The Sad State of Europe's countryside

Yesterday I went on my first ever, and probably last hot-air balloon trip. It was to celebrate my girlfriend's birthday, and I must say that against all odds for Belgium, the weather was beautiful. The balloon operator said he was unlikely to get 10 days in a year with such good visibility, in fact.

So off we went, hovering over the fields of maize, potato, cabbage and grass, and spooking the cows that were grazing on the small plots of plain green grass that were scattered throughout Flanders small scale farming countryside.
A bit all over this landscape little villages sprawled into small built-up areas of recent houses where people sunbathed, had drinks or were already starting their grills for a late afternoon bbq.
The new neighbourhoods were starting to bite into the surrounding farming land, and there were factory chimneys out in the distance. But despite these things, there was still a nice feel to the region. Almost idyllic. But then I made the mistake of looking down.

We were flying over a field of maize, I remember. The stalks had grown to around one meter, perhaps. But that was not what pricked my idyllic bubble. It was the way that there was not one single shred of green in the land between all of those stalks of maize.
And this continued throughout the hour that we were floating about. In field after field, you could see the potato, maize, or cabbage plants growing, but nothing else. Absolutely nothing in between. Just brown yellow earth.
It did not take long for me to notice that nothing moved there either. Well, okay, a couple of pigeons would fly about on occasion, or a pair of crows. But nothing else. Not a rabbit, or a fox, or a bird in those fields. There were also no nests to be seen anywhere in the middle of the crops, nor much in terms of mole holes that I could spot. Just even, smooth brown yellow earth.

We always grew maize back home as I was growing up. My father was never much of an environmental man himself, and would often use biocides in quantities much higher than the recommended dosage, and twice as often as recommended. As many farmers did, and, I think, still do. And yet, even so, weeds would start showing up from the time maize got to half the size I saw yesterday. Moles wreacked havoc and birds would always take at least some grains here and there.

So, knowing how much my father used to love spraying things with chemicals, and how we still got some 'nature' fighting back, I have to wonder what in the blazes they are using on the fields I was seeing from the balloon yesterday to leave them completely deprived of any life but the crop.

No wonder the number and diversity of countryside birds in Europe has fallen 40% in the last two decades. 40%! That's on top of all that had happened before. 40%! And in places like Brazil, China and even America it is even worse.

And you know what is almost even more annoying? It is that it is all a matter of lazyness on the part of farmers.
In the middle of all those sterilised fields there was one that had weeds covering a good part of the soil between the stalks. I do not know why, perhaps it was an organic farm. Or perhaps the farmer was simply less spray-happy.
But I do know the following: the maize there was no smaller or looking less productive than anywhere else. If anything it was the contrary.

In fact, studies of farming yields throughout the last 200 years in the UK have shown that traditional farming methods produced as high a yield and in some cases a slightly higher yield as methods using biocides. Unlike what we get hammered into our heads all the time by agribusiness propaganda, the higher agricultural yields of contemporary farming have never been due to chemical pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, or even fertilizers. They have derive from more and better machines, better knowledge of seeds and natural processes, scale, and other positive developments.

The only real reason farmers have started using and have stuck by chemicals, in my view, and from my experience, is laziness. It's simply less work. Organic farming is more trouble. You might have to spend hours weeding, chasing bugs and critters, etc. With chemicals, instead, spray once and you're done working on pests for two weeks.
Ok, lazyness and marketing on the part of chemical companies. Some of those chemicals are not even all that effective anymore.

Now, back home, we have decided to go biocide free, and my father has stopped messing about in the farm. The place is slowly recovering, though it will probably take years before all of the ground is finally clean of the chemicals he dumped on it. Yet, I have already spotted over 10 species of small birds close to our house. Species I had never seen there before. And we even got a woodpecker showing up now.

On a recent visit to Heidelberg, where I was studying German for a few weeks (took the train to get there, in case you're wondering), on the hills across from the town, there are dozens of private orchards along the Philosopher's trail. I often saw people there pulling out by hand creepers and weeds during the weekend and evening, so I assume there is little in the sense of herbicides at least. Well, the whole area seems to be teeming with life, with the enormous racket of birds singing and chirping accompanying you permanently even as you walk into the residential areas at the edge of the hills.

Even where we were flying with the balloon, on the plots that were just growing grass for cattle, there seemed to be some nature still clinging on. I saw at least two hares and a fox as we flew past these.

So the difference between the sterilised farms that take up most of the countryside here, and I guess, almost everywhere, and a clean countryside is enormous.

That is why I have come back from this trip even more convinced of the need to stick to buying organic whenever possible.
Some people got into organic because it is healthier.
Some others, like me, because it also tastes good and it tend to provide a lot more types of things to buy, like types of vegetable you haven't seen in years but might still remember from your childhood, or your grandmother might remember from her childhood. Or vegetables that might be exotic but super healthy and tasty. And then you also tend to get a lot more varieties of the things you already used to buy, like apples or pears.

But more and more I feel that I should stick to organic (as well as local and/or fair trade whenever possible) for ethical reasons.
It is simply so much better for the environment. It's better for biodiversity, it's better for the quality of water resources, and it is even better for us, because then we can actually enjoy going for a walk in the countryside and being in the middle of nature, instead of being in a simulacrum of nature, which is what a lot of the countryside has become, not much better than if it had been made out of plastic.
_____________

Anyhow, we came back from the balloon ride and went to visit my girlfriend's mother. The first thing I notice when I get there is the plastic bottle of RoundUp, (in)famous among herbicides, and a favourite of that most irresponsible of Agrimonsters: Monsanto.
It had been brought by my brother-in-law, to kill the handful of pitiful weeds growing through the gravel outside the house. He also plans to use it all around his new house, despite the fact that he is father to a young girl, barely able to walk, who is sure to play there for years to come.
Well, I tried informing them of how dangerous the stuff is. I mean, just look it up. Wikipedia alone is enough to make me want to stay well clear of it. But, of course, it's 'Oh, the place is overwhelmed with weeds', 'Oh, it will take forever to clean up by hand', 'Oh, this and that non-chemical method will only have the weeds grow again within days', 'But it says here in the pack it's gone within 2 weeks, anyhow, so why are you worried?'

Sometimes you just have to accept people do not want to listen. You have to avoid having yet another fight over something that will not change a single thing. Had more than enough lost battles over organic produce, over saving energy, over how buying stuff just because you can will only generate trash, not happiness. The list could go on and on.
So I let it go after a while. Maybe I'll try again some other day. When my chances they'll listen are better.
Maybe when they're tired? Hmm, probably won't work.
I wonder if I'd get a better chance if I hit them with a frying pan over the head?

Sustainable living - How do we actually consume, and can we keep it up?

