your contribution to landfill), but they provide delicious, free range eggs as well.

Drink fewer soft drinks and bottled juices and if buying takeaway coffee, bring your own mug.

Choose food and beverages that have little to no packaging.

Related articles

Sydney markets face threat due to urbanisation

Off to the markets with BYO bags

In part two of Audrey Lee‘s shark investigation, she learns about why man continues to threaten this magnificent predator of the seas.

Braised Sea Cucumber & Golden Soup with Lobster – Replacement Soup for Shark's fin Soup. Image: Fairmont Singapore

The global trade in shark fins is largely driven by the Chinese demand for shark fin soup. According to Michael Aw, founding director of OceanNEnvironment and a shark expert, over 80 per cent of shark fins are consumed primarily in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Jakarta.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Shark Specialist Group states that Hong Kong alone handles at least 50 per cent to as much as 80 per cent of the world trade in shark fin. They have also found a significant mismatch in a comparison of some national shark landings data and Hong Kong fin import data.

They conclude that tens of millions of shark fins ‘missing’ from the landings data are in fact appearing in Hong Kong, which does not provide a detailed report of the extent of shark finning undertaken by fishermen.

Shark fin soup is an Asian delicacy that symbolises wealth and prosperity. Otherwise known as an emperor dish, it was historically served only to wealthy people. A bowl of shark fin soup can cost up to $100 in high-end restaurants.

“Serving shark fin is a way to honour guests. Since it’s expensive, it shows that you want to spoil your friends and show off that you can afford such luxury. Asia is seeing huge growth in their spending power, and more people can now afford shark fin,” Ran Elfassy, founder of Shark Rescue, says.

“Since I was 10, I have been told by my teachers and environmentalists that sharks are dying out there. And till today, they are still saying the same thing. It’s not like I eat shark fin soup everyday anyway, so really, what difference does it make,” says Hung Leung Chee, a 24-year-old Hong Konger.

Conversly, Ben Birt, a marine campaigner of the Australian Marine Conservation Society says: “It is difficult to know where to start when you are trying to change a culture but it is a simple fact that if nothing is done and people continue to eat shark fin soup, there will no longer be any sharks left. And of course no more shark fin soup. The sensible thing would be to stop eating it now and save the species.”

The year 2010 is an auspicious year for 27-year-old Michelle Tang and her 29-year-old fiancé, Tan Ting Feng. The Singaporean couple will be holding their wedding banquet at Swissotel The Stamford in Singapore this October. Needless to say, shark fin soup was on their menu.

“It has always been a customary tradition for us Chinese to have shark fin soup on special occasions,” Tang says. “Sharks harm people so I really don’t see why we can’t eat them. They taste so good!”

Unfortunately for them, Swissotel The Stamford no longer serves shark fin soup to their customers. In 1990, Fairmont Singapore and its sister property, Swissotel The Stamford proactively launched its Green Partnership program, a commitment to reducing their hotels’ impact on the environment. The program aims to save Singapore’s environment, and promote responsible tourism. In December 2008, Fairmont Singapore removed Chilean Sea Bass and Blue Fin Tuna from its menu. Last year, shark fin soup was also taken out from various Chinese restaurants in the hotel complex, including Szechuan Court.

600 complimentary eco-friendly ‘shark fin’ soup were offered to the public as part of Fairmont Singapore’s efforts to raise public awareness. Image: Fairmont Singapore

The misunderstood monsters of the sea have once again been thrust into the spotlight after the recent incident last month when a surfer died after a shark attack in Gracetown, Western Australia. Despite this, experts say man does more damage to sharks rather than what we are led to believe in popular culture. Audrey Lee dives in the deep end to investigate.

A three-metre shark as it surged towards a chunk of tuna carcass attached to a rope. Image: Audrey Lee

Beneath the first blush of an early September predawn light, a fierce wind lashed the sullen, logy waves, stirring up a blast of fresh salt air that consumed me. The loud droning of the engines interrupted the tranquility of the untamed sea as our speedboat jetted across the ocean just off the coast of Gansbaai in South Africa.

With 15 others onboard this 11-metre catamaran, we were on an expedition most would call a ‘reckless’ one. The one animal we fear most was the one we were hoping to meet that morning: the great white shark.

Buckets of diluted rancid minced fish parts, tuna blood and oil, or otherwise called chum, were tossed into the water from the stern. The bristling breath of the sea was engulfed by a long, unbroken trail of this malodorous concoction, snaking its way towards the horizon. The sharks’ sense of smell is so sensitive it can detect even a single drop of blood in the water up to 5 kilometres away.

