SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (2898)2/17/2002 4:16:50 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 15516
 
Tepid on global warming
A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL

2/17/2002

W HEN PRESIDENT BUSH last year rejected the Kyoto
Protocol of 1997 as a way to curb global warming, he
promised to come up with an alternative. The result was the
package of toothless proposals he unveiled Thursday, a
Valentine's Day gift to the polluting industries that want no
part of Kyoto's mandatory reductions in emissions.


The Kyoto accord calls on the major industrialized countries to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.7 percent below
their 1990 levels. While it is an ambitious goal,
environmentalists say that even that might not be adequate to
stop the warming process, which threatens to damage crops
and cause disastrous flooding of islands and other low-lying
areas.

The role of the United States in reducing emissions is critical
because it produces 25 percent of greenhouse gases with just 5
percent of the world's population. On a per capita basis, the
United States produces twice as much as Germany, which is
hardly an undeveloped country.

Under the Bush plan, utilities, automakers, and other
industries could avail themselves of tax credits but would face
no mandatory reductions in the largest single greenhouse gas,
carbon dioxide. The schedule of voluntary cutbacks the
president's plan envisions would simply continue an existing
trend in which greenhouse gases per unit of production have
declined.

Bush's failure to regulate carbon dioxide emissions contradicts
a 2000 campaign promise to do so; he reneged last year.

Regulation would inevitably force utilities to burn less coal, the
fuel that produces the most carbon dioxide, a course that both
the power companies and coal producers resist.

While the trend of greenhouse emissions trailing economic
growth is positive, it does not yield the absolute reductions in
the gases that could at least slow the process of atmospheric
warming. On the transportation front, recent data are
especially discouraging.

Last year, for the first time since the 1970s, there was a decline
in the overall average fuel efficiency of cars sold in the United
States. This marked a disheartening defeat for two long-term
policy goals: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to
become more self-reliant in energy.

The Bush plan addresses this by proposing tax credits for
purchasers of alternative-energy vehicles. For the long term,
the Bush administration wants to reduce oil consumption in
autos by tying its wagon to the star of hydrogen fuel cells, a
technology that is probably 20 to 30 years from practical use.

That technology is worth supporting with both public and
private investments. But in the meantime Congress should
pursue a carrot-and-stick approach that includes
alternative-energy vehicle tax credits and also punishes
automakers if they fail to make substantial improvements in
the combined average efficiency of all the passenger vehicles
they sell.

Both carrot and stick are called for because the consequences
of inaction are so serious. The more gasoline US cars burn, the
more emissions they spew out, causing not just global warming
but also smog and attendant respiratory ills. Increased oil
consumption also ties the hands of US policy makers in the
Middle East, the biggest source of oil imports.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has approved an
energy policy that is little better than the one cobbled together
by Enron, other utilities,
and big oil for the Bush
administration. The House bill calls for only a negligible
decrease in vehicle fuel consumption.

That leaves the Senate. Senator John Kerry is backing
legislation to require a substantial gain in efficiency by cars,
pickup trucks, minivans, and SUVs. By 2013 these vehicles
would have to average 35 miles per gallon versus the 24 miles
per gallon that they average now. The National Academy of
Sciences said last year that significant gains are possible
without breakthroughs in fuel technology.

The Kerry bill also proposes attractive tax credits for buyers of
hybrid vehicles, which run on gasoline and electric power, and
vehicles that use alternative fuel systems, such as natural gas
or ''plug in'' battery electricity. The credits could be decisive in
raising such vehicles from niche status to common use.

For instance, the buyer of one of Honda's planned hybrid
Civics could pocket a tax credit close to the $1,500-to-$3,000
difference between a hybrid and an all-gasoline Civic. The
hybrid Civic, which is likely to cost about $20,000 when it goes
on the market next month, will get 48 miles per gallon on the
highway and in the city with an automatic transmission. The
equivalent regular Civic gets 38 miles per gallon on the
highway and 30 in the city.

Neither tax credits nor higher fuel efficiency standards would
be needed if the nation made a policy decision to raise gasoline
taxes to push consumers to higher efficiency. For the time
being, though, Kerry's combination of tax credits and sterner
requirements for automakers would help curb the squandering
of this resource and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation is just part of the greenhouse gas equation. But
it is an especially important part because the outsized SUV has
become such an international symbol of US inaction on global
warming and because vehicles are replaced much more
frequently than power plants or central air-conditioning
systems. The Senate should provide the leadership on this
issue that the administration and the House have abdicated.

