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?

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

Tata Motors’ launch this week of the Nano, a little car that can seat 5 and costs $2,500, has attracted much attention for its potential to bring mobility to the masses.

Technologically, it is significant, capitalizing on India’s plentiful labor and cheaper materials to build a car that could be affordable to people of lesser means.

Aesthetically, it is pleasing, with its cute design that’s somewhat reminiscent of Swatch’s Smart car. Its small size suggests easy handling, especially in the crowded and chaotic streets of India, and of course, breezy parking on narrow streets.

For India, the birthplace of the car, the success of the Nano could boost national pride and translate into even stronger economic growth than it is already enjoying.

The vehicle is also priced attractively enough so that a family which could previously afford only a two-wheeler, such as a motorcycle or scooter, could seriously consider going for the Nano instead.

But therein lies the rub – is it progress or regression with the Nano’s imminent introduction to the market?

As the world worries about global warming and increased greenhouse gases and tries to work on solving the issue, the Nano could throw a spanner in the works, possibly causing car ownership to balloon worldwide as its accessible price attracts those who had previously never had the means of affording a car.

Furthermore, with India’s relatively less stringent fuel emission standards, this could mean the nightmare of even more greenhouse gases produced and more pollution to deal with. Even as many parts of the world fret over future air quality and tries to promote public transport as an alternative, is that endeavor doomed to fail as the Nano’s success condemns the efforts of reversing the damage done to the earth?

With more cars, imagine also the strain on the infrastructure of developing countries, which are primarily the Nano’s target markets. Existing roads, usually in poor condition with maintenance virtually non-existent, are already laboring to keep up with the present number of vehicles. I do not wish upon already frazzled motorists more traffic and congestion as too few roads and infrastructure fail to keep up with more cars in circulation. Traffic is already notoriously bad in places like Bangkok, Beijing, Mexico City and New Delhi. How much worse might it get if more cars were on the road as they get cheaper?

Safety is yet another dimension that could easily be compromised with a surge in the car population. Developing countries are often quite lax on the criteria for getting a driver’s license – if it is even strictly necessary. In Mexico City for instance, one only has to be 18 and above and have the fees ready to pay for the license, with nary a driving test in sight. The New York Times reports that in India, standards are similarly loose, with a license easily procured as long as one could afford it. More worryingly, the Nano reportedly falls short of US safety standards.

How about the price of oil? $100 per barrel is already upon us. How much more is gas going to cost in the longer term as demand for it becomes even more insatiable? And what consequences will that have on geopolitics, especially in the Middle East?

Like it or, Tata is pushing ahead with the Nano and it is likely to be successful, given that cars are status symbols in many countries. Which probably means that all the emission cuts that have been envisioned or agreed upon is likely to disappear into thin air.

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.

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.