Koalas And Climate Change

ABC's Science Show Catalyst did a fascinating piece called Koala Heatwave. It turns out that climate change is bad for koalas in 2 ways.


First is heatwaves. Koalas get their moisture from the gum leaves they eat. In heatwaves, the leaves dry out and koalas literally die of thirst. Local heatwaves in late 2009 killed about one-quarter of koalas in a couple of weeks. Climate change (with it's longer and more frequent heatwaves) will obviously be bad news for the koala.

Second thing is food. As it is, leaves aren't great, but increased carbon dioxide makes them worse. It stimulates the leaves into producing more of the toxic chemicals, and at the same time creating less protein. Clearly not a good recipe for our friend the koala.

Of course a smart koala will walk around looking for a good tree with edible leaves. But while doing so he takes the two biggest risks a koala can take - dogs and cars.

All in all, it's another good reason to tackle climate change.

Do It For Your Children

Even though serious effects of climate change are already being felt, this is nothing compared to what is predicted for the coming decades. I'm guessing this young woman doesn't have kids yet, but if/when she does, their climate is affected by what we do now.


It's kind of unfortunate that the people who are affected most don't get a say in what happens. But we can overcome that if the current generation acts with integrity, and compassion for our fellow human beings (even the ones not born yet). I hope we are capable of that. As Iain Stewart says in his documentary:

As a species we like to think that we are special. Well this is our chance to prove it.

Spending Our Allowance

Just heard a short but interesting interview with David Karoly about his fairplay approach to carbon emissions.


To contain global warming to 2°C, we need to restrict emissions to about one trillion tonnes, between now and 2050. (One trillion is a 1 with 12 zeroes after it - and yes, it feels odd using 'restrict' and one trillion in the same sentence).

But as big as a trillion sounds, if we divide it fairly amongst the 6.8 billion people on planet earth, it comes to about 147 tonnes per person (by my calculations). That's our "allowance" - to last us until 2050.

Now with countries like Australia, US and Canada pumping out 20-something tonnes per person each year, it becomes obvious that our "allowance", will only last about 7 years. After that we're really taking what is someone else's fair share.

It's David Karoly's opinion (and i can see his point) that developed countries should be paying for taking what fairly belongs to someone else. Either that, or start making some serious emissions reductions - starting now.

More Solar Less Coal

This is another sign from the Support Rally for Climate Action. I'm suppose the extra "a" on the end is just to make it rhyme. Anyway, i like the old guy's sentiment.

How Much Space for Solar?

This piece of art comes from the Land Art Exhibition and illustrates how little space would be needed to meet the world's energy needs - if it all came from solar. (Click the picture for a better view)


Obviously there are many other renewable energy sources, but the artwork helps show how little area would be required. And a fair bit of that area could be on rooftops - so it doesn't take up any actual land.

Also, this is based on 2030 projections - which is way more energy than we use today.

Rally Day

On the weekend i was at the Rally for Climate Action. It was a positive and pleasant atmosphere. There was a live band playing, and kids were queueing up for face-painting. Here were my top three photos.

"Planet B" was my fave photo. Apart from winning the stating-the-obvious prize, this girl was carrying a sign almost as tall as herself. That's a big effort!
(Though, sadly, it's difficult for a primary schooler to get her sign seen above the crowd, but those of us nearby appreciated it :)

This second one got in a few news photos and footage for its wittiness. Strangely there are some who still think scientists are wrong. Just as for many years some still thought the earth was flat - despite pictures of the earth from the moon.

But this third one was my favourite sign - for cutting to the heart of the matter. I find that when you dig down deep, most objections to climate action are grounded in fear of anything new or different. But we needn't be afraid. We can be intelligent and compassionate instead.


---
ps. there are also some good photos by John Cook]

Faking It

ABC's Hungrybeast has a different theme each week. When this week's theme was "Faking It" i wasn't expecting anything about climate change. But then came this piece about America's infamous Koch Brothers.


Essentially, they are oil magnates with $21.5 billion each. When you're that wealthy, it's easy to spend $196,000,000 faking a case against action on climate change.

"Studies" they sponsor find that smog is good, acid rain doesn't exist, and polar bears are unaffected by melting icecaps. These results (if they weren't fake) would be very good news for oil magnates. (What a coincidence ;)

As Hungrybeast put it... "Money can't buy you love, but it can buy you a convenient truth when you need one".

The Earth And Us

Recently i've been watching How The Earth Made Us on ABC. It's a general science documentary - both amazing and educational. But there was a surprise twist in the final episode. After several episodes of how the earth has shaped our history, now the tables are turned...

