The Green Thread

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by Rigadon

I'd agree with you on the likelihood of global apocalypse. Humanity just isn't that stupid.

Then our whole financial and monetary system will need to fundamentally change. Our current paradigm of "exponential growth and consumption at all costs" just simply isn't sustainable.

Edit: Another point that people forget is the tipping points that could soon make it impossible to reverse. For example, the Arctic will change from being a carbon sink to a carbon source by the mid-2020s, it will become ice-free by the mid-2030s (dark water absorbs more heat than reflective white ice), and there's a methane time bomb waiting to go off in Siberia.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by Octoman

a lot of stuff was debunked - from false claims about glacial melt, fabricated data about Kilamanjaro, dodgy climate models, suppressed data and so on.

"A lot"? I hardly think so. You are choosing to focus on some tiny aspects of the overall, well-established science. It's rather like trying to debunk the entire theory of evolution, just because a couple of small fossils had anomalous results. The overall theory remains extremely robust.

Regarding the so-called "climategate" emails, I suggest you watch this -

[Rigadon]

Originally Posted by wjfox

Then our whole financial and monetary system will need to fundamentally change. Our current paradigm of "exponential growth and consumption at all costs" just simply isn't sustainable.

I completely disagree. All that is needed is for governments to shift the goalposts to make technologies and activities that create less carbon more profitable and those that create more less profitable. Consumption drives innovation and is as much a friend as foe.it just needs more direction.

[mic of Orion]

Originally Posted by Rigadon

Bullshit. Some sceptics with good PR managed to find some obscure mistakes amongst the less rigourously assessed barely read fringe articles. Nothing of any signficance in mainstream climate science was debunked and the mahjor conclusions of the last IPCC have only got stronger.


The sustained publicity from the sceptics was impressive given that the facts were against them but I dont think it has had that much impact. The reasosn global warming is off the agenda is the state of the economy. The country that has been progressing fastest in the green direction (admittedly from a low based) is China, because it can afford to.

I'd agree with you on the likelihood of global apocalypse. Humanity just isn't that stupid. There's no way will let thinks get worse for another hundred years but it's looking less likely than it did 3 years ago that we will do enough soon enough to prevent major damage.

precisely, I also think that western europe is really looking at alternatives, although bit slower than China, but none the less, 20% cut in emissions by 2020 is achievable and I think if Europe can achieve this it'll give impetuous for other industrialized nations and do the same.

[wjfox]

Climate e-mail reviews 'leave science sound'

Successive reviews into the University of East Anglia (UEA) climate e-mail hack cast no doubt on the basic picture of global warming, the government says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13300058



The basic picture of a planet warmed by fossil fuel
emissions is not challenged, the government says

[wjfox]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...gy-power-world

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study

UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand

Fiona Harvey
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 May 2011 11.13 BST





Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.

Investing in renewables to the extent needed would cost only about 1% of global GDP annually, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC.

Renewable energy is already growing fast – of the 300 gigawatts of new electricity generation capacity added globally between 2008 and 2009, about 140GW came from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, according to the report.

The investment that will be needed to meet the greenhouse gas emissions targets demanded by scientists is likely to amount to about $5trn in the next decade, rising to $7trn from 2021 to 2030.

Ramon Pichs, co-chair of one of the key IPCC working groups, said: "The report shows that it is not the availability of [renewable] resources but the public policies that will either expand or constrain renewable energy development over the coming decades. Developing countries have an important stake in the future – this is where most of the 1.4 billion people without access to electricity live yet also where some of the best conditions exist for renewable energy deployment."

Sven Teske, renewable energy director at Greenpeace International, and a lead author of the report, said: "This is an invitation to governments to initiate a radical overhaul of their policies and place renewable energy centre stage. On the run up to the next major climate conference, COP17 in South Africa in December, the onus is clearly on governments to step up to the mark."

He added: "The IPCC report shows overwhelming scientific evidence that renewable energy can also meet the growing demand of developing countries, where over 2 billion people lack access to basic energy services and can do so at a more cost-competitive and faster rate than conventional energy sources. Governments have to kick start the energy revolution by implementing renewable energy laws across the globe."

The 1,000-page Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) marks the first time the IPCC has examined low-carbon energy in depth, and the first interim report since the body's comprehensive 2007 review of the science of climate change.

