Nature Pictures

On the go capturing the great outdoors

One third of world's food is wasted, says UN study

Rotting food
Consumers in rich countries waste as much food as sub-Saharan Africa produces

About one third of all food produced for human consumption goes to waste, according to a study commissioned by the United Nations food agency.
That amounts to more than one billion tonnes of waste around the world every year.
The study recommends that developing countries should improve production and distribution, so as to stop losing so much food.
It also says industrialised countries must stop throwing so much away.
Loss versus waste
The UN study, by the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, was aimed at an international trade fair for the food packaging industry, to be held in Germany later this month.
Among the key findings are that consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food, 222 million tonnes, as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa.
Unsurprisingly, the researchers found that fruit and vegetables - including roots and tubers - go to waste more than other types of food.
But the report, entitled Global Food Losses and Food Waste, has a different analysis of the problem for different types of economy.

Every year:
  • Industrialised countries waste 670 million tonnes
  • Developing countries lose 630 million tonnes
  • Total lost or wasted globally: 2.3 billion tonnes
Source: Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology
Commissioned by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), it distinguishes between food loss and food waste.
Losses happen during the production, processing and distribution of food. They affect developing countries worst. The answer is to improve technology and infrastructure, the study says.
Food waste is the big issue in industrialised countries. It is mainly due to retailers and consumers throwing perfectly edible food into the bin.
Waste amounts to around 100kg (more than 200lb) per consumer in Europe and North America every year.
Consumers in sub-Saharan Africa and most of Asia each throw away just 6-11kg.
At retail level, large quantities of fresh food is wasted because of the way it looks. The Swedish researchers reviewed surveys showing that consumers were willing to buy produce that looks imperfect, as long as it is safe and tastes good.
Customers have the power to influence quality standards and should do so, the report says.
And it criticises "buy one, get one free" promotions for their tendency to lead to waste.
Food loss and waste are also a major squandering of resources - water, land, energy and labour - and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions
via:www.bbc.co.uk

Jupiter moon 'holds magma ocean'
Io pictured by Galileo One of Galileo's iconic images of Io in which a giant volcanic plume rises high above the moon

Io is the most volcanic world in the Solar System and scientists think they now have a better idea of why that is.
The moon of Jupiter erupts about 100 times more lava on to its surface each year than does Earth.
A re-assessment of data from Nasa's Galileo probe suggests all this activity is being fed from a giant magma ocean under Io's crust.
Researchers tell Science magazine that this blisteringly hot reservoir is probably some 50km (30 miles) thick.
And that figure is a minimum. It could be much, much thicker, says the study's lead author, Krishan Khurana, who is affiliated to UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics.
"When scientists first started looking at the images of Io from the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft in the late 70s, the moon appeared so alien," he told the BBC.

"Right away, the scientists were asking questions; and one of them questions was, 'why are volcanoes present all over the surface?' Well, it's because there's a giant aquifer of magma present right beneath the crust. That's what our study is telling us."
Io's volcanism is driven by its parent planet - Jupiter. The great gas giant's enormous bulk produces colossal tides on the moon that squeeze and pull its body, melting its rocks.
The distribution of volcanoes on Io is quite different to that on Earth, however. They are everywhere, whereas on Earth the volcanoes tend to be collected at the boundaries of tectonic plates, the huge slabs of cold rock that cover our planet's surface.
Nasa's Galileo probe, following up the observations of the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft, made seven close passes of the moon.
Readings from its magnetometer instrument indicated the moon was dramatically distorting Jupiter's magnetic field - but what was going on inside Io to produce the effect was not clear.