This story ran on page C6 of the Boston Globe on 2/17/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.



To: Mephisto who wrote (2898)2/17/2002 4:50:46 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
ExxonMobil (Esso) gets what it paid for with new "voluntary" Bush
Climate Plan


greenpeace.org

February 14, 2002: President Bush's new US climate policy, which would
actually increase greenhouse gas emissions by about 36 percent over the
Kyoto targets, looks like it came direct from the boardroom of oil giant
ExxonMobil.


"Controversy over Enron continues to rage but it's about time the spotlight
was turned on ExxonMobil," Greenpeace climate campaigner Benedict
Southworth, said. "Exxon spent six times more than Enron lobbying Capitol
Hill and with this climate policy it got what they paid for."

" Under this plan carbon dioxide emissions will increase even faster than in
the last five years and this policy will do nothing to help stabilize long term
greenhouse gas concentrations as promised. This plan amounts to nothing
more than a wish list from Exxon to allow it to continue 'business as usual."


The policy links emissions to economic growth, a move which ensures that
only a prolonged economic recession will actually reduce CO2 emissions.
Official US predictions for GDP growth throughout the next decade are about
3.1 percent. The US administration has also refused to set mandatory
reduction targets for industry relying instead on "incentives, voluntary
challenges or public recognition" to 'encourage' rather than force businesses
to reduce pollution.

The US is the world's biggest greenhouse polluter, responsible for 25 percent
of global greenhouse gas emissions. The new policy widens the gulf between
the US and the rest of the world, which looks set to agree legally binding cuts
in greenhouse gas emissions later this year.


"ExxonMobil has scaled new heights in its self-serving action to manipulate
climate policy. The environment movement and responsible governments
around the world can be expected to react against ExxonMobil for this latest,
outrageous act," said Southworth.

For further information:
Benedict Southworth, Greenpeace climate campaign coordinator + 44 780
1212 972
Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace climate campaigner +31 6 5350 4715
Louise Fraser, Greenpeace Press Officer + 31 6 53955202

Notes to editors
Exxon is known as Esso outside the USA
More information:
Analysis of the US Climate policy
'A Decade of Dirty Tricks' documenting ExxonMobil's attempts to undermine
the international climate negotiations
Exxon Checklist.



To: Mephisto who wrote (2898)2/17/2002 9:34:42 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 

Air Pollution Harmful to Babies, Fetuses, Studies Say
Health: Smog is linked to stillbirths, infant deaths and low birth weight.


December 16, 2001
Los Angeles Times
E-mail story



By GARY POLAKOVIC , Times Environmental Writer

A growing body of research from around the world indicates that smog
is exacting a much greater toll than previously known on infants and
unborn babies.

Scientists have long known that the extreme levels of air pollution found
in the developing world can harm babies, and that lesser pollution in
U.S. cities can sicken or kill the elderly and infirm.

The new research
shows that the
harmful effects of
dirty air can extend
even into the
womb.

More than a dozen
studies in the
United States, Brazil, Europe, Mexico, South
Korea and Taiwan have linked smog to low
birth weight, premature births, stillbirths and
infant deaths.

In this country, the research has documented ill
effects on infants even in cities with modern
pollution controls, including Los Angeles.

The findings have helped prompt California officials to seek more stringent smog controls.

"Smog can harm the health of babies," said Beate Ritz, an epidemiologist at UCLA's Center for
Occupational and Environmental Health. "This should make us pause. Air pollution doesn't just
impact asthmatics and old people at the end of life, but it can affect people at the beginning of their
life, and that can disadvantage people throughout their life."

A UCLA study conducted by Ritz and scheduled for release Dec. 28, for the first time links air
pollution and birth defects in Southern California.

Other experts say that although worldwide research shows a strong correlation between air quality
and infant illnesses, it does not establish a conclusive cause-and-effect connection.

Most of the studies have been analyzed by disinterested scientists--a process called peer
review--and have been published in leading journals or will be soon. The studies differ on which
pollutants are of most concern.

Some implicate gases, others blame particles, and some point to both.

"The research is suggestive, but preliminary. It's something to be concerned about, but nothing to
panic about," said Tracey Woodruff, a senior scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and an author of one of the research papers.

"It's something we need to pay attention to."

