Feed aggregator

The model of atoms as mini solar systems was supplanted by quantum fuzziness – now atoms have been forced to act more like the classical systems

Planets orbiting one star in a stellar pair could get bounced from star to star repeatedly – until they fall into the great beyond

The hacktivist group managed to a listen in on a call between the FBI and law enforcement officials from several different European countries

Time: Mainstream environmental groups have struggled to find the right line on shale natural gas and the hydraulic fracturing or fracking process. Gas has a much smaller carbon footprint than coal--according to most scientists--and produces far fewer air pollutants. That was enough for many major green groups to give support to gas as a "bridge fuel" to a cleaner energy future--the next best domestic alternative to coal as an electricity source while alternatives like wind and solar scaled up. But for...

All today's stories on newscientist.com, including: high time to welcome the friendly drones and malaria may kill far more people than we thought

Stuff spewed out of Io's hyperactive volcanoes make the rings of auroral light on Jupiter's poles grow and shrink

Guardian: Opening the door to the animal house, passing a rhino on the way and patting the giraffe inside, Sarah Forsyth points out small white boxes that dot the walls. "Everywhere you look there's a detector or a motion sensor," she says, chuckling in front of one that presented the security firm with a peculiarly zoo-specific problem. "These are the ones the giraffe were licking." She can laugh about it now, but two months ago, when Colchester zoo decided to put in place the £300,000 alarm system, Forsyth's...

He must get to grips with energy suppliers and green campaigners – but the toughest challenge for the new climate and energy secretary is likely to come from cabinet colleagues

Ed Davey, the new secretary of state for energy and climate change, faces a daunting in-tray of policies that will create battles with industry, electricity consumers, anxious renewable energy investors and green campaigners – but the toughest challenge of all is likely to come from his cabinet colleagues.

Chris Huhne was one of the few heavyweight champions of the green agenda within the coalition government. His departure sparked immediate fears that without him, the voices within cabinet - and among the Tory rank-and-file - that have been calling ever more loudly for a watering down of environmental policies will prevail. Those calls have been led by George Osborne, the chancellor, who vowed the UK would do no more than the minimum to meet environmental goals, and could revise current targets downwards.

Andrew Simms, fellow at the New Economics Foundation, urged: "Davey must face down the economic and environmental self-defeating destructiveness of the Treasury, which is preventing the UK from becoming a world leader [in green industries]."

Matthew Spencer, director of the Green Alliance, said it was time for David Cameron and Nick Clegg to speak up: "This creates a moment for the prime minister and deputy prime minister to assert their ownership of the green economy, and for the new secretary of state to build a broader coalition for action across government. It's important that the top tier of government speak publicly to correct the misunderstanding that the leadership are giving up on this agenda."

Speaking in Westminster today, Davey said: "I've now got to take up the challenges, the challenge of climate change, of energy security and I'm particularly conscious of the impact on consumer households across the country of high energy bills."

He added: "I want us to have a green economy where there's lots of green jobs to help grow our economy."

Here are the key policies in Davey's in-tray:

Energy bills

The government's ability to influence bills, which have soared on the back of international fossil fuel prices, relies mainly on attempts to bully and shame the big six suppliers. Its answer has been to bring forward a new flagship policy, the "green deal", for cutting consumer charges by encouraging insulation and other low-carbon home improvements. The bad news is the green deal is in trouble, as several analyses show its appeal is likely to be limited when it launches this autumn.

Renewable energy

Subsidies for renewable energy are under fierce attack, from free-market thinktanks and sections of the rightwing media. The government was humiliated when it tried to cut feed-in tariffs for small-scale renewables, in a hasty move that judges ruled unlawful, and that stirred up turmoil and job losses among solar companies. But the promise of hundreds of thousands of green jobs, billions of pounds in investment, and meeting our EU obligations on renewable generation all hang on a strong showing of government support for the sector.

New nuclear power

For Liberal Democrats, nuclear power is always a tricky issue. Huhne tried to finesse his party's long-standing opposition to new reactors with Tory enthusiasm for them by pledging that they would receive no public subsidy. Critics pointed out that policies to aid "low-carbon" generation would also provide financial support to nuclear. As nuclear projects inch forward, Davey will have to walk a similar tightrope.

Fourth carbon budget

Under pressure on his green credentials, Cameron agreed last summer to carbon-cutting targets for the UK that will be some of the most stringent in the world when they take effect in the 2020s. Osborne wants to review them within two years. This will be a key test for Davey - if he is still around by then.

International

The next two years will see some of the toughest negotiations over climate change within the European Union and globally in the long-running United Nations talks. In Brussels, member states must thrash out the next set of renewable energy and carbon targets by the end of 2014. Under the UN, countries have committed to forge a new global climate change treaty by the end of 2015. Both these punishing forums require a combination of high statesmanship and low guile. Huhne was widely praised for his skilful performances - Davey will have a tough act to follow.

