The World's First Low Carbon Plan (self-funding)
Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals - the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We're currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural "background" rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century.
Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us - humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species' extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel.
Species diversity ensures ecosystem resilience, giving ecological communities the scope they need to withstand stress.
The Emissions Paths shown would give us a better than average chance of keeping global warming below 1.5 or 2 degrees. Data from Climate Action Tracker. The promises at the Paris Climate Talks will have to be much better than those made at present.
The UK and Ireland if we allow the Poles to melt
In 2006 the United Nations climate change monitoring program measured a sea-level rise of around 22mm. This compares with the official IPCC estimate of 3mm, a factor of over 7 times above what was expected. The speed at which the sea rises could well rise.
Scientists are saying that we must start to reverse global warming now.
The Temperature Increase Pause Myth
"The Independent" newspaper (19.11.2013) reported that two university scientists have found that the "pause" or "hiatus" in global temperatures can be largely explained by a failure of climate researchers to record the dramatic rise in Arctic temperatures over the past decade or more.
When Kevin Cowtan of York University and Robert Way of Ottawa University found a way of estimating Arctic temperatures from satellite readings, the so-called pause effectively disappeared and the global warming signal returned as strong as before.
The paucity of surface-temperature records in the remote and inaccessible Arctic has long been recognised as a problem for global estimates, not least by the Met Office itself.
However, the scale of the Arctic warming highlighted by Dr Cowtan and Mr Way has surprised seasoned climate researchers.
"The problem with the polar areas lacking data coverage has been known for a long time, but I think this study has basically solved it," said Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
He added: "People will argue about the details, as is normal in science, but I think basically this will hold up to scrutiny." Global Temperature Changes now look like this:
In his later years British Astronomer Sir Patrick Moore used a simple and cheap invention that measures temperature to a tenth of a degree C from a distance, he led a team that put the devise in several observatories around the world, and took a temperature photograph of a water world revolving around a distant sun. The water was warm and two under water volcanoes were found, and named St. Paul, and St. Barnabas. The whole exercise cost £50,000, NASA estimated that it would have cost them millions to get the same definition using their inferior equipment. While Sir Patrick did not go into details on the equipment used on the news program there must be plenty of people from the observatories that did use it who know of it's construction. My contention is that Sir Patrick Moore's devise could be installed in satellites to measure global temperature to a tenth of a degree. As it would take time to fund and build such satellites the device can be put in aircraft and balloons to get cheap data fast from an area that, by tradition, has little data coming from it.
Whilst all ideas must be utilised in order to minimise the damage done by the pollution that industrialisation has caused, what we need is low tech electricity generation which does not have career scientists lying to the electorate about safety and price issues. Tony Blair has said that he is waiting for an invention with the capability of reversing global warming. And here it is.
The Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generator
A Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generator is a lined and capped well, filled with water, which is ten kilometres deep. Because the ground heats up at a constant rate the deeper one digs, the cap of the well is at three times boiling point, the precise temperature at which power stations generate electricity with their turbine generators. Any power station can easily be converted to Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators. The power they can generate is only limited by how wide the well is dug, and energy generation greater than nuclear power stations is easily possible. It should be noted that due to temperature variations in different localities, the well would have to be dug until the temperature at the bottom reached three times boiling point, which is an average of ten kilometres.
