A TWO-day brainstorming conference in Manchester, to find the best ideas for tackling the world's most pressing problem, global warming, has come up with a green Top 10.
The Guardian newspaper teamed up with the Manchester International Festival, scouring the globe for ideas, with the help of a panel of experts chaired by Lord Bingham, formerly Britain's most senior judge.
The conference was held at Manchester's historic town hall, and the city was chosen as venue for the project as the world's first great industrial city, and therefore arguably the birthplace of man-made warming.
The top ten suggestions chosen included harnessing solar power from the Sahara and other desert regions to provide electricity to population centres thousand miles away using high voltage direct current cables.
Similar cables could also connect existing grids to large wind farms, hydroelectric stations and geothermal plants, creating continent sized 'supergrids'.
Also on the list is the idea of generating heat from below ground to create electricity by the use of enhanced geothermal systems, known as EGS. The idea involves drilling bore holds through the earth's crust to a depth of a few kilometres, and pumping water down at high pressure.
This fractures the rock beneath, creating 'enhanced natural permeability' and exposing a large surface area of hot rock. More bore holes are drilled, resulting in the emergence of steam at a temperature of 150-200C which could be used to produce electricity.
The Manchester Report has also backed suggestions for providing cheap electricity by mini powers stations by the use of fuel cells, using marine turbines to extract energy from ocean currents and tides, and turning crop waste into charcoal.
The top 10 list also includes investment in family planning to slow population growth. The report says that the global population is expected to rise to around nine billion by 2050, which will make it more difficult to reduce global emissions to a sustainable level.
It says rising population is significant not only as a driver of emissions but also as a key factor in determining the vulnerability of developing countries to the impacts of global warming.
The judging panel was told that ensuring universal access to family planning services, and investing in female education, is a pivotal climate change solution.
Tweet
Conference's green Top 10
July 13, 2009
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Is It Me? (13/07/2009 at 11:30)
The Higher Openshaw Exile, MANCHESTER (13/07/2009 at 11:41)
citycentre, manchester (13/07/2009 at 12:09)
Cows just move carbon around once it is biologically available. Only people dig up long buried carbon in the form of oil and coal, and release it (along with numerous other polutants it contains) into the atmosphere
Ace , manchester (13/07/2009 at 12:32)
J.Hall, Tameside (13/07/2009 at 12:45)
Its these selective meetings which have brought down this Country,because in my opinion we have are led by glory seeking buffoons who spout the rhetoric but never under astute cross examination.
The MEN and Guardian Media group should cease its attempts to control Manchester decisions by cultivating an assortment of air heads who do not represent the public.
Rammylad (13/07/2009 at 13:05)
a) Use thousands of tons of paper every day printing yesterdays news,
b) Use thousands of litres of ink every day printing yesterdays news,
c) Use thousands of litres of fuel everyday delivering yesterdays news,
d) Enforce councils to spend millions on disposing / recycling of yesterdays news,
wanted to look at ideas to save the planet.
I can think of one!
Black Flag (13/07/2009 at 13:16)
What an infantile attitude. Have you really got no control over your own actions? Take some responsibility, rather than expecting everything to be done for you.
Ace , manchester (13/07/2009 at 13:50)
You havnt a clue what i do ? i have more green credentials than you will ever know ,and i dont rely on any government/council help .so keep your views to yourself until you know better.
Black Flag (13/07/2009 at 14:01)
Ace: "i have more green credentials than you will ever know ,and i dont rely on any government/council help"
Consistent as always.
Laurie, Bramhall (13/07/2009 at 16:50)
Encourage people not to eat rice as paddy fields cause 28% of the world's global warming. We should ban the import of rice.
Encourage people to stop buying bottled water. It takes 87 million tonnes of plastic per year to produce all the bottles needed to satisfy this consumption. As water is heavy a truck can't carry a full load of it so more trucks are used creating more gases. It is stupidy shipped around te world. Why purchase water from New Zealand when you can have it out of your tap.
I was discussing these points with a veggie friend in Chorlton whilst she sipped Evian and tucked into some rice meal. She knew the facts but would rather bleat on about recycling her carrier bags and ranting at 4x4 owners.
Manchester Council should stop prifiteering from airports if it wants to be seen seriously as a green council. It is like an anti prostitution campaigner owning a string of brothels.