The boat finally came to a complete standstill and we found ourselves stranded in the beasts’ lair. The choppy waves shook the boat like a rag doll, with the surrounding waters turning crimson from the chum. The cold wind blew harshly, cutting my face like piercing needles. The ocean was a sepulcher. Still raring to go, I climbed into a large cage that was fixed to the starboard at water level. The icy water restricted my legs a little, but I continued to tread to stay warm, as I waited anxiously with bated breath. All other eyes on deck were kept peeled for that familiar triangular fin that might break the water surface.

“Shark!”

It wasn’t long before a fellow member cried out in a keening falsetto. My heart began to race. Most would scurry to shore at the sound of that word, but I put on my snorkel and ducked underwater. The three-metre shark lunged towards a chunk of tuna carcass attached to a line next to where I was. Its huge jaws exposed, baring row upon row of deadly serrated teeth. Its formidable tail was thrashing around wildly, churning up sea bubbles and impairing my vision.

As the bubbles soon began to clear, the shark had already devoured its prey in a matter of seconds. Overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, I edged in closer, instantly captivated by the animal’s majestic performance. The shark glided gracefully towards the cage, its large, unblinking black eyes fixated onto mine. With only so much of a couple of steel bars separating us, I was centimetres from it. I was almost certain that the shark could easily wrench the bars out and attack me if it wanted to. But it didn’t. Like an inquisitive child, I saw a flickering light within its barely visible dark pupils, as it gazed upon me. Unthinkably, the great white disappeared abruptly into the murkiness. The most feared predator on earth… was afraid of me.

The ocean covers about two thirds of the world’s surface and is home to over 80 per cent of life on Earth. The first sharks are known to have lived in the ocean for more than 400 million years, about 150 million years before the age of the dinosaurs. When all other life on Earth was wiped out, sharks have managed to survive five major mass extinctions.

They are the apex predators in the marine environment, helping to maintain the proportional balance of various marine species in the ecosystem. They control the populations below them, essentially eliminating weaker species and thus, creating new ones.

Sharks are known to have terrorised the hearts of people, many of whom are victims of traditional misconceptions and beliefs portrayed by the media. Steven Spielberg’s fear-provoking classic movie, Jaws, released in 1975 is a prime example.

“Jaws was a completely unrealistic and over-dramatised portrayal of the great white shark,” Rebecca Davis, founder of Save Our Sharks Australia, says of the film. “Unfortunately, the fear it instilled into people who saw the movie has continued to influence generation upon generation.”

Even Peter Benchley, the late author of the novel Jaws, wrote an article in 1995 titled “Misunderstood Monsters”, admitting to the damage his book has done to the reputation of sharks.

“I couldn’t write “Jaws” today”, he wrote. “The extensive new knowledge of sharks would make it impossible for me to create, in good conscience, a villain of the magnitude and malignity of the original.”

Scientists and experts have long tried to debunk the myth that sharks are mindless killing machines. Dr. Demian Chapman, a research scientist currently based in Peru from the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science and head of the Institute’s Shark Research Program, is one such expert.

Growing up in New Zealand, Dr Chapman spent most of his childhood on the beach. Like most children, he was fearful of sharks, but became fascinated with them and was “hooked” by the time he realised they were not the “monsters” he perceived them to be.

His fieldwork involves the studying of shark reproduction and behavioural patterns, and he has found them to be amazingly tame.

“I’ve been near thousands and thousands of sharks,” he says. “All the ones that people are very afraid of, and I’ve never been bitten by any of those. In fact, I’ve been bitten more by my dog than sharks.”

According to a statistical study conducted by Taronga Conservation Society Australia, there have only been 52 human fatalities due to shark attack, in Australia in the last 50 years. The last fatal attack happened to actress, Marcia Hathaway, at Sydney Harbour in 1963.

Michael Skoletsky, Executive Director of Shark Savers, says of death from shark bites is usually caused by blood loss. When a shark does bite a person, he claims, “it’s extremely rare that it would bite a person twice”.

“Sharks don’t have arms so sometimes the only way for them to tell or to taste whether something is food is by taking a bite, and they have big mouths,” says Skoletsky.

Upon hearing my shark cage diving experience, Skoletsky says the only reason the shark approached the cage was because of the chum.

“That shark probably would not have wanted to come near you if they weren’t attracting the shark, and they had to work pretty hard at that. They may be chumming long before you got into the cage. So that shows you that the sharks are not there to eat you.”

A shark fin displayed in JADE Chinese Seafood Restaurant in Perth, Western Australia. Image: Audrey Lee

Albeit sharks are often seen as the “bad guys,” Dr Chapman argues that in reality, “we [humans] are the bad guys because we kill more of them”.

