Wood fires fuel climate change – UN

No Comments »

Log burning and diesel vehicles two of the biggest culprits in developed world in generating pollution causing black carbon

wood fire

Burning logs in fireplace releases black carbon in the air, which, in large quanitities causes short term climate change. Photograph: Andrew Holt/Alamy

There is little better on a winter’s evening than curling up next to a wood fire, or the modern equivalent, a wood-fired boiler – unless it is the green warm glow you get from knowing that the fuel you are using is environmentally friendly and sustainable.

Except that it is not always. And nor is that two-year-old diesel car you bought because its fuel efficiency, compared with petrol models, makes it more green. As a United Nations report has just uncovered, wood burning and diesel vehicles are two of the biggest culprits in the developed world in generating the black carbon – soot – that is a major cause of climate change.

“It’s nice to sit in front of a wood fire in the winter, but we should all be feeling pretty guilty,” said Joseph Alcamo, chief scientist at the UN Environment Programme.

The most up-to-date, and expensive, models of wood-fired boilers do not produce black carbon. Pellets, for instance, are fine. But Markus Amann, of the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, in Austria, warned: “It’s the cheap ones.” Models that burn logs instead of pellets are particularly bad, as they are near impossible to retrofit with particle-catching technology that would render them harmless. Most diesel cars more than two years old are also likely to emit particulate matter that is big enough to cause air pollution – which causes the premature death of hundreds of thousands of people in Britain – and climate change.

Black carbon is a problem because it is black – it absorbs heat, and in the worst cases it dirties the snow in areas such as the Arctic, Siberia and high mountains. The blackened snow absorbs more heat and instead of reflecting the sun, and helping to cool the planet, it warms the surrounding areas. Repeated on a global scale, this is a major cause of short term climate change.

The good news is that tackling black carbon, and other so-called “short-lived climate forcers” such as methane, could be a quick win in terms of tackling climate change. If the world were to take urgent action on the leading causes of the problem, we could knock about half a degree Celsius off the expected warming in the short term. That means a lot in terms of global warming – world leaders have pledged to try to limit global temperature rises to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels, because scientists regard that as the limit of safety, beyond which climate change would become catastrophic and irreversible.

Cutting black carbon also saves lives – acting on air pollution would avoid millions of premature deaths around the world each year. The UN advocates a number of measures that would all be either low-cost or would pay for themselves – in terms of lower fuel costs – within a few years. For instance, replacing wood fired cooking in the developing world with low-emissions sources such as solar cookers, petroleum based stoves or other modern technology would cost about $20 (£13) to $60 per stove, but would save millions of lives.

Changing farming practices would also save millions of tonnes of carbon emissions a year – for instance, rice paddy fields generate methane, a greenhouse gas many times more powerful than carbon dioxide. By changing practice so that the paddy fields were dried out once a year and exposed to the air, the amount of methane produced could be drastically reduced, at no cost to farmers and with no reduction in the overall rice yield.

Composting is also a good idea, according to the UN – the methane emitted can be captured and used as a small power source. Although at present it takes a farm to produce enough manure and waste to power an anaerobic digester, smaller scale versions could power a single heating source or cooker.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted on November 28th 2011 in News flash

WATER: THE NEW OIL

No Comments »

As the Earth warms and the world’s population grows, competition for dwindling supplies of fresh water will intensify. As the biggest industrial user of water, the energy sector can either fight to maintain its share, or learn to conserve.

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Coal plant - Wikipedia Commons

The stakes are high. As Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, put it, “water is the new oil.

For utilities especially, water is precious. They use it most of all to cool steam generators that may be driven by coal, natural gas, nuclear or even solar energy.

In 2008, at least one nuclear reactor, inAlabama, shut down briefly because water supplies dried up during the great Southeast drought that summer. Reactors in Western Europe shut down during the 2006 heat wave and were threatened by asharp drop in river levels again this year.

Most climate models predict that the drought-stricken Southwestern United States will grow even drier and hotter–like Texas–as global warming progresses. That will harm the energy sector along with agriculture, tourism and recreation, and many other kinds of industry.

“The competition between water and energy needs represents a critical business, security, and environmental issue, but it has not yet received the attention that it deserves,” said Diana Glassman, co-author of a report by the World Policy Institute and EBG Capital on “The Water-Energy Nexus.”