Some Skeptical, Others Troubled

Frederick W. Lipfert, a New York environmental consultant hired by auto makers, the steel
industry, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research Institute to critique
several of the reports, downplayed the findings.

"These studies raise more suspicions than smoking guns," he said.

Nonetheless, the research, especially the studies focusing on U.S. cities where pollution levels have
been declining, is regarded by health experts as troubling.

"We know there are serious health effects from low levels of air pollution," said Aaron Cohen, an
epidemiologist and principal scientist for the Health Effects Institute in Boston, a joint enterprise of
the EPA and several pollution-generating industries, including oil companies and utilities.

"When something affects babies and children, everybody takes it seriously. I think it's a high priority
that we follow up on these studies," Cohen said.

In the latest research from UCLA, Ritz and a team of researchers found that women exposed to
high levels of ozone and carbon monoxide were three times more likely than others to have babies
with cleft lips and palates and defective heart valves.


The researchers looked at thousands of pregnant women in the Los Angeles area from 1987 to
1993, and compared those living in areas with relatively dirty air to those living in cleaner areas.

Virtually the entire study area, bounded roughly by San Bernardino, Santa Ana and Santa Clarita,
met federal standards for carbon monoxide, and much of the region complied with ozone
requirements.

The study, to be published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found that the greatest risk
occurs during the second month of pregnancy, when a fetus gains most of its organs and much of its
facial structure.

The Clean Air Act regulates smog levels to protect certain sensitive groups, including children, the
elderly and people with respiratory ailments, but not babies or fetuses.

Pollutants inhaled by pregnant mothers can reach fetuses through the umbilical cord, research has
found.

Most of the studies about smog and babies came after the Clinton administration set new federal
limits for ozone and microscopic particles.

EPA officials say that before those standards can be strengthened, more research is needed to
determine which pollutants are most harmful and at what stage of pregnancy they do the most
damage.

State Officials Push for Action

However, California officials say they have seen enough. Melanie Marty, chief of the air toxicology
and epidemiology unit at the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, said the
studies linking smog and harm to babies are part of a body of evidence the state is relying on to
recommend that the Air Resources Board lower the statewide standard for airborne particle
pollution by 33%.

"These studies are very suggestive of effects in infants, and in terms of public health, you want to
protect against that rather than wait for the most perfect study in the world," Marty said.

Recently, more and more scientists--many of them women--have been investigating whether ill
effects of smog persist even where the pollution has been reduced, as in much of the United States.

A study by scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Basel in
Switzerland concluded that as many as 11% of infant deaths in the United States--about 3,000 per
year--may be a result of microscopic particles in the air.


The study, which has yet to be published, expands on earlier research by the EPA and Centers for
Disease Control that looked at 4 million infants in 86 metropolitan areas and compared the
incidence of mortality with fluctuating rates of particulate pollution.

That study concluded that as particulate matter increased in the air, the infant mortality rate rose by
10% to 40%.

Carbon Monoxide, Underweight Babies

In a separate study, a team of researchers from the United States and Sweden found that pregnant
women in five U.S. cities who were exposed to elevated levels of carbon monoxide during their
third trimester were 31% more likely to give birth to underweight babies.

They found that when concentrations of carbon monoxide increased by 1 part per million, the risk
climbed by nearly one-third.

The researchers, from Johns Hopkins University, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and the Nordic School of Public Health in Sweden, examined 90,000 births and air pollution trends
between 1994 and 1996 in Boston; Hartford, Conn.; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Springfield, Mass.;
and Washington, D.C.

The findings were published in June in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Another study by UCLA researchers, which was published last year and focused on Southern
California, concluded that mothers are 20% more likely to have a baby prematurely when exposed
to elevated amounts of microscopic particles in the final six weeks of pregnancy.

The analysis, which examined 97,518 newborns between 1989 and 1993, found the highest rate of
premature births in eight communities where smog levels were among the highest in the nation
though generally in compliance with federal standards.

The communities are Anaheim, Burbank, central Los Angeles, El Toro, Glendora, Hawthorne, Long
Beach and Santa Clarita.

The researchers adjusted the findings to account for a variety of factors often related to premature
birth, including the mother's age, access to prenatal care, smoking and illnesses such as lung disease,
diabetes and hypertension. They excluded births by caesarean section.

In a 1998 study of pregnant women in Sao Paulo, Brazil, scientists found that women exposed to
high levels of nitrogen and sulfur oxides were 18% more likely to have their pregnancies terminate in
stillbirths.