As far as the cost of such a project is concerned, the recent Aachen bore hole was dug to a depth of 2.5 kilometres in three months, so we can assume that it would take just a year to get down to a depth where the rocks are at the temperature of three times boiling point. Figures available on the internet say that a bore hole of 5.54 kilometres costs £4.7 million, which equates to £8.5 million for a ten kilometre bore hole. This is thus a very cheap way of cleaning up the pollution caused by present power stations. There are approximately 107 main power stations in the UK producing 47 million tonnes of carbon (2004 figures) or 30% of the total UK production of carbon, and this would take £909.5 million to convert to BGTGs. A drop of 30% in carbon production would go a long way towards the Government's present target of 60% of 1990 emissions by 2050. We must also compare the cost of converting all power stations to BGTGs with the conservative estimate of £2 billion to build just one nuclear power station. Information on other Super Deep Boreholes can be seen at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
A further cut of 20% in carbon emissions can be produced if all vehicles on the road make use of this cheap electricity rather than petrol. This may seem to be an anathema to 'petrol heads' but this displeasure can be simply overcome. At the moment when inventors come up with new technologies for electrical vehicles Oil Companies buy and destroy the patents and designs. These patents have a shelf life of ten years so we could soon put together a group of past inventors in this field to reproduce their work legally, as an intergovernmental concern. Thus a 50% cut in Carbon emissions is achievable with the use of Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators.
At least another 41% cut in CO2 emissions can be realised if we convert all houses and industries to near zero-carbon emissions. This does not have to be expensive. The cheapest and simplest method would be to paint the surfaces of all rooms with Starlite, invented by Maurice Ward; this would prevent heat escaping and so minimise heating requirements. As far as I am aware, the secret formula for Starlite was passed onto his immediate family members so has not been lost by his tragic death. Starlite can also prevent heat loss with attempts to store energy with molten salt, and Economy 7 radiators. If we can store all the excess capacity of electrical generation at night then we can cut the number of power stations needed so storage of energy is important. Maurice Ward Information
(This figure assumes that 80% of heating is by gas, and that domestic gas use is 29%, and industry heating is 22% of total energy consumption.)
An alternative to Starlite is Firepaste, invented by Canadian Troy Hurtubise, we were looking for financial backing for lab time so that he could make a household paint out of it when he died, a great tragedy not only for friends and family, but for the environment as well. RIP. As both Maurice and Troy said that they made their inventions out of household products I am attempting to get a government lab set up to recreate their inventions.
you will find the the likely components are 90% corn starch and 10% baking soda mixed into a putty using PVA glue. There may have been other components as well, because it has been made into a spray paint, and paint. You will need to crack the formula in order to make use of passive temperature control of buildings. You might even be able to improve upon them both.
We thus have a cut of 91% in carbon emissions, the cost of converting all the power stations and the redecorating of the houses of the less well off could be paid for by the savings made from implementing the wide-scale use of the Kadir-Buxton Method, which according to ''The Ecologist'' magazine, would save £100 billion per year in the UK alone. We would thus not need any new money for such a large project.
This cut of 91% in carbon emissions exceeds the Live Earth target of 90% reductions, and can be increased to 96.25% by using the following invention (not mine). Aircraft account for 6% of CO2, while shipping accounts for 4.5% and these figures could be halved by an international consortium producing engines that can run on paraffin oil based fuel mixed with water using an ultrasonic device to a ratio of 50% or more. This engine would have the added advantage of burning at a lower temperature so less cooling devices would be needed which would lead to a drop in the cost of engines; so another 5.25% can be saved.
A more than 100% figure could be arrived at by the mass use of biochar.
Near-Zero Carbon Countries
It is difficult to get hold of all the figures necessary to show that countries can become Near-Zero carbon countries. However, there is a simple explanation that adequately reveals how this target can be achieved. All our power requirements are for lighting, heating, transport, and energy for such things as industry on down to exercise machines. We can assume that each category is 25% of total power. The lighting can be zero rated by building BGTGs, the heating can be near-zero rated by installing Starlite coatings on the walls and ceilings of all premises, and by having electrical heating we cut heating emissions to zero. Transport can be made near-zero in terms of carbon emissions by ensuring that all vehicles use carbon zero electricity, the only difficulty we have in aeroplanes and shipping. However, their carbon footprints can be at least halved by having their fuels mixed with water using an ultrasonic dibber. Finally, the power needed for energy can be made entirely of carbon free electricity.
