Just A Theory

Well, we’re less than a week into 2009 and already the Darwinmania has begun. This week Radio 4 present a season of all things Darwin, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth this year. Amongst other programmes on the great man’s life and work is Dear Darwin, a five-part series broadcast every day this week at 3.45pm, which allows five modern-day scientists to write a letter to Darwin to tell him about the impact of his work.

The first episode today featured Dr Craig Venter, who popped up in TIME magazine’s top 10 scientific discoveries of 2008 for his work towards creating artificial life. He is most well known as being one of the researchers to first map the human genome.

Dr. Venter uses his letter to tell Darwin about the discovery of DNA, and how ideas from the Origin of Species can now be confirmed with modern genetic analysis. Looking at the similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA (which I talked about a couple of days ago), it is very clear that we must share a common ancestor as Darwin predicted. Dr. Venter tells him that we differ from the chimps by only 5-6% of our DNA - and some large stretches by only a little over 1%.

Darwin has clearly been a huge inspiration to Dr. Venter. He tells of following in Darwin’s footsteps on a voyage similar to that of the Beagle, but the goal of his expedition was to look for micro-organisms that would have been invisible to Darwin with the tools available at the time. The ocean provides an unimaginable bounty for the interested explorer; 1 million bacteria and 10 million viruses are to be found in every litre of sea water.

The letter also touches on the discovery of oil, and the effect that it has had on our world. Many of the species that were alive in Darwin’s day are now extinct, in part due to industrialisation. Now, Dr. Venter says, we must take control of evolution if we are to solve the problems of climate change, and engineer bacteria to suck up all our waste CO₂.

At its heart, the programme has quite a nice idea. I’m sure Darwin would be amazed at the work that has been done today as a result of his natural selection. Unfortunately however, it doesn’t really make great radio! Dr. Venter’s voice is rather monotone, and uninterrupted for the entire course of the programme. As a letter, that’s how it has to work I guess, but I was glad that it only lasted 15 minutes!

If I haven’t put you off, here is the obligatory iPlayer link, and as I said above the other episodes will be every day this week on Radio 4, at 3.45pm.

A British company has developed a new type of cement that can suck up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Its use could transform the cement production from a harmful emitter of CO₂ into an environmentally beneficial process.

Traditionally, cement requires intense heat to burn the raw material used in production - typically limestone. A large amount of energy is needed to generate this heat, and so CO₂ is released. The effect is further compounded by the release of CO₂ from the burning limestone itself.

Novacem, based in London, have created a new mixture of cement based on magnesium silicates. It requires much lower temperatures during production, and as it sets it actually absorbs CO₂ from the atmosphere, making the material actually carbon negative.

The company claims that in a normal lifecycle their cement can absorb 0.6 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of cement. This is a dramatic improvement over the regular stuff, which emits about 0.4 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of cement.

There are doubts over the suitability of the new cement, however. A spokesperson for the British Cement Association said that although much work is done in laboratories on new types of cement, they aren’t yet ready for the market:

“The reality is that the geological availability, and global distribution, of suitable natural resources, coupled with the extensive validation needed to confirm fitness-for-purpose, make it highly unlikely that these cements will a be realistic alternative for volume building.”

Chief scientist of Novacem, Nikolaos Vlasopoulos, countered such claims, as an estimated 10,000 billion tonnes of magnesium silicates are available worldwide. He acknowledges that the cement requires further testing until it is safe for use in buildings, but is confident that Novacem is the way forward.

For myself, I have to applaud Novacem for their efforts. Cement might not be glamorous, but it’s scientific developments such as these that will help us tackle climate change. No one is really going to get excited about a new type of cement, but adapting our existing industrial methods will certainly make a difference.

Olives could turn out to be more than just a tasty snack or delicious pizza topping - or rather, their stones could. Often discarded in the cultivation of the olive for oil or other uses, it is estimate that every year the olive growing industry produces 4 million tonnes of olive stones as waste. Scientists at the University of Jaén and the University of Granada, both in Spain, have demonstrated a method of extracting bioethanol from the stones.

Bioethanol is a renewable source of fuel that can be produced from many kinds of waste plant matter, but it has recently come under fire. Turning fields over to growing fuel instead of food has seen grain prices rise and increased the threat of hunger. Nevertheless, the push towards bioethanol continues, with the UK government mandating that by 2010 all cars run on 5% biofuel. Thus, producing energy from an unwanted food by-product looks increasingly attractive.