Nitrogen and sulfur oxides, produced by fuel combustion in vehicles and factories, is more abundant
in Sao Paulo than in U.S. cities.

The Sao Paulo researchers also found evidence of carbon monoxide in the umbilical cords of 47
nonsmoking mothers.

The levels of carbon monoxide rose and fell with daily air pollution levels. Carbon monoxide can cut
off oxygen to a fetus, leading to death.

The discovery of carbon monoxide in umbilical cords helps explain how air pollutants reach a fetus
and cause damage.

"There really is evidence that levels of air pollution encountered in large cities worldwide may be
hazardous to the fetus," said Dana Loomis, a co-author of the study and an epidemiologist at the
University of North Carolina.

"This is something that has not been recognized before. It was always assumed the fetus was
isolated in the womb from things in the environment."

The EPA is weighing the emerging body of research as it considers whether to tighten its standard
for airborne particles.

"We do see the trend. There is a growing body of literature finding an association of conventional air
pollution and infant mortality," said John D. Bachmann, associate director of science policy in the
EPA's air division.

"Our review is in mid-process, and we are looking at all of this."

latimes.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (2898)2/25/2002 12:52:00 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Going down

Tuvalu, a nation of nine islands -
specks in the South Pacific - is in
danger of vanishing, a victim of
global warming. As their homeland
is battered by ferocious cyclones
and slowly submerges under the
encroaching sea, what will become
of the islanders?


Patrick Barkham
Saturday February 16, 2002
The Guardian
guardian.co.uk

The dazzling white sand and dark green
coconut palms of Tepuka Savilivili were
much like those on dozens of other small
islets within sight of Funafuti, the atoll
capital of Tuvalu. But shortly after
cyclones Gavin, Hina and Kelly had paid
the tiny Pacific nation a visit, islanders
looked across Funafuti's coral lagoon and
noticed a gap on the horizon. Tepuka
Savilivili had vanished. Fifty hectares of
Tuvalu disappeared into the sea during the
1997 storms. The tiny country's precious
10 square miles of land were starting to
disappear.

Five years on, the government of Tuvalu
has noticed many such troubling changes
on its nine inhabited islands and
concluded that, as one of the smallest
and lowest-lying countries in the world, it
is destined to become the first nation
sunk by global warming. The evidence
before their own eyes - and forecasts for a
rise in sea level of up to 88cm in the next
century made by international scientists -
has convinced most of Tuvalu's 10,500
inhabitants that rising seas and more
frequent violent storms are certain to
make life unliveable on the islands, if not
for them, then for their children. A deal
has been signed with New Zealand, in
which 75 Tuvaluans will be resettled there
each year, starting now. As the vast
expanse of the Pacific Ocean creeps up
on to Tuvalu's doorstep, the evacuation
and shutting down of a nation has begun.

With the curtains closed against the
tropical glare, the prime minister, Koloa
Talake, works in a flimsy Portakabin at
the lagoon's edge on Funafuti. Tuvalu's
largest island is a crowded,
uninhabitable-looking line in the ocean,
smaller than Hampstead Heath in London.
You are never more than 150 metres from
the sea and the air has a permanently
salty tang. Talake, who sits at his desk
wearing flip-flops and bears a passing
resemblance to Nelson Mandela, likens
his task to the captain of a ship: "The
skipper of the boat is always the last man
to leave a sinking ship or goes down with
the ship. If that happens to Tuvalu, the
prime minister will be the last person to
leave the island."

Talake realises that his government
cannot simply order people off the islands,
but must balance the continued
development of the country - embracing
sealed roads, telephones and the internet
- with the precautionary evacuation of the
most vulnerable. The prospect of rising
seas or tropical storms engulfing their
nation has left Tuvalu's deeply Christian
people grappling with a fear of the ocean,
a belief that God won't flood their land,
and anxiety that their culture might not
survive transplantation to a developed
western nation such as New Zealand.

The highest point on Tuvalu is just four
metres above sea level. From the air, its
islands are thin slashes of green against
the aquamarine water. From a few miles
out at sea, the nation's numerous tiny
uninhabited islets look smaller than a
container ship and soon slip below the
horizon. On a map, the islands are
pinpricks south of the equator, only visible
because the international dateline does
them the courtesy of swerving east to
avoid them. A Spanish explorer spotted
an island in the 16th century, but it was
another 200 years before storms pitched
the first missionary on to Tuvalu's coral
atolls, which were named the Ellice
Islands and subsumed into the British
Empire.

