My Life, My Adventure

Last December, together we welcomed the long-awaited enactment of the Renewable Energy (RE) Law, signaling that the Philippines is on track towards ensuring a sustainable future powered by renewable energy.

Unfortunately, a dangerous specter is hanging over the successful deployment of renewable energy in the country - the nuclear energy industry and its false claims, has swayed some of our congressmen who have begun talking of waking up a demon from the past, the Bataan Nuclear power plant (BNPP).

Nuclear energy is as dangerous and as expensive as it was two decades ago. The Bataan site is as vulnerable to seismic shifts as it was two decades ago. And no, Nuclear energy does not in any way address the issue of climate change or energy security

But despite mounting opposition from people and cautionary notices from experts, these ‘nuclear’ congressmen are pushing the Congress to vote on the revival of the BNPP, before it closes in the first week of June.

On the 23rd and 24th of May, Greenpeace is staging a bicycle rally that will start in Morong, Bataan, the site of the mothballed BNPP and collect messages of opposition of opposition to BNPP to deliver to Congress on May 25th.

We need as many voices as possible to remind the Philippine Congress that they are accountable to us. That is why we need you to sign NOW and support this important message!

* Nuclear power is not the answer to climate change. Renewable energy and energy efficiency deliver much larger reductions in carbon emissions.

* Nuclear power is dangerous. From the mining of radioactive uranium fuel, to its transport and use for nuclear power, and finally up to its disposal, nuclear power creates a radioactive and toxic cycle, which up till now there are no solutions.

* Nuclear Power is expensive. Building, operating and maintaining nuclear power plants cost more than most renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

* Nuclear power is not the solution. The key to energy security and climate change is Renewable Energy and energy efficiency. And the best thing about it is: we already have a renewable energy law - so we don’t need to revive outdated technology like the BNPP!

We need to tell the congress we don’t want nuclear power!

If you want to tell Congress that you don’t want nuclear power sign in and we’ll make sure your message is delivered.

Your voice and those of your family, friends and colleagues will count!

Tags: Bataan Nuclear power plant, Greenpeace, nuclear energy, Nuclear power, nukes, Renewable Energy

Who came up with the term “clean coal“? It is the most toxic phrase in the greenwash lexicon. George W Bush, by promising to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the pursuit of advanced “clean” coal technologies, certainly popularised it. But I’d love to know where it came from. Any thoughts out there?

It is, of course, oxymoronic. Coal is about acid rain and peasouper smogs, asthma and mercury contamination, radioactive waste emissions and ripping apart mountains, killing trees, lung cancer and, of course, global warming.

Coal emits more carbon dioxide for every unit of energy generated than any other fuel. Sure you can clean it up a bit – though the toxins you’ve taken out of the ground have to go somewhere. But clean coal? Just say no.

But the phrase rolls on. Google offers more than a million web pages. We will hear a lot more of it as the UK government wrestles with whether to approve a new billion-pound “cleaner coal” power station – Britain’s first coal plant for three decades – at Kingsnorth in Kent.

E.ON, the company that wants to build the station, says Kingsnorth will be “ready” to capture carbon dioxide emissions before they go up the stack. Great, except there is no such technology right now.

This phrase “clean coal” has developed a life of its own thanks to remorseless commercial propagandising. This year a coalition of US coal mining companies and electricity utilities called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (and recently renamed the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity) is paying the advertising agency R&R Partners $35m (£22m) to promote “clean coal” through advertising and other promotional activity.

This is up there with the safe cigarette and “atoms for peace”. The industry is fighting back against growing scientific calls to outlaw coal burning, and the rejection of dozens of coal power plants proposals by communities across the US, with several states effectively banning them.

You may have noticed the campaign’s effect. Both John McCain and Barack Obama support clean coal. It’s neat. Who could be against clean coal? It allows them to oppose dirty coal without antagonising anyone. You may not have spotted that Americans for Balanced Energy Choices sponsored two early presidential debates, during which – guess what – no questions were asked about global warming.

And here in Britain you can see the impact of the new mantra. In Putney, in southwest London, there is a branch of the International Energy Agency that used to be called the Coal Research Centre. It’s changed its name – to the Clean Coal Centre. Thanks to its “industrial sponsors” it is able to “provide unbiased information on the sustainable use of coal worldwide.” Right. Like the fact there isn’t any?

Is clean coal possible in future? Well, if you mean could we capture carbon dioxide emissions and bury them somewhere out of harm’s way – in old coal seams or oilfields or salt mines – yes, it is possible. The former British chief scientist Sir David King called it “the only hope for mankind”.

But the most authoritative study, The Future of Coal, published last year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), concluded that the first commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant wouldn’t come on stream until 2030 at the earliest.

Last year too, the Edison Electric Institute, which represents most US power generators, admitted to a House Select Committee in Washington DC that commercial deployment will require 25 years research costing at least $20bn.