Research has shown precipitous declines in many shark species. Michael Aw, founding director of OceanNEnvironment and a shark expert, estimates over 100 million sharks are killed each year, where 26 to 73 million sharks are killed purely for their fins. As a result, over one-third of the shark species are classified as endangered or threatened by extinction under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List.

Shark finning is a common practice where fishermen would pull a shark on deck and slice off its fins while it is often still alive. The rest of the shark is then thrown back into the sea to die either by bleeding to death or suffocation. As shark meat is relatively inexpensive and less profitable, their fins are primarily the reason behind this lucrative industry.

According to Dr Chapman, there is about 20 to 25 species of sharks that make up the fin trade, such as Whale Shark, Mako, Hammerhead, Thresher Shark and Grey Nurse. Putting it simply – the larger the fin, the higher the price. According to Dr Chapman, as far as species that are highly valued, such as the Hammerheads, their fins possess certain “characteristics that the fin traders and consumers find desirable, and can fetch up to $140 per kilogram of hammerhead fins.”

Depleted shark populations are hard to rehabilitate, because as Skoletsky puts it, “sharks have very slow reproduction rate, there’s no way for them to reproduce quickly enough to overcome the fishing.” An average shark can take up to 20 years to reach sexual maturity and even then produces only two to three pups a year.

“Shark populations may take decades to recover, if they are given a chance to, or may never recover if this slaughter continues,” Skoletsky says.

However, there are currently no international laws protecting sharks, as most of the oceans are not within the jurisdiction of any one country. At the conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) held this March in Doha, Qatar, four species of sharks, including the Hammerheads, were up for consideration in their endangered list. Unfortunately, Japan opposed this move.

“The Japanese are extremely active in lobbying against these proposals and using what influence they have to get other countries to vote the same way. It was very disheartening. The sharks came very close, which just goes to show that a majority of countries do recognise this problem and are willing to deal with it. But it’s this handful of countries that are blocking it, simply because they are making a lot of money out of it,” Dr Chapman says of the Japanese at that meeting.

“And also what’s important to note is that the proposals that were up were not to ban trade in shark fins of these species. It was just to monitor the trade in this species. Just to monitor. Which is ludicrous.”

To date, only 17 countries including the European Union (EU) have laws against shark finning, and Australia is one of them. In most of these cases where the practice of shark finning is prohibited, fishermen would have to land the entire shark and not just their fins.

Australia also has regulations that protect some shark species such as the Great White and the Grey Nurse shark and has limit fishermen to a certain quota per year. Nonetheless, sharks are still allowed to be fished and fins are exported overseas.

There are nations that have banned shark fishing altogether. This May, Hawaii became the first US state to have passed a complete ban on all types of shark fin commerce. Not only are fishermen not allowed to fin sharks, landing or marketing shark fin is also strictly prohibited.

In September 2009, Palau established the world’s first shark sanctuary and banned all shark-fishing activities in its waters. Early this year, Maldives banned shark fishing within a restricted zone that covers 90,000 square kilometres of water. Instead, both Palau and Maldives rely heavily on tourism for economic survival.

There is no doubt that our climate is changing. Most of us would agree that it is caused by humans. But what if we have passed the point of no return? James Manning reports.

Why is geoengineering so controversial? Image: saschapohflepp

In climate science, there exists what is known as the ‘tipping point’ – the point at which what has been done to our environment cannot be reversed. Once we have reached this tipping point, the effects of climate change will be permanent, even if we stop burning fossil fuels and switch to completely green energy.

This is where plan B comes in.

Geoengineering tackles the problem from a different angle; like an assault on climate change rather than a defence. It is not a new science, but it is definitely controversial.

It is a more aggressive form of climate change mitigation, broadly defined as the human manipulation of the natural environment on a global scale in order to directly alter the climate and reverse the effects of climate change.

There are two main types of geoengineering: carbon dioxide removal, which aims to leach excess carbon from the atmosphere; and solar radiation management, which aims to cool the earth by deflecting sunlight. Each has their fair share of merits and weaknesses.

Overview

Prevention is the best cure – the scientific community agrees cutting carbon emissions should be the first priority in the fight against climate change. However, like most of the issues facing society today, it’s all caught up in politics.

The global community has been holding conferences and signing treaties for over 20 years. Margaret Thatcher first gave a speech in 1988 outlining the scientific evidence for climate change.

“Even though this kind of action may cost a lot, I believe it to be money well and necessarily spent because the health of the economy and the health of our environment are totally dependent upon each other,” she said.

And yet here we are in 2010 and little has changed. New technologies abound, real action (ironically the campaign slogan of the do-nothing Coalition) is slow on the uptake. Fossil fuel emissions are still rising from all of the world’s major polluters.

