Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Combustible Fósil. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Combustible Fósil. Mostrar todas las entradas

domingo, 13 de abril de 2014

Ingeniero de petróleos explica sequía en Casanare


El profesor de hidrocarburos de la Universidad Industrial de Santander mostró con videos la responsabilidad de las empresas petroleras en la tragedia ecológica del norte de Casanare.

El ingeniero de petróleos con máster en hidrocarburos, Óscar Vanegas aseguro que la mortandad de más de 20 mil chigüiros y otras especies por la sequía en Paz de Ariporo, Casanare, no es un problema solo del cambio climático o del a siembra de la palma.

Según él, la responsabilidad la tienen las petroleras cuando sacan el crudo del suelo. Vanegas, asegura que en la sísmica la forma para detectar petróleo, se utilizan hasta 10 kilos de explosivos SISMIGEL, que al explotar dentro del a tierra, su onda dice donde hay crudo.

Explicó el profesor de la Universidad Industrial de Santander –UIS- que cuando se saca el petróleo, de paso se está extrayendo miles de litros agua que están por debajo de la tierra, provocando daños colaterales.

Vanegas, dijo que en el 2012, campesinos y ambientalistas registraron como era como era Paz de Ariporo antes de la extracción de crudo.

El profesor aseguró que muchas veces los operarios de las petroleras no tapan donde se produjo la explosión, creando una tierra movediza, convirtiéndose en trampa para los animales.

Óscar Venegas, dijo que es urgente una legislación sobre la política de petróleos o en 50 años no solamente Paz de Ariporo será un desierto.

ORIGINAL: Noticias UNO
Marzo 30, 2014

viernes, 13 de diciembre de 2013

Slam Shell 2013 - Giant Oil Spill

SLAM SHELL!

RESPONSIBILITY IS SOMETHING ELSE
On December 11th, 2013, Shell opened the doors to the Science Slam, hoping to present young scientists` ideas about renewable energies and bolster their public image of corporate responsibility. They definitely did not expect this.

WHAT`S SO BAD ABOUT SHELL?
They consciously create socio-ecological damage and show no real commitment to changing this. They work hard to make it look like they care about the impact of their endless quest for oil, distracting the public with showy PR events like the Science Slam. This is called Greenwashing. It is the opposite of responsibility. Taking actual responsibility would be Shell cleaning up its mess and taking action to prevent further damage. Taking responsibility would mean not fulfilling plans to drill in the Arctic.

HOW DOES SHELL DO GREENWASHING?
Add caption
Every day in Nigeria, approximately 350,000 liters of oil are spilled, destroying the livelihood of much of the population. Shell pays off warlords and corrupt governments to continue drilling there. The corporation is the worldwide biggest producer of CO2 and other chemicals damaging the world`s climate. In Europe, it tries to divert attention from the harm it causes elsewhere, producing campaigns like the "Eco Marathon". It props up the contemporary myth that technology will solve our global problems. It is about time this company started taking responsibility for its actions.

This action is by Peng! Collective. If you want to see more actions ilke this, donate to the group. They pull off creative and subversive pranks, causing trouble in politics and business.

Corporate responsibility is something else
Slam Shell! Activists hijack the oil giant's greenwashing event in Berlin. With an ingenious prank, a local group reminded Shell that their plan to drill in the Arctic is potentially disastrous for the environment. Holding 'Green' conferences and pretending to support renewable energies is not good enough.

These activists may not have the money Shell has. They may only have a 300 euro budget for what should be a 3 million dollar campaign, but they have a passion and they will not stand by and watch while companies like Shell continue to do what they want, at the expense of our environment.

If you want more videos like this one, more direct action, please visit the website www.SlamShell.com, inform yourself and donate to cover the costs of the stunts.

Made by Peng! Collective - www.peng-collective.net
with a little help of Leftvision - www.leftvision.de

----------------------------------------­------------------------


ORIGINAL: Slam Shell
Dec 12, 2013

lunes, 25 de noviembre de 2013

Alien Squid Footage Surfaces

(ANIMAL NEWS/OCEANS DISCOVERY) Rare video footage (from 2007) of an unusual squid has the Internet in a frenzy over alien conspiracy theories. The squid in question is a 26-foot-long Magnapinna squid, one of the most curious-looking ocean dwellers.

The squid was recorded by a remotely-operated underwater vehicle (ROV) in the Gulf of Mexico. The footage shows the rarely seen mysterious squid displaying its floor-length tentacles. Read on to find out more about this fascinating alien-like creature and watch the footage in the video clip below. — Global Animal
The Magnapinna squid was recorded by a remotely operated
underwater vehicle in the Gulf of Mexico. Photo credit: Shell Oil

Daily Mail, Victoria Woollaston

Lurking deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico is a species of squid that wouldn’t look out of place in a sci-fi thriller.

The Mangapinna squid, sometimes referred to as the bigfin or long-arm squid, is around 26ft in length with thin elastic tentacles thought to be between 15 to 20 times larger than the squid’s body.

Adult bigfins have never been captured or sampled but rare video footage recorded by the Shell Oil company reveals their alien-like behaviour.

The footage was captured using a remotely operated underwater vehicle known as an ROV.

Shell Oil, along with other companies, uses the vehicles to study the water around its oil rigs and this particular recording was filmed in the Gulf of Mexico in the Perdido Area of Alaminos Canyon.

The rare sighting of the squid was discovered at a depth of more than 7,800 ft back in November 2007.

Shell oil has a rig located 200 miles off the coast of Houston, Texas.

Mangapinna squids were first discovered in 1907 but it wasn’t until 1988 that the first footage of the bizarre creatures were caught on camera by a submersible off the coast of Brazil.

Ten years later a Japanese submersible called Shinkai 6500 filmed another long-armed squid in the Indian Ocean south of Mauritius.

Photo credit: Shell Oil
The majority of other sightings have been in various canyons in the Gulf of Mexico.

A squid spotted in 2000 was thought to have been around 23ft long.

However, more recent sightings have estimated lengths in excess of 26ft.

Aside from their overall lengths, the arms and the tentacles of the Mangapinna squid are the same length and look identical.

Squids traditionally have two shorter arms and eight longer tentacles.
These ten appendages of the Mangapinna are also often held at right angles to the body, or mantle, which gives them the appearance of having elbows.

The arms and tentacles are said to stretch up to 20 times longer than the mantle while the fins are larger than other species and in some sightings were around 90 per cent as big.

It is thought the squids use their long arms to grab or trap food along the floor of the ocean, although this has never been seen in action.

Watch the squid footage in the video below.