NASA'S GALILEO SPACECRAFT

Galileo probe
  • Galileo was launched from the space shuttle Atlantis in 1989.
  • It encountered several asteroids on the way to Jupiter, arriving in 1995.
  • Galileo became the first spacecraft to enter orbit around Jupiter
  • Its tour included close encounters with the Galilean moons - Io included
  • Galileo ended its mission by plunging into the Jovian atmosphere in 2003
It has taken several years to work through the problem and identify the solution, and it comes down to the nature of the rock in the moon and how it behaves when it melts.
Dr Khurana explained: "The data was available almost seven or eight years ago. However, we could not at that time explain what we were seeing.
"Later experiments in mineral physics found out that when ultramafic rocks, which are rocks very high in magnesium and iron - when those are melted, their conductivity shoots up by orders or magnitude. And it is that very high conductivity that can create the type of signature we have seen. So, we needed mineral physics to catch up with our data."
Tests have shown that the signatures detected by Galileo are consistent with a rock like lherzolite, an igneous rock rich in silicates of magnesium and iron. You find this rock, for example, in Scandinavia.
The picture emerging of Io is of a world that apes a body considerably bigger in size.
Its magma ocean layer is at least 50km thick, and probably makes up at least 10% of the moon's mantle by volume. Its temperature probably exceeds 1,200C.
This aquifer sits under the crust, some 50km down. The mantle - the moon's interior mid-layer - probably extends for a further 700-800km. And at the core? Gravity measurements suggest it is made of iron and possibly liquid - much like the Earth.
"The moon in size is only about one-fortieth the volume of the Earth; in mass it's only one-sixtieth," said Dr Khurana.
"And yet because of the tremendous amount of heat generated by tides that Jupiter raises on this very small moon, its internal structure is very similar to the Earth or a bigger planet that has a lot of tectonics on it."
via:www.bbc.co.uk/

Forests, flood defences, badgers: all not in Caroline Spelman's review of the year

The first year of the self-proclaimed 'greenest government ever' has delivered precious few successes for the environment department to celebrate
Hugh's fish fight
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall takes his fish fight to London, before Caroline Spelman began 'leading' calls to end discards. Photograph: Channel 4
After her first year in what Caroline Spelman describes as the "challenging but crucial" job of secretary of state for environment, she has been "has been reflecting on some of the green successes since taking office".
Naturally, she has not, in public at least, been reflecting on the failures: the forest sell-off U-turn, the huge cuts to flood and coastal defence spending, the zero-cost, zero-sense badger culling proposals or Defra's dunce's hat for missed deadlines. But let's look at what is in her article.
I'll start, unusually for me, with the unambiguously good. The near doubled funding for Higher Level Stewardship scheme, which means more farmers will work in environmentally friendly ways, is great. And people have spoken warmly to me about Spelman's performance at the UN biodiversity summit in Japan last year.
Now, what else does she mention?
• "We're leading calls to end the disgraceful waste of fish discards." Leading? I've googled Hansard and I can't find any mention of the issue by Spelman or Richard Benyon before Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's Fish Fight show aired on Channel 4.
• "We've also built support among member states to push for an EU-wide ban on illegally logged timber entering the European market." That would be admirable, if vague, if the government had not reneged on a coalition pledge to ban that very same practice in UK law.
• "The government can be most effective when it sets the right regulatory framework and policy direction. Our Natural Environment White Paper will show how we will improve our environment for future generations, changing how we value our green spaces." I have written before how important a good white paper could be, but how does this pledge to set the right regulatory framework tally with the dumping of all our most cherished environmental rules into the "red tape challenge".
• "We have created 15 new Marine Protected Areas since last May to conserve marine biodiversity," Spelman writes. A good thing, but hardly worthy of a boast when there are already about 200 of these and it was the last government that passed the Marine Act.
On Saturday, it will be a year since prime minister David Cameron made his now infamous green pledge. He has been silent ever since, but his cabinet have not. Spelman ends her ruminations with another repetition of the promise: "The idea of being the greenest government ever isn't a sound-bite or a quick fix solution. It's about embedding the value of our environment and its resources in the economy and our national consciousness. Forever."
I absolutely agree. But can this government actually deliver? The omens are not good.
via:www.guardian.co.uk

The fight for our forests isn't won

The coalition has retreated on a sale but much of British woodland is in effect private. We need to restore public acc
Thursday 12 May 2011 14.19 BST

