Global Climate Change Action

Dear climatologists,planners and policy makers,
Greetings to you all.
Climate change is again high on the international agenda, as the world is still figuring out appropriate solutions to reduce emissions at local, national and global level. However we young people are concerned that the world will suffer the effects of climate change when the young men and women are not integrated in the fight. Therefore policies to be sustainable should bring youth on board and encourage them take action at home or school to save energy, plant trees and abscond from burning fossils.
Kind regards
Alex Zizinga Muyingo
C/O Makerere University Agriculture Research Institute Kabanyolo
Department of Soil Science
P.O.BOX 7062
Tel:+256774284497
+256701284497
Email:azlzlnga@gmail.com
alex...@yahoo.com

Dear Mr. Rudd,
During my M.Sc. in Environmental Technology, I was given a class-assignment to tackle a global environmental problem in an innovative way. I chose “Rise of CO2 in the Air” because I had something to say on this.

I wrote a plan which was low tech, can easily put into practice and where the whole world can come to play. The plan opens a new dimension to carbon trade for businesses, also the World. The outline was as this-

Fast-growing trees assimilate CO2 out of air fast (4 times faster than natural forests). We need to harvest these trees for their fast growing period in selected areas around the world. The harvest (dry hard wood is >50% carbon and very slow degrading?) will be put away into caves, empty mines and natural faults- thus putting away atmospheric CO2 safely and cheaply for a very long time. After all, thousands of years old similar fossilized trees we use (oil, coal and gas) cause air CO2 to rise. Why not put back some?

A Chinese saying is “Catastrophe = Opportunity”. Could we not witness the CO2 rise as an opportunity to store some energized Carbon (similar to currency?) for foreseeable future use? Businesses may choose to grow & bury calculated numbers of trees each year to compensate for their extra carbon emission need. This plan will help developing countries come to terms with the world’s Carbon Trade agreement where they can even keep the harvest for themselves. The plan allows a proportionate trade between businesses and the earth, which is only apt.

This act means no offense to tree-lovers, forest-lovers or nature lovers. Only newly grown, purposefully, commercially harvested trees will be used, leaving natural forests alone. Scientists will calculate the numbers of trees required each year and decide types of trees to harvest for total sustainability (go bananas! ..may start experimenting with water hyacinth!).

Desperate time calls for desperate measures. I know this is not ‘The’ solution, but as an Environmental Technologist I believe it has the signature of being a substantial part of it.

Sreeman Mishu Barua, MSc(UK), REHS(USA)
BaruaEnviro Consultancy,
Plot: X-50, Block: A,
Chandgaon R/A,
4212 CTG,
Bangladesh.
+88 (0)31 672678
+88 (0)183 0183 777
sani...@inbox.com

N.B.: Unique Advantages of the Plan:
• Fast growing trees assimilate Carbon out of air 3 to 4 times more than regular grown up forest trees. Wood is >50% carbon by dry weight & >2 tons of carbon can be assimilated per acre per year with such trees.

• Commercially harvesting of fast growing tree means new business throughout the world and support from Nature activists (no antagonism socially).

• Industries/ businesses may choose to grow & bury required No.s of trees (a carbon mass) as direct carbon trade (for the excess carbon emission they may do each year; can be seen as secondary allowance?). Governments throughout the world can grow & bury against their primary allowances to businesses/ industries for their ‘right to emit a specific amount’. Direct, proportionate carbon trade between businesses and the earth is seen as the best here. The plan will keep a cap on totally undesirable secondary, tertiary profit-selling of carbon credits in the trade market.

• Energy cost (financial burden) to execute the plan is minimal.

• Bigger, fast developing countries who are unwilling to sign an International Carbon Trade Agreement may find this plan most suitable.

• Same land can be used over and over again to harvest fast growing trees on 5 to 10 year basis (since our cultivable land is limited and we cannot create unlimited forest). The cost to keep the land fertile comes into account.

• Caves, empty mines, natural faults are there to store huge quantities of logs & chips- without interfering into any other natural & human activity.

• With Safest & longest storable way and an energy source, the opportunity to use logs when in desperate need is always there (or when sustainable environmental friendly ways of energy extraction from wood will be invented in future).

• No shortages of micro & macro nutrients needed to harvest such vast quantities of wood.

