OffLine

Modelling the complexities of nature is not a simple task, nor a certain one. We keep finding new, surprising things to factor in to our calculations... The big blue ocean is getting noisier. Sound can now travel further than it did a century ago, thanks to carbon emissions that have made the oceans more acidic.

OTOH, this is not a reason to throw our hands in the air and say, "too hard". Rather it should egg us on to further discovery and understanding. And quickly, before our planet says "enough".

Labels: acidity, climate change, environment, oceans

We know where the fault lines, the volcanoes and the most-storm prevalent locations are, but do we avoid them? No way. We build on 'em. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said the region had been lucky to avoid a major disaster. "Thank Gd that there have not been any reports of serious injuries or damage to properties," Mr Schwarzenegger said. "This reminds us once again that in California we have to be prepared for anything and everything."

Hope LA citizens survived this warning - never forget the risk you take just living near the San Andreas fault. It may be a once in 100-year thing, or maybe once in 500 years - but when it comes it will be big. I guess plenty of people are thinking 'it can't happen to me'.

Which is a little bit like ignoring pollution and global warming, de-forestation and loss of biological diversity - we think about ourselves and our short lives and rarely look at the consequences in the longer term. If we can do OK in our 70 years that's great. If it all falls apart when we are gone, well that's not our problem.

And a note to Mr Schwarzenegger, or maybe to the proofreaders at News.com: just who is the "Gd" thanked here?

Labels: earthquakes, environment, tectonic

Some people are worried and thinking about solutions. Desperate ones at that.

"Cutting emissions was not enough. Mankind now had to take greenhouse gases out of the air.

'The current burden of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is in fact more than sufficient to cause catastrophic climate change," Professor Flannery said.

'Everything's going in the wrong direction at the moment; timelines are getting shorter, the amount of pollution in the atmosphere is growing. It's extremely urgent.'"

The Age: national, world, business, entertainment, sport and technology news from Melbourne's leading newspaper.

Labels: climate change, environment

We have a little climate problem of our own making happening here, and even if you dispute that we did it, it's happening. So do we start acting like we need to do something, or do we continue to do what we are doing (ie continue to waste our resources out of short-sighted greed) and hope for the best?

It's blindingly obvious but anyway, for those who still do not get it:

"AUSTRALIA must halt construction of freeways if drastic cuts in emissions from vehicles are to be achieved, a submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review has said."

Ban new freeways: transport group - National - theage.com.au

Labels: climate change, environment, roads

Goddamn road improvement programs. When I'm cruising the highways wanting to get somewhere I want fast, smooth safe roads, uncongested with few or no distractions like intersections or stop-dead, turn-hard corners. A "freeway" for example. Other times I want to have fun and some twists and turns mean uncongested, safe but twisty, testing roads are what I want. But really, does it matter what I want? Why not just slow down, drive carefully and concentrate on getting there safely, in one piece.

But life's not like that. We come from all directions on what we want from our roads. The first premise in most "road improvement" arguments is that we need wider roads and less congestion, coupled with fewer obstacles for people to hit; of course this encourages cars (or drivers, rather) to go faster, which is not necessarily so good - going slower in cities may be safer and create a more pleasant community environment for example.

Now someone has suggested developing an intelligent - and safer - roadway, and sure that's laudable; but I'd be concerned about the huge energy expense in replacing or adapting current road infrastructure with an active road system. As we need to think sustainably across the whole planet is this complexity justifiable? What is saved or created here?

Such rapid transit automation ideas as the "smart road" may be more applicable to mass transit systems, rather than personal ones. In terms of embedded intelligence in our personal transport (if we assume this is actually sustainable) could we not continue to integrate such things as GPS, motion and avoidance detection within our cars and provide a higher degree of automation and governance of the car itself? I'm thinking that the car would sense it's in a suburban street and reduce emissions, reduce sound impact and reduce its speed and acceleration potential to match the local environment. It could then sense when the vehicle is on a less restricted highway, for example, and provide greater performance whilst still automatically adjusting to traffic density. You could embed RFIDs or use some other wireless method to indicate changing road types whilst retaining a measure of human control. Coupled with GPS you'd cover most road possibilities (including poor roads in developing nations) without enormous expense. Mind you we still have to determine if sophisticated personal transport is actually compatible with our environmental, social and health needs. Where and when do we get our exercise when we are zooming around in our smart cars on smart roads? Do we need smart bicycles instead?

In terms of innovating and developing product then we could look at technologies that will sustainably support future development, both in personal transport and rapid mass transit - in all countries of the world. So systems of control and governance of energy expenditure, and systems that adapt the vehicle to the environment in which its travelling would be saleable commodities. Reducing infrastructure cost and "footprint" at the same time would be an important goal. Simpler is better.

I would agree that people have varying degrees of emotional attachment with their cars, but cars have only been around for a little more than 100 years and only in widespread use for maybe 60 years. People used to use mass transit, bicycles and their legs quite happily until fairly recently after all. In some countries they (cars) are still not 'essential' items. On the other hand clothes have a more pervasive practical necessity about them that goes back thousands of years.

It won't be an easy transition for many people but maybe cars and the massive infrastructure they require are just not sustainable in the longer term? It's a question that has to be asked. The energy and associated climate "crunch" is our opportunity to rethink our personal transport solution. Let's not forget also that cars (and roads) consume energy in their manufacture, maintenance and distribution as well - it's not just a "fuel" issue, it's a total 'it's been fun but can we afford this' question. Maybe the answer is very different from our perception of a "car".

Labels: cars, environment, smart roads

For the record, I thoroughly and utterly support the charter of the Pedestrian Council of Australia. I love cars, especially Italian sports cars starting with the letter A, but the damage being done by our over-indulgence in motorised transport is plainly ridiculous. We are destroying our society and our planet whilst somehow managing to justify subsidising the destruction at the same time. Where's the sense?

Labels: cars, environment, society