1634 Million Kgs (that's 3594,8 million lbs) in minerals, metals and fuels. That includes:

- 224826,297 cubic meters gas (7939665,75 cubic feet)

- 310499 litres oil (82025,1581 US gallons)

- 29728 Kg cement (65539,0213 lbs)

- 421 Kg Lead (928,15 lbs)

- 13442 Kg Iron Ore (29634,54 lbs)

- 2577 Kg Bauxite (5681,31 lbs) for aluminium production

- 266629 Kg Coal (587816,32 lbs)

- 9996 Kg Phospates (22037,4 lbs)

- 49018 gram Gold (1729 oz)

- 594 Kg Copper (1309,55 lbs)

- 12899 Kg Salt (28437,43 lbs)

- 8737 Kg Clay (19261,79 lbs)

- 305 Kg Zinc (672,41 lbs)

- 730940 Kg Stone, Sand and Gravel (1611446,86 lbs)
Source: "Blinkt alle goud? Mijnbouw, ecologie, en mensenrechten" report available on http://www.mo.be/fileadmin/pdf/MO-paper_Mijnbouw.pdf
Original data from the Mineral Information Institute (2008)

That is how much every American being born today is expected to use up throughout his or her life, maintaining current consumption patterns.

There are at least three important considerations directly related to global warming coming from this, and then a number of other considerations relating for example to sustainability, biodiversity, exploitation of vulnerable and poor people in the regions where many of these are obtained, etc.


Relevance for Global Warming


The first important element to remember is that although these numbers pertain to the US, it is unlikely that Europeans, Japanese or any other rich nation's citizens rate any less gluttonous. In fact, if we take CO2 emissions as an indicator of what we might expect in terms of raw material consumption, well, despite the US's bad reputation, some European countries rate almost as bad, Canada and Australia rate worse, and middle eastern oil-States rate gigantically worse. So they probably do similar when it comes to resource consumption.

So, to get any idea of the strain we put on our resources, multiply the numbers above by the number of Americans, but also Europeans, rich middle-easterns, Aussies, Japanese, Canadians, and a growing number of Southeast Asians and Chinese.

Clearly, even with the best of hopes in regards of recycling, improvements in mining and efficiency in the usage of materials, crisis notwithstanding, this sort of consumption raises big questions in terms of sustainability, in the broad sense, i.e., can the Earth actually keep up the supply?

But there are also direct global warming effects to this level of consumption of minerals, metals and fuels:

- mining uses up enormous amounts of energy, and emits large amounts of greenhouse gases. You have just to look at the extraction of Canada's tar sands to make oil, for example, to realise that. Canada's own National Energy Board says the production of one single barrel of oil from tar sands emits 75 Kg of greenhouse gases.

While tar sands are an extreme example, mining most of the above mentioned raw materials involves huge amounts of energy and emissions, simply from the machinery involved.

- Mining also generates emissions by releasing greenhouse gases from natural sinks. One obvious example is the destruction of forests for the purpose of mining. This happens, again, in Canada, on account of tar sand exploitation, but also a bit all over the world, especially in developing countries with little to show in terms of environmental protection rules, or few ways to enforce them.

Tropical deforestation is currently responsible for about 20% of emissions, both by burning and by the emission of gases during the rotting of cut wood.

Another example of an effect is coal mining which, according to the EPA, is one of the main emitters of methane, because of the methane that exists within coal and which gets released when coal gets mined. Yet another example, oil in Northern Alaska. It is so cold there they actually have to spend huge amounts of energy warming up the tundra to get the oil out. Imagine how much that emits, and don't forget that the tundra also stores enormous amounts of methane which then goes into the atmosphere to warm up the environment even more.

- Transportation and processing - Most of the developed world is now short on most of the above materials. This means they need to come from elsewhere. Even when they still exist, they are often more expensive to mine, due to scarcity and stricter regulations, meaning the market forces have shut down the mines in rich countries and buyers source their materials from other countries. That means all of the above gets transported from mining areas, to the different processing areas, and then to the consumption markets. All of this requires energy.

Add to this that processing itself is often extremely energy intensive, like for aluminium, iron, cement, zinc, to mention but a few.

Using recycled materials helps, but even then, recycled materials are not enough, and they still use a large amount of energy to be reused, even if it is less than the energy necessary for virgin materials.

Beyond Global Warming

Well, all of this lust for raw materials has profound effects on our climate, but exploiting these resources also puts an important strain on the local environment and on local populations, leading to loss of biodiversity, contamination or soil, water and air, often conflict for the possession of the resources, and impoverished local populations who get kicked out from their fields or who lose the forest upon which they depend through the action of governments, militias, or even private 'security' services working for the mining companies.

The loss of biodiversity and the contamination of the local environment is something that is particularly prevalent, especially in developing countries where mining is often either done unofficially, for example in eastern Congo, or in the Amazon; or by large mining or oil companies which can impose their will on unstable or weak authorities, or which simply go there because they have less rules to comply with.

As a result, mining can use unsafe, or dirty chemicals and methods of productions which will severely damage the environment of a large area, especially through the contamination of rivers and underground water sources. The local population seldom receives much of the generated income, but they do have to deal with problems arising from the exploitation of their resources. The Delta region in Nigeria or gold mining in some areas of the Amazon are good examples of what can happen.

This sort of damage happens on a grand scale even in developed countries. Again, the tar sands exploitation in Canada has led to enormous patches of forest being cleared, water sources being contaminated with the run-off from the refinement of the sands, and bird-life, for example is suffering damage all across North America because the area is a breeding area for many bird species. Even here, albeit in a less dramatic fashion, the locals have won little, since most of the labour involved in the exploitation comes from elsewhere, and on temporary contracts, which means they add little but hassle to the local community.

Conflict and human rights' abuses are frequent when the business interests and the interests of the population collide. The most dramatic examples are the ones that have to do with civil strife and guerilla conflicts, where the proceeds from mining end up financing the sides at war. The Blood Diamonds from Sierra Leone and Angola, the Coltan in Eastern Congo.

In places like Burma too, many of these activities are still organised around forced labour by the government itself.

But there can also be abuses when mining companies legally explore mineral resources, especially if property laws are weak or difficult for their holders to enforce against big companies and governments. Oil in South American Indian regions, gold in Mongolia, a number of different minerals in other, less troubled areas of Congo again... Let's not even get into non-mining business like soya, wood and cattle, where this sort of abuse is rampant.

So what can we do?

Well, becoming an activist for all sorts of good causes is always an option, and that will no doubt help. ^_^

Going into politics might help too, if you are any good at it, which I, for example am not.

But it is probably as a consumer that most people can do their bit:

For some types of resources, or goods made from these resources, there are certifications that are supposed to guarantee the origin and manner in which the resources are obtained. Of course, every certification has its flaws and ways to fool the audits, but on average, if it is certified, it is a lot better than if it is not

Buy recycled and recyclable. It is true that recycling still uses energy and pollutes a bit. But a lot less than if the materials used are all virgin materials. For example, if you buy a car, your car dealer should be able to have at least a raw estimate of how much of the brand's production is based on recycled materials. If a company has no data on that, while their competitors do (for example, in the car industry at least some of them do), it probably means they just don't really care about that and use few recycled materials.

As time goes by you can find more and more companies in more and more sectors coming out with figures on their recycled materials usage and their longer term aims.

In the same way it is a good idea to buy stuff that can be recycled. Looking ahead of course. Again, more and more companies provide that type of information, at least if you ask for it.

But the most important thing is:

To consume less.

I know, I know. Everybody is saying that we have to get consumption going again so that we avoid economic meltdown. And to a degree, I admit they are right. But, I hope it has now become patently clear that the level of consumption the west has had for the past while is completely unsustainable. Even if you don't care about the emissions, or the amount of resources we consume, you have to admit that the only way we can get consumption back to its previous level is through giving people as much credit as before, and we have seen where that leads!