“Energy production consumes significant amounts of water, and vice versa. In a world where water scarcity is a major and growing challenge, water deserves a place on the energy agenda alongside cost, carbon and security considerations.”

The report notes that coal- and oil-fired power plants use twice as much water as natural gas-fired plants. Nuclear plants use three times as much.

Some of the biggest water hogs are oil extractors, according to the report. Mining the thick tar sands of Canada may require 20 times more water than conventional oil drilling. In parts of parched south and west Texas, natural gas fracking may be curtailed due to lack of water.

Renewable energy isn’t exempt from this problem. Although wind and solar photovoltaic plants use little or no water, water-cooled solar thermal plants use five times as much as gas-fired plants. (Some solar thermal producers, like BrightSource Energy, have switched to air cooling to save water at their desert sites, despite the loss of some generating efficiency.)

And biofuels fermented from soybeans or corn “can consume thousands of times more water than traditional oil drilling, primarily through irrigation,” according to the World Resources Institute.

The best solutions—because they carry so many benefits—are programs to conserve energy and water consumption. Water-related users in California account for about 19 percent of the state’s electricity consumption, so every gallon saved through drip irrigation or improved industrial processes saves energy. Similarly, every kilowatt-hour saved means less need to build or operate power plants that use precious water.

PG&E and other utilities are also installing new air or “dry” cooling systems on their power plants that save more than 90 percent of the water required by traditional “wet” cooling.

Last but not least, wind and solar photovoltaic plants will help out as they replace traditional fossil generation. A thousand megawatts of wind power can save 1.3 billion gallons of water annually, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted on September 8th 2011 in News flash

Why Recycling Plastic Bottles Doesn’t Help The Problem

No Comments »

plastic bottles photo
Photo by stephendepolo via Flickr CC

Plastic bottles always suck, even if they’re being recycled. That’s because the energy it takes to recycle them is mind-boggling. It’s no simple task to melt down all those bottles, and the plastic is usually degraded in the process and often can’t be used for food-grade products again. Take a tour of a plastic bottle recycling facility in this video and be amazed.

Core77 states it best, “Ecostar recycling facility in Wisconsin. The amount of steps–not to mention electricity, water and manpower–that need to be taken to go from a bale of plastic bottles into safe, useable material is pretty staggering.”

To clarify, we aren’t knocking recycling. And we aren’t knocking Ecostar, because we love that they’re at least paying homage to greener materials and recycling. Recycling is a vital step to keeping items out of landfills and in the consumer stream. However, recycling should be a last line of defense in slowing down our consumption of natural resources. Plastic bottles — indeed anything disposable — is simply a bad idea from the start.

Reduce, and reuse are the two most important Rs in the loop. For some reason, recycling gets the most attention. It might be because it doesn’t require us to change the important habits, like shifting what items we buy in the first place so we avoid excessive packaging and disposable items.

It’s sort of amazing that in 2011, we’re still battling plastic bottles even after we know the destruction they cause. But just to hammer home the point, and since today is World Oceans Day, we’ll end on this note:

It is estimated that we have 6 times more plastic than plankton in our Oceans.

If that doesn’t make you want to ban the bottle along with the bag, I’m not sure what will.

UPDATE: When I found this statistic, it seemed a little dramatic. Luckily, TreeHugger writer John Laumer was all over it, and just sent us these back of the napkin calculations from his friend Friend Russ George:

World plastic production is now about 40 million tons per year. 

Ocean plankton production is about 1gm/m2/day or about 1 tonne/ km2/day

Oceans are about 300 million km2

That’s about 300 million tonnes of plankton growth each day, a low estimate. So maybe 30 – 40 billion tonnes of standing plankton biomass per year.

How does one get from 40 million tonnes per year total world plastic production to an ocean filled with more plastic than plankton?

If one assumes 100% of all plastic ever produced is floating today in the oceans one might estimate 100 years of plastic production x 40 million tonnes per year (current production rate) might equal 4 billion tonnes of plastic ever produced. More likely 1/10th that, but hey go ahead and give max case in favour of the plastic horror vs. least case for Pico and kin.

If one factors in the fact that not all plastic production is making it out of the land fills and into the oceans to float around as one factor, nothing near 4 billion tonnes of plastic has ever been produced as another factor, recycling of plastics another factor, breakdown in the environment another factor, and perhaps more then just how do “they” justify the outrageous scare media marketing tactics. There are 4 or 5 orders of magnitude of “scary spice” in the soup.