ORIGINAL: Global Animal
By Sonia Horon 
November 21, 2013

sábado, 21 de septiembre de 2013

miércoles, 28 de agosto de 2013

Greenpeace: www.SaveTheArctic.org: Shell Protest Stunt Video Removed By YouTube At Request Of F1 Officials [VIDEO]

ORIGINAL: International Business Times
August 27 2013
Environmental activist group Greenpeace performed a few protest stunts at the Formula One Grand Prix in Belgium. Vimeo/Greenpeace




Greenpeace activists spoiled the fun with an unexpected surprise at an award ceremony at the Formula One Grand Prix race hosted at the Circuit de Sap-Francorchamps race course in Belgium on Sunday.

A Greenpeace activist hangs above the podium of the Belgian F1 Grand Prix in Spa Francorchamps Reuters
The environmental activist group set up four remote controlled car antennas in front of the victory ceremony stage that raised a banner with a Shell (NYSE:RDS.A) logo edited together with the face of a polar bear and a web URL (SaveTheArctic.org). A Formula One official present at the event was seen trying to break down the banner. As soon as he was able to break down the first banner, another one rose from the front of the stand. Greenpeace performed the stunt as part of a larger protest against Shell’s plans to drill for oil in the Artic.

Greenpeace activists were also seen at the event, unfurling a larger banner bearing the tagline “Arctic oil? Shell no!”

A Greenpeace activist hangs from the main grandstand during the Belgian F1 Grand Prix in Spa-Francorchamps Reuters
According to Greenpeace, the video of the event on YouTube was allegedly taken down through a Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice sent by Formula One organizers.


Watch the video of the award ceremony above.

miércoles, 24 de julio de 2013

11 Reasons to Divest from the Fossil Fuel Industry

July 23, 2013

A future without oil, coal, and gas companies is being forged by individual, institutional and religious investors
Image via Stefan Bumbeck/7dvt.com)There is a robust debate happening in university halls, around religious congregations, and at individual kitchen tables nationwide. The driving question: Should we divest from the fossil fuel industry?
Whether you are a college student, a trustee of a religious or educational institution, or an individual with a retirement fund, this is a relevant question for you.

Earlier this year, several community organizations in Boston, including the Institute for Policy Studies’ Jamaica Plain Forum, held a community forum in Boston to discuss the moral and practical issues of divesting from fossil fuel companies as a strategy to combat climate change.

The forum, viewable here, brought together those with expertise in 
  • finance, 
  • community organizing, 
  • social justice, and 
  • policy 
to address questions surrounding the basic nature of fossil fuel divestment as well as its implications for our investments and our world. Some of the questions we debated were: 
  • Is divestment meaningful? 
  • Can we exert leverage over energy companies by retaining the leverage of ownership? 
  • Would divestment reduce the investment returns required to sustain our institutions and income needs?
Our view is that our current economy, based on insatiable extraction and consumption, is simply unsustainable – for the planet as well as for us. Powerful fossil fuel corporations exercise an undue influence on environmental and economic policy, thwarting our ability to adopt sane and far-sighted energy policies. Here's what we found:

1. We Did the Climate Change Math: Now We Must Act
We must compel the 200 largest fossil fuel corporations to keep 80% of their carbon assets “in the ground.” Extracting and burning these reserves of oil, coal and gas would raise the earth’s temperature over 2 degrees centigrade, unleashing climate catastrophe. [Read: Rolling Stone, Bill McKibben, “Global Warming's Terrifying New Math”]

2. Time to Choose Sides: We Must Raise the Cost of Extracting and Burning Carbon

If we succeed in averting climate catastrophe, it will be because we have succeeded in raising the cost of fossil fuels and forcing the industry to internalize its real costs to society and the environment. This will lower the profitability of the sector – and lower returns for investors. Our cities, congregations, and universities should not be in a position where we are rooting for the fossil fuel industry to win. It isn’t right that the value of a sector doesn’t reflect its impact on the earth and society. In the long-term, destroying the planet doesn’t help us boost our investment returns.

Additional Reading:

Bill McKibben: Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math

Dirty Energy Money: Challenging Dirty Energy's Dominance Of Our Democracy

Carbon Tracker: Unburnable Carbon: Are global financial markets carrying a carbon bubble?

Naomi Klein: Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free

Northstar Asset Management: The Cost of Fossil Fuel Divestment Has Been Greatly Exaggerated

Aperio Group: Do the Investment Math: Building a Carbon-Free Portfolio

Jamaica Plain Forum: May 13th Boston panel on divestment

Price of Oil: Exposing the True Costs of Fossil Fuels

New York Times: Room for Debate: Is Divestment an Effective Means of Protest?

It will take more than just divestment: Does Divestment Work? - Harvard Institute of Politics

Cities divesting: San Fransisco, Seattle … & Boston?

ACTIVIST ORGANIZATIONS

As You Sow - Environmental and Social Corporate Responsibility

Community-based and socially- responsible investing:
Sprout Lenders & Common Capital:

350.org

Oil Change International

Responsible Endowments Coalition


3. We Are All Responsible for Carbon Pollution, But the Fossil Fuel Industry Has a Disproportionate Responsibility for Climate Change

While each of us should take personal responsibility for reducing our individual carbon usage, the fossil fuel industry has disproportionate responsibility for climate change. Many of us would like to have lower carbon lifestyles, but we’re systemically blocked from doing so via the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry uses their considerable financial and political power to rig the rules to block regulation, block sane energy policy, extract taxpayer subsidies, thwart renewables, and limit consumer choice. They are writing government policies and fundamentally distorting our democracy. The industry is institutionally caught in a short-term system, where their economic interests are aligned with destroying the planet. If we had a carbon tax, innovation and development would be pushed towards energy efficiency. [See: Oil Change International's Dirty Energy Money index.]