• Biotechnology may invent trees of even higher CO2 assimilation capacity (harvest can be grown in isolation, no interference with natural progeny).

Why Policy makers and decision-making, implementation centrally?
Do you not find the idea of carbon sequestration through burial of wood is a simple enough & good enough idea to propose to the topmost level (UN & World leaders)? Maths are all there and simple! Only a unified action from a country (or From the World) can make it a success. You will never get it done (forget doing it in time!) disseminating the idea at grass-root level. It is the vision, willingness and understanding of the policymakers we need to pursue. Our present vision has ended at growing more trees but cannot dread to think what are we going to do with those trees, especially when we need long time carbon-sequestration and our arable land is limited?

We need to change world’s vision on our idea & research. Each Log/ Wood/ Chip is a cell of stored carbon & Energy. And ‘Grow & Bury’ wood in every sense is ‘the single best way’ to put away enough carbon to save our planet. Some would say (those who see burying wood is a waste), let’s use the wood as energy and bury the char it produces. There could be a debate on it and if it is totally sustainable, and does not backstab our primary goal (Long term carbon sequestration) - then by all means let’s do it!

Let me tell you of a Bangladeshi Multi-million dollar MLM (multi-level marketing) company, the only product of which is tree plantation. About 2.5 million Bangladeshi national invested into it. The company is a lease-holder of thousands of acres of land (giving no heed to social antagonism or often misusing legal & poor governmental administrative systems; because the more it grows, further it needs to grow). It plans to grow & sell trees on a 12 year cycle & profit the investors 4 times more then national banks.
We know what will happen to those trees within a quarter of a century. All are acting as temporary sequesters (without however any accountability that it will at all!) but ultimately thrown to the nature as CO2. We do not use 10-15 year old wooden furniture/ materials, do we?

Related Issue:
Now, so far we taxed the players at the outskirts of the carbon problem (those who are using carbon minerals). What about those who are at the centre; who are producing them? I believe countries unearthing carbon minerals must be ‘environment-taxed’ for the amount they take out yearly. Since the ill-effects of carbon mineral’s use are global and the producers benefit financially at the cost of those ill effects, however necessary the commodity may be, they cannot deny environmental responsibility.

Since buyer’s demand cause producers to unearth in vast amount; hypothetically, producers could share the proposed environment tax with primary buyers in proportion to their demand. Never the less, there has to be adequate taxation, the amount needed to reverse the incurring ill-effects in the environment.

Dear Mr Rudd, I wrote to you prior to the election and asked you what you stood for and what you intended to do about the environment if you were to gain office. You were one of the few who answered my letter which was written on behalf of the Macarthur Bicycle Users Group and Macarthur Bushwalkers located south of Sydney in an area home to several coal mines including BHP-Billiton. I must admit that your response influenced many of our group when it came to the election.
We are an environmental group and tremendously interested in energy sources and their effect on the long term future of Australia. Many of us are in the older age groups and wish to see our grandchildren experience the wonder of our flora and fauna.
Several years ago I read an article in the local newspaper about Rivers SOS as they are now known. They are a group of individuals trying to stop BHP and other mining companies from mining within 1 kilometre of the Georges, Nepean and Cataract rivers. They were requesting a 1 kilometre buffer zone betwwn the longwall miner and our rivers which was estimated to be sufficient to stop the rivers and Sydney catchment area being damaged by the mining process.
They have now been joined by forty or more groups state wide from farmers to environmentalist to groups like the Macarthur Bushwalkers.
As a bush walker I had often walked in these areas and experienced first hand what underground long wall mining can do but at the time I didn't understand why the rivers had little water and the rock was cracking. The mining companies said it was because of the drought.
Some of our rivers are now running dry even after rain, I photographed georges River last month after several days of rain and published the photographs on our website. The river bed is dry and the waterfall almost stopped flowing. Does this lack of water mean that we will lose our Sulphur Crested Cockatoos which nest along the river in large numbers. We also have Pythons, Red Bellied Black Snakes, Yellow Tailed Black Cockatoos, Wallabies and Eastern Gray Kangaroos and Water Dragons to name a few. We used to have Platypus but they have gone now.
I decided to research the mining industry with emphasis on long wall mining. This research took me around the world and expanded my knowledge to the point where I feel that a few small groups in Macarthur / NSW aren't going to change the strategies of the Federal Government, State Government and the mine owners.
Research taught me that any and all damage created by the long wall mining process is predictable and calculated. The mining engineers and mining companies have considerable experience with the damage they now cause to communities. They are completely aware of the issues their industry has caused many times around the world. They have improve their mining techniques so that they can mine more coal in greater quantities using wider and wider cuts thus reducing their overheads but at the same time creating more damage for the locals.
It would seem it is cheaper to cut coal and buy owners out. It appears that the governments we elect with our votes won't stop them. Our governments don't seem to care.
The mining companies rely on the ignorance of local communities and local government. The mining industry public relations machine is expert in the following procedures:-
Initially make promises to the communities they are about to damage and destroy.
Feeding false information.
Not accepting responsibility for the damage they are creating.
Hold community meetings to win over the people and improve the companies image.
Supplying funding for small community projects ie playgrounds, community halls etc.
Purchasing badly damaged property and give compensation with gag clauses.
Walking away and leaving devastated communities behind them.
Moving on to the next community or source of coal or minerals and starting the process off again.

