by Adam McCulloch
I’ve heard that the fires in Borneo’s jungles put more carbon dioxide in to the air in one day than the UK does in a year. If true (and the truth is very much up for grabs in this debate) it puts into perspective our efforts to drive our cars a little less or scientists’ bid to stop cows farting.
The fires are clearing the forest for palm oil plantations. Now, palm oil is used partly to create biofuels to help rich countries meet their fossil fuel targets – a climate change own goal if ever there was one.
I referred in an earlier blog to the fact that cycling to work is not very sustainable in terms of one’s life . And another thing: people just keep on flying and driving. Yes, even people who are enthusiastic about composting.
Soon India’s vast population will be able to splash out on the world’s cheapest car and I don’t think it runs on water.
So what am I saying here? Well, I’m sorry but fitting low energy light bulbs and a two-stage toilet flush just ain’t going to crack it. Only technology applied on a mammoth scale will reprieve us from global warming. Breeding plankton that suck up carbon dioxide then sink; artificial trees that absorb C02 and deposit it safely hundreds of feet down are just two ideas that could help reverse the problem at a global level.
I know this puts me at odds with John Cossham, whose many ideas for reducing our carbon footprints are practical but sadly ignored by many.
Check the links below for hi-tech ideas that could save us. Please add some yourself if you know of any…
Relevant links:
Al Gore’s climate change film An Inconvenient Truth
Very good site on saving energy
Pipes hung in the sea could help planet to 'heal itself'
Read about planet-saving technology
Offset your carbon footprint by shopping at smartlygreen.com
Union of Concerned Scientists
Comments (2)
Something's got to save us. I agree a few less plastic bags aren't going to make much difference but putting faith in the same industries that got us into this mess in the first place isn't going to crack it either: they are too self-interested.
Posted by comma | January 15, 2008 4:08 PM
Posted on January 15, 2008 16:08
another 'inconvenient truth', rarely aired publicly is that the increasing world population is perhaps the biggest factor in global warming. So a childless couple might be considered 'carbon neutral' in the bigger picture; perhaps even carbon negative. Perhaps childless couples could sell carbon credits to large corporations!
Posted by G John | January 15, 2008 3:56 PM
Posted on January 15, 2008 15:56