Although the authors are optimistic about the future of renewable energy, they note that many forms of the technology are still more expensive than fossil fuels, and find that the production of renewable energy will have to increase by as much as 20 times in order to avoid dangerous levels of global warming. Renewables will play a greater role than either nuclear or carbon capture and storage by 2050, the scientists predict.

Investing in renewables can also help poor countries to develop, particularly where large numbers of people lack access to an electricity grid.

About 13% of the world's energy came from renewable sources in 2008, a proportion likely to have risen as countries have built up their capacity since then, with China leading the investment surge, particularly in wind energy. But by far the greatest source of renewable energy used globally at present is burning biomass (about 10% of the total global energy supply), which is problematic because it can cause deforestation, leads to deposits of soot that accelerate global warming, and cooking fires cause indoor air pollution that harms health.

There was disappointment for enthusiasts of marine energy, however, as the report found that wave and tidal power were "unlikely to significantly contribute to global energy supply before 2020". Wind power, by contrast, met about 2% of global electricity demand in 2009, and could increase to more than 20% by 2050.

As with all IPCC reports, the summary for policymakers – the synopsis of the report that will be presented to governments and is likely to impact renewable energy policy – had to be agreed line by line and word by word unanimously by all countries. This was done at Monday's meeting in Abu Dhabi. This makes the process lengthy, but means that afterwards no government or scientist represented can say that they disagree with the finished findings, which the IPCC sees as a key strength of its operations.

The launch of the report is streamed on the IPCC web site.

[wjfox]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...gets-emissions

Coalition will miss carbon budgets, analysts warn

Forecast shows the UK will miss its targets to cut emissions over the next decade if it relies on existing policies

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 May 2011 11.13 BST





The UK will miss its "carbon budget" targets to cut emissions over the next decade if it relies on existing policies, analysts warned today.

The latest analysis by Cambridge Econometrics confirmed that the UK has missed its long-standing target to cut carbon by 20% by 2010, despite a large fall in emissions in 2008-09 as a result of the recession.

The rise in emissions during 2010, which officials attributed to heating by households in the face of cold winters, is a warning signal to ministers striving to be the "greenest government ever", the analysts said.

The forecast suggests UK emissions will fall by around 0.5% to 0.75% every year this decade, increasing to around 1% a year in 2020-25 as power generation moves towards more low-carbon supplies.

But on existing policies, including those inherited from the last government and those soon to be put in place by the coalition, the UK will narrowly miss its first two five-year carbon budgets and fail to meet the third which runs from 2018 to 2022 by a wider margin.

Prof Paul Ekins of University College London, a senior consultant to Cambridge Econometrics, insisted that failing to reach the 20% target by 2010 showed how difficult it was to put in policies that would achieve effective reductions.

He said the official estimate of growth in emissions in 2010 showed that "this government's aspiration for green growth has yet to be realised".

He said: "The historical link between economic growth and increased emissions has clearly not yet been definitively broken, which must be deeply worrying for a government that is seeking both strong economic growth and ever deeper emission reductions.

"In this context it is clear that stronger policies will be required to meet the carbon budgets for the 2020s and beyond."

He said much was riding on the impact of a carbon floor price, energy market reforms and the success of the "green deal" which aims to improve the energy efficiency of buildings.

And he warned: "The new question marks over the future of nuclear power due to the nuclear accident in Japan also underline the importance of the UK greatly accelerating its deployment of renewables - the statutory 2020 renewables target mandated by the EU looks set to be missed by a large margin on current policies."

Under the EU rules, the UK has to supply 15% of all energy – including heating and transport as well as electricity – from renewables.

The latest report suggests renewable electricity will be significantly increased after 2020, as will the number of new nuclear power stations, while coal-fired power generation will be reduced.

But on current policies renewables are set to make up 17.5% of electricity generation by 2025, well below the government's stated aspirations of 30% by 2020.

Ekins said the government was aware of the need for more stringent policies, and new measures were in the pipeline, but steps to cut carbon were under political pressure.

The government's targets are within the reach of its policies, he said, "but only if it holds its nerve".

A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) said: "The UK is expected to meet the first three carbon budgets according to Decc's central emissions projections.

"We are not relying on the recession to help us reduce emissions, which is why we are radically reforming the electricity market, increasing home energy efficiency under the green deal and creating a green investment bank."

[wjfox]

Meanwhile, in Colombia...