The fuel was extracted by first blasting the stones with high-pressure hot water and then adding enzymes to break down the organic matter into sugars. This mixture was then fermented with yeast in order to produce ethanol, with a maximum yield of 5.7 kg per 100 kg of olive stones.

They won't be powering your car just yet.

If this process could be applied to all 4 million tonnes of stones produced each year it would result in 228,000 tonnes of ethanol. Government figures for 1997 (the only ones I could find, unfortunately) indicate that 22,243,000 tonnes of petrol were sold that year. Unfortunately for olive producers, this means that waste stones would only be able to provide around a fifth of the UK’s bioethanol needs in 2010 - let alone any other countries.

It’s not all doom and gloom however. This research shows that energy can be extracted from the most unlikeliest places, and will perhaps encourage others to seek out other forms of energy from waste bio-materials.

And no, I don’t mean the falling sales of organic food in times of economic hardship.

In the past I’ve talked about the comparisons between the reporting of business and science, and discussed the economic effect of biodiversity loss. It seems that environmental campaigners are increasingly grasping hold of banking metaphors in order to engage with the public.

Today the WWF, in conjunction with the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network, published their Living Planet Report 2008 under the banner of an “ecological credit crunch”. The phrase, now so engrained in the public mind, instantly conveys a message: we’re in trouble.

The demand the human race now places on global resources exceeds the planet’s “natural capital” by about 30%. If this rate of growth continues, we will need the equivalent of two Earths to sustain our lifestyles. In other words, more than three quarters of the global population are now “ecological debtors” - we’ve borrowed from the Bank of Nature and can’t afford the repayments.

“Continued ecological deficit spending will have severe economic consequences,” said the Global Footprint Network Executive Director, Dr Mathis Wackernagel. “Resource limitations and ecosystem collapses would trigger massive stagflation with the value of investments plummeting, while food and energy costs skyrocket.”

America and the United Arab Emirates are the biggest borrowers, with the largest ecological footprint. The UK comes in at 15th, but still uses the same amount of natural resources as 33 African countries put together. That’s 33, folks.

Something needs to change. Capitalism is based on the concept of eternal growth; if we’re not moving forward, we’re moving backwards. As these figures show however, we’ve already grown too much. You can’t reach for infinity by using finite resources - yet we’ve blindly ignored this fact since the days of Adam Smith.

“We are acting ecologically in the same way as financial institutions have been behaving economically - seeking immediate gratification without due regard for the consequences,” said Zoological Society of London co-editor Jonathan Loh. “The consequences of a global ecological crisis are even graver than the current economic meltdown.”

The banks are semi-privatised. Climate change denial is no longer seen as valid point of view. In less than one week from now, the most powerful nation in the world will elect a new leader. We have the opportunity to changed the way we work, to move away from the days of eternal growth and in to a more sustainable model.

It won’t be easy, but it must be done. I have no idea how though. Capitalism, like its partner democracy, prevails because it is the least worst system compared to the rest of them. How can we move away from that? Ultimately, the answer must be an energy-based economy. I’ll trade you five hydrogen-bucks for a cup of ethically and sustainably produced coffee, buying a product for the actual cost of the energy used to make it. Can it be done? The WWF believes so.

David Norman, director of campaigns at WWF said: “We humans have been very good at creating problems - but we can be equally good at solving them. A sustainable world is not an unachievable goal. As the world looks to restore its economies we must build in long term environmental as well as economic sustainability.”

The Blacksmith Institute and Green Cross Switzerland have released a list of the worst pollution problems facing the world today. It’s unranked, as it reflects equally “the most serious environmental issues that impact communities around the globe” - particularly in the developing nations, where the The Blacksmith Institute works in cleaning up pollution hazards.

This injury was caused by chromium, a carcinogenic used by the leather tanning industry in India. Photo by Blacksmith Institute.

It’s founder Richard Fuller had this to say:

“Our goal with the 2008 report is to increase awareness of the severe toll that pollution takes on human health and inspire the international community to act,”

“Remediation is both possible and cost-effective.”

