Photosynthetic foam developed by Prof David Wendell and inspired by nest of South American frog will line coal-burning power plants
Shanta Barley
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 September 2010 21.00 BST
An artificial foam inspired by the meringue-like nest of a South American frog has won the 2010 Earth Awards. The foam, which could help to tackle climate change, soaks up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and generates sugars that can be converted into biofuel.
The Earth Awards were set up in 2007 to bring together green start-ups strapped for cash with investors. Between March and May, over 500 designs were submitted to a panel of judges that included Richard Branson, Jane Goodall, David de Rothschild and Diane von Furstenberg.
The panel awarded $10,000 each to six finalists in August. Tonight, the winning design – a photosynthetic foam developed by David Wendell and Carlo Monetmagno of the University of Cincinnati – was awarded $50,000 at Marlborough House, London, as part of the Prince of Wales' Start Festival.
The foam, which will be installed in the flues of coal-burning power plants, captures carbon dioxide and locks it away as sugar before it has a chance to enter the atmosphere and contribute to climate change. Due to its frothy structure, the foam can be up to five times more efficient than plants at converting carbon dioxide into sugar.
Wendell knows that the foam is manufacturing sugar – glucose – but he hasn't yet managed to extract the sugar in order to convert it into biofuel
. Wendell says creating a biofuel like this is desirable as it reduces the pressure to grow biofuel crops on land for crops, and keeps the price of staple foods like cereal and rice down.
The secret to the foam's success is a protein that the Tungara frog uses as scaffolding in its foamy nests. "I read about a protein that the frog uses that allows bubbles to form in the nest, but doesn't destroy the lipid membranes of the eggs that the females lay in the foam, and realised that it was perfect for our own foam. The foam contains a mixture of over 11 different enzymes harvested from bacteria, plants and fungi. It fixes carbon dioxide as sugars like fructose and glucose at a rate that exceeds that found in plants," Wendell said.
According to Rick Fedrizzi, chief executive of the United States Green Building Council, one of the award judges, Wendell's idea and those of the other finalists were "amazing but wouldn't necessarily have seen the light of day without the Earth Awards".
"Cash prizes are great but the real benefit of the Earth Awards is that your idea or technology is recognised by your peers," says Fedrizzi. "Plus you get to network with venture capitalists, who might choose to invest in you at a later stage when your idea is more tangible."
Fedrizzi's favourite entry was the Sustainable Shell, a biodegradable home that can be built from the soil on which it sits. "You might be living in the Serengeti in Africa with access to nothing but mud and water, but by using these design principles anyone can build a strong, sustainable shelter," he says.
Designed by Michael Ramage of the Department of Architecture at Cambridge University, the home will probably be a hit among NGOs seeking to rebuild regions like Haiti that have been devastated by natural disasters. It's also very beautiful, says Fedrizzi: "It brings to mind centuries-old Moorish temples."
Among the other finalists is Jamie Lim, a Malaysian ethical designer who has created a range of sunglasses hand-crafted from bamboo – a fast-growing, biodegradable and low-carbon alternative to plastic. For every pair of "KAYU" sunglasses bought, Lim donates $20 towards surgery that restores sight in the developing world.
Another design recognised by the awards was Arthur Huang's Polli Bricks – a low-carbon form of cladding made from recycled plastic bottles that can be wrapped around buildings to insulate them. They come studded with solar-power LED lights and cost around ten times less than conventional cladding.
Not all of the entries into the Earth Awards were tangible structures, however. The Biomimicry Institute in Missoula, Montana, submitted Ask Nature – an open source digital library that allows people to find out how nature has solved problems that now confront humanity.
Friday, 17 September 2010
Climate change research needs to be better coordinated
The UK needs a national database that shows who is studying what
• UK 'poorly prepared' for impact of global warming
• Vicky Pope: How science will shape climate adaptation plans
John Dwyer
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 September 2010 10.49 BST
Most people assume that someone in government is keeping tabs on the climate change research being carried out in the UK - what research is needed, what research is current and where the gaps are. But though the UK Energy Research Centre does this for energy research, there is no equivalent atlas of climate change research. The Living with environmental change programme is developing a database, but it is limited in scope and resources.