And that was before the US administration last December canned the biggest R&D project on the technology anywhere in the world. It said it was too costly and hinted that, for all their green talk, industry wasn’t prepared to back it.

Oh, and if the technology did one day work – and could demonstrate that it could keep liquefied carbon dioxide buried for the thousands of years necessary – it would take decades to build the vast infrastructure needed to deploy on a large scale. Infrastructure that could only be paid for by maintaining a vast dirty coal-burning industry for the duration.

But politicians can be very ill-read if it suits them. The mythology of clean coal has penetrated deep into their thinking round the world because it is so convenient. In Australia, the new green-minded prime minister Kevin Rudd is super-keen on “clean coal” because he imagines it allows him to promise both to meet Australia’s Kyoto protocol pledges and to assuage the concerns of industry.

Coal provides most of Australia’s electricity and is it most valuable export. But you can’t meet current emissions targets with a technology 20 years over the horizon.

Similarly German chancellor Angela Merkel, though a chemist by training, has fallen for the hope that she can both build dozens of new coal-fired power stations and meet her promise to cut German CO2 emissions by 40% by 2020. It won’t happen.

The British government is as deep into clean-coal cuckoo land as any of them. John Hutton, until recently business secretary, claimed that a third of British electricity could be generated using CCS by 2030 – clearly pie in the sky. He should fire the adviser who wrote that for him. The mirage of clean coal is designed to coax the world into maintaining its addiction to the most dangerous (and profuse) fossil fuel of all. My bet is that if Kingsnorth is approved, it will never deliver so much as a tonne of carbon dioxide to anywhere other than the atmosphere.

source: Fred Pearce | guardian.co. uk

Tags: clean coal, clean coal myth, Coal, coal power plant

Tags: Aklan, Nabas, Nabas Aklan, Pawa, Pawa Falls

3 Nominees from the Philippines - Vote for your Choice!

Chocolate Hills

The Chocolate Hills is an unusual geological formation in Bohol, Philippines. It is composed of around 1,268 perfectly cone-shaped hills, all about the same size, spread over an area of more than 50 sq km The hills are covered in green grass that turns brown during the dry season, giving them the name “Chocolate Hills.”

Mayon Volcano

Mayon Volcano is an active volcano on the Filipino island of Luzo, 15 km northwest of Legazpi City.It is classified by volcanologists as a stratovolcano (composite volcano). Its symmetric cone was formed through alternate pyroclastic and lava flows. Mayon is the most active volcano in the country, having erupted over 47 times in the past 400 years, and is a part of what is called the Pacific Ring of Fire.

Tubbataha Reef

Tubbataha Reef is an atoll coral reef in the Sulu Sea that belongs to the Philippines. It is a marine sanctuary protected as Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park. The reef is composed of two atolls, North and South Reefs. Each reef has a single small islet that protrudes from the water. The atolls are separated by a deep channel 8 kilometers wide. Over one thousand species, including many that are endangered, can be found at on the reef. These include manta rays, lionfish, tortoises, clownfish and sharks.

to vote: Click Here

Tags: Chocolate Hills, Mayon Volcano, New 7 Wonders of Nature, Tubbataha Reef

No to Coal! Renewable Energy Now!

In a joint press conference with Responsible Ilonggos for Sustainable Energy (RISE) in Iloilo City, the environment group announced that it was joining the local communities struggle to stop the construction of the coal-fired plant in Iloilo City.

“The Iloilo coal plant should not be built. We challenge President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be true to her word and ‘assume the mantle of leadership and work to address the challenge of climate change.’” said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Climate and Energy Campaigner Jasper Inventor. “You can’t talk sustainable energy solutions while peddling coal on the side–it’s complete hypocrisy.” he added

Coal is the dirtiest, most carbon intensive of all fossil fuels. Emitting 29 percent more carbon per unit of energy than oil and 80 percent more than gas, it is one of the leading contributors to climate change. Burning coal also releases massive amounts of substances such as mercury and arsenic that are toxic to human health and create acutely detrimental effects on developing economies and hosting communities.

However, the government currently has at least eight coal-fired plants lined up for construction or expansion in the country: 165 MW in Iloilo City, Iloilo, 300 MW expansion in Pagbilao, Quezon Province, 200 MW each in Naga and Toledo Cities in Cebu, 300 MW expansion in Masinloc, Zambales, 100 MW in Concepcion, Iloilo, 300 MW in Olongapo, Zambales, and 150 MW in Sultan Kudarat.

“Coal-fired power plants already account for 36% of the country’s total CO2 emissions, it is time that the RP government gets serious about exploiting the renewable energy sources that are abundant in our country. Sun, wind and geothermal energy tapping technologies are ready to deliver, what is needed is political will to deploy them.” Inventor said.

source: Greenpeace SEAsia

Tags: climate change, Coal, Coal-fired Power Plant, Coal-fired Power Plant in Iloilo City, global warming, Renewable Energy, RISE