The full list is covered in detail on the Worst Polluted website:

• Artisanal Gold Mining: small-scale mining using harmful methods due to a lack of knowledge and regulation.
• Contaminated Surface Water: the pollution of rivers and wells used for drinking water.
• Groundwater Contamination: the pollution of underground water sources.
• Indoor Air Pollution: adverse air conditions in indoor spaces.
• Industrial Mining Activities: large scale mining activities leading to excessive waste.
• Metals Smelters and Processing: the extracting of materials leading to pollution.
• Radioactive Waste and Uranium Mines: the result of uranium mine and nuclear waste mis-management.
• Untreated Sewage: waste water left untreated.
• Urban Air Quality : adverse air conditions in an urban environment
• Used Lead Acid Battery Recycling: the improper disposal of batteries from cars and other applications.

A bucket of water from a contaminated source in India. Photo by Blacksmith Institute.

The list follows previous top 10s in 2007 and 2006, which profiled the world’s most polluted places. Also suggested are a number of sub-lists, included the four least addressed pollution problems and the four most likely to affect future generations. Interestingly enough, in most cases the polluting industries are locally owned and of fairly small scare. Only rarely is a large US or European multinational corporation responsible.

The Blacksmith Institute are calling for a “global effort” to identify polluted places, and the provision of resources to clean up the sites. By publishing the list they hope to raise awareness of the issues facing communities in the developing world, and the effect pollution can have on health, particular children’s. Some estimates say environmental factors contributed to 40% of death worldwide.

The banking crisis is, as ever, pretty big news. Even yesterday the British government dished out another £37 billion of taxpayers money to beleaguered bankers. I’ve written previously on what science communication can learn from business reporting, but a new report from the EU suggests that science still has a lot to learn if it is to grab headlines like the business world.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb) has suggested that global economy loses more annually from the erosion of the world’s natural forests than it has from the banking crisis. Yet, I don’t see bankers being told to shove off and retrain as tree surgeons. Pavan Sukhdev was the leader of the study, and told the BBC the scale of the loss:

“It’s not only greater but it’s also continuous, it’s been happening every year, year after year,”

“So whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost, within the financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion, the reality is that at today’s rate we are losing natural capital at least between $2-$5 trillion every year.”

These losses are calculated by modelling Mother Nature as a service provider. We’re essentially provided with forests “for free”, and they offer services such as absorbing carbon dioxide and so on, but as they fall in to decline the human race has to pick up the bill to cover the shortfall, or simply go without. Either option entails an economic cost. It’s a bit like a bank withdrawing a great mortgage policy and refusing to lend to anyone - either taxpayers have to step in and pay up to get the money flowing again, or people will be unable to borrow money to buy a house.

The question is, if the cost to the global economy is potentially as much as five yearly credit crunches, why aren’t we seeing rainforest bail-out packages? Where are the runs on garden centres, as people try to stock up on saplings? The problem is that dying trees are seen as Somebody Else’s Problem.

If you’ve just been made redundant, your home is being repossessed, and your pension is worth nothing because the stock market has crashed, why should you care if a few trees are hard done by? According to the study, it actually turns out that the people who are worse off are the most effected by the loss of biodiversity, especially in tropical regions where peoples’ livelihoods are more dependant on the forests.

By presenting the loss of natural resources in terms of cold, hard cash, Sukhdev and the other authors of the report hope to make governments and business sit up and take notice:

“Times have changed. Almost three years ago, even two years ago, their eyes would glaze over.

“Today, when I say this, they listen. In fact I get questions asked - so how do you calculate this, how can we monetize it, what can we do about it, why don’t you speak with so and so politician or such and such business.”

Hopefully politicians will be influenced in time to halt the decline of our forests, before the economic pinch is felt.

Better luck next year

Everyone has heard of the Nobel Prize, one of the highest achievements a scientist can win, but what about the Ig Nobel Prize?

The organisers say they honour achievements that “first make people laugh, and then make them think” - and winners have certainly come up with some of the strangest discoveries in science. This year, the 18th Ig Nobel Prize ceremony was held last Thursday at Harvard University.

Highlights include Marie-Christine Cadiergues, Christel Joubert, and Michel Franc of Ecole Nationale Veterinaire de Toulouse who discovered that fleas on a dog can jump higher than those on a cat, and Dorian Raymer of the Ocean Observatories Initiative at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Douglas Smith of the University of California who mathematically proved that a heap of string will inevitably tangle into knots. You can view the full list of winners here.