4. Fossil Fuel Profitability is Based on Rigging Our Political Systems

The profitability of the fossil fuel sector is based on their ability to politically influence and rig the system and shift the real costs associated with their industry onto society. The externalities that they shift include:
  • environmental pollution, 
  • worker health and safety, 
  • cost of military deployment in oil-producing regions, 
  • negative health impacts, 
  • global climate change, and 
  • political corruption. 
 If fossil fuel companies had to absorb the true costs of these externalities, the industry would be transformed—and would probably likely focus first on energy conservation and sustainable energy sourcing before further extraction. Their dependence on political rules makes them a risky and volatile sector as investments. When their political clout diminishes, as we hope it will, they will become less profitable. [See: Oil Change International]
5. Investment Returns in Fossil Fuels Will Inevitably Decline

Over the last 20 years, the fossil fuel energy sector has been among the most profitable of all sectors. For a variety of reasons, including those described above, this will not remain true. As policy makers start pushing back, they will eliminate government subsidies for fossil fuel, as President Obama has proposed. They will pass laws requiring fossil fuel producers to be more responsible for their negative environmental and social impacts. There is also growing evidence that the assets of fossil fuel industries are greatly over-valued. And, if we are successful, many fossil fuel companies will have “stranded assets,” reserves that will not be tapped. When the real value of carbon holdings is adjusted downward, billions in shareholder wealth will evaporate. [See: Carbon Tracker]

6. Divesting from Fossil Fuels Will Not Negatively Impact Return

Investors are understandably concerned that their investments will earn less money if they eliminate profitable fossil fuel corporations. It may not be prudent to sell off securities with large capital gains all at once; individuals and investors should get professional advice on the best divestment strategy. Some institutions have long-term relationships with trusted investment advisors who have helped their investments grown. It is not ungrateful or unprofessional to direct these advisors to gradually divest from dirty energy and reinvest in socially responsible alternatives. Beware, however, of advisors who tell you it can’t be done or predict huge losses overtime.

It is conventional investment wisdom that if you narrow the breadth of your investments—and fossil fuel securities are approximately 10 percent of the public equities market—that you increase risk. But there is plenty of expertise in the “socially responsible investment” field as to how to divest and design an investment portfolio that will still earn comparable returns. Industry professionals are working now to design “fossil fuel free” investment portfolios and mutual funds.

7. The Fossil Fuel Sector Will Not Reform Itself

The fossil fuel industry will only reform when we change the rules that shape their marketplace and operations. This can be accomplished through regulation and taxation. Instituting a robust carbon tax, phased in over several years and with offsets to address its regressivity, would signal huge market shifts. Many thoughtful people believe we should stay invested in fossil fuel corporations to have leverage with them and engage with them. This has not worked.

8. Support the Movement and an 'Outside Strategy'

Selling stocks in fossil fuel companies may not drive down stock prices or even devalue the industry since other buyers will purchase those stocks. Regardless, the goal of the dirty energy divestment fight is to change public dialogue and society’s lifestyle, not stock prices. A traditional approach has been inside: engaging with the company and using our ownership stake to press the company to reform. This hasn’t worked. To send a strong message, we need to sever our ties to this sector and make these companies moral pariahs, similar to how the public treated tobacco companies.

Thankfully, there is a radical edge emerging to avert climate catastrophe. The “inside” strategy of working with the fossil fuel industry to reform itself is not moving fast enough. The new “outside strategy” activists are calling out the historic environmental groups who have compromised themselves into irrelevance. They are calling out Wall Street—those interested in only their own private gain at the expense of society and the earth. They are upping the ante in terms of direct action, civil disobedience along with traditional organizing and electoral politics. The call for divestment is part of this movement. [See: 350.org]

9. Engaged Shareholder: You Can Still Work the "Inside Strategy" If You Want

Some institutional investors argue that they can change the behavior of the fossil fuel industry by retaining ownership of corporate shares and being engaged investors. Institutions or individuals that want to actively engage in shareholder activism—introducing social issue resolutions— should retain the $2,000 of stock that enables them to introduce resolutions, as Greenpeace and the Institute for Policy Studies do. Ownership is only one source of leverage, however. We should engage as full stakeholders—citizens, employees, consumers, communities, and moral actors.

10. The Moral Question Is Why Should Any Institution or Individual Stay Invested: This Is an Abolitionist Cause

Divestment is not primarily simply an economic strategy, but also a moral and political one. If slavery is wrong, is it wrong to make a profit from it? If Apartheid is wrong, is it wrong to make a profit from it? “If it is wrong to wreck the planet, then it is wrong to profit from it.” [See: The Boston Phoenix, Wen Stephenson, “The New Abolitionists”]

11. We Can Divest from Fossil Fuels and Invest in the New Economy

The next 20 years will be unlike the last 50 years. We are entering a stage of discontinuity thanks to ecological and economic change. We are in a transition to a new economy—based on an entirely different set of assumptions about energy and the future source of livelihoods. We need to shift capital investment away from the dinosaur economy and towards the sustainable and just new economy. Compared to the limited, risky, corrupt and unethical fossil fuel sector, there is a wide range of socially responsible investment opportunities with comparable returns for individuals, religious institutions, and other institutions. [See: New Economy Working Group]

Conclusion: We Should Divest from Fossil Fuels and Invest in the New Economy

There is no good reason why we should remain invested in the fossil fuel industries, not when we can continue to powerfully advocate with corporations and maintain sufficient returns. We can and should find ways to shift our investment capital to the socially and environmentally attuned institutions and enterprises of the new economy.

Written with assistance from Jonah Reider.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License



Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good (www.inequality.org), and the author of the new book, 99 to 1: How Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do about It. Chuck is also a co-founder of Wealth for the Common Good, a network of business leaders, high-income households and partners working together to promote shared prosperity and fair taxation.He is co-author of The Moral Measure of the Economy and with Bill Gates Sr. of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes

viernes, 19 de julio de 2013

Biofuels: How Research Has Evolved with Government Policy

ORIGINAL: OBR Review
17th July 2013

It has been more than 20 years since the UN framework convention on climate change was ratified by over 150 countries, and in 2008 the UK was the first to establish a legally binding climate change target; to cut greenhouse gases in the UK by 80% by 2050 (1990 baseline). [1] Arguably the most visible response to the daunting task has been the widespread adoption of a ‘Green Mindset,’ leading to more economical energy usage in the home, but there is still a greater need for more complex strategies to replace the non-renewable fossil fuels that power cars and industry. For example, energy consumers in the home contribute to just 15% of total UK carbon emissions, whereas fossil fuel consumption in the energy supply and transport sectors is responsible for an estimated 40% and 24% of the total, respectively (2012 figures). [2] It is in this respect that biofuels may prove a cleaner alternative.

Green Biotech research is now offering new opportunities to replace increments of petrol or diesel with bio-based fuels, the first generation of which has likely been a contributor to an estimated 19% reduction in UK carbon emissions between 1990-2012, as published by government earlier this year. With further advances in Green Biotechnology, it is anticipated that a new generation of biofuels could eventually replace petroleum-based fuels entirely.

First generation bio-based fuels: still a candidate for a cleaner climate? 
Field of Rapeseed
The production of new sustainable fuels has reverted to an age-old strategy, to use biomass, for energy generation. The process of burning wood for heat dates back to prehistory, now combustion of first generation fuels derived from crops such as corn or rapeseed has appeared in the transport energy production pipeline.