------------------------------



La Niña and global warming blamed as torrential rains swamp Colombia

Hundreds die and thousands are made homeless as record-level rainfall and floods affect three-quarters of the country

Marie Delcas
Guardian Weekly, Tuesday 10 May 2011 14.08 BST

It has never rained so much in Colombia. "Over the past 10 months we have registered five or six times more rainfall than usual," says weather specialist Ricardo Lozano. Torrential rain and flooding have affected more than three-quarters of the country. The most recent Red Cross bulletin reports 425 fatalities and 3 million disaster victims.

With 12,000 homes destroyed and 356,000 damaged, thousands of people have had to move out, taking refuge in temporary shelters. More than 1m hectares of land are underwater. "But the disaster prevention system worked," Lozano adds, saving between 5,000 and 10,000 lives.

Colombia is known for its heavy rain and apparent lack of seasons, but this year the downpour has been almost continuous. The mountains are sodden, so runoff flows down the slopes to fill rivers, which flood the plains and coastal areas. Mudslides have damaged the precarious road system. At 2,500 metres above sea level even the vast Sabana plain, on which the capital Bogotá is built, is partly flooded. Food prices are going up and the drainage system is completely saturated, with the risk of a dengue epidemic.

This is mainly the fault of La Niña, a cyclical weather system. "It used to occur once every five to six years, but it is increasingly frequent and severe due to global warming," says Lozano. The current spell of bad weather is expected to last another two months.

The authorities are also culprits. "They have allowed corrupt politicians, cattle breeders, mining companies, logging firms, drug traffickers and property developers to destroy woods and wetlands, and wreck river basins," says the economist Roberto Arango. "They have tolerated rampant social inequality, so the poorest people must live in hazardous areas."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...oding-colombia

[wjfox]

[Kelli]

^That is interesting, thanks. I reposted it in the Australian threads, hope you don't mind.

Apart from the population explosion at the end, the black plague was fairly dramatic as well.

[wjfox]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...aluminum_n.htm





Smog-eating aluminum panels launch for buildings

By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY

Buildings that eat smog? Alcoa, a maker of aluminum products, introduced an architectural panel Thursday that it says not only cleans itself but also the air around it.

The aluminum panel has a titanium dioxide coating that, when combined with sunlight, acts as a catalyst to break down pollutants such as smog into harmless matter that rain washes away.

"It could have a significant impact" if enough buildings use the product, says Craig Belnap, president of Alcoa Architectural Products. The company says 10,000 square feet of its panels have the air-cleansing power of about 80 trees.

The panel is the latest in a series of building products — whether cement, tile or paint — touted for their pollution-fighting abilities:

•Ceiling tiles that remove formaldehyde, which is linked to health problems, were announced this week by Armstrong Ceiling & Wall Systems, which says the product has been certified by UL, an independent non-profit testing group.

•The Ionic Bulb by Florida-based Zevotek, now available in stores nationwide, is an energy-efficient compact fluorescent lamp that contains an air purifier to eliminate allergens, pollen, smoke and dust.

"All such claims should be approached with caution" and validated by independent academic labs, warns Martin Holladay, senior editor of GreenBuildingAdvisor.com, a website that covers sustainable construction.

The coating on Alcoa's panels has long been used on concrete such as the TX Active product — with proven results.

Such concrete reduced nitrogen oxides — the smog-causing compound emitted by vehicles — 25% to 45% in a small area of a Dutch town where it was used on roads, according to a lecture last year by Jos Brouwers at Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands.

"It does work," says Nadav Malin, president of BuildingGreen.com, an online source of eco-friendly construction. "But you'd have to have a lot of this out there in the built environment to make any dent in air pollution."

"It could be part of a solution," says Alcoa's Belnap, adding that the Reynobond panels also lower maintenance costs for commercial buildings by reducing water and dirt. He says Alcoa teamed with Japanese manufacturer TOTO to add the EcoClean coating and had its air-purifying impact verified by an independent lab.

The panels will cost about 5% more than similar aluminum ones and will become available nationwide this summer.

[wjfox]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-...tl-flight.html





Swiss solar aircraft makes first international flight

Pioneering Swiss solar-powered aircraft Solar Impulse ambled over Europe into Belgium on Friday on its first international flight, with the pilot reporting that everything was running smoothly.

It holds the endurance and altitude records for a manned solar-powered aeroplane after staying aloft for 26 hours, 10 minutes and 19 seconds above Switzerland, flying at 9,235 metres (30,298 feet).

