absolutely alex’s adventures & times

Critics might label Earth Hour gimmicky and deride it as the work of a few activists which would not have much long-term effect on slowing down the earth’s destruction from global warming.

But with the pretty dire situation the earth is facing, they should instead look on the bright side — every little gesture can and should count towards raising awareness and spurring on more action to combat global warming.

Earth Hour, which was adopted by 27 cities around the world on Saturday at 2000 local time, was a symbolic gesture to turn off the lights in buildings and structures around the world to save energy and reduce carbon emissions.

The World Wildlife Fund-led initiative saw cities such as Sydney, Chicago, Bangkok, Copenhagen, Dublin and San Francisco flick the light switches off at 2000 local time.

To highlight the importance of the event, cities blacked out their most prominent landmarks or buildings, such as Sydney’s Opera House and Chicago’s Sears Towers.

“The main point is not to make a significant dent in climate change, but to demonstrate the need for people to take leadership on their own to address this problem,” Richard Moss, the Fund’s vice president for climate change, told the Washington Post. “It’s not about sitting in the dark, it’s about making a serious commitment over the next year and beyond over how we contribute to climate change.”

Critics may scoff but the “black-out” actually achieved some practical results. Chicago’s John Hancock building was using the time the lights were out to change their bulbs to energy-efficient ones. In Bangkok, the city saved 73.34 megawatts of electricity, which would otherwise have generated 45.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

First started in Sydney last year, Earth Hour was also shown to have reduced energy usage by over 10 percent during the one hour of lights out.

So detractors can boo all the want but they overlook the message it sends and the tangible, albeit small, results the experiment yielded.

Building on this, World Wildlife Fund could widen the initiative by recruiting more cities and government agencies to join in the next time.

And why wait for it to be just an annual event? Be bolder. For a start, make it a monthly event. The best thing to do, of course, would be to get kids involved. That way, perhaps the awareness could be translated into a norm in their thinking and become a way of life.

Earth Hour could become Earth Forever if everybody gave it a chance and pitched in. So why not?

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The Chinese authorities had better sit up and take notice.

The glory that they had hoped to obtain from hosting this summer’s Olympic Games in their capital Beijing, might end up being an embarrassment instead.

Athletes had been quietly grumbling about the city’s notoriously bad air quality, thinking up ways to protect their health and their lungs even as they worry about the impact of competing there.

AP photo

But an Olympic gold medalist had plucked up the courage to come right out and name the city’s polluted air as a reason for not competing in his pet event. Ethiopia’s world-record holder in the marathon, Haile Gebrselassie, caused lots of consternation in Beijing by citing the air pollution as he told the world’s media that he would not be defending his title for the upcoming Olympics. He would instead compete in a shorter race, the 10,000 meter.

His female counterpart and world record holder, Britain’s Paula Radcliffe, has not committed to competing in Beijing either, similarly pointing to the Beijing air quality as a factor.

Other marque names that would probably be no-shows include the tennis world’s number one female player, Justine Henin, who suffers from asthma and is worried that playing in Beijing might aggravate her condition.

The decision by these top-notch athletes to skip the Beijing Olympics might influence more of those sitting on the fence to follow in their footsteps. That would be a disturbing prospect for the image-conscious Chinese.

Other athletes who have decided to compete in Beijing this August are trying various strategies to ensure they are not affected by the city’s noxious air. These include staying away from the city until the latest possible date and wearing a mask when they are there. But that is a potentially delicate prospect for the Chinese, as images of athletes swathed in face masks being transmitted around the world are sure to make bad PR.

They had been working hard to clean things up before the city goes on show, such as closing factories near the Games’ sites, banning cars from the road during the Games, and even engaging sophisticated technology to induce rains to clear the air.

But there are signs that the Chinese authorities had not been entirely honest in their zeal to show the world how much improvement had been made.

A recent US study found that Beijing’s claims that its air had improved was only possible because it had tinkered with the areas from which it collected readings of air quality. According to the study, Beijing had stopped taking into account readings of areas that were more polluted, instead including readings from less polluted sites. Tellingly, the Chinese authorities did not deny the findings, but still insisted that there had been advancements made.