Ethanol, which can be chemically extracted from corn, was first established as a viable automotive fuel in the early 20th century. Two centuries earlier, Rudolf Diesel proposed pure vegetable oils could drive agricultural vehicles. The difference between then and now is that the greater need for greener fuels is driving improvements on the methodology, scale, and efficiency by which ethanol can be extracted from crops or vegetable oils and converted into fatty acid alkyl esters, i.e. modern biodiesel. Nonetheless, biodiesel is costly to produce, pushing further rises to energy prices, and to date, biofuels are mostly inferior in energy to petroleum-based fuels, which are chemically optimal for internal combustion. [3]

Despite their disadvantages, there is still a market for first generation biofuels, which is perhaps driven by an absence of other commercially available alternatives, and by UK government policy. For example, the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation requires transport fuel suppliers to supplement conventional petrol or diesel with at least 5% renewable fuel.

The impetus to extrapolate the production of crop-derived fuel is however somewhat questionable economically; biofuel and food crop production rely on the same agriculturally available land. [4] In 1999, it had been estimated that agriculture already occupied nearly a third of global land surface, [5] and as the global population continues to grow, inevitably so too will demand for food and energy, intensifying competition for land space. It is hardly surprising that in January 2013, a EU proposal was announced to revise the ‘Renewable Energy Directive’, capping food crop-based biofuel supplements at 5% by 2020. [6]

Advanced bio-based fuels: microbes as candidates for fuel production

An exploration of unconventional hosts and previously unknown metabolic biology has yielded new possibilities for advanced bio-based fuels. Microbes that can feed off degraded wood, crop residues, grasses, and other plant waste are considered gold-dust for second generation biofuel research. By metabolising non-food plant feedstock, certain microbes can create ethanol fuel as a fermentation by-product of the natural biochemical pathway. [4]

Yeast has for eons produced ethanol from the break down of simple sugars in the creation of bread, beer and wine. Though alike to other traditional model organisms, Baker’s yeast lacks the specific glycosidase enzymes that metabolise complex cellulosic waste into fermentable, glucose-like sugars. Relationships between specific glycosidases and their cellulosic substrates are also often incompletely characterised, leaving less room to supply microbes with the optimal ‘missing’ enzymes. [7]

Studies of ‘unconventional’ organisms have laid down a framework for engineering a suitable host for microbial biofuel production. Through the action of specific glycosidases, the bacterium Clostridium cellulolyticum was found capable of producing low yields of ethanol from rice straw. [8] More unusually, in an American Chemical Society meeting this year, fungi present in the faeces of horses was highlighted as a potential treasure-trove of cellulase enzymes, which allow the fungi to flourish on lignin-rich grass and release fermentable sugars for horse digestion. [9] A DNA sequencing study on the Limnoriid wood borer has also revealed a transcriptome swamped with putative cellulose-degrading enzyme-encoding genes. [10]

Unconventional hosts are not easy to manipulate in industry, whereas engineering well-established hosts with newly characterised glycosidase-encoding genes may be the key to commercialising microbial fuel production. Processes that exploit yeast and E. coli are already scaled-up to provide populations with many products, such as food and antibiotics. Artificially adapting the glycosidase enzymes by mutagenesis or over-expression may also produce higher specific activities and higher ethanol yields. [4]

The work of University of Exeter-based Professor John Love may well prove a remarkable turning point demonstrating widespread potential in the microbe biofuel field. Ethanol is an incomparable replacement for energy-dense petroleum-based fuels. The existence of a carbon-neutral and exact substitute for fossil fuels is, in natural terms, unlikely. Using modern synthetic biology technologies, Professor Love’s research group, funded by Shell and the BBSRC, was able to manipulate E. coli bacteria to convert glucose to a near-chemical replica of conventional diesel. In a paper published by PNAS earlier this year, the group note further work will entail the synthesis of novel metabolic pathways to enable E. coli to metabolise non-food plant feedstock3.

Advanced bio-based fuels: a future commercial reality?
With biological advances, microbes may well have potential, but the cost of research into de-carbonising the planet must first be met should these few first solid steps into what could be a commercial reality be extended. To chase towards that 2050 UK target, research into a whole range of innovative solutions for large-scale carbon-neutral energy could be the most realistic way forward.

References
  1. GOV.UK. Reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. [online] (updated 13 June 2013) Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-the-uk-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-80-by-2050 [Accessed 25 June 2013]
  2. GOV.UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2013. Statistical Release, 2012 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Provisional Figures. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193414/280313_ghg_national_statistics_release_2012_provisional.pdf [Accessed 25 June 2013]
  3. Howard, T. P., Middelhaufe, S., Moore, K., Edner, C., Kolak, D.M., Taylor, G.N., Parker, D.A., Lee, R., Smirnoff, N., Aves, S. J., Love, J. (2013) ‘Synthesis of customized petroleum-replica fuel molecules by targeted modification of free fatty acid pools in Escherichia coli’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 (19), pp. 7636-7641.
  4. Ruffing, A. M., 2013. Metabolic engineering of hydrocarbon biosynthesis for biofuel production. In: Z. Fang, ed. 2013. Liquid, gaseous and solid biofuels – conversion techniques. InTech. Ch.8
  5. Hurtt, C. G., Chini L. P., Froling, S., Betts, R. A., Feddema, J., Fischer, G., Fisk, J. P., Hibbard, K., Houghton, R. A., Janetos, A., Jones, C. D., Kindermann, G., Kinoshita, T., Goldewijk, K. K., Riahi, K., Shevliakova, E., Smith, S., Stehfest, E., Thomson, A., Thornton, P., van Vuuren, D. P., Wang, Y. P., 2011. Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Climatic Change, 109, pp. 117-161.
  6. European Commission. Biofuels – Land Use Change. [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/land_use_change_en.htm [Accessed June 27 2013]
  7. Yang, B., Dai, Z., Ding, S., Wyman, C.E., 2011. Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic biomass. Biofuels, 2 (4), pp. 421-450.
  8. Williams, K., Zheng, Y., McGarvey, J., Fan, Z., Zhang, R., 2013. Ethanol and volatile fatty acid production from lignocellulose by Clostridium cellulolyticum. ISRN Biotechnology, 2013.
  9. American Chemical Society (ACS), 2013. Enzymes from horse feces could hold secrets to streamlining biofuel production. [online] Available at: http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2013/april/enzymes-from-horse-feces-could-hold-secrets-to-streamlining-biofuel-production.html [Accessed 26 June 2013]
  10. King, A. J., Cragg, S. M., Li, Y., Dymond, J., Guille, M. J., Bowles, D. J., Bruce, N. C., Graham, I. A., McQueen-Mason, S. J., 2010. Molecular insight into lignocellulose digestion by a marine isopod in the absence of gut microbes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107 (12), pp. 5345-5350.