So, when I say consume less I mean, consume at a more reasonable level. I'm not saying buy nothing, but you don't really need to change computer every six months, or mobile every three months. Do you have any idea how much stuff is needed to build a laptop, for example? Those 2 or 3 Kg required gigantic amounts of land to be sifted through for minerals, litres of oil for the plastics, for the energy to manufacture it and to transport everything around the world I don't know how many times before the final product ends up on the shop shelf, litres and litres of water, etc, etc.

And this applies to everything from the runners you take jogging and which probably do not have to get thrown out with the next fashion season, to the Hi-fi speakers that still sound pretty good, to the lawnmower which probably just needs to be taken to the shop to fix or to that throw-away bottle of mineral water which can easily be replaced by a refillable one.

And of course, use the car and the plane less, save energy at home, use renewables and all the other things I've been writing about in previous posts.

At the same time, what you do buy, you're better off buying certified, preferably made from recycled materials or natural, renewable materials like wood, and, if you can, preferably local production. That way, not only do you keep down the emissions from transport, but you also promote local employment in a more sustainable way, even from a financial point of view. In fact, I am convinced that even for developing countries it ends up being better if they can grow less dependent on our consumption and bad habits in the west and grow by focusing on their own markets, and their own needs, not our desires.

Organically Farming and gardening - Bugs, plant diseases, seeds, and a lot more

I must admit I'm in a lazy mood. Maybe it is te winter snow that dropped by to say hi for a week or two. Maybe it was simply the holiday season that got me slow. Maybe it is that I got a bunch of starlings dropping on my balcony to tussle over the birdfeed, and a Blue Tit also flies up here to the 3rd floor on occasion and I just can't keep myself from stopping everything to go look. Or maybe it is simply 2009 doesn't really seem like a year to look forward to. But I'm just feeling lazy.

As always, when I'm lazy, I end up doing things I've been putting off for ages, just as an excuse to not do the stuff I need to do now.
As it turns out, this time the lucky winner was my email, which got a nice wee clean up, and it's contacts organised, for the first time in, well, ever.

And in the process of doing so, I came across a bunch of links I had mailed myself throughout the last couple of years, and which I had lost when I had to format the harddrive.

There are a number of really useful pages in there for anyone interested in gardening or in doing a little bit of organic farming someday. Not all the pages are necessarily organic farming/gardening related, but I find they still have some useful info.


1- Info and advice 0n insect pests, diseases and other possible stress causes (chemical and alternative solutions), as well as prunning advice - CUES - University of Minnesota

2 - Is it a pest? Is it a good bug? Hell, you're just curious what it is or want to confirm your guess is right? Great website to find the oddest and the commonest of creature by looking at pictures and descriptions. If need be you can send the picture of your bug in and they'll post it and then somebody, usually Mr. Saugstag, will post the answer. I use it as a good starting point to find out what I'm dealing with: http://www.pestcontrolcanada.com/Questions/Whatisthispest.htm

3 - A great website for simple, natural, or homemade solutions and treatments to all sorts of problems a garden or field might encounter, from insects to diseases and even to deal with the ravages of, er, overly energetic pets destroying one's plants. Straight onto the insect treatment page, but the bar at the top will lead to the other sections: http://www.ghorganics.com

4 - Seeds and stuff like that. I mostly look for stuff there and see if I can find it closer to home, but it is good to have this as backup and as info. http://www.organiccatalogue.com/catalog/index.php

5 - This is a great website for anyone looking to plant anything, in particular if you're looking to seed uncommon varieties of vegetables. Besides being a really worthy NGO, it also has a pretty cool online guide for the differente seeds and varieties. Unfortunately, the online access is limited to only a few plants in English. Oddly, it is a lot more extensive in Portuguese and Spanish. So, anyone who can read portuguese or spanish, enjoy.

6 - Vegetable guide. I'm afraid it is only in Dutch :-(

7 - Australian Agriculture Portal - If you happen to be growing anything on their list of agricultural industries, it has quite a lot of info, well organised and in digestible layout. Definitely not particularly organic farming oriented though, of course.

Hope it is some help to someone at some point.
Happy gardening and farming.

Are electricity/hybrid and hydrogen powered cars any use

Ever since Toyota managed, with the Prius 2, to finally succeed in selling an alternatively powered vehicle in sufficient numbers for it to start to be taken seriously, the automobile industry has slowly been warming up to the idea of working on alternatives to diesel and gasoline/petrol, and people in general have started to also warm up to the idea of one day moving from internal combustion cars to alternative motorizations.

The main contenders for the moment seem to be 5, or rather 4 with one of them having two approaches.

1 - pure hybrid cars (like the Prius, or the hybrid Civic), and light hybrids like Mercedes and BMW among others are developing.
1.1 - the pure hybrids have a normal engines as well as a full electrical engine, so they can run on either, and then they have a number of systems to absorb the energy from breaking, slowing down, etc to load up the battery "for free". The idea is to run on electrical in the city, so you do not waste energy while stopped at lights, for example, (because an electrical engine does not stay running while the car is stopped) but then still have a normal fuel engine for long distances, so you avoid the problem of lack of range of batteries. In the end, clever systems allow the electrical engine to give extra whoompf to the fuel engine when needed, without putting pressure on consumption
1.2 - Light hybrids, on the other hand are basically normal cars which usually come equipped with two things. A small electrical engine attached to the gearbox or transmission, to feed extra power into the fuel engine when required while keeping consumption at its most efficient, much in the same way as the normal hybrids do; and a stop-go system which stops the main engine (which is a normal fuel engine) when the car is stopped, but allows it to immediately start again when you press the accelerator. By using these two systems and copying the energy efficiency system of full hybrids, manufacturers hope to provide full hybrid performances with a less complicated and cheaper system.

2 - fully electrical cars, like the Tesla, or the Volt concept car, and a number of models and concept cars currently being developed. These run only on an electrical engine, which therefore is at the same time much more efficient and responsive than a fuel engine. Besides not wasting energy running when not required, these vehicles also recycle energy from braking, slopes, slowing down and anything else is available to recharge the batteries, while accelerating faster and more smoothly than current cars.
One of the downsides is that batteries limit the range of these vehicles. To increase range they have to have more batteries, but this means they have to make the car bigger and heavier, demanding more energy to move the car, leading to less range. So, there is a limitation on how much more range manufacturers can pack into a car using current technology.
The Tesla avoids the lack of range by using light batteries similar to the ones in laptops and mobile phones, but this makes the car very expensive.
Most other cars stick to more traditional batteries to avoid the extra cost, but even so, electrical cars can be quite expensive.

So range has to be balanced out in relation to the cost of the whole system, and at the moment it is still difficult to achieve an attractive balance.

3 - Hydrogen fuel cells. A lot of manufacturers have been working on these, on and off, and governments have often cited the hydrogen economy as the solution to all our energy problems. Hydrogen fuel cells have probably gotten the most investment of all alternatives, because hydrogen is common in nature, namely in water, and it seemed like an infinite power source.

The idea is you feed hydrogen into the system, the system gets oxygen from the environment, applies a process called cataysis, and you get electricity on the one side, and water coming out of the exhaust.
There are other possible fuels that can be used instead of hydrogen, but the basic idea is more or less the same.
Despite all of the support, however, technical and safety issues have kept fuel cells from coming into the market, and I wouldn't be surprised if the development programs were put on the backburner to allow manufacturers to concentrate on hybrids and electrical cars, or simply on surviving the financial crisis.

