poor old reuters! innumerate as usual... long-life light bulbs... | ecology news at abelard.org
abelard's home latest changes & additions at abelard.org link to document abstracts link to short briefings documents quotations at abelard.org, with source document where relevant click for abelard's child education zone economics and money zone at abelard.org - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net latest news headlines at abelard's news and comment zone
socialism, sociology, supporting documents described Loud music and hearing damage Architectural wonders and joys at abelard.org about abelard and abelard.org visit abelard's gallery Energy - beyond fossil fuels France zone at abelard.org - another France

news and comment

article archives at abelard's news and comment zone topic archives: ecology

for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)

New translation, the Magna Carta

site map

This page helpful?
Share it ! Like it !

poor old reuters! innumerate as usual... long-life light bulbs...

“Fear of not appearing "green enough" also prompted 65 percent of those questioned to claim they bought only energy-saving bulbs, despite sales figures showing less than 20 percent of light bulbs sold each year are energy-saving.”

Hey, go on, work it out. J

For fear of giving the game away ... a major concern with large companies is less maintenance, and that low maintenance also suits me.

Energy-saving bulbs are not more expensive. They use about a fifth of the kilowatts.
Do the calcs for yourself: a long-life bulb lasts for, say 10,000+ hours. You’ll probable get a nasty surprise, then realise you’d buy ten or more short-life bulbs for each compact fluoro. An old-style 100-watt light bulb will consume 1kW (1 unit) in ten hours. How many lights are burning in your house, for how many hours a year?

I think I’ve seen generic compact fluoros at €2.50 at supermarkets and in promotions. I’ll do some checking.

Ah, here’s a go which doesn’t seem too awful:

“The average lifetime of incandescent light bulbs is about 750-1000 hours. It would take at least 6-11 incandescent bulbs to last as long as one compact fluororescent, which have an average lifetime between 11,250 and 15,000 hours. This causes an additional total cost of using incandescent bulbs. Another additional (potential) cost may be incurred if the bulbs are not in a readily accessible location and special equipment (e.g., cherry picker) and/or personnel are needed to replace it.”

But of course, ’Wikipedia’ can’t count either, unless you believe that 11,250/1,000 = 6 or that 15,000/750 = 11. I make it more like 11-20.

Some American electricity generating companies are even giving compact fluoros away because they have contracts based on providing service, rather than providing kilowatts. The old-tech bulbs are forever blowing - a pain in the neck.

marker at abelard.org

And more... [from the Reuters/Planetark article]

“Levels of domestic waste recycling tend to be very low until local authorities provide recycling services on their doorsteps.”

Do they want each household driving down to Central Recycling and back. Do they suppose this is good arithmetic or sound ecological practice?

Still, Planetark/Reuters does try, even if they don’t seem to have any staff who can do basic arithmetic.

And still the polity fails to grasp energy economics.

No ‘green’ planning is possible without a grasp of Jevons’ paradox. That says, the more efficient a system becomes, the more likely it will be widely used.

Hence, as cars become more efficient, there will be more cars purchased. As cars become more efficient, people will tend to buy (be able to afford) more luxurious models.

marker at abelard.org

And more again...[from another Planetark story.]

“In general, one kWh of gas produces 0.19kg of CO2, an average kWh of electricity produces 0.43kg of CO2 and 1kg of CO2 is equivalent to 0.27kg of carbon.

“So, a four-bedroomed detached house built in the late 1960s, for example, that emits 6,637 tonnes of CO2 per year has a carbon footprint of 1.81 tonnes.” [Quoted from planetark.org]

Perhaps they meant 1,792 tonnes, but couldn’t work out where the decimal point went? And were there more than two places of decimals in the 0.27 figure, perhaps 0.272727272727...? Or did they copy it all out of OldNewOld’s typical sloppiness? And/or did they confuse their kgs with their tonnes? Who can tell!

It goes on -

“This month, housing minister Yvette Cooper said seven million tonnes of carbon could be saved by consumers better insulating their homes and installing new boilers.”

How many houses do we have? Let’s guess at 7 million to make the sums easy!!

What is that then - maybe 1 tonne a household saved out of 1,792(?) tonnes? And only as long as you consume a new boiler and the efforts/materials for adequate insulation in the process. Wowee, an inspiring achievement.

Little wonder nothing works with innumerate socialists in government!

Yet again the heart of the article writer is in the right place, even if they can’t count and don’t check.

the web address for the article above is




trying to talk down global warming?

This article has been taken round the fossil media and elsewhere as support for those trying to minimise the risks and certainly the article could be read carelessly in that mood. This item is prompted by some incautious reactions to the article.