    The Forest of Dean Currently Under Threat From The Forestry Commission Sell Off
    Protest signs on a tree in the Forest of Dean near Cinderford on February 2, 2011 in Gloucestershire. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images
    The U-turn forced on the government in March over the sale of state-owned forests was seen as a triumph for people power. The right to walk in the woods had supposedly been safeguarded. Yet in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, abandonment of the sales policy will still leave walkers barred from most of the woodland they might like to visit.
    The plan for forest sales concerned only woodland owned by the Forestry Commission in England. At present, most of such woodland is indeed open to the public and is often provided with excellent recreation facilities, including routes for cyclists and riders, car parks, toilets and facilities for disabled people. However, the commission's wholly owned holdings amount to only 14% of England's woods. Much of this is in the north and west of the country, away from population centres and out of many people's reach. The majority of the country's woods, especially in lowland areas, are in private hands, and walkers are systematically excluded from most of those.
    There is no good reason why this should be so. One of the earliest actions of the Scottish parliament was to provide public access by law to almost every kind of countryside, including woodlands. In spite of claims by landowners that land management difficulties would be created, the system has worked well. However, when the Westminster government addressed the issue of public access to the countryside of England, it decided to take a much more limited approach.
    Instead of creating a general right of access, it decided that only certain types of landscape should be opened to walkers. These were mountains, moorland, heaths, downs and common land – but not woodland. As a result, the opportunity for English people to walk in nearby woodland usually depends on the whim of the landowner, who is likely to be uncooperative. In Wales and Northern Ireland too, the ability to move freely over private woodland is at the discretion of its owner.
    Thus it is that walkers so often find themselves greeted by notices outside a wood saying "Private land: keep out". More than 60% of the total woodland area of England (public and private) is out of bounds to walkers, according to calculations made in 2009 by the Woods for People project. Trying to improve matters under existing legislation is uphill work. Oxfordshire county council spent more than five years creating a right of access over just one route through Wychwood Forest near Charlbury – the largest stretch of ancient woodland between the Cotswolds and the Chilterns, with an area three and a half times that of Hyde Park. Away from this public path, access is at the owners' behest and is permitted on just one day of the year, Palm Sunday.
    This picture has left most of Britain trailing in the wake not just of Scotland, but of other European countries like Germany, Sweden and Switzerland. Yet the terms of reference of the coalition government's current review of forest policy allow it to explore policy not just for Forestry Commission holdings but for all of England's woodland. There is no reason why it shouldn't recommend the creation of a general right of public access on foot to all of the country's woods and forests. This could blaze a trail for Wales and Northern Ireland, too.
    I shall be urging it to take just this course when I speak to a rally for people concerned about the future of our forests which is to be held at Houghton Forest, in West Sussex, on Saturday 14 May. "They shut the way through the woods", wrote Kipling in 1910. Now is our chance to open it up once more.

Disappearing world: 100 places under threat from climate change

A new book highlights 100 areas of the planet that could vanish because of global warming – and encourages us to visit them before they do. Leo Hickman reviews the book
Thursday 12 May 2011 19.59 BST
    Under threat: Baa Atoll, Maldives.
    Under threat: Baa Atoll, Maldives. Photograph: Sakis Papadopoulos
    Horace, the Roman poet, was probably not foretelling the age of budget airlines when he remarked more than 2,000 years ago: "They change their climate, not their soul, who rush across the sea."
    Nonetheless, it is a poignant observation for our age; an age when the spectre of climate change casts a shadow over our carbon-intensive lifestyles, not least our voracious appetite to travel in fossil-fuelled planes. A new book called 100 Places to Go Before They Disappear is, on one level, an awesome collection of photography beautiful and heavy enough to grace any coffee table. But it also is a mournful tease: a mesmerising reminder of the places around the planet that are now gravely threatened by the impacts of climate change – rising sea levels, desertification, flooding, deep thaws – predicted to come to pass over the next century as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.
    The book originally started out as a photographic exhibition timed to coincide with the (failed) Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009. The exhibition then went on tour. The stated aim is to "convey a clear message: climate change is a threat to our way of life and to Earth as we know it". It goes on to say that the "most important single challenge facing us is how to stop burning coal, oil, and natural gas, all of which contribute significantly to global warming". It doesn't explain, however, how we square this challenge with going to see these places before they "disappear".
    Niggles about the book's contradictory title aside, it's the photographs inside that count. Their intention is to remind us what wonders we stand to lose through our inaction and disinterest. As Desmond Tutu says in the foreword: "We have developed a temporal and physical disconnection from the resources that sustain us, and from our impact on them . . . In short, the consequences of our
    via:www.guardian.co.uk

Tea Party governor breaks ranks with Republicans to embrace high-speed rail

Conservatives have attacked 'Obama-rail' as a symbol of government waste. But now Michigan is welcoming the project
An Amtrak Acela high-speed train pulls away from Union Station in Washington
Michigan's governor Rick Snyder is a fan of high-speed rail such as this Acela train leaving Washington's Union Station. Photograph: David Brody/Getty Images
It looks like Tea Party governors are beginning to have regrets about turning down billions in federal funds for high-speed rail. Either that or they have a renegade in their midst.
Barack Obama has made high-speed rail one of the projects of his presidency. On Monday the federal government doled out another $2bn in funds. Nothing surprising there. What was surprising however, was that Michigan's governor, Rick Snyder, and a Tea Party leader of impeccably conservative credentials, was awarded nearly $200m – and that he was glad to take it.