Reducing carbon emissions at this stage may simply not be enough to rectify the consequences of climate change. The severe lack of preventative action may mean that radical theories such as geoengineering are our only remaining options.

Dr Ramsis Salama, a climate and hydrological scientist, is an advocate of geoengineering. “We need to change all our systems – we need to know how to live with climate change. The way we live, the way we use resources like water is all wrong,” he said.

“Are we going to go at the same pace at which we are going now? No – nobody can guarantee that … something might happen, something else that might make the rate of climate change explode,” said Dr Salama.

The Royal Society, a preeminent scientific research society based in London, agrees. Their report Geoengineering the climate: science governance and uncertainty released late last year, states:

“Unless future efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are much more successful than they have been so far, additional action in the form of geoengineering will be necessary if we are to cool the planet.”

“Some of these proposals may seem fantastical, and may prove to be so,” said Professor John Shepherd, chair of the geoengineering studies being undertaken at the Royal Society.

It has steadily gained popularity as scientists have become aware of the fact that reaching the tipping point for our environment is not matter of ‘if’, but ‘when. Indeed, we may have already passed it.

As a result, it has risen to the political agenda in some countries, such as Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Closer to home, the Victorian state government recently invested $250,000 in a ‘climate intervention technologies’ conference held in California in March, hosted by the US Climate Response Fund.

The conference, which included scientists from the United States, Europe and a former CSIRO scientist, discussed international guidelines for the application of geoengineering, risk assessment, social considerations and funding opportunities.

“This conference has been important step in determining the special considerations and obligations associated with research on climate intervention and remediation,” said Dr Michael McCracken of the Climate Response Fund at the conference.

Perhaps most important was the discussion of social and legal perspectives on geoengineering, rather than focussing purely on the science and ecological risks involved.

The general consensus reached was that until it is absolutely necessary, and further testing has been done, geoengineering should not be utilised, but that research should continue to be conducted.

Apart from this isolated instance by the Victorian Government, Australia and the CSIRO do not currently research or invest in any form of geoengineering, and declined to comment on an area of research in which they are not involved.

In the UK, however, an inquiry into geoengineering was held before the House of Commons earlier this year. British parliament concluded that regulation of geoengineering was crucial in order to monitor current research and prepare for future applications.

“If we start work now it will provide the opportunity to fully explore the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues,” said a Government report on the inquiry.

The report states that regulation should be international due to the global nature of the technologies involved, and that individual regulatory frameworks must be developed for different technologies because they are vastly different in nature. The inquiry also called for international disclosure of the findings of geoengineering research.

Carbon dioxide removal

We simply have too much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide removal, as the name suggests, aims to rectify that. While these technologies address the core of the problem, they work slowly over a very large time scale.

The most popular form of carbon dioxide removal is ocean fertilisation, whereby the ocean is fertilised with iron, which stimulates the growth of carbon capturing plankton.

There are problems with this though – the carbon captured does not sink deep into the ocean easily, and once it does, it has a tendency to make the surrounding ocean low in oxygen. Needless to say, this can have alarming effects on marine biodiversity.

Another form of carbon dioxide removal, also known as carbon sequestering, uses mirrors and sunlight to leach carbon out of the air. This method is currently being researched in Switzerland at the Paul Scherrer Institute and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Giant mirrors direct intense sunlight into laboratories, creating extreme temperatures up to 2000 degrees Celsius. When the compound calcium oxide is heated in these extreme temperatures, it leaches carbon dioxide out of the air, transforming it into calcium carbonate, or limestone powder. The powder is then further heated, at which point the calcium carbonate breaks down to calcium oxide and carbon. The calcium oxide can be reused and the carbon can be liquefied and stored.

Using this method, carbon dioxide could potentially be returned to atmospheric concentration levels not seen since before the Industrial Age.

However, this method also has its problems, such as safety issues and the cost of storing the carbon. Despite this, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology endeavours to build a plant this year that has the ability to capture approximately one tonne of carbon dioxide every day.

Dr Salama explained why geoengineering is still in its infancy: “We have previously conducted a lot of research and geological experiments at the CSIRO on the sequestering of carbon dioxide, liquefaction of carbon dioxide and injecting it underground,” said Dr Salama.

“Research is still going on elsewhere, but to do it we have a long way to go. It is a solution, if you can find an easy way to transform carbon dioxide and inject it underground or into the oceans. It’s very good but it’s still very experimental and is only being done in very small amounts,” said Dr Salama.

Dr Salama warns that geoengineering techniques are only intended as a back-up plan: “Unless we stop the mechanism by which this is happening – humans – we can never stop the cycle.” There is a danger, after all, of creating public disillusion that geoengineering is a quick fix that enables to carry on polluting the way we have been for hundreds of years. This is definitely not the case.

