Sustainable Seaton

1.

Some clever chap with Ph.D. and other academic letters, wants to shoot billions of tiny reflective particles into space between us and the sun. This would reduce sunlight enough to stop global warming and climate changing. He made no suggestion about one rather important facet of his plan. When – yes when, not if – the oil and natural gas run out over the next 40-70 years, we will automatically be putting less carbon into the atmosphere. The result – short term climate stabilization, then the world would get seriously cold. There are no suggestions on how to gather up those particles in 100 – 150 years time. Please send clever ideas to "Dumbo", Un-named University, U.S.A. Yes, this is a serious proposal!

2.

An idea, slightly more down to earth, is to erect massive metal grid "trees" on the hill tops to remove carbon dioxide. They would dwarf any wind turbines and the academics who came up with this gave no idea of costs.

3.

Putting various chemicals in the seas to help water absorb more CO₂ is the next plan. It might work for a while but I think that the sea in its natural state is probably best for the important life within it.

4.

There is research to genetically modify algae to produce oil for transport. The plan is to have huge ponds, mostly in desert areas to gather sunlight for algae growth. From figures so far, it looks as if someone should tell the scientists concerned about photo-voltarics and concentrated solar steam turbines, because this reliable, known technology works well. My concern is when genetically modified algae escape and mutate with naturally occurring organisms. Don't hold your breath!

5.

I also include nuclear energy in the "technical fix" category because some people in industry tout them as being "low carbon". This is preposterous for the following reasons:-

a.

If nuclear was adopted by most industrial countries on a large scale the known uranium reserves would be used up in 10-20 years. The mining, purification and transport implies massive carbon dioxide emissions;

b.

The enormous quantity of concrete needed causes more carbon pollution. One academic (bless them) says the plant has to operate about 10 years before it saves emissions. These plant only have a plant life of about 40 years and then they have to be de-commissioned……

c.

Can I interest you in a million pounds to bury plutonium in your garden? Should I mention that it will still be highly toxic and radio-active in 50,000 years time?

1.

Educate the public of the need to act, and make it clear to the sceptics that they are talking through the wrong orifice.

2.

Look seriously at "carbon capture" technology. This involves the removal of carbon from the smoke stacks of big fossil-fuelled power stations. This could be an interim measure, and there is plenty of coal.

3.

Another possible large scale interim measure is combined heat and power. Put a roof on Wembley stadium, plant fruit trees, then soft fruit, then have hydro-organically grown fruit and vegetables between. Medium sized waste wood and sewage methane fired boilers provide warmth and a carbon dioxide enriched atmosphere within. Productivity is very high from the enhanced growth and the boilers are still used to drive steam turbines to export electricity to the grid. You eat the produce so the carbon goes through you and back to the sewage works to make more methane! It works, it trebles the efficiency of using fossil fuels, and some massive greenhouses are now being built to use this system.

4.

Even better is to get away completely from fossil-fuels and the "carbon economy". ALL energy could come from renewables for the price of a medium-sized car per family unit. Some small adjustments in "lifestyle" will be necessary to change polluting habits but these can be very positive for your own, and the planet's health.

5.

Our biggest resource is land. There is no logic in growing 10 or more times as much food as we need and then put it through an animal which converts it to products we humans should not be consuming at all, or only in tiny quantities. Our digestive tract is long because we are frugivores and should be living mostly on fruit, leaves, seeds, nuts and vegetables. Our food choice has a direct effect on land use and farmers are a practical lot – they produce what they can sell. You buy apples – they plant trees.

6.

Having released 80% of the land currently used for animal feed, there is then plenty available for woodlands for energy, wildlife, recreation, fruit, nuts and CARBON DIOXIDE ABSORPTION. Re-prioritising the grant system will help the farmers make the necessary changes.