PW, Manchester (13/07/2009 at 18:41)
tomegranate (14/07/2009 at 10:36)
And do you know whether paddy fields produce proportionately more methane than other crops? Or is it just because rice is such a large part of what is grown that it contributes such a large percentage?
nyb, ex manc (14/07/2009 at 12:05)
Climate change is a natural rythmn of Earth, if the climate did not alter cyclically then we really would be in trouble, BIG trouble; but fortunately Earth and the Sun will continue their dynamic and essential rythmns of life long after we cease to exist. we are but mere transitory irritants on the face of Gaia.
Laurie, Bramhall (14/07/2009 at 19:48)
You have overpopulated poor countries producing rice and killing the planet. Read the facts.
tomegranate (15/07/2009 at 10:40)
Please understand that I don't necessarily disagree with what you're to say, it's just that you're stating it very poorly!
Laurie, Bramhall (15/07/2009 at 11:47)
Here is part of a seventy four page paper published by the UN:
''Growing rice has an adverse environmental impact because of the large quantities of methane gas it generates. World methane production due to paddy fields has been estimated to be in the range of 50 to 100 million tonnes per annum.[1] This level of greenhouse gas generation is a large component of the global warming threat produced from an expanding human population''
tomegranate (15/07/2009 at 12:09)
My point is you clearly don't have a firm understanding of the notion you're putting forward, most likely you've just skim-read this source, or secondary account of it, which suits your mindset and are regurgitating without actually knowing what you're talking about.
Again, not that I necessarily disagree with the general point...
lovinthebanter, Manchester (15/07/2009 at 12:13)
My Goatee, Manchester (15/07/2009 at 12:22)
Lots of power from their 'bottoms' and when they are no longer useful we have lots of meat to eat. This in turn will off-set the amount of rice we need which will stop China growing the stuff which is killing the planet.
I also agree with turning every public of road in the uk into a cycle lane! Then build just private 'toll' roads with no speed limits on so people with rubbish cars cant afford to use them!
There we go, sorted, a reduction in harmful gases to the environment, a ready source of endless energy for 'flatulent' power stations and an endless supply of meat. I can transport my ‘Purdeys’ in my Range Rover (to shoot Pheasants in the face) and because I wont be terrorizing a cyclist anyone who reads the Guardian wont be offended. We will save the Polar Bears, ice caps, rain forests, Blue Fin Tuna and no Canadian will ever club a fluffy seal pup to death again!
This is my vision, this I want to happen and I want global warming halted. Because the greatest benefit to mankind that will be forthcoming is not a better environment, but it will give the sanctimonious vegetabilists, Heather Mills, Bono, Sting, Michael Stipe and George Monibot nothing to bump their gums about!!!!!!!!!!!! They will shut up which will be a true Paradise..................
Laurie, Bramhall (15/07/2009 at 12:30)
If you still don't believe what you read then maybe challenge the UN, Taiwanese Government, Oxford University, the US government, the WHO etc.
By the way, 4x4's contribute 0.00023% if they did an average of 30,000 miles a year.
''About 80% of methane is produced biologically and the major source sites are rice paddies, wetlands, sediments, enteric fermentation, animal wastes treatment and landfills under low redox potential conditions by obligate anaerobes (Watson et al., 1992; Liu et al., 1996; Yang, 1998; Yang and Chang, 1999, 2001a; Yang et al., 2001, 2002).
The release of nitrous oxide was increasing in recent years due to more intensive agricultural practices. Denitrification of heterotrophic microbes in oxygen deficient environments, nitrification of autotrophic and heterotrophic nitrifying microbes and dissimilate nitrate to ammonium of heterotrophic microbes in aerobic conditions produced nitrous oxide (Davidson et al., 1986; Yu et al., 2001). The contribution of agriculture to the global annual nitrous oxide emission was estimated at approximately 35% (Isermann, 1994)''.
tomegranate (15/07/2009 at 13:03)
"The contribution of agriculture to the global annual nitrous oxide emission was estimated at approximately 35% "
So that figure isn't specifically about rice, it's ALL agriculture. So you've still provided no evidence for your original point! And have you thought to consider what the proportional effect of N20 compared to the other greenhouse gases is?
"challenge the UN.. Oxford University, the US government, the WHO etc"
Why would I bother to do that when you haven't given any evidence that they support the point?
"4x4's contribute 0.00023%"
0.00023% of WHAT? Never mind scientific argument, this point doesn't even make grammatical sense.
Seriously, look up 'critical thinking' because you fail at it. Until then, there's no chance you're gonna fool anyone that you know what you're talking about.
