less hot water used in the shower or at the sink; less or no need for disposable plastic razors or shaving cream or foam(which often comes in those huge unrecyclable containers) and hair on your face keeps you just a bit warmer outside and inside. turning the thermostat down just 1 degree can also save you 5% on your heating bill!

Alison Benjamin states in Last Flight Of The Honeybee? (May 31), “According to Albert Einstein, our very existence is inextricably linked to bees.” There is no evidence for this being true, as can be found easily by reference to the myth-busting snopes.com. Snopes’ conclusion is that the supposed quote was probably concocted as part of a campaign by European beekeepers protesting about perceived threats to their livelihoods. Martin Whittaker, Edinburgh

lovelock’s writing makes for gloomy reading. his latest book ‘the revenge of gaia’, predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of europe will be saharan; and parts of london will be underwater.

lovelock believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. so what would he do? find out here

i met this bloke on a train yesterday who just happened to be professor peter f smith special professor in sustainable energy at the university of nottingham who said that lovelock’s outlook is too pessimistic and wrong when it comes to the answer to the problem. he wrote a letter to the guardian which I just happened to be reading which says:

james lovelock is right to suggest we have already crossed the tipping point into irreversible climate change. the time lag between cause and effect means that the momentum in the climate system will inevitably propel us over the critical CO2 threshold of 450 parts per million in the atmosphere. he is right to be sceptical about offsetting schemes and the potential of wind power, but he is wrong to put his faith in nuclear energy. like all fossil fuels, uranium reserves are limited and some put exhaustion of stocks at 2030. nuclear will never be sufficient to power the uk economy after oil begins to run out in about 2040 and gas a decade or so later. even peak coal is put at 2025.
the uk will survive provided it: legislates to achieve dramatic reductions in energy use; embarks immediately on harnessing the power of tidal energy; and changes building and planning codes to cope with everything that escalating climate impacts will inflict on us over the coming decades

i had an interesting conversation with prof smith about climate change, and how we teach it in schools at ks3 and gcse. He agrees with lovelock that we have gone over the ‘tipping point’ and we are now in a period of damage limitation. all is not lost but we must seek out new efficient technologies and pray for more joined up thinking from our leading scientists and government leaders. any thoughts?

channel four have an excellent five minute guide to global warming on their news site.

flue gas desulphursation systems are used to remove sulphur dioxide. “wet scrubbers” are the most widespread method and can be up to 99% effective. a mixture of limestone and water is sprayed over the flue gas and this mixture reacts with the SO2 to form gypsum (a calcium sulphate), which is removed and used in the construction industry.

most fuels contain carbon and/or hydrogen and may also contain some sulfur. the gases released into atmosphere when fuel burns may include carbon dioxide, water (vapour), carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. particles may also be released. sulfur dioxide causes acid rain, carbon dioxide causes global warming, and particles cause global dimming. sulfur can be removed from fuels before they are burned. sulfur dioxide can be removed from the waste gases after combustion, for example in power stations. look at the pictures in the montage above and discuss the issues.

now visit the friends of the earth site. the friends of the earth are an environmental pressure group who are involved in various campaigns. their corporates page states that they are concerned about big business. why is this?

now revisit the rio tinto site. rio tinto refute the claims of environmentalists. their approach page says they are a ‘responsible’ company.

who do you trust? who can you trust? rio tinto or the friends of the earth?