Solar radiation management

Solar radiation management, on the other hand, aims to cool the planet by deflecting the sun’s rays back out to space. Unlike carbon dioxide removal, solar radiation management could act quickly to reduce the temperature of the planet in the event of a crisis.

One theory, developed by the 2006 Nobel Prize winner Professor Paul Crutzen, suggests injecting large amounts of sulphur into the atmosphere, like a volcano eruption.

Some argue that this is just fighting pollution with pollution, as there are side effects to adding copious amounts of sulphur to the atmosphere, such as the acid rain. Large amounts of sulphur also have the potential to destroy ozone particles. Moreover, sulphur does not last long in the atmosphere, and so would have to be continuously added – which does not come cheap.

With all these techniques, there is the possibility of other side effects that are not yet known, and will not be until they are tried. For example, altering the composition of the atmosphere, as suggested by the injection of sulphur, can have devastating effects on global weather patterns.

It is possible that entire seasons could shift, altering rainfall patterns and having unforseen impacts upon crops and global food supplies.

“We are going to face a lot of problems. We have to be certain about that,” warned Dr Salama.

Professor Shepherd agrees: “None of the geoengineering technologies so far suggested is a magic bullet, and all have risks and uncertainties associated with them.”

Other solar radiation methods include placing large mirrors in space to deflect the sun’s rays and the “bleaching” of clouds to increase reflectivity. However, these methods are very expensive and their side effects unknown.

Unlike carbon dioxide removal, solar radiation management does nothing to reduce the amount of carbon already in the air and its associated impacts, such as the acidification of oceans.

The Royal Society report concludes: “Geoengineering methods should only be considered as part of a wider package of options for addressing climate change … used irresponsibly or without regard for possible side effects, geoengineering could have catastrophic consequences similar to those of climate change itself.”

The Royal Society, the British Parliament and the Climate Response Fund have all recommended the establishment of ethical guidelines.

Geo-engineering the future

Many scientists now believe that one day, in the not too distant future, geoengineering may be our only option for survival.

But plan B is not without risk. Are the dangers it brings with it too great? What price do we put on the future of our planet, and indeed ourselves?

PMC Newsdesk | Pacific Scoop

The Rainbow Warrior lists heavily at Marsden Wharf in Auckland Harbour after the bombing by French secret service agents. July, 1985. Image: Courtesy of Greenpeace via Pacific Scoop

Greenpeace New Zealand and its international counterparts commemorated the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior at Marsden Wharf, Auckland Harbour last weekend.

Late in the night, 25 years ago, French secret agents attached two bombs beneath the Rainbow Warrior’s waterline. The bombs later exploded, blowing a huge hole int he vessel’s steel hull, and destroying its propellor shaft.

One of the Rainbow Warrior’s crew, Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira, died in the attack.

It was later found that France had planned and carrier out the attack on the Greenpeace flagship due to sensitivities France, a nuclear power, had over Greenpeace’s planned protest against French nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific.

It was the first time a foreign force had committed an act of terrorism, in modern times, on New Zealand soil. Two french agents, Captain Dominique Prieur and Commander Alain Mafart, were later arrested and convicted after pleading guilty to manslaughter charges.

The two were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. But after France threatened economic sanctions against New Zealand, a deal was struck where the two agents would sit out three years of their sentences on a French military base on Hao Atoll. However both Mafart and Prieur were returned to France and freedom well short of completing the imprisonment term.

Greenpeace International has marked the 25th anniversary of the bombing by laying the keel of the Rainbow Warrior III in Poland.

And Greenpeace New Zealand has held a small commemoration at its Mt Eden offices in Auckland, and in the afternoon the documentary ‘The Rainbow Warriors of Waiheke’ screened in Auckland’s Skycity theatre.

Greenpeace International’s Executive Director Kumi Naidoo said: “In the 1980s, using non-violent direct action, Greenpeace faced down one of the world’s nuclear superpowers. Nuclear annihilation was a threat that came close to becoming a reality several times during the Cold War.”

He added: “Today’s biggest threat is climate change, which as we now know, has been underway for decades, since long before the French sank the Warrior.”

In a statement, Greenpeace said the 57 metre Rainbow Warrior III will carry on the work of its predecessors, once launched in October 2011. She will be able to travel the globe under sail, generally only needing to motor when entering port or when involved in actions.

Greenpeace New Zealand Executive Director Bunny McDiarmid said everyone needs to be making big changes right now in order to avoid catastrophic climate change.