New ways of making industry CO2 neutral will be needed, but these are not insurmountable problems given that the Governments of the world have ten years to achieve the target. For example, cement manufacture creates 5% of the world's CO2 emissions. Making traditional cement results in greenhouse gas emissions from two sources: it requires intense heat, and so a lot of energy to heat up the ovens that cook the raw material, such as limestone. That then releases further CO2 as it burns. Nikolaos Vlasopoulos, chief scientist at Novacem, says that cement based on magnesium silicates, not only requires much less heating, it also absorbs large amounts of CO2 as it hardens, making it carbon negative. According to Novacem, its product can absorb, over its life cycle, around 0.6 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of cement. This compares to carbon emissions of about 0.4 tonnes per tonne of standard cement.
Another example The 'Daily Mail' 29 May 2019 states that 52 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2015 is due to Big Pharma, compared to the 46.4 megatonnes put out by the car manufacturing industry in the same year. I say we can reduce this by 80% to 10.4 megatonnes by curing the mentally ill with the free Kadir-Buxton Method. This would also cut the number of animals tortured in medical experiments by a similar amount. These polluting companies should be made to offset the rest, the opposite side of the the carbon tax coin; which will take years for politicians to implement. A survey of surveys found that an untreated mental patient takes an average of five years to become sane again while those taking modern medicine take an average of six years these medicines should be regarded as a poison anyway. (you will be hard pushed to find this survey, it is well hidden). I have found the cheapest way for Big Pharma to offset their final 20% is by paying for Forest Gardens in the Third World. See: https://trees.org/
Reversing the Damage Done Already by Industrialisation
I once muted the possibility that sufficiently large Buxton Geothermal Power Stations could power gigantic freezer units at both Poles so that the melting of the ice caps could be reversed and then maintained. This will be necessary to reduce the heating of the planet caused from the beginning of industrialisation up until all countries become near-zero carbon countries. (which should be within the next ten years.)
The electricity cable to the freezer units would have to be suspended over the snow, and the best way to stop the cables being buried in snow is to have the pylons put on legs which have the ability to step out of snow drifts, thus keeping the power cable above the snow surface. As freezer units generate heat, this would have to be captured by fluids in pipelines that were lagged with Starlite, invented by Maurice Ward. The Starlite would keep all the heat in until it could be used to heat towns in the countries that the BGTGs are built in. Another alternative suggested, would be to release the heat by way of infra red radiation into space.
Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators are cheaper and faster to build than nuclear power stations, generate more electricity and are far cleaner. The electricity generated is cheap because there are no technically sophisticated and expensive parts, no fuel costs, and no expensive waste to care for. Labour costs are also lower.
Only one Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generator has been built, in the then West Germany, by Helmut Kohl, generating as much electricity as a nuclear power station. Because is was classified as an official secret in Germany no publicity is made of my invention, this in spite of the fact that UK politicians of the time went to see it.
Because electricity generated by Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators is so cheap, just a few in a country would force down the price of electricity, and this would have the effect of making the building of nuclear power stations economically unfeasible because their electricity is far more expensive. Now would be a good time to campaign for more to be built.
Sweden in planning to go Fossil Free by 2020 and Norway is planning to cut CO2 emissions by 50-80% by 2050. If we are not to be part of the solution we are going to be part of the problem.
Nuclear Energy is Part of the Problem
I have contacted every UK Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher on my Plan, John Major complained in The House of Commons that I delivered it by hand to his house! Ex Prime Minister Tony Blair was repeatedly contacted about this self-funding near-zero CO2 plan but it did not receive a reply until my then MP and Cabinet member Melanie Johnson chased him up about my latest letter sent to his home address. His reply to her was: "Interesting." Instead, he came out in favour of more nuclear power stations in the UK, and various governments are to spend £6.6 billion on The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Theresa May admitted in public to have had concerned members of the public sending her such plans, but did not reply to any of them, never mind enact them.