 

Scary spice added with gusto or not, these numbers give us some perspective on the plastic vs plankton ratio. Despite the un-surety over the actual statistic, we do know that plastics plague ocean wildlife, from sea turtles ingesting plastic bags to albatross feeding their chicks bottle caps. And that is reason enough to back off of disposable plastics consumption.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted on June 10th 2011 in News flash

Which industries and activities emit the most carbon?

No Comments »
Duncan : Q&A : Electricity : pylons running across Romney Marsh

Electricity generation and transmission is one of industrial sectors with the biggest carbon footprint. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Carbon” is shorthand for greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and F-gases. These gases are released by many different types of activity – not just the burning of fossil fuels, but also farming, deforestation and some industrial processes.

Global emissions can be allocated to human activities in various ways. One of the most granular analyses is this one from the World Resources Institute (WRI), which breaks down total global emissions from 2005 into the following headline sectors:

Energy
– Electricity & heat (24.9%)
– Industry (14.7%)
– Transportation (14.3%)
– Other fuel combustion (8.6%)
– Fugitive emissions (4%) 
Agriculture (13.8%)
Land use change (12.2%)
Industrial processes (4.3%)
Waste (3.2%)

These sectors are then assigned to various end uses, giving the following results (nicely visualised here):

Road transport (10.5%)
Air transport (excluding additional warming impacts) (1.7% )
Other transport (2.5%)
Fuel and power for residential buildings (10.2%)
Fuel and power for commercial buildings (6.3%)
Unallocated fuel combustion (3.8%)
Iron and steel production (4%)
Aluminium and non-ferrous metals production (1.2%)
Machinery production (1%)
Pulp, paper and printing (1.1%)
Food and tobacco industries (1.0%)
Chemicals production (4.1%)
Cement production (5.0%)
Other industry (7.0%)
Transmission and distribution losses (2.2%)
Coal mining (1.3%)
Oil and gas production (6.4%)
Deforestation (11.3%)
Reforestation (-0.4%)
Harvest and land management (1.3%)
Agricultural energy use (1.4%)
Agricultural soils (5.2%)
Livestock and manure (5.4%)
Rice cultivation (1.5%)
Other cultivation (1.7%)
Landfill of waste (1.7%)
Wastewater and other waste (1.5%)

It should be stressed that there is a fair degree of uncertainty about the precise contribution of some activities, especially those which include biological processes such as land use change and agriculture. Indeed, the total contribution from deforestation is much lower in the data above than it was in the equivalent figures from 2000, due to a change in the underlying methodology – as described in the WRI’s accompanying paper (pdf).

The other point to note is that emissions levels are permanently changing. Total global emissions are significantly higher now than they were in 2005, and the ratios between sectors will also have changed. But global datasets take a long time to compile, hence there is usually a multi-year lag before reliable figures are published.

The numbers provided above are broadly consistent with the 2004 data published in the latest UN IPCC report.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted on April 28th 2011 in News flash

Did coal fires contribute to biggest extinction ever?

No Comments »

Ash from burning coalfields, sparked by massive volcanic eruptions, may have added to the volley of crises that led to the biggest extinction event in Earth’s history.

Many factors combined to cause the mass extinction at the end of the Permian period 251 million years ago, during which about 96 per cent of marine species and 70 per cent of those on land went extinct. Several researchers have speculated that volcanism might have set off extensive coal fires that contributed to the extinction, but no clear evidence had been found – until now.

In Permian sediments from the Sverdrup basin in the Canadian Arctic, a team led by Stephen Grasby at the Geological Survey of Canada in Calgary found tiny spherical particles that are evidence of open coal combustion – very different from the ash that comes from burning vegetation.

“It’s the first literal smoking gun to show that coal combustion was occurring,” says Grasby.

Fire starters

He speculates that major volcanic eruptions some 1000 kilometres east of the Sverdrup basin – in what is now Siberia – may have ignited overlying coal deposits and released huge quantities of ash into the atmosphere.

Modern-day coal-fired power plants scrub this so-called “fly ash” from their emissions because it contains a lot of toxic metals such as chromium. When Grasby looked more closely at his sediments dating to the very end of the Permian, he found that they, too, contained high levels of chromium. This suggests that fly ash may have poisoned ancient oceans and lakes and contributed to the extinction.

