Today something entirely different and I’m afraid not really BuilderScrap related. I saw a rather disturbing report in The Guardian regarding how to reduce my carbon footprint once dead! Should I really be concerned how much carbon is expended whilst they dispose of my body?

It transpires that cremation creates a large carbon footprint, whilst burial is equally damaging to the environment and is also too space consuming. Again I am still not sure that this is something that will concern many including myself, after all the carbon footprint of the dead is always going to be less than even the most eco minded living person.

However, one man has devoted his life to providing a low carbon solution to death. Scottish biochemist Sandy Sullivan has undertaken research in order to provide a solution which achieves what cremation can without the high carbon and mercury emissions, it is called Resomation.

He has developed a pressurised chamber which accelerates body decomposition as it would be in nature, the body is placed in the chamber with an alkaline solution which when heated will leave human remains as white ash within 3 hours. He claims that the method reduces the carbon footprint by four times that of cremation and even more disturbingly suggests that medical parts such as false hips will be left in pristine reusable condition. I think I will leave going to the doctors about that sore hip now.

Surely this is a step too far on ethical living….or dying as it is? I think I will leave it down to friends and family to decide my fate once dead, whether they choose burial, cremation or resomation is fine by me.

CRC or the Carbon Reduction Commitment is the latest government initiative to try to reduce the UK’s carbon consumption. The initiative requests that all companies using in excess of £500,000 of energy per year will need to register for the CRC. Those companies whom do not register will be hit with some fairly hefty fines.

The CRC commitments are designed to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions as well as raise awareness in the larger organisations especially at a senior level. In turn there is a hope for changes in behaviour and infrastructure.

These commitments began on the 1st of April, and saw Wall Engineering to be the pioneer, being the first to register. After the initial year there will be a league table complied from the data and those companies producing more carbon than the average will be forced to buy carbon credits. Initial reports indicate these will be at a cost of £12 per tonne of Carbon, but will fluctuate in an auction style process after a few years.

On the flip side companies producing less carbon than the average will be rewarded with the money from carbon credit refunded to these companies. These rewards and punishments are intended to create a competitive market for carbon usage with financial rewards possible.

This competitive edge may well stem beyond obvious financial gains with the positive PR which will surround companies that are actively taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint. In terms of construction companies this will be firm evidence of their environmental and social commitment and could well prove to be important when tendering for jobs.

Clients are now starting to demand more than just competitive prices, but also clear indications of a company’s environmental and social impacts. In order to remain competitive construction companies are going to need to continue to move in accordance with client demands.

BuilderScrap is currently working with CCI North West and Salford University to develop a carbon calculator, which can effectively measure the reductions in carbon through use of the BuilderScrap website.

The risks and implications from the Gibe III dam are huge and need to be considered more thoroughly. The director of the International River’s Africa Program, Terri Hathaway has said “Gibe III is the most destructive dam under construction in Africa. The project will condemn half a million of the region’s most vulnerable people to hunger and conflict”, there is a lot of truth in her predictions. The dam will help to reduce flooding and whilst on the surface this sounds like a positive effect, for many of the people living in the Lower Omo Valley this would be disastrous. 100,000 indigenous Ethiopian farmers rely on the annual floods, after which they plant seeds along the river banks fertilized by the flood waters (flood retreat cultivation). The floods also nourish land which the farmers use to graze livestock during the dry season, without this their land would all be dry and unable to sustain animals for long.  All of this contributes to the trade between the indigenous people who rely on trading left over food and livestock to trade with other tribes.  The threat of violence is thus increased as the amount of fertile land is reduced, people could turn to violence as they see their land diminishing.  The Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, has said that the dam “enables us to store water and regulate the flooding”  and though we have seen proposals to create an artificial flood in response to these issues, the plans are inadequate. Plans are to cause an artificial flood lasting ten days; however the natural floods build up over several months before reaching its peak. Surely it is naïve to think that an artificial flood of such a dramatically smaller time period would reach all areas and have the same affect as a flood which has been building up for months. Whilst it could be said that some effort is being made to rectify these problems, it is certainly safe to say that not enough is being done.  The reservoir itself will cause a number of problems, including the increased threat of mosquitoes carrying malaria who will look to the 150 km reservoir as a breeding ground.