“Governments must begin operating at a whole new level; ordinary citizens will have to become active in telling their governments they want action, and consumers are going to have to wean themselves off the habit of constant consumption,” says McDiarmid.

Greenpeace said the 57 metre Rainbow Warrior III will carry on the work of its predecessors, once launched in October 2011. She will be able to travel the globe under sail, generally only needing to motor when entering port or when involved in actions.

The Greenpeace statement follows:

The environmental impacts of her construction, operation and eventual disposal have all been mitigated as much as is possible through good design, and the use of non-toxic materials.

The ship will have a secure media room for broadcasting what its crew witness to the world, and, unusually for a sailing ship, she will have a helicopter pad and hanger.

The Rainbow Warrior III will cost $20 million Euros. Greenpeace NZ is aiming to raise the $400,000 needed for the Rapid Response area, from where the crew will launch their actions.

Since the fundraising site www.rainbow-warrior.org.nz went live just over a week ago, $26,000 has been raised.

“It’s an initial result that I’m sure means, with some more support from New Zealanders, we will meet our target,” says McDiarmid.

“Climate change is something that businesses, governments and people everywhere know they have a vested interest in stopping. But that will only happen with real and urgent action,” she says.

By Kirsten Brogaard | Melbourne Editor

A familiar scene in Melbourne streets. Image: Kirsten Brogaard

Experts believe that consumers need to know more about what to do with electronic waste, if a national scheme is going to solve the growing problems caused by e-waste.

Among those calling for more education on the issue is John Gertsakis, executive officer of Product Stewardship Australia, an organisation put together by the television industry to help recycling move along.

“The key to success in terms of environmental effectiveness in e-waste is significant collections of the products; diversion from landfill; material recovery; and community awareness in all states and territories,” Mr Gertsakis said.

Since November 2009, Product Stewardship Australia has been working with the government to put the national e-waste scheme together. A part of that is figuring out how to make consumers more aware of what e-waste is and what to do with it.

Currently, only about ten per cent of Australian televisions, computers and other electronic devices are recycled, and Australians know very little about the problems of e-waste, according to Terrie-Anne Johnson, chief executive of Clean up Australia.

“People wouldn’t be able to tell you what items in their home or their office are actually classified as e-waste. We are encouraged to separate our paper, plastic, metals and glass but electronic waste has not been discussed.”

With a rate of growth three times faster than public and domestic waste, the growing piles of e-waste are creating an environmental hazard as toxins and metals, such as mercury and lead in the electronics, are sent to landfill instead of being recycled.

“It is growing so quickly and people don’t know how to get rid of it,” said Ms Johnson, who has been trying to raise awareness about the issues of e-waste for the last decade.

“Generally there is a minimal amount of awareness of the impact of electronic waste and the scope of the problem.”

The government and industry is still working on the scheme, which is only planned to include recycling of televisions and computers. However, some private businesses and a few states have already started to collect and recycle electronic waste, although without much awareness being raised about it.

“Most people would be unaware that they even exist, because there has been no real strong publicity around this,” waste management consultant Peter Allan said.

Allan is the author of ‘Waste and Recycling in Australia’, the government report on e-waste.

He agrees that making the consumers more aware is a crucial factor for the e-waste scheme to succeed.

“They are going to have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars raising the awareness on what the community’s collection options are.”

Mr. Gertisakis from Product Stewardship Australia is already thinking about how to develop an education and information program for the public and he is hoping to reach the Australian consumers when the scheme is up and running next year.

“By the end of 2011 I expect that more people will know that e-waste is something you don’t just put out with your general rubbish but it is something that should be recycled, refurbished and reused,” he said.

Kristen Brogaard is a GEJI exchange student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

UPDATE: Bolivia is the poorest country in Latin America. Despite its contribution to global greenhouse emissions being only 0.03%, it will be one of the first to bear the consequences of climate change, writes Rebecca Zhou.

Bolivia’s leading glaciologist, Edson Ramirez, and his team of researchers began studying the Chacaltaya Glacier on South America’s Andes Ranges in 1991 after it showed signs of decline in the late 1980s. They forecasted a complete meltdown by 2015. But in May 2009 it vanished into scarcely more than a shiny sliver, six years premature to Ramirez’s prediction. The rate of thaw had tripled in the last ten years.

The glacier was over 18,000-year-old and was one of the highest ski resorts on Earth. Skiing stopped altogether in about 1989 with the only remnant of a once robust ski culture being an old ski lodge. In 1998 when the ski lift finally shut down, Chacaltaya was still 15 metres thick and losing one metre a year. In 2007 when Mark Corcoran from ABC’s Foreign Correspondent paid a visit to the region and spoke to Edson Ramirez, there were still 3-4 metres of ice left. Ramirez told Corcoran that he would give the remnants some two years to disappear. This time he was right.