The surface damage from subsidence that occurs to houses, barns, highways, streets, railways, springs, wells, pipelines, streams, wetlands, farm fields, forests, and other surface features often is not evident to the casual observer.
Mining jobs are rapidly disappearing! One only has to do a Google search to see what equipment in the future will replace the miners of Appin, Bargo, Hunter Valley and the Illawarra. Some men will hang on to the end before looking elsewhere for employment.
It is only a few years ago that we informed Campbelltown Council of the dangers of long wall mining as the longwall mining advanced from Appin toward Campbelltown. The councils of Campbelltown, Camden and Wollondilly hadn't previously been told by the companies of the expansion.

Earlier this year I met with two researchers from Bowral who were asking for ideas from the community on how to improve the image of a mining company in the Southern Highlands. They actually stated that it was preferable that we meet locally rather than at a community information night. Maybe they thought I might raise issues which the Bargo community was not aware.
This inspired me to write seven pages about BHP and its environmental record which I have now published on our website with the objective of warning other who live in our coalfields.

The Kevin Rudd led Australian Federal government has spoken in the past about alternative forms of energy but doesn't support it with their actions. The Howard government before it didn't even recognise that there were climate issues.
The Governor of California Arnold Swarzeneggar is showing the way by utilising Australian designed solar energy devices to generate electricity in his state. He is now building a second solar power plant which is even bigger than the one which recently came online using Australian technology.
Australian engineers are now taking solar energy research and technology overseas because they cannot obtain funding here. Their actions are sending a very strong message about the taxes obtained from mining, the mining lobby and their mythical clean coal. The sad thing is that we, the Australian people are letting it happen.
There are alternatives to the destruction caused by long wall mining, visit the website and view Sagging Streams by Ted Williams.
We have federal and state energy ministers who turn a blind eye to the communities problems throughout NSW.
Why do we have a situation where an Australian Prime minister donates $100 million dollars of tax payers money to a clean coal project therefore supporting a mining lobby which is probably the greatest polluter of the environment this planet has ever seen? They are responsible for massive damage to our rivers and ecosystems which is still going on. In the future will be remembered for what they really are with their destructive technologies.
There are energy technologies that are proven which don't pollute.
A little research in Google will educate any person as to the attitudes and actions of these mining companies. Surely they have had the time and the resources to finance their own research without being a burden to us, the Australian people.
Why does an Australian Prime Minister fund the mining industry and why do you not protect the Australian people from these multi-national vandals

I am sure my peers will be very happy to hear your views on this matter.
Regards
Kenneth Hall
MacBUG / Macarthur Bushwalkers

Letter to the Deputy Prime Minister - October 9, 2008

Juli...@aph.gov.au

Dear Julia,

Here's hoping this letter finds you and yours happy and healthy.
I have some very important questions for your Government and am hoping for an expedient
reply. I understand you are busy helping to run a country, but there are only two
questions and these questions cannot wait. A quick reply would be greatly appreciated.

Is the Federal ALP supporting the production of Geothermal Power?

1. If not, why not?
2. If so, where and how long must the people of Australia wait?
When can we expect to have this proven technology available to all power consumers?

Yours sincerely
Anne Goddard
----------------------
Some background information:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/the-power-beneath-our-feet/2005/09/26/1...