Repercussions of the Ethiopian dam will reverberate down to Kenya, mainly affecting Lake Turkana and those that rely on the lake for their resources.  The Omo River’s flow into the Lake Turkana will be seriously reduced leading to a drop in the river by 10 meters. Particularly as it as been predicted that the reservoir will take approximately two years to fill, cutting the inflow from River Omo to Lake Turkana by 50 %.  This reduction will also lead to an increased salinity making the water undrinkable; affecting many of the inhabitants of the lake, including hundreds of species unique to Lake Turkana, in turn harming the fishing industry and the 100,000 local people depending on the source of fish.  

Surely it is impossible to deny that Dam Gibe III will distress thousands of lives as the evidence is impressive.  However, it seems that the Prime Minister of Ethiopia still denies the ruthless implications the dam means for life in both Ethiopia and Kenya, in fact he is quoted to have rejected fears that some 500,000 people could see their livelihoods destroyed.  It seems that the proof against his allegation is insurmountable whilst the evidence his own scientists have provided is weak and half hearted at best.  Whilst the Ethiopian government should not abandon the dam altogether, after all the money that has been poured into the project it would be a shame to see it wasted, work should be brought to a stop until the government can come with plausible and effective answers to all the problems they have so far refused to recognize. Mihert Debeba, head of Electricity Corporation is quoted saying “Should we stay in darkness?” The answer is no, however much more planning and research was needed before the Government through money, time and effort into this dam.  The need for electricity is undeniable, the need for the Omo river to continue its natural path so that the indigenous peoples of the Lower Omo Valley can carry on with their lives with as little disruption as possible is paramount.

To show your support please visit:
http://www.internationalrivers.org
http://www.stopgibe3.org

Having begun construction in 2006 the colossal dam, Gibe III in Ethiopia is still receiving mixed reviews.  In my opinion, those who are pro dam, understandably, seems to be those who will benefit most from the surge of electricity and those who are working on the project.  In first world countries electricity is a basic luxury denied to no one, another part of life that people expect and no longer notice, power cuts are a great inconvenience and for weeks after people will still be grumbling over work lost or television programme’s missed. However there are still millions who live daily without electricity, to these people it is a distant dream. Having never had what we take for granted they strive toward it when the opportunity is given. It is impossible for us to judge those who want and need electricity, but when that electricity comes at the price of human life can we stand back and say nothing? Gibe III would certainly provide electricity in Ethiopia with enough to begin exporting the power to neighbouring countries, 1,800 megawatts of electricity . In this way the dam would provide electricity and also a source of income. It is impossible to deny, however, that the dam which could change lives in such a positive way will also have dramatically negative affects on hundreds of thousands of lives.

There are intrigues and questions surrounding the run up to the project which are still left unanswered. Why did the government fail to conduct a feasibility study? Why were Italian company, Salini Costruttori granted a no bid contract? Furthermore, why was the work begun without an environment and social impact assessment? It was two years after work began before a study (declaring the build fit to continue) was released and there have been strong speculations that the document was biased and failed to recognise the severe risks the development threatens. In their rush to get the project underway economic, technical, environmental and social risk assessments were neglected. Importantly, there was no study into the effects of climate change which could severely alter the dam’s performance over its lifespan. It seems extremely backward that years after the project was begun, reports and assessments are finally being written, this in fact violates Ethiopian environmental law which states that prior to the commencement of construction work an impact assessment must be provided.  Known ecologist Richard Leakey has been studying the dam himself and has outlined the problems the project will cause.  Twolde Berhan Gebre who heads the Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed Leakey’s reports, saying “My experts have also examined it. They had studied the environmental impact statements. They have visited the site and I know them. I don’t know you. I trust them and I don’t care what you say.”  Sounds like someone more eager to clear their own reputation than in the welfare of his fellow Ethiopians.  Furthermore, only 93 members from four downstream indigenous communities were consulted and even this occurred in 2007, after work had begun. Despite that the project began in 2006 there has been very little local media coverage until recently after critical international coverage began to emerge in March 2009.  Could it not therefore be argued that those running the project expected bad press and negative feelings from the local people? 

Part two to follow.