The remains of what used to be the world's highest ski resort,

Alex Sen Gupta, a researcher at the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of New South Wales believes that it is a combination of high altitudes and the nature of rainfall characteristic of the region which serves to accelerate the melting of tropical glaciers.

“In the tropics you get more rainfall. More rainfall means more snowfall which is supposed to replenish the glaciers, but it is proving to be insufficient to counter the elevation of temperature levels at high altitudes,” he said.

More than 25 percent of global tropical glaciers, including the Himalayas and the Kilimanjaro have already disappeared.

“We are expecting the same socio-economic problems particularly in Peru and Bolivia already being experienced in India, especially with the guaranteed population expansion in both countries. They will be the first people to feel the impacts of climate change without having the infrastructure to adapt,” he said.

The Chacaltaya is part of Bolivia’s Tuni Condoriri glaciated mountain system. Over the past decade the glaciers have been hit by an unprecedented number of El Ninos, a complex water phenomenon triggered by erratic patterns of rising and cooling temperatures on opposite ends of the Pacific Ocean. The hot air in Australia moves down the Peruvian coast and the effect on Boliva is a constant state of low cloud and subsequent low precipitation and high radiation causing the glacier to absorb massive levels of that radiation. The low levels of snowfall resulting from low rainfall deprive the glacier of a chance to replenish from the harsh suns of high altitudes.

Bolivia has long been the poorest and most under-developed country in Latin America with an average annual income in rural areas of only US $150.
The glacier system provides more than half of the water used in the cities of La Paz and El Alto. El Alto will be more severely affected due to higher levels of poverty primarily in the indigenous migrant population. In the next decade, the population residing in the city’s vast slums is set to double as indigenous people migrate in search of work. The lack of water has always been an issue with an estimated 2.3 million people in deprivation of safe water or sanitation. The issue however, resonates from a history of civil conflicts over the resource.

The politics of water in Bolivia

In 1997 the Bolivian government began privatising water systems under pressure from the World Bank. The Bank had argued that its intention was to improve the water situation of the country by removing it from the control of corrupt local governments. But the World Bank’s ideals failed to live up to reality. The final privatization occurred in 1998 in the country’s third largest city of Cochabamba with the water contract with Bechtel and the Abengoa Corporation of Spain. It paved the way for rate increases of double and more for poor water users. The market then determined the pricing of water and prices were hiked up suddenly and steeply in the necessity of financing the 16 percent annual profit demanded by the companies. In 2005 protestors filled the streets of El Alto en masse and the Bolivian government declared martial law in a last resort to save the company’s contract. The riot led to over a hundred casualties.

In 2006 a socialist left government was elected and water privatisation was abolished to make way for a new law that would be negotiated with the public and social organisations. An official special council, the Consejo Interinstitucional del Agua (CONIAG), was created at the suggestion of civil society and social organizations and was charged with drafting a water management law based on public consultation. This was an unprecedented gesture as Bolivia had rarely sought public input into policy-making.
But the lofty leftist ideals of Morale’s government about water being state property and a non-profitable right of the citizens does not solve the cash problem as private investments represent Bolivia’s only leverage from the crisis.
Infrastructure projects totaling US$60 million may guarantee El Alto-La Paz enough water for the next decade or so, said EPSAS director Victor Rico, but the utility has no more than US$1.5 million a year to invest. Rico has secured a US$5.5 million Venezuelan loan and said he has promises of a US$5 million grant from the EU, the possibility of US$8 million in mixed Canadian financing and possibly some Japanese and InterAmerican Development Bank money.
Now, the rapid disintegration of the cities’ primary source of water will only complicate the issue.

What this means for Bolivia’s water supply

More than 11 million people now live in the twin cities, and El Alto alone is expanding at 5 percent a year with migrants coming into the city in search for work. More than 60 percent of their drinking water comes from the glaciers.

The UNIPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) report on the regional impacts of climate change suggests that arid and semi-arid areas are particularly vulnerable to changes in water availability as hydropower generation and water supply for humans and livestock largely depend on local water catchments.

Without the glaciers, scientists fear that the region will have to depend on the scarce 400mm rainfall per year. The issue of electricity is also a pressing one with the hydroelectric dam sitting atop the Andes relying on glacier run-off to drive its turbines. The dam provides 80 percent of La Paz’s power.

“Tropical glaciers act as a reservoir of water for the dry seasons and moderators of rainfall throughout the wet ones,” said Dr Sen Gupta.

“They spread the rainfall so that you get gradual rain throughout the year. Without those glaciers, what will happen is that rain will come in irregular patterns and in larger flows during wet seasons and become even scarcer during dry ones.”