4 - The aircar. The aircar is something that has been around for over a decade but has never really took off. It works, but it also has range problems, among others, akin to the probems of the electrical car.
The idea is simply that you put a tank of highly compressed air into the car, and use the pressurised air to run an engine. The engine is more complicated than that, but in essence this is what the concept boils down to. When the pressure in the tank gets lower, well, you just either plug it into a compressor and refill it, or you plug the car to a power plug and the actual car engine works in reverse to fill the tank.
There are currently a handfull of companies working on and selling this type of system, and Tata of India has signed an agreement with one of them to use the technology in India, so we'll see what that brings about, but for the moment the aircar is still pretty much an outsider.


Now, the main options are listed the big question is:
Are these cars cleaner?

and there are two answers to this: It depends. And, to a degree.
It depends on where you get the energy and this choice will define to what degree they are cleaner. They are also cleaner in terms of smog generating particles, but not really effective as a means against global warming.

The big problem with all of these "responses to global warming", is that they assume that energy comes out of nowhere. All of these systems have to be "fed", and this uses energy.
What I mean is, an electrical engine might emit nothing while running, but it still needs electricity. And eectricity has to be produced somehow. Therefore, your electrical engine will have zero emissions when running, but not if count the emissions of generating electricity to run it.
Only if your electricity production is emissions free will your car truly have zero emissions.
If you power up your electrical engine with electricity from a coal plant, you will still be generating loads of emissions in the process, only they will be only indirectly coming from your car.
On the other hand, if you happen to have a green energy supply, you will be completely clean.
Therefore, a Hybrid or an electrical car will only be as clean as the electricity you give it.

And the same goes for Hydrogen and pressurized air.
Hydrogen is really not a fuel. It is what they call an energy carrier. When you use energy to separate the Hydrogen from the Oxygen in water, you can get most of that energy back afterwards by putting them back together and making water again. It's as simple as that. If you feed it energy, then you can get it back later. But you do need to use energy to get the Hydrogen in the first place. So, where do you get that energy? If you get it from burning fossile fuels, you don't really get much of a benefit out of it.
So basically it's the same as the electrical car, only you get more steps in between, which will actually probably mean there are more inefficiencies.

Pressurized air is more or less the same. You need energy to create that pressure in the tank. You will never get more than that energy back, and in fact, you will probably get less. So, again, it depends on where you get the electricity from in the first place.

Comparison with current cars

According to coal power industry sources themselves, some older models of coal-powered plants will only use up about 30% of the energy existing in coal. Newer designs are able to provide top efficiencies of 40%-45%, and are getting close to 50%. Improvements are hoped to be able to reach as far as the high 60%s, achieving levels close to 70%, which is more or less where gas power is at the moment.
Naturally, there will be some loss of power until it gets to you, through dissipation, conversion losses, etc etc, but let us say that the efficiency of the electricity you get at home, which will come from a mixture of old and new plants, if it is coal sourced is somewhere between 35%-40%.
This will be the energetic efficiency of your electrically run car. Hydrogen and pressurised air will probably be a couple percent lower.

To compare, I can tell you that if you run a late generation diesel engine with electronic injection, peak efficiencies run around 40%-45%. Of course, average efficiencies will be lower. On an average day, your diesel engine will be making use of about 37% of the energy within the fuel.
A petrol/gasoline engine will be less efficient, using up only 25%-30% of the energy in its fuel.
On the other hand it will be lighter, compensanting for a small part of the lower efficiency, but it will never even come close to a diesel.

As you can see, if we take into account the source of the energy used to power alternative engines, a big part of the benefits disappear, unless, of course, you use green energy.

Conclusions

In a nutshell, alternatively powered cars will help fight global warming if they are powered using electricity, pressurised air, hydrogen, or any other 'fuel' generated using renewable energy.
If they are powered from the grid, using traditional sources of electricity, then most of the global warming benefits ebb away, and these cars are not much cleaner than a good Diesel car. Especially nowadays when we see smaller and smaller diesel engines, allowing smaller cars and higher efficiencies.
This fact allows for the cleaner cars in the market right now, and here I'm just speaking of end-of-the-exhaust emissions, not even including the emissions for the electricity used, not even being those popular hybrid cars, but rather small internal combustion cars with small but more efficient engines, like the Smart fortwo and the Toyota iQ.

The alternative types of engines are indeed cleaner in the sense that they pump out less particles into the air of our cities, so they leave the air cleaner there.
But they are not going to help much against global warming unless renewables make up a larger proportion of our primary electricity production.

In the end, we still have no free lunchs, and the only real way to decrease emissions from transportation is to simply be more organised and more modest in the way we travel:
- use public transport and bikes if that is an option
- travel less Kilometres or miles,
- travel less often,
- travel in smaller vehicles,
- share vehicles by travelling in the company of more people.

Fighting counterinformation - the supposed water vapour effect

Sometimes you just come across the weirdest and most pathetic arguments to support the idea that global warming does not exist, or that it is no big deal, or that it is not necessary to do anything about it, or that it is not human caused. In fact, the internet is bursting with such claims, very often coming from the same people, who apparently do not mind contradicting themselves with their own arguments.

Surprisingly, or perhaps not, many people buy into some of these arguments and in fact spread them as the gospel truth among friends and acquaintances.

So, I've decided to add another aim to this blog, namely, to counter some of the counterinformation that crowds the internet, and in the process, hopefully, give some simple arguments that people can use to convince others that this or other anti-environmental myth being spread around is wrong, or even a purposeful lie.

I'm starting by talking about water vapour, or steam.

Some campaigners argue that global warming cannot be caused by humans because the main responsible for the greenhouse effect is, by far, water vapour, and that since only 1% of vapour is human generated, then global warming is not caused by Humans.


Okay, there are a couple of true things there, as is usually the case. It is a common trick to suggest a starting point to an argument which is correct, to make credible a certain conclusion, which is reached by shadier reasoning. After all, the best lies are the ones with a basis of truth.
It is true that water vapour is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect and it is true that almost all of the water vapour comes from natural sources, for example evaporation of water from sea, lakes, and rivers, breathing by animals and plants, etc.

ALL the rest is a lie.

First mistake

To start with, the greenhouse effect is one thing. Climate change or global warming is another.

The greenhouse effect is, simply put, the atmosphere retaining the sun's energy in the form of heat, allowing us a comfortable temperature as opposed to the -200 degrees of space.
Water vapour is responsible for most, but not all of this effect.

Global warming, on the other hand, is an increase of the greenhouse effect, i.e., the atmosphere stores more of the sun's energy than before.
What this means is that, whereas water vapour is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect, it is not the main driver for its increase, i.e., it is not the main driver of global warming.

Therefore, whether Humans generate a small or a large proportion of the globe's water vapour is really not that relevant for the problem

Second mistake

We have no control over the emissions of water vapour (remember we only generate about 1% of it). Fortunately for us, even that extra 1% of vapour has little scope to increase the greenhouse effect significantly because water vapour does not stay in the atmosphere for very long. It condensates into water fairly rapidly, which means that its global warming effect is very limited in time.