Financing climate research, a report published this week by Research Fortnight, shows that UK policymakers have yet to identify what research is necessary, how much of this necessary research is mature enough to exploit, how much is at an earlier stage and how much has yet to start.
Research is international. No one argues that the UK must fill all the research gaps itself. But the UK needs to try harder to identify where the gaps are in its own research before it can judge whether to fund a new programme.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), whose first report on climate change adaptation is published today, highlighted this in July. It said of the UK institutions involved in the delivery of low-carbon innovation: "The number of bodies and differences in approach mean that the landscape lacks clarity and overlaps can result where multiple institutions seek to invest in the same technology."
The sheer breadth of the effects of climate change creates huge problems for governments. The effects range from direct impacts on human, animal and plant health to indirect climate impacts because of rising sea levels and changing patterns of water availability.
Neither governments, agencies nor scientists can know enough about what these effects are, still less about how to mitigate or adapt to them, without research. Many of the tools, techniques, products and services that will make the changes needed in industry and society to meet the climate change challenge are either in their infancy or yet to be developed.
The lack of an accepted definition of climate change is one official explanation for the lack of information about how much funding there is for UK climate change research or where it is going. But the problem goes way beyond climate change. Back in the spring Lord Sutherland said the House of Lords science and technology committee he chaired was "quite staggered" to learn that no one can offer a figure for the UK's total public spending on all research.
The figure the CCC put on climate change research in July, £550m, was a guess. A CCC source told Research Fortnight that, when it asked government departments and research councils for data about the projects they funded, they ran into a brick wall: "The data is not held centrally, so you had to go to various departments and to various people within departments in order to find it."
But with the comprehensive spending review looming, government chief scientist Sir John Beddington and others are sympathetic to saving money by collecting more research-funding data, both to eliminate the duplication of Whitehall effort in finding it, and to save money by identifying duplication of the research itself. Not before time.
• John Dwyer is comment and analysis editor at Research Fortnight
• UK 'poorly prepared' for impact of global warming
• Vicky Pope: How science will shape climate adaptation plans
John Dwyer
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 September 2010 10.49 BST
Most people assume that someone in government is keeping tabs on the climate change research being carried out in the UK - what research is needed, what research is current and where the gaps are. But though the UK Energy Research Centre does this for energy research, there is no equivalent atlas of climate change research. The Living with environmental change programme is developing a database, but it is limited in scope and resources.
Financing climate research, a report published this week by Research Fortnight, shows that UK policymakers have yet to identify what research is necessary, how much of this necessary research is mature enough to exploit, how much is at an earlier stage and how much has yet to start.
Research is international. No one argues that the UK must fill all the research gaps itself. But the UK needs to try harder to identify where the gaps are in its own research before it can judge whether to fund a new programme.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), whose first report on climate change adaptation is published today, highlighted this in July. It said of the UK institutions involved in the delivery of low-carbon innovation: "The number of bodies and differences in approach mean that the landscape lacks clarity and overlaps can result where multiple institutions seek to invest in the same technology."
The sheer breadth of the effects of climate change creates huge problems for governments. The effects range from direct impacts on human, animal and plant health to indirect climate impacts because of rising sea levels and changing patterns of water availability.
Neither governments, agencies nor scientists can know enough about what these effects are, still less about how to mitigate or adapt to them, without research. Many of the tools, techniques, products and services that will make the changes needed in industry and society to meet the climate change challenge are either in their infancy or yet to be developed.
The lack of an accepted definition of climate change is one official explanation for the lack of information about how much funding there is for UK climate change research or where it is going. But the problem goes way beyond climate change. Back in the spring Lord Sutherland said the House of Lords science and technology committee he chaired was "quite staggered" to learn that no one can offer a figure for the UK's total public spending on all research.
The figure the CCC put on climate change research in July, £550m, was a guess. A CCC source told Research Fortnight that, when it asked government departments and research councils for data about the projects they funded, they ran into a brick wall: "The data is not held centrally, so you had to go to various departments and to various people within departments in order to find it."
But with the comprehensive spending review looming, government chief scientist Sir John Beddington and others are sympathetic to saving money by collecting more research-funding data, both to eliminate the duplication of Whitehall effort in finding it, and to save money by identifying duplication of the research itself. Not before time.