“Those effects are vital during September and November, when ice is melting and water demand is at its maximum. The discharge from basins is critical during those months as the nearby Altiplano basins begin emptying.”

He says that to counteract the sporadic rainfall melting glaciers would cause, more dams and catchments would have to be constructed at strategic areas. This will increase the cost of water supply to Andean cities and potentially trigger civil conflicts as the issue of water prices has done in the past. The additional costs of flow regulation in basins would also manifest in increased water tariffs for small to medium-sized irrigation systems, rendering the poor more vulnerable.

A Bolivian government climate change planner, Javier Gonzalez told ABC Foreign Correspondent in 2007 that the city cannot afford to build catchment dams due to the government funding that would be required to build such infrastructure in a highly complex earthquake-prone zone.

“The crux of the problem is that these people are so incredibly poor and they simply can’t afford the infrastructure that’s needed to counter these impacts,” said Dr Sen Gupta, “And we see this in cities around other tropical glacier regions like the Indian communities around the Himalayas and the Tanzanian ones near Mount Kilimanjaro.”

The meltdown of these glaciers causes problems of water quality as well. Mining is often conducted without consideration of environmental impacts. The runoff from the glacier flows into a dam that’s been built beside an abandoned mine from which toxic effluent continues to flow. The authorities have been dealing with the problem by filtering the contaminants downstream but as the run off grows scarce the concentration levels of toxins will increase and that solution will no longer be viable.

Natural disasters and infectious diseases

Glaciers have always acted as reservoirs and floodgates, storing water as snow and ice, and gradually releasing it throughout the year. Now water often arrives in unregulated torrents. Flash floods have been a regular occurrence, destroying homes and killing over 70 people in 2008.

Carlos Céspedes, head of planning for the National Naval Hydrology Service, said in an interview with Tierraamerica that climate change has exacerbated the El Nino effect and caused heavier and more constant rainfall. The Ranchers Federation in the north-eastern department of Beni estimates at least 22,000 head of cattle dead. Other losses, not yet quantified, are related to the farming sector there and in Santa Cruz and Pando, where rice and soybean crops were hit.

The increase in infectious diseases is another factor for concern. In 2008, Marilyn Aparicio, a physician at the state National Program for Climate Change discovered a new strain for malaria near Lake Titicaca, the world’s highest navigable lake 12,507 feet.

The change in the entire ecosystem around Lake Titica is evident in the outbreak of malaria in all sectors of the population, not just in migrating peoples. In 1998 there was an outbreak of 50 cases in a town of 250 citizens at an altitude of 11,000 feet

Her studies showed that some anopheles mosquitoes have adapted to living at altitudes between 2,620 and 3,590 metres — conditions very different from their usual environment: warm, tropical and subtropical regions below 2,600 metres.

Four cases were announced by the Ministry of Health in November 2008 confirmed scientists fears that the malaria will spread across the high plains of altiplano, home to one-third of the nation’s population.

“Most of Bolivia is over three or four thousand feet above sea level. It’s hard because you’ve already got cases of dengue and malaria,” said Dr Sen Gupta, “What will happen now is a widening of the temperature belt outwards from the more tropical regions, carrying vectors along to even higher altitudes.”

Paul Begg, an environmental scientist at Macquarie University has been studying the potential impacts of climate change on allergy and has concluded pollen levels are expected to rise, guaranteeing an increase in asthma and hay fever.

“Studies show that we are already seeing a prevalence in pollen levels during seasons where they should be very low,” said Dr Begg, “Currently allergy diseases are primarily a concern for developed countries because children are raised in more sterile environments that cause their immune system to develop in irregular ways but developing countries are also at risk as they continue to westernise.”

With 2.3 million people already facing a lack of clean water, ill-equipped healthcare facilities and a population that is set to double in the next decade, the people of La Paz and El Alto are facing their direst situation yet.
Only 30% of the rural areas in Bolivia have access to electricity. The irony of global warming is that those communities are paying the highest price for a luxury they’ve never experienced.

South America’s glacier crisis

The Amalia Glacier, South Patagonia, Chile

The Pantagonian ice-fields of Chile and Argentina are melting faster than any other glacier on Earth. They have lost 42 cubic kilometers of ice every year over the past seven years, which is equivalent to the size of ten thousand large football stadiums. They account for nearly 10 per cent of global sea-level change caused by mountain glaciers, according to a new study by NASA and Chile’s Centro de Estudios Cientificos, and the rate at which they are melting is accelerating…

Continue reading …

]]> http://www.reportage-enviro.com/2009/09/update-bolivias-glacier-crisis/feed/ 0