The decision makes Snyder an oddity. From New Jersey to Florida, his class of newly elected Republican governors have made a grand display of rejecting federal funds for upgrading America's rail system.

Snyder has been as true to the Tea Party ideology as any of those rail refuseniks. After taking office this year, he set out to cut $45bn from the state budget by firing employees, cutting education spending, and refusing to pave roads in rural areas. Snyder said road crews should use gravel instead as it is cheaper.
But on the issue of trains, he seems to be travelling on the same track as Obama. The funds award on Monday are meant for a line between Chicago and Detroit that will allow passenger trains to travel at speeds of 79mph, and eventually more than 110mph. Not exactly high-speed rail by global standards, but faster than many American trains. The project is scheduled for completion in 2014. In a statement, Snyder said:
Investment of this magnitude can spur economic development in our communities with rail stations, and provide access to a 21st century rail system that will help Michigan citizens compete in a global economy. Reliable, fast train service is attractive to businesses that want to locate or expand near it. This investment in our rail system is critical to Michigan's recovery.
Now compare that with Wisconsin's Scott Walker, who ran for governor last year on a promise to send back $810m in federal funds for high-speed rail. He said the money would be better spent on building roads or paying off the federal deficit.
Or Ohio's governor, John Kasich, who sought to keep the $400m his state was awarded – so long as he did not have to spend it on trains. The federal government eventually took the money back.
New Jersey's governor, Chris Christie, meanwhile turned down $3bn from the federal government to build a rail tunnel under the Hudson River to New York City.
The rationale in all cases was government spending; high-speed rail projects are especially irksome to Republicans because they are funded out of the 2009 economic recovery plan which, in Tea party Eyes anyway, is the ultimate symbol of government waste. Obama set aside $8bn in federal funds for rail projects in the recovery plan.
The funds turned down by Ohio and Wisconsin were eventually rolled into a $2.4bn package that was supposed to build a high-speed line between Tampa and Orlando – until Florida's newly elected governor cancelled the project.
On Monday, the federal government re-purposed those funds yet again, channelling most of them to improving rail service between Washington and New York City.
Snyder set aside Tea Party pride and put in Michigan's bid, winning $196m in funding. Despite all of last year's theatrics about wasteful rail spending, Wisconsin's Walker applied for federal funds too, though on a fairly modest scale. He asked for $150m, not for high-speed rail, but for new locomotives.
In the end, however, Wisconsin got nothing on Monday – which makes his rejection of that $810m look like a pretty bad idea.
via:www.guardian.co.uk

Organic farming – India's future perfect?