This post was written by: Ami Day View author bio

viernes, 12 de julio de 2013

Biomimicry: Mother Nature as a 3D Printer?

ORIGINAL: Triple Pundit
By Tamsin Woolley-Barker, Ph.D
July 11th, 2013
Last month, over 350 bio-inspired futurists from all over the world came together to ask how humans can learn from the rest of nature to create conditions conducive to Life. Not just sustainable economies, cities, and production systems, but a fundamentally new way of life that creates abundance, just as coral reefs and rainforests do. Welcome to the first Biomimicry 3.8 Global Conference, at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.

As I posted last week, the Conference’s opening day focused on “Generous Cities.“ These are urban environments that operate as regenerative ecosystems, actually improving the air, water, and land. On the Conference’s second day, that focus deepened and shifted away from buildings and cities, to the logistics of getting it done. “How would nature actually design the materials we need to build these cities?” Because, “at the end of the day,” said green chemist John C. Warner, “we can only make products that are as sustainable as the building blocks we make them with.”

We humans tend to solve each problem by creating a new polymer or plastic, none of which co-evolved with creatures to eat them. The result is that our “solutions” end up littering the Earth in perpetuity. Alternately, with all the cheap fossilized carbon lying around for us, it’s easy to apply energy to the problem: just plug it in and power it up! Unfortunately, burning yesterday’s carbon is changing the chemistry of our atmosphere faster than its inhabitants can adapt to it.

How would nature manufacture it?
Contrast our “plug-in/plastic” approach with that of our fellow Earthlings. Not having figured out how to eat fossils, they are on a pretty tight budget. They can only burn what they eat, and they have to make solutions from their own bodies or things they find around them. This leads to low-cost, highly-efficient structural solutions that use a handful of polymers, respond to the environment in adaptive ways, and can be broken down and reused by other creatures. This kind of problem-solving results in the highly interconnected and incredibly rich web of collaborative interdependence we call Life.

The flaccid sea cucumber, for instance, instantly goes rigid as a kevlar jacket, simply by changing the orientation of tiny cellulose “whiskers” in its gelatinous tissues. Likewise, tiny pores on the leaves of plants open up gracefully, breathing carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, then clamp shut minutes later to conserve precious water. The action is passive, triggered by changes in light, carbon dioxide concentrations, and water availability.
Learn from the ostrich egg  
Tom McKeag, editor of the beautifully-designed and award-winning bio-inspired digital magazine, Green Chemistry, set the stage for the idea of “regenerative manufacturing.” In a thought-provoking workshop called “Learning from the Ostrich Egg,” he presented the participants with a huge but humble marvel of engineering and clean design. What can our designers, material scientists, and architects learn from the egg? McKeag described its contradictory functional requirements. The egg must be strong enough to survive a precipitous drop from a very tall bird, then break apart for the tiny chick to hatch. It must be easily turned by the parent, but not roll away. Waste gases escape, but nourishing fluids remain. All these things and more are accomplished, using very few materials, all locally sourced and recyclable. The egg’s contradictory specifications, said McKeag, are what drive innovation and exquisitely efficient design.

3D printing revolution

The highlight of the day was a riveting presentation by MIT Media Lab Director Neri Oxman. Named one of Fast Company’s 100 Most Creative People, Oxman’s talk captivated the audience. She is at the forefront of the 3D printing revolution, looking to create synthetic “smart” materials that act as natural ones do. In nature, said Oxman, bones thicken in response to force, leaves grow toward light, and trees branches are shaped by wind. Why not a wrist splint that adapts to where you feel pain? Why not a lounge chair that shapes to your body and adjusts to your weight? With 3D printing, these possibilities become real.

A quick glance at an industrial manufacturing catalog will tell you that engineers like to assemble bits and parts. But that’s not how nature builds. Instead, living systems use a stripped-down palette of self-assembling materials that act in dramatically different ways with simple structural changes at the nano-, micro-, or macro level. The soft skin on your face, for instance, is not the same as the nasty stuff on the soles of your feet. An antelope’s hair, hooves, and horns are all made of keratin, but each does a quite different thing. We can do this with our materials too. What about printing with fiber optics to produce light-emitting objects? Or making a pair of glasses as a single piece that varies in transparency, rather than a separate frame and lenses?

But, said Oxman, our 3D printing technology has limitations. First, our feedstock is primarily non-structural plastic resin. Does it have to be? Not at all. The material can be whatever we decide it is as a society. Second, the size of the printing “frame” or gantry currently limits the size of the object. But what if we could scan and print freeform, using drones or robot arms? Third, current printers accrete horizontal layers, but living tissues build themselves organically, in three dimensions. How can we transcend our technology? Oxman’s team at MIT’s Mediated Matter set out to circumvent these limitations by developing the first freeform 3D printer, playing with different materials, and doing extensive digital consideration of desired objects. The result is a truly remarkable artistic vision of a not-so-distant, but radically transformative, future of “Making.”
Silk Pavilion

But as tantalizing as their findings were, Oxman said, the team remained frustrated by their primitive tools. Suddenly, she said, they hit on domesticated silkworms as living 3D printers, and the question became, “How would nature design a 3D printer?” They studied the “simple rules” used by silkworms in determining where and how to lay down silk, built a Buckminster Fuller-inspired geodesic dome scaffolding to elicit the desired responses, and released 6500 Bombina moryx silkworms. The worms “printed” the beautiful Silk Pavilion now hanging in the MIT Media Lab lobby, with “smart” variations in density and patchiness responding to light and substrate, consciously elicited by the team. In essence, the silkworm is a combined biocomputer and freeform printer, programmed by its DNA, printing with a biodegradable (and lovely) material, produced on-site simply by feeding the silkworms.

When asked what the future holds, Oxman lit up. She suggested that we could print objects perfectly designed by the requirements of a space itself. We could print with carbon nanotubules, effectively making a 4D printer that produces objects that adapt over time. This material would be “alive,” responding to light, heat, force, or humidity to create “smart” objects that adjust automatically to their environment. Or, she suggested, we could print large structures, like homes and bridges, using variable-density concrete to provide extra strength where it is needed and conserve material where it is not. She floated the possibility of changing the “printing material” or the “simple rules” of production through genetic engineering (like having silkworms print with spiderweb), or using other “living printers” like spiders, mushroom mycelium, vines, or corals. Could we cultivate self-assembling underwater structures from CO2, just as corals do today? The printers of the future could be robots inspired by these organisms, or something else entirely: a living scanner, printer, and biocomputer. Imagine “growing” your home, lighting, and furniture from “genetic blueprints” downloaded off the internet into a robot or a made-to-order living entity?