But that is completely different for the other greenhouse gases, like CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and others which can warm up the atmosphere for decades or even centuries, and which are to a great extent the result of human activities.
The fact that the concentration of these gases has multiplied throughout our industrialisation, has led to an increase of the warming effect by these gases. Even if vapour stays the same, the global result will still be an increase of temperatures

Let's put this into a numerical example to make it clearer.
Imagine CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide are responsible for 10% of the greenhouse effect (not the real proportion but easier to work with). So, if the greenhouse effect makes our current temperature 200 degrees higher than the absolute zero temperature that exists in open space, then, 20 of these degrees will be due to these three gases.
Let's say that the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere doubles and we ignore all of the side effects, we might assume that our temperature will go up 20 degrees. Instead of summers with 25° C we might have to deal with 45°.

Even if these three gases are only responsible for 5% of the greenhouse effect, they will increase the temperature 10°.

And importantly, they will be responsible for 100% of the increase. Which means, we are responsible for it since we are the ones pumping more of the stuff into the atmosphere.
And because they stay in the atmosphere for very long, the effect will last decades or centuries, even without taking in feedbacks and tipping points which might be triggered.

So, it is really pointless to say water vapour is the main greenhouse gas so there's nothing we can do. It is the extra drop that makes the glass flow over. It doesn't matter it this drop happens to be water, wine, whisky, beer or milk. It will still flow over.

Mistake Three

Humans might only be responsible for 1% of the water vapour emissions, but this is not the whole story. This refers to water vapour directly generated by humans.
It 'forgets' that the higher the temperatures, the faster water evaporates. The more greenhouse gases we put out there, and the warmer they make the atmosphere, the more water vapour will be created, feeding back into the system with a vengeance.
In fact, recent studies by NASA indicate that the increased evaporation might go as far as to double the global warming effect in comparison to the warming that the other gases would generate on their own.

What about the Albedo effect?

This is a related issue to the third mistake. Albedo is the reflection of sunlight back into space. The higher the albedo, the less energy stays in the atmosphere warming it up. Areas covered with lighter colours, such as in places covered in ice, salt or light coloured sand, reflect a higher proportion of the sun's light than other areas (which is an important consideration now the north pole ice cap is going).

Clouds, which should increase in number if there is more water vapour in the atmosphere, have the same effect, reflecting sunlight and helping to keep Earth cooler. On the other hand, they also reflect energy back to Earth, avoiding it escaping back into space.

The overall result is still unclear, being one of the many difficulties in creating accurate environmental models. Some people have in fact suggested creating steam clouds to work as a sunshade as a way of fighting global warming.

Unfortunately, however, so far studies have indicated that more clouds tend to trap slightly more energy than the one they reflect back to space, so I'm afraid we should not really count on clouds to save us.

Global Warming Awareness Raising - The need for us to be active

Well, my computer went to hell, courtesy of AVG antivirus (a faulty update killed a system file giving me the dreaded blue screen of death, and forcing me to reinstall everything), so it is a bit since the last post. But better late than never, so here it is:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I recently came across a whole lot of information from a major study undertaken in the European Union, which included also Turkey, Macedonia, Croatia, and the Turkish Cypriot Community in the north of Cyprus. It consisted of face to face interviews with 30170 citizens, so, a pretty broad sample evenly distributed throughout the 30+1 countries, which took place between between the end of March and the beginning of May 2008. The idea was to take the pulse of European environmental awareness and point some areas where work needed to be done.

For a while I debated with myself whether to put some of the data here or not, since it does not exactly fit into the concept of hints and ideas on how we can do our share to fight global warming and other environment problems. In the end, however, I figured I might as well, since the study does provide some important conclusions, and show clearly that there is a lot of work ahead for each one of us just to get through to our fellow citizens, let alone to stop global warming.

The main findings I take from the study can be summarised, as follows:

- Europeans remain mostly optimistic, in fact unreasonably so I think, and believe climate change is not unstoppable

- They rank global warming / climate change, as one of the most important global issues, though not the main one

- Most claim to have already done something to address climate change.

- Yet, they find that the EU, governments, industry and also citizens as a whole could do more. 76% think the industry is not doing enough to fight climate change, 67% that citizens are not doing enough (which is a surprisingly positive element coming out of the study). Governments (64% think they could do more) and the European Union (58%) rank slightly better but still pretty miserably.

- Importantly, there is a great deal of confusion regarding what can be done, leading to strange, misdirected views and a shortage or lack of proper action. For example, when asked what they have done to fight global warming, the most common action cited is 'Waste separation'. This is a worthy goal in itself, but hardly addresses the core of the problem when it comes to global warming.

Yet, there is a certain level of receptivity, as indicated by the perception no one is doing enough to deal with the problem. And this is where I decided that this did fit into the Blog.

After all, it's all very nice and good that individuals do their best to decrease emissions in their personal lives, be it by cutting down on energy use, travel, meat eating, buying of unnecessary products, which on top of everything come from the other side of the World, or simply walking to the supermarket.

But, it is even better if, next to this, each concerned citizen engages in a personal effort of awareness raising and education of our circle of acquaintances, family and friends.

Now, I am not asking that we all become environmental supernags, making everybody's life miserable every time someone fails to do the absolute environmental best.

No, what is necessary is to be a good influence, so to speak.

To start, we should lead by example, instead of being covert environmentalists afraid people will think we're odd because of actually bothering making the extra effort. We need not be saints, but we can still make sure we always try to do better and show how we are able to better. I find if we are environmentally aware we need to work at making this awareness the norm. Right now it is still a sort of exception. The more people act environmentally aware, the more difficult it will be for everyone to continue pretending we can go on with our devil-may-care and 'it's someone else's job to fix it' approach.

But then, we also need to actively inform and educate, to rock people off their comfort zone a little bit. Slowly, patiently, avoiding preaching. After all, there are plenty of activists and activist organisations around. People open to their voices will become gradually more aware with or without our help. But there is a whole bunch of other people out there who do not like to listen to activists, but whom we have to start reaching sooner or later, if we are to make a difference. This is a slow, grinding work that we all need to undertake to a higher or lesser degree.

To be honest, I have, in the past, found myself pressing people too much, and it was usually counter-productive, except when they were particularly receptive and I happened to have a good set of explanations ready to support my views. In fact that was one of the reasons for setting up this blog.

In general, it is best to explain why and how, perhaps give a little nudge of encouragement, but in the end, leave the decision in the other person's hands, even if he or she might decide not to do what we want. We cannot force people at gunpoint after all. At best we will change attitudes a bit, but even at worst, we will have planted a seed, which might still grow into something positive later.

We might not convince someone to take the bike to work today, but maybe in a few months, when the sun is shining, he or she will for the first time consider cycling to the supermarket, or to the cinema. And a little bit later, who knows, they might take the bus to work if the weather is nice enough. It will not be the best, but it will already be better than nothing, and it is a start for an increase in awareness.

Besides taking time to raise awareness around us, since Humans are by nature resistant to change, we also need to choose the best moments to introduce the new information and ideas to people. In a way, we have to be opportunistic. Sometimes it is best to retreat today, to have a better chance of getting through tomorrow.

It is slow, frustrating, and not always rewarding.