Sorry to everyone else to bang on about this but I get fed up when people without the slightest chance of even being ABLE to understand what is an incredibly complicated and mostly academic subject keep throwing their worthless two pennies into the debate, because they feel the need to justify to themselves their possibly-less-than-wise-in-the-long-run lifestyles... Be skeptical if you want, especially of such official PR efforts as reported in the original story and the motivations behind them, but for gawd's sake don't kid yourself that you've got some special insight into the science of it unless you're a trained ecologist, meteorologist or similar.
nyb, ex manc (15/07/2009 at 13:45)
What all this pointless psuedo scienctific, and quasi religious, faith based belief is about is MAN MADE climate change. But It doesn't matter if mankind contributes a tiny percentage towards this change...wipe us all of the face of the Earth, and the climate will still change in a cyclical way, it has to change, because that's how the Earth and life on it evolves and survives. If God forbid the climate became static, then start worrying, Armageddon would be staring us all in the face.
All this climate change industry is about is tax revenue streams, and maintaining and increasing the career choices in the environmentalist industry. It's all self serving and self interest. Unfortunately it has convinced a lot of well meaning people that humans can stop the process, and tricked people into accepting extra taxation in good faith.
Laurie, Bramhall (15/07/2009 at 16:39)
You said 'So that figure isn't specifically about rice, it's ALL agriculture'. Well the University of Toronto says:
'Paddy fields of rice are among the leading producers of methane, contributing about 32 percent of all global emissions. Rice absorbs carbon from the atmosphere, but if the plant cannot utilize it efficiently, the carbon is dispersed into the soil, where it converts to methane''
So shall we settle on the remaining 3 per cent coming from non rice?
In mt earlier article I said 'Denitrification of heterotrophic microbes in oxygen deficient environments, nitrification of autotrophic and heterotrophic nitrifying microbes and dissimilate nitrate to ammonium of heterotrophic microbes in aerobic conditions produced nitrous oxide' This is directly referring to reactions that take place during rice production.
Oh and before you say that I don't know what I am talking about my sister is a Professor of Chemistry specialising and lecturing globally on Atmospheric Chemistry.
Face facts, we have these green warriors spouting off about 4x4's but you deliver the real facts and they are ignorant. We need to act now to reduce overpopulation in the Third World and get them to change their diet away from rice.
'They will go hungry' I hear you say. Well there are different methods of rice production and better yields can be achieved through genetic modification and will thus reduce the global warming directly related to rice production as it is today but that can't happen because the green warriors oppose genetic modification! So we just carry on as we are destroying the planet.
LEARN.
tomegranate (15/07/2009 at 18:19)
It's strange that your sister can have such impressive expertise without more of it rubbing off on you, 'cos you clearly haven't got a clue. Information is NOT the same thing as comprehension - you've got the facts at hand, but you don't really understand them, and your attempt to construct an appropriate argument using them is like watching a chimp trying to use a calculator.
Learn indeed.
citycentre, manchester (15/07/2009 at 19:05)
Could you clarify what you mean by "28% of global warming", is it that 28% of any increase in average temperature is directly the result of methane produced from rice production? Or that 28% of greenhouse gases are prodcued this way? If the latter does it refer to man made emmsions, or total, and is it measured by volume produced, or weighted in some way to allow for the differing effects of the gases produced?
Do you know what proportion of world methane prodcution the 50-100 million tonnes represents?
Also could you clarify, "About 80% of methane is produced biologically and the major source sites are rice paddies, wetlands, sediments, enteric fermentation, animal wastes treatment and landfills" Is it known what proportion of the 80% arises from rice production?
"The release of nitrous oxide was increasing in recent years due to more intensive agricultural practices", where? Does this relate in part, or total to rice farming, or "western" high intensive agriculture which relies very heavily on nitrate (and phosphate) fertilizer use?
How does a figure of 35% of nitrous oxide production being due to agriculture relate in any way to your earlier 28% figure (of global warming) attributed to rice farming?
"'Paddy fields of rice are among the leading producers of methane, contributing about 32 percent of all global emissions. Rice absorbs carbon from the atmosphere, but if the plant cannot utilize it efficiently, the carbon is dispersed into the soil, where it converts to methane''
So shall we settle on the remaining 3 per cent coming from non rice? "
i still dont see the connection between this 32%, the 35% figure which relates to nitrous oxide, or your original 28%?
"n mt earlier article I said 'Denitrification...This is directly referring to reactions that take place during rice production. "
there is nothing in that quote to indicate rice production, indeed since it refers to both "oxygen deficient environments" and "aerobic conditions" it would imply at least to dramitically different sets of conditions?
Thanks for any clarifications you can offer.