This vision elicited a predictably polarizing response from the audience. Many were horrified by the hubris of genetically engineering living creatures to act as our slaves. Biomimicry 3.8 Co-Founder Janine Benyus expressed this sentiment, standing up to say that biomimicry hopes to look beyond using organisms as raw resources, to a deep “process of learning from other fabricators. If you’re wearing cotton, a plant made it for you. If you’re wearing wool, a sheep made it for you. It’s time for humans to start making our own materials.”

3D printing represents a transformative opportunity for us to redesign our manufacturing and consumption patterns, she said, pointing out that a great many of our machine parts are used to cut or grind away, literally subtracting, discarding, and wasting our planet’s precious resources. 3D printing, by contrast, is an additive process, using only what is needed. The time is coming, Benyus said, when we will “Make” everything we need at our neighborhood “Maker Shop,” exactly what, when, and where we need it, without waste or energy-intensive shipping. “But,” she added, “let’s make sure these printers aren’t tiny volcanoes on our desks,” dropping humanity out of the frying pan and into the fire. She implored the audience to make sure that locally abundant and benign feedstocks (ideally from the excess carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and oceans) become standard, materials that can be enzymatically digested at the end of product-life and fed back into our printers. Just like Nature would do it.

Dr. Tamsin Woolley-Barker is an evolutionary biologist, writer, and Biomimicry 3.8-trained sustainability and biomimicry consultant. She blogs at BioInspired Ink and serves as Content Developer for the California Association of Museums’ Green Museums Initiative. She is working on a book about organizational transformation and resilience inspired by living systems.

[image credits: Kevin Krejci, Nasturtium Leaf, Ed Bierman, Sea Cucumber, Colin Raney, Silk Pavilion at MIT]

miércoles, 3 de julio de 2013

Greasy Sponge Slurps Up Oil

June 26, 2013

Materials Science: A chemical treatment makes a household sponge thirsty for oil instead of water
Waterproof Sponge. Water droplets rest on top of a superhydrophobic sponge coated in a thin layer of polypyrrole. Credit: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
Picking Up Petrol.
Researchers mixed petroleum with water in a petri dish (a)
and then added a superhydrophobic sponge (black, b).
After five minutes, the sponge had absorbed most of the oil from the water (c).
Credit: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
A sponge that can’t absorb a single drop of water may seem like a dud. But if it readily soaks up oil, it could help purify chemical syntheses or clean up oil spills on water. Researchers now report a simple chemical method for turning a household sponge into a water-blocking oil absorber (Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, DOI: 10.1021/ie400942t).

In response to oil spills on water, cleanup crews often turn to sorbent materials, such as wool, straw, cotton, and synthetic sponges, to separate oil from the water. Sponges are the best choice for the job, say Zhaozhu Zhang and colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Science. The materials can absorb a lot of liquid in a short time, and they can float. However, they suck up water as well as oil, so the sponges’ soaking capacity isn’t fully used to remove oil. To make the materials more efficient, Zhang and colleagues decided to make an oil-specific sponge.

The researchers purchased polyurethane sponges at a local furniture store and coated its entire surface with a thin layer of polypyrrole. This polymer is well known for being water-repellent and having a strong affinity for oil, says Paul L. Edmiston, a chemist at the College of Wooster, who was not involved in this study.

To prepare the sponge for its polypyrrole coating, the researchers first dipped it into ferric chloride and 1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane (PTES). They then put the PTES-coated sponge into a sealed chamber over a pool of volatile pyrrole, which vaporized and infused the sponge. The PTES helped the pyrrole adhere to the sponge surface. Meanwhile, the iron from the ferric chloride helped to catalyze the polymerization of the pyrrole into a thin coating over the sponge’s pores.

When the scientists added droplets of water to the surface of the revamped sponge, the water stayed in a bead and wasn’t absorbed. Droplets of oil, however, disappeared into the sponge immediately. The researchers also dipped the sponge into a variety of oils, including motor oil and soybean oil. The sponge sopped up more than 20 times its dry weight for each of the oils. The team tested how the sponge fared after reuse: They sopped up oil with the sponge and then wrung out the absorbed oil. After repeating those steps five times, the sponge could absorb at least 17 times its weight in oil.

Other groups have modified meshlike materials to absorb oil, Edmiston says. But he likes the idea of an oil-absorbing sponge, because it has “lots of room to pick up the oil.”

Edmiston is concerned that the cost of making these sponges would be prohibitive in the case of a large-scale oil-spill cleanup operation. Although the sponges themselves are cheap, the chemicals used in the treatment are expensive. The superhydrophobic sponges, though may find a place in certain industrial operations, Edmiston says, like removing hydrophobic solvents during chemical syntheses. Such small-scale applications would probably be the first uses for the revamped sponges, he says.
Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society

viernes, 24 de mayo de 2013

The Human City

May 23, 2013



SINGAPORE – The tangled web of international organizations that constitutes global governance has become so remote and ineffective that few count on it to deliver results anymore. Now, after decades of turf wars and self-marginalization, international organizations must rally around an increasingly pressing global priority: sustainable urbanization.
This illustration is by Chris Van Es and comes from NewsArt.com, and is the property of the NewsArt organization and of its artist. Reproducing this image is a violation of copyright law.

The world is undergoing an unprecedented and irreversible wave of urbanization, with the share of the global population living in cities set to reach 60% by 2030. But rapid urbanization is driving up industrial fossil-fuel consumption and household water consumption, and is increasing demand for food in areas where arable land is scarce. In short, the current urbanization trajectory is not sustainable.

But existing efforts to alter the situation remain woefully inadequate. While the United Nations General Assembly has tasked its agency for human settlements, UN-HABITAT, with promoting sustainable urbanization, the agency lacks the influence to ensure that this vital issue makes it onto the global agenda.

Moreover, international development players – including UN agencies, NGOs, corporate citizenship programs, and other charitable organizations – rarely coordinate their activities, even though their interventions are increasingly concentrated in densely populated cities.
Given that promoting sustainable urbanization and improving coordination would bolster progress in other priority areas (including women’s rights, climate change, youth unemployment, and literacy), sustainable urbanization must become a bureaucratic priority. And it must be complemented by a technological disruption, with investments channeled toward developing and distributing innovations that would make cities more livable, efficient, and sustainable.

In fact, many useful innovations, such as energy-generating building materials and zero-emissions transportation, already exist; they simply need to be made accessible to those who need them most. Devices like small-scale water-filtration systems, portable heart monitors, and low-cost tablet computers are already dramatically improving the lives of the world’s poorest citizens and helping to level the economic playing field.