“Scenarios of climate change are significant enough without invoking catastrophe and chaos as unguided weapons [...] ”

Hmmmmmm. Note well, despite all the babble and sloppy rhetoric that:

“Scenarios of climate change are significant enough[...] ”

marker at abelard.org

“Mike Hulme is Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research [...] ”

Hulme is, in fact, listed as the ‘founder’ of ‘the Tyndall Centre for Climate etc., which is funded by the UK government.

His comments on the over-blown rhetoric in the fossil media is teaching grandmother to suck eggs to any person with a reasonable scientific background. Note, I see no reference there to hard science training, nor to climate or weather training.

But look carefully. There is no substance in the ‘article’ suggesting that global warming is not a serious problem.

There is no way the problems of carbon filth are to be discussed easily with ‘the workers’. Controlling carbon filth is not just about climate, although increasingly that looks problem enough. It is also about wars, and future health and living standards.

In my view, the fossil fuel industry should be controlled, and immediately. That requires political will, not dancing on a pin by the ‘professor’ from East Anglia.

Carbon sequestration is as yet unproven and undeveloped, while nuclear energy will likely prove cheaper.

The only argument the water melons [green on the outside and red on the inside] have against expanding nuclear power is the possibility of proliferation. There is already a considerable, if not wholly adequate, infrastructure to deal with that [the IAEA]. I think nuclear power will prove cheaper and, of course, much much cleaner than fossil fuels. There is much that can be done for the remainder of the problems with increased energy efficiency and with ‘a bit here and a bit there’ in energy production.

Carbon is not the only problem. It may not even be the main problem. We can certainly ‘tolerate’ much of the current carbon. In my view, we cannot tolerate the steadily increasing overload.

the web address for the article above is

that damned global warming just will not be talked away - perhaps the flat earthers are not blabbering hard and fast enough!

This item is now incorpated into the briefing document: pressure on water resources

the web address for the article above is

42 years, that’s all we’ve got : human selfishness on the way to making all seafood extinct, and maybe all sealife too by Xavier

The greed of fish-guzzling nations and their fishing industry suppliers are killing off the ecology of 70% of our world. There is time to reverse this, just.

“Only forty-two more years. That's how long a new study funded by the National Science Foundation and the University of California predicts we have until the bulk of the world's seafood populations -- including the fish that Americans rely on for their dinner tables -- are largely wiped out.

“The cause? Overfishing, for one, as well as climate change. But the study notes that oceans already have lost so many species that it's hard for other species to thrive. Species loss disrupts food chains, which, in turn, disrupts the fragile balance of complex systems, both on land and in the water.

“Worm and an international team spent four years analyzing 32 controlled experiments, other studies from 48 marine protected areas and global catch data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's database of all fish and invertebrates worldwide from 1950 to 2003.

“The scientists also looked at a 1,000-year time series for 12 coastal regions, drawing on data from archives, fishery records, sediment cores and archaeological data [...]”

But the vested interests claim otherwise:

“The National Fisheries Institute, a trade association for the seafood industry, does not share the researchers alarm.

“ "Fish stocks naturally fluctuate in population," the institute said in a statement. "By developing new technologies that capture target species more efficiently and result in less impact on other species or the environment, we are helping to ensure our industry does not adversely affect surrounding ecosystems or damage native species.” [Quoted from sci-tech-today.com]

However, remember this trade organisation has a vested interest in catching fish and selling more fish to help their profits. And how much seafood are we talking about?

“Seafood has become a growing part of Americans' diet in recent years. Consumption totaled 16.6 pounds per person in 2004, the most recent data available, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That compares with 15.2 pounds in 2000.” [Again quoted from sci-tech-today.com]

That is over 2 million tonnes of seafood a year and that is just for the U.S.A., which has a population of 300 million. Other top consumers per capita are Indonesia, China, Japan, and Russia; and then there is everyone else too.

Now if we continue like this, the consequence will be that the seas will be near dead of everything except vegetable life in forty-two years. The denial of the vested interests are not much different from the denials of the fossil fuel oil industries. For them, this four-year research report is wrong. To paraphrase their ‘objection’: “Here is data we’ve cherry-picked - from the same UN report as used by the researchers - that ‘proves’ we can continue our high-tech £36,000 fishing hauls with impunity.” [Note: with the decreased fish availability, this amount fished in 2002 has reduced to under £15,000 a haul in 2004.]

But humans have thirty years before the fossil fuel industry collapses, and now the consequences of global warming are being taken seriously by at least the consumers and users in advanced countries. This is not the same for the sea.