• John Dwyer is comment and analysis editor at Research Fortnight
Edison2 Very light car wins $5m X prize
Virginia company wins main prize for its car built with lightweight materials, superior aerodynamics and 100mpg fuel efficiency
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 September 2010 18.25 BST
The makers of a futuristic-looking featherweight car today won the main prize of a $10m challenge to design a car that achieves fuel efficiency of 100 miles per gallon (mpg).
The contest, the Progressive Insurance Automotive X prize, is designed to push the boundaries of innovation and spur the development of a new generation of super-efficient cars with mass market potential.
The main prize today went to a design that opted for a more familiar internal combustion motor – rather than an electric – engine.
The Edison2 Very light car number 98, made by a Virginia company, took home $5m for its use of lightweight materials, and superior aerodynamics.
The car is powered by a single-cylinder motorcycle engine, that burns a mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, mounted at the back of an extremely lightweight frame. The designers, mainly former race car drivers, decided to stick with an internal combustion engine because batteries add weight.
"Electric cars have real issues. Batteries are heavy, big and costly. With electric drives cars get heavier, performance suffers and costs go up," the Edison2 blog said.
The entire car, which some have likened to a helicopter or an egg on wheels, weighs in at 830lbs (376kg). The Smart Car is about 1,600 (726kg).
Drivers and passengers get into the four-seater by climbing in through the window, like a racecar.
It has a top speed of 100mph, enough acceleration to cope with traffic, a heater and basic air conditioning, great fuel economy and, according to Edison2's owner, a realistic price tag.
Oliver Kuttner, a race car driver, said the car, which is made of low-cost and recycleable materials, could potentially go on sale for $20,000 – if it ever reaches the market.
But Consumer Reports, which rates cars, said the Very light car was still very much in the development stage, with work needed on braking and handling.
The other two winners took home $2.5m each for electric drive vehicles. Team X-Tracer from Switzerland won for a car that got more than 197mpg - the highest rating in the competition. In comparison, a Toyota Prius hybrid can get to about 51mpg.
The final winner, made by Li-Ion motors from North Carolina, is a two-seat electric vehicle called the Move2, that gets 187mpg on a single charge with a maximum range of 200 miles.
Both companies say they are taking orders for their cars. But Felix Wagner, the leader of the X-Tracer team, told the award ceremony today they will not suit every pocket book. "We can not mass produce. We are a small company. The real thing is we are here."
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 September 2010 18.25 BST
The makers of a futuristic-looking featherweight car today won the main prize of a $10m challenge to design a car that achieves fuel efficiency of 100 miles per gallon (mpg).
The contest, the Progressive Insurance Automotive X prize, is designed to push the boundaries of innovation and spur the development of a new generation of super-efficient cars with mass market potential.
The main prize today went to a design that opted for a more familiar internal combustion motor – rather than an electric – engine.
The Edison2 Very light car number 98, made by a Virginia company, took home $5m for its use of lightweight materials, and superior aerodynamics.
The car is powered by a single-cylinder motorcycle engine, that burns a mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, mounted at the back of an extremely lightweight frame. The designers, mainly former race car drivers, decided to stick with an internal combustion engine because batteries add weight.
"Electric cars have real issues. Batteries are heavy, big and costly. With electric drives cars get heavier, performance suffers and costs go up," the Edison2 blog said.
The entire car, which some have likened to a helicopter or an egg on wheels, weighs in at 830lbs (376kg). The Smart Car is about 1,600 (726kg).
Drivers and passengers get into the four-seater by climbing in through the window, like a racecar.
It has a top speed of 100mph, enough acceleration to cope with traffic, a heater and basic air conditioning, great fuel economy and, according to Edison2's owner, a realistic price tag.
Oliver Kuttner, a race car driver, said the car, which is made of low-cost and recycleable materials, could potentially go on sale for $20,000 – if it ever reaches the market.
But Consumer Reports, which rates cars, said the Very light car was still very much in the development stage, with work needed on braking and handling.
The other two winners took home $2.5m each for electric drive vehicles. Team X-Tracer from Switzerland won for a car that got more than 197mpg - the highest rating in the competition. In comparison, a Toyota Prius hybrid can get to about 51mpg.
The final winner, made by Li-Ion motors from North Carolina, is a two-seat electric vehicle called the Move2, that gets 187mpg on a single charge with a maximum range of 200 miles.