The future impact of global governance rests on forging new alignments that facilitate the flow of vital knowledge and technologies from an increasingly diverse array of sources to urban populations worldwide. The tools needed to make urban life more sustainable are no longer flowing only from North to South and West to East. China has taken the lead in exporting solar photovoltaic cells, while clean-tech parks are arising even in the Arab world.

Governments, companies, supply-chain managers, corporate-citizenship strategists, NGOs, and others should commit to reducing their carbon footprints and to leveraging their resources to contribute to sustainable urbanization. Opportunities to make such contributions are appearing constantly – and across all sectors.

In construction, for example, contractors are forming partnerships with labs to test materials that better reflect heat while absorbing energy to power cooling systems, and utility companies are leveraging new software tools to deploy smart meters in homes and offices. Two US cities – New York and Seattle – have raised efficiency standards for new construction to record levels.

Similarly, automobile manufacturers, mobility-services companies, and local governments are working together to advance sustainable transportation by providing incentives for efficient non-ownership of vehicles. As a result, carpooling is gaining prevalence in cities like Berlin.

Furthermore, MIT has developed the foldable electric CityCar, four of which can fit into a conventional parking space. At last year’s Rio+20 conference, the eight largest multilateral development banks pledged $175 billion to develop sustainable transportation.

Information technology can also reduce stress on the transportation system. For example, Singapore is harnessing its near-complete fiber-optic network to reduce urban congestion by introducing a spate of measures encouraging workers to telecommute. As these measures take effect, self-sufficient satellite towns will likely develop, reducing transportation-related energy consumption further, while fostering a more active civil society.

Singapore is leading the way in another area as well: production and distribution of potable recycled water. Many cities worldwide are following its example, expanding their water catchment and treatment programs.

Meanwhile, vertical farm experiments – which aim to augment urban food supplies by cultivating crops in skyscraper greenhouses – are proliferating from the American Midwest to Osaka, Japan. And India has become a leader in converting biomass and food waste into energy.

Of course, the billions of farmers and villagers worldwide should not be forgotten. Interventions like rural electrification, the provision of drought-resistant seeds and agricultural technology, and the expansion of micro-insurance are vital not only to rural populations’ welfare, but also to catalyze a new “Green Revolution,” without which city dwellers will face severe food shortages.

With new, innovative solutions appearing every day, the real challenge lies in bringing them to scale – and that requires international cooperation. But the “smartest” cities are not necessarily the most technologically advanced. Rather, they are the places where technology and public policy support citizens’ welfare and aspirations. This crucial fact will guide discussion at the New Cities Foundation’s second annual summit in June – the theme of which is “The Human City” – and should be at the heart of sustainable urbanization initiatives.

Making sustainable urbanization a strategic priority might be the only way to overcome the interrelated crises of jobless growth, youth unemployment, and income inequality. While some factory jobs can be outsourced or automated, robots cannot yet retrofit buildings, install solar PV cells on rooftops, or construct vertical farms. Even the movement in some cities, such as Singapore and Tokyo, toward driverless subways or cars will demand substantial labor to build and manage the relevant systems. In the future, as in the past, the most labor-intensive jobs will involve building homes, production facilities, and, in turn, communities.

Reprinting material from this Web site without written consent from Project Syndicate is a violation of international copyright law. To secure permission, please contact us.

A gallery of disruptive technologies

ORIGINAL: McKinsey


The relentless parade of new technologies is unfolding on many fronts. Almost every advance is billed as a breakthrough, and the list of “next big things” grows ever longer. Not every emerging technology will alter the business or social landscape—but some truly do have the potential to disrupt the status quo, alter the way people live and work, and rearrange value pools. It is therefore critical that business and policy leaders understand which technologies will matter to them and prepare accordingly.

Disruptive technologies
MGI's Michael Chui discusses the most economically disruptive technologies that will transform business and life in next decade.

Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy, a report from the McKinsey Global Institute, cuts through the noise and identifies 12 technologies that could drive truly massive economic transformations and disruptions in the coming years. The report also looks at exactly how these technologies could change our world, as well as their benefits and challenges, and offers guidelines to help leaders from businesses and other institutions respond.

We estimate that, together, applications of the 12 technologies discussed in the report could have a potential economic impact between $14 trillion and $33 trillion a year in 2025. This estimate is neither predictive nor comprehensive. It is based on an in-depth analysis of key potential applications and the value they could create in a number of ways, including the consumer surplus that arises from better products, lower prices, a cleaner environment, and better health.

Some technologies detailed in the report have been gestating for years and thus will be familiar. Others are more surprising. Examples of the 12 disruptive technologies include:

Advanced robotics—that is, increasingly capable robots or robotic tools, with enhanced “senses,” dexterity, and intelligence—can take on tasks once thought too delicate or uneconomical to automate. These technologies can also generate significant societal benefits, including robotic surgical systems that make procedures less invasive, as well as robotic prosthetics and “exoskeletons” that restore functions of amputees and the elderly.


Next-generation genomics marries the science used for imaging nucleotide base pairs (the units that make up DNA) with rapidly advancing computational and analytic capabilities. As our understanding of the genomic makeup of humans increases, so does the ability to manipulate genes and improve health diagnostics and treatments. Next-generation genomics will offer similar advances in our understanding of plants and animals, potentially creating opportunities to improve the performance of agriculture and to create high-value substances—for instance, ethanol and biodiesel—from ordinary organisms, such as E. coli bacteria.

Energy-storage devices
or physical systems store energy for later use. These technologies, such as lithium-ion batteries and fuel cells, already power electric and hybrid vehicles, along with billions of portable consumer electronics. Over the coming decade, advancing energy-storage technology could make electric vehicles cost competitive, bring electricity to remote areas of developing countries, and improve the efficiency of the utility grid.

The potential benefits of the technologies discussed in the report are tremendous—but so are the challenges of preparing for their impact. If business and government leaders wait until these technologies are exerting their full influence on the economy, it will be too late to capture the benefits or react to the consequences. While the appropriate responses will vary by stakeholder and technology, we find that certain guiding principles can help businesses and governments as they plan for the effects of disruptive technologies.

Business leaders should keep their organizational strategies updated in the face of continually evolving technologies, ensure that their organizations continue to look ahead, and use technologies to improve internal performance. Disruptive technologies can change the game for businesses, creating entirely new products and services, as well as shifting pools of value between producers or from producers to consumers. Organizations will often need to use business-model innovations to capture some of that value. Leaders need to plan for a range of scenarios, abandoning assumptions about where competition and risk could come from, and not be afraid to look beyond long-established models. Organizations will also need to keep their employees’ skills up-to-date and balance the potential benefits of emerging technologies with the risks they sometimes pose.