Hardly any tourists take the 22-seater
plane from Fiji that touches down at
Funafuti twice a week (travel agents think
you're having a laugh when you quote the
airport code: Fun). For the rest of the
week, islanders sleep on the runway at
night (where they can enjoy a cooling
breeze), and pigs, bicycles and games of
football and rugby traverse the airstrip by
day. Eight of Tuvalu's nine inhabited
islands have no cars or internet. Daily life
on Tuvalu revolves around the ocean. It is
the islands' garden, washroom, swimming
pool and slaughterhouse. As dawn quickly
rises on the island, men and women
stand neck-deep in the sea, eating fish
and bits of coconut, or periodically raising
pans they are silently scrubbing beneath
the surface of the water. At midday, a
father and son heave four pigs into the
lagoon for slicing up; the pigs'
slashed-open bellies turn the water red
and their entrails drift off on the ocean. At
dusk, islanders gather on motorbikes to
watch the sunset from the low concrete
jetties jutting out into the lagoon. Children
slide down algae-covered boat ramps into
the water and a man clutches a fish the
size of a dog to his chest.

The Pacific Ocean brings relative
prosperity. Tuvalu sells licences
permitting the US, Japan and others to
fish in its 350,000sq miles of territorial
waters. Money is bringing change - and
lots of motorbikes. Most islanders stand
with one foot in the cash economy and
one in the traditional realm of subsistence
farming and fishing. Extended families live
together, with some members tending a
small pen of pigs or dropping a line from a
boat to fish for their suppers, while others
bring in a wage by working for the
government, or go overseas to study at
the University of the South Pacific in Fiji.
Education is greatly valued, and the
island's only ship spends much of its time
ferrying young Tuvaluans to the second
largest island Vaitupu, where girls and
boys board at the country's only
secondary school.

Many of the nation's young lads then join
the maritime training school, a thriving
government enterprise that teaches
modern shipping lore. Employment
agencies snap up the young Tuvaluans,
who are renowned for their knowledge of
the ocean, work ethic and strength. At
any one time, more than 600 Tuvaluan
men are labouring on container ships at
sea. The money sent home by
family-minded Tuvaluan sailors has trebled
to more than A$4m (£1.5m) in the past
three years.

Islanders still fish around Tuvalu in small
wooden boats and every year several go
missing, drifting to oblivion after losing
sight of their low-lying land. "Personally, I
am very worried about sea-level rising,
because I don't want to be caught.
Drowning is a dreadful death," says
Talake, motioning with his hand to
indicate the waters rising above his neck.
(CONTINUED)



To: Mephisto who wrote (2898)9/19/2002 10:43:47 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Hydrogen will make oil companies obsolete and let
people generate all their own energy




Power for everyone


Jeremy Rifkin
Tuesday September 17, 2002
The Guardian

More than a year after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Centre and the Pentagon, the world is a more dangerous place
than ever. And at the heart of the collective fear that continues to
grip the human race is the struggle to control OIL, the critical
resource without which our global economy and modern society
would cease to exist.


Experts had been saying that we had another 40 or so years of
cheap available crude oil. Now, however, some leading
petroleum geologists are suggesting that global oil production
could peak and begin a steep decline as early as the end of this
decade, sending oil prices through the roof.


While the fossil-fuel era is entering its sunset years, a new
energy regime is being born that has the potential to remake
civilisation along radical lines. Hydrogen is the most basic and
ubiquitous element in the universe. It is the stuff of the stars and
of our sun and, when properly harnessed, it is the "forever fuel".
It never runs out and produces no harmful carbon dioxide
emissions when burned: the only byproducts are heat and pure
water. We are at the dawn of a new economy, powered by
hydrogen, that will fundamentally change the nature of our
market and our political and social institutions, just as coal and
steam power did at the beginning of the industrial age.

Hydrogen is found in water, fossil fuels and all living things, yet it
is rarely free floating and so has to be extracted from natural
sources. Nearly half the hydrogen produced in the world is
derived from natural gas through a steam reforming process.
This has proved the cheapest way to produce commercial
hydrogen, but it is not ideal.

Natural gas
emits carbon dioxide in
the conversion process. Moreover, global production of natural
gas is likely to peak between 2020 and 2030, creating a second
energy crisis on the heels of the oil crisis.