It’s the freakiest show snow

It’s not quite “Life On Mars”, but maybe David Bowie would consider changing the chorus of his classic song - NASA’s Phoenix Mars Lander has found snow falling from clouds on Mars. Using a laser sensor from the planet’s surface, the plucky little probe detected snow 4 kilometres above its landing site. Whilst the snow evaporated before hitting the ground, scientists think it might be possible to find signs that snow has reached the surface in the past.

Another experiment that analysed soil samples has also found suggestions of calcium carbonate (which makes up chalk) and possibly, clay. These substances tend to form only in the presence of liquid water here on Earth, giving further evidence that Mars had a “liquid past”.

Could future cars be used for electric storage?

The popularity of hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius continues to increase as drivers become more environmentally concious - so much so that the Prius actually goes up in value, as hybrid enthusiasts are prepared to pay over the odds for a second hand car.

Hybrids work by using a traditional petrol-based engine in combination with a recharging battery that captures energy from wasteful actions such as braking, but plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) take this one step further, allowing you to hook up the car to a socket and charge from the National Grid.

Scientists at the University of Michigan have come up with a cunning idea to use PHEVs as overnight batteries, storing excess energy in your car whilst you sleep, and then releasing back into the gird when it is needed. Storing electricity until it is needed can often be costly and inefficient for power plants, but using this distributed model would allow the electric companies to keep up their supply without wasting energy. They’ll even pay you for the privilege of using your car’s battery - if the system ever takes off, that is.

Round ‘em up boys - it’s the carbon capturers

Carbon, carbon, carbon. Life as we know it could not exist without carbon, but this poor little element has a bad reputation these days. Really, it’s only when carbon gets together with two of it’s oxygen friends to form carbon dioxide (CO₂) that the trouble starts. Now, a team of climate change researchers at the University of Calgary have invented a machine that pluck CO₂ straight out of the air.

Although CO₂ only makes up around 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere, it is the main contributor to global warming. Removing CO₂ molecules from the air would help slow down climate change. The new machine uses less than 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity to remove one tonne of CO₂ from the air, and can capture the equivalent of a US citizen’s average yearly emissions - around 20 tonnes CO₂ per annum - on one square metre of scrubbing material. Team leader David Keith is optimistic about the technology’s prospects:

“This means that if you used electricity from a coal-fired power plant, for every unit of electricity you used to operate the capture machine, you’d be capturing 10 times as much CO₂ as the power plant emitted making that much electricity,”

At the moment, however, the machine is still in its early stages. The current cost of capturing CO₂ is too high to make it commercially viable, but work continues on bringing the technique to market.

Tiny pictures, big prizes

You can now vote for your favourite entry in the 34th Annual Small World Photomicrography Competition. Some stunning pictures of the very small have been entered, so I encourage you to take a look. Winners will receive thousands of dollars worth of Nikon photography equipment, and personally I’m going for this strange looking chicken embryo.

As you may have notice, Earth is a pretty complex place. As we rush to reverse the effects of decades pumping carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere, it is possible that we might inadvertently do more harm than good. It isn’t as simple as less carbon = good, and people working to combat climate change would do well to remember that we still don’t fully understand the systems that govern our planet.

We’ve already seen that biofuels, once heralded as the solution to all energy problems, can actually lead to food shortages - we were so wrapped up in making the change, we didn’t consider the consequences.

Now, research published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal has shown that energy saving compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) might not be such a bright idea. The UK government has pledged to irradicate traditional bulbs by 2011, but scientists at Yale University suggest this could be the wrong approach.

Are these energy saving bulbs really the answer?

The problem is that the strangely-shaped bulbs contain small amounts of mercury - on average, 4 micrograms. Whilst mercury poisoning gave us the Mad Hatter, there is no risk to homeowners from the low levels in the bulbs. The problem occurs when the bulbs reach the end of their life and are thrown away, releasing the mercury into the atmosphere.

The research found that for places relying on coal power for electricity generation, the switch to energy savers can cut mercury emissions significantly. In the US, per capita annual emissions of mercury from coal power plants amount to 163mg, so using the new bulbs not only reduces the electricity used, but also the mercury emitted.

Paradoxically, countries that have already “gone green” could actually cause more damage by adopting CFLs. Cleaner-powered countries like Norway (who in 2004 generated 99% of their electricity using hydroelectric power) already have a low “mercury footprint”, and whilst CFLs would save energy, they would increase mercury usage significantly. “The places known for sustainability are the places that have the potential to do the most harm by bringing this technology in,” said Julie Zimmerman, an environmental engineer at Yale and a co-author of the study.