Policy makers can use advanced technology to address their own operational challenges (for example, by deploying the Internet of Things to improve infrastructure management). The nature of work will continue to change, and that will require strong education and retraining programs. To address challenges that the new technologies themselves will bring, policy makers can use some of those very technologies—for example, by creating new educational and training systems with the mobile Internet, which can also help address an ever-increasing productivity imperative to deliver public services more efficiently and effectively. To develop a more nuanced and useful view of technology’s impact, governments may also want to consider new metrics that capture more than GDP effects. This approach can help policy makers balance the need to encourage growth with their responsibility to look out for the public welfare as new technologies reshape economies and lives.

About the authors

James Manyika and Richard Dobbs are directors of the McKinsey Global Institute, where Michael Chui is a principal; Jacques Bughin is a director in McKinsey’s Brussels office; Peter Bisson is a director in the Stamford office.













sábado, 11 de mayo de 2013

Heat-Trapping Gas Passes Milestone, Raising Fears

ORIGINAL: NYTimes
May 10, 2013

The average carbon dioxide reading surpassed 400 parts per million at the research facility atop the Mauna Loa volcano on the island of Hawaii for the 24 hours that ended at 8 p.m. on Thursday. Chris Stewart/Associated Press 
The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, has passed a long-feared milestone, scientists reported Friday, reaching a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years. 

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was measured at just above 400 p.p.m. on Thursday, the highest daily average ever recorded at the flagship Mauna Loa station. 

Preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide, as measured in ice bubbles, tended to oscillate between 180 and 280 p.p.m.

Scientific instruments showed that the gas had reached an average daily level above 400 parts per million — just an odometer moment in one sense, but also a sobering reminder that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions under control are faltering. 

The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not been this high for at least three million years, before humans evolved, and scientists believe the rise portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea. 

“It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that reported the new reading. 

Ralph Keeling, who runs another monitoring program at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, said a continuing rise could be catastrophic. “It means we are quickly losing the possibility of keeping the climate below what people thought were possibly tolerable thresholds,” he said. 

Virtually every automobile ride, every plane trip and, in most places, every flip of a light switch adds carbon dioxide to the air, and relatively little money is being spent to find and deploy alternative technologies. 

China is now the largest emitter, but Americans have been consuming fossil fuels extensively for far longer, and experts say the United States is more responsible than any other nation for the high level. 

The new measurement came from analyzers atop Mauna Loa, the volcano on the big island of Hawaii that has long been ground zero for monitoring the worldwide trend on carbon dioxide, or CO2. Devices there sample clean, crisp air that has blown thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean, producing a record of rising carbon dioxide levels that has been closely tracked for half a century. 

Carbon dioxide above 400 parts per million was first seen in the Arctic last year, and had also spiked above that level in hourly readings at Mauna Loa. 

But the average reading for an entire day surpassed that level at Mauna Loa for the first time in the 24 hours that ended at 8 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Thursday. The two monitoring programs use slightly different protocols; NOAA reported an average for the period of 400.03 parts per million, while Scripps reported 400.08. 

Carbon dioxide rises and falls on a seasonal cycle, and the level will dip below 400 this summer as leaf growth in the Northern Hemisphere pulls about 10 billion tons of carbon out of the air. But experts say that will be a brief reprieve — the moment is approaching when no measurement of the ambient air anywhere on earth, in any season, will produce a reading below 400. 

“It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster,” said Maureen E. Raymo, a scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a unit of Columbia University. 

From studying air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists know that going back 800,000 years, the carbon dioxide level oscillated in a tight band, from about 180 parts per million in the depths of ice ages to about 280 during the warm periods between. The evidence shows that global temperatures and CO2 levels are tightly linked. 

For the entire period of human civilization, roughly 8,000 years, the carbon dioxide level was relatively stable near that upper bound. But the burning of fossil fuels has caused a 41 percent increase in the heat-trapping gas since the Industrial Revolution, a mere geological instant, and scientists say the climate is beginning to react, though they expect far larger changes in the future. 

Indirect measurements suggest that the last time the carbon dioxide level was this high was at least three million years ago, during an epoch called the Pliocene. Geological research shows that the climate then was far warmer than today, the world’s ice caps were smaller, and the sea level might have been as much as 60 or 80 feet higher. 

Experts fear that humanity may be precipitating a return to such conditions — except this time, billions of people are in harm’s way. 

“It takes a long time to melt ice, but we’re doing it,” Dr. Keeling said. “It’s scary.” 

Dr. Keeling’s father, Charles David Keeling, began carbon dioxide measurements on Mauna Loa and at other locations in the late 1950s. The elder Dr. Keeling found a level in the air then of about 315 parts per million — meaning that if a person had filled a million quart jars with air, about 315 quart jars of carbon dioxide would have been mixed in. 

His analysis revealed a relentless, long-term increase superimposed on the seasonal cycle, a trend that was dubbed the Keeling Curve. 
Countries have adopted an official target to limit the damage from global warming, with 450 parts per million seen as the maximum level compatible with that goal. “Unless things slow down, we’ll probably get there in well under 25 years,” Ralph Keeling said. 

Yet many countries, including China and the United States, have refused to adopt binding national targets. Scientists say that unless far greater efforts are made soon, the goal of limiting the warming will become impossible without severe economic disruption. 

“If you start turning the Titanic long before you hit the iceberg, you can go clear without even spilling a drink of a passenger on deck,” said Richard B. Alley, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University. “If you wait until you’re really close, spilling a lot of drinks is the best you can hope for.” 

Climate-change contrarians, who have little scientific credibility but are politically influential in Washington, point out that carbon dioxide represents only a tiny fraction of the air — as of Thursday’s reading, exactly 0.04 percent. “The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rather undramatic,” a Republican congressman from California, Dana Rohrabacher, said in a Congressional hearing several years ago. 

But climate scientists reject that argument, saying it is like claiming that a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom cannot have much effect. Research shows that even at such low levels, carbon dioxide is potent at trapping heat near the surface of the earth. 

“If you’re looking to stave off climate perturbations that I don’t believe our culture is ready to adapt to, then significant reductions in CO2 emissions have to occur right away,” said Mark Pagani, a Yale geochemist who studies climates of the past. “I feel like the time to do something was yesterday.” 


This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 10, 2013
An earlier version of this article misstated the amount of carbon dioxide in the air as of Thursday’s reading from monitors. It is .04 percent, not .0004 percent.