Much as they want to ensure the Games would be a success, Beijing cannot play its usual cloak and dagger games and hope to sweep the truth under the carpet. These athletes it is hosting are not helpless nor compliant like its citizens. They would have no qualms about dropping out of the competition or even show up with masks. That would be a lot more mortifying to the Chinese.

Unlike how it denied the SARS virus’ existence rather than containing it, sadly leading to many more deaths than unnecessary, the Chinese government has to work a lot harder to clean up the air in Beijing, or come clean, before it faces its worst nightmare of the Games becoming a fiasco this summer.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

I like Al Gore and have nothing against him.

I also like the premise behind the Nobel Prizes, especially the Peace Prize.

But is the Nobel winners’ selection committee getting it wrong in awarding the Peace Prize to Gore and the United Nations climate change panel?

No doubt Gore’s efforts and his movie that wowed Hollywood, “An Inconvenient Truth” were better-received than in Gore’s wildest dreams. And it is admirable the effort he has thrown behind a worthy cause.

Yet, was Gore’s win a true endorsement of his work in promoting awareness in the dangers of global warming and the human factor in making things deteriorate, or was it a cynical move by the Nobel committee?

For starters, Gore’s triumph has been viewed as a dig at George W. Bush and his administration, not only because of their rejection of various international treaties involving action against global warming and environmental damage, but its general direction, such as the war of terror and against Iraq.

While Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary was powerful and moved many towards the cause of environmental protection, the facts and figures quoted in the movie have also faced criticisms from eminent scientists for various inaccuracies. And despite all the excitement and the jumping-on-the-bandwagon phenomenon by Hollywood types, has much been done by governments worldwide to really tackle climate change and its consequences?

Another area of concern – is the Nobel committee getting starry-eyed and concentrating on awarding the Peace Prize to famous people, but who haven’t done very much to really resolve or find solutions to the causes that they have been associated with? Cases in point – Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, Kim Dae Jung and Mohamed Elbaradei.

Finally, it is the Peace Prize but one wonders if awarding the prize for an environmental issue qualifies for the Peace element of the prize. The committee, in the defense of its choice, pointed out that changes in the environment could result in conflicts in different parts of the world and social upheavals.

Having said all that, the Prize is no doubt a tremendous personal victory for Gore, vindicating him for working hard for a cause before it was fashionable to be associated with. He is an example to those who have lost, showing the world that he hasn’t let the 2000 election that was stolen from him get him down and has instead gone out and worked on bigger causes, making a comeback in the most remarkable, and spectacular way.

Let’s hope the award will wake governments up from their stupor to the facts of the dangers of climate change and global warming, and spur them into action before things get even worse.

It’s truly heartening to see the spread of the movement to ban bottled water in cities, with the cities’ governments taking the lead on the matter.

First, it was Los Angeles, whose mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made city agencies stop buying bottled water for employees in 2005. Villaraigosa was prompted to take that step after finding out that the city had spent nearly $90,000 on it. It was an embarrassing discovery for Villaraigosa, as around the same time, L.A.’s water agency happened to be financing a $1 million ad campaign on the merits of tap water.

San Francisco followed suit last month.

Now, New York has a campaign to get New Yorkers to drink tap water instead of buying bottled water. It’s even roped in restaurants to serve tap waters to customers instead of selling them bottled water.

Cost-cutting might have spurred L.A. and San Francisco to stop buying bottled water for city employees. But the true beneficiary emerging from these developments will be the environment.

A staggering billion of plastic bottles, or even more, that are used to contain water end up in California’s landfills annually. And that’s just California alone. Recycling efforts may be in existence but that is clearly not keeping up with the rate at which bottled water is consumed and the plastic bottles being disposed.

Besides the waste generated from the plastic bottles, the development of the plastic for the water bottles, and eventually, the transportation, distribution and the cost of the water, all make huge environmental impact. SF’s mayor says it takes more energy to transport bottled water than a barrel of oil. Environmental groups also cite the statistic that four out of five plastic water bottles end up on landfill sites while its production process contributes to global warming.

If only people would realize that tap water is usually as good, or if not better, than bottled water. Plus it’s cheap.

More cities should follow on the path taken by these three cities, not only as a cost-cutting measure but as a serious environment-benefiting step.

They shouldn’t stop there.

The next object of their target ought to be plastic bags — get supermarkets and stores to stop using them and have people use reusable bags instead. That would be another great step in the fight for the environment.