It just goes to show that there is not a “one size fits all” solution to the climate change problem. More studies like this one would help governments make decisions about the direction they should take with regards to energy, but most importantly governments must actually listen to what the scientists are telling them. Science is often counter-intuitive, and sweeping, unresearched changes could leave us worse off then when we started.

It’s quite possible you already have significant amounts of dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) inside you. According to the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division in Newark, Delaware, this chemical has many industrial applications, and can easily enter the body. Indeed, it is often unintentionally ingested as it is found in many different food substances. It’s even used by terrorist organizations such as al-Quaeda.

This colourless and odourless substance is most often found in liquid form (large quantities have been reported in the world’s oceans, affecting the indigenous sea life), and can cause death if inhaled, although liquid DHMO is inert to human skin. Prolonged contact with DHMO in either a solid or gaseous state, however, can also lead to death.

There is also strong evidence to show that DHMO strongly contributes to climate change - indeed, some weather configurations can lead to sudden localised deposits of the liquid chemical.

A survey by US researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick found that nearly 90% of participants would sign a petition supporting an outright ban on the use of DHMO in the United States. Studies carried out elsewhere seem to agree with these findings; the majority of public citizens want to see an end to DHMO, but world leaders refuse to act. Continue reading for my suggested action to combat the spread of DHMO.

This pipeline has been contaminated by DHMO.

Well, you should probably just do nothing. Dihydrogen monoxide, more commonly known as H₂O, or ‘water’ can be extremely dangerous if misused - it’s easy to burn your self in boiling water, for example - but I don’t think we need to worry about it.

I wrote this post because I myself was caught out by this oldy-but-goody science prank recently - the latest issue of New Scientist mentions it in the Feedback column. I read along going ‘oh, it’s already in my blood steam, really’ and ‘well I haven’t heard of this but it sounds pretty bad’, until finally, the penny dropped.

It’s a classic (albeit harmless) example of intentionally using science to confuse and miscommunicate. Leading the post with a headline highlighting the ‘risk’ to yourself or loved ones, mentioning terrorists/climate change and talking about the outrageous lack of political action are all designed to whip you up into a fury: ’something must be done!’ you cry. No wonder so many people get swept along by scare stories such as the link between the MMR vaccine and autism; it’s just all too easy. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go sweep my kitchen for traces of sodium chloride - did you know that in large doses, it can lead to heart disease?

In our increasingly technological world, scientific understanding is a vital skill for any modern day politician. Our leaders need to know how to tackle problems like climate change and manage controversial research such as stem cell research. Science is becoming politicised more and more, and for the past eight years the President of the United States has been extremely anti-science. George Bush has vetoed bills on stem cell research - a technology that could be used to save millions of lives - and also refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which required signatory countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

In less than two months time, on November 4th, America will elect a new “leader of the free world” in the form of either Barack Obama or John McCain. A self-styled “small group of citizens” decided in November 2007 that a presidential debate on science was required. They formed Science Debate 2008.

Thousands of scientists, engineers and others agreed with the need for debate, and submitted over 3,400 questions for the candidates. These were whittled down to 14 key topics, and submitted to the presidential hopefuls. Obama submitted his answers a few weeks ago, and now that McCain has provided his as well, we can compare the politicians views on science. You can read the full answers, or stick with me for a summary. Quotes are attributed to [O]bama or [Mc]Cain where appropriate.

Head to head on science.

Innovation: Both candidates were concerned with America’s slide from being a leading scientific nation. Obama pointed out that the US is 17th among developed nations for science and engineering degrees - down from third place 30 years ago. He promised increased funding for both research and teachers. McCain also promised more money for researchers and education reform, as well as the defence of American intellectual property around the world. He sees the nurturing of technology, particularly in communication, as key to solving “critical problems” [Mc] like climate change.

Climate change: Speaking of which, both candidates saw climate change as an important issues. McCain said it demanded “urgent attention” [Mc], and Obama believed “there can no longer be any doubt” [O] of human influence on the climate. They were also in agreement on policy: a carbon trading system would be put in place to reduce emissions by 60% below 1990 levels for McCain and 80% for Obama.