Now, instead of Chernobyl exploding with the power of an Atom Bomb, we are to have power stations going off with the force of a Hydrogen Bomb. The ITER will be too little and too late.
As well as being dangerous, nuclear generated electricity is four times more expensive than most alternatives, not taking into account the cost of safely storing dangerous levels of radioactive waste for a billion years. It also takes more energy to fuel, build, and run nuclear power stations than they ever generate. Uranium alone takes more energy to produce than it will ever generate. The only reason that nuclear electricity looks competitive in the UK is because it is heavily subsidised by a European Grant. (This Grant is not big enough to dispose of the dangerous waste safely, and the technology still has not been developed to do so. At the moment it is estimated that the UK bill for disposing of nuclear waste is some £70 billion). Hazardous materials from the milling would take four times the amount of energy that was needed to extract the ore to clean up properly afterwards, so this is not attempted, although it should be.
Because there is no logic to having nuclear power stations except in order to build nuclear weapons, and the Cold War is over, we can only assume that NATO wishes to have another arms race with either Russia or China. The best advice that can be given to both countries is to warm relations between each other and not get involved in the economic drag of another arms race.
If the plan to double the number of nuclear power stations comes to fruition then there is only enough uranium for twenty years, we will have ''peak uranium'' soon. In addition, the new report by Environmental Economist and Author David Fleming concludes that at current levels of uranium ore deposits, the nuclear industry will need to divert all its energy generated to cleaning up its waste by 2025. Just how desperate are governments to have nuclear weapons of mass destruction? We must ask the physicists how many billion years will we have to wait before uranium (enriched or depleted) is safe enough to eat.
Further reading on nuclear energy is an article entitled: "The Nuclear Dossier," by Jon Hughes.
There is also the book, “All-Electric America,” written by S. David Freeman (RIP) & Leah Y Parks.
Biochar, the Final Piece in the Puzzle
As most agricultural soils have lost 50 to 70% of their original carbon pool they represent a considerable carbon sink. Worldwide, the total release from burning crop residues is in the order of 3.6 to 6.4 billion tonnes of carbon per year, compared with 5.4 billion tonnes for fossil fuel consumption. A hectare of metre-deep biochar can contain 250 tonnes of carbon, as opposed to 100 tonnes in unimproved soils from similar parent material, according to Bruno Glaser, of the University of Bayreuth, Germany. Biochar has to be part of the future as it also increases food production. As an aside, my grandfather's invention of "Crow's Footing" where plants are planted in equilateral triangles instead of squares increases food produced in an area by 10% should be used to help feed the future population without resorting to GM crops.
Health and Strategy
A near-zero CO2 plan can be healthy, for various reasons, and one is that “venting” (the cleaning of power stations) conventional power stations to clean them always kills a few people, the elderly, young children and asthmatics. It is also strategic, as uranium and fossil fuels have to be imported and the supply lines kept protected.
Solving Arguments by Mobile Phone
To overcome the climate deniers' obtuse arguments just say to your mobile phone: “Hey google, followed by first line of the climate deniers' argument, followed by the word refute.” Your mobile phone will then answer the climate deniers' arguments for you, which saves the environmentalist having to memorise a whole lot of data. This is good for mathematics homework, just add a nonsense answer before the word “refute.” You will also be given the working for the answer.
Mahatma Gandhi: "It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing... You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result."
An article in 'The Welwyn & Hatfield Times' appeared on 22 November 2006. You can see this article at:
An article, in 'The Gainsborough Standard' newspaper on 28 December 2006 has been published on this subject.
You can see this article at:
In September 2007 I had the following letter published in the
'38 Degrees' Petition
I have started a petition at '38 Degrees' and hope that you will sign it with me, it calls for a near-zero CO2 plan to be implemented now, paid for by the elimination of mental illness, at a saving of £100 billion a year in the UK alone. We have the technology.