Further studies of other end-Permian sediments around the world should show how widely the fly ash spread as the coalfields burned, and therefore how important it is likely to have been in causing the global extinction, saysAndrew Knoll, a palaeobiologist at Harvard University.

If it turns out to be one of the main drivers of the extinction, he notes, it would probably have killed off species relatively indiscriminately. Another factor must explain why some groups – such as corals – suffered massive extinctions, while others – such as sea anemones – did not, he says.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted on January 25th 2011 in News flash

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch: The Parabolic Toilet of the Environment

No Comments »

“This is the most shocking thing I have seen”
- Oprah Winfrey

great-pacific-garbage-patchIn the middle of the Pacific Ocean there is a maelstrom of debris twice the size of Texas. It has been affectionately given a variety of clever names: the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the Sea of Trash, the Eastern Garbage Patch, the Asian Trash Trail and (my personal favorite) the Trash Vortex. It is, in short, a spiraling swirl of rushing refuse, mostly of the non-biodegradable plastic variety: shampoo bottles, grocery bags, disposable razors, toys… you know, stuff made out of plastic. Which unfortunately, means just about everything these days. The Plastic Swirl is so big, it even has its own website (cough).

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is formed by currents from the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, a mammoth whirlpool of ocean currents and wind, which lies between the Pacific coasts of North America and Asia. This vortex is caused in part by what’s known as the Coriolis effect – famous for its presumed (and erroneous) influence on the direction the water in your toilet spins when you flush it, depending on which hemisphere you happen to be in – and vorticity, which is, in layman’s terms, the tendency for water to swirl. The Patch lies at the epicenter of the Gyre, which itself takes up most of the Pacific Ocean, covering a surface area of 34 million square kilometers or 10 million square miles.

According to a documentary film called “Plastic Debris, Rivers to Sea” by the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, a non-profit research and educational organization based in Long Beach, California, studies in the coastal waters of Japan have shown that the amount of plastic in marine environments has increased 10 times every two to three years over the past decade. What’s more, the overall composition of marine debris in all the oceans of the world is about 60-80% plastic. So this is not just an American, Asian or Pacific environmental problem. It’s worldwide.

There are in fact five major ocean-wide gyres: in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, and Indian Ocean. According to Greenpeace, the Sargasso Sea, a large part of the Atlantic lying between Europe and the Americas, “is a well known slow circulation area in the Atlantic, and research there has also demonstrated high concentrations of plastic particles present in the water.”

plastic-patchStarting to feel depressed? Well, since the Garbage Patch is located pretty far from any significant landmass, at least you won’t normally have to look at it. However, if you should take happen to be sailing your private yacht from the California coast to Hawaii, it’s unavoidable. You’re expecting a relaxing voyage through an unspoiled tropical ocean paradise, but suddenly find yourself surrounded by an endless flotilla of waste consisting of billions of plastic bags, bottles and the heads of Cabbage Patch Kids. Remember those?

Captain Charles Moore, founder of Algalita, found just such an ecological nightmare on his way back from a boat race in 1997. He was so struck by the enormity of the environmental catastrophe he was inspired to let the world know about it. Captain Moore has since published two major scientific research papers concerning marine pollution. One shocking result of his research was that the amount of plastic in the central Pacific outweighs zooplankton by 6 to 1. Zooplankton is a broad term used to collectively refer to all the tiny animals that live in the oceans, seas and other bodies of water. They include microscopic animals, shrimp-like krill and other crustaceans, certain molluscs and baby fish. Zooplankton plays a crucial role in the ecology of our oceans, and it is under threat from plastics.

You see, what is most ecologically dangerous about the Garbage Patch may not be the enormous eyesore of swirling milk jugs and the pitiful sight of sea turtles choking on discarded magic markers, but rather what can’t be seen. The biggest problem with plastic is not that it just sticks around in its original molded form, such as a creepy doll’s head or a pair of Hawaiian flip flops, but that it degrades into invisible tiny floating beads the size and shape of small plankton. And it’s in this way that the plastic really enters the ecosystem, by literally entering the bodies of sea life. Certain marine animals – particularly jellyfish – eat plankton, and many marine birds and sea turtles in turn eat jellyfish. This results in serious nutritional deficiencies, hormonal problems and toxicity for these animals and any others – including humans – connected to them via the food chain. Oh yeah, the little plastic beads are also full of pollutants absorbed from the seawater. Now do you see why Oprah was so shocked?