The high-tech plane has since flown several times, notably between Geneva and Zurich airports, but the journey to a busy airport at Brussels through crowded airspace is regarded as a new test.

"Flying an aircraft like Solar Impulse through European airspace to land at an international airport is an incredible challenge for all of us, and success depends on the support we receive from all the authorities concerned," said Borschberg, who also piloted July's flight.

HB-SIA relies on 12,000 solar cells on its 64-metre wings to charge the batteries that provide the energy for the 10-horsepower electric motors driving four propellors.

Its record-breaking flight last year demonstrated its capacity to store up enough energy to fly through a summer night.

The showcase for green technology will go on display at Brussels airport until May 29 before flying on to the international air show at Le Bourget in Paris from June 20 to 26.

"This time, we have a real airplane -- flying -- proof that new technologies can reduce our dependence on fossil energy," said Bertrand Piccard, joint founder and president of the Solar Impulse project.





The Solar Impulse team is planning to fly even further, including possible transamerican, transatlantic and round-the-world flights -- in stages -- in 2013 and 2014 using a slightly larger aircraft.

Asked about upping the speed, Borschberg said: "That's not the aim of this plane for now."

Piccard, himself the first man along with Briton Brian Jones to fly non-stop around the world in a balloon, comes from a dynasty of pioneers.

His grandfather Auguste Piccard twice beat the record for reaching the highest altitude in a balloon, in 1931-32.

His late father Jacques Piccard was a deep sea explorer, who holds the record for travelling to the deepest point underwater, 10,916 metres (35,813 feet) below sea level in the Marianas Trench in the Pacific.

[wjfox]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...r-2283861.html




Up In Flames: Cameron's pledge to lead the greenest government ever

Johann Hari on an environmental disaster in the making

Saturday, 14 May 2011

When David Cameron gazed into the dewy eyes of a husky and promised to lead "the greenest government ever", what did you think that would involve?

Probably not an attempt to sell off all our trees to logging companies. Probably not a decision to open up the coast of Britain to the deep water oil-drilling that worked so well in the Gulf of Mexico. Probably not the bombing of another Arab country because there would apparently be "terrible economic consequences [for] the price of oil" if he didn't, as the Foreign Secretary William Hague put it in a recent interview.

And you certainly wouldn't have expected David Cameron's latest plan. He has decided to convert us to a new energy source that seems, in the US, to have released cancer-causing chemicals and radiation into the water supply – and will unleash even more planet-cooking gases than coal. Trapped under very hard shale rock in Lancashire, there is a large amount of natural gas.

But it's impossible to get to unless you use a previously-verboten method called "hydraulic fracturing", or "fracking" for short. It's simple. You blast the rock with one to seven million gallons of water that has been combined with up to 596 rock-dissolving chemicals. This penetrates 800ft into the ground and causes something like a mini-earthquake, breaking the rock into thousands of pieces and allowing the gas out.

Where it's already being used, fracking has been accused of three fatal flaws: contamination of the water supply, contamination of the air, and contamination of the climate. Let's start with the water. When his home in the woods in Pennsylvania was designated as an area perfect for fracking, the film-maker Josh Fox went to meet other people whose land had been used this way.

The result – the film Gasland – was nominated for an Oscar. He started in a small town called Dimock, on the border between Pennsylvania and New York state. They had over 40 gas wells that used fracking – and after it began, the community there started to notice something odd. Their water caught fire. Literally. When it came out of the tap, the water smelled of gas – and when it got anywhere near a flame, it combusted.

In addition to fizzing and bubbling with gas, the water tasted metallic and looked brown. Pat Farnelli, a local woman, explained: "Everyone was sick, including me. Our stomachs were really playing up – we couldn't handle anything." Fox's film argues that only half of the waste water that goes into the ground comes back up.

A report by senior Democrats in the House of Representatives last week found that this waste water contains at least 29 chemicals that are known to cause or strongly suspected of causing cancer, including methanol, benzene, sulfuric acid and lead. None of this biodegrades. When the fracking companies came and assured the residents of Dimock the water was perfectly safe, they said they should try drinking a glass – and the company men refused.