Energy: The candidates agree on the need for a sustainable energy policy. Both favour an increased reliance on nuclear power, in addition to renewables such as wind energy. Obama also highlighted the importance of a “more efficient use of energy” [O], utilising new technology to reduce waste.

Education: Obama and McCain both want to increase learning in science and maths by recruiting more teachers in the subjects and paying them more. McCain also spoke of encouraging private corporations to help “identify and maximize” [Mc] potential in students, whilst Obama promised tax credits for higher education in science.

National Security: McCain credited the military for driving forward technology that we all use today: the internet, GPS and Teflon, to name a few. He promised increased research funding for American forces, as did Obama.

Pandemics and Biosecurity: Both candidates emphasised that the US was not fully prepared to respond to attacks by bioweaponry, and pledged money for research into vaccination and detection technology.

Genetics research: In line with the general American attitude to GM food, both candidates favoured research into crops that could lead to higher yields, though Obama stressed the need for “stringent tests” [O] and “stronger regulatory oversight” [O]. They also agreed on genetic modification in humans, stating that whilst gene therapy had the potential to change lives, care had to be taken to avoid “genetic discrimination” [Mc].

Stem cells: An extremely controversial issue in the US, the candidates were divided on stem cell research. Obama “strongly support[s] expanding research on stem cells”, [O] and would lift the ban laid down by President Bush in 2001. He suggested that the “hundreds of thousands of embryos” [O] stored (unused) in fertilization clinics could ethically be used for research, because they would eventually be destroyed anyway. In comparison, McCain refused to “sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress” [Mc], hoping that adult stem cell research would one day rendered the debate “academic” [Mc]. Obama views adult stem cells as falling short of the “gold standard” of embryonic stem cells.

Ocean Health: Both candidates waxed lyrical on their love of the ocean (McCain was a former officer in the US Navy) but had little to say on actual policy. Obama is in favour of ratifying the UN Law of the Sea Convention, which in part refers to ocean conservation.

Space: McCain questioned “whether we can afford not to” [Mc] continue exploration of space, and pointed out that “space activities have contributed greatly to US scientific discovery, national security, economic development and national innovation” [Mc]. He pledged to make space exploration a “top priority” [Mc] and to minimise the gap between the decommissioning of the Space Shuttle and the launch of its replacement. Obama promised NASA “will inspire the world with both human and robotic space exploration” [O] and would help confront challenges such as climate change and energy independence.

Scientific integrity: The candidates took a swipe at George Bush as they agreed that “government decisions should be based on…scientifically-valid evidence” [O] and that “denial of the facts” [Mc] will not help solve “critical problems” [Mc] for the country. They both promised to appoint science advisers as key parts of their administration.

Research: Both candidates promised increased funding in basic research which they view as “the foundation for many new discoveries” [Mc], with Obama pledging cash “at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade” [O].

Health: Understandably, the candidates focused mostly on the cost of the provision of healthcare, rather than the science, but both praised the “scientific and technological developments” [Mc] of US medical research.

Honestly, when it comes to scientific policy, it doesn’t seem there is a huge difference between the two candidates. The only clear difference of opinion I can see is on stem cells, with the candidates following the party policy that you would expect. Does this render Science Debate 2008 pointless? I think not. Their answers to the questions raised in the debate total over 10,000 words - words which have no doubt been put through the wringer of PR and policy making. Even if the debate doesn’t help choose a President, it has certainly got the candidates (and hopefully the nation) thinking about science again.

The cover story of the latest issue of New Scientist throws up some food for thought (sorry, bad, bad joke), and if you have a subscription to the magazine you can read the full text on their website.

The article suggests that in the average US household food consumption produces almost twice as much greenhouse gases as driving. Using “equivalent CO₂ emissions”, a measure that includes other greenhouse gases along with the infamous carbon, a recent study found that 8.1 tonnes of CO₂eq make up an average “food-print”, whilst a typical year’s car use emits only 4.4 tonnes of CO₂eq.

Calculation of CO₂eq figures is extremely complex. You have to factor in all of the energy used in getting food to your stomach, from the fuel used by tractors, to the refrigeration in supermarkets, and even the methane emitted by cows. Complicating matters further, it is difficult to translate these numbers from one region to another - because farming and food distribution methods differ widely in different countries, a steak eaten the US doesn’t necessarily have the same CO₂eq footprint as one eaten in the UK.