• Green economy
• Climate change
• Carbon emissions
• Energy
• Global climate talks
• Chris Huhne
• Green politics
• Liberal-Conservative coalition
• Conservatives
• Ed Davey

Fiona Harvey
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

See how circles made up of tilted squares can warp your perception

Chris Huhne has resigned from the cabinet after being charged with perverting the course of justice. He remains an MP and will fight to clear his name after allegations surfaced that he asked his former wife to claim responsibility for breaking the speed limit on his behalf.

In the studio to discuss the implications: political columnist Michael White and environment reporter Fiona Harvey.

David Cameron resisted the temptation for a wider reshuffle, but Edward Davey of the Liberal Democrats replaces Huhne at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

You can listen to the Thursday's full edition of Politics Weekly on bankers, Europe and the French presidential election here.

Tom ClarkMichael WhiteFiona HarveyPhil Maynard

University cites its First Amendment commitment in supporting its climate scientist Michael Mann's right to give lecture

In an uncharacteristically angry post at the New York Times's Dot Earth blog, Andy Revkin has hit out at a "shameful attack on free speech". It relates to a Facebook campaign which is calling on Pennsylvania State University to "disinvite" Professor Michael E. Mann, the director of its Earth System Science Center, from giving a lecture next week entitled: "Confronting the Climate Change Challenge."

The Facebook campaign has been initiated by a seemingly conjoined group called the Common Sense Movement/Secure Energy for America Political Action Committee. Brad Johnson at ThinkProgress has investigated the people behind it and describes it as a "coal-industry astroturf group". Here's a video from the Common Sense Movement's "I Am Coal" campaign, which gives an insight into its worldview...

The group argues on its page:

At a time when Penn State should be doing everything possible to regain its status as a bastion of truth and integrity, the last thing they should be doing is supporting someone of such questionable ethics and motives with our tax dollars.
There is no place for this brand of extreme political activism, disguised as academics, at Penn State now or in the future. University leadership should be ashamed for continuing to provide Mann with such high visibility – at our expense.

Revkin is particularly angry – quite rightly - at the group's templated letter it is asking supporters to send to "daily newspapers near you", which includes the accusation that Mann, one of the world's most high-profile climate scientists whose private emails were among those illegally released online in 2009, is "conspiring with his left-wing cronies to intimidate and silence those who would dare to question his intentions".

Revkin even took to Facebook himself, posting: "Antidemocratic, hateful, and coal-backed smear campaign against a scientist I've sometimes disagreed with but who has every right to state his case at Penn State or anywhere else."

The efforts of those behind the campaign of intimidation against Penn State appear to have come to nothing, though. Common sense (of the real variety) reigns, as a spokesman has just confirmed to me:

Penn State has a deep and profound commitment to the First Amendment and the principles of free speech and expression. Our role as a university is to serve as a marketplace of ideas and by allowing this talk we are protecting the civil liberties of our students, faculty and staff. There are no plans to cancel his speaking engagement.
Michael Mann's research has undergone several rigorous national reviews and investigations and in each case his work has been upheld.
In 2011, the National Science Foundation completed a review and upheld Mann's work. The NSF review was the second major investigation at the national level of his controversial research into climate change. In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences completed an inquiry into Mann's findings at the request of Congress. Again, his research was confirmed.
In 2010, Penn State conducted its own four-month investigation into allegations of research misconduct against Mann and a panel of five University faculty members from various fields determined that the scientist violated no professional standards in the course of his work.

The spokesman added that such a lecture would typically attract 300-400 people. On the question of security, he said: "We evaluate every event on campus from a security perspective and will determine if additional steps are warranted."

He added: "We have received only a handful of comments [about the lecture], and the majority of those are supporting free speech."

• Climate change
• Climate change
• Climate change scepticism
• Hacked climate science emails
• Pennsylvania

Leo Hickman
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Do you have the willpower to resist our survey? Take it and the results will be analysed by Roy F. Baumeister to check your self-control

A projection-based touchpad demonstrates the wide range of uses for a foldable touchscreen that can act like an iPad, or a book

Ecologist: The media frenzy that erupted as Tesco admitted having second-thoughts on carbon footprint labels may have inflicted lasting damage on a once promising sector Back in 2007, when former CEO Terry Leahy promised to bring in carbon labels for all Tesco products everything seemed rosy. Soon after, the company announced a trial of the Carbon Trust's Carbon Reduction Label, promising a 'revolution in green consumption'. Consumers would be able to know from the label the amount of greenhouse gases used...

Mind-reading technology notwithstanding, there is no prospect of anyone looking inside your skull without your consent

Attempts to fly drones in civilian airspace are a classic example of an irresistible force (innovation) meeting an immovable object (the law)

An exhibition at London's Hunterian Museum demonstrates how good design can combat human errors in the hospital.