To give some idea of the problem:

  • “[...] up to 70 percent of the world’s fisheries threatened by overfishing [...]” (dated October 02, 2000)
  • “[...] the world's large fish--tuna, marlin, swordfish, sharks, cod and halibut among them--have been so exploited by industrial fisheries that 90 percent of them have disappeared from the sea.” (dated May 15, 2003)
  • “[...] the volume of cod on Nova Scotia's Scotian Shelf has dropped more than 90 percent since the 1850s.” (dated March 02, 2005)

And this is what happens when the warnings are ignored:

“Protecting stocks demands the political will to act on scientific advice - something which Boris Worm finds lacking in Europe, where politicians have ignored recommendations to halt the iconic North Sea cod fishery year after year.

“Without a ban, scientists fear the North Sea stocks could follow the Grand Banks cod of eastern Canada into apparently terminal decline.

“"I'm just amazed, it's very irrational," he said.

“"You have scientific consensus and nothing moves. It's a sad example; and what happened in Canada should be such a warning, because now it's collapsed it's not coming back."” [Quoted from bbc.co.uk]

related material
The end of the line
The tragedy of the commons

the web address for the article above is

on the economics of climate change

While innumerate eco-warriors fuss over the supposed problems being caused by a fast-developing China, the UK government has just published a new report. (It is 700 pages plus some summaries!)

The U.S.A. has a population of 300 million, and has approximately 25% of the world’s industrial output.

China [population 1.3 billion] has immense and growing concerns over pollution, this hits everyone. The sense of urgency is growing around the world to the extent that increasing panic is spreading among governments.

“China would like the world to agree a new framework for trading and investment in reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by 2008, and to see a longer-lasting commitment period, top policy officials said on Friday.” [Quoted from planetark.org]

We have problems with the water melons, green on the outside and red on the inside. We have problems with the economic fundies who’ll do and say anything to avoid having their filth curtailed. Then we have the likes of Brown the clown [Gordon Brown, UK finance minister] trying to use (very necessary) green taxes as an excuse to increase overall taxes.

Be aware each of these groups will work to mislead by using claims of the other groups in order to cover their own agendas. Read everything with an eye to the interests of those pushing their particular nonsense.

Changing the fundamentals is vital. The new UK report is very much in accord with my own calculations. This is going to cost about 1% of GDP each and every year long into the future. Acting, and acting quickly is vital.

The priorities are

This relevant and rational book on the energy problems is good if you wish to dig deep.

the web address for the article above is

neat enthusiastic article on trees

“The maritime Northwest wants to be forest. With our ample rain and fertile soil, trees will sprout almost anywhere. Homeowners know this: we constantly yank and chop woody seedlings from lawns and garden beds. The typical yard is trying very hard to become a forest, not only due to our climate and soil, but because the irrigation and fertilizer we use for lawns and gardens is perfect for trees. Only the lawnmower and pruning shears prevent the woods from taking over.

“So why fight this trend toward forest? Instead we can work with nature to fashion a multi-storied forest garden, sometimes called a food forest. This is a food- and habitat-producing landscape that acts like a natural woodland. In a forest garden, the yard is an open, parklike grove of fruit trees, some walnuts and chestnuts in larger yards, and other useful trees. In the bright openings are smaller persimmon trees, plums, cherries, paw-paws, and a few ornamentals such as golden-chain trees and pink-flowered silk trees (which just happen to put nitrogen in the soil). Catching the sunlight farther down, dancing with birds, are flowering shrubs and berry bushes. Occasional honeysuckle and hardy kiwi vines wind up tree-trunks, leaving a trail of blossoms and fruit. Beneath all this and in the bright edges are beds of perennial flowers, vegetables, a patch or two of lawn, and soil-building mulch plants that weave this multi-layered garden into a cohesive whole. These many-functioned plants extend a welcome to helpful insects, birds, and other wildlife, as well as to people.”

“Trees have an unmatched ability to produce soil-enriching leaf litter, fill the earth with humus-making roots, quell temperature swings, hold moisture, arrest erosion, and offer tiers of wildlife habitat. And you can't beat trees for productivity. An acre of apple trees can yield 7 tons of fruit, and an acre of chestnut trees may offer up 10 tons of protein-rich nuts--without annual replanting.”

the web address for the article above is

russia’s westpolitik

“Vladimir Putin’s visit to his old stumping ground, Germany, after he hosted Chancellor Angela Merkel in Siberia earlier this year, was delightful. Putin dropped by the old haunt, Dresden, where he used to run agents, then attended meetings with Bavarian officials and a dinner in Munich. The Green Party leaders boycotted the affair because of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya murder. Still, the Greens in the past gave hand to the massive German energy partnership with Russia – so that the Vaterland can shut down the much-hated nuclear reactors.

“Better be Red than dead; better be Green and pro-Russian than anti-environment.”