So is there any solution to the environmental fiasco known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? The Environmental Cleanup Coalition has what seems to be a good, albeit ambitious plan, although in an article for July 2008 issue of Discover magazine, Captain Moore himself is decidedly more pessimistic about actually cleaning up the swirl. The only “solution” according to him would be to prevent additional debris from getting into the ocean. This would ultimately mean using a lot less plastic, disposing of it more responsibly and recycling as much as possible.

So the next time you’re swimming in the Caribbean or lounging on a beach in Corfu, please don’t chuck your empty Evian bottles into the sea. And if your beach ball accidently rolls into the ocean and starts to float away, go and get it, or it may end up killing some cute dolphin or a blue whale, not to mention swirling around in a nightmarish Trash Vortex in the middle of our most vital of resources.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted on October 12th 2010 in News flash

Climate change, overfishing and pollution cause jellyfish invasion in Spain

No Comments »
photo by Hans Hillewaert (Wikimedia Commons)

 

Spain’s beaches are unusually full of dangerous, round, pinkish-purple blobs this year. No, they’re not aggressive sunburnt British holidaymakers drunk on cheap Spanish beer, but swarms of Mauve Stinger jellyfish – and they’re causing havoc.

Several beaches on the Costa Blanca – an area on Spain’s Mediterranean coast which is particularly popular with British tourists – have been closed due to the recent invasion of jellyfish. The Mauve Stinger jellyfish, or Pelagia nocticula, has a mild sting, but can cause severe, even fatal, reactions in some people.

From a report in the Telegraph:

The Red Cross treated 50 people for stings in just half an hour last Thursday on a beach in Denia, a resort on Spain’s eastern Mediterranean coast and fear numbers may reach that of 2008, when a record 4,000 people were treated for stings in Denia alone.

Jellyfish populations have boomed in the past few years – a phenomenon attributed to global warming, overfishing and organic pollution from agricultural waste and fertilizers.

Warmer temperatures may also be causing the Mauve Stingers to move north. In 2007 a salmon farm in Northern Ireland suffered an invasion which killed over 100,000 fish, according to an AP report.

Earlier news, like this article from Barcelona Reporter, reported that researchers expected less jellyfish in Spain this year. However, populations of certain species are exploding in areas of low salinity, such as Denia. Besides Mauve Stingers, highly dangerous Portuguese Man 0’War – though not actually a jellyfish – have been spotted in the Atlantic off the coast of Asturias in Northern Spain.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted on August 5th 2010 in News flash

1/2 of All China’s Water is Too Polluted to Drink

No Comments »

half-china-water-too-polluted-drink.jpg

Actual water samples collected from China’s rivers and lakes.

And 1/4 is entirely unusable Even given our general knowledge of China’s longstanding problems with pollution, this news is staggering: A full one half of China’s water has been rendered undrinkable from pollution. As if that wasn’t shocking enough, a full 1/4 of the nation’s water is entirely unusable, even for industrial processes, because it’s so badly contaminated. And the bad news doesn’t stop there. In addition to those eye-opening numbers, Reuters reports that 189 of the 443 cities that were monitored saw acid rain fall on their premises. Yes, that’s acid rain in nearly 200 of China’s major metropolises. Which is pretty crazy. Even crazier is that just about all of these numbers mark an improvement over previous years. Here’s Reuters reporting: Inspectors from China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection tested water samples from the country’s major rivers and lakes in the first half of the year and declared just 49.3 percent to be safe for drinking, up from 48 percent last year, the ministry said in a notice posted on its website (www.mep.gov.cn). China classifies its water supplies using six grades, with the first three grades considered safe for drinking and bathing. Another 26.4 percent was said to be categories IV and V — fit only for use in industry and agriculture — leaving a total of 24.3 percent in category VI and unfit for any purpose. The blame for the sorry state of China’s water is of course its heavy industry — especially its chemical plants, paper mills, manufacturing operations, cement factories — and its agricultural sector’s overuse of pesticides and fertilizers. Regulators are reportedly beginning to see some success in reigning in the pollution, but there’s obviously a long, long ways to go.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted on July 28th 2010 in News flash

China launches armada to head off algae plume

No Comments »

High sea temperatures and nitrogen runoff from agriculture blamed for 400 sq km of enteromorpha heading for coast

a beach covered by blue-green algae in Qingdao city, eastern province of  Shandong, China

 A woman walks on a beach covered by algae in Qingdao city, eastern province of Shandong, China.
Photograph: Imaginechina

Chinese authorities have dispatched a flotilla of more than 60 ships to head off a massive tide of algae that is approaching the coast of Qingdao.