This Sydney Morning Herald story is dated 2005… I wonder what the status of this Geothermal Project is? Does anyone out there know?
The power beneath our feet
By Tim Flannery
September 26, 2005

There is one other option for the continuous production of power. Geothermal energy has a long history, yet despite the considerable amount of heat lying between our feet and our planet's molten mantle, geothermal technologies provide a mere 10,000 megawatts of power worldwide.

This sorry state of affairs may soon change, for it transpires that we have been looking for heat in the wrong places. Previously, geothermal power has come from volcanic regions, where aquifers flowing through the hot rocks provide superheated water and steam. It seems sensible to seek power in such places, but consider the geology. Lava volcanoes only exist where the Earth's crust is being torn apart, allowing the magma to come to the surface.

Iceland, formed from the ocean floor where Europe and North America are drifting away from each other, is an excellent example. There is plenty of heat in such places, but also formidable impediments to generating power, with the biggest problem being the aquifers. Although many flow freely when first tapped, they quickly dwindle, leaving the power plant without a means of transferring the rock's heat to its generators. In the 1980s operators began to pump water back into the ground in the hope that it would be reheated and could be reused. Quite often the water just vanished, for in regions where the Earth's crust is being torn apart, many vertical faults exist, and the water was diverted by these rather than returned to the wellhead.

In Switzerland and Australia, companies are finding commercially usable heat in the most unlikely places. When oil and gas companies prospected in the deserts of northern South Australia, nearly four kilometres below the surface they discovered a body of granite heated to about 250 degrees - the hottest near-surface, non-volcanic rock ever discovered.

The heat had been generated by the natural radioactivity of the granite, which had been kept in place by a blanket of sediment nearly four kilometres thick. What really excited the geologists was that the granite was not in a region where the Earth's crust was being torn apart, but where it was being compressed. This led to horizontal, rather than vertical, fracturing of the rock. Even better, the rocks are bathed in superheated water under great pressure, and the horizontal fracturing meant that it could be readily recycled.

This one rock body in South Australia is estimated to contain enough heat to supply all Australia's power needs for 75 years, at a cost equivalent to that of brown coal, without the carbon dioxide emissions. So vast is the resource that distance to market is no object, for power can be pumped down the power line in such volume as to overcome any transmission losses.

With trial plants scheduled for construction this year, the enormous potential of geothermal power is about to be tested. Geologists around the world are scrambling to prospect for similar deposits, as the extent of the resource is hardly known. There is some reason to believe, however, that Australia may be specially blessed with this type of potential power, for the continent has been moving north at about eight centimetres a year for the past 40 million years, and when it bumped into Asia 15 million years ago, enormous compressional forces were generated. As a result, in Australian mines one kilometre deep, engineers must deal with compressional forces encountered five kilometres down in places such as South Africa.

While this appears to be an exciting breakthrough, we must remember that so far very little electricity has been provided by this form of geothermal heat, and even if successful, it will probably be decades before it is contributing significantly to the world grid.

More on Geothermal :

Nevada, USA: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?id=46945
Via Geothermal Eneregy Association
Where can I find more detailed information about geothermal energy?
The Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) has recently produced several updated, comprehensive documents on the issues of cost, employment, and the environment, all of which can be found at the GEA website. The environmental paper also includes more detailed basic information about geothermal energy. Click below to access the following links:

Factors Affecting Cost of Geothermal Power Development http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/reports/Factors%20Affecting%20Cos...

Geothermal Industry Employment - Survey Results and Analysis September 2005 http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/reports/Geothermal%20Industry%20E...

A Guide to Geothermal Energy & The Environment
http://www.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/basics.asp#_ftn1
“The first U.S. geothermal power plant, opened at The Geysers in California in 1960, continues to operate successfully.”
-------
If you are looking for a current update about geothermal energy, renewable energy, and global warming issues in the U.S. (and the world) take a look at GEA’s latest Update. http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/updates.asp
For the truths behind common geothermal myths, take a look at GEA’s “Mythbusters” section. http://www.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/mythbusters.asp eg: http://www.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/mythbusters.asp#geaExperiment Myth: Geothermal Energy is Experimental and Not Yet Widely Used
For the list of useful links with more information and resources related to geothermal energy, click here. http://www.geo-energy.org/information/Links.asp