We're at the beginning of a dramatic period of change. At the heart of it is the greenhouse effect - a global warming caused by the gases we release. The question is "How will the planet and our civilisation respond to this change?"

Prof Iain Stewart, concludes that "The lesson from the earth's past is that the world we know today can change out of all recognition simply by raising the level of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere."


Now it's up to us to determine whether human civilisation can continue to flourish.

We are now a geological force to rival the earth's natural forces. The ultimate test will be how well we use that power. As a species we like to think that we are special. Well this is our chance to prove it.

---------
ps. as a side note, the documentary also contained this amazing stat: "Every year we burn about 31 billion barrels of it. That's 1000 barrels per second. The problem is it won't last. The amount of oil we're burning each year takes the planet 3 million years to make."

How Long Do Solar Panels Last?

It's a fair question. What kind of life can you expect from a set of solar panels? How many years of free electricity can you get?

Well if the 25-year warranty isn't enough to easy your worries, check out this energy-nerd (and i mean that in the nicest way) from America. Having got himself some solar panels way back in 1980, he took one down last year to do some tests on it.


Turn out that even after 30 years on his roof, the panel is still performing to 100% of factory specifications. Pretty impressive for something made in 1980.

4 Wheel Drives - Climate Change Solution

April Fool!
OK, it was a strange title, but that was the gist of this ironic cartoon from the Between the Lines exhibition.

A Good Place For Solar

Last month i looked at solar strength in the USA and compared it to Germany. Now i've found a solar map of the world. Averaging data over the period 1990-2004, they came up with this map.


It seems the place with the most sunshine is Australia. Of course, as Germany demonstrates, solar power is viable even in the 'blue' areas. We can do it almost anywhere - but places like Australia should be putting up solar panels like there's no tomorrow.

Getting Smart On Climate Change

I've mentioned Oxfam's interest in tackling climate change before. Now, they've just published a new booklet Getting Smart on Climate Change to summarise the situation. As well as talking about the threat that climate change poses to Australians, our Pacific neighbours, and others around the world; it also looks at how little Australia is doing, and what we can do.

Apart from this embarrassing graph, there were also some shockers showing how little Australia invests into renewable energy - and the consqequent lack of jobs in the renewable energy industry. (China 1.12 million jobs, Germany 278,000, Spain 189,000, Australia just 10,000). Yet another example of how Australia is trailing the world rather than leading it. I recommend checking it out.

Earth Hour Wrap Up

Earth Hour on Saturday night was once again the biggest ever. For stories of what happened around the globe, check out the Earth Hour blog, where there are insipiring stories and great photos.


This pic is from Mongolia, where brave locals stood outside in sub-zero temperatures. Other faves came from Scotland, Paris and Chile.
--
ps. there are also some "slider" before-and after pics here

Scientists and Politicians

Saw this one at the Between The Lines exhibition. I thought it summed up the situation wonderfully well.


The first two are exact opposites, but the third one is more subtle, with the scientist worried about the future, the politician worried about his future. I know which one i have more respect for.

MediaWatch - Climate Change And Cardiology

Recently, i wrote about the disparity between the science concensus and the media reports of uncertainty. This week, Mediawatch devoted an episode to talk-back radio hosts (aka 'shock jocks') and how they don't let the truth get in the way of their views. To quote one of the climate scientists, expect accuracy and rigour on commercial radio "the week after hell freezes over".


It seems that while these stations welcome geologists with unscientific theories, the rare time that an actual climate scientist gets invited on, he is treated with hostility. Professor Will Steffen (Executive Director ANU Climate Change Institute):

Many of my colleagues want to get on with their research. They are tired of being misrepresented or "beaten up" in the media. Their business is to do the science, they are paid to do research and teaching. I sense a degree of burnout in the scientific community (in relation to engaging with media like talkback radio), and this is regrettable but completely understandable. Unless commercial radio changes the way they operate, I don’t think the situation can be changed.

It’s a fruitless exercise to go in a debate with sceptics or commercial radio hosts like Alan Jones as you aren’t given the space and time to explain the science, and if you do, the shonky "science" on the other side is give equal - or more - time and weight.

And Professor Andy Pitman (Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW) about commercial radio:

I do not think they are actually interested in being informed on the science. It is very hard to calmly respond to questions that are ill-informed and misrepresent anything vaguely scientific. It would be like asking a cardiologist to respond to the well known theory that humans do not have a heart and cardiologists only claim we have a heart so they can make lots of money claiming to operate on them

I thoroughly recommend watching the episode (about 10 minutes) and/or reading the transcript.