UK Government announce clean coal is the way forward

With Carbon Capture being given the go-ahead today by the UK government and new clean coal being the way in which the government wishes to go with their need to meet the UK’s energy needs, have they made the right choice?

The government has stated that this carbon capture will cut the CO2 emissions from the new power plants the government has proposed to build by 90%.
Whilst the method of carbon capture has been proved to work, it has not been carried out on anything of this scale. The system was almost implemented in Scotland in the Miller field and was ended prematurely due to the government’s slow reaction to the proposition by BP.

Schemes already in action
Norway's StatoilHydro has already used this system at Sleipner since 1996. This site has stored about one million tonnes of CO2 a year, and the Snøhvit gas field in the Barents Sea stores 700,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.
The Weyburn-Midale CO2 Project started in 2000, Weyburn is located on an oil reservoir discovered in 1954 in Weyburn, southeastern, Saskatchewan, Canada.
There is also another scheme in In Salah, Algeria .

Not only does the system allow clean coal, the carbon dioxide can be used, before it is pumped below the ground into empty oil fields, to extract extra oil than is normally not taken from the oil fields.

Marine conservation zones: A viable method of protection?

It is widely agreed that human impact contributes a large proportion of environmental damage. To counter this in the marine environment it has been suggested that a network of MCZs (Marine Conservation Zones) could be set up in which would a) allow suffering populations time to recover, b) prevent irreversible degradation to any species therein, and c) preserve areas which best represent a range of habitats and species. There are three already in place around the coast of the UK, in Lundy, Skomer and Strangford Lough but there are numerous other voluntary MCZs and voluntary Marine Nature Reserves as well as areas closed to fishing to allow struggling fish stocks to recover. As yet there is no part of the Marine Bill which dictates that there needs to be designated MCZs but should there be? Should we close off certain areas of the coast to fishing and development? Will this impact too heavily on the livelihoods of those who depend on these areas? And what effect will they have on the national economy?

There are environmental and ecological conditions which have to be met before a MCZ can be assigned. The area has to be connected so that nutrients and larvae can be transported in and out and there must be a wide enough representation of habitats and organisms.

Some NGOs advocate that MCZs should be chosen purely on scientific environmental factors and that the ecological impacts should be handled as part of the management of the site after it has been designated. The problem with this is that if the more destructive human activities are banned in a certain area they may be displaced to an area which had previously avoided undue disruption, disturbing the ecosystem which is in place. Another problem is that those who depend on these areas for a livelihood are unlikely to appreciate being told that they can’t live and work there anymore.

Whaling - Black As It's Painted?

It has come to my attention in recent months that things are not always all that they seem, and also that there are two sides to any argument. And so it was with this attitiude I approached that most . . . conraversial of subjects.

For over 30 years now conservationists have shouted to anyone who will hear of the atrocious killing of whales and the greed of those that hunt them. In ribs and boats they have harried whaling fleets, and the fleets have in turn retalliated with concussion grenades and worse. The International Whaling Council have both issued decrees and detracted them since its inception in 1946. Countries have chopped and changed in their stance on whaling, and sometimes seeming on the verge of blows. And yet in all this time - more than a hundred and fifty years since the boom caused by the invention of the exploding harpoon - it seems no firm decision has been reached over the management of whaling activities.

This observation highlights a major flaw in environmental management. The startling lack of compromise. Conservationist heavyweights like greenpeace and WWF draw a hard line, but for all their education and 'research' offer no alternative for career whalers -no alternative to the commercial demand for whale meat in places like Norway and Japan. Governments too seem suck in their antiquated mentalities - refusing any notion of management or call for sustainability. And rightly so, as whaling is in many instances integrated in national heritage. But is simply withdrawing for discussion, taking a huff like a skelped child, a constructive approach?

The answer seems obvious.

As a person who has no moral objection to the well managed and efficient killing whales (just another resource being exploited) I invite both discussion and different perspectives, in the hope of solidifying some kind of view on this fascinating subject.