“I will defend my convictions while respecting others,” pledges French President Nicholas Sarkozy, declaring his guiding philosophy, as he plunges into his job with relish, giving an opinion on anything or everyhing.

This is a man who has the energy of a man half his age, seems like he is staying up all night thinking through all the biggest issues of the day and is keen to unleash himself and his ideas onto his first big international appearance, at the G8 summit in Germany this Wednesday, while simultaneously projecting the image that France is once again a major player in the world stage.

On the European Union and its role, Sarko has been urging that European leaders accept a new, simplified European treaty that will be ratified by member states through parliamentary votes rather than popular vote, which had sealed the fate of an earlier incarnation through rejection by French and Dutch voters. His philosophy towards the EU has also solidified around the idea of it wielding more power as an economic entity and less in political realms. But at the same time, he told the Financial Times he opposed EU’s trade policy, labeling it “excessively liberal”. It figures. Despite his reformist credentials, Sarko is at the core a protectionist when it comes to French industries, insisting on staying the course on French agriculture and justifying it by explaining that “the security of Europe’s food supplies was vital”.

On the incoming UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Sarko had this piece of advice. “Gordon Brown has advanced and modernized the British economy over 10 years. I hope that in moving from Number 11 to Number 10 Downing Street he understands that Europe is not outmoded.” But Sarko smoothly added, “Europe has need of the UK and the UK has need of Europe.” He further established the groundwork for a smoother transition in his dealings from Tony Blair to Brown, by telling the Financial Times that “I don’t think that everybody shares my opinion. I don’t have this arrogant vision. He is more liberal than I am.”

Sarko, who has long professed his admiration for the US, is also playing nice when asked about US President George W Bush, Iraq and Bush’s recently-announced environmental initiatives. Regarding Iraq, he pulled out the diplomatic card, professing to not being qualified to comment when he doesn’t have troops in Iraq and affirming French support in Afghanistan through continued troop presence. When it came to commenting on Bush’s environmental plan, Sarko called it an “encouraging evolutionary”. This guy looks set to have a great conversation on the sidelines of the G8 summit with Bush. Expect an invitation to Camp David in the mail for him soon.

But really, Sarko seems set to build consensus and make friends everywhere. It’s a smart move that will warm him to the leaders and create an easier basis for doing business. He was equally flattering about German Chancellor Angela Merkel, complimenting her on her leadership in the EU’s rotating presidency and expressing confidence of her ability to push for issues such as reform and the environment through.

The only person that might not get the full assault of Sarko’s charm is Russian President Vladimir Putin. On the latest hissy fit Russia is throwing about the US’ missile plan, Sarko said he plans to have a “frank and direct” discussion with Putin. Though professing to desire a strategic partnership and amicable relations with Russia, Sarko had came out strongly to condemn Moscow’s strengthening authoritarianism and human rights abuses in Chechnya while campaigning for the presidency. Russia is unlikely to forget that quickly.

So it looks like this upcoming G8 summit might be a little more than just boring business as usual with Sarko’s kinetic and involved presence. The attending heads of states will no doubt have to hear plenty of his opinions and contend with a French President with an assertive approach. While it remains to be seen if Sarko will wear them out, the media, especially the European ones, is still nursing its love affair with Sarko. You could bet on seeing, and hearing, a lot of the guy over the next few days.

The BBC has this astonishing story – the Germans, known as one of the most intrepid globe-trotters, are cutting down on travels abroad, in the name of saving the environment.

To satisfy their travel lust, they’re going to other parts of Germany, the warmer coastal regions, mostly by trains so that they can cut down on flying, which happens to generate loads of carbon emissions.

I’m thoroughly ashamed.

I’m not sure if I can follow in their stellar footsteps. This, while I fancy myself a bit of an environmental protector, like doing my best to conserve energy, recycle, buy green products, etc. When we want to do good for the environment, it’s not about doing it only when it’s convenient to us, it’s about doing it nonetheless, right?

One of my first questions about the story was, how do they restrain themselves? My cynical side thought – hmm, maybe they have already traveled all over anyway, so it doesn’t matter.

But of course that couldn’t be. The world is such as humongous place that there’s no end to the places we could go and the things we could see.