It also requires the work of gathering up bits of knowledge that might help support our views, because people will often accept a bad idea, or even an outright lie, without any evidence, especially if it allows them to not change what they are doing much. But ironically, they will tend to resist environmental messages that require changes to the way they lead their lives, even if they are minor. The only way to avoid this is by having the support of enough evidence to make the need for change inescapable. Besides, not everyone is a born salesman, to be able to sell environmental ideas easily to a reluctant public. I sure as hell am not proficient at it. And then, supporting information is always handy to have.

All of this said, every so often, someone you did not expect will switch off the lights when leaving, will take the tram or the bike instead of the car, will tell you they decided for car X instead of Y because it is cleaner. They might come talk to you to inform you they have started cutting down on the amount of meat they eat, or started to pay attention to the origin of what they buy. Or that they lowered the heating by one or two degrees, or that they are taking a longer holiday closer to home instead of two short ones further away.

And then the frustration will seem to fade away. And going to the trouble of rocking the boat in defence of the environment will seem a worthwhile pursuit after all.

Short summary of results

As usual, I digressed a little, well, a lot. But no more. I'll just show the results that most caught my attention without making too many comments.

Just a list regarding the country codes, for anyone who might not recognise a few.

AT- Austria BE - Belgium BG - Bulgaria CY - Cyprus CZ - Czech Republic DE - Germany DK - Denmark EE -Estonia

ES - Spain FI - Finland FR - France IE - Ireland IT - Italy GR - Greece HR - Croatia HU - Hungary LT - Lithuania

LU - Luxembourg LV - Latvia MK - Macedonia MT - Malta NL - Netherlands RO - Romania PL - Poland PT - Portugal SE - Sweden

SL - Slovenia SK - Slovakia TR - Turkey UK - United Kingdom CYTCC - Turkish Cypriot Comm. EU - All Europe

Public perceptions

One positive result of the survey is that Global warming ranks second after “poverty, lack of food, and drinking water” as the most serious problem facing the world as a whole. It shows up as more important than international terrorism, armed conflicts, economic downturns, infectious disease, proliferation of nuclear weapons and increasing world population. This ranking in the list of dangers is common to pretty much all countries in Europe, except one or two differences, like the British ranking international terrorism higher than global warming...

Nonetheless, while considering it one of the most important issues, only 62% of Europeans find climate change a serious problem. Top of the rank are Cyprus (92%) and Greece (90%) and bottom are Italy and Portugal (47%) and the Czechs (45%), so no clear geographical layout here. The others rank as follows: SL 80%; SE 74%; FI 73%; DK, DE, FR, HU 71%; LU, AT 69%; NL, LV, SK 66%; MT 64%; IE 63%; BE, ES 61%; RO 60%; EE 58%; UK 57%; BG 52%; PL 50% and TR 60%; MK 59%; HR 54%.

If asked to rank from 1-10 the seriousness of the problem, all countries show 59% or more of the people ranking global warming as 7 or more. This relatively low percentage, for me at least, brings me back to the point of the need for the rest of us to raise awareness, still and ever.

The rankings of perceptions go: CY 96%; GR 95%; SL 89%; MT 88%; HU 86%; FR 84%; SK ES 83%; FI LU 78%; SE, AT 77%; CZ 76%; PT LV 75%; EU 75%; IT DE, BE 74%; RO PL DK 73%; LT BG 71%; IE 70%; 63% EE; NL 62%; UK 59% and CYTCC 72%; TR 78% MK 75% HR 70%

It is true, that another 23% rank global warming as a fairly serious problem (5-6) but this serves more to emphasize the point that Europeans are concerned but mostly optimistic about global warming. In my view, unrealistically optimistic. This is clear for instance in the Netherlands, where people are among the least concerned despite their country being mostly below sea level as it is. The fact that they have found technical solutions for that predicament, probably makes most of the Dutch think that such a technical solution will exist for global warming too, or at least to deal with its consequences. This is, of course, mostly navel gazing, since it ignores that not all countries can afford it and that most scientists believe that technology will not be able to solve global warming without a change of attitudes and economic models to go with it.

The point of the need for awareness raising and education is further stressed by a number of findings. For example:

- people with less information were shown to be less concerned, with only 53% of the respondents, which compares to 69% for people who find themselves well informed.

- 45 % of Europeans find they are poorly or not at all informed about ways to fight climate change. And 41% about the causes and the consequences. Scandinavians and Dutch feel the best informed and Bulgarians, Romanians, Portuguese, Lithuanians, Czechs and Turks the least.

Despite this, 61% say they have already done something to help fight climate change, with the percentage being highest for groups with higher levels of education and information and with a perception of climate change as being a very serious problem.

Swedes rate highest (87%) and Bulgarians lowest (17%)

Actions undertaken by individuals - The problem of lack of information

It seems most people do not really know what they can do to fight global warming and tend to mix the problem with a broader perception of environmental protection.

Clearest example is that when asked 'What actions have you taken to fight climate change?', waste separation ranks as the most mentioned action with 76% of respondents mentioning it. Ultimately, through a roundabout way, one might indeed say that waste separation does help, but fighting global warming is hardly its primary objective or effect.

Reduction of domestic energy consumption comes only second (64%) and is followed by saving water (55%), another worthy goal, but hardly aimed at global warming. Reduction of consumption of disposable items comes out at 40%.

Only then do we get to the other really important actions:

- 28% for choosing environmentally friendly transportation,

- buying seasonal and local products (27%),

- reducing car use(25%),

- purchasing a cleaner car (18%),

- avoiding short haul flights (12%),

- switching to energy supplier with more renewable energy (8%),

- or installing domestic equipment to generate renewable energy (5%)

Clearly, awareness raising, information, and education are a must if we're ever to change attitudes towards more sustainable modes.

As curiosity, here are the top and bottom countries for the different categories:

Waste separation:

FR and LU 90%; DE and UK 87% --- BG 41%; RO 37%; CY 31%

Energy consumption:

CY 84%; DK and LU 80% ----IT 48%; LV 44%; LT 40%

Water consumption:

CY 92%; SK 73%; DE 72% -- IE 42%; IT 42%; SE 37%; UK 37%

Reducing disposable items:

LU 63%; IE 61%; BE and AT 57% ---- PT 20%; ES 18%; CY 12%

Environmentally friendly transport:

LV and NL 49%; DK 42%; SE 41% ---- CY 14%; MT 12%; PT 11%

Seasonal products:

AT 43%; SE 42%; DE 40% ---- LT 13%; Pt 11% ; ES 7%

Reducing car use:

SE 41%; NL 37%; DE 34%; BE 33% --- LV 10%; LT 9%; RO 7%

(Of course, this says nothing about the amount of Kms travelled in the end)

Buy greener car :

DE 30%; LU 29%; FI and SE 27% --- EL 6%; ES 6%; PT 4%

Less short haul flights:

SE 33%; LU 27%; DE 25%; AT 23% --- EL, CY and PT 3%; MT 1%

Change electrical supplier :

NL 30%; SE 18%; BE 14%; UK 13% --- BG, LT, SI and SK 2%; CY and LV 1%

installing renewable generation:

SE 19%; CY 18%; DK 11%; AT and FI 9% --- BG, CZ, LT, RO and SK 1%; ES 0%

Reasons for action and inaction

The reasons pointed out for action are:

- one should act because if everyone acts there will be an effect (63%)

- it is a duty as a citizen to protect the environment (61%).