Fracking has also been shown in the US to contaminate the air. Fox's film went to the town of Dish in Texas, where large chemical clouds sometimes form over the gas wells. The town's mayor, Calvin Tillman, said that when the clouds form, "most of the people in this community think they've just taken their last breath". He commissioned an independent scientific analysis of the clouds – and it found "amazing and very high levels of known and suspected human carcinogens and neurotoxins", including one carcinogen that was at 107 times the safe level. The film-makers asked the companies involved to comment on all these allegations and they declined to do so.

The chemicals that have been found in the fracking waste include glycol ethers. Its known effects on humans include testicular toxicity, malformation of embryos, bone marrow depression, and destruction of red blood cells. Dr Theo Colborn, who has been named Time magazine's environmental hero of the year, warns: "The workmen are inhaling these chemicals round the clock, 24/7."

But this isn't the worst thing about fracking. More than any other popular fuel source, shale gas destabilises our planet's climate – driving catastrophic warming, sea-level rise, and increased extreme weather. Until recently, it was thought that this natural gas was "cleaner" than other fossil fuels when it came to global warming.

But a bombshell study by three professors at Cornell University, published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change last month, found that the process of fracking releases so much methane – one of the most potent warming gases – that it could be as much as 43 per cent worse than coal. (The US fracking companies are refusing to co-operate, so the authors stress it's hard to be absolutely precise with figures.) The early green champions of shale gas have, in light of this evidence, recanted.

Everybody involved in the study of the downside of fracking stresses that it is at an early stage in its investigations. This is not a totally settled view, in the way that (say) the evidence for man-made global warming is accepted by virtually all scientists. But all this suggests there are very significant environmental risks that should make us think twice before rushing in.

The company engaging in fracking off the coast of Blackpool, Cuadrilla Resources, seems to believe there is no danger at all to the public. Its chief executive Mark Miller told MPs at the Energy and Climate Change Committee: "We're not really using unconventional technology. Shale gas exploration techniques, including hydraulic fracture, are conventional and have been used across the oil and gas industry for many decades. It is the reservoir source in which the gas is found that is unconventional."

He said it would be "near impossible" for any leak to occur, but then added that, if it did happen, it could be fixed within three to five days. Yet even the sober Financial Times quotes an analyst warning there is a "Toyota-sized reputational risk" associated with potential pollution from shale gas. Two days ago, France announced a ban on fracking, saying it is unacceptably dangerous.

So why is Cameron doing this? The easy, safe sources of fossil fuels have all been burned up by now. The ones that remain are in dangerous places – whether it's the soil beneath Libya, or rock that has to be dissolved with a potentially carcinogenic cocktail off the coast of Blackpool. The flaws of nuclear power have also been horribly exposed in Japan. That's why the US is expected to depend on shale gas for 45 per cent of its energy needs by 2035, with Britain trailing obediently behind – a terrifying prospect for the climate.

It doesn't have to be this way. Britain could instead be leading the world in showing how an advanced society can be powered by the awesome force of renewables – the wind, the waves and the sun. These are job-intensive industries that will dominate the 21st century, as the fossil fuels run out and throttle humanity. We could have the head-start on a better path, and become the global experts. Instead, we are bombing and drilling for the dirtiest fuels.

You might remember that David Cameron added a wind turbine to his house before the election. I warned then that it was a PR gesture – the Tory leader had dismissed wind turbines as "giant bird-blenders" only a few years before. But I didn't see quite how cynical it was. If Cameron had wanted to alert the public to what he would really do on the environment in office, he should have bombed his house to get cheaper oil – and then slathered a cocktail of chemical-sludge into the ground in the hope of hitting gas.

[wjfox]

Butterflies fight back! Rare species make recovery after decades of decline

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:53 AM on 16th May 2011

They are known for their rarity, beauty and vulnerability. But some of Britain's most threatened butterfly species appear to be showing signs of recovery after decades of decline, according to experts.

Large increases in numbers of rare species, including the marsh fritillary and the wood white, were recorded by a monitoring programme run by the Butterfly Conservation and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

Targeted conservation action - along with better weather in 2010 - were thought to be behind the increase last year, experts said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1MX8jANS5

[alonzo-ny]

I happened to be in the butterfly tent at the history museum yesterday. It was awesome! I wasn't too interested though because I am a seething mass of man.

[wjfox]

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/1...-half-by-2025/

Britain pledges to cut carbon pollution in half by 2025
(from 1990 levels)

May 17, 2011

Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, told Parliament today that the UK government will formally adopt plans to cut its carbon dioxide pollution some 50% by 2023-2027 compared to 1990 levels.