Pointing out the similarities (and differences) between slavery and the use of fossil fuels can help us engage with climate change in a new way

In 2005, while teaching history at a French university, I was struck by the general disbelief among students that rational and sensitive human beings could ever hold others in bondage. Slavery was so obviously evil that slave-holders could only have been barbarians. My students could not entertain the idea that some slave-owners could have been genuinely blind to the harm they were doing.

At the same time, I was reading a book on climate change which noted how today's machinery – almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels like coal and oil – does the same work that used to be done by slaves and servants. "Energy slaves" now do our laundry, cook our food, transport us, entertain us, and do most of the hard work needed for our survival.

Intriguing similarities between slavery and our current dependence on fossil-fuel-powered machines struck me: both perform roughly the same functions in society (doing the hard and dirty work that no one wants to do), both were considered for a long time to be acceptable by the majority and both came to be increasingly challenged as the harm they caused became more visible.

The history of slavery and its abolition shows how blurred the frontier between what is considered good and evil can be, and how quickly it can shift. We have a mental image of slave-owners as cruel, sadistic, inhuman brutes, and forget too easily the ordinariness of slave ownership throughout the world. To many, slavery seemed normal and indispensable. In the US, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Lifestyles and healthy incomes were predicated upon it, just as we today depend on oil. Similarly, many slave-owners lived with the impression that they were decent people.

Obviously, there are differences between the use of slaves and of fossil fuels. Fundamentally, slavery is a crime against humanity. Fossil fuel use is not a moral evil, but burning coal or oil contributes to global warming, already causing widespread harm: it now directly or indirectly kills 150,000 people per year according to a 2004 World Health Organisation study. States and energy companies' lust for oil also leads to wars and the toppling of democratically elected governments. Our addiction to fossil fuel is increasingly destructive.

Unlike the harm caused by slavery, the harm in the use of fossil fuels is of course indirect, long range, even unintended. It seems at first glance to be a fundamentally different kind of harm, and the unintended consequences of ongoing use of fossil fuels have only recently become understood. Initially, their use was seen as positive and progressive. But now that we know the consequences, and continue, globally, to increase emission levels, how can we still consider these consequences "unintended"?

Consumers of goods made by slaves or absentee plantation owners who lived in Britain in the 18th century also benefited from the slave system without maintaining direct connections to it. Those beneficiaries can certainly be said to have committed a morally comparable sort of human transgression to that of people who benefit from fossil fuels today.

Why is all of this relevant for climate change policy? Our contemporary economies have become extremely dependent on fossil fuels, just as slave societies were dependent on their slaves – indeed far more than the latter ever were. As one scholar remarked: "That US Congressmen tend to rationalise fossil fuel use despite climate risks to future generations just as southern congressmen rationalised slavery despite ideals of equality is perhaps unsurprising."

It should thus come as no surprise that there is so much resistance to climate science. Our societies, like slave-owning societies, have a vested interest in ignoring the scientific consensus. Pointing out the similarities between slavery and the use of fossil fuels can help us engage with the issue in a new way, and convince us to act, as no one envisages comfortably being compared with a slave-owner.

Furthermore, because of the striking similarities between the use of slaves and of fossil fuels, policymakers can find inspiration from the campaigns to abolish slavery and use them to tackle global warming. For example, the history of the abolition of slavery, in the UK at least, suggests that an incremental approach and the development of compromises worked better at moving the cause forward than hardline stances.

The evidence also implies that slavery came to be challenged and finally abolished when people became aware of an alternative. This alternative – steam power – was of course a great moral improvement until we came to know the consequences of fossil fuel consumption. This, in turn, suggests that we will restrain our use of fossil fuels if we can favour a new energy transition and find clean sources of energy – and that we should concentrate our efforts on developing "green" technologies at the same time as reducing our consumption of fossil fuels.

If we do not change, the human family will pay heavily for the consequences of our reckless activity. Moreover, future generations will look back at us and wonder how our civilisation could have been so backward and have lived in such appalling moral blindness. Will the next generation have any awareness that industrialised societies had mitigating circumstances? Probably not. They are more likely to curse us for the irreparable damage we have done to the planet. Surely, they will say, we were a barbarian people.

• Jean-François Mouhot is a visiting researcher at Georgetown University. He is the author of Past Connections and Present Similarities in Slave Ownership and Fossil Fuel Usage, published in the journal Climatic Change, and the book Des Esclaves Energétiques: Réflexions sur le Changement Climatique.

• Fossil fuels
• Energy
• Climate change

guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A new procedure holds promise for swift recovery of people paralysed by nerve injuries

Agence France-Presse: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Thursday that "a lack of collective will" was hampering efforts to forge a common global front against the threat of climate change. Addressing the opening of a Sustainable Development Summit in New Delhi, Singh said India was committed to tackling greenhouse gas emissions, but rejected any framework that deprived the country of its right to develop. "It is necessary to recognise that currently there appears to be a lack of collective global will to...