Both companies say they are taking orders for their cars. But Felix Wagner, the leader of the X-Tracer team, told the award ceremony today they will not suit every pocket book. "We can not mass produce. We are a small company. The real thing is we are here."
Britain needs positive leadership on climate change
This government will never be the 'greenest ever' with empty gestures and no sense of urgency. Where is the plan to deliver?
Ed Miliband guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 September 2010 12.03 BST
It has been a tough six months for those that care about tackling climate change. Despite the disappointment of Copenhagen, for the first time there was agreement to limit warming to 2C and commit all major countries, including both the US and China, to reducing their emissions. But since then progress has stalled. The Obama administration has failed to pass any climate change legislation and there is no momentum building for the forthcoming summit in Cancún this November.
More than ever, Britain and the world need leadership. But our prime minister has been completely silent on the issue. He has decided not to chair the UN group on climate finance which is vital to getting to an agreement and there is no sign of any pressure on the EU or our international allies. Instead he opts for empty gestures, claming to be the "greenest government ever" while showing no leadership at all. We've had the huskies and the soundbites, but where is the resolve, the willingness to make tough choices and the plan to deliver?
I believe that climate change is the greatest global threat facing our generation. It demands leadership and resolve. It should be at the very heart of our plan for a successful economy, at the centre of our foreign policy and integral to our mission to change Britain. Britain needs a leader who understands this and can provide this leadership.
There are five steps that the government should be taking now.
Firstly, we should be pushing for agreements on finance and forestry at Cancún. Instead of cutting budgets for climate diplomacy the government should push the Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing to make immediate progress on long-term finance. Under Labour, the UK took the lead in arguing for a significant transfer of finance from the developed to the developing world. Ministers must be clear that private finance alone is not a credible solution to the problem – government intervention is essential. This is urgent. If the advisory group does not make progress it will lessen our chances of getting global financing up and running by 2013, which is what we need.
As well as action on finance there is no solution to the question of climate change without forestry. That is why the Labour government championed forest protection and pledged £480m to help it happen. But it is vital that this finance is used properly and puts the rights and needs of local communities first. The government should champion this approach in its partnerships with rainforest nations, and make it a condition of further funding for World Bank forest projects.
Secondly, the government should not raid the UK aid budget to pay for climate change projects. There have been alarming reports that the coalition is considering lifting the cap that Labour imposed on climate finance spending. We made our commitment so that money is not diverted from tackling international poverty. It is vital that the vast majority of the aid budget remains focused on tackling poverty and the government must make this clear.
Thirdly, the government should be pushing the EU to commit to a second period of the Kyoto protocol, which enshrines developed countries' responsibility to cut their emissions first and fastest. This would send an important signal to developing countries.
Fourthly we need do a lot more to build a clean energy economy in the UK. Tackling climate change isn't just about avoiding disaster – it's also ensuring we have a better way of life. Martin Luther King said "I have a dream" – not "I have a nightmare". We need a positive, comprehensive vision for the future. The coalition can start by protecting the feed-in tariff scheme and the renewable heat incentive, supporting the £60m ports competition to boost our offshore wind industry and announcing a green investment bank with public and private capital. They should also confirm that the four carbon capture and storage demonstration projects are going ahead. Unless we go ahead with these policies we will never achieve the greening of our energy supplies that we need and it will undermine the UK's reputation around the world for diplomatic and industrial leadership.
Finally, it is people demanding change that has, throughout history, changed the world. The global campaign at Copenhagen achieved a lot. We would never have had targets from so many countries and the agreement on finance without this sort of mobilisation. Now we need to reinvigorate the campaign for Cancún and beyond.
But government also has a duty to lead. Sadly, there is no sense of urgency. You can't be the "greenest government ever" by hoping global climate change will just go away. Now is the time to lead internationally and to stand up and push for the best possible outcome at Cancún. We can make a lot of progress on finance and forestry to lay the foundations for a treaty next year.
We must seize the moment to inspire people with a positive vision. The mission to create green jobs through clean energy and low-carbon manufacturing will be at the heart of my plans for the economy. The coalition's idea of a laissez-faire DIY state cannot achieve it. It requires determined action by government in partnership with people, driven by fairness. There are immediate challenges our country faces but the climate crisis is fundamental to the choices we have to make as a country in the years ahead. I will lead a Labour party prepared to rise to the challenge and to lead, in Britain and around the world.