The outbreak is thought to be caused by high ocean temperatures and excess nitrogen runoff from agriculture and fish farms.

Scientists involved in the operation say the seaweed known as enteromorpha needs to be cleaned up before it decomposes on beaches and releases noxious gases.

According to the domestic media, the green tide covers an area of 400 sq km. Newspapers ran pictures of coastguard officials raking up the gunk as soon as it reached the shore.

As well as the 66 vessels sent to intercept the approaching algae, a net has been stretched offshore as an extra defence. Ten forklift trucks, seven lorries and 168 people were clearing up the many tonnes of seaweed that still got through.

Li Delin, the engineer in charge of the beach clearance, estimated that his team had collected about 3,900 tonnes as of today. The seaweed has been taken away to be processed, possibly for use as natural fertiliser or animal feed.

And more is on the way. Northern China has been experiencing the hottest week of the year – in some areas, such as Beijing, temperatures have reached highs not seen in decades – which was accelerating the growth of the algae.

Green and red tides have become increasingly common across the world since the 1970s. Usually they occur in coastal water near densely populated areas or where there is large-scale runoff of agricultural chemicals from farmland.

China has been particularly affected in recent years. An even bigger outbreak off Qingdao, estimated at 170,000 tonnes, in 2008 threatened to ruin the sailing events for the Olympics, prompting the authorities to call on hundreds of local fishermen to help them in the cleanup operation.

The green tide is a sign of eutrophication, a build up of algae caused by excess levels of nitrogen in the water. At low levels this simply means a green slime on the water’s surface, such as that often seen on polluted lakes.

In its worst form, the algae can be toxic or so dense that it chokes the life below it, creating underwater “dead zones”.

The green tide approaching Qingdao is harmless in its current form and, if quickly dealt with, could even help to clean up the coastal waters.

Li said that given the size of the algae plume, it would be unwise to let it decompose naturally. “If the enteromorpha on the beach can’t be cleared on time, it will rot and affect the ecosystem in the bay area. Also the smell will be really bad,” he said.

Preventing future algae outbreaks is a challenge. Scientists have advised the government to discourage overuse of fertiliser and to build more water treatment plants. But many experts believe the cause is deeper.

“At a fundamental level, the way to deal with this should be to combat climate change and control pollution,” said Mao Yunxiang, a professor at the College of Marine Life, Ocean University of China, who is a consultant on the operation.

“We should also consider the possibility that the green tide are inevitable so we should make use of them. The algae can clean water, and be harvested for animal feed and biofertiliser.”

 

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted on July 8th 2010 in News flash

Breaking: Oil tanker explosion in Congo kills hundreds

No Comments »

 

Children in Sange; photo by The Advocacy Project (Flickr Creative Commons)

Over 230 people have been killed and 110 injured in Sange, a village in the South Kivu province of the Democratic Republic of Congo, when an oil tanker exploded, setting the village on fire.

The blast occurred late Friday evening after the tanker – en route from Tanzania –overturned and began leaking oil. The tanker had been trying to pass a bus on a dirt road in Sange. Villagers gathered around to collect some of the leaking fuel, which is a valuable commodity in the Congo. The fuel had already leaked and spread over a large portion of the village when the tanker ignited, spreading fire and causing death and devastation.

According to an article in the Observer, over a quarter of the victims were children.

From an Al Jazeera English report:

Some people were killed trying to steal the fuel, but most of the dead were people who were indoors watching the [World Cup] match.

–Marcellin Cisamvo, the governor of South Kivu province, DRC

The population of Sange has doubled over the past year to around 40,000 due to refugees from regional conflicts and has a large number of orphans.

Watch the below report from Al Jazeera English for more:

 

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted on July 5th 2010 in News flash