A budding interest in organic food offers farmers soaring incomes and higher yields, but critics say it's not the answer to India's fast-rising food demands
MDG : Organic farming in India
An Indian farm labourer displays a cabbage grown on an organic farm in India's Gujarat state. Photograph: Sam Panthaky/AFP/Getty Images
India's struggling farmers are starting to profit from a budding interest in organic living. Not only are the incomes of organic farmers soaring – by 30% to 200%, according to organic experts – but their yields are rising as the pesticide-poisoned land is repaired through natural farming methods.
Organic farming only took off in the country about seven years ago. Farmers are turning back to traditional farming methods for a number of reasons.
First, there's a 10% to 20% premium to be earned by selling organic products abroad and in India's increasingly affluent cities, a move towards healthy living and growing concern over toxic foods and adulteration plaguing the food market.
Second, the cost of pesticides and fertilisers has shot up and the loans farmers need to buy expensive, modified seed varieties are pushing many into a spiral of debt. Crippling debt and the burden of loans are trriggering farmer suicides across the country, particularly in the Vidarabha region of Maharashtra. Organic farming slashes cultivation and input costs by up to 70% due to the use of cheaper, natural products like manure instead of chemicals and fertilisers.
Third, farmers are suffering from the damaging effects of India's green revolution, which ushered in the rampant use of pesticides and fertilisers from the 1960s to ensure bumper yields and curb famine and food shortages. Over the decades, the chemicals have taken a toll on the land and yields are plunging.
"Western, modern farming has spoiled agriculture in the country. An overuse of chemicals has made land acidic and hard, which means it needs even more water to produce, which is costly," says Narendra Singh of Organic India. "Chemicals have killed the biggest civilisation in agriculture – earthworms, which produce the best soil for growth."
Umesh Vishwanath Chaudhari, 35, a farmer in the Jalgaon district in Maharashtra, switched to organic farming seven years ago after experiencing diminishing yields from his 8-hectare (20-acre) plot. He came across a book on organic farming techniques using ancient Vedic science. He started making natural fertilisers and pesticides using ingredients such as cow manure, cow urine, honey and through vermicomposting – the process of using earthworms to generate compost. Since then, his yields and income have risen by 40%, and worms have returned to his soil. He sells lime, custard apple and drumsticks to organic stores in Pune, Mumbai and other cities, while his cotton is bought by Morarka, a rural NGO.
He plans to convert another 2 hectares to organic cotton and buy 10 cows to make his own manure, rather than buying it. "Using manure instead of pesticides and fertilisers has cut my costs by half, and I get a premium on these goods," he says. "I used to drive a scooter, but in the past few years I've been able to afford a bike and car – and even two tractors."
Udday Dattatraya Patil, 43, an agriculture graduate, turned to organic farming after his crops were showing a deficiency in feed, leading to rising fertiliser costs. In addition, his banana crop was being wrecked by temperature fluctuations and climate change. "Because bananas are sensitive to temperature change, 20% went to waste. Organic bananas can withstand this. Now none are wasted," he says. Now he has 40 cows and bulls whose manure he can use for fertiliser, as well as vermicompost units. His yields have increased by 20% and income by 30%.
Although he is hailed as a progressive agriculturalist by his fellow villagers, he is the only organic farmer out 3,000 in Chahardi, in Jalgaon district. "Some have tried but they give up if there aren't immediate results. Organic farming requires effort, and you have to invest in organic inputs," he adds.
Many farmers are reluctant to make the leap because they fear a drop in yields in the initial period; good results tend to show after three years. Moreover, the market is growing by 500% to 1,000% a year, according to Morarka, but it only represents 0.1% of the food market.
Kavita Mukhi organises a weekly organic farmers' market in Mumbai, where producers sell direct to consumers. She is trying to boost awareness about organic food. "The only way you hear about it is if you stumble on an organic shop," she says. "There's no widespread marketing or awareness of the benefits."
Once the awareness increases, organic agriculturalists believe more farmers will join the movement because it's favourable to small farmers. They already have the cows and buffalos needed to recycle biomass at the farm level, which is, essentially, the foundation of organic farming.
"Unlike Europe, India's modern farming revolution is not very old, meaning they still possess the knowhow for cultivation without modern chemical inputs," says Mukesh Gupta of Morarka.
While critics argue that organic farming is not the answer to India's rising food demands, those in favour say it's the only sustainable way out for impoverished farmers.
via:www.guardian.co.uk