You might think that eating local could help you cut down on emissions. Supermarkets are already trying to implement “food miles” labelling, but a study by Christopher Weber, an environmental policy researcher at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania, found that transportation of food makes up only 11% of the total greenhouse emissions. Most of the energy goes in to food production - a whopping 83%. The title of this posts reflects that fact: a bowl of cereal will set you back 1224 grams of CO₂eq, roughly the same as a 6 km drive in a typical gas-guzzling SUV.

It’s not even the cereal which is to blame here - it’s the milk. Cows have a huge carbon footprint, which gives weight to the argument of Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin of the University of Chicago, who calculated that switching to a vegetarian diet could cut your emissions by almost 1.5 tonnes of CO₂eq. Some of my friends have already gone veggie for this exact reason, but I’m not quite ready to give up sausages just yet.

One solution is in vitro meat. Essentially, animal cells are grown in a lab to form edible meat, without having to feed and care for an actual animal. The concept horrifies many people, but I personally have no problem with it (as long as the meat still tastes good!), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are offering a $1 million dollar prize reward to anyone who can bring in vitro meat to market.

Unfortunately for PETA, it seems that treating your chickens badly actually lowers their carbon footprint. Next time you’re in the supermarket, you might find yourself wondering whether to side with Jamie Oliver or Al Gore, since organic chicken require 10% more energy than their battery-farmed cousins because they live longer and are allowed to move about more.

What then should your average consumer do to reduce their carbon food-print? I’d recommended the introduction of vegetarian meals into your diet, without going full-on meat free. Vegetable curries are always a good option, and I’m quite partial to a mushroom risotto. Just stay away from the cardboard-like “meat substitutes” that vegetarians seem to sustain themselves on - I think I’d rather have global warming!

Today is the European release date of Spore, the latest product of game guru Will Wright’s active imagination. Wright is the creator of incredibly successful titles such as SimCity, which allowed players to build and manage a city, and The Sims, which places you in charge of a virtual household and it’s occupants. The Sims series of games alone has sold over 100 million copies, so you might say they’re pretty popular.

Spore takes players in a new direction. Wright wanted to explore the ideas behind evolution and make gamers think about their effect on the world. In Spore, you begin life as a microscopic organism, fighting for your existences in a style reminiscent of Pac-Man. Succeed, and you can evolve into a land-based creature, that will eventually develop its own society and ultimately explore space and rule the galaxy.

It sounds pretty ambitious, and it is - the game was announced to the public in 2005, but has actually been in development for nearly eight years. Part of the problem in creating Spore was how to reflect the true nature of evolution, without having to wait for millions of years. The solution was to allow players to create their own creatures, using an intuitive “virtual clay” system, and then to modify them as the game goes along. You start off with a basic spine, which you can pull and stretch to any number of forms, and then add a variety of heads, limbs, and other appendages. Player created creatures are then uploaded to a central server and then downloaded into other players games, to create a diverse range of species for everyone to play with. It’s very easy to use - why not try it yourself?

I find Spore to be an extremely interesting form of science communication. On the one hand, creatures evolve up from a single celled organism, eventually becoming much larger creatures that can form a society - not too different from our own evolutionary history. On the other hand, because players are shaping the make up of their creatures at every step, rather than the game making modifications at random, Spore is actually an example of intelligent design. Of course, it would be hard to make the game work any other way - as mentioned above, no one wants to sit around for a few million years waiting for something to happen - but it does send a mixed message to players.

In the space phase of the game, Spore hits on another scientific controversy: climate change. Players can fly around the galaxy in a spaceship, contacting other species and terraforming planets. Adding water to a planet will introduce an atmosphere and clouds, where greenhouse gases can accumulate and cause the planet to heat up. Wright believes that by demonstrating such large changes in a short amount of time, players will find it much easier to grasp the concept of climate change, and how it can occur.

At the end of the day, many people will play Spore without thinking about the science behind the game. It’s not intended to be strictly educational, but Wright wanted to create an experience that would allow players to learn about scientific principles at the same time as having fun and telling their own stories. I’m interested to see if he succeeds.

The magazine Environment have published The Short List: The Most Effective Actions U.S. Households Can Take To Curb Climate Change. In it, the authors Gerald T. Gardner and Paul C. Stern discuss how people are willing to change their habits in order to use less energy, but either don’t know how or are acting ineffectively.