These people are really doing it in good conscience. Yikes.

More atrociously, my next question was, why, as this world is huge, fascinating and beautiful, with so much more to be explored.

I have been bitten by the travel bug since my teens, when I made a trip to Australia and had the grandest time, staying in backpackers’ hostels, visiting all those famous sites and hopping on trains and buses to get from one city to the next along the east coast of Australia.

After that high, I vowed to myself that I’d slave, scrimp and save for the rest of my life to have enough money to travel to as many places as I can, before I die.

I’m still doing it now in my much older age, making an effort to travel at least twice a year, usually to a different place each time so that I’m on track in my goal.

It has been such an exhilarating experience. I have seen amazing sights, met incredible people and taken such treasured photos of my travels. I’ve been lost in so many places but the trick is to just go with the flow and explore wherever I happen to be stranded in and enjoy the moment. Every trip I have had is a matter of being more or less enjoyable, but never bad. All this is hard for me to let go of.

I know I could look at alternative ways of getting to the places I want to go. Buses and trains are some of the more harmless means of transport, compared to planes. I’m not proud to say that I couldn’t completely do as the Germans did. I wish I was a better person but travel is my Achilles heel. I guess that means I would just have to work harder in other aspects to offset this.

Is the evil empire finally coming into the light?

Literally at least, Wal-mart is.

Rooftop solar panels will be installed on 22 of its stores, such as Wal-mart and Sam’s Clubs, in California and Hawaii to provide electricity. Generating up to 20 million megawatts-hours of electricity annually, the solar power provides 30 per cent of each store’s energy needs. The project could potentially cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 10,000 metric tons a year.

While Wal-mart’s doing its bit for the environment by using renewable energy, it isn’t entirely altruistic.

For starters, the solar-generated power is going to cost the retail giant less than regular utilities.

It’s also likely low-risk and low-cost for Wal-mart as the installation costs and ownership of the set-up are undertaken by the contractors BP Solar, SunEdison, and PowerLight. By going down the green route, Wal-mart also gets to enjoy a federal tax credit for solar installations.

But on the bright side, it is doing something good for the environment. Solar power needs no fuel and has no carbon emissions, a cause of global warming.

If this experiment works, more of its stores could eventually be fitted with solar panels. Wal-mart’s size and reach all over the country could mean greater adoption of the technology and lower costs, which might encourage other businesses to follow suit. Following Wal-mart’s example in this case isn’t bad at all.

CNN reports that some retailers set to do the same are Whole Foods, Staples and Lowe’s while Target and Kohl’s signaled their intention to purchase solar-powered electricity.

Wal-mart has declared its goal of eventually using 100 per cent renewable energy while it works to conserve power and reduce waste generated. They might not be great employers or good for small businesses but if they achieved these green targets, there might be some good in the “evil empire” after all.

Amidst the doom and gloom of global warming and its catastrophic consequences, Seville in the south of Spain is shining a light on alternative energy.

There, a new power plant using solar thermal power employs 600 giant mirrors to reflect light from the sun to a 40-floor tower. The heat activates a boiler at the top of the tower, generating steam, which powers up turbines, in turn generating electricity.

For now, it generates 11MW of electricity without emiting greenhouse gases, but will eventually produce enough for 600,000 Seville inhabitants when thousands more giant mirrors of 120 sqm each are ready.

What an inspiring innovation!

Along with wind power, this is another form of alternative energy that begs to be taken seriously. Naysayers may argue that the power generated from this solar thermal method costs three times more than conventional means, but I say export the technology to countries with a constant supply of sunlight, like those in the Mediterranean, the Middle East and parts of Asia who can afford it, first.

With improved technology and economies of scale kicking in eventually, its costs could well become comparable to that of conventional power plants.

The cynical side of me thinks rich states like Saudi Arabia and Dubai, which fulfil the criteria of having vast amounts of sunny days and can afford implementing it, would be likely to resist. It’s obvious – why would they want to invest in something that could threaten to end their profitable stream of income from oil?

But Seville shows that we can, and there are viable clean energy sources to be harnessed. No doubt it costs more for now but if we were truly serious about averting the crisis to our planet, then it’s high time we put our money where our mouth is. The time for action is now.

Read the BBC story here, or watch how the tower works here.