- concern for future generations (52%)

- 25% say it might save money

- 8% would act because they have already been directly exposed to the consequences of climate change

On the other hand, the reasons not to act are:

- that governments and companies are the ones that need to change but not citizens (42%),

- they would like to act but do not know what to do (34%)

- the convenient pessimist - changing behaviour will not have an impact on the fight against climate change (26%)

- it would be too expensive (15%)

- are not concerned 9%

Adding to this, the survey found that Europeans are to a great extent unwilling to pay more for energy for it to come from cleaner sources.

30%, no less, are not willing to pay one cent more for energy. 18% only are willing to pay for an increase of up to 5% in price, another 14% are willing to pay up to 10% more and another 10% are willing to go up to 30%. Only 2% are willing to pay more than 30% to get cleaner energy.

The strongest willingness to pay appears in Denmark, Greece, Slovenia and the Netherlands. Germans and Brits are the least inclined to pay more, with close to 50% unwilling to pay any increase at all.

Cycling into tomorrow: healthy, fast and environmentally sound

Bikes are the most environmentally friendly locomotion method there is. Yet, relatively few people use it on a day to day basis, at least if you compare with the amount of people taking the car. Ok, I’m not talking to the Dutch or the Danish here, who cycle on average somewhere between 600 Km and 1000 Km a year, depending on the studies. For most people in the developed world, the bicycle is not really seen as an option for our mobility. At most, it is something one uses for sport during our free time, or while sightseeing. But not really an alternative to the car.

There are several reasons for this. Laziness is certainly one reason for some. Others find they are too unfit anyhow so why bother trying. I suppose the text below has some good arguments that apply to these people too. But if someone does not want to be convinced, well, he or she will usually not be convinced.

So, I write this thinking mostly of those people who would use the bike, at least for some things, but don’t because they are worried about their safety on the road. I think also about those people concerned about the actual healthiness of cycling in a polluted environment and those who are afraid cycling is simply too slow to get them from A to B in time, and about those who are afraid their bike will just get stolen.

If you fit into any of the above categories, read on, because you will find that cycling is healthy, that in fact the air you breath in while cycling in traffic is cleaner than the one inside cars, and that the bicycle easily beats cars and even public transport in terms of speed.

I also put together some advice I got from different places on how to keep safe in traffic and how to make cycling more pleasurable, and to help make sure your bike is there when you get back

Talking of pleasurable, a little aside. I live in Belgium. People who have been to Belgium probably know that the weather here is, at best, changeable. It rains often. Yet, studies by Brussels City Council have come to the surprising conclusion that people who cycle to work get rained on just a couple of dozens of times in a year. I can attest to that. I seldom get rained on when cycling somehow. And that is nothing that a good outfit won’t fix anyhow. And this is rainy Belgium. Just to lay that one to rest straight off.

Advantages to Cycling

Health

Health is an obvious one. Numerous studies show increased life expectancy and better health for cyclists in young and old age. For example, in a brochure by the city of Brussels, Belgium, it says that 76% of people who cycle have hearts in perfect condition with the rest having an average heart health. 0% have a severely damaged heart. Non cyclists, on the other hand, have only 46% of people with their hearts in tiptop shape, 43% are average and 11% have severe heart damage.

Why? Besides the straightforward element of exercise, which is ever more important since modern life is less and less active, there is an element of relaxation and unwinding connected to cycling for one’s daily chores. To start, one is out in the open, and then there is also the pace, which is, in personal opinion, always more relaxed than driving. Or taking buses and metros for that matter.

But as it turns out, it is apparently also cleaner for our system.

One might think that cycling down a busy avenue would be a great way of turning our lungs black. But, according to studies, the air we breathe while cycling down a polluted avenue is actually cleaner than the air the people are breathing while sitting in the cars we’re zooming past. In fact, recent studies indicate that the air quality inside vehicles (and also houses and offices) is extremely poor. As a result, cycling through pollution is actually healthier than sitting in a car, with the air entry closed and breathing recirculated air.

The car is actually the main polluter of the air inside it. As a result the air inside a car is 2 to 8 times worse than the one outside. There are several reasons for this.

Outdoors, the wind carries the pollutants away, and at the same time, the cyclist absorbs less of what remains, since he or she is sitting fairly high up in comparison to the air vents for vehicles. This is important because pollutant concentration is highest near the ground (that is where exhausts are spitting them out and these pollutants are usually heavy).

Add to this that cyclists avoid tunnels and main thoroughfares (where the air is at its worst) and upon reaching red traffic lights can head straight up to the front of the queue, instead of sitting there in the middle of the exhausts. Numbers don’t lie and they are very clear. Your lungs prefer cycling. These average numbers I picked up from that brochure printed by the city of Brussels:

pollutant intake (μg) : carbon monoxide Nitrousoxides (Nox) Benzine Toluene Xylol/Xylene

Bike 2670 156 23 72 46

Car 6730 277 138 373 193

So, for most pollutants, cyclists get between 3 and 6 times less exposed to dangerous particles than motorists.

Subsidies

A second benefit, that exists in some places, but unfortunately not in others, is financial. Some authorities, either national or local, give tax benefits or even subsidies for people willing to leave the car in the garage and go to work by bike (I think there are also cases in which the subsidies are given by the employer, which then gets some benefit from the State). Mobility bureaus and such usually have info on what schemes exist and how to participate. Sometimes organisations also have to get a heads-up for the possibilities that exist from their employees because the authorities don’t publicise their schemes adequately or sufficiently (hint hint ^_^).

The schemes do not oblige people to always take the bike, but instead have some way of adjusting the amount of subsidy to the amount of times the bike gets used instead of the car, or subsidise the usage of public transports and bikes directly, instead of the passenger.

The financial support can actually amount to a few hundreds of Euro, not to mention how much you save on gas (and doctor bills), so it is definitely a win win situation if the possibility exists.

Higher mobility and speed

Add to the above advantages speed and mobility. For short trips, which in major cities usually make up more than 50% of trips, the bike is certainly the best bet. Easy to park and fast to move about.

A big city often has average speeds for cars running around 10 Km/h. Cities such as London may go as low as 5 or 6 Km/h, certainly during peak hours. As term of comparison, a standard bike, powered by an untrained person, easily makes average speeds of 15 Km/h, especially if the city has the right infrastructure to accommodate cyclists and is reasonably flat. Even on a difficult town, speeds of 10 Km/h are easily reached, i.e., comparable to what you get with a car.

Therefore, cycling might very well be the fastest way to get anywhere within a 5-10 Km radius. If you can take the bike along on public transport (like the metro, something which is becoming more common, at least outside of peak hours), then the bike is probably the fastest way to get anywhere in town.

Safety in traffic

All of that said, while cycling, for the most part, you’re as safe as you make yourself. The things bellow are a sort of check-list meant to help stay safe while making use of your bicycle.

1- An important thing is having an idea of what your route will be and preferring the easiest, cycle-friendliest routes to the most complicated roads or big crossroads. A small detour is often faster than going through the main grind spots.

2- Take ownership of your space on the road. That cannot be repeated often enough.

The first tendency while cycling is to try not to hinder traffic. So you try to stay close to the side. But this increases the risks. Cyclists need instead to take control of their place on the road, for their safety and that of everyone else

Drive not right next to the side but rather about one meter away from it. This makes it much less likely that you get hit by an opening door, or that you are not seen by someone pulling out of a garage or a narrow street. It also avoids getting squeezed by cars passing you and not bothering to do a proper takeover. Many drivers have a very poor notion of the width of their vehicle and their speed.