Most people emphasise visible changes, such as switching off a light bulb when leaving the room, but there are many “hidden” improvements to be made that can have a much greater effect on energy reduction. Gardner and Stern believe the media is partly to blame, with most information and articles offering advice in a “laundry list” format, with no indication as to the best actions to take. They propose to tackle this problem in a clear and logical manner: investigate different methods of cutting energy usage, and then rank them according to effectiveness.

They begin by looking at where our energy goes. In 2005 in the US, 38.6% of all energy use was by private motor vehicles - by comparison, the commonly attacked air travel was only 3.4%. The next largest use is in space heating, where 18.8% of energy goes to keeping houses warm. For the gadget lovers, TVs, computers and dishwashers barely break 3% when combined, so don’t feel too environmentally concious about that new HDTV.

Next up: what can be changed? It turns out there are a few surprises. Carpooling, commonly touted as a way to reduce vehicle emissions, turns out to be around a third less effective than buying a more fuel-efficient car. Upgrading from a car that gets 20 mpg to one achieving 30.7 mpg could save 13.5% of all the energy you use, whilst sharing your ride will only get you up to 4.2%. All in all, a more efficient car that is well maintained could save as much as one-fifth of your energy usage.

In the home, we see similar results. You could turn your thermostat down a bit at night in order to save 2.8%, but you’ll probably just forget or give up after a week or so. Install proper insulation in your attic however, and you can sleep easy knowing you’ll have saved up to 5% on your energy bill.

Encouraging efficiency rather than curtailment is the name of the game here. Improve the way your energy is used, and you won’t have to feel guilty about accidentally leaving the light on when you go on holiday. As an additional benefit, your electricity and gas bills will be permanently lowered - providing you remain in your house for long enough to recoup the initial costs of efficient replacements. It’s a similar idea to one I’ve discussed before [PDF].

So what are the top changes you can make? I’ve reproduced their list at the end of this post, but it isn’t as clear as it could be, so I’ll spell it out in the order you should follow:

Actions you can take now, with little or no cost

1. Carpool with a friend.
2. Replace 85% of all your old lightbulbs with energy savers
3. Get frequent tune-ups to maintain your car.
4. Turn down the thermostat two degrees during the day, and another two at night.
5. Eco-drive by avoiding harsh acceleration and braking.
6. Combine shopping trips to take fewer journeys.
7. Cut your speed on motorways from 70 to 60 mph.
8. Use a lower setting on your washing machine.
9. Maintain the correct tyre pressure for your car.

Longer term actions, with higher costs

1. Buy low-rolling resistance tyres to reduce road friction.
2. Switch to a more fuel-efficient car.
3. Seal heat-leaking gaps by weather-stripping your home.
4. Install improved attic ventilation.
5. Buy a more efficient heating unit.
6. Swap to a smaller and more efficient fridge.
7. Replace your boiler with a more efficient unit.

Better get started!

Click for a fullsize version

I love hearing about an idea so good that I can’t help but think “why hasn’t anyone though of this before?” - in this case, using hot roads to generate electricity.

Researchers at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute have been studying ways to extract energy from asphalt, a material used to cover roads which is extremely good at storing heat from the sun. They discovered that when asphalt is exposed to direct sunlight it reaches its highest temperature a few centimetres below the surface. Placing a heat exchanger (such as copper pipes filled with water) at this point would extract the maximum possible energy. The hot water could then be used “as is” for heating purposes, or sent to a generator to produce electricity.

One of the major problems with solar energy is where to put the panels. With this solution, we can effectively reuse existing land. Great Britain has over 3,300 square kilometres of road. Even if only half of this was used for electricity generation, it would be equivalent to demolishing the entire of London and using that instead. That’s quite a lot of spare land!

The building of wind farms is commonly blocked by local residents because they “spoil the view”, but no one will be able to complain about aesthetics in this case because the solar collectors would be underground. Locals would actually benefit in the case of dense urban areas as the extraction of heat cools the asphalt down, reducing the surrounding air temperatures in the process.

I think this an extremely elegant solution to the problem of energy generation - a problem that is becoming increasingly more important. One sticking point could be the question of efficiency. It’s great having all this spare energy generating land, but if it can’t produce enough energy to replace a few power plants then there isn’t much point. The WPI haven’t published any figures on the energy generated, but I will certainly be keeping an eye out for what could be a great future technology.

It could be that in 20 years time we all drive electric cars powered by the very roads that they drive on. What a great idea.