If it were not for the fake Greens, the Western dependence on the Middle East would never have gained such ground. But still not satisfied, the Greens still want to sell out to Russia. Perhaps they’re hoping Putin is still a commie.

Every whiner against the police action to remove the socialist Madsam dictatorship is complicit if they ever stood against nuclear power, or drive SUVs, or take short-haul air trips, or don’t fully insulate their accommodation.

Meanwhile, the EU refuses to face down the fishers who are destroying European stocks.

I wonder how many of our pseudo-greens eat cod?

the web address for the article above is

bush creeps up tentatively on oil dependence

“Bush did not unveil any new initiatives but promoted his administration's program to fund research for making ethanol from less expensive wood chips, switch grass and other agricultural waste products. Most US ethanol is made from higher-priced corn.

“ "I believe so strongly that this country has got to use its talent and its wealth to get us off oil," Bush said. "Probably the fastest way we can begin to change the consumer habits -- is to promote hybrid vehicles."

“Bush mentioned a tax credit of US$3,400 for new hybrid cars, which run on a combination of gasoline and electricity. He also envisioned next-generation batteries powering cars for the first 40 miles (64 km) of a trip.

“Bush also applauded those using E-85, a blend containing 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.”

“Last year, the United States used 14 percent of its corn crop to make ethanol, with usage forecast to rise to 20 percent this year.”

That is, the next step will be conflict between American fuel and world food supplies.

Increasingly, Bush is daring to speak out on the vital necessity of nuclear power.

From Bush’s original speech:

“A controversial subject is nuclear power. You might remember, we've had a time in our country where people liked nuclear power, thought it was a strong solution to energy independence, and then we just shut her down because of engineering concerns. I strongly believe that if we want to keep this country competitive, if we want to make sure we can compete globally, we must promote civilian nuclear power. We must have more energy coming from nuclear power. (Applause.)

“Nuclear power is renewable, and there are no greenhouse gases associated with nuclear power. One of the problems we've had is that nobody wants to build any plants. They're afraid of the costs of regulation and the litigious nature that surrounds the construction of nuclear power plants -- litigious problems surrounding the construction of the nuclear power plants.

“And so, in the energy bill that I signed, the Congress wisely provided incentives and risk insurance for nuclear power plant construction. Last year only three companies were seeking to build power plants -- nuclear power plants. Today 14 have expressed new interest in construction. In other words, there's a new industry beginning to come back.

“I think it's very important for us to spend dollars on how to best deal with the waste, in other words, research new ways to be able to assure the American people that we'll be able to deal with the nuclear waste in a smart way. And that's why we're teaming up with France, and Japan, and Russia to spend money -- $250 million from the United States' perspective, and they're matching it -- on what's called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, all designed to research reprocessing and fast-burner reactors.

“The idea is to take the nuclear industry, take the spent fuel, reprocess it, put it into a fast-burner reactor, which will yield about 90 percent less of the waste than under the current system. What I'm telling you is, is that the engineering is much safer today than it has been in the past, and we're spending money to make sure that we can deal with the waste in a sane way, so that we can with confidence say to the American people, now is the time to accelerate the expansion of nuclear power for the sake of national and economic security. (Applause.)”

the web address for the article above is

another study showing shrinking glaciers

I doubt anyone is left who doesn’t realise that glaciers act as buffers/resevoirs assisting water supplies, often in poorer areas. The shrinking of glaciers also increasingly contributes to rising sea levels.

“Water for millions at risk as glaciers melt away -

  • Crisis threatens parts of South America and Asia
  • Decline accelerates as global warming takes hold

“The world's glaciers and ice caps are now in terminal decline because of global warming, scientists have discovered. A survey has revealed that the rate of melting across the world has sharply accelerated in recent years, placing even previously stable glaciers in jeopardy. The loss of glaciers in South America and Asia will threaten the water supplies of millions of people within a few decades, the experts warn.

“Georg Kaser, a glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, who led the research, said: "The glaciers are going to melt and melt until they are all gone. There are not any glaciers getting bigger any more." ”

“Other countries are noticing the effects. Studies show snow and ice cover in the eastern Himalayas has shrunk by about 30% since the 1970s. Melting glaciers have created lakes in the mountains which could burst and cause widespread flooding. Of 150 glaciers that once stood in Glacier National Park in the northern US, only 27 remain. The US Environmental Protection Agency says the biggest are a third the size they were in 1850. Continued warming could melt them completely by 2030.”

the web address for the article above is

You are here: ecology news from October 2006 < News < Home

latest abstracts briefings information   hearing damage memory France zone

email abelard email email_abelard [at] abelard.org

© abelard, 2006, 12 october
all rights reserved

variable words
prints as increasing A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)