Japan to scrap nuclear power in favour of renewables

The prime minister says Japan must 'start from scratch' and abandon its plan to obtain half its energy from atomic power
Tuesday 10 May 2011 16.18 BST
    Japan renewable energy : Solar Panels Are Displayed At Itochu Headquarters Tokyo
    The Shinjuku district skyline rises behind solar panels. Photograph: Kimimasa Mayama/Getty Images
    Japan will scrap a plan to obtain half of its electricity from nuclear power and will instead promote renewable energy as a result of its nuclear crisis, the prime minister said Tuesday.
    Naoto Kan said Japan needs to "start from scratch" on its long-term energy policy after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was heavily damaged by a 11 March earthquake and tsunami and began leaking radiation.
    Japan's nuclear plants supplied about 30% of the country's electricity, and the government had planned to raise that to 50%.
    Kan told a news conference that nuclear and fossil fuel used to be the pillars of Japanese energy policy but now it will add two more – renewable energy such as solar, wind and biomass, and an increased focus on conservation.
    "We will thoroughly ensure safety for nuclear power generation and make efforts to further promote renewable energy," an area where Japan has lagged behind Europe and the US, he said.
    On Monday a landmark report by the UN's climate science body, the IPCC, said that renewable energy could account for 80% of the world's energy supply by 2050 – but only if governments pursue the right policies.
    Kan also said he would take a pay cut beginning in June until the Fukushima nuclear crisis is resolved to take responsibility as part of the government that has promoted nuclear energy. He didn't specify how much of a pay cut he would take.
    The operator of the stricken power plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), has been struggling for nearly two months to restore critical cooling systems that were knocked out by the disaster. Some 80,000 people living within a 12-mile radius of the plant were evacuated from their homes on 12 March, with many living in gymnasiums.
    On Tuesday, about 100 evacuees were allowed into that exclusion zone briefly to gather belongings from their homes.
    The excursion marked the first time the government has felt confident enough in the safety of the area to allow even short trips there. Residents have been pushing hard for weeks for permission to check up on their homes.
    The evacuees boarded chartered government buses for the two-hour visit.
    They were provided with protective suits, goggles and face masks to wear while in the zone, and were issued plastic bags to put their belongings in. They were also given dosimeters to monitor radiation levels and walkie-talkies.
    All were to be screened for radiation contamination after leaving the zone.
    More visits are planned, but residents fear they may never be able to return for good.
    Many had been secretly sneaking back into the zone during the day, but the government – concerned over safety and the possibility of theft – began enforcing stricter roadblocks and imposing fines on 22 April.
    The official visits were seen as a compromise that took both safety and the wishes of the residents into consideration.
    The government and Tepco in April projected that bringing the plant to a cold shutdown could take six to nine months and residents might be able to return to resume their lives. But they admit that timing is a best-case scenario.
    On Monday, another utility, Chubu Electric Power Co, agreed to shutter three reactors at a coastal power plant while it builds a seawall and improves other tsunami defenses there.
    Kan requested the temporary shutdown at the Hamaoka plant amid predictions an earthquake of magnitude 8.0 or higher could strike the central Japanese region within 30 years. The government's decision came after evaluating Japan's 54 reactors for quake and tsunami vulnerability after the 11 March disasters. The Hamaoka facility sits above a major fault line and has long been considered Japan's riskiest nuclear power plant.
    Kan said Japan will have to compile Japan's new energy policy in a report for submission to the International Atomic Energy Agency in June. He didn't give any numerical estimates for each source of energy in the new policy.

Nuclear power: If Japan and Germany don't need it, why does anyone?

The world's third and fourth biggest economies have abandoned plans for new reactors, believing renewables and efficiency can fill the gap
Fukushima nuclear power plant accident : Anti-nuclear rally in Tokyo
Protesters march during a large anti-nuclear rally in Tokyo, Japan, 7 May 2011. Photograph: Franck Robichon/EPA
If the third and fourth biggest economies in the world believe they can cut their carbon emissions and keep the lights on without building nuclear power stations, then why can't the sixth? That's the question I am asking after Japan (3rd) yesterday followed Germany (4th) in
abandoning their plans for a new generation of nuclear reactors in the aftermath of the catastrophe at Fukushima. In contrast, the UK (6th) remains committed to building a new fleet of reactors.
The question may soon become even more stark if a referendum in Italy (7th) next month also cancels their future nuclear programme.
These are not small statements by Japan and Germany. About 30% of Japan's electricity comes from nuclear and a rise to 50% was projected by 2030. In Germany, up to 25% of electricity came from nuclear. Currently, the UK gets just 16% or so from nuclear and government plans only to replace - not expand - existing capacity.
Adding fuel to the fiery debate is Monday's report stating that 80% of the world's energy (not just electricity) can be provided from renewable from sources by 2050. The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was signed off by all the world's governments. It's worth noting the pie chart in the report showing that in 2008 just 2% of global energy came from nuclear power, with renewables (largely biomass) accounting for 12%. And don't forget improving energy efficiency, mentioned specifically by the already efficient Japanese as a way to compensate for lost nuclear power.
A different conclusion came, also on Monday, from the UK government's advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, who said that nuclear power could provide 40% of the UK's electricity by 2030. In particular, it says: "Nuclear generation appears likely to be the most cost-effective form of low-carbon power generation in the 2020s (i.e. before costs of other technologies have fallen), justifying significant investment if safety concerns can be addressed."
As regular readers will know, I have travelled in the opposite direction to my colleague George Monbiot, in moving from supporting nuclear power to opposing it, based on five key questions I drew up.
I believe there is a low-carbon, affordable and secure energy future without new nuclear power. But don't just listen to me, listen to prime minister Naoto Kan and chancellor Angela Merkel, the current stewards of two of the most successful economies on Earth.
via:/www.guardian.co.uk/