Also, if there is a section of the road with more space (due to the lack of parked cars or a bus stop area for example), resist the temptation to veer in to make life easier for cars following you. It will just mean that you can end up blocked when you try to veer back in.

3- At traffic lights, move to the front of the queue and set yourself at the centre, in front of the first car. It is not for nothing that at traffic lights there is room at the front for bikes. Stopping there puts you in clear view of the cars so you do not get trapped when they start moving. Drivers then know you are there and what you are doing. They cannot avoid you if they cannot see you

4- Indicate well, and well in advance, especially if you’re turning left. Make sure to set the arm horizontally so it is clearly visible and that it cannot be mistaken for a casual gesture.

Peek back before indicating, and then again before turning, to make sure all is clear. One has the tendency to start relying in one’s ear to find out if there is traffic or not, or to assume drivers will let us through if we indicated, but developing a reflex of checking visually what is going on is the best way of avoiding accidents. Even discounting bad will on the part of drivers, which I have felt very seldom, they might have been distracted somehow and not have seen us indicate, no matter how clear we might have been.

5-When turning left, do not do it suddenly in one movement. Approach the left gradually, as you indicate, before actually doing the turn, so basically, prepare drivers for your move.

If it is dark, wet, misty, or simply there is bad visibility or heavy traffic on the crossroad, it is sometimes better to simply pull up to the right, and cross like a pedestrian, before getting back on the bike and continuing.

6- Trucks/lorries, cannot see you. In fact, for the most part, heavy vehicle drivers drive them half blind. After all, they have no middle rear-view and the side mirrors have huge blind areas, or areas where they only show images past a certain height. In Europe, there is a big directive being prepared to retrofit heavy vehicles with better visibility systems, from different mirrors to cameras, but that is still a bit far in the future. So, in the meantime, cyclists must always approach heavy vehicles with extreme caution.

Rule number one: no overtaking trucks on the outside unless you are 100% positive that it will not start moving. It is possibly one of the most dangerous things to do on a bike because if it moves, you will have no way of warning the driver, and very often you will not have the space or time to avoid the vehicle.

Also pay attention to the very important fact that a turning truck/lorry, or bus, juts out large sections of its body as it bends. If it turns left, for example, it will need a lot of space to its right to manoeuvre. So be careful to not get caught anywhere near a manoeuvring heavy vehicle. Better to wait and let it finish.

While talking of heavy vehicles, buses always have priority when pulling out of a stop, if in relation to a bike. So, don’t act as if they have to wait for you to pass, especially since bus drivers are on a schedule. Even if you are not on their blind spot, you will only be a very small figure on their mirror which they might miss in their hurry.

7- When there are queues, in places without a cycle path, it is often safer, ironically enough, to cycle in the middle of the road, between the two lanes.

This has the advantage of making yourself visible to oncoming traffic, but also making you more visible to the traffic in your lane.

If you cycle between the two lanes, you will be coming in on the driver’s side, which is the side drivers check the most on their side mirrors.

Then, when the queue starts moving again, you can (and should) easily slide into a gap again, and you will do so remaining perfectly visible to all drivers. That said, if the traffic in opposite direction is heavy or you are going to turn right, or the road is very narrow, it might be safer to stick to the sides of the road. Check next point then.

8- Be extremely careful, and move slowly if you are cycling past a queue on the outside of the lane. Do stop and take your place in the queue if there is not enough space, and do not try to squeeze through gaps, especially if you are not sure the drivers have seen you. You could get trapped when the queue starts moving, because cars do not always move in straight line.

The problem with cycling on the outside of the road is that this is the side drivers tend to check the least on their side mirrors, not to mention the side with the largest blind spots.

It is also the side passengers get off, often without checking for cyclists. And, once the traffic starts moving, one can get easily trapped between the traffic and the parked cars, hit mirrors, etc.

If there is a bicycle lane, it is perfectly safe, of course.

9- On roundabouts, stick to the middle of the outside lane, or as far in as the cycle path if allows, if there is one. This decreases the likelihood of getting cars cutting you off on the way out of the roundabout. It is, nonetheless, a particularly tricky type of road for cyclists, so be extra visible, extra careful, and extra clear indicating what you’re going to do.

10- In many cities, bikes are allowed to ignore most one-way signs and cycle against the flow of traffic down one-way streets. This is great to save time, but it does involve extra risks because you will be taking people by surprise. They will not expect anything to be coming from that side and therefore will not pay attention. Since bikes are silent, they often have no idea the cyclist is there. So, extra care in crossroads, when passing garages and when going past pedestrians.

11- Trams are nice in a city, I find personally. They have a certain charm to them. But their rails are hell for cyclists. The only thing to do is to cross them at a low speed on as perpendicular an angle as you can and the road and traffic allows. Otherwise there is a real risk of sliding (even in dry weather) or getting a wheel caught.

12- You went shopping and you are carrying a couple of bags on your bike. Try to bear in mind that this will extend your braking distance, unbalance your bike if you’re manoeuvring, and simply just make your bike harder to manage.

13- And, last but not least, dress colourfully, or at least, do not dress too discreetly. A cyclist is a small volume on the road, meaning that since we do not stick out because of our size and shape, we must find other ways to do it. Colour, is the easiest. Another option, especially for the evening is lights and reflectors. Most of these things are quite cheap to buy, and sometimes you might even get them for free from employers, authorities, festivals, etc.

Avoiding theft

Just one final word about theft. That is indeed a big problem in some towns, but not an insurmountable one. A friend of mine had the following philosophy: “the best is to have two really good locks and one really beaten up old bike.”

I tend to agree, at least in part. If you want to use a bike to just get around town for work, to do grocery shopping or go out to meet up with friends, you certainly do not need something really racy right? Ask the Dutch. They cycle everywhere, and most of their bikes seem to date back to World War One.

That said, old bike or new bike, you still want it to be there when you come back.

So, first thing is to get two good locks. One is not enough, and you cannot just use whatever is cheapest either.

A good thing to have is a ring lock (which is embedded into the frame and jams a ring through the spokes of the back wheel). It seems those are hell to break.

That said, they do not fix your bike to anything, so someone can just ‘carry’ it away literally and work on it calmly out of sight. It is something handy to have, but not a must.

What you absolutely need is a sturdy U-lock. These are difficult to break or cut through and allow some flexibility regarding where you fix your bike.

Alternatively you can use a resistant chain with a key lock, but I think these are easier to break. On the other hand, they do give you more flexibility when it comes to choosing something to fix the bike to. Other types of locks, like spiral locks only take a few seconds to break. Locks that open with a combination instead of a key also tend to be easy to break, from what I hear and read.

You then need to use one lock between the frame and the front wheel, and another between the frame and the back wheel. At least one of the two should also fix to something solid, like a fence, or a lighting post. This way you protect the bike, and both of the wheels (since in some places the wheels sometimes get stolen, to be sold on).

It is important to also choose wisely what you attach the bike to. No point in having great locks o go and attach them to a rusty fence that gets loose or breaks the minute anyone bothers to shake it. It is also best to park the bike in a place where there is movement of people, of course.