Ed Miliband guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 September 2010 12.03 BST
It has been a tough six months for those that care about tackling climate change. Despite the disappointment of Copenhagen, for the first time there was agreement to limit warming to 2C and commit all major countries, including both the US and China, to reducing their emissions. But since then progress has stalled. The Obama administration has failed to pass any climate change legislation and there is no momentum building for the forthcoming summit in Cancún this November.
More than ever, Britain and the world need leadership. But our prime minister has been completely silent on the issue. He has decided not to chair the UN group on climate finance which is vital to getting to an agreement and there is no sign of any pressure on the EU or our international allies. Instead he opts for empty gestures, claming to be the "greenest government ever" while showing no leadership at all. We've had the huskies and the soundbites, but where is the resolve, the willingness to make tough choices and the plan to deliver?
I believe that climate change is the greatest global threat facing our generation. It demands leadership and resolve. It should be at the very heart of our plan for a successful economy, at the centre of our foreign policy and integral to our mission to change Britain. Britain needs a leader who understands this and can provide this leadership.
There are five steps that the government should be taking now.
Firstly, we should be pushing for agreements on finance and forestry at Cancún. Instead of cutting budgets for climate diplomacy the government should push the Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing to make immediate progress on long-term finance. Under Labour, the UK took the lead in arguing for a significant transfer of finance from the developed to the developing world. Ministers must be clear that private finance alone is not a credible solution to the problem – government intervention is essential. This is urgent. If the advisory group does not make progress it will lessen our chances of getting global financing up and running by 2013, which is what we need.
As well as action on finance there is no solution to the question of climate change without forestry. That is why the Labour government championed forest protection and pledged £480m to help it happen. But it is vital that this finance is used properly and puts the rights and needs of local communities first. The government should champion this approach in its partnerships with rainforest nations, and make it a condition of further funding for World Bank forest projects.
Secondly, the government should not raid the UK aid budget to pay for climate change projects. There have been alarming reports that the coalition is considering lifting the cap that Labour imposed on climate finance spending. We made our commitment so that money is not diverted from tackling international poverty. It is vital that the vast majority of the aid budget remains focused on tackling poverty and the government must make this clear.
Thirdly, the government should be pushing the EU to commit to a second period of the Kyoto protocol, which enshrines developed countries' responsibility to cut their emissions first and fastest. This would send an important signal to developing countries.
Fourthly we need do a lot more to build a clean energy economy in the UK. Tackling climate change isn't just about avoiding disaster – it's also ensuring we have a better way of life. Martin Luther King said "I have a dream" – not "I have a nightmare". We need a positive, comprehensive vision for the future. The coalition can start by protecting the feed-in tariff scheme and the renewable heat incentive, supporting the £60m ports competition to boost our offshore wind industry and announcing a green investment bank with public and private capital. They should also confirm that the four carbon capture and storage demonstration projects are going ahead. Unless we go ahead with these policies we will never achieve the greening of our energy supplies that we need and it will undermine the UK's reputation around the world for diplomatic and industrial leadership.
Finally, it is people demanding change that has, throughout history, changed the world. The global campaign at Copenhagen achieved a lot. We would never have had targets from so many countries and the agreement on finance without this sort of mobilisation. Now we need to reinvigorate the campaign for Cancún and beyond.
But government also has a duty to lead. Sadly, there is no sense of urgency. You can't be the "greenest government ever" by hoping global climate change will just go away. Now is the time to lead internationally and to stand up and push for the best possible outcome at Cancún. We can make a lot of progress on finance and forestry to lay the foundations for a treaty next year.
We must seize the moment to inspire people with a positive vision. The mission to create green jobs through clean energy and low-carbon manufacturing will be at the heart of my plans for the economy. The coalition's idea of a laissez-faire DIY state cannot achieve it. It requires determined action by government in partnership with people, driven by fairness. There are immediate challenges our country faces but the climate crisis is fundamental to the choices we have to make as a country in the years ahead. I will lead a Labour party prepared to rise to the challenge and to lead, in Britain and around the world.