The AP reports, “The goal is part of longer-term legal commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050.”

The NY Times notes this is one of “the world’s most ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions — a striking example of a government committing to big environmental initiatives while also pursuing austerity measures.” Striking, perhaps, but two years ago Nobelist Paul Krugman said that climate action “now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump” by giving “businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities.”

Here’s some background on the decision from the BBC:

[Huhne] reportedly won a battle with Lib Dem colleague Vince Cable over the targets amid fears they will hurt the economy.But they will include an “opt-out” if EU competitors fail on similar aims.

The devil is in the details, as always.

The 2027 targets follow recommendations from the government’s official advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change….

The 2027 target … forms part of reaching a longer-term aim of a 60% reduction by 2030.

The committee’s chief executive, David Kennedy, said he was “delighted” the government had accepted its recommendations and that it would “ensure that we make the right investment choices, maximising long-term growth and reducing our reliance on imported fossil fuels”.

A leaked letter last week exposed a row between Mr Huhne and Business Secretary Vince Cable over the proposed targets.

Prime Minister David Cameron was reported to have intervened on the side of Mr Huhne after Mr Cable reportedly complained that the “too aggressive” targets would “burden” the UK economy….

Greenpeace has described the agreement as “rare victory for the green growth agenda” in the face of what it said was “vehement” opposition from the Treasury and the Department of Business.

The NYT reports that this goal is “far deeper than the European Union’s goal of cutting emissions 20 percent by 2020, and it would mean that Britain would make faster emissions cuts than other similar size countries, including Germany. The goal could require households to spend on new energy-saving devices for the home. It could also revive stalled government support for large projects, like those that capture power from tides and that bury carbon dioxide emissions.”

The paper adds, PM David Cameron has pledged that his government would be the “greenest ever.”

[wjfox]

Cell phones may be contributing to the honeybee population decline

May 18, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a new study published in Apidologie, Lausanne researcher and bee specialist Daniel Favre shares his findings of cell phones' electromagnetic fields and their effects on the honeybee population. Research is being done worldwide to try and explain the phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), where workers bees disappear from a colony and cause a decline in honeybees, and Favre's research puts another idea out there.

In his experiment, Favre placed two cell phones inside a bee hive and set up equipment to record the sounds of the bees when the phones were off, in stand-by mode, and active in a phone call. After the phones had been on for about 20 - 40 minutes, the bees began to make a high pitched squeaking sound known as “piping.” This sound is usually a signal made by the bees to announce swarming or that the hive is in danger. However, even after the phone signals running for 20 hours and the “piping” sound continuing, the bees did not swarm. Within only two minutes of the cell phones being turned off, the bees calmed down to their original state.

Favre is calling for the international scientific community to continue looking into the connection between cell phones and electromagnetic fields and the decline in the honeybee population.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-...n-decline.html

[wjfox]

Japanese electric car 'goes 300km' on single charge

Japanese developers have unveiled an electric car they said Wednesday can travel more than 300 kilometres before its battery runs flat.

Electric vehicle specialist SIM-Drive, which hopes to take the car to market by 2013 but gave no projected cost, said its four-seater "SIM-LEI" had motors inside each wheel and a super-light frame, allowing for 333 kilometres (207 miles) of motoring on one charge in a test.

Its designers say they hope the prototype, a joint project among 34 organisations including Mitsubishi Motors and engineering firm IHI, will be sold to car manufacturers for mass production.

Automakers such as Nissan, which launched its all-electric Leaf last year with a 160-kilometre range, are gambling that electric cars with zero tailpipe emissions will catch on and, some time in the future, start to drive traditional petrol-guzzlers off the road.

Electric cars still face key hurdles such as costly batteries and the lack of conveniently-located recharging points, which limits their operating radius.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-...car-300km.html

[ill tonkso]

The problem is, once again they have made it look stupid. Why do electric cars have to look different to their petrol counterparts? The aesthetic appeal of a car can heavilly influence consumer decision.

[mic of Orion]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

The problem is, once again they have made it look stupid. Why do electric cars have to look different to their petrol counterparts? The aesthetic appeal of a car can heavilly influence consumer decision.

I think they want to make them look small, stylish and perhaps more aerodynamic, so they waste less energy, o yes to weigh less too.