Protests after Chile backs giant dams in Patagonia's valleys

Activists fear ecological haven will be destroyed but government says project is vital for economic growth
Tuesday 10 May 2011 20.38 BST
    The Pascua River Under Threat of dam in Chile Patagonia
    The Pascua River in Patagonia - Chile plans to dam the river to generate electricity. Photograph: Jorge Uzon/Corbis
    Chilean authorities have approved a £1.8bn plan to dam two rivers in Patagonia for hydroelectricity, triggering angry protests and claims that swathes of pristine wilderness will be destroyed.
    The HidroAysén project envisages five dams to tap the Baker and Pascua rivers, an isolated area of fjords and valleys, and generate 2.75 gigawatts of power for Chile's booming economy.
    The government has championed the dams as vital to poverty alleviation and economic growth, but public opinion has split, with many saying the project is unnecessary and will devastate an ecological haven.
    Police arrested dozens of protesters and clashed with hundreds more in Coihaique, a Patagonian city where on Monday a government-appointed commission voted 11 to one in favour of the dams after a three-year environmental review.
    The commissioners were kept indoors for their own safety as people threw rocks and battled police with water cannon and tear gas. Similar scenes unfolded in the capital, Santiago.
    The Patagonia Without Dams advocacy group accused the commissioners of conflicts of interest and said the project was "destructive and illegal". It said the dams would flood at least 5,600 hectares of rare forest ecosystems, river valleys and farmland.
    "We are outraged. We are calling on President [Sebastián] Piñera to overturn this decision and protect Patagonia," said Patricio Rodrigo, the group's executive secretary. Critics say the project would also drown the habitat of the endangered southern huemul deer, a national symbol.
    An Ipsos poll said 61% of Chileans opposed the dams. The polarisation offered a sharp contrast to the nation's feelgood glow after last year's rescue of 31 trapped miners, an operation which boosted the conservative president's ratings.
    The environment minister, María Ignacia Benítez, denied the commission's findings were a stitch-up in favour of energy corporations and banks which would profit from the project. The "very demanding" investigation adhered to laws and took into account the environmental impact, she told Radio Agricultura.
    HidroAysén argued that the dams would provide cheap and clean electricity in comparison to oil and coal. Chile recently approved three coal plants, including the biggest one in Latin America.
    The interior minister, Rodrigo Hinzpeter, told reporters: "The most important thing is that our country needs to grow, to progress, and for this we need energy."
    Some analysts say Chile will need to triple its energy capacity in the next 15 years to feed fast-growing industries and cities. Though rich in copper and other minerals, the country imports 97% of its fossil fuels and relies mainly on hydropower for electricity, leaving it vulnerable to oil shocks and drought.
    The council of ministers is expected to nod through the proposed dams but activists hope to win key concessions in the environmental impact assessment for the next phase of the project: 1,200-mile transmission lines, estimated to cost £2.3bn, to bring electricity from Patagonia to Santiago.
    That review, due in December, could sharply restrict the number of lines or alternatively open Patagonia to multiple lines, roads and possibly more dams.
    Much of the controversy hinges on whether Chile has viable alternative means to boost power capacity. With nuclear power widely considered anathema, some tout the Atacama desert as a source of immense solar thermal production, especially given its relative proximity to mines and industry.
    "Numerous studies have shown that Chile can sustainably and safely meet its energy needs through increased investments in non-conventional renewable energy and energy efficiency, with less environmental, social and economic costs than HidroAysén," said Berklee Lowrey-Evans, of the International Rivers group.
    However Maria Isabel Gonzalez, former head of Chile's National Energy Commission, rebuked foreign critics of the plan. "Chile is still a poor country, with 2.5 million poor people, and to overcome poverty we need energy, and for that reason we need to develop our own resources," she told AP. "It would be very selfish on the part of the rich countries to