There is, however, another way to produce hydrogen without
using fossil fuels.
Renewable sources of energy - wind,
photovoltaic, hydro, geothermal and biomass - can be
harnessed to produce electricity which is then used, in a
process called electrolysis, to split water into hydrogen and
oxygen. The hydrogen is stored in a fuel cell and used to
generate electricity for power, heat and light. People often ask
why electricity must be generated twice, first for the process of
electrolysis and then again to produce power, heat and light by
way of a fuel cell. The reason is that it doesn't store.
If the sun
isn't shining, the wind blowing, or the water flowing, electricity
cannot be generated and economic activity grinds to a halt.
Hydrogen is a way to store renewable sources of energy to
ensure a continuous supply of power.

The real question is one of cost.
Wind, hydro and biomass are
already cost-competitive in many parts of the world and can be
used to generate electricity for the electrolysis process.
Photovoltaic and geothermal costs, however, will need to drop
considerably to make the process competitive with the natural
gas process.

Commercial fuel cells powered by hydrogen are being introduced
into the market for home, office and industrial use.
Manufacturers have spent more than $2bn developing hydrogen
cars, buses and trucks, and the first mass-produced vehicles
are expected to be on the road in just a few years.

The hydrogen economy makes possible a vast redistribution of
power. Today's centralised, top-down flow of energy, controlled
by global oil companies and utilities, becomes obsolete. In the
new era, everybody could become the producer, as well as the
consumer, of their own energy - so called "distributed
generation".
When millions of end-users connect their fuel cells
into local, regional, and national hydrogen energy webs, using
the same design principles and smart technologies that
madepossible the world wide web, they can begin to share
energy, creating a new decentralised form of energy use.

In the hydrogen economy, even the car is a "power station on
wheels"
with a generating capacity of 20 kilowatts. It can be
plugged in, when parked, to the home, office or the main
interactive electricity network to provide premium electricity back
to the grid.

Millions of local operators, generating electricity from fuel cells
on site, can produce more power more cheaply than giant power
plants. When the end users also become the producers of their
energy, existing power plants will become "virtual power plants"
that manufacture and market fuel cells, bundle energy services
and coordinate the flow of energy over the existing power grids.

Hydrogen has the potential to end the world's reliance on
imported oil. It will dramatically cut down on carbon dioxide
emissions and mitigate the effects of global warming.
And
because hydrogen is so plentiful, every human being could be
"empowered", making it the first truly democratic energy regime
in history.

Sixty-five per cent of the human population has never made a
telephone call, and one-third has no access to electricity or any
other form of commercial energy. The disparity between the
connected and the unconnected threatens to become even more
pronounced during the next half- century when the world
population is expected to rise from the 6.2 billion to 9 billion.
Most of the increase will be in the developing world, where
poverty is concentrated.

Lack of access to energy, especially electricity, is a key factor
in perpetuating poverty, while access to energy means more
economic opportunity. In South Africa, for example, 10 to 20
new businesses are created for every 100 households electrified.


The per capita use of energy throughout the developing world is
a 15th of that enjoyed in the US. Making the shift to a hydrogen
energy regime is the only way to lift billions of people out of
poverty. Narrowing the gap between the haves and have-nots
means narrowing the gap between the connected and the
unconnected.

As the price of fuel cells and accompanying appliances
continues to plummet with new innovations and economies of
scale, they will become far more broadly available, just as was
the case with transistor radios, computers and cellular phones.
National governments and world lending institutions need to be
lobbied to help provide financial and logistical support to create a
hydrogen energy infrastructure. The goal ought to be to provide
stationary fuel cells for every neighbourhood and village in the
developing world.

The fossil-fuel era brought with it a highly centralised energy
infrastructure, and an accompanying economic infrastructure,
that favoured the few over the many. Now, on the cusp of the
hydrogen age, it is possible to establish the conditions for a
truly equitable sharing of the Earth's bounty. This is the essence
of the politics of reglobalisation from the bottom up.

The hydrogen economy is within sight. How fast we get there
will depend on how committed we are to weaning ourselves off of
oil and the other fossil fuels. What are we waiting for?

Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The Hydrogen Economy: The
Creation of the World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution
of Power on Earth. He is also the president of the Foundation on
Economic Trends in Washington


comment@guardian.co.uk

Special report
Renewable energy

The issue explained
14.12.2001: Renewable energy

Useful links